Had firearms still been banned from national parks, the shooting may simply have occurred at the entrance, with a lot of people and potential collateral damage around. Firearm regulations aren't the issue. From all indications being reported, the perp was somewhere between a jerk and a nutcase, kinda' like the nutcase that shot the Congresswoman last winter. There is no plannable defense for such random occurrences.

"There is no plannable defense for such random occurrences." Steve, you are correct in this but I must add one caveat. There is no plannable defense in the United States where even crazy people can get guns.

Explain ? ? ?

I said "even crazy people can get guns". Marsha, you know that we will never agree on the issue of guns. I know that the genie is so far out of the bottle that he is another solar system by now. Guns are and will be a fact of life in the US. Now, does that mean that ANYONE and EVERYONE should have 2nd Amendment rights? We have already gone down the road of denying those rights to paroled felons (in most cases). Are there not some common sense rules and regulations that should be in place? Do you think that a waiting period is an infringement? Should we see if we can come up with some common ground to attempt to keep guns out of the hands of people that are mentally ill? Marsha, as you know I don't own guns. I hope that I never will. For my life, owning guns would mean that I have given in to fear and I won't do that. This is America, we have the right to arm ourselves. Conversely, we have the right to not.

Firearms are not a panacea for trouble and potential threats.

Case in point, Ranger Anderson had an assortment of firearms at her disposal and she was highly trained on how to use them.

If anyone things they are invincible or somehow not at risk because they own a firearm, they are both delusional and a bit full of themselves.

Firearms are tools. Like most tools, it takes skill, training, and knowledge to use them well. There is a big difference between having a gun in your purse and being well prepared to defend yourself against a violent attack. Overconfidence is a very dangerous mindset.

Here is the list of folks who, by federal law, are not allowed to possess firearms.

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court
of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one
year; (read felon)

(2) is a fugitive from justice;

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been
committed to any mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien -
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been
admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as
that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under
dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has
renounced his citizenship;

(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from
harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such
person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging
in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in
reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except
that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received
actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to
participate; and
(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a
credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner
or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate
partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause
bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence.


I would be willing to bet that a significant percentage of our country would probably find themselves on the "prohibited" list should it ever be made.

Even if we all agree that felons and crazy people shouldn't have firearms, that doesn't prevent them from getting them. This shooter, just like the nut who shot the Congresswoman last year, and the guy who shot Reagan, and any number of other shooters, buy guns legally before anyone has a reason to "label" them as crazy. If they haven't been certified as crazy, who and why is anyone going to object to selling them a gun? And as for felons, they can always get guns by stealing them, it's a provisioning method they're most familiar with.

Hell, if only law abiding citizens could obtain firearms, very few law abiding citizens would feel a need to keep a weapon for protection.

Coley's right about protection weapons. I'd just about bet that the vast majority of self-defense weapons are owned by people not qualified to use them for the purpose. But that is a different matter and off topic. In this case Ranger Anderson was armed and qualified, but she had no idea that this chain checkpoint runner was anything other than a typical ill-informed park visitor who didn't understand that snow driving conditions deteriorate as one gains elevation going up toward Paradise. If she'd known the driver was armed and crazy and wanted in connnection with the Renton shooting, she would have responded very differently, and possibly have survived.

Sg

In using this incident to illustrate the "having a gun doesn't make you safe" point, I in no way intend to pass judgement on Ranger Anderson's actions.

I will say this though, the training these folks receive teaches a pattern of thinking where every situation is treated as though the maximum threat is possible, even likely. As the situation dictates, actions and mitigation procedures can be downgraded, but initial responses always assume the worst.

A vehicle blowing a checkpoint of any sort is a HUGE red flag for law enforcement. This situation was immediately recognized as having the potential to be very serious, which is why the vehicle was pursued.

The mindset taught is that there are no routine traffic stops and everyone is trying to kill you.

Sorry about the boating accident Marsha.

Eddie,

I don't mind common sense legislation that would keep firearms out of the hands of mental defectives. The problem comes when you try to apply common sense to the issue. Common sense from someone who sees both sides, or common sense from someone far to the left or right? It is the application of the process where things go sideways. I'd be open to solutions. What would you suggest?

Waiting periods have waivers, such as have a CPL, which requires a more extensive background check. As long as they keep that section in there, I have no issues with waiting periods. I get checked every 5 years with an extensive background check, then each time I purchase something I get the regular 4473 check.

Some items purchased require much more than a 5 day period. I bought a firearm related tool back in September. Fully paid for it, held it once, but until my tax stamp comes through some time in February or March, I don't get to take it home. That is a 5-6 month background check.

So after the BATFE goes through my background for a 5-6 month period (after having my sheriff sign off on the form as well), and okays this purchase, and my local sheriff checks me out every 5 years, do I still need to deal with the 5 day waiting period when I buy a shotgun, rifle or a pistol, in your opinion, or would the simple thumbs up/down 4473 application be fine by you?

DF, have you ever come across the Wright-Rossi felon survey? Good reading for those interested in learning more about the criminal mindset and use of firearms in criminal activities. There is some discussion of effective vs ineffective gun control measures based on the results of the survey.

Can't say I have read the entire thing, but I have looked through it.

The Wright-Rossi survey shows clearly that gun laws affect only the law-abiding, and that criminals know it. Eighty-two percent of the sample agreed that "Gun laws only affect lawabiding citizens; criminals will always be able to get guns," and 88% agreed that "A criminal who wants a handgun is going to get one, no matter how much it costs." To this Wright adds, "The more deeply we delve into our analyses of the illicit firearms market, the more confident we become that these opinions are essentially correct ones."

Fifty-six percent of the felons surveyed agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun;" 74% agreed that "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot."

A 57% majority agreed that "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." In asking felons what they personally thought about while committing crimes, 34% indicated that they thought about getting "shot at by police" or "shot by victim."

Fear works both ways, Eddie.

And yet they still commit the crime even though worried about being shot.

Thet cruuk is loocky he-a deednt cruss my peth, I vuoold hefe-a toorned heem intu Sveess Cheese-a in a hoorry! Bork Bork Bork!

I don't disagree at all. Meth/drugs can be a strong driver at times. That, desperation, and an overall sadistic nature of many who commit violent crimes as part of their lifestyle will lead some people to throw fear aside to meet what they see as being realistic needs.

Although 37% of those surveyed admitted that they personally had "run into a victim who was armed with a gun," that figure surpassed the 50% mark for armed criminals, an experience shared by 57% of the active gun predators. And 34% of the sample admitted to having been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim."


This was out of a sample size of about 1870 imprisoned felons.

What have there been so far this year, something like 12 shootings in Seattle, and that was as of last night?

Rule #1 for a gun fight. Bring a gun.

I still stand by my statement from a couple of days ago on this thread...



You can't ban everyone from having guns, and if everyone had guns, we'd have far more gun deaths.

Just like everyone thinks they are an "above average" driver, all gun owners think they are the safe and sane ones...yet they are still far more likely to be shot by someone else with a gun, or by themselves or a family member with their own gun.

Fish on...

Todd

An old article. I have no idea what the statistics are today. Last paragraph is an eye-catcher.

LINK

In the wake of the shootings at Columbine High School in April 1999 and other schools across the country, there has been a chorus calling for more gun-control measures to prevent similar incidents and to control crime in general. Setting aside the obvious emotional response that such tragedies always engender, is it realistic to expect that more gun-control laws will make our schools and streets safe? To answer that question, we need to understand the relationship between gun control and crime control.

The cry for gun control to solve crime problems, although not new, is finding greater acceptance today among Americans. Throughout most of our history, people armed themselves in response to increased danger from criminals, bandits, marauding Indians, invaders (British in 1814 and Pancho Villa in 1916), or abusive government (as in the case of the American Revolution and the Civil War), a move considered normal and rational until recently.

Today, there are numerous well-funded lobby groups, such as Handgun Control, Inc. (renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in 2001), the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Million Mom March, that advocate the disarming of Americans as a means to prevent and reduce crime. These organizations use tragedies such as Columbine to focus public attention and influence public opinion in their favor.

At the opposite end of the gun-control spectrum are such organizations as the National Rifle Association, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and Gun Owners of America, which believe that gun control is an ineffective crime-fighting tool.

Who is right? With the assumption that history is a better guide than good intentions, let’s consider the arguments pro and con and draw our own conclusions.

Despite thousands of gun laws at the federal, state, and local levels, gun-control advocates insist that guns are still too readily available. They point to statistics that indicate that violent crime is down since the Brady Law (February 1994) and the assault-weapon ban (September 1994) went into effect. For example, a 1999 study by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, shows that violent juvenile crime by minors 10-17 years old was down 30 percent between 1994 and 1998, the lowest since 1988.

Gun-control proponents advocate everything from gun-free zones, waiting periods, background checks, limited-capacity magazines, safe-storage regulations, gun registration, owner licensing, and owner-only locks to banning firearms entirely from the hands of everyone but the military and police.

On the surface, it seems logical to conclude that making guns more difficult to obtain will keep them from the hands of some criminals. But what does the record of past gun-control measures show?

John Stossel reported correctly in the October 22, 1999, edition of ABC’s 20/20 that despite the headlines, schoolyard killings are down 50 percent since 1992. Gun-rights advocates point out that crime began declining two years before the Brady and assault-weapon laws went into effect, because of increased imprisonment rates and improved prosecution.

Gun-control advocates look at guns only as a means to harm others even though they are more often used to prevent injury. According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.

That means that firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. Of these defensive shootings, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. About half a million times a year, a citizen carrying a gun away from home uses it in self-defense. Again, according to Kleck amd Gertz, “Citizens shoot and kill more criminals than police do every year [2,819 times versus 303].” Moreover, as George Will pointed out in an article entitled “Are We a Nation of Cowards?” in the November 15, 1993, issue of Newsweek, while police have an error rate of 11 percent when it comes to the accidental shooting of innocent civilians, the armed citizens’ error rate is only 2 percent, making them five times safer than police.

and this......

"Vermont has the least restrictive gun-control law. It recognizes the right of any Vermonter who has not otherwise been prohibited from owning a firearm to carry concealed weapons without a permit or license. Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America, ranking 49 out of 50 in all crimes and 47th in murders."

Todd,

What you say has merit, but here is their survey data of the criminals based on states based on the avilability of firearms.

In states with widespread gun ownership and tough punishment for gun misuse, criminals surveyed were often unarmed: 54% in Oklahoma, 62% in Georgia, 40% in Maryland, 43% in Missouri, and 35% in Florida. In Massachusetts, however, only 29% of the felon-respondents were unarmed. In that state, it is difficult lawfully to acquire a firearm, and the illegal carrying of a firearm, rather than the criminal misuse of a gun, is subject to the mandatory penalty. The survey data indicate that the criminals' fear of an armed victim relates directly to the severity of the gun laws in the state surveyed. Where gun laws are less restrictive, such as Georgia and Maryland, criminals think twice before running the risk of facing an armed victim; they are much less concerned in Massachusetts.

Fear acts as a driver to a good percentage of criminals as to whether or not they carry a gun, at least based on this research.

As far as applying any logic to a complete whacko or sociopath, Fresh Prince is correct. There is no guessing what they will do. If guns aren't available, they'll resort to home made Sarin gas, or machette's, or any other sort of weapon available, as examples have shown in the past.

I'd rather have legislation based on society as a whole, and based on facts and statistics, rather than managing to the lowest common denominator. The problem then "lies" in who's statistics you use.

Agreed.

Fish on...

Todd

My comments from the lack of Chum thread last week also apply here. Unfortunately, I scared all the WDFW PP'ers away when I called them out on their data integrity, cause they know it's all sh!t.




What Dogfish says has been proven to be correct. The probability of the presence of a gun deters bad people from making a decision they might not otherwise if they thought no one was armed in a convenience store, house, or bank.

Chicago crime rose after the handgun ban. So says a study by a William & Mary College economist:



Here's another strange coincidence--the year after the DC ban was lifted, crime fell. Dramatically in fact.... homicides reached their lowest level since 1964.
Now I know that correlation does not equal causation. And even many scholars who support gun rights are not yet ready to say that more guns = less crime.

But reverse correlation is strong evidence against causation; in other words, the history of D.C and Chicago brings into serious question the "more guns = more crime" belief of many who oppose gun rights. And if guns are neutral or better as the evidence tends to indicate, there's no utilitarian reason to ban them--only emotional reasons.