Among the six questions on a Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ survey newly sent to candidates John McCain and Barack Obama is this: “As president, would you eliminate the Tiahrt amendment crime gun trace data restrictions in your budgets for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?” The mayors group, led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has been fighting to roll back a 2003 measure sponsored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, that it says limits local and state law enforcement access to crime gun trace data. The group quotes Obama as saying he’d repeal the Tiahrt amendment and McCain as arguing that such data “is not top-secret data that jeopardizes our national security, or hinders law enforcement. We cannot have a government that operates in secret and refuses to release information that shows where criminals have obtained a gun.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- janeeyre on Bad timing on mammogram recommendation
- Raptor on Open thread 11/21
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/21
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
88 Comments
One need only harken back to the aftermath of Katrina to see what the elite’s have in store for us. Using the disaster and resulting civil unrest as a pretext, they forcibly disarmed the citizens of New Orleans, often using Gestapo tactics, leaving those people at the mercy of the roving gangs that still had their guns. When President Bush leaves office next year and the terrorists pull off another major attack on American soil, will we see law abiding citizens disarmed again? Count on it. The end of private gun ownership is a long sought goal of the elite’s and one worlders.
That was and is the point of the Tiahart Amendment. To keep the government from unlawfully building a data base of lawful gun owners to make it simple to round em up when they have the right excuse. Bottom line, Todd Tiahart and his amendment are good and Bloomberg and his gun grabbing mayor buddies are bad.
There is such a huge number of firearms in existence now that the sale and transfer of existing firearms without documentation is not that difficult. If governments, at whatever level, start misusing and threatening our 2nd. Amendment Rights, just confirmed by the Supreme Court, the ‘off the books transfers’ will skyrocket in number.
Phillip your argument, the same as Bloomburg’s, and the other mayors you refer to, is quite frankly a lie. There are few to no restrictions on the release of that data when it relates to a specific crime investigation. The restriction is on the release of, and retention of those records, of the transfer data in aggregate. That is obtaining and retaining information on law abiding purchases, on everything, whether it relates to a specific crime investigation or not.
What Bloomburg and his criminal buddies want is unfettered access so as to in effect know where all firearms are and who has them so they can confiscate them all as soon as they are given any opportunity they manufacture up.
The Tiahrt amendment provides protection for citizens and law enforcement alike. Every one of the ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ survey’ contains half truths and out and out lies.
From the NRA website:
There are good reasons for keeping this information confidential, and for strengthening the Tiahrt Amendment and making it permanent:
* Releasing the information serves no useful purpose. The Congressional Research Service has repeatedly said “firearm trace data may be biased” and “cannot be used to test for statistical significance between firearm traces in general and the wider population of firearms available to criminals or the wider American public.”[1] These limitations exist because the “tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics.”[2]
* Traced guns aren’t always “crime guns”; firearms may be traced for reasons unrelated to any armed crime. The BATFE trace request form lists “crime codes” for traffic offenses and election law violations, among many others.
* Trace information remains available for law enforcement use. The FY 2007 version of the Tiahrt amendment ensures that trace data is available to federal, state, and local agencies “in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution” or for use in administrative actions by BATFE—which is, of course, the principal agency responsible for overseeing the conduct of federally licensed firearms dealers.The language and history of the Gun Control Act are clear: Congress always intended to keep this information confidential, and to allow its use only for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The firearms trace database includes information such as the agency requesting a gun trace, the location from which the gun was recovered, and the identity of the dealer and original retail buyer.
* Both BATFE and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) oppose release of trace data. In fact, BATFE has fought for years in the federal courts to keep the databases confidential, because they contain information (such as names of gun buyers) that could jeopardize ongoing investigations—not to mention law enforcement officers’ lives. For example, a suspected gun trafficker could search databases for names of “straw purchasers” he had used to buy handguns, or for traces requested on guns he had sold. That information could lead him to names of officers, informants and other witnesses against his crimes. (View commentary by FOP President Chuck Canterbury from April 24, 2007)
* Even the current language has allowed too many disclosures of sensitive information. For instance, anti-gun groups and the media have repeatedly received confidential trace data from government “leaks.” And Judge Jack Weinstein of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, who presides over New York City’s lawsuit against the firearms industry, has “creatively” ruled that the riders do not protect the information that Congress so clearly intended to protect.
The Wichita Eagle and the MSM has never reported accurately on the Tiahrt Amendment. They take what ever BS Bloomberg and others put out as gospel.
They cannot even accurately report on the basic purpose of the Tiahrt amendment.
It is very sad ‘commentary’ when our source of so called ‘news’ is so biased and reports inaccuracies to further their own agendas.
blah..blah..blah…
I wonder how police departments across the country feel about it?
Don’t firearms manufactures test the weapons as a part of manufacture and quality control?
Just what constitutional right is infringed if the lans and grooves of every new gun be recorded in a computer data base as with fingerprints and DNA?
Then, when you find a slug in the body of a dead guy, cops could track that weapon to a serial number, find out if it was sold in Virginia or Oregon, and have another tool to help ‘em take a murderer off the street.
No according to the NRA, they’d just use the info to confiscate all the weapons owned by law abiding citizens so the criminals can take over the world.
C’mon Eagle – are you still buying and peddling this lie?
The Tiahrt Amendment simply DOES NOT DO what Bloomberg claims. Law enforcement CAN, and does, get trace data. Our office has obtained such data. The amendment simply requires that data requests to be associated with – and this is shocking, I know – a criminal investigation.
Bloomberg isn’t interested in criminal investigation or furthering same. He wants to sue gun manufacturors into bankruptcy, and he’s got a NY Federal district judge in his pocket to assist him. There is federal law barring same, but Bloomberg and his minions don’t think the law applies to them. Just as they don’t think the Constitution applies to them.
At what point are the idiots who write this crap for the Eagle actually going to research what they write about before they take Bloomberg for the liar he is?
Oh, it’s “I have no agenda on firearms” Brownlee. Nevermind.
BTW – I’d note that as president, neither McCain nor Obama would have the authority to unilaterally repeal the amendment. And attempts to do so in Congress have routinely failed.
BTW as well – Mary, police organizations generally oppose lifting the Tiahrt amendment.
“GMC70″ admits –
“Bloomberg and his minions don’t think the law applies to them.”
Thereby securing his Republic Party affiliation.
Bloomberg is the quintessential RINO.
Excuse me, but neither Obama NOR McCain can eliminate the “Tiahrt Amendment” without an act of Congress.
That day is not at all certain.
Also, the Eagle had done a horrible job exlaining this issue. The Eagle brings it up, constantly, but NEVER really explains it very well.
Bloomberg wants this information for CIVIL lawsuits. Bloomberg wants to sue gun manufacturers and gun dealers as a “cash cow” to fund his failed big-government ideas.
Bloomberg is a blooming idiot. Bloomberg blames the gun for the crime, not the criminal.
Was the Mayor of Detroit in JAIL, himself, when he completed his survey?
Of course, the criminal Mayor of Detroit does have a Mother who serves in Congress.
They BOTH blame guns for crime, and not the criminal!
Mary and Monkey
READ would you?
The Tiahrt Amendment does not slow or burden legitimate law enforcement, in any way!
Civil lawsuits, against gun manufacturers and dealers, is what Bloomberg and the media are pushing.
The only reason I can think of to be against tracing guns involved in crimes would be someone selling guns for fun and profit without doing proper background checks.
BJ
You need to read, as well.
Nothing in the Tiahrt Amendment stops such traces, if done for a CRIMINAL investigation.
Bloomberg is a liar.
The Eagle is complicit in that lie.
BlueJay,
The Tiahrt amendment does not prevent tracing guns involved in crimes. In fact, it only allows tracing in the event of a criminal investigation.
MonkeyHawk,
What you are asking would be comparable to having every hospital record the DNA of every baby that is born with or without the consent of the parents.
No problem with that is there?
Maryland already started a ballistic fingerprint program for handguns and last time I checked, in 2005 had only used teh search 200 times with no convictions at a cost of just over 400,000 a search.
Ballistic fingerprinting is not some exact science like DNA either.
Ballistic fingerprinting is very easy to modify at will. All you have to do is change the barrel or modify it.
The marks that a barrel would leave on a round will change with time as well. As the barrel wears out it will leave different marks.
Shotguns don’t leave any marks on their rounds nor is it very easy for polygonal rifling to be tested either.
The entire idea of trying to imliment and maintain such a program is absurd.
The only thing such programs do prove is that it gives the Government a database of exactly what people own. Later when those Democrats decide that gun X is bad they will see that Y amount of people own gun X and take them.
Folks please keep talking about this evil things that these traitors, the leaders of America are doing to America and We The People. Thank You a American.
“Nathaniel” got out of church without shooting anyone and posted –
What you are asking would be comparable to having every hospital record the DNA of every baby that is born with or without the consent of the parents.
You mean, sorta like a baby’s footprint applied to a birth certificate?
No problem with that is there?
Nope.
You really have to love the liberal souble standard…
Spying on terrorists = unconstitutional and wrong.
Intrusive measures on Americans in an effort to fight gun crime = OK!
So we can confirm you’re pro-crime. Right, boy?
MonkeyHawk,
No, I am pro gun rights.
“BTW as well – Mary, police organizations generally oppose lifting the Tiahrt amendment.”
Links, please?
“The only thing such programs do prove is that it gives the Government a database of exactly what people own. Later when those Democrats decide that gun X is bad they will see that Y amount of people own gun X and take them.”
Like I said before, paranoia abounds in the land of the gun nuts.
Nathaniel
Posted August 10, 2008 at 2:12 pm | Permalink
You really have to love the liberal souble standard…
Spying on terrorists = unconstitutional and wrong.
Intrusive measures on Americans in an effort to fight gun crime = OK!
—
It ain’t just a problem on the left.
For example, look what Bush did to 4th amendment rights with regard to illegal search and seizure.
And what was the right’s response? “Have we been attacked by terrorists?” and “I haven’t lost any rights, have you?” and “Lincoln suspended habeas corpus so what’s your point?” don’t exactly encourage a strong defense of the other 9 amendments in the BoR, including the 2nd.
Be careful what you wish for.
Mary,
How is it any more paranoia for me to oppose such absurd programs than it is for you to want them?
Of the states which have the programs, I am sure you can show me what a great success they are?
I won’t hold my breath. In these discussions you are limited to quoting whatever sound bite you can from the Brady campaign anyway.
Tell us, boy, how establishing a firearm “fingerprint” database is unconstitutional.
No, it’s just common sense. Your car is registered, do you also fear the Democrats are going to confiscate it? Why should guns be held to a different standard? It’s harder to get a phone in this country than it is to get a gun.
Guns are not the Holy Grail to be held in importance above all else.
Why don’t you try to use reason for your arguments rather than attack me personally, Nathan? You always fall short when it comes to thinking clearly on this issue.
Mary,
You call me paranoid then say I was the one who resorted to personal attacks?
Then in the same paragraph you say I can’t do anything but make it personal you say I fall short on thinking clearly on the issue.
Do you know the meaning of the word irony or hypocrisy?
Mary,
I don’t have to register my car if I never drive it off my property.
Just pointing out the obvious, Nathan.
So answer my question…wht should guns be held to a different standard?
MonkeyHawk,
I don’t think it is unconstitutional. I think such a database is pointless unless you are anti-gun and want to do whatever you can to further restrict gun rights.
Mary,
Pointing out the obvious? Ok then, that is all I was doing too.
Yes, you are still supposed to have your car registered, even if you don’t drive it. And you still have a license to drive regardless if you use your car or not. You still have a social security number, regardless if you work or not. The government knows who you are, even if you want to be invisible. So why should gun ownership be any different? What are you trying to hide?
“I think such a database is pointless unless you are anti-gun and want to do whatever you can to further restrict gun rights.”
The same could be said for everything I just pointed out. Is being required to have a social security number or a driver’s license an infringment of our rights? I think not.
“Nathaniel” admits –
“I don’t think it is unconstitutional. I think such a database is pointless unless you are anti-gun and want to do whatever you can to further restrict gun rights.”
And just how would establishing a data base of firearms’ “fingerprints” restrict your gun rights?
Huh?
You’ve got nothin’.
It’s just that I happened to suggest it and you and I disagree over certain issues, huh?
Well lemme tell ya something. I like chocolate and fluffy kittens, too. So you obviously must be anti-kitty and anti-chocolate.
Even if you don’t have a driver’s license, you have to have a photo ID to function in this country.
I think something as lethal as a gun, with over 30,000 deaths each year in this country as a result of gun violence, certainly makes the case for a national data base. The idea that it somehow infringes on personal rights is silly.
Mary,
The reasons for those things are property taxes.
Why do you want to the government to know every type of gun I own and have them registered?
Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected thing. What business does the government have forcing me to register my guns?
Do you think we need a license to speak on political issues and that we must register all political discussions or be approved to talk about politics before doing so?
Guns are not cars. It is not my duty to explain why guns shouldn’t be treated differently it is yours to explain why they should be treated the same.
Next will be Nathan’s argument that if guns have to be registered, then so will knives, swimming pools, and anything else that can cause death.
Always an argument of extremes…no common sense allowed.
Mary,
For someone so concerned about personal attacks on the thread you sure seem to love them Mary.
Hypocrite.
Great idea, property taxes on guns would be a good thing..maybe some of the revenue collected could go to programs that work to prevent gun violence.
You’re the master of personal attacks, Nathan…just ask anyone on the blog.
Gotta, go..the cookies are done and Dave and I are going to enjoy them with some coffee and tea.
Peace to you.
Mary,
By anyone who would that be? Some of the most vile people on the left here?
Please. I said one thing about hwo you get your facts from the Brady Campaign and you go off on a personal attack spree while condemning me for what I said.
Pretend like I know you and we are friends for once instead of being one of the typical liberal posters here.
Mary,
You have yet to explain why we need to register guns or offer any kind of an argument for doing so other than saying we register cars.
That is not an argument.
When you feel like presenting a real argument let me know.
There is NO law enforcement benefit, for what the libs want.
However, the libs call conservatives “paranoid” if we notice this fact, and then ask:
“What motivates you to push for these laws”?
Common sense would dictate the evil intentions of those involved, when their stated intentions have been proven to be bogus.
What most of the conservatives on this board should do is register their gums.
Wichita Eagle, LYING AGAIN! Way to go Brownlee! Do you EVER report facts, or you always make siht up?
For those not already informed, below are links to two documents you should read before you make a decision on the Tiahrt amendment. (One being the actual amendment – duh!)
There is nothing in the Tiahrt amendment that prohibits tracing firearms data for a bona fide criminal investigation.For those who want to peruse gun purchase records for any other reason (like a Bloomberg witch hunt), that is not allowed per both the Tiahrt amendment AND the 39 year-old Gun Control Act of 1968.
1)The Tiahrt amendment.http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/communications/press_releases/2007/Tiahrt_gun_amd/TIAHRT_amendment_2.pdf
2)The Gun Control Act of 1968http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm
Brownlee, you posted this same crap before.
Just over a year ago in fact, you posted the same garbage.
You DO have an agenda, don’t you?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/07/high-noon-for-t/
Brownlee Lie:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/07/at-least-commit/
7/13/2007
Agenda there Brownlee?
More Brownlee Tiahrt Amendment “reporting”:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/bloomberg_tiahr/
4/27/2007
Looks like a GUN-BAN agenda Brownlee. Didn’t you read the Heller case?
Brownlee AGAIN on the Tiahrt Amendment:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/06/williams-wants/
6/24/2007
You guessed it, Brownlee AGAIN on the Tiahrt Amendment:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/mayors-of-two-m/
9/26/2007
Brownlee, show me in the Tiahrt amendment where it keeps law enforcement from tracing guns used in crimes!
You can’t. One, because you never read the Tiahrt Amendment. Two, because no where in the Tiahrt amendment does it prevent law enforcement from tracing guns used in crimes.
Brownlee, you are lying. I can tell. Your typing again.
Last Brownlee lie for the night:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/tiahrt_bloomber/
5/25/2007
That’s 6 times, SIX TIMES!
SIX TIMES Brownlee, you’ve lied about this Amendment.
Excellent observation, Max. It’s beyond crystal clear that Phillip and the WE have more than just an opinion on this topic.
Say Brownlee, if you repeat a lie often enough, it IS STILL A LIE!
Get the name right, it’s BrownLIB.
You got that right Golfnut!
I got bored with this site, but still stop back for whenever they want to tell lies about our 2nd Amendment Right.
And I stop by whenever it’s convenient to have intelligent, meaningful, Liberal-Socialist conversations.
Oh, sorry Regular, I forgot.
BrownLIB.
But then, why should I worry about letting the facts get in the way of a good story?
Say, since Golfnut and Regular are here, you might read some of this article.
It’s a long, but very interesting perspective on the decline ofWestern Civilization from a speech given 30 years ago by AlexanderSolzhenitsyn.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html
There’s a very interesting section on THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESS.
http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/communications/press_releases/2007/Tiahrt_gun_amd/TIAHRT_amendment_2.pdf
Tiahrt Amendment.
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm
Gun Control Act.
Ya, read that before Max, but had forgotten it.
I like this line:
The well-known Soviet mathematician Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliant book under the title Socialism; it is a profound analysis showing that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich’s book was published in France almost two years ago and so far no one has been found to refute it. It will shortly be published in English in the United States.
Say Regular, that article was recently pointed out to me by someone who grew up under Communist Rule.
Solzhenitsyn went to prison for speaking out for Freedom. And we will too if the Fairness Doctrine is passed by the Socialist Libs.
The Socialist section you cite was key Regular. I also liked this one. You know, Government can solve all of our problems by passing more laws.
“Legalistic Life
Western society has given itself the organization best suited to its purposes, based, I would say, on the letter of the law. The limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law, even though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the supreme solution.”
And given the REPEATED LIES by BrownLib and the Wichita Eagle on the Tiahrt Amendment, this section from Solzhenitsyn really hits where it hurts:
“Because instant and credible information has to be given, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be rectified, they will stay on in the readers’ memory. How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, without any verification. The press can both simulate public opinion and miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters, pertaining to one’s nation’s defense, publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion on the privacy of well-known people under the slogan: “everyone is entitled to know everything.” But this is a false slogan, characteristic of a false era: people also have the right not to know, and it is a much more valuable one. The right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information.
Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas.
Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the communist East a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has granted Western journalists their power, for how long a time and with what prerogatives?”
It should be pointed out that “Regular” is on the government dole.
“Pretend like I know you and we are friends for once instead of being one of the typical liberal posters here.”
Yes, I consider you a friend, Nathan…but we disagree on these issues. I just think there needs to be more accountability for the flood of guns and gun violence in our country. What do law abiding citizens have to fear of gun registration? Do you REALLY think your guns will be confiscated at some point? I don’t think so. If someone (criminal) is caught with a gun that’s not registered or registered to someone else, then it should be automatic jail time. There is so much gun violence in this country, we need to start somewhere.
Each year in America, over 30,000 people are killed or kill themselves with guns, almost 80,000 are injured, and over 360,000 violent gun related crimes are committed.
We need to start somewhere…we have the highest incidence of gun related deaths, injuries, and crimes than any other country in the induistrialized world. We just can’t continue to pretend a problem doesn’t exist.
And there is no evidence that everyone toting a gun decreases crime, if it did, police organizations would be in favor of it. The ones who are on the front lines and deal with gun violnece day after day are the real experts, not the NRA and those who keep guns as a hobby.
And why is it neccessary to point that out BJ? Clean up your own backyard before you go judging anyone else.
#
BlueJay
Posted August 11, 2008 at 1:07 am | Permalink
It should be pointed out that “Regular” is on the government dole.
——————
Again Junior, it’s called Military Retirement. It means I worked more than two decades to earn it. It is mandated by Congress as compensation for career military personnel.
I pay taxes, both State and Federal. I also pay property taxes, local taxes and all the other taxes. I’m not exempt from anything.
Of course, the only reason you say I’m on the “dole” is because you have never done anything to earn anything.
You’re too busy blaming everybody else.
Mary – just for you. I suppose you can use Google as well as I, but you don’t want information, you simply want to wallow in your own ignorance.
Police organizations who oppose lifting the Tiahrt amendment? How ’bout the Fraternal Order of Police; ya know, the people who represent cops, and not the police chiefs=politicians?
http://www.grandlodgefop.org/servlet/display/news_article?id=441&XSL=xsl_pages%2Fpublic_news_individual.xsl&nocache=11941152
Key quote:
The campaign to repeal the “Tiahrt amendment” has enlisted police chiefs and organizations which represent them and used them to claim that the prohibitions on the use of the firearms trace data is hampering local and State efforts to combat illegal firearms and several have gone so far as to say that ATF refuses to share the firearms trace data with law enforcement agencies pursuing a criminal investigation. Neither of these claims are true, but chiefs have little choice but to support the political position of their mayors at whose pleasure they serve.
If registering guns does not serve a crime prevention purpose (and it doesn’t) and restricting “assault weapons” – i.e. “scaaawy” black rifles” – doesn’t make the streets safer (and it doesn’t), then what is the purpose for these restrictions? Show me a purpose for lifting the Tiahrt amendment, and these further “reasonable” restrictions, which actually serves such purposes.
You can’t. So what IS the purpose? Hmmmm? When it comes to government restrictions, especially on an item specifically enumerated as a constitutional right, a little paranoia is a very healthy thing.
Wanna treat gun licensing like cars? Great. Carry permits will be recognized nationwide. Carry permit holders will have a property interest in their carry permit, which attaches a due process right; it may not be revoked without a hearing and opportunity to be heard, and is appealable. A carry permit will be recognized everywhere, including Canada and Mexico. And of course, if I never take the gun off my property, I need no carry permit, nor any other permit, at all. And citizens would be permitted to buy as many guns as they like (as we do cars), and shoot as fast as they like (I don’t see any speed restrictions on the capabilities of cars – driving 140+mph on public streets is another matter, of course).
Cop wanna pull over a car? You must have cause to do so. Asking for a DL is a detention which must be supported by at least “reasonable suspicion” (see Terry v. Ohio); the same would be true for asking for a gun registration card.
This isn’t a new idea, of course; check this out, from 1999:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/31170.html
A sample:
Actually, if Gore follows through on his promise to treat guns like cars, he will oversee the most massive decontrol of firearms in America since 1868, when the 14th Amendment abolished the Southern states’ Black Codes, which prevented freedmen from owning guns. Although anti-gun lobbyists who use the car analogy are pushing for additional controls, laws that really did treat guns like cars would be much less restrictive, on the whole, than what we have now.
And there is this little “inconvenient truth:”
Faced with the prospect of really treating guns like cars, gun prohibitionists tend to change their minds. They begin arguing that there are important differences in dangerousness between guns and cars. This is true. Cars are much more dangerous.
The Independence Institute’s Robert Racansky points out that in 1994 (the last year for which data are available), there were 32 auto deaths for every 100,000 autos in the United States. The same year, there were 16 firearm deaths for every 100,000 firearms in the United States. Put another way, in any given year, the average car is twice as likely as the average gun to cause a death.
And more than 95 percent of gun deaths are intentional (suicide or homicide), while most auto deaths are accidents. This shows how dangerous cars really are: They are twice as likely to kill as guns are, even though the killer behind the wheel does not intend to take a life. Plus, most people who die from guns are suicides who choose to die, but almost none of the people who die in car crashes choose to die.
So . . . . Wanna treat gun laws like we do cars? Be careful what you wish for.
And there is no evidence that everyone toting a gun decreases crime, if it did, police organizations would be in favor of it. The ones who are on the front lines and deal with gun violnece day after day are the real experts, not the NRA and those who keep guns as a hobby.
Actually, Mary, there’s evidence of both, if you are really interested in learning anything (though NO ONE has proposed “everyone toting a gun”). At worst, CCW laws are a wash on crime, at best, person crimes tend to go down. More important, there is the fact that police have no ability to protect any particular individual in the seconds when it matters (”when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”); moreover, police have no legal duty to do so.
As to the second part (the “real experts”), go talk to the cops. Not the police chiefs, who are beholden to the politicians (or worse, ARE politicians), but to the cops themselves. Overwhelmingly, they support legal CCW.
To get back to the start of this thread, however, what is undeniable is that the thread is premised on a lie. The amendment does NOT limit law enforcement access to trace data. Why the Eagle continues to be complicit in this lie is beyond me – aside from Brownlee’s obvious agenda.
Good job Max.
It is so obvious that the Editors have a bias against guns on so many levels.
They did the same thing and continue to do the same thing with concealed carry in this state.
Remember when it was almost a year after the fact how they started talking about how guns were in church? *GASP*
It makes you wish that they would actually come here and engage us in an actual debate.
Mary,
I agree, sort of. We have a problem with VIOLENCE in this country. VIOLENCE.
All the gun control measures you support do NOTHING to stop or significantly reduce the statistics you love to quote.
So why do you support them?
We need to address the real problems here, not the tool used.
When you realize this, we might actually be able to do something to change those awful statistics.
Wow.
Some college professor should come here to find ridiculous examples of logical fallacies:
The Independence Institute’s Robert Racansky points out that in 1994 (the last year for which data are available), there were 32 auto deaths for every 100,000 autos in the United States. The same year, there were 16 firearm deaths for every 100,000 firearms in the United States. Put another way, in any given year, the average car is twice as likely as the average gun to cause a death.
Riiiggght.
And how many hours are logged using a car versus how many hours using a gun?
Talk about a non sequitor!
Tiahrt’s bill “limits local and state law enforcement access to crime gun trace data.”
CONs say, the federal government can monitor my phone and e-mail, because I have nothing to hide. They can throw people into jail without charge and torture them for information, because we need to be protected from terrorism.
But by God, they have no right to ask me if my gun was used in a crime!
When you flood a violent society with guns, the numbers is what you get. That’s just a fact.
You may think I’m ignorant, but you refuse to even acknowledge the statistics. We have the most gun violence of ANY industrialized country. Easy access to guns is the reason why. There is no police organization that supports CC laws. The more guns, the more gun violence.
Capn
You are a liar.
It has been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that criminal investigations are not the least bit limited by the Tiahrt Amendment.
If you want to violate privacy and build bogus cases against gun manufacturers and dealers for civl lawsuits, just to make money off of the issue, in court?
Well, yes, the Tiahrt Amendment will get in your way.
Criminals will break the law.
Therefore, laws will not get in the way of criminals.
Criminals are not worried about laws against murder, or assault with a deadly weapon.
Why on Earth would a criminal be worried about laws against guns?
By the way, firearms are not that difficult to make, on your own. Just saw an MSNBC show where someone made a gadget out of PVC pipe capable of firing a shot gun shell.
Yes, it is illegal, especially in prison, but AGAIN:
CRIMINALS VIOLATE THE LAW!
THIS IS WHAT CRIMINAL DO!!!
Thanks Nathan.
Not difficult to document the bias of the Whichita Eagle and BrownLib who support Banning Guns.
That’s why they like Obama, other than the fact that Obama will bring more Socialism that is.
Oh, and pssst….Obama is Black. Shhhhh….don’t tell anyone, you are NOT to mention it, but Obama is Black, and the Libs want to prove they are enlightened now, and not a bunch of racists. (Like Jessie Jackson, you know.)
“Franklin” gives us this logic –
“Criminals will break the law.
Therefore, laws will not get in the way of criminals.”
So let’s repeal all laws.
That’ll take care of everything.
Mary,
We have the most violence and it is not because of guns.
If more guns caused more gun crime then there would be a statistical comparison of increasing numbers of guns = increase in crime.
Every year we have more guns and more gun owners in this country and the gun crime is not going up.
Over the past 20 years almost every state in the country has come to allow concealed carry now.
Gun violence is not going up.
The statistics do not support what you claim. You ahve yet to even attempt to prove otherwise. You simply assert it as truth when it is not.
“And why is it neccessary to point that out BJ? Clean up your own backyard before you go judging anyone else.”
I invite you to do the same.
“The statistics do not support what you claim. You ahve yet to even attempt to prove otherwise. You simply assert it as truth when it is not.”
Nathaniel, Nathaniel, NATHANIEL,
Mary doesn’t care about statistics or fact, only about what her feelings are.
Please don’t confuse an argument with statistical fact…it has no place in a discussion with Mary about guns.
The country is already flooded with guns, in areas where there are more, gun crimes, deaths are higher.
You can deny and twist the facts all you want, but my numbers are accurate.
What do you think would happen if everyone in Europe and Japan owned a gun? The very same thing, because human nature is what it is. Have you ever watched the fans at an English football game? Give them guns and watch what happens. They wouldn’t behave any different than Americans.
You can deny and twist the facts all you want, but my numbers are accurate.
No, Mary, they’re not. Ask the CDC.
Mary,
Then show us the facts! You simply came back and said the same thing again. You have NEVER proved it. You NEVER do.
In areas where there are the most gun restrictions we have the most violence. Not the other way around.
If guns are the cause of violence then why did Washington DC continue to have the highest murder rates in the nation when they had some of the most restrictive laws on guns?
Human nature doesn’t change with a gun. I have been going to the gun range for some time now and the people there with guns are more polite and nice.
When you went to the range did you turn into some violent person when you were given a gun to shoot?
Of course not.
What you are saying here is absurd. You have no facts to back it up.
I liked this text, brilliant work!