Unfortunately, they will also have very little body….

Vanceone on December 17, 2007 at 1:24 PM

The original Brady Bill only required a waiting period on handguns.

Only after the system was changed to an instant background check did it include shotguns, rifles, and evil, evil, evil assault weapons.

If someone wants to kill you, it’d be pretty stupid for them to announce it beforehand.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 4:48 PM

I remember an article by Don Kates several years ago, which I used in a paper.

“The offenders are likely to commit their murders during a long career of violent and nonviolent crimes. Murder is usually the end result of a pattern of continuing violence by the murderer against his victim. Alcohol is often a factor in homicides, as well as various narcotics or a combination of the two. Homicide usually occurs between non-strangers and is often the result of an argument or robbery or some other altercation. These studies show that roughly 90% of murderers have prior adult criminal records (the remaining 10% are likely to have psychiatric records), with an average criminal career of six or more years that includes four major felony arrests.”

Kates, Don B. Jr.(2000, Jan.). More On The Character of Murderers. Handguns Magazine, 24+.

This is as close as I can find online.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

“Domestic homicides as well are preceded by a long history of violence. The “crime of passion” homicide is much more the exception rather than the rule.”

“87 percent of the women killed by their intimate male partners had experienced prior battering at the hands of their eventual killers. 28 percent of the victims had obtained at least one restraining order against their male perpetrator at some point prior to the homicide.”

If it were me, I’d lock the doors, call the cops

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 4:48 PM

The police have no duty to protect you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
This page requires login. To get around it Google the title:

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

Here is another article on the same topic.

http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=1758

Now seeing how the majority of murders have felony convictions it is already illegal for them to buy a gun. No new law will make it double illegal.

If someone wants to kill you, it’d be pretty stupid for them to announce it beforehand.

Ah, so your taking the “criminals are very intelligent and will never act irrational” approach. You’ve never heard of a murderer having threatened someone an hour or so before they murdered them? No wonder you’re for gun control, you have no concept of the real world.

Notice that your argument also implies that a law abiding citizen buying a gun for self defense would act in an alarming way in the gun shop while someone buying one for the purpose of committing murder in the “heat of passion” would behave just fine. Otherwise there would be no need for waiting periods would there?

Here, maybe this will help bring you into reality. Btw, it took me all of two minutes to find and it happened 4 days ago.

Fort Lauderdale police on Thursday investigate the scene where Deborah Ann Hawthorne was murdered, one day after she begged for court protection against her former boyfriend, Ronald Smith. Smith was charged with her murder.

Let’s see, she was threatened by her former boyfriend. At that point she was supposed to get a police detail right? Well, she went to court and begged, and they refused to do anything but give her a piece of paper saying he wasn’t allowed to hurt her. That’s pretty typical. A day later she was murdered. I don’t know if she had a gun or not, but it obviously could have saved her life. A law forcing her to wait another couple of days before she could take it home wouldn’t do much good would it? At least without a stupid waiting period she had the opportunity to purchase a gun and protect herself, even if she chose not to exercise that opportunity.

What he said.

And on top of that, who said anything about 24 hours? A threat could be made an hour before being acted upon. That’s plenty of time to run to the gun store and pick up a defensive weapon.

I was more leaning towards “what the hell kind of competent criminal gives you the chance to defend yourself.”

If someone wants to kill you, it’d be pretty stupid for them to announce it beforehand. And really, if you had an hour to live and walked into a gun shop and told the guy someone planned to kill you in an hour and you needed a gun, how many shop owners would sell you one? In such a situation you would probably be nervous and erratic and their first impression would be you were unbalanced and in no shape to operate a firearm. They certainly don’t want the liability.

If it were me, I’d lock the doors, call the cops, and get a baseball bat, assuming I didn’t have a gun at the time. If someone says “meet me at the abandoned dock at seven o’clock,” you don’t go to the freaking dock.

MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 2:55 PM

What he said.

And on top of that, who said anything about 24 hours? A threat could be made an hour before being acted upon. That’s plenty of time to run to the gun store and pick up a defensive weapon.

You would think that would be enough time to get a police detail or something.

First of all, for someone who wants laws passed that force people to rely on the police for protection, you sure don’t have a grasp on what they’ll actually do when your life is threatened. Secondly, that “or something” is exactly what I’m referring to. The police won’t and can’t protect people all the time, so the people need to protect themselves.

Why would anyone give a death threat and then just walk away for 24 hours? You would think that would be enough time to get a police detail or something.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 2:24 PM

Again, more idealism. Average police department will not give an average citizen a full police detail. They’ll do drive-bys and check up periodically, 90% of the time. If they have documented evidence of the threat (which they almost never do) then they’ll give a detail. Which means if a woman’s ex calls and says “You’re dead, b***h!” then she better hope he shows up while a cop is in the neighborhood. Average 4 minute response time with a 911 call means she has to stay alive, unarmed, for four minutes.

Also, the majority of death threats are just that: Threats. They usually don’t follow up with an attack immediately, either because it’s daylight or in public or what have you. The point I will give Romney is that he said waiting periods should be scaled back since they were “supposedly” in relation to the length of time it took technology to verify the background. Now, it should be reasonably instantaneous at any gun store. Therefore, no waiting period is necessary any longer. This would allow threatened law-abiding citizens to obtain defense. There are far more of those cases than of crimes of passion where the perps don’t have ready weapons (which they usually don’t go to the gun store to get anyway).

It also prevents someone whose life has been threatened from going out and getting a gun for self defense in a reasonable time.

Why would anyone give a death threat and then just walk away for 24 hours? You would think that would be enough time to get a police detail or something.

The first thing that came to mind when reading this was “ROUS”es (Rodents of Unusual Size).

Michael in MI on December 16, 2007 at 6:43 PM

Like these?

I think Romney went on to explain why he supported the assault weapon thing: background checks.

Background checks were required before the ban, and are still required now that it’s expired.

I don’t even mind a one or two day waiting period; that would help prevent people from going and getting a gun in some heat of passion.

It also prevents someone whose life has been threatened from going out and getting a gun for self defense in a reasonable time. I think someone willing to commit murder probably has a much better chance of getting their hands on a gun quickly despite a waiting period than a person who isn’t willing to break the law. Waiting periods are just another piece of useless legislation that showed no evidence of reducing crime.

When discussing gun control, it’s good to keep in mind that criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. Therefore the laws only apply to non-criminals. The only sensible gun legislation is legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but not impact law abiding citizen at all. 99% of proposed gun legislation only hinders law abiding citizens. That doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

I don’t like the idea of just anyone getting a gun. Especially since they have emptied out all the mental institutions. I think a good background check is necessary.

I don’t think a registration list is necessary. I don’t even mind a one or two day waiting period; that would help prevent people from going and getting a gun in some heat of passion. Waiting two days isn’t a hardship if you have any knowledge of the law–i.e. go buy your gun 2 days before hunting season or something. Really, you should buy it a few weeks, so you can practice gun safety.

For automatic weapons, I’m not against reasonable restrictions–like you can’t buy it without certification of a higher level to show you can operate such a weapon safely. Show up with your “automatic weapons safety certificate” or military thing that’s equivalent. Those things seem like a reasonable compromise between safety ( Who wants the guy with mental issues or rage to have a huge selection of weapons) and the right to self-defense.

No registrations, but lots of background checks and a minor waiting period to help control against crimes of passion. Seems reasonable to me.

Nagin has control of a single city in the state of Lousiana. It may be the largest city but it isn’t the capital. That means Nagin is a mayor who made an unconstitutional gambit and was overruled, and hopefully NO will wake up and kick the b*757d out.

Nagin gave an unconstitutional order to his corrupt police department. They all followed it. This is not the result of a single person in the wrong position, this is institutional tyranny. Since he’s refusing to comply with the law and the judicial branch by returning the weapons unlawfully stolen, yet hasn’t been arrested for it, I’d say that he’s hardly been “overruled”.

Doesn’t really matter how many people tell him he’s breaking the law. Doesn’t matter that the judicial and legislative branches are not on his side. The fact is that until the LA state government or the FBI does something about it or the police under his control refuse his unlawful orders, the tyranny continues.

Nagin has control of a single city in the state of Lousiana. It may be the largest city but it isn’t the capital. That means Nagin is a mayor who made an unconstitutional gambit and was overruled, and hopefully NO will wake up and kick the b*757d out.

His closest parallel is interestingly enough the mayors of DC, Boston, Chicago et al who are all gun control freaks with no power outside their own city. Mumbles Menino (Mayor of Boston) thankfully has no power, and Deval Patrick (the governor) is fortunately too busy trying to bring resort casinos and embryonic stem cells to Massachusetts to worry about gun control yet.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 12:11 PM

I think that’s somewhat arguable. As people were discussing in relation to Hillary’s focus on where she campaigns, fundamentally, “it’s the city-states, stupid”. She’s focusing on New York. San Francisco. Los Angeles. Chicago. Capitals? Nope. Huge, huge influence? Yes. The Illinois State Rifle Association recognizes the smaller towns and counties passing 2nd amendment resolutions. That’s good and all, but if Chicago extended its reach, they could do whatever they wish. In all honesty, if you don’t think Menino and Patrick are ready to jump on guns as soon as crime shoots up or an incident happens, you’re in for a surprise.

Truth is, in the middle of the conflict we’re in, I’d like to be able to trust my government. I’d like to be able to look at soldiers and guardsmen and policemen with the respect most of them deserve. However, when they point their weapons at Americans citizens, only to destroy them in front of them at gun point, I feel sick to my stomach. You may argue we’re not living up to “Liberty or Death”. That’s mainly because a quarter-millennium ago, there were a lot less spoiled sheep who wouldn’t dare to cross “The Man”. Gestures these days are pointless. Hell, did you see any coverage of the confiscations on Fox News? CNN? Surprisingly, ABC was the only one to cover it with any real depth. We’re in a far different world, and the fight has to adapt.

I find it funny how 2nd amendment types are all up in arms about what evil government is doing and then when the confiscations actually start they… fold.
BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 12:00 PM

Try applying some comprehension to the video. The police didn’t say “we’re here to take your guns, do you have any?”, they said “do you have any weapons?”, then they took them. The folks answering the police truthfully knew they had the right to have the guns, and didn’t expect the police to steal them. Not to mention that the police approached all of them ready to shoot, so resistance would have been suicide. Choosing life over a pointless death is hardly folding.

Oh, and “2nd amendment types”? What exactly is that supposed to mean? People who believe in the constitution? You realize by making fun of people who support the constitution, you’re pointing out that you, in fact, do not right?

Any other parts of the constitution we should ignore? 1st amendment? 4th amendment? I suppose if the police decided to make an unlawful search of your house, you’d resist instead of “folding” right?

Right, and he has control of one of the states of the union. How long before other Nagins come to power?

Nagin has control of a single city in the state of Lousiana. It may be the largest city but it isn’t the capital. That means Nagin is a mayor who made an unconstitutional gambit and was overruled, and hopefully NO will wake up and kick the b*757d out.

His closest parallel is interestingly enough the mayors of DC, Boston, Chicago et al who are all gun control freaks with no power outside their own city. Mumbles Menino (Mayor of Boston) thankfully has no power, and Deval Patrick (the governor) is fortunately too busy trying to bring resort casinos and embryonic stem cells to Massachusetts to worry about gun control yet.

I find it funny how 2nd amendment types are all up in arms about what evil government is doing and then when the confiscations actually start they… fold.

Seriously, even the gun nuts don’t stand up to the police and the government when they come to the door. They only practice armed resistance against thugs and robbers, which is all fine and good, but none of them actually have the guts to refuse the police when they actually come around.

The second amendment may be the teeth but even the staunch defenders will never bear them.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 12:00 PM

That’s because they put you in jail for doing so. Look what happened to that old woman who refused to hand it over. A 300 pound Green Bay Packer took her down and arrested her. When you have a half dozen men armed with automatic rifles pointed at you, trying to draw a weapon is suicide. This wasn’t a matter of “They’re coming, get ready”…this was “Knock knock Hello this is my barrel hand over your guns”.

This is also quite a straw man argument coming from someone who supports gun registration to begin with.

Just watched it, although I find your characterization that New England is not the “the real world” to be just another hayseed rambling with absolutely no merit. What makes the South more “real,” other than you know, the incest. Oh, I’m sorry, was that a hasty characterization? Yes. I apologize. Perhaps you should avoid them in the future as well. I live in the freaking people’s Republic of Massachusetts, and you think I have no concept of anti-life nearly communist statism? Get real.

You started it off with your “It’s a mai right ta own a gun whut can take out a buffalo from 200 yards” crap, so don’t start acting like you’re being stereotyped unfairly here. Also, I’m not Southern, and the country doesn’t consist solely of the South and New England. Perhaps next time you should consider not setting the tone with liberal-style mockery of the “unwashed masses”.

That’s more a sad commentary on Nagin and his lackeys than America. Do you see anyone (read: Republican) running for President calling for the removal of Concealed Carry laws? No. Nagin sucked. He continues to suck. He has no understanding of the constitution or reality and his order was rightfully struck down through the help of the NRA. That the bureaucrats are slow to release the weapons isn’t surprising, but again, Nagin still calls the shots because the dopes in NO re-elected him.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 11:56 AM

Right, and he has control of one of the states of the union. How long before other Nagins come to power? Don’t tell me Joe over there is far off. Regardless of how much he sucks, he’s in power, and he “took mah guns”. Read more about it. There are trailers full of confiscated weapons that people cannot get back. They are guarded by National Guardsmen, and all requests to get them back are being basically thrown out. This is a constitutional crisis of epic proportions. Therefore, it would be wise not to dismiss the fears of those who are wary of any and all gun control legislation. Ten years ago, it might have been seen as “paranoid”. If you make that argument after seeing what has actually happened, it’s pure ignorance.

We-ell dey ain’t gunna get mah guns because I’m jerst a dumb ‘merican who tinks dat dey’re gunna come ’round and take em!

Oh, wait…they’ve made it clear that if this passes, confiscations will start. D’oh, sorry. I meant “The Man” is comin’ with “his jive”…

MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 11:34 AM

I find it funny how 2nd amendment types are all up in arms about what evil government is doing and then when the confiscations actually start they… fold.

Seriously, even the gun nuts don’t stand up to the police and the government when they come to the door. They only practice armed resistance against thugs and robbers, which is all fine and good, but none of them actually have the guts to refuse the police when they actually come around.

The second amendment may be the teeth but even the staunch defenders will never bear them.

Did you even watch the link I quoted above? Put out by the NRA? Or are you a true Kennedy, too tucked away in New England to think anything bad happens in the real world?

MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 10:31 AM

Just watched it, although I find your characterization that New England is not the “the real world” to be just another hayseed rambling with absolutely no merit. What makes the South more “real,” other than you know, the incest. Oh, I’m sorry, was that a hasty characterization? Yes. I apologize. Perhaps you should avoid them in the future as well. I live in the freaking people’s Republic of Massachusetts, and you think I have no concept of anti-life nearly communist statism? Get real.

That’s more a sad commentary on Nagin and his lackeys than America. Do you see anyone (read: Republican) running for President calling for the removal of Concealed Carry laws? No. Nagin sucked. He continues to suck. He has no understanding of the constitution or reality and his order was rightfully struck down through the help of the NRA. That the bureaucrats are slow to release the weapons isn’t surprising, but again, Nagin still calls the shots because the dopes in NO re-elected him.

http://isra.org/

We-ell dey ain’t gunna get mah guns because I’m jerst a dumb ‘merican who tinks dat dey’re gunna come ’round and take em!

Oh, wait…they’ve made it clear that if this passes, confiscations will start. D’oh, sorry. I meant “The Man” is comin’ with “his jive”…

in case “The Man” comes with “his jive” to take their “precious babies” away.

I speak jive.

Sorry, I still don’t get why the NR and HotAir are supporting the second-most liberal Republican candidate…

psrch on December 17, 2007 at 10:49 AM

HA hasn’t endorsed anyone and NR explained it as Romney combining all three elements of conservatism (social, economic, foreign policy) into one viable package which admittedly has some problems, but not nearly to the extent of Rudy “South stays home” Guiliani and Mike “God, gays, abortion and nothing else” Huckabee.

FDT would have been alright had he not screwed the pooch on his own campaign. He had his lead, he was crowned the king on his entrance… and then he made blunder after blunder after blunder. Now he has all his serious policy proposals locked away on his website, but by his own admission isn’t in control of his publicity campaign and his only comments recently have been snark and attacks on other candidates. Fred has basically solidified that there is no “there” there through his own blundering. It was his nomination to lose, and he lost it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4