Originally Posted by RyanJH

... Eric - your proposed solution appear simplistic and disconnected from the realities of a complicated set of problems.

Copperfield - there probably exists some set of policy measures (gun control regulations) that could positively impact the problems listed above. In my opinion, it would be unethical not to try to make significant improvements in answering these problems, even if the Second Amendment needs some reinterpretation.

We seem to have three issues to address. Here they are in no special order:

1. What consitutes a sensible upper limit to the number and types of weapons we should allow in society? We all assume that RPGs and heavy machine gunes are not allowed, but both are in private hands, albeit in limited number. In fact, there are private owners of jet fighter aircraft, and though they are theoretically permanently disarmed, anyone wealthy enough to buy one can afford to have it restored to its original glory. This should be a bright line in the sand, but it's not.
2. Who will be denied the right to own firearms, of whatever type? This is touchy, because the mentally unstable and potentially violent may not be easily identified until they are a threat, and trying to be univesally proactive is almost certainly un-Consitutional. By the same token, someone arrested for kiting checks is no more dangerous than anyone else, so denial by class is not a solution either. This is the single most difficult issue to address, and the one least likely to be done well.
3. What rights do the rest of us enjoy? Very recently, there was an armed man walking about in a supremarket in Charlottesville Viriginia. He had a loaded AR-15, slung over his shoulder. I don't know about you, but I dont get a warm fuzzy feeling from that act, and having him walking around with a concelaed weapon doesn't improve my mood either. What was once extremely rare is getting to be common. When does a similar argument to," Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose", apply to this issue? Rights are not limited to this one.

Another viewpoint:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/ar1...y-never,31080/

Originally Posted by The Rani

So whaddya think of this:

The video partially describes a firearms trafficking environment and describes the problem they want to address (i.e. how to reduce/prevent firearms from reaching gang members). I would have liked to have seen a truly game changing problem statement like 'How do we incentivize gang members to become responsible and productive law abiding citizens?' Oh well.

I had to go to www.kirk.senate.gov in order to find out what they were actually proposing. Here is what they say they are proposing...

The Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013 would empower local, state, and federal law enforcement to investigate and prosecute gun traffickers and their entire criminal networks, including gangs, cartels and organized crime rings. Specifically the bill will make it illegal to:

• Sell or otherwise transfer 2 or more firearms to someone whom the seller knows, or has reasonable cause to know, is prohibited by Federal, State or local laws from owning a firearm (e.g. felon, convicted domestic abuser).
• Purchase or otherwise acquire 2 or more firearms if the recipient knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that such receipt would be in violation of any Federal, State, or local law (e.g. if the recipient is a prohibited owner).
• Provide false information on a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives firearms transaction record form (e.g. straw purchasing).
• Knowingly facilitate the above actions.
• Exceptions are made for gifts and inheritances, so long as the giver and recipient are not prohibited by federal, state or local law from owning a firearm.

The bill establishes harsh penalties, including a maximum prison penalty of 20 years for the above infractions. The penalty is further increased by 5 years for the organizer(s) of the trafficking ring and conspirators face a maximum penalty of 20 years. The legislation also calls upon the Sentencing Commission to substantially increase the penalties for trafficking when committed by or in concert with members of gangs, cartels, organized crime rings or other criminal enterprises.

Some questions/issues come to mind on this (not in any priority order):

First, there is a fairly large body of evidence that correlates effective deterrence to increased probability of getting caught. There is little deterrence value associated with harsher penalties. The harsh penalties associated with illegal narcotics activities has had little effect on rates of illegal narcotic activities. Leaving aside the debate about the civil rights costs on this, New York City's 'Stop and Frisk' policy is effective at reducing crime rates.

Second, unless some enforcement mechanism and funding is included in this bill, then I expect there to be little change in the amount of firearms making it to gang members as a result of this bill. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (a federal law) already prohibits most of the target population group (gangs) from owning firearms - at least the ones that have felony convictions, domestic violence convictions, unlawful drug users, etc.

Federal law also prevents firearm's dealers from selling a firearm to someone that has not passed a background check. It also prohibits interstate transfers between private citizens without transferring the firearm to a licensed dealer in that state - presumably so that the background check can be conducted. The above video stated that:

We have such a challenge in New York. 85% of weapons used in crimes come from out of state and 90% of those weapons are illegal (two minute point in the linked video)

If 76.5% (85% times 90% = 76.5%) of these firearms transactions are already illegal, how does this proposal address the challenge? It seems to me that there is an enforcement problem that needs correcting. In my opinion, making more firearms transactions illegal probably will not reduce the flow of firearms to gang members.

Third, it seems that it will be hard to enforce even when perpetrators are arrested. How does the DA prove that someone knew or had reasonable cause to believe the recipient's status was illegal. Unless this is done in conjunction with a much enhanced National Instant Criminal Background Check System that is required to be accessed for all firearms transactions (not a provision in this bill) the burden of proof for the government will be exceedingly high.

By the way, from Nov 30, 1998 to Dec 31, 2012, the federal government has denied 987,578 firearms purchases (source). During that time it processed 160,474,702 firearms background checks (source). That is about a 0.6% denial rate. Also, there are 8,323,931 records in the NICS database that are flagged for firearms transaction denial (source). Here is the breakdown:

Rank Prohibited Category Description Total ((Percent of Total))

1 Illegal Unlawful Alien - 5,216,732 - ((62.66%))
2 Adjudicated Mental Health - 1,821,217 - ((21.88%))
3 Convicted of a crime punishable - 727,255 - ((08.74%))
by more than one year or a
misdemeanor punishable by
more than two years
4 Fugitive from Justice - 378,463 - ((04.55%))
5 Misdemeanor Crime of - 90,199 - ((01.08%))
Domestic Violence Conviction
6 Federally Denied Persons File - 34,746 - ((00.42%))
7 Renounced U.S. Citizenship - 20,654 - ((00.25%))
8 Unlawful User/Addicted to a - 18,174 - ((00.22%))
Controlled Substance
9 Dishonorable Discharge - 10,163 - ((00.12%))
10 Protection/Restraining Order - 4,101 - ((00.05%))
for Domestic Violence
11 State Prohibitor - 1,362 - ((00.02%)
12 Under Indictment/Information - 865 - ((00.01%))

Total Active Records in the NICS Index - 8,323,931 - ((100.00%))
UPDATED: As of December 31, 2012

All of the above goes to my opinion that we need to fix what we already have in place before putting new, unenforced policies in place.

Fourth, only reading the above summary of the bill (instead of the actual words), I believe the authors intend for all firearms purchases/transfers in the United States to be subject to this act. Yet it only applies to two or more firearms sold/transferred to another person. Why two? Why not one?

Finally, I can't really give a fully informed opinion about the proposed legislation without reviewing the text. So far, it is not available to the public. I just checked the Senate's Bill Status and Summary for S.179 website and this message was displayed when you click the hyperlink for the text of a proposed bill...

The text of S.179 has not yet been received from GPO

Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Are you evading the fact that the guy who ruined Gifford's life and career passed a background check, because of your own obsessions?
Experts: Gun Background Checks Have Big Gaps

I guess you don't think that the long list of proposals by Obama won't fill these gaps. I'm sure they will fill some of them. Of course, background checks alone won't prevent all people from getting a gun who shouldn't have one. Of course, as I've made plain, that could be any of us. More guns around = more criminals, because it makes it easier to become a criminal.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

What I said is absolutely 100% true Eric. What needs to stop is your gleeful ignorance.

Have you ever bought a firearm at a gun show or over the internet? I have done both. So which one of us actually knows what happens?

I know you shouldn't be doing that. That's one thing I know! And I know enough myself not to even consider doing that.

I don't doubt that a shotgun is a better weapon to defend your home with, for the reasons you stated. But it's clear that semi-automatics like the AR-15 can fire many more bullets, faster. It is those that are frequently used in mass killings, and they serve no purpose for someone not in the military. The military itself has better weapons than AR-15s, no doubt.

There is no excuse for not doing as much as possible by law to limit who can have a gun, and what kind of gun they can have. Guns really serve no purpose, and the "right" to have one is not more important than the safety of the people in schools and other public places. I know Americans think they want guns, and I understand that's not going to change anytime soon. I am just supporting Obama's proposals. Nor do I want a campaign to confiscate guns. But the mindless defense of guns is mind-numbing and surreal. It's really a priority question. What's more important? I guess that fits the other thread too; you know, the one that's "absurd" but still popular right now......

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Giffords wasn't shot with an AR-15.

Such tiresome nitpicking.

OK then, here's the full story:

(quote)
Giffords’ Shooter Jared Loughner Used a Glock 19
Posted on January 8, 2011 by Robert Farago

TTAG writer Brad Kozak was right: the mainstream media was wrong. On Saturday, the press rushed to report that spree killer/would-be political assassin Jared Lee Loughner used an “automatic rifle” to carry-out his heinous crime. The image above is from Loughner’s Facebook page, deleted within minutes of the attack. It shows his Glock 19 with a standard mag (15 rounds of 9mm ammunition). ABC confirmed that the nine-millimeter caliber weapon was purchased legally from Sportsman’s Warehouse in Tucson Arizona on November 30th . . .

The Director of the FBI and the Pima County Sheriff held a press conference this afternoon in which they revealed that Loughner fired 31 bullets. He did so from a thirty-round magazine (the “extra” bullet was stored in the chamber of the gun). This explains both the duration of the shooting (around 15 seconds) and the carnage caused. Here’s a video of a shooter firing a Glock 19 with a thirty-round magazine.

http://youtu.be/l5vZ-qEwPYg

Notice how the bullet holder hangs out of the gun at the bottom, making concealment significantly more difficult. Also note that although this shooter starts firing at a fairly slow pace, he empties the gun within ten seconds. With a constant rate of fire, a Glock 19′s 33-round magazine’s done in around seven seconds.

The FBI said that Loughner had a second thirty-round magazine, and two standard mags (15 rounds apiece). I make that 91 bullets. The law enforcement officials lauded three individuals — at least one of whom was shot herself — for tackling Loughner to the ground before he could re-load his Glock with the second thirty-round magazine.
(unquote)

That's a lot more than one bullet per second; a lot more rounds than 10. Jared's weapon was a ridiculous military weapon that no-one should be allowed to buy.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course not. But an AR-15 let it happen!!

You seem to be against any kind of violence conducted by any state. But you are all in favor of a domestic arms race and shootouts.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

Eric - your proposed solution appear simplistic and disconnected from the realities of a complicated set of problems.

I am just supporting what the president of my country and the senator from my state (the latter of whom I did actually vote for) are proposing. You say their proposals are simplistic and disconnected from reality. I say they are well-designed and have been shown to work, and I posted studies here to that effect.

• Sell or otherwise transfer 2 or more firearms to someone whom the seller knows, or has reasonable cause to know, is prohibited by Federal, State or local laws from owning a firearm (e.g. felon, convicted domestic abuser).
• Purchase or otherwise acquire 2 or more firearms if the recipient knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that such receipt would be in violation of any Federal, State, or local law (e.g. if the recipient is a prohibited owner).
• Provide false information on a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives firearms transaction record form (e.g. straw purchasing).
• Knowingly facilitate the above actions.
• Exceptions are made for gifts and inheritances, so long as the giver and recipient are not prohibited by federal, state or local law from owning a firearm.

Abolish BAT Fuckers instead! Like anyone is suppoesed to know what 2000+ pages or whatever of cruft laws this shit has. Also BAT Fuckers itself engaged in illegal arms trafficing. That a fucking joke! These twatfucks are supposed enforce a law they break?

and

Originally Posted by shit I have no way in hell of knowing

1 Illegal Unlawful Alien - 5,216,732 - ((62.66%))
2 Adjudicated Mental Health - 1,821,217 - ((21.88%))
3 Convicted of a crime punishable - 727,255 - ((08.74%))
by more than one year or a
misdemeanor punishable by
more than two years
4 Fugitive from Justice - 378,463 - ((04.55%))
5 Misdemeanor Crime of - 90,199 - ((01.08%))
Domestic Violence Conviction
6 Federally Denied Persons File - 34,746 - ((00.42%))
7 Renounced U.S. Citizenship - 20,654 - ((00.25%))
8 Unlawful User/Addicted to a - 18,174 - ((00.22%))
Controlled Substance
9 Dishonorable Discharge - 10,163 - ((00.12%))
10 Protection/Restraining Order - 4,101 - ((00.05%))
for Domestic Violence
11 State Prohibitor - 1,362 - ((00.02%)
12 Under Indictment/Information - 865 - ((00.01%))

Seig Heil BAT Fuckers, Seig heil!

Hitler didn't need to enact gun control , since the Weimer Republic had laws on the books to that effect.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You seem to be against any kind of violence conducted by any state. But you are all in favor of a domestic arms race and shootouts.

Personal responsibility, man. It's what makes civilization work.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't doubt that a shotgun is a better weapon to defend your home with, for the reasons you stated. But it's clear that semi-automatics like the AR-15 can fire many more bullets, faster.

Huh. I guess it depends on how narrowly we're to define the idea of 'bullet'. If we're talking about powder-fired hunks of solid metal, though, a single trigger-pull of a shotgun can let fly with as many as 20 individually-lethal projectiles at a time. That's both more bullets, and faster.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I guess you don't think that the long list of proposals by Obama won't fill these gaps. I'm sure they will fill some of them. Of course, background checks alone won't prevent all people from getting a gun who shouldn't have one. Of course, as I've made plain, that could be any of us. More guns around = more criminals, because it makes it easier to become a criminal.

Dude, it's hard to become a criminal when you don't like criminals or you don't believe in what criminals do or you aren't the criminal type or you don't see yourself ever being a criminal.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I dunno man, the day after I first learned to shoot a handgun, I robbed a liquor store.
And look what happened to Thelma and Louise.

Really, the day after I learned to shoot a semi-automatic rifle, I brought it to school for show and tell and shot up the classroom.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Dude, it's hard to become a criminal when you don't like criminals or you don't believe in what criminals do or you aren't the criminal type or you don't see yourself ever being a criminal.

Not true; you could end up like The Rani.

There are not two human species: law-abiding and criminal. Anyone can become a criminal if the tools are available. We make the tools available; we have more criminals.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Huh. I guess it depends on how narrowly we're to define the idea of 'bullet'. If we're talking about powder-fired hunks of solid metal, though, a single trigger-pull of a shotgun can let fly with as many as 20 individually-lethal projectiles at a time. That's both more bullets, and faster.

Show me a video of a non-automatic shotgun that shoots 20 bullets all at once.

Justin would be pretty accurate in that regard. Shotgun shells are full of shot, which are metal pellets, technically meaning 20 or so pieces of metal being fired at once. Even automatics can't do that, they still fire one round at a time (it's just really fast).

Since you wanted a video, here's a Winchester 1897 pump action shotgun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2E4...e_gdata_player

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Show me a video of a non-automatic shotgun that shoots 20 bullets all at once.

Here's a single round from a shotgun.



For fun, try to count how many projectiles are fired. I'm too lazy, myself, but it's a hell of a lot more than 20.

---
-only one camera was harmed in the making of this film...

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

If wanting the earnings cap on FICA lifted more than wanting to take law-abiding citizens' guns away is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

If wanting the minimum wage tied to the Consumer Price Index more than wanting to take law-abiding citizens' guns away is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

If wanting there to be a super-majority vote in the Senate before the Federal Reserve can raise interest rates (as Ted Kennedy once proposed) more than wanting to take law-abiding citizens' guns away is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

If wanting a public option on health care more than wanting to take law-abiding citizens' guns away is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

If wanting ENDA passed (which would federally ban job and housing discrimination against gays) more than wanting to take law-abiding citizens' guns away is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

I probably missed one or two but I'm sure you get the idea.

The idea is to keep such people as convicted felons, domestic abusers, drug addicts, fugitives from justice, individuals adjudicated as mentally ill, and illegal immigrants from getting, dealing, keeping, and bearing arms. Which of those in the categories that I show in boldface fit the description of 'law-abiding citizens'?

Originally Posted by RyanJH

The video partially describes a firearms trafficking environment and describes the problem they want to address (i.e. how to reduce/prevent firearms from reaching gang members). I would have liked to have seen a truly game changing problem statement like 'How do we incentivize gang members to become responsible and productive law abiding citizens?' Oh well.

Violent gang members may be lost causes for rehabilitation. We have places for offenders (and most inexcusable offenders who survive confrontations with police end up there). They are called prisons.

Ideally, prisons exist as deterrents to crime. I've heard people say "I can make more money dealing drugs" to the prospects of honest (low-paid) work. But at the least fast-food work allows one to find personal strengths and weaknesses and what one likes and dislikes. Does one prefer meting people, doing industrial processes, or doing paperwork? The answer to that question can narrow the focus of one's plans for career advancement.

Some questions/issues come to mind on this (not in any priority order):

First, there is a fairly large body of evidence that correlates effective deterrence to increased probability of getting caught. There is little deterrence value associated with harsher penalties. The harsh penalties associated with illegal narcotics activities has had little effect on rates of illegal narcotic activities. Leaving aside the debate about the civil rights costs on this, New York City's 'Stop and Frisk' policy is effective at reducing crime rates.

'Stop and frisk' is a good way to detect contraband and leave a message. Felon in possession of a firearm? Go to prison. That's one reason for New York City having much less violent crime than Chicago.

Second, unless some enforcement mechanism and funding is included in this bill, then I expect there to be little change in the amount of firearms making it to gang members as a result of this bill. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (a federal law) already prohibits most of the target population group (gangs) from owning firearms - at least the ones that have felony convictions, domestic violence convictions, unlawful drug users, etc.

We need not only to refine such laws as they are but also to enforce those that we have rigidly. We have other needs for reform -- such as revitalizing our mental health system and enriching our educational process -- but the short-term solution is to separate troublesome people from firearms.

Federal law also prevents firearm's dealers from selling a firearm to someone that has not passed a background check. It also prohibits interstate transfers between private citizens without transferring the firearm to a licensed dealer in that state - presumably so that the background check can be conducted. The above video stated that:



If 76.5% (85% times 90% = 76.5%) of these firearms transactions are already illegal, how does this proposal address the challenge? It seems to me that there is an enforcement problem that needs correcting. In my opinion, making more firearms transactions illegal probably will not reduce the flow of firearms to gang members.

Maybe we can ask some of our Republican pols why they have such hostility to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Firearms are profitable, but so are alcohol and tobacco and we regulate the sale and use of both alcohol and cancerweed considerably. Alcohol and tobacco kill, but usually slowly. Firearms also kill.

Third, it seems that it will be hard to enforce even when perpetrators are arrested. How does the DA prove that someone knew or had reasonable cause to believe the recipient's status was illegal. Unless this is done in conjunction with a much enhanced National Instant Criminal Background Check System that is required to be accessed for all firearms transactions (not a provision in this bill) the burden of proof for the government will be exceedingly high.

Let's see...

Credit score? Check. I suspect that most gang members aren't getting solicitations from American Express in the mail.

Having a stable place of residence? Check. Not definitive, but if one is running from law enforcement one might not stay unduly long at any particular location.

Having gainful employment? Check. There might be gang members who use a job as a means of getting access to merchandise to be pilfered or to find customers for drug sales, but as a rule few employers have tolerance for that.

Having an active bank account? Having to use a check or credit/debit card instead of cash for purchase of a weapon ensures that someone examines one aspect of trustworthiness of a client. Non-cash transactions usually require some verification.

By the way, from Nov 30, 1998 to Dec 31, 2012, the federal government has denied 987,578 firearms purchases (source). During that time it processed 160,474,702 firearms background checks (source). That is about a 0.6% denial rate. Also, there are 8,323,931 records in the NICS database that are flagged for firearms transaction denial (source). Here is the breakdown:

(snip)

Some got busted. Some simply gave up. Some went to the black market of illicit deals.

All of the above goes to my opinion that we need to fix what we already have in place before putting new, unenforced policies in place.

We need to close the loopholes -- both in law and in enforcement. [/quote]

Fourth, only reading the above summary of the bill (instead of the actual words), I believe the authors intend for all firearms purchases/transfers in the United States to be subject to this act. Yet it only applies to two or more firearms sold/transferred to another person. Why two? Why not one?

One firearm is enough for most legitimate needs.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This one: "individuals adjudicated as mentally ill."

Ordinarily true. They just are among the wrong people to keep and bear arms.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Show me a video of a non-automatic shotgun that shoots 20 bullets all at once.

Class time for Eric. For my Saiga 12 shotgun I always keep a magazine loaded with 3" magnum - 00 buckshot for home defense purposes. This particular shell load contains 15 lead balls weighing 3.5 grams each. Each individual ball hits the target with the energy of a single .38 special bullet. This shot load completely destroys anything it hits (which is exactly the point).

Originally Posted by Kepi

Justin would be pretty accurate in that regard. Shotgun shells are full of shot, which are metal pellets, technically meaning 20 or so pieces of metal being fired at once. Even automatics can't do that, they still fire one round at a time (it's just really fast).

Since you wanted a video, here's a Winchester 1897 pump action shotgun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2E4...e_gdata_player

Funny you should mention that particular model of shotgun... I own one, or more accurately my father does (it will be mine someday). As the story goes, sometime in the late 1960's he was out in the middle-of-nowhere Nebraska when he found an old, abandoned Winchester 1897 shotgun propped up against a tree. He brought it home and attempted to find the owner but never could. I recently traced the serial number back to the year it was manufactured... 1911. It's over 100 years old.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The idea is to keep such people as convicted felons, domestic abusers, drug addicts, fugitives from justice, individuals adjudicated as mentally ill, and illegal immigrants from getting, dealing, keeping, and bearing arms. Which of those in the categories that I show in boldface fit the description of 'law-abiding citizens'?

Potentially any of them considering our justice system.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The idea is to keep such people as convicted felons, domestic abusers, drug addicts, fugitives from justice, individuals adjudicated as mentally ill, and illegal immigrants from getting, dealing, keeping, and bearing arms. Which of those in the categories that I show in boldface fit the description of 'law-abiding citizens'?

-Well, most of them could be acting in a law-abiding fashion at any moment except fugitives from justice and illegal immigrants, whose condition itself is a violation of the law. Fugitives can become law-abiding by surrendering, illegals can become law-abiding by leaving the country.

The mentally ill are not criminals, but lose many of their civil rights by virtue of their condition., and a convicted felon might be law-abiding, but loses most of their civil rights by virtue of their track record.

A domestic abuser might be acting in a law-abiding fashion at the moment, but is liable for prosecution for any crimes he (she?) committed as a domestic abuser. If convicted, they might lose certain civil rights, even if they were not felonies.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...One firearm is enough for most legitimate needs.

-Actually, different weapons are better in different circumstances, just as different vehicles are better a different things.

I saw Copperfield's response to this:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Show me a video of a non-automatic shotgun that shoots 20 bullets all at once.

...the only thing I will add is that other than a shotgun-type round, no weapon really "shoots twenty bullets all at once", unless you're talking about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billinghurst_Requa_Battery

http://www.ket.org/artstoolkit/state...llinghurst.htm


All done without an AR-15:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

...Kehoe had free access to the building during the summer vacation of 1926... From mid-1926, Kehoe began purchasing more than a ton of pyrotol, an incendiary explosive used by farmers during the era for excavation and burning of debris. In November 1926, he drove to Lansing and purchased two boxes of dynamite at a sporting goods store. As dynamite was also commonly used on farms, Kehoe's purchase of small amounts of explosives at different stores and on different dates did not raise any suspicions... In December 1926... a Michigan State Police investigator with the Department of Public Safety, Kehoe purchased a .30-caliberWinchester bolt-action rifle... Prior to May 18, Kehoe had loaded the back seat of his truck with all sorts of metal debris capable of producing shrapnel during an explosion. Nellie Kehoe had been discharged on May 16 from Lansing's St. Lawrence Hospital. Between her release and the bombings two days later, Kehoe killed his wife... by blunt force trauma to the head with an unknown heavy object... Classes began at 8:30 a.m. that morning. At about 8:45 a.m., in the basement of the north wing of the school, an alarm clock set by Kehoe detonated the dynamite and pyrotol he had hidden there... Rescuers heading to the scene of the Kehoe farm fire heard the explosion at the school building, turned back and headed toward the school. Parents within the rural community also began rushing to the school. Thirty-eight people, mostly children, were killed in the explosion of the north wing... About a half hour after the explosion, Kehoe drove up to the school and saw Superintendent Huyck. Kehoe summoned the superintendent over to his truck. Charles Hawson testified at the Inquest that he saw the two men struggle over some type of long gun and that the car then went up in an explosion, killing Superintendent Huyck, Kehoe, Glenn O. Smith, and Nelson McFarren, a retired farmer. Cleo Clayton, an eight-year-old second grader, had wandered out of the collapsed school building and was killed by the fragmentation from the exploding vehicle...

On August 22, three months after the bombing, the fourth-grader Beatrice Gibbs died following hip surgery. Hers was the 45th and final death directly attributable to the Bath School disaster, which made it the most deadly attack to ever occur in an American school...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

They were written to be ignored ... and they are. Fixing this requires the same guts the Aussies showed under very similar curcumstances.

Are you kidding?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence... It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."

In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the SSAA(SA)) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide...

...IOW, the Austrailian program AT BEST was a multi-million dollar boondoggle.

This Darwin Award is pretty good:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Abolish BAT Fuckers instead! Like anyone is suppoesed to know what 2000+ pages or whatever of cruft laws this shit has. Also BAT Fuckers itself engaged in illegal arms trafficing. That a fucking joke! These twatfucks are supposed enforce a law they break?

and





Seig Heil BAT Fuckers, Seig heil!

Hitler didn't need to enact gun control , since the Weimer Republic had laws on the books to that effect.

You have proven my prophecy correct. Score another one for E. Alan Meece! You have continued to use snark to discuss gun control.