Dave Stancliff Let's face it, no one will take the high road to gun control blogarama.com

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Let's face it, no one will take the high road to gun control

By Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard

Posted: 09/13/2009 01:27:16 AM PDT

The Beatles were spot on with their song lyrics that suggested “Happiness is a warm gun.” That gun has to have bullets, and these are at a premium right now, for several reasons.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) scare tactics claimed when President Obama came into office he would take people's warm guns away from them.

The response was almost immediate. Sales of guns and bullets skyrocketed on this rumor. And make no mistake. It was a rumor. That fact doesn't seem to bother the people who went on a buying spree. There seems to be no end to this spree while people believe they may lose the constitutional right to purchase and own weapons.

In California alone, about 60,000 more guns were sold in the first seven months of this year, than in the same period last year, a 26 percent increase, according to the state Attorney General's Office. Click here to read the rest of this column.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your quote:
"I do ask for laws that would restrict sales of M-16s, AK 47s, or Uzi's."

Just to show how much of an ignoramus you are, Manufacture of fully Automatic Firearms for civilians went into effect in May, 1986.

In November 2003 I started the paperwork for the purchase of an M16A1. It was not until late March 2004 that the paperwork was finally finished and I was legally able to pick up the M16. The original cost was $8,000.00 for the firearm, $200.00 Federal Transfer Tax, 6% Sales Tax, Dealers Fees, and other assorted taxes and fees that totaled $9,000. I'll leave out the fingerprinting, Passport Photographs, Permission from my County Sheriff and a whole lot of other permissions I had to go through.

The current price of my M16A1 has since gone up to the vicinity of $17,000 to $18,000, depending upon who is interested and so on.

Fully Automatic, and not Semi-Automatic, AK47's run about the same price range.

If you think any Mexican Cartel is going to pony up nearly $20,000 to lawfully buy firearm when they can be either buy or steal from a corrupt Mexican Soldier or Police officer for a twentieth the cost, you are about stupid as you sound.

Dave said...

I know the law went into effect in 1986, so you don't have to be uncivil about it.
If you can take a deep breath and calm down for a moment, I'd like to point out a couple of things to you.
Have you ever heard of the black market in assault weapons in the USA?
Have you been keeping up with the Homeland Security reports that have sited assault weapons crossing the Mexican border in record numbers?
No...I don't think their buying them legally. That was an uninformed comment on your part, designed to be combative.
Let me ask you...is your M-16 fully automatic now?
Because if it is, it's guys like you who sell them to anyone who meets your price. And you wonder where the cartels get their weapons?

Anonymous said...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/testimony-on-assault-weapons-guts-obamas-90-percent-lie/

http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d18-Los-Angeles-Times-Renewed-assault-weapons-ban-wont-help-Mexicos-war-against-drug-cartels

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_11937477

Michael said...

FACTS.....Check them before you put pen to paper.

Dave said...

Right-wing wackaloon web sites are not facts Michael!

Go to this GAO Report released this year:
http://www.gao.gov/new.item/do9709.pdf

I quote:
"Available evidence suggest most firearms recovered in Mexico come from U.S. Gun dealers - and many support DTOs."

They go into a lot of detail. Facts Michael. Not rhetoric from conservative web sites!

Anonymous said...

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=926824

There's a thread about your article. Make an account - it's free, you might learn something.

Linoge said...

Given that you have already devolved to the point of ridiculous name-calling in the space of two comments, Dave, you might want to be careful with your admonishments to maintain a "civil" attitude.

Regardless of that point, however, you might want to check your facts... pretty much all of them, in reality.

First, the BATFE itself has testified before Congress that only 8% of firearms recovered in Mexico came from American FFLs, and only 18% of firearms recovered in Mexico came from America in general. Needless to say, 18 is significantly less than 90, and when given the choice between a non-existent GAO report (your link is broken) and the folks who are actually responsible for looking up where those firearms came from, I am going to go with the latter, every time.

Second, as has already been pointed out, and you already ignored, it is not "easy" to purchase fully-automatic firearms. One must first find one of the few civilian-available automatic weapons on the market, pass a background check, pay copious quantities of money, and get permission from federal and local law enforcement authorities. Furthermore, selling an automatic weapon to anyone who has not done all of those things (as you are alledging that individuals do) is already illegal, on multiple different levels... so how will making it more illegal matter?

[BREAK DUE TO CHARACTER LIMIT]

Linoge said...

Third and finally, it is Obama himself who set the firearm-owners and rights-enjoyers of America on edge, with statements like this from his very own election platform:

Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

1. The Tiahrt Amendment already allows LEOs to do their jobs and track firearms used in crimes - it simply does not allow that information to be released to the public as a whole. Claiming otherwise is a lie. 2. There is no "gun show loophole", any more than there is a "reality loophole". Just last week I purchased a beautiful open-top revolver from a guy I found online, for cash, in a store's parking lot. No background checks. No exhange of IDs. Nothing but two adult human beings engaged in a private (and 100% legal) business transaction. So how is that a "loophole" again? 3. There is no way to make firearms 100% child-proof and still have them useful in self-defense or home-defense situations. For example, of any of the many "childproofing" systems posited for firearms, why are police departments completely uninterested in them? 4. There is no evidence that the Assault Weapon Ban decreased crime, and in reality "assault weapons" are only used in 1% of crimes. Furthermore, banning firearms is a direct and obvoius assault on our Constitutionally-protected, natural rights as human beings.

Sure, the NRA and other organizations spread the word, but Obama himself was the man who alienated so many Americans with his promises - yet unfulfilled promises, as you point out, but promises he made.

So what is "the high road to gun control", Dave? It would seem to me that protecting and preserving our Constitutionally-protected, natural rights to self-defense would be the "high road", but you apparently have a different opinion. Apart from a redundant and largely superfluous additional restriction on automatic weapons, what are your other ideas? For such a long-winded article, there were a lot of words, but not a lot of concrete ideas.

Dave said...

The column achieved what it was supposed to do. It got people thinking about the problems associated with assault weapons.

Whether you believe there's a problem or not, the reality trumps your rhetoric and your use of conservative/NRA babble trying to pass for the truth.

I don't have the answers, but if enough people work on it they will come.

Linoge said...

So hard, concrete numbers from the BATFE (you know, the folks to whom the Mexican government turned over the firearms in question in order to figure out where they came from), the Uniform Crime Reports, and research from the Clinton administration constitutes "conservative/NRA babble"?

Documentation of the factual difficulties and legal hurdles necessary to purchase fully automatic firearms (which are all part of United States Code) constitutes "conservative/NRA babble"?

And quoting Our Glorious President's own words constitutes "conservative/NRA babble"?

Thanks, Dave, for illuminating just how little you understand about the situation, how much your writing is nothing more than vitriolic bigotry, and how deeply entrenched your intolerance of human rights really runs. I do not think I could have done a better job exposing all that myself.

Anonymous said...

While we're at it, let's restrict or ban a few more of our constitutional rights. I'd start with the first amendment. Perhaps a government license before one is allowed to publish. The goal would be to prevent poorly researched biased commentary from making it to print. I'm sure Dave would support the government deciding if he was fit for print>

Michael said...

Dave said...."Right-wing wackaloon web sites are not facts Michael!"

Lets see...The FBI and BATFE are "Right-wing wackaloon's"?

The link you posted was so full of mis-information they had to take it down.

If you really cared about your cause I would have thought that you would have done a little research into the matter.

Dave said...

Alright Michael,
first go to this link:
http://www.autoweapons.com/pagelinks/buyandse
Then read this (below)

What is a Class 3 License?
A Class 3 Federal Firearms License is required for dealing, manufacturing, and importing firearms for the express purpose of revenue generation - not collecting. It is a felony to obtain a Class 3 License for the purpose of enhancing your collection.

Do I need a license to buy a machine gun?
No, you don't need a federal firearms license. If you are permitted by law to own a handgun and your state allows the transfer of machine guns, you can buy one (unless you are in a state that requires a C&R License for machine gun ownership.

Where do I get a permit for a machine gun?
You don' t need a permit, either. You do need to complete an "Application For Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm", also known as a Form 4, and this must be signed by the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in your locale. You also need to submit, in duplicate, a complete set of fingerprints and palm prints and passport-size photos.

What is the charge for this transfer?
When your application to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is submitted there is a $200 transfer tax per item to be paid for machine guns, short bbl shotguns, short bbl rifles and silencers and a $5.00 transfer tax for AOW.

Its really quit simple to buy an assault/automatic weapon if you really want one.

Your bias will probably reject these facts, but at least you'll see your claims are without merit.
Don't tell me how hard it is to buy a assault/automatic weapon.

Michael said...

Dave,
What does your quoted information prove? It only pertains to law abiding folks. Just like all laws. I know what the facts are. I'm very familiar with the steps involved in getting a tax stamp to purchase a full auto weapon.

The process to obtain the tax stamp is very time consuming and the full auto weapons are very, very expensive.

Can you tell me the circumstances when a full auto weapon was last used in a murder in the U.S.?

“Assault weapons” are not (contrary to popular belief) the choice of criminals. The FBI reports that these weapons, labeled by the media and special interest groups as “assault weapons”, are used in less than 1% of all homicides.

What bias do I have or have I shown you? I'm trying to have a logical discussion and you keep wanting to throw daggers.

Dave said...

I'm sorry for being rude to you Michael.
I guess I am frustrated with trying to get people to look at the whole picture. It's more than just criminals carrying assault weapons.

I think you'll agree that some (and I will not put a percentage on it because it's too controversial)assault/automatic weapons make their way to Mexico.

Have you been reading about what's happening across the Texas border? The cartel is waging a war there with automatic weapons which the authorities display when they catch them.
I'm not sure how many Mexican-American citizens have been slain by assault weapons (some research might answer that).

Thanks for coming back with input. Again, I was rude and apologize.

Anonymous said...

Dave, There is no huge black market of full auto weapons in the USA like in the movies.
Here is a legit source for stats Time Magazine and the ATF:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,320383,00.html

Out of over 88,000 guns confiscated from crime scenes how many were full auto? Yeah, thats what I thought.

Dave said...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts,the legit source, and the link Anonymous.
I checked them out. Good info.

Can I ask you if you have any comments on the main part of my column? Such as my contentions of the NRA controlling politicians?

I would like to hear your take on that.

Sevesteen said...

I would love to have a serious discusson on gun control. There are areas where reasonable people can disagree.

However, there are also areas that defy logic.

In the US, a properly-papered and transferable used full auto gun is worth at least 10 times more than a brand new semi-auto version of the same gun, even though the difference in manufacturing cost is trivial. It defies logic that someone would be willing to sell a full-auto AK47 worth $15,000 or more via legal channels at a price that would be competitive with its cost of well under $500 new.

The guns submitted to the US for tracing were not a representative sample--rather they were the guns suspected of US origins--At worst, this is basically saying "Mexican authorities are 90% accurate at selecting which guns have US sources, or cannot be traced by US authorities"

I would love to know the ratio of AR15 to M16 recovered in Mexico, or true AK47 to neutered US-legal versions--that would give a large clue as to whether the legitimate US market is a significant source of these guns. From everything I have heard, the majority of recovered Mexican AKs are full auto...indicating a non-US source.

The idea that the features of an assault weapon as defined by the 1994 law have anything to do with crime or misuse defies logic. Can you show how a bayonet mount, the shape of handles, or the ability of one gun to fit people of different sizes makes a gun more dangerous? Can you find anything in that law other than capacity limits that makes any sense?

To make claims about the misuse of "assault weapons" is like blaming cars with spoilers and alloy wheels for "sports car" speeding.

Sailorcurt said...

The contention that the NRA controls politicians is the main part of your column?

That point was only presented in one paragraph of three sentences. If that was your "main part", you sure disguised it well.

But, considering that the rest of your ridiculously incorrect diatribe has already been ripped to shreds, I'll bite:

"It's troubling that the NRA has such a powerful lobby that lawmakers in the Senate and House are afraid to confront them."

Let's see...there are over 5 million paid members of the NRA...who happen to be some of the most dedicated and reliable voters in the nation. Additionally, the NRA indirectly represents over 80 million gun owners (whether those gun owners want the NRA to represent them or not, that's the role they've been cast into by people like you who insist that the NRA IS the "gun lobby")...almost a third of the adults in the US.

You find it disturbing that politicians listen to an organization that represents a THIRD of the voting age population?

I'd find it disturbing if they DIDN'T.

"If they weren't afraid, then why haven't they challenged the NRA and passed meaningful gun control laws?"

Perhaps, versus fear, what you are seeing is a disagreement about what constitutes "meaningful gun control laws". As far as I'm concerned, gun control means putting your rounds on target consistently. To that end, I would submit that "meaningful gun control laws" would include mandatory gun safety and marksmanship training in public schools, publicly funded gun ranges and nationally sponsored shooting competitions...now THAT would enhance gun control in a meaningful way.

What you fail to consider is that, again referring to the fact that almost a third of the voting age population are gun owners, the resistance of politicians to gun control might actually be a reflection of their own personal beliefs and/or a reflection of their constituent's beliefs, rather than "fear".

Of course, for someone to whom fear is a primary motivation in life, the urge to project that characteristic onto others is probably almost irresistible.

"Why hasn't someone in Congress called the NRA out for spreading lies that benefit the gun and ammunition industry?"

Um...because they weren't lies maybe? Sure, the presentation and tone that the NRA took was a bit over the top, but every part of what they said was based on Obama's own words and past voting record.

You may disagree with the conclusions they drew, but the the record upon which they based those conclusions is there for anyone to see.

Unless your contention is that Obama's own statements and voting record are lies.

In closing;

I wonder...how do you cope with the cognitive dissonance you must feel when you illogically, in the same column, claim that:

a) The NRA holds so much sway over the public that all they have to do is issue a "lie" about a candidate to convince vast numbers of Americans to go out and buy guns and ammo

and simultaneously that:

b) The NRA's influence of the public does not justify the "fear" that you presume makes them such a "powerful lobby" to Congress.

Anonymous said...

Dave thinks that criminals will somehow become unable to get guns once they're made illegal. Hey, it works great for drugs, right? Make them “more illegaler” and criminals won’t touch them, right? Sure. That's how reality works-- you dream of unicorns and rainbows and presto! Prohibition worked out really, really well too, I hear.

Yes Dave, I am aware of the problems with assault weapons (a fake term if ever there was one). That's right-- they need to fed with expensive and sometime hard-to-get ammo, they need regular service, they can foul and jam, a good supply of magazines must be maintained, then there are double feeds and other problems, speed reloads marksmanship take time to practice, and there aren’t always enough places to practice shooting, etc. What are you doing about these problems? If you really cared about your fellow man, perhaps you'd be starting up a new ammo factory, or a new firing range, or at the very least you'd refrain from attempts at impugning your fellow citizens' rights.

Here Dave. I’ll give you a little assignment, since it is apparent you need more education; Take a look at all the cities and states that have done the “best” job of living up to your wishes, banning guns every which way they can manage, and basically getting their way. Look at their crime stats. Then look at the crime stats of places where guns are easier to get, and more people own them. On balance, what do you see? I know the answer, and I suspect you may know it also. I suspect that crime and safety have nothing to do with your motivations—that those are mere smokescreens and poorly contrived ones at that. You’ll get away with it elsewhere, but not here, Skippy. -- Lyle

Anonymous said...

Dave, I'm amazed that based on your reading of a vauge website created by a company in the business of selling Title II firearms (for the slow people, this means that they have a business interest in making it seem simple), you would presume to tell people who actually own these weapons how easy it is. Why don't you try to get your local police chief to sign off on your own form 4 and pull $15,000 out of your bank account, then wait 6 months before you can actually take possession, and then tell us all how simple it is? Or you could just ask around among the people who have actually done it - but no, they're all "Right-wing wackaloos" to you; only people who have never done it can be believed.

But what's more disturbing than that is your apparent implicit assumption that most people are in favor of gun control and are "scared away" from it by the big bad NRA. The fact is that the NRA has over 5 million paid members, which is orders of magnitude greater then all anti-gun groups combined. And the NRA is far from the only pro-gun group out there - see GOA, SAF, JPFO, etc, plus hundreds of state and local level groups. They aren't scared, they are listening to the will of the American people, which is exactly what they are paid to do. Is is you who are trying to scare them into passing laws which violate people's constitutional rights and go against the wishes of the American people. The only one spreading lies here is you. There are lots of "wackaloons" in the gun control debate, and it looks like most of them are on your side, desperate to ban more and more guns despite no evidence whatsoever that it has any effect on crime. Hate to get all testy, but you used all of those words first, and then backed off and claimed that you were just trying to "get people thinking about the problems associated with assault weapons" when your facts were proved wrong.

Sailorcurt said...

I wonder why it doesn't surprise me that you never responded to my comments about "the main part" of your column.

I guess when you are so resoundingly losing a debate, you can only change the subject so many times.