7 more killed by a gunner. Who needs terrorists when we...

have the RBKA crowd. I guess one of their concealed carry superheros couldn't get there on time. More blood on RKBA wackos hands and politicians like Dean Quixote who whore for the NRA.

"7 Killed in Chicago Warehouse Shooting
By BENNIE M. CURRIE
ASSOCIATED PRESS

CHICAGO (AP) -

A man on the verge of losing his job opened fire at an auto parts warehouse Wednesday in a rampage that left seven people dead, including the gunman.

The man waged a gun battle with police inside and outside the building, and it was not immediately clear if he was killed by the officers or shot himself, police spokesman Pat Camden said."
-----------snip--------
<http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2003/aug/27/082700236.html>

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And the fault of it lies at the feet of the gun worshipping crowd in this afflicted land. I guess you would tell the families of the 6 dead that they should have been "packing"? And kids should carry guns to school, bus drivers should be armed and on and on , ad nauseum.

Chicago has all of those "common sense" gun laws and what does it matter? Other then it doesnt give the victims a chance to do anything other then being cattle in a slaughter house. Here is a city where you cant own pistols inside a state that you cant legally carry a pistol and what happens a man who has been arrested going on twenty times in the past, forbidden by federal law, state law and city law from possessing a gun killing 6 people. We have people that say we dont have the right to defend ourselves and at the same time dont want to do anything with all the nutcases we have in our country running around on our streets. Just this once I would like to see the victims families sue the state of IL and Mayor Daley who prevented these victims from having the means to save themselves.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Just this once I would like to see the victims families sue the state of IL and Mayor Daley who prevented these victims from having the means to save themselves."


You'd best check your facts, pal.

a blip in the radar of "life with guns" (oxymoron) in America.

"All buildings within a block of the auto parts and supply store were evacuated.

It was the nation's deadliest workplace shooting since July 8, when Doug Williams, 48, gunned down 14 co-workers, killing six, at a Lockheed Martin aircraft parts plant in Meridian, Miss., before taking his own life.

In the Chicago area, William D. Baker, 66, killed four people and himself at a Navistar International engine plant in suburban Melrose Park in February 2001. "

Would have been nice if even one of his victims had been able to shoot back, but in Chicago every place is a free fire zone for the bad guys.

There is no provision for any kind of concealed carry in Illinois and all handguns are banned in the city of Chicago. So with some of the toughest gun laws in the country, this obviously could not have happened. You must be mistaken because we know gun laws will stop events like this from happening.

As a matter of fact there hasn't even been a gun store in town for over 20 years and everything but shotguns had to be registered with the cops years ago and the CAGE unit, (Chicago Area Gun Enforcement) did some forced confiscations of assault rifles last year.

Probably one of those concealed carry trouble makers from Indiana.

Don

Yeah, if only there were MORE guns on the street in Chicago. Then we might be able to have these kinds of tragedies much more often.

Since "No guns allowed" doesn't work, why not give "Good guys can carry guns" a try?

"why not give "Good guys can carry guns" a try?"
Because it doesn't do a damn thing except arm neurotics.

Gun control does not prevent violent crime. It doesn't even prevent unlawful shootings.

Funny how these incidents are so few and far between in countries with actual gun control...

I beleive it means being worried about something that doenst happen. Excuse me but that asshole in Chicago killed six people, that did happen. I dont consider myself neurotic for carrying a pistol because shit does happen.

and we see it demonstrated in the RKBA posts here EVERY damn day.

It's just that Chicago is the Sara Brady endorsed Utopia of gun control. (She has referenced it several times in speeches as an example of how gun control can be effectively legislated, inlcuding suits against manufacturers)

Total Handgun ban, registration of everything but shotguns, no gun shows, Illinois Firearm owners ID Cards, complete with national agency background checks on citizens applying for a FOID card. Eveything you dream about.

Just wondering what you or anyone else proposes to effectively reduce the number of gun related murders, on purpose and accidental via gang bangers with lousy aim? Hell, even Daley has stopped trying to blame the objects and has initiated a major gang crackdown.

The current laws aren't working and the good guys are at the total mercy, or lack thereof, of the bad guys. It's hard to imagine the situation getting any worse when every year we vie with DC for the murder capital title.

Don

Let's see this utopia quote in context.

As for the rest of your rant....how does MORE guns do anything but make life even more dangerous?

All of the things I listed, no concealed carry, registration of gun owners and rifles, confiscation of assault rifles, outright handgun bans, FOID cards etc. are simple facts, presented without prejudice. It's the world I live in.

As a member of the VPC I'm sure you also know how highly they think of Mayor Daley, our state and the still outstanding lawsuit against manufacturers as far as "common sense" gun control goes.

BTW the search function on the VPC web site only reaches press releases and not Sara's speeches, but I'm sure you already knew that. There are several releases there where she lauds Mayor Daley for passing child lock bills and urges Ohio and other states to adopt his policies.

But then again most of them are over 5 years old and she hasn't really had much to crow about lately, has she?

Don

the utopia quote is non-existent...

"All of the things I listed, no concealed carry, registration of gun owners and rifles, confiscation of assault rifles, outright handgun bans, FOID cards etc. are simple facts, presented without prejudice. It's the world I live in."
Ah yes, RKBA fantasyland....where laws prevent crimes and every problem can be solved with more guns....

The best source is always the one that hates you and you completely distrust, whom your adversaries adore ... who agrees with you by offering up confirmation of a fact.

http://members.aol.com/vaquero760/info/dosanddontsmain.htm

Don't know this one personally, but he shore seems to like guns.

Verify Quotes

Be careful when lifting a quote, especially the quotes that make their rounds through email. The famous Janet Reno quote concerning gun owners has officially passed into urban legend status. So has the famous Sarah Brady socialist utopia quote (a hint: what socialist has ever admitted to being a socialist?). It's well worth your time to check the origins of a quote at your library, or through an online database.

The firearms fanatics do indeed resemble the anti-choice brigade in this respect. My favourite blooper from that direction was the dimbulb who informed me that Margaret Sanger was the biggest provider of legal abortions in the United States ... when she had died several years before Roe v. Wade. Somebody just hadn't quite comprehended the title that said that Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, the biggest provider of legal abortions in the United States ...

They all have their pet quotation sites, and everybody quotes the same five sentences or paragraphs, without really having a clue where they came from or what they might originally have been intended to say. Why, one of the anti-choicers' favourites (once they're through misrepresenting Margaret Sanger in far more creative ways than that one) is to "quote" Emma Goldman, Red Emma, atheist feminist anarchist icon, in their cause!

Anyhow, I tried and tried, and no "socialist utopia" in the mouth of this Republian (have I got that right?) could I find. I found this, though: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7a2c1f22c3.htm
For a minute, I didn't realize how far I'd veered from the real world ...

Aha! and this about that:

http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/archives/97/byte-12.26.97.shtml
(emphasis added)

Take the site Free Republic (www.freerepublic.com), a treasure trove of every scrap of right-wing paranoia you could imagine. ...

In the December issue of the association's newsletter, The Firing Line, the following quotation appeared: "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." The quote was attributed to Sarah Brady, chairwoman of Handgun Control Inc. and a "close friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton."

Brady, for those of you who don't know, became involved in gun-control issues after her husband, James Brady, Ronald Reagan's press secretary, was shot in the head during John Hinckley's 1981 assassination attempt. In other words, the wife of an official in the Reagan administration-that legendary hater of commies, liberals and other enemies of democracy-herself a former employee of the Republican National Committee, is part of the Great Socialist Conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States.

This sounded just a tad unlikely, so I called the association's office and spoke to a very nice volunteer named Pat. Pat told me that one of their members had sent in the quotation and that they had confirmed it online at a couple of places-among them, the Free Republic Web site. (I also found it online; I asked if they had made any effort to verify the quotation beyond finding it on the Internet, and she said she didn't know, but she promised to have the executive director call me. I'm still waiting.

HAHAHAHAHA.

Outed again.

"Oh, God, that thing!" moaned Nancy Hwa, a spokeswoman for Handgun Control Inc., when I called. "It's a total fabrication that's been circulating a while. We traced it to the National Educator, a publication out of California. The original version had it that Sarah said it in the halls of Congress to Senator Howard Metzenbaum in 1984. Then it mutated into 1994. It's the thing that won't die."

Details that keep shifting to keep the story up-to-date are one of the classic signs of an urban legend. I wouldn't put the story of the socialist Sarah Brady up there with the baby in the microwave, of course, but scandalous quotes attributed to public figures are a pillar of Internet hoaxes.

Now it just is NOT my fault that the site where I found this fascinating and valuable material is called THE LIARS' CLUB. It just is not!

.

Ever hear the truth about the George Mason quote they keep waving about like a flag? "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people....To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." The quote is cobbled together out of two bits said two days apart (the second half was actually said before the first).

Never heard of that famous Founding Father George Mason? Don’t feel too bad…he’s obscure mostly because he voted AGAINST adopting the US constitution.

Some gun slinger was not there to give him a butt swipe

or perhaps break his knee caps, that would be cool.

Some people just should not have guns.

Guy coulda used a knife or a car or a base ball bat.

180

PS. Butt swipe sounds like a job for "Cap'n Toilet Paper"

180

The problem is a world in which people can be thrown away with no way to express their shame and rage other than to run amok. In Malaysia or Africa he'd have used a sword, in N. Ireland perhaps a petrol bomb, in S. America perhaps a blowgun.

The real weapon is that we don't care enough. That's what kills.

...guns are used more often than not here in the US of A.

Not a flame, just the facts here.

Every regulation that most folks consider "common sense" gun control is in place in Illinois, Chicago and Cook County and we are still tied neck and neck for murder capital.

It ain't pretty here. Anti gun folks are frustrated because they are literally running out of new laws to pass and so are pro gun people because each new law only affects the honest gun owners. With every new incident, and we have no shortage of them sadly, they try the same thing again and again and get the same results.

Major crack down on gangs, try and stop the street drug traffic, more patrols in effected neighborhoods (which always means less patrols in other areas and the crime and gangs shift neighborhoods)

I have a hard time believing that allowing legally screened people (with FOID cards) to carry would actually make things worse. But the state has determined that we aren't even going to consider that route and as long as Daley is Mayor that's the way it's going to be.

In this instance 6 (?) innocent people were shot and their only choice was to run or beg for their life to a criminal that didn't care. Per one of your other posts, they didn't have a choice of driving 75 mph with the doors locked to get to and from work.

Don

"The author of the report, Jim Kessler, said organized gun trafficking is to blame for many of the guns that cross state lines. Some of the guns are bought at gun shows from unlicensed sellers, he said, and resold at higher prices to felons in other states who cannot legally buy them.
"It's a crime that is practically ignored in Indiana and in some other states," Kessler said.
Indiana law requires licensed gun dealers to perform background checks at gun shows but doesn't require collectors who sell their own guns to conduct checks.
Steele, who had a previous felony conviction, hired three people to buy 25 guns from Don's Guns and Galleries in Indianapolis. He sold 13 of them at more than twice their face value in Chicago."

http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/8/067884-2908-009.html

A single set of laws designed to reduce (if not eliminate) the incentive to engage in gun trafficking.

along with laws limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time....

He had no problem taking over a federally regulated airport (Meigs Field) and tearing it up in the middle of the night or annexing land from an adjoining sovreign municpality (Bensensville) for his O'Hare project.

He probably wouldn't have a problem sending Illinois State troopers to Indiana and other states to run things the way he sees fit. To hell with the idea of any kind of local rules or letting the citizens have any say in how they are governed, or patrolled in this case.

Don

"What's my RKBA fantasy."

Which Is Why I Favor Nationwide Standards

Yet you want more local control over CCW in your home state?

But I want local juristictions to be able to set their own CCW rewuirements to suit the needs of the individual community. It doesn't make much sense to apply the same standards to a city of 2 million and a village of two dozen.

You support local control for one but not the other. It would seem that if local control was a good idea, it would be a good idea for both, or if federal control was a good idea, it would be good for both.

And I believe that forcing local law enforcement officials to comply with a single standard regarding CCW would hamper them in the performance of their duties.

But a uniform purchasing standard would help streamline the background check process.

And I believe that forcing local law enforcement officials to comply with a single standard regarding CCW would hamper them in the performance of their duties.

And forcing citizens of a state to memorize how many local CCW laws within their home state in order to stay in complience with the law is practical in what way?

Say what?

Murder is the result of individual intent, not possession of a tool. The murderer had made a conscious decision to kill, pure and simple. The fact that this happens too often reflects societal problems that are deeper than any related to gun ownership. I can only guess that he subscribed to the victim mentality in which any and all of his own shortcomings were blamed on others.

"Murder is the result of individual intent, not possession of a tool. The murderer had made a conscious decision to kill, pure and simple."

And if I sit staring at my TV, "intending" to kill you, will you be dead?

If instead I sit there "intending" to haul a 400-pound rock out of my garden, will it be gone? How about if I go and stare at it really hard? Kick it? Put my shoulder to it and push and push and push? I made a conscious decision to get rid of the damned thing -- why isn't it gone??

Dang, some things ya just need a tool for. Sometimes, murder is one of 'em. Like ... when you're standing ten metres away from the person you intend to kill who is double your size and on the lookout for you and maybe even surrounded by some other people who like him/her better than they like you ...

Causation is just such a dreadfully complex concept, isn't it?

If I want that rock out of my garden and I don't have a bulldozer, but you lend me yours and I use it, what "caused" the rock to be gone from my garden -- what is its gone from my gardenness the "result" of?

If you want me dead and you're too weak to strangle me and too dumb to sneak up behind me with a knife and there are too many people nearby for you to succeed anyway, but you do happen to have a gun, what "caused" me to be dead?

I apologize in advance to anyone who considers my mentioning the notion that some things just really aren't all so simple to be patronizing, uneducated, or any other offensive thing. Of course, they're not reading anyhow.

.

Are you trying to imply that without a tool of some sort murder becomes impossible? Is that what you are trying to lead the reader to believe with your boulder in the garden example?

Granted some things you may set upon to do will require a tool of some sort, moving a boulder would likely be one of them under most circumstances.

Inflicting injury upon a person, or killing them outright does not require a tool to be successful. Most able bodied people, men or women, are quite capable of inflicting injury or death with nothing but their hands and feet. Many people know how to punch, kick, bite and wrest joints; if done properly any of these can potentially result in injury or death.

Therefore, the conclusion that the 'intent' to do harm rests solely with the availability of the proper tool is illogical. Are we also to presume that the posession of a weapon provides the intent to do harm, assuming that there can be no intent if an individual is not armed? If that is the case, then each and every one of us should be incarcerated for the very things most of us have in our homes, even for posession of the ability to strike with the hands or feet.

Surely you would concede that the absence of a bulldozer would not prevent you from removing a boulder from your garden, assuming you were resourceful and motivated enough. I'm sure boulders were moved before the advent of the bulldozer, just as I'm sure people were injured and slain before the creation of even edged weapons to say nothing of modern firearms.

Down yet another twisted path of twisted words?

"Are you trying to imply that without a tool of some sort murder becomes impossible?"

Why would you ask me that question?

Do you think that I am so stupid that I would believe that without a tool of some sort murder becomes impossible?

Do you think that I am so dishonest that I would say (even by implying) that without a tool of some sort murder becomes impossible?

Did you see something in what I wrote that looked even vaguely like "without a tool of some sort murder becomes impossible"?

"Is that what you are trying to lead the reader to believe with your boulder in the garden example?"

Would said reader not have to be awfully dim to be led to believe, from my boulder in the garden example, that without a tool of some sort murder becomes impossible? Do you think that I am so foolish as to think that readers hereabouts are quite that dim? Do you think that I am so dishonest that I might take a shot at there being such a dim reader hereabouts whom I might mislead in this way?

Some things may be moved out of gardens without bulldozers. Lots and lots of things, actually. I'd think that this was perfectly obvious, and that it was almost as obvious that I know this. 400-pound rocks are among the things that it is very difficult to move without a bulldozer.

Some murders may be committed without firearms. Possibly even lots of murders. Wouldn't it be obvious that I know this? Wouldn't it be terribly silly, or deceitful, of me to try to make myself look as if I didn't know this?

Some murders are very difficult to commit without firearms, and some murders simply absolutely cannot be committed without firearms. If Lee Harvey Oswald were around, you might ask his views on the matter.

And just to toss some new content into the mix: yes, some murders that could have been committed without firearms would not have been committed that way, but were committed using firearms. If you disagree, you need to do a little more study of intimate-partner homicides, for starters, and see how well the "intent"/"means" paradigm you might advance holds up. Obviously, one cannot rerun the scenarios in question w/o firearms present and see what happens, but let's just say there is very, very strong reason to believe that yes: sometimes the intent does not exist where the means is not present. Sometimes. We might call that scenario "impulse", and the existence of the means is often a determining factor in the existence of the impulse.

"Inflicting injury upon a person, or killing them outright does not require a tool to be successful."

Ah, stating the obvious. (Actually that's what I thought I'd been doing, too. When you read it with a clear eye, I'm sure you'll agree that it is what I was doing.)

Here's an interesting thing, though, since you bring this up. When injury is inflicted with a tool, and particularly with a firearm, it's a whole lot more likely to cause death, whether intentionally or not, than when no tool is used to commit an assault. So wouldn't it be just smarter for someone who actually did intend to cause death to use a tool, and particularly that particular tool?

"Many people know how to punch, kick, bite and wrest joints; if done properly any of these can potentially result in injury or death."

Sure 'nuff. Potentially is right. But I thought we'd been talking about getting the job done, and someone who was intent on getting it done?

"Therefore, the conclusion that the 'intent' to do harm rests solely with the availability of the proper tool is illogical."

It surely is!! It would be absolutely idiotic (except in those "impulse" situations perhaps, and even then, even I would not say "solely"!)

It would be even more illogical than what you suggested I was saying in the first place, the objection to which (i.e. to what I did not say) could be phrased as:

Therefore, the conclusion that the ability to do harm rests solely with the availability of a particular tool is illogical.

I said that it was false to state that the doing of harm resulted solely from intent. When I'd hardly be fool enough to say that the doing of harm resulted solely from access to means, I'd be highly unlikely to say that the intent itself resulted solely from access to means, now would I, after everything I said about the complex nature of causation?

"Are we also to presume that the posession of a weapon provides the intent to do harm, assuming that there can be no intent if an individual is not armed?"

Only if "we" are really, really, really silly, I'd say. My goodness, I can't even think of anyone who might have the ability to understand/say such a thing and then be silly enough to think it. Surely you're not suggesting that *I* am that silly!

But let me ask you: are we to presume that the intent to kill provides the means to do it? (We were talking about "murder", I believe.) I mean, that's pretty much what I'd aleady asked, but that's okay, I'll rephrase it if it helps.

"If that is the case, then each and every one of us should be incarcerated for the very things most of us have in our homes, even for posession of the ability to strike with the hands or feet."

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

"Surely you would concede that the absence of a bulldozer would not prevent you from removing a boulder from your garden, assuming you were resourceful and motivated enough."

I don't think I'd have to "concede" it, since I never suggested that I was denying it. Yup, I could round up a posse of neighbours, or rig up one of those levers you can move the Earth with. (Actually, of course, maybe I couldn't; maybe I simply would not be able to round up enough people, or smart enough to build that lever.) But the rock, if it were alert enough, or its friends, if there were enough of them, or the fence around the garden, if it weren't my garden where the rock was, might just thwart my "intent".

It seems to me that if I were that resourceful and motivated, I'd get me a bulldozer, as my first and most likely to be successful choice. Just like yer average resourceful, motivated would-be murderer would get a firearm, as his/her first and most likely to be successful choice.

If I couldn't get a bulldozer, I might decide it wasn't worth risking getting my leg crushed under the rock in my attempt to move it. Just like my would-be murderer counterpart might decide it wasn't worth risking getting rather damaged him/herself in the attempt to kill someone up close and personal like.

"I'm sure boulders were moved before the advent of the bulldozer, just as I'm sure people were injured and slain before the creation of even edged weapons to say nothing of modern firearms."

You betcha. And I'm willing to bet that a lot higher proportion of people got their legs crushed moving boulders, and a lot higher proportion of people got themselves damaged while trying to kill other people, before bulldozers and firearms came on the scene.

In fact, I'd say that these are among the leading reasons why bulldozers and firearms were invented in the first place, wouldn't you?

If I form that intent to move my rock, and if someone else forms that intent to kill someone, it's just a whole lot easier to carry the intent out now.

Remove bulldozers from the equation, and we might see more gardens with rocks in them. Remove firearms from the equation, and we just might see fewer dead people. But I'm just guessin'.

.

Why would you ask me that question?
Do you think that I am so stupid that I would believe that without a tool of some sort murder becomes impossible?

Certainly not! I've read your posts elsewhere and I doubt anyone on this board could rightly come to that conclusion. I simply take issue with you inferrence that intent alone is not sufficient to produce a result, which is half true. Intent plus action WILL yield a result, though not always the intended result. Your bulldozer example sets out to bolster your position that intent plus your action alone would not move that boulder, unless you used a bulldozer. There are other methods of boulder removal besides a bulldozer.


Then you borrow one from your neighbor, in your example, and ask 'what was the CAUSE of the rock being moved'? There is more than one answer depending on your point of view; was it the bulldozer that moved the rock or a combination of you driving the borrowed 'dozer, and the power of the machine itself that moved the rock? (Herein lies the difference of view on both sides of the gun control argument).

Would said reader not have to be awfully dim to be led to believe, from my boulder in the garden example, that without a tool of some sort murder becomes impossible?

We don't have readers that..um...challenged. I asked you the question to see if that was your purpose. As for my opinions of your intelligence and honesty, what do you care what I think. You don't strike me as the kind of person to lie awake nights wodnering what people think of you, you are more confident than that.

When injury is inflicted with a tool, and particularly with a firearm, it's a whole lot more likely to cause death, whether intentionally or not, than when no tool is used to commit an assault. So wouldn't it be just smarter for someone who actually did intend to cause death to use a tool, and particularly that particular tool?

I'm wondering where I mentioned that using hands and feet were the most efficient means available. Of course using a firearms is smarter, if only for the fact that it allows one to engage a target while being out of range of immediate retaliation (assuming an unarmed victim, but this is mostly a moot point anyway). A smack to the cranium is more deadly than a shot that misses. Does this make a baseball bat smarter for someone who is a poor shot?

Potentially is right. But I thought we'd been talking about getting the job done, and someone who was intent on getting it done?

Does being shot and killed make you more dead that being pummeled to death by an assailant?

are we to presume that the intent to kill provides the means to do it?

As I stated orignally, all able bodied people have the means to commit murder. So a person has the means, assuming they have intent, all that is needed is the proper motivation.

If I couldn't get a bulldozer, I might decide it wasn't worth risking getting my leg crushed under the rock in my attempt to move it. Just like my would-be murderer counterpart might decide it wasn't worth risking getting rather damaged him/herself in the attempt to kill someone up close and personal like.

And the would be murder might just not like his victim enough to do it in the absence of a firearm. Or he might use a knife in the absence of a gun. You might just get sick enough of that boulder to break it apart with a sledgehammer and cart off the pieces too. The question is, how badly do you want it gone?

In fact, I'd say that these are among the leading reasons why bulldozers and firearms were invented in the first place, wouldn't you?

While I am no bulldozer expert, I am pretty sure the first usage of gunpowder to expel a projectile with the intent to kill or maim was in the 1300's with Edward III and it was used to overwhelm an enemy, you are quite correct.

...like the American Gun Nut attitude that your gun is the only thing that protects you and your family against any transgressions and the only thing that can right any wrongs (like getting fired), attitude which is on clear display on this forum daily.

I've seen no one post any thought or idea indicating that a gun would solve all problems. The most prevalent reason stated for gun ownership is that it is a tool that would serve the purpose of immediate self defense either as a deterrent or in actual use. Some of the most incoherent and vitriolic posts here (in what many refer to as "The Gun Dungeon") come from those OPPOSED to the right of individual firearms ownership. I suppose that, owing to these emotive displays, it's a good idea that they do not own guns.

The most glaring ideological contradiction in the American left is its own tendency toward disarmament. At the same time many proclaim Dubya's tyranny, they clamor to be the first to declare their own opposition to individual gun ownership. I would like those opposed to gun rights to consider that position: we are assumed to be ruled by a tyrant with all the coercive force of the state at his arbitrary disposal, yet we wish that the populace was completely disarmed in deference to this same state. It is a completely naive, if not ultimately suicidal, perspective in these times. I suppose it was a similar attitude that allowed Stalin to run rampant over the USSR.

yet we wish that the populace was completely disarmed in deference to this same state.

Somewhat strange, but you're of course entitled to your opinion. I just wish you'd make clear that it's what you wish and not try to make it some "we"... :shrug:

CNN.com is reporting the following...


<snip>
Tapia has been arrested 12 times, Cline said. He has an arrest record dating back to 1989, including counts of domestic battery, gun violations, aggravated assault and driving while intoxicated.
<snip>

Tapia being Salvador Tapia, the killer.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/08/27/chicago.shooting/index.html

Domestic Battery = Domestic battery is a Class A Misdemeanor. Domestic
battery is a Class 4 felony if the defendant has any prior conviction under this Code for domestic battery.

Aggravated assault = Class 4 felony.

From http://www.legis.state.il.us


Can't find DUI now, sounds like this guys shoulda been in the joint for awhile anyway.

~B-MAK

I was stating the apparent perspective of many leftists who are in favor of taking effective small arms out of the hands of the general population and relying entirely on the state for their own defense.

"I was stating the apparent perspective of many leftists who are in favor of taking effective small arms out of the hands of the general population and relying entirely on the state for their own defense."

And what sense does that make?

You posit an either or:

either
- everyone who wants a firearm may have one

or
- no one is capable of defending him/herself


That's nonsense, if you'll pardon my French.

And anyone who suggested that the "general population" must "rely on the state for their own defence" -- which of course NO ONE has said -- would be speaking nonsense. Would the law that banned, say, handgun possession also make it illegal for people to push back when shoved, or punch back when punched, or run when threatened, or rally non-state aid to their side, or any of the myriad other things that normal people have done for millennia in "their own defence"?

What exactly is the point in making these kinds of bizarre allegations? I could only say: if you know some such "leftists" (what a peculiar choice of words), go take it up with them. I'm afraid you'd find they'd be too silly to be "leftists" if they actually said the words you put in their mouths here, but maybe that would mean that you could persuade them that they had actually said what you said they had said ...

Oh, I forgot. You said "the apparent perspective". Passive constructions are just such bad composition. "Apparent" to whom? I find that I don't go far wrong when I assume that people who speak are speaking for themselves.

.

"we wish that the populace was completely disarmed"
"Not me.."

So are you a "leftist who is in favor of taking effective small arms out of the hands of the general population and relying entirely on the state for their own defense" or not? If not, why are you stating someone else's opinion as "we"? Weird...

What I was saying is that many leftists proclaim government tyranny while at the same time expressing their opinions that the general population should not own firearms. My perspective is that this belief is intrinsically suicidal and is indicative of a willingness to be a victim. I personally believe that all those legally able to purchase firearms should do so if they wish.

by using the rhetorical construct "confession on behalf of others" to try to gain some of the nonexistent credibility for your claim. Got it.

No, there is nothing dishonest at all about the illustration I used. There seem to be many around here that express the opinions that:

1) George Bush, in his actions, has established himself as a power hungry tyrant and;
2) Firearms ownership is a collective, not individual, right and only state organs should possess them.

Now, stating these two beliefs, it eliminates the use of firearms as a means of self defense as one who espouses these positions likely does not own guns themselves. The point was that if you view these two statements to be acceptable and true, you have essentially denied yourself and more importantly would deny others the right to self defense. If you espouse these views, it seems you would rather be a student in Tiannamen Square rather than a CNT militiaman in Spain.

...and when you can't back up your claim by actually showing who says that, you invent a "we" to say it. Dishonesty.

How is it dishonest when I illustrate the two positions espoused here? There are many who bitch about Dubya and at the same time express views against gun rights. Given this, please explain how it is dishonest?

1) George Bush, in his actions, has established himself as a power hungry tyrant and;
2) Firearms ownership is a collective, not individual, right and only state organs should possess them.

...but every time you make the claim, you can't say who where when said that as you claim. Just claiming that somebody else is saying something you invented is dishonesty. It's quite simple really...

No, I am not claiming specifics, it is a general consensus of the two positions among several anti-gun rights people who frequent this list.
"only state organs should possess them"

If you are AGAINST individual gun ownership, then this is the end conclusion of that train of thought. Once the individual is taken out of the equation, then it leaves only the state. I really can not see what is so difficult to understand about this rationale.

Ultimately, tracking down each individual who says such things is not relevant to the ideological conflict. Hell, for the sake of your argument, I'm going to start a response/poll on this forum to see how many answer honestly.

The most glaring ideological contradiction in the American left is its own tendency toward disarmament. At the same time many proclaim Dubya's tyranny, they clamor to be the first to declare their own opposition to individual gun ownership. I would like those opposed to gun rights to consider that position: we are assumed to be ruled by a tyrant with all the coercive force of the state at his arbitrary disposal, yet we wish that the populace was completely disarmed in deference to this same state. It is a completely naive, if not ultimately suicidal, perspective in these times.


Well said, solinvictus.



10

having a popgun is going to convince your neighbors to insist on restoring American values?

"I would like those opposed to gun rights to consider that position: we are assumed to be ruled by a tyrant with all the coercive force of the state at his arbitrary disposal, yet we wish that the populace was completely disarmed in deference to this same state."

What a pantload. "Look out, patriot act, I've got a .22! Now stop spying in that library!"

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"And no, having a gun will not convince my neighbours to restore American values. TALKING to my neighbours will help that. "
Be sure and wave your gun around while you do...

Your misconceptions of gun owers is trumped only by your ability for ridiculously repetitive one-liners.



I'm sorry, let me get back to sewing my Confederate flag back together. It got damaged at the last klan rally....

yep... all uz gunz owners is unedumicated foolz...

since we're wasting bandwidth....

Now you're asking ME why?

between being a supporter of the RKBA and having to wave weapons in everyone's face...

Can you not see that?

We can tell.....

"At the same time many proclaim Dubya's tyranny, they clamor to be the first to declare their own opposition to individual gun ownership. I would like those opposed to gun rights to consider that position: we are assumed to be ruled by a tyrant with all the coercive force of the state at his arbitrary disposal, yet we wish that the populace was completely disarmed in deference to this same state."

Apparently it makes sense to you.

So let me see whether I've got this straight.

It is essential that all the USAmericans can be armed to the teeth so that the governments they elect can be ousted ... um ... when some people with guns think they should be ousted, I suppose. But let's say when "a tyrant" turns out to be running the show ... somehow ... after an election ... .

Okay. Anyhow. And here now, you "are assumed <by whom??> to be ruled by a tyrant". This Bush fella.

And ... what is anybody doing about it???

As far as I can see: nada.

So, like, maybe you can tell me ... what's the point?

All those guns stocked up and squirreled away -- close to one for every man, woman and child in the country, is it? -- and still this tyrant sits in the White House.

What are y'all saving them for? You've got a guy who is running around the world invading countries and killing people, throwing people into prison incommunicado, getting laws passed so that you can all be denied fair trials and all that good stuff, taxing the bejeezus out of you to fill the pockets of his cronies ... come ON! Was his kingly namesake ever THAT bad? A bit of a tea tax or whatever that was all about?? You seriously think that your founding daddies would have put up with THIS guy?

(I can never understand why you care, actually, since they're all dead and didn't exactly have the best interests of quite a lot of you at heart to start with, but what the hell; lowest common denominator. They'd have tossed Junior into the Potomac by now, no? And if not - might they be past their sell-by date finally?)

WHAT IS THE POINT? What on earth is going to be left for all these guns to protect if you leave it much longer? How can you keep mouthing these platitudes about being revolting against tyranny, and sit there and say well, looks like tyranny is upon us, pass the salt?

You do know how it all looks from the big outside world, right? LOONY. Utterly and absolutely doolally. Barking. And beyond "naive"; completely underdeveloped. Trailer park boys.

And it looks like talking a really good game, and then cracking another beer, leaning back in the laz-y-boy, resting the gibberishcombinationoflettersandnumbers thing with a trigger across the thighs and saying Aaaaah, yes, we're not gonna take it no more.

Seriously. You people look like idiots (ah, whoever you might be, I'm just speaking from cumulative observation. Somebody had to say it.

.

that the imbeciles and bigots who clog the aisles of gun shows are not only delighted with the appointistration's "tyranny" but complain that it is not severe enough.

In fact, the gun lobby spent lots of dough putting this unelected drunk in power, and are fighting hard to put him BACK in.

I kinda didn't want to rub it in, eh?

:P

subtlety doesn't play.

..."resisting tyranny" as they boast, the final pinned down answer has been "when they come to take my guns away, never before". So a tyrant can indeed do absolutely anything as long as he doesn't touch those guns that are supposed to keep him from doing absolutely anything.

You're forgetting about the brave stand the National Rifle Association took against the tyranny of campaign finance reform (chortle)....

:-)

Says it all, doesn't it?

"Whenever I've asked when exactly the gun owners would start
...'resisting tyranny' as they boast, the final pinned down answer has been 'when they come to take my guns away, never before'. So a tyrant can indeed do absolutely anything as long as he doesn't touch those guns that are supposed to keep him from doing absolutely anything."

Now that you lay it out, that does sound exactly correct; absolutely consistent with everything else. An internally consistent, complete, closed system. It really is almost impossible to get one's head around from the perspective of the real world, though, isn't it?

I'm reminded of a friend of mine's way of expressing this.

I hate spinach. I've never tried it, and I'm not going to try it because if I tried it I might like it and I hate it. Or something like that.

I still can't "get" it in my gut (well ... maybe I can, if I stir in the other things I do know about 'em), but I follow the dots. Thank you!

.

Geez, THAT attitude is really going to convert them to the Democratic Party, isn't it? No classism in that remark, none at all! Screw the underpaid blue collar factory worker who CAN NOT afford a house and property. If that remark expresses your attitude, why do you think that the Democrats have LOST so many blue collars as supporters? Could it be the elitism? Maybe???

The Framers made it clear over and again that the purpose of the armed free citizen was to deter state tyranny. As applied to the modern age, I would be more specific in saying that the possession of effective military type center fire rifles is a deterrent to state tyranny. Yep, I would also characterize Dubya as a tyrant in the sense that he has absolutely abrogated Constitutional power to line pockets.

<"What are y'all saving them for? You've got a guy who is running around the world invading countries and killing people, throwing people into prison incommunicado, getting laws passed so that you can all be denied fair trials and all that good stuff, taxing the bejeezus out of you to fill the pockets of his cronies ... come ON! Was his kingly namesake ever THAT bad? A bit of a tea tax or whatever that was all about?? You seriously think that your founding daddies would have put up with THIS guy?">
Well, you certainly do not seem willing to fire the first shot as you are consistently against gun rights. The purpose of firearms ownership and training is not to START trouble, but to be able to effectively respond to it. The perspective that the anti-rights crowd shows borders on paranoia as invariably you seem to believe that gun owners are chomping at the bit to start shooting. This is pure nonsense bordering on psychosis. What are we saving the guns for? Well, a rainy day and if you check the sky, it's looking a little more cloudy each minute. My perspective is this: if you are so opposed to gun ownership, why bother with this particular topic? If you wish to remain disarmed, fine, but don't complain too loudly if the state decides you are a threat.

"why do you think that the Democrats have LOST so many blue collars as supporters?"
Because the GOP appeals to their racism.

My favourite television show. Funnier than Larry Sanders. I just got seasons 1 and 2 on video for my birthday. Too bad you're stuck with that USAmerican network drek, but my life and experiences have meaning beyond your borders.

http://www.showcase.ca/trailerparkboys/

Apparently you yanks may be in for a treat:
http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2003/03/16/pEntertainment168.raw.html

"We just hope the United States market has the same sensibilities as the Canadian market," said <producer> Clattenburg. "Hopefully they'll see the same sense of humour in it that we do. I can see it going both ways. I can see the Americans being interested in it. At the same time it may be too crazy. So we'll just see what happens."

At a screening of the show Thursday night at Raleigh Studios <in Los Angeles>, the audience appeared to see the sense of humour in the mockumentary produced in Nova Scotia trailer parks.

Obviously I knew you wouldn't grasp the allusion at all, and so I should have anticipated how you would interpret, but there you are. The trailer park boys (Julian, Ricky, J-Roc the white rapper who believes he is black, Mr. Lahey the gay ex-cop park manager ...) spend a lot of time doing things like getting shot in the bum by their kid, who's playing with the handgun she found in the kitchen drawer, while trying to stop the dog that belongs to the old lady who thinks Julian is her grandson from eating the batch of pot brownies, and then having to get stitched up by the crooked veterinarian. Then when they all get caught siphoning gas that they sell by having Lucy and Sara give out coupons with overpriced haircuts and thus laundering the money, Ricky is granted leave to smoke and swear in court, by the judge whom he calls "Your Majesty", because as Ricky and the title of the episode say, "If I can's smoke and swear I'm fucked", and that would be contrary to his right to a fair trial under what he calls "the people's choices and voices act".

"Could it be the elitism? Maybe???"

Nah. Just a cultural reference that can be summarized as meaning "bumbling idiots with guns".

.

Edit: splitting the post for convenience, on second thought.

.

Yep, you're right, I had no contextual reference other than the obvious. Sorry about that one! :)
Honestly, this is my substitute for television. We decided on DSL over cable several years ago and use the money we would spend at Amazon.com. Never regretted it.

I should not have expected my "Trailer park boys" to have been understood in any way other than the obvious to someone without the context I have. The fault was actually mine.

Since TPB isn't available to you even if you had cable, and since everyone needs such high-class entertainment, you really should buy it. Remember, the price is in Cdn dollars, so it's cheap, and all your friends will want to borrow it once you tell them they do.

We, on the other hand, have just opted for a digital TV/cable internet package over the regular cable TV and extra phone line and non-highspeed internet we now have. It's complicated ... and I know, it's one of those "bargains" for something that one doesn't need ... but the particular extra phone line is an expensive business one, and yeah, we could save more by getting rid of it and getting high-speed by phone internet at home (I have DSL, and a cheap phone line, at the office next door) ... but then we wouldn't have 5 digital TV channels. And we *need* BBC and BBC Canada. And apparently we also need some sports channel ...

;)

"Well, you certainly do not seem willing to fire the first shot as you are consistently against gun rights."

You say that the fact that I am "consistently against gun rights" means that I "do not seem willing to fire the first shot". I say that this makes no sense.

First, I cannot be "against" something that as far as I am concerned does not exist. Am I "against god"? Of course not; no god, can't be against it. (I have really, really tried to pick an analogy that the guns-rights-ists won't find offensive. Since y'all will undoubtedly insist that I have "compared" whatever I pick to "gun rights", is it okay if I "compare" your hobbyhorse to "god"?)

I am against the recognition of a "right" to possess firearms, as distinct from the rights to do anything else that individuals have as outgrowths of the right to life or liberty or security of the person, for instance. There are many such rights: the right to cross the street, the right to go up in a balloon, the right to terminate a pregnancy. That's how it works in my paradigm -- which is the only one valid for me, and, while it not apply inside your borders, it is just as valid in the world in general and in fact more valid in the world in general, because it is absolutely consistent with the theory of rights that is held and applied in expanding parts of that world, and in the international community. You may not understand that theory; that's fine. I'm not arguing it with you.

I am NOT "against" the recognition of that right, as a matter of policy, inside your borders, because your domestic public policy isn't my business. As a matter of fact, i.e. whether such rights actually exist in your country, and what those rights might be, I might reach some conclusion. I haven't really done that, because I haven't made nearly a complete enough study of the matter.

So what you mean when you say "you are consistently against gun rights", I really don't know. But perhaps, since I am allegedly so consistent in this, you could point to something I have actually said on which you base your statement.

If what you're saying is that I claim that there are no such "rights" in my own country, you would be right, and if you said that I was wrong, you would be wrong. If what you are saying is that I am against recognizing such rights in my own country, again, you would be right, and it would be none of your business.

However, all that aside, I don't know how the fact that I am against "gun rights", in the limited sense described above that it can properly be said that I am, supports the conclusion that you draw from that premise: that I "do not seem willing to fire the first shot". I think that if I wanted to fire that shot I'd be perfectly able to do it, since I *do* have the "right" to obtain, say, a hunting weapon in Canada. Provided I have a permit, and I register it as required by law, and do not do anything that justifies confiscating it. Pretty damned simple, in fact. And I have certainly never said that I think the law should be otherwise, i.e. should prevent me from doing that.

Are there other, better reasons why I would "not seem willing to fire the first shot"? Well, yeah.

How about because I believe in the rule of law, and not in imposing my will on my society by force? Not just because I don't believe it's "right", but largely because I believe it would be really very stupid, in terms of both my own and my society's interests. I abandoned all that revolution stuff, as really very unclever in my context, over 30 years ago.

In that time, I've managed to do quite a lot of stuff to contribute to solving social and political problems. And I basically believe that while I don't particularly like the way things are in many respects (forgive my dry Canadian understatement), the only way to fix them is through hard fucking work by a lot of people. And that includes the very hard work of combatting the effects of the problems on those people's own hearts and minds, since those people are ultimately the only guarantors of their and my freedom and security; a gun simply does not work for that -- it's a tool only, remember??

If I don't fundamentally trust them, and am not willing to do the work that's needed to combat the lies they are fed, I figure I should shut up, and anything I did anyway would be pretty pointless. My security against the big "them" coming to get me is my neighbours' and all my fellow citizens' decency, not a gun.

And how about because I am *not* a raving paranoid loony? Because I *don't* believe that I (or even you) am living under some mad tyrant who cannot be stopped otherwise than by grabbing my gun and shooting at something/someone -- or that doing that would accomplish anything at all?

"The perspective that the anti-rights crowd shows borders on paranoia as invariably you seem to believe that gun owners are chomping at the bit to start shooting. This is pure nonsense bordering on psychosis."

Yeah, it is, and if I encounter anyone exhibiting that belief and those symptoms, I'll be sure to tell them I agree.

I kinda think that my whole point here was that I *don't* see you people that way at all.

I see you as a bunch of armchair revolutionaries who unfortunately, along with your less supposedly-ideological colleagues, all too often bumble with your firearms, or fly into drunken rages with your firearms, or let someone else do something along those lines through your negligence or wanton disregard as firearms owners, far more often than is in the interests of the rest of us and our ability to exercise our own rights to life and security.

"My perspective is this: if you are so opposed to gun ownership, why bother with this particular topic?"

What earthly sense does THAT make?? If I were opposed to drug use, would I just not bother discussing it?? As a matter of fact, might it be possible for me to discuss drug use, and even strongly disapprove of it, and point to the harms caused by it, and in fact even propose that severe limits be placed on people's access to certain kinds of drugs or on the circumstances in which they could use drugs, without proposing that everyone always be prohibited from engaging in drug use?

Sigh ... am I "comparing" firearms possession and use to drug possession and use? In a sense. They are both things that people have some entitlement to do, but not in a way that harms or that it is reasonably foreseeable will harm others. Obviously, the potential for others being harmed when someone possesses and uses a firearm is rather greater than the potential for others being harmed when someone possesses and uses drugs.

"What are we saving the guns for? Well, a rainy day and if you check the sky, it's looking a little more cloudy each minute."

Yeah. And you're fed up and not gonna take it any more. Well, at least not until you watch next week's episode of The Bachelorette. (Forgive me if I'm out of date on USAmerican "reality" shows ...)

If I may ask a question, do any of you people<*> actually *do* anything about all these problems? Something other than wait for them to get so nasty that somebody needs to be shot? Work in political campaigns, work within political parties, work in community development initiatives, work with unions or labour support groups, or women's organizations or civil rights organizations, or international solidarity or development groups ... or anything at all that might address those problems of yours without anybody having to get shot?

<*> (You know: you people; I just really don't know what to call you that is both not pejorative and not a little too sogenannte, too self-serving on your part. The label "anti-rights" that you apply to me isn't valid, even as a shorthand for "anti-gun rights", since, as I explained, it implies that I am opposed to something that exists and that, worse, is defined by you, neither of which I agree to. So I would certainly not call you "pro-rights", any more than I would call someone who advocated ... oh, damn, how can I protect myself from being misrepresented ... the "right" to grow purple loosestrife in their garden "pro-rights". And I won't play the game that proponents of outlawing abortion play, and call you "pro-other people getting shot" the way they call their opponents "pro-abortion". I'll just have to come up with something ... .)

I'm not suggesting that any of you don't do that: engage in constructive efforts to solve social and political problems. Of course, I do wonder whether you even perceive the things that groups like those ones do as being worthwhile; whether any of the problems that they work to solve even matter to you.

I don't necessarily mean that the *only* "problem" you recognize is the one that someone might try to take away your guns, although that is obviously the case for some "gun rights" fans (some of whom certainly also see income tax and affirmative action and a bunch of other stuff as the problems).

Even if the only things you happen to recognize as "problems" are things like that Patriot Act of yours as it might affect you (and even though I fail to see how it's likely to affect many of you anyway), do you do anything about that? Work with the ACLU or something maybe?

I'm still asking that question of mine, which you don't seem to have answered at all.

How can you keep mouthing these platitudes about being revolting against tyranny, and sit there and say well, looks like tyranny is upon us, pass the salt?

.

Honestly, the most significant individual action I intend to take is to work for Dean here in Chattanooga. I used to be a Republican until I saw them (post 1994) for the posturing shits that they are. I'm working on some pointed anti-Dubya fliers to copy and post here in town to get people thinking, especially on Dubya's own AWOL status while our troops are being killed in Iraq.

As far as my individual political beliefs, I would consider myself in favor of greater individual freedoms (including gun ownership) with a government that did more to protect the environment and worker's rights. I detest the present form of "free trade" which has done nothing but create cheap pools of labor that siphon away America's manufacturing base.

"How can you keep mouthing these platitudes about being revolting against tyranny, and sit there and say well, looks like tyranny is upon us, pass the salt?"

Well, because at least in the immediate future we have an agreed upon form of succession called the electoral process. Dubya maneuvered his way into office in the last election, and if it happens again, I'm not certain what will happen here. I'm ashamed to say it, but most would simply agree with the result as opinons here have run to the extreme right since the terrorist attacks.
Thanks to high profile Democrats who have in the past cozied up to the more radical gun control lobby, many gun owners have gone to the Republicans, even though their national agenda has always supported gun control. As an issue, gun control cost Al Gore much of the rural vote that would have given him the presidency. With Dean's views, I hope that the trend can be reversed for the betterment of the country.

Meanwhile....is the RKBA crowd burning to correct these injustices? Not so....they're among the most idiotic of the right wing loonies...the sort who peddle white supremacy and the Confederate flag.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"The suspect had been arrested 12 times in the last 14 years, including a 1989 conviction for unlawful use of weapons, for which he received a year's probation, Cline said.
He was arrested again in 1992 for a weapons offense, but the charge was dropped. Tapia also had two arrests for aggravated assault and four for domestic battery, plus traffic and other offenses, Cline said."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/chi-030827shooting,0,2584891.story?coll=sns-newsnation-headlines

Thanks to the corrupt gun industry, though, he could walk into any gun show in Indiana and buy that gun without any background check.

"Today's shooting was the most serious incident of workplace rage locally in the last three years.
On Feb. 5, 2001, William D. Baker, a former employer of Navistar International, brought a cache of guns to the company's Melrose Park diesel engine plant and killed four people and wounded four others before killing himself. Baker was one day away from starting a federal prison term for a felony conviction for stealing from Navistar."

"The suspect had been arrested 12 times in the last 14 years, including a 1989 conviction for unlawful use of weapons, for which he received a year's probation, Cline said.

He was prohibited from even possessing a firearm anywhere in the USA.

..he could walk into any gun show in Indiana and buy that gun without any background check.

He was willing to violate at least TWO federal gun laws - One prohibiting him from possessing a gun in the first place, and another when he crossed the state line out of Indiana.

Then he violated Illinois law by not having a valid Illinois FOID card. He violated Illinois state law by carrying a gun concealed.

And he violated mulitple Chicago municipal ordinances by entering the city with an unregistered handgun.

Now someone here is trying to tell us that JUST ONE MORE LAW would have prevented this senseless crime.

:eyes:

Now someone here is trying to tell us that JUST ONE MORE LAW would have prevented this senseless crime.

Why, just banning all firearms, that's what law could have prevented this.
No guns allowed = no guns anywhere. :eyes:

MrBenchley assumes the shooter bought the gun at a gun show, which is not indicated in any of the evidence so far presented.

"MrBenchley assumes the shooter bought the gun at a gun show, which is not indicated in any of the evidence so far presented."

I must have missed something again. Here's what I saw him say (and again, I'll emphasize the bit that YOU seem to have ... missed):

Thanks to the corrupt gun industry, though, he could walk into any gun show in Indiana and buy that gun without any background check.

Last I checked, "could" didn't mean "did". Does that Webster's thingy say different?

Oh, and by the way, who was it who said that this "one more law" would have PREVENTED this incident?

Inquiring minds ...

anything that might actually PREVENT a criminal from buying a gun gives the RKBA crowd a severe case of the galloping yips.

From either getting firearms or misusing them.

And the RKBA crowd has screamed itself hoarse with outrage that it's been mentioned in public.

No reason to rehash them....

How about a link so you don't have to re-type the whole thing.

You do more than enough sniveling and whinninng when I do to know that,, slack......

<snicker>

as I regularly demonstrate.

Yeah, that excuses the gun industry keeping the gun show loophole propped wide open....NOT.

What a joke!!!

Try another one.

Some gun control activists claim that 70 percent of the guns used in crimes come from shows, and Handgun Control, Inc. asserts that "25-50 percent of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers." Both these assertions are wrong, as numerous studies have shown.

A mid-1980s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study of convicted felons in 12 state prisons found that criminals purchased firearms at gun shows so rarely that those purchases were not worth reporting as a separate category.

Criminals did not shift to gun shows after the 1994 Brady Law mandated background checks for all gun purchases from licensed dealers; according to an NIJ study released in December 1997, only 2 percent of criminal guns came from gun shows.

A study of youthful offenders in Michigan, presented at a meeting of the American Society of Criminology, found that only 3 percent had acquired their last handgun at a gun show -- and many of the purchases were made by "straw purchasers" -- i.e., legal gun buyers illegally acting as surrogates for criminals, which background checks would not identify.

And a 1997 report by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics on federal firearms offenders said only 1.7 percent of crime guns are acquired at gun shows .
In fact, a report issued by the educational arm of Handgun Control found that only two of 48 major city police chiefs said that gun show sales were an important problem in their city.

And for the claim that a quarter to half of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers: this is true only if one counts vendors selling items other than guns -- such as books, clothing, ammunition, knives, holsters and other accessories -- as unlicensed dealers.

Source: H. Sterling Burnett (senior policy analyst), "The Gun Show 'Loophole:' More Gun Control Disguised as Crime Control," Brief Analysis No. 349, February 23, 2001, National Center for Policy Analysis.

It's amazing how the RKBA "enthusiasts" keep dredging up these far right wing sources like NCPA for the crap they post.

Last night on the Chicago 10 PM news Daley said:

"Another new gun law would not have made a difference with this shooting. This man had already been in the system 22 times and we failed to stop him. The only real answer with a person like this is rigid prosecution and enforcement of the existing laws we have on the books now. "

Even the news media was shocked and asked him to repeat it.

Don

"On Thursday, Mayor Richard Daley said the fatal shootings provide one more illustration of the need for "common sense" gun control legislation, and it showed that threats of violence should be reported to police."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0308290321aug29,1,5874906.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Pete duPont is one of their head honchos. It sounds like yet another right-wing think tank, which is an oxymoron - right-wingers are incapable of intelligent thought.....

http://www.ncpa.org/about/history.html

Next up, what that progressive expert Rush Limbaugh thinks?

I was in the middle of doing that yesterday, and then I crashed my netscape, and then I had to go sleep.

The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation.

Of course, that goal can also be expressed as "screw the poor" and anybody else who gets in the way of profit ... .

.

U.S. National - AP

Chicago Shooter Had Victims Cornered
By TARA BURGHART, Associated Press Writer

CHICAGO - The auto-parts warehouse, with only one entrance, was a maze of crates and 55-gallon drums. So when former employee Salvador Tapia walked in and started shooting, police said he had effectively cornered all seven people inside.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=2&u=/ap/20030828/ap_on_re_us/warehouse_shooting_39