Support for Gun Control in US at its Lowest Level in More than 50 Years

More on ATF's "Fast and Furious" program - they encouraged sales of guns to suspect people, then used said sales in a push for greater gun regulations.

Quote:

---

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

---

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

More on ATF's "Fast and Furious" program - they encouraged sales of guns to suspect people, then used said sales in a push for greater gun regulations.



CR

---

It's funny, that theory has been circulating around gun forums and blogs since F&F broke and has been met with a lot of disbelief. 'Sure the administration seriously fuddled itself, but there is no way this was a false flag op. Those only happen in the movies.' Guess not.

Jack booted thugs, indeed. :shame:

At this point, the ATF is so dysfunctional it just needs to be disbanded. The Director position is a revolving door of acting personnel, their old revenue collection role for booze and tobacco was removed when the ATF shifted to DoJ, and their reputation is in shambles. Just roll their responsibilities into the FBI and DEA and be done with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Enough acronyms! I demand an organization that will have a name short and easy-enough-on-the-tongue to be comfortable spoken in two or three syllables, without any confusion!

Like, the "Action Group" or something.

---

They could just make "Jack Booted Thugs" official.

Revenuers. Where I come from, people already call them that.

Quote:

---

Rep. James Sensenbrenner asked Holder: “Tell me what's the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?”

Holder's response is a bit Clintonian. “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie," Holder said. "The information that was provided by the February 4th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information.”

---

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...nd_611731.html

I guess we have to employ vast swathes of malicious idiots somehow, and what better than the federal government?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...nd_611731.html

I guess we have to employ vast swathes of malicious idiots somehow, and what better than the federal government?

CR

---

So according to Holder, Jerry Sandusky didn't rape those boys because he didn't intend to abuse them, he loved them and they loved him, they begged for it.

Eric Holder, the attorney general -- number one law enforcement officer in the country -- sent letters and documents to Congress filled with lies. They were part of a cover-up, and Holder hasn't given up on that. Obama's attorney general is participating in a scheme to undermine gun laws, a scheme to undermine the Second Amendment. The attorney general of this country and the president are participating in a scheme to undermine the Constitution of the United States.

They make the Nixon administration look like pikers. Nixon could only dream about getting away with this kind of corruption because unlike the Obama regime he didn't have the media covering up for him. This is an impeachable offense and Holder & Obama should be brought up on charges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

So according to Holder, Jerry Sandusky didn't rape those boys because he didn't intend to abuse them, he loved them and they loved him, they begged for it.

Eric Holder, the attorney general -- number one law enforcement officer in the country -- sent letters and documents to Congress filled with lies. They were part of a cover-up, and Holder hasn't given up on that. Obama's attorney general is participating in a scheme to undermine gun laws, a scheme to undermine the Second Amendment. The attorney general of this country and the president are participating in a scheme to undermine the Constitution of the United States.

They make the Nixon administration look like pikers. Nixon could only dream about getting away with this kind of corruption because unlike the Obama regime he didn't have the media covering up for him. This is an impeachable offense and Holder & Obama should be brought up on charges.

---

It's a hell of a lot worse then a third-rate burglary, that's for sure. Worse motives, too.

On recent news:

2 Dead in Virginia Tech Shooting: Shot by Same Gun

2 students shot, wounded at Texas middle school

I used to hate guns. Then I shot one. Now I just hate people with guns.

... And then you shot one... :creep:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I used to hate guns. Then I shot one. Now I just hate people with guns.

---

I thought gutmensch loved diversity?

Who are you, Fragony, and what did you do to Hosakawa?

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749...-27652095.html
I'm very sure that a lot of casualties from accidents or crime in the US wouldn't have happened if guns weren't so easy to get in the US. Many people have said that it's the criminal who owned the gun who's to blame for many many decades. But we still continue to see gun crime in the US because guns are so easy to get in the US. It's the gun that makes it so much easier for it to happen. Gun supporters will be surprised that there are many countries where criminals don't own guns. Those countries have very low casualty rates from criminal or accidental assaults.

Btw, can a bullet hurt someone a mile away when shot in the air and then go back down? I think the bullet would've slowed down by then. That's why the bullet falls back down.

I think that's when they don't aim high enough. That's how the bullet in the article landed about a mile away. I don't see a difference between a falling penny and a falling bullet. The bullet shoots up but doesn't shoot back down when shot closer to a right angle up in the air. Does the bullet tend to point towards its sharp point due to aerodynamics? Would that sharp end be enough to hurt someone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Not a good reason to ban guns, in my opinion. Just a good reason to stop shooting them in the air.

---

It has been said that people should be careful with guns for a long long time, but we still see these accidents happen because a lot of people will take risks or just stay careless despite knowing the dangers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

I think that's when they don't aim high enough. That's how the bullet in the article landed about a mile away. I don't see a difference between a falling penny and a falling bullet. The bullet shoots up but doesn't shoot back down when shot closer to a right angle up in the air. Does the bullet tend to point towards its sharp point due to aerodynamics? Would that sharp end be enough to hurt someone?

---

To be specific. Without any air drag, the bullet would fall down with the same speed as it was shot out with. The drag does a significant slowdown though.

The bullet is potentially lethal when the sharp point is down. That usually happen with bullets shot in an angle, while the bullet fired straight up tends to fall down flat.

An interesting article about the societal shift reflected in the Gallup poll I posted in the OP, especially considering the source. Guns are not really a Left-Right issue in America anymore. People of all political and social stripes are waking up to the fact that even the best police departments cannot stop violent criminals until they show themselves to be violent criminals, and by that time, it is often too late for their victims. And as is often the case in the United States - even adequate policing is hard to come by. More and more Americans are taking an active role in their personal protection, and the predicted Wild West style bloodbath in the streets has failed to materialize.

Quote:

---

Robin Natanel picks up a compact black pistol, barrel pointed down range. Gripping the gun with both hands, left foot forward, she raises the semi-automatic and methodically squeezes off five shots. The first one creases the left edge of a red bull’s-eye on a target 25 feet away. The four others paint a three-inch pattern around the first. If the target were a person’s head or heart, he’d probably be dead.

Natanel is a Buddhist, a self-avowed “spiritual person,” a 53-year-old divorcee who lives alone in a liberal-leaning suburb near Boston. She is 5-foot-1 (155 centimeters) and has blonde hair, dark eyes, a ready smile and a soothing voice, with a hint of Boston brogue. She’s a Tai Chi instructor who in classes invokes the benefits of meditation. And at least twice a month, she takes her German-made Walther PK380 to a shooting range and blazes away.

Two years ago, an ex-boyfriend broke into her house when she wasn’t home. The police advised a restraining order. Instead, she bought pepper spray and programmed the local police number on her cell phone’s speed dial. “I was constantly terrified for my safety,” she says.

Ultimately, she got the Walther, joining a confederacy of people who might once have been counted on in the main to be anti-handgun -- women, liberals, gays, college kids. They are part of a national story: Domestic handgun production and imports more than doubled over four years to about 4.6 million in 2009, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun-industry trade group.

‘Societal Change’

The surge has been propelled by shifting politics and demographics that have made it easier and more acceptable than at any time in 75 years for Americans to buy and carry pistols. Post-9/11 fears also seem to be a factor, as has been the relentless pro-gun politicking of the National Rifle Association and marketing, particularly to women, by handgun manufacturers. Events like yesterday’s fatal shootings on the Virginia Tech University campus reinforce a feeling that the world is an unsafe place, even as violent U.S. crime rates fall.

Natanel found it was no trouble to purchase the Walther, a brand favored by movie superspy James Bond, or to locate experts to train her. Her circumstances won her a conceal-carry permit in a state with tough gun-control laws. Her friends have been broadminded about her conversion.

“I’d never considered a gun,” Natanel says. “I thought they were scary. I wanted nothing to do with them. I didn’t think anyone should have them.”

Twenty years ago, 76 percent of women felt that way about handguns, and 68 percent of all people in the country were wary enough of firearms of any kind to tell Gallup pollsters that they backed laws more strictly limiting their sale. Then what Gallup calls “a clear societal change” began.

Democrats, Women

In October, a Gallup poll found record-low support for a handgun ban -- at 26 percent among all, and 31 percent among women. The poll, which has tracked gun attitudes since 1959, documented a record-low 43 percent who favor making it more difficult to acquire guns and record-high numbers of women and Democrats saying there is a firearm at home. Forty-seven percent said someone in the household owns at least one gun, the highest reading in 18 years.

The growing acceptance of guns echoes a transformation in the politics of weapons. In 1987, Florida joined a handful of states that by law or tradition allowed people to carry hidden guns; now Illinois is the sole conceal-carry holdout, and the U.S. House of Representatives on Nov. 16 sent to the Senate a bill advocated by the NRA that would require those that issue concealed gun permits to recognize licenses from other states.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The drag does a significant slowdown though.

---

Yes, that's my point.
And the bullet doesn't have any up or down speed at the top point. When it falls, it falls the same rate as it would when dropped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Not strictly so for bullets shot at an angle. Think of a baseball being thrown from the deep outfield to the catcher--it's slowed significantly along the way, but it's still moving faster than if it had just fallen from the sky.

---

I was talking about shooting close to 90 degrees up. There's no difference when just dropping it down and when the bullet comes back down after being shot up close to a right angle.
I mentioned before that the bullet could be a danger when shot at a lower angle because there's more horizontal motion, which is the same situation as your baseball except the bullet is moving much faster in this case.

A recent example of what I was talking about earlier in the thread. This woman waited in sheer terror for 21 long minutes on 911 for police while a man went from door to window to door trying to get into her home. The police cannot protect you. They can try really hard to find a criminal, but they will not be present during the crime.

Quote:

---

A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.

Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.

On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.

As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.

McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.

"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"

The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.

"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.

When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.

"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.

Stewart soon turned himself in to police.

McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.

"I wouldn't have done it, but it was my son," McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO. "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son. There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."

---

Why do American burglars always break into homes when the homeowners are there while here they always seem to wait until the homeowners are not at home and just rob them in absence?

By the way you Americans describe that you'd think hundreds and thousands of gun-abstaining Europeans would die every year because of the nasty burglar-killers invading their homes while they are defenseless.

That's not happening. So what exactly is the point?

To me it just looks like the USA have a far more violent society in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

A recent example of what I was talking about earlier in the thread. This woman waited in sheer terror for 21 long minutes on 911 for police while a man went from door to window to door trying to get into her home. The police cannot protect you. They can try really hard to find a criminal, but they will not be present during the crime.

---

I cannot believe she shot that guy. H probably just wanted to ask for some pills. The knif was obviously to cut the seal on the narcotics bottle. If Blanchard, Oklahoma had a free pill program for pillheads this would not have happened.

All kidding aside, the story fails to mention a couple fo things that the local media digs into a little more.

First, Blanchard is a town of seriously like 2000 people, with an oversize police force due to the town being a speed trap because it is on a spur that connects two major interstates. I cannot imagine what took the cops so long....

And second, these guys cased her house for weeks. They poisoned all of her dogs over the course of the week and the cops did nothing about it. Some of her property was "vandalized" in a manner consistent with a breaking and entering abandoned mid-crime. The cops should have been watching this girls house. Nevermind that she is a recent widow and young mother, these dudes doing the break in were simply the scum of the scum, they knew she was vulnerable... what dirtbags

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Why do American burglars always break into homes when the homeowners are there while here they always seem to wait until the homeowners are not at home and just rob them in absence?

---

The article and video made it sound as though the intruder may have been looking for something more.

Quote:

---

By the way you Americans describe that you'd think hundreds and thousands of gun-abstaining Europeans would die every year because of the nasty burglar-killers invading their homes while they are defenseless.

---

Who is saying that? Do home invasions not exist in Europe anymore? That certainly was not the case when I was last there. I am sure that there are Europeans who have been victimized in their homes who may have been able to defend themselves had they been armed. Hundreds of thousands each year? Surely not, but no one is claiming that.

Quote:

---

That's not happening. So what exactly is the point?

---

I think your confusion results from the misunderstanding described above. The chance of being involved in a violent crime that would necessitate responding with deadly force in the US is extremely small, albeit probably statistically higher. Like Europeans, most Americans will never encounter such a situation in their lives. For most, gun ownership is like an insurance policy. The chance of your home burning down is extremely small, but when it happens, that policy is invaluable.

Quote:

---

To me it just looks like the USA have a far more violent society in general.

---

Yes and no. The vast majority of violent crime in any society is concentrated in very small geographic pockets correlated to the poverty rate and the population density, usually inner cities. Are America's ghettos more violent than Germany's? Probably, especially in comparable gun violence stats. Is American suburbia more violent than comparable German communities? Probably not.

This story has caused a broo-ha-ha on radio here in the greater Boston area. There's a camp that believes the woman should be sent to jail and never allowed to see her son again. They believe that she should have offered herself physically to the intruder to slow things down until the police could arrive. They also say that the intruder has as much right to be in the home. One caller on WTKK said Thursday morning "This is all because of private property". (editorial humming: Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs...)

Then there's the folks that are supporting the mother to the extreme, saying that people have a moral obligation to shoot first and ask questions later, that the moment the guy entered the house, his life was forfeit.

Thankfully, most of us are a bit more nuanced and fall somewhere in-between. Had the intruder been content with larceny, and collected valued items from the living room and absconded, there would have been no need to shoot him. I stick to what I learned in my concealed-carry class... "If somebody's life is in jeopardy, you do what you have to do. But if you shoot somebody in the back carrying a television, you're no better than he is".

Echoing PJ's comments: @Husar.... is it your contention that if brutal home invasions happen infrequently, we should tolerate them? How many rape/killings a year are "acceptable"? And for Shaka, I can play the anecdotal evidence game too... Christmas at the Petit family house would have been very different this year had this family been able to defend themselves? The police's role? They arrived after the house was on fire... and couldn't save the 3 women (including a 12 year old girl) who had been repeatedly raped and beaten for days, who ended up being burned alive, quite possibly the most excruciatingly painful way of dying.

I believe among other things gun ownership is fundamentally a women's right issue. As the old saying goes "God made all men, but Sam Colt made them equal".

No, there's absolutely no reason to tolerate a home invasion, but pro-gun people and the US media make it appear like the good guys always win the gun fights.

The real question is how the self-defense cases weigh up against all the murders and mistakes that are enabled or made simpler by guns.

If guns keep 100 people alive each year who would be dead otherwise but also kill 1000 people who could've gotten away otherwise then is there really a benefit?

It's easy to look at an isolated and emotional case like a mother defending her child from the evil knife rapist, but what about the other case where a family member goes crazy and shoots all the family members and then herself?

Like this.

Or this.

I would personally never deny someone the right to self defense with whatever means necessary and a gun makes this easy.
But given what others have said about this case it may not have been necessary for her to defend herself if the police had done their job properly.

Then again police seem to be so nervous with so many guns around in the whole country that they may just make horrible mistakes.

I also happened over this guy who found out that more people seem to die to gun-related homicides than people use guns to kill an intruder etc.

So yeah, guns are a great tool for self-defense but they're at least equally a great and handy tool for murder.
The real question is not what they're good for but whether the benefits outweigh the downsides.

On that note, Germany is far from devoid of guns, but far less gun crime happens here.(Link) So yeah, it's also the culture that is to blame, but in the end it's the same culture that embraces gun ownership after all. ~;)

I'll agree that just banning guns in the US is not an answer, but neither is embracing their use every chance you get and cheering teenage mothers for killing a man. It's not unlikely that she will have a lot of mental trouble over it anyway. Better than being dead, yes, but even better if the chance of such an incident is a lot lower in the first place.

I wish I had a gun to protect myself. I live in the bad part of town.

Or a tazer. That would work too.

I just got my pistol license in NY. 8 months.

surprised you managed to get one.

look i like guns. that being said i don't even give a damn about self defense. I like guns because i like hunting. end of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

surprised you managed to get one.

look i like guns. that being said i don't even give a damn about self defense. I like guns because i like hunting. end of story.

---

I don't have any interest in hunting. I don't have any interest in killing an animal that I know I won't eat all of or even really enjoy it. I believe that people should arm themselves to the teeth to go out and get the paper in the morning. I want everyone to be a mirror image of Duke Nukem.