HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » mikeb302000 » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Jun 28, 2011, 06:05 AM
Number of posts: 1,065

Journal Archives

The Texas Santa Killer


In Texas, as in many other places, they insist on the fact that gun ownership is a right protected by the Constitution. In order to preserve that right, gun-rights folks resist the restrictions that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous, unstable people.

This is the price we pay.

The later reports indicate that no one expected this. How often do we hear that after a mass shooting, especially the domestic kind? Well, in this case it's just not true. Last Christmas season I not only identified this nut, but posted a picture of him on my blog. And still, another Texas family was destroyed.


(cross posted at Mikeb302000) http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/

Who Owns All the Guns and Why They Need to be Controlled

We often hear there are 80 or 100 million gun owners in the United States. Some estimates say there are as many individual guns as there are people. Naturally, all these guns and all these gun owners do not fit into one single group. So, to simplify matters here's what I've come up with.

First we divide the group called "gun owners" into two smaller groups. Let's call them the "good guys" and the "bad guys." Immediately our first problem arises. How do we qualify them? A generally accepted rule of measurement is, since we all believe in the presumption of innocence, felony convictions. Anyone with a felony conviction who owns a gun is one of the "bad guys." Let's throw in those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence and those who've been adjudicated mentally ill. I realize the definition of that last one needs some fine tuning, but for argument's sake, let's say those are the folks who make up the group called "bad guys."

Everybody else who owns a gun is in the other group. They're all "good guys." Do you see the problem already? They include all the folks with clean records who buy guns for criminals and gun traffickers. They're called straw purchasers. Some do an occasional deal to make a couple bucks on the side; others are professionals and in many states they can safely buy ten or twenty guns at a time with no questions asked. Until they're caught, they belong to the group called "good guys."

Also in that group are many criminals and gang members who've yet to experience their first arrest and conviction. As they do, they slide from the one group to the other, but at any given time the group called "good guys" contains many of them. That's the price we pay for that extremely important presumption of innocence.

The straw purchasers and criminals who somehow have maintained a clean record are what I call "hidden criminals." No one knows what percentage of the "good guys" is made up of "hidden criminals."

Additionally there are all the types I outlined in The Famous 10%, the bad drinkers, those who abuse prescription medication, the rageaholics, etc. All these and more belong to the "good guys."

The final type of gun owner who makes up the "good guy" group is the responsible one. He not only has a clean record but is intelligent enough and sober enough and safety conscious enough to pose no threat to anyone. He is the responsible one. Guns in the home are properly stored. He trains regularly. He keeps on top of the laws so as to be always in compliance. With him, safety comes first, always.

The problem is that he is in the minority. The group called "good guys" is too heavily populated with hidden criminals and 10%ers. The solution is simple, in a phrase, gun control laws.

The gun-rights crowd is wont to clamor that we have so many laws already on the books, adding to them won't help. That's nonsense. What we have on the books is a mish-mash of easily circumvented laws. What we need is a federally issued set of simple but comprehensive gun control laws. Straw purchasing could be eliminated, theft could be greatly diminished and many of the unfit characters, the "hidden criminals" could be identified and disarmed.

The most amazing thing is the responsible gun owners among the "good guys" fight tooth and nail against any additional regulations. Taking their marching orders from the NRA and the gun manufacturers, they refuse to budge on any of the most common-sense issues raised by the gun control folks.

I'm optimistic that eventually reason will prevail. As tragedy after tragedy is daily reported in the main stream, rather than becoming inured and desensitized, people will begin to see that gun availability to unfit people is something we can and must address.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

Hammond Indiana Gun Shop Burgled - Owner Feels Bad

The Hammpond News reports on the incredibly fast recovery the owners of the Hammond Gun Shop made after a traumatic break-in. Just one day later, Deb Gales, the owner of the family owned business is open for business.

Burglars forced their way into the store about 4 a.m. Thursday in the 6800 block of Kennedy Avenue and stole 28 handguns. Officials at first believed 33 guns were stolen.

"They took out the whole front door," Gales said. "They smashed all our cases."

David Coulson, a senior special agent and ATF public information officer, said the federal agency has seen many stolen guns over the years end up in the hands of gang members and drug traffickers.

"It breaks my heart to know there are guns on the street that came from my store," said Gales, who has owned the business since 1993. "I've never had that before in all these years."

It seems on one, not the police, not the ATF, and certainly not Debbie herself, have any concept of shared responsibility. Whenever guns are stolen, the focus needs to be placed on the "victim" of the theft. The thieves are already gone, the horse is already out of the barn, so to speak, what needs to be determined is how responsible were the precautions taken to prevent the theft and how properly were the guns stored.

Guns stored in a glass display cases during the night are not responsibly secured. Jewelry stores and banks don't leave their valuable property in easily accessible places, neither should gun shops.

Video surveillance and other alarm systems need to be state-of-the-art. No one should be able to approach the front door of a gun shop at 4:00 a.m. without being immediately detected and captured on video.

But for all these mistakes and omissions all we get is that it breaks the heart of the owner, not enough to miss a days business, mind you, and certainly not enough to invest in the proper and responsible measures to ensure no repeat performance, but she felt really badly. I guess that's something.

What's your opinion? (cross posted at Mikeb302000)

The Silent and Hidden Victims of Gun Violence

The Daily Times of Farmington New Mexico reports

Witnesses report that Monday's fatal shooting of a Farmington man stemmed from a domestic violence situation involving the deceased and his ex-girlfriend.

Christopher Lucero, 34, was shot three times shortly before 3 p.m. inside a residence on County Road 3958, where he went to see the mother of his three children.

He was pronounced dead on the scene.

Deputies arrested David Markham, 57, who at the time of the shooting told deputies that he was breaking up a physical fight between Lucero and Leandra Tafoya.

The couple's 4-year-old son was present at the time of the shooting.

How many times have we heard about the low percentage of gun deaths and how many ways have we seen that figure manipulated to look even lower? When talking about suicides it's a person's right to do it, or he would have used another means. When it's a criminal doing something wrong, that has nothing at all to do with lawful gun owners.

Even when they talk about the peripheral damage, the woundings and property damage, nothing can trump the god-given, natural-human right to own and carry that inanimate object called a gun.

But, in this story we have a tiny glimpse into a little reported aspect of gun violence. "The couple's 4-year-old son was present at the time of the shooting." Most of the time they don't mention it, but this must be a fairly common situation, an innocent person, not necessarily a child, witnesses the violence and is never the same again. Imagine the Post Traumatic Stress experienced by these innocents. Imagine the cost to society in lost wages and wasted potential.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Plymouth State University in New Hampshire - Pro-Gun Demonstration

The Boston Globe reports on another pro-gun demonstration on a college campus.

Jardis and Mozingo maintain that the university system’s policy banning firearms flies in the face of state law and the state and federal constitutions. They say they look forward to returning to Grafton County Superior Court Tuesday to argue against a permanent injunction barring them from bringing weapons onto state campuses.

Jardis would not say if he was carrying a concealed firearm. Instead, he said several times, “I just want to point out that no one knows if I’m carrying a gun.’’

“Yeah, and that’s terrifying,’’ replied one female student.

Let's get one thing straight right off the bat. The really fearful ones ar those who feel they cannot leave the house without a gun. These are folks who for the most part do not enter dangerous neighborhoods, do not carry large amounts of cash, and lead perfectly normal lives. Yet, their fear of that highly unlikely attack is so great they decide a gun is the answer, in spite of evidence and commonsense to the contrary.

Now comes a female student who says she's "terrified" of guys like that. Is this worthy of being mocked? Does this indicate that she's the unreasonable one? No, of course not.

The reason pro-gun voices so readily mock people who speak up like that is because they've been practiced in turning the tables whenever possible. The are masters at accusing the others of what they themselves are guilty of. From there it just monkey-like repetition, and I would imagine the less gifted among them actually begin to believe it. They've lost touch with reality.

Look at the guy in the foreground of the picture, I think that's Bradley Jardis. Does he have a bit of that Timothy-McVeigh intensity, or what? And the other guy, what's he remind you of? I realize reading facial expressions is not an exact science, but isn't that part of the situational awareness all the gun lovers keep talking about. Are they the only ones who can do it?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)
Go to Page: 1