ATF sought to downplay guns scandal, emails show

reply to post by stirling


Note: Stirling. I'm using your post as a springboard, and it is not directed personally at you. Thank you, in advance, for your patience and understanding. Any references to "you" or "your" are purely contextual and not directed personally at you.

When gun ownership goes up, so do deaths. I'm not sure how you perceive the deaths of your fellow countrymen, but the US is among the highest in the 'death by gun' countries. Sure, you can use the argument of 'responsible gun owners' and cite criminal activity, even 'Darwinism', but it's guns - ultimately - that took your fellow countrymen's lives. When you don't have gun access - such as in Japan (for reference only) - you don't have that many killings via guns. There's your statistics in action. Your countrymen are being killed, and all you do is whine about the right to carry a firearm. Altruism?

I'm all for freedoms, and 'rights', but when gun ownership is up (both legal and illegal - it's all to do with accessibility), so are gun related deaths. You may be a very responsible gun owner, and have an impeccable record (for which I salute you), but for every one of you, there's an idiot with a gun. Those are the people I'm afraid of. Should I arm myself? Is this an arms race? Where you there for the cold-war? Or should I, as a member of the US community expect a shorter life span because there are so many guns?

I just see that families are destroyed by guns (Okay, "Guns don't kill people...." - it's the bullets!!! Perhaps we should ban bullets...that wouldn't be unconstitutional!), and accessibility is the reason for the deaths. It's your right to carry a firearm (a muzzle loading, matchlock, single shot musket...), but that right is also given to Mr. Idiot who also carries some deeply disturbed psychological issues. He can carry a gun too...Not according to the restrictions in place, but surely they NEVER get broken.

Well armed militia? Wouldn't that be the national guard (F-16s and A-10s being the embodiment of "well armed")? Where are they? Overseas....of course. Protecting your freedom to carry an AR-15 by dropping bombs on children in mud buildings for strategic oil purposes (BTW: I'm all for 'home protection' but if you can't do it with a revolver, a semi-automatic rifle isn't going to solve your problem!). Anyway, what's the point of a well armed militia if it's never used for the purpose for which it's intended?...Is the national guard overseas in keeping with the constitution? Never thought about that? Too busy watching PSAs from the NRA?

Gun ownership carries a huge responsibility. You are a gun owner because you value your rights. I'm scared because your rights have armed Mr. Idiot. What are you doing about him? [Remember, this isn't aimed at you as a person, but rather the gun owner in general] Nothing? You're all right, Jack? Every man for himself?
Meet you at the saloon for some rye... Wild west, here we come. Please read 'history' for how the wild west was not such a 'good thing.'

When guns are prevalent in a society, the number of gun related deaths increases. That's a simple logic, and statistic.

As I said, Mr. Idiot is the problem, and it's your pushing of the right to carry a firearm that arms him. You don't want government control, but you'd like to see some restrictions on "him", right? Or is it that you're armed, so Mr. Idiot isn't YOUR problem. Thanks for being so civic minded and giving a crap about anyone else.../sarcasm. Enjoy your bunker in Montana, and your stash of pork'n'beans. That's not being a patriot, that's being a selfish coward. Patriotism is a love of county, and the people therein. If you're not giving a cr@p about them, you're not patriotic.

When your countrymen die because of Mr. Idiot and his ilk, it's your vehement citing of 'rights' that were involved in their deaths. The person carrying the gun that killed them had a 'right' to carry a firearm too.

I'm all for the 'right' to own a pet tiger. Just don't come crying to me when my tiger suddenly kills your son or daughter. It was my "RIGHT" to own the tiger. Tigers don't kill people, irresponsible tiger owners do. Shame no responsible tiger owners care about the irresponsible ones.

Guns are designed to do one thing, kill other living things. Don't act surprised when people die due to guns. After all it was the right of the person pulling the trigger to own a firearm.

My point is, be responsible. That means restricting the availability of guns in all possible ways. If that means you need more screening, that's fine. If that means, ultimately, that we rid society of firearms, I'll be happy with that. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (not actual attainment of happiness, though). Well, my life and my pursuit of happiness are hindered - or have the potential to be so - by Mr. Idiot with a gun.

Again, not a personal attack. Just trying to show that statistics can be bent any way you like, but ultimately people end up on a slab with a gun shot wound. No guns = much fewer deaths.
I will re-state my support of your rights. I would also restate my support of common sense, community spirit, and hatred of violence in all forms.

reply to post by Badgered1

When gun ownership goes up, so do deaths.

I'm going to ask you a real simple question. If what you say is true why is America at a 20 year low in the murder rate? Over the last twenty years access to guns and the ability to carry them in public has become common in most states. Yet our murder rate and violent crime rate is lower than in 1991.

I'm not saying guns caused the drop. I am saying at the very least we see increased access to guns has not increased the murder rate.

but the US is among the highest in the 'death by gun' countries.

Actually per capita we are not even in the top 50 for murders. If you look at all countries by the most recently released numbers America is number 89 for murder in the world. Yes Japan is much more peaceful than we are. They have a much higher suicide rate though. So, they aren't killing each other just their selves.

I'm all for freedoms, and 'rights', but when gun ownership is up (both legal and illegal - it's all to do with accessibility), so are gun related deaths.

Please go read the FBI Unified Crime Report. You really are way off base. You can also look at statistics from the CDC. Fewer Americans die from gun related violence now than during the Clinton or Reagan years.

Or should I, as a member of the US community expect a shorter life span because there are so many guns?

No you should expect a shorter life span because you work more hours for less compensation. So you have less time to take care of yourself and relax.

Not according to the restrictions in place, but surely they NEVER get broken.

What would stop somebody from getting a gun if there was a restriction that says no guns period?

How well did alcohol prohibition or drug prohibition work? It created multi million and multi billion dollar black market economies. It fostered coruption and violence. The worst civilian crimes in the world have been carried out to make a few more dollars in the black market. Do you think gun prohibition would work any better?

(BTW: I'm all for 'home protection' but if you can't do it with a revolver, a semi-automatic rifle isn't going to solve your problem!).

I'm glad you know how many people will break in to a person't home and homw determined they will be to fight. Can I use your psychic powers to predict the lottery? Read up on wound ballistics and then get back to me when you actually have knowledge of how guns work.

Meet you at the saloon for some rye... Wild west, here we come. Please read 'history' for how the wild west was not such a 'good thing.'

The Wild West of Myth And Reality

So, was there violence in the mountains, plains, and frontier towns of the old west? Absolutely. Yet, as with any wilderness, a man was just as likely, if not more likely, to die from thirst, starvation, drowning, freezing, snakebite, falling off a mountain, falling off his horse, being attacked by animals, or any one of a hundred other things. Most of the settlers moving west, whether they were farmers, cowboys, miners, or some other profession, were honest and hardworking. Just as today, outlaws existed, yet in most places and for most people, violent crime was not the daily norm that popular entertainment would have us believe. As unromantic as it may be, relatively few people in the Wild West were involved in the gunfights and stagecoach robberies immortalized in the movies.

Unpopular Truth Myths of The Old West

In the real Dodge City of history, there were five killings in 1878, the most homicidal year in the little town's frontier history. In the most violent year in Deadwood, South Dakota, only four people were killed. In the worst year in Tombstone, home of the shoot-out at the OK Corral, only five people were killed. The only reason the OK Corral shoot-out even became famous was that town boosters deliberately overplayed the drama to attract new settlers. They cashed in on the tourist boom by inventing a myth.

Please read some history to find out that the real Wild West was mostly invented by publishing companies and yellow journalist. Stories of "Wild West" adventure sold nearly as fast as publishers could print them. So, the "reporters" would invent things out of whole cloth to sell a story. Novels were written and published as true accounts despite the fact that the only real thing was the names of the towns.

Most of the old west "history" that people think they know is a mythology. It is something used for entertainment and propaganda.

When guns are prevalent in a society, the number of gun related deaths increases. That's a simple logic, and statistic.

Please show this statistic or quit saying it exists. I can pull the FBI's UCR and show you that violence and gun related murder is down.

In 1980 the murder rate per capita was 10.2. In 2009 it was 5.0. The murder rate in America has been cut in half. Just go use the UCR Data Tool to look it up for yourself. So, how has access to guns made America a more deadly place to live?

Tigers don't kill people, irresponsible tiger owners do. Shame no responsible tiger owners care about the irresponsible ones.

Actually tigers do kill people. They are by nature sentinent wild predators. They have an inborn reflex to hunt and kill for their food. The have a brain and a central nervous system that tells them when they are hungry and how to fix the problem. They hunt smaller animals for survival.

Guns have no bain or central nervous system. They are a machines that require input from a human to perform any action. There is no logic in comparing the two. A gun can not chose to kill. A tiger by it's very nature is a predatory killer.

No guns = much fewer deaths.

In 2010 NYC reported that they had seen a decrease in illegal guns on the streets. They also saw a drop in "gun deaths." What was less publicized is that the murder rate still went up. About 80% of the drop in "gun deaths" was offset by "knife deaths." People started stabbing and hacking other people to death. The other 20% of the drop was erased by more inventive killers. The criminals actually got inventive enough to raise the murder rate yet again in NYC.

Please stop ranting and bring some evidence to the table. I didn't provide a link for everything because I've got to get in the bed. I have work tonight. I think you can tell though that I come prepared to back up my claims. How about you do the same.


If you are scared of guns, you are scared of guns. Don't try to hide it behind false intellectualism.


ETA:
I had a question stewing in my brain I just had to ask. If prohibition of a thing or an action works why are people killed every day? Every state in the country has a law against murder. It hasn't eliminated murder. How would prohibiting guns make them disappear? Why should somebody be denied their right to self defense or to own property if they have not harmed anyone?

There are prohibitions against going over the speed limit. Should we prohibit cars since a high percentage of drivers violate that prohibition. Speed multiplies the probability of death in a collision. Plus drivers ignore the prohibition against driving inder the influence every day. It is estimated that 12.5% of all the drivers on the road during the day are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Should we ban cars because those idiots maim and kill people?

I better stop before I keep rolling and stay up way to long.

Sorry but I believe in individual rights and not collective rights.

washingtonceasefire.org...

Statistics can be funny ol' things. You cite one set, I cite another. Pro-gun associations will skew the statistics their way, and perhaps the anti-gun associations will do the same. Question: Are people dead due to guns?
So murders have gone down since 1999, according to your data. How about accidental deaths? Surely little Johnny can't accidentally shoot little Jimmy if granddad doesn't have an unlocked case with a loaded automatic in there.

I'm not scared of guns, I'm scared of people with guns. Unfortunately most gun owners seem to carry a chip as well as a clip. Your post seems to do little to swerve my feelings there.

I'm glad you didn't bother to treat my post by context, and chose instead to go for out of context quotes. It made for excellent reading.

As for my point about tigers. It was an analogy. Maybe poorly presented, but it certainly wasn't an invitation for a biology lesson on large predators! Again, this is all to do with context. I know all about tigers, thank you. Your information will be filed away as additional.

Similarly, the point on ballistic wounds. You may have missed the point there. My issue is that if you need 800 rounds per minute to stop someone, you possibly aren't very good at using a firearm and rate of fire is the last thing you need. Right tool for the job, right? One well placed bullet is likely to do more stopping than sixty badly placed ones.

reply to post by Badgered1

Statistics can be funny ol' things. You cite one set, I cite another. Pro-gun associations will skew the statistics their way, and perhaps the anti-gun associations will do the same.

You never posted any statistics. You made generalized claims and stated them as fact. I responded with FBI statistics and sourced information. So, I cited statistics and information. You ranted. There is a difference, but we will move on.

Your little writing trick was subtle and clever. You say pro gun groups will skew statistics and lie. Then you say anti-gun groups "perhaps" will. That implies that they may at some point but it isn't likely. In other words you are poisoning the well by calling in to question the honesty of gun owners.

When a person fails to bring actual information and keeps committing argumenative fallicies it is a sign of a weak argument.

Question: Are people dead due to guns?

Actually some of them are dead due to guns. There are a lot of criminals that were laid to rest because honest citizens had a gun for defensive purposes.

Let me ask you a question. Why are you avoiding all of my questions?

So murders have gone down since 1999, according to your data.

No your statement is wrong. According to the FBI Unified Crime Report data that I posted murders have dropped by over 50% since 1980.

How about accidental deaths?

According to the CDC there were 150 children between birth and 17 killed in firearms accidents in 2000. The number for 2007 was 112. Total accidental gun deaths in 2000 was 776. In 2007 it was 613.

Accidental deaths and murder have both been dropping despite increased gun ownership and the right to carry concealed handguns being recognized in 49 states.

Surely little Johnny can't accidentally shoot little Jimmy if granddad doesn't have an unlocked case with a loaded automatic in there.

Wow, really you did not just pull that one out. An appeal to emotion by bringing the kids in to this. Simply put a kid is over 800% more likely to die by drowning than an accidental gun shot. A kid is nearly 500% more likely to die because of a fire or burn than an accidental gun shot. More kids were actually killed in bike riding accidents than by accidental gun shots. A little research goes a long way torwards proving that your scenario is highly unlikely from the begining.

Considerring there are only 120,000 privately owned automatic weapons in America the chance that grandpa owns one is slim. The chance that he would leave it in an unlocked case is even slimmer. With the cost of automatic weapons starting around $6,000 (before the required paper work and tax stamp) most peole keep them in a locked safe. You don't want that kind of investment walking away.

Your scenario has such a slim chance of occuring it is satistically insignificant.

I'm not scared of guns, I'm scared of people with guns. Unfortunately most gun owners seem to carry a chip as well as a clip. Your post seems to do little to swerve my feelings there.

So you want to deny other people their individual right to self defense because of your fear? You want the estimated 550 women that prevent sexual assault with a gun each day to lose that ability because of your fear? What about their fear? What about their permenant mental damage?

I don't have a chip on my shoulder. I just addressed errors in your rant by asking for your evidence and presenting my own. That is known as having an honest debate. If you want to make wild claims and advocate taking away freedoms from honest people, be ready for a debate.

I'm glad you didn't bother to treat my post by context, and chose instead to go for out of context quotes. It made for excellent reading.

I simply addressed the errors that you based your argument on. I didn't have time to do a line by line rebuttal. I think we all got the general context though. Because a hand full of people are "idiots" 80 million people should be denied their rights. That was the basic context. You were asking why gun owners don't agree with you. So, I addressed the errors in the base of your argument. I thought you would understand that those are my reasons for not agreeing with you.

As for my point about tigers. It was an analogy. Maybe poorly presented, but it certainly wasn't an invitation for a biology lesson on large predators! Again, this is all to do with context.

No it has nothing to do with a bad analogy or context. It was a false analogy and an anthropomorphic analogy. Both are informal fallacies of argument that fail to support the conclusion with their premise. In other words you were trying to support a conclusion which was shakey at best.

Similarly, the point on ballistic wounds. You may have missed the point there. My issue is that if you need 800 rounds per minute to stop someone, you possibly aren't very good at using a firearm and rate of fire is the last thing you need.

You said a semi-automatic rifle in the first post. So, which post used the incorrect wording the first one or the second one? Were you refering to automatics and using the wrong terminology or did you just make a mistake?

I have not met anyone that can fire a semi-auto rifle at 800 rounds per minute. The people with weapons that do 800 rounds per minute are usually collectors. The vast majority of automatic weapons sit locked in pretty display cases and vaults.

Again, out of 80 million gun owners there are only 120,000 legally owned automatic weapons. The gun owners that own them usually own multiples. So, there are far fewer than 120,000 gun owners that own automatic weapons. According to most reports there have been two homicides with legally owned automatics since 1934. (Dilinger and his type usually stole their automatic weapons from the national guard or police.) In short the chances of a legally owned automatic being used for home defense or murder are statistically insignificant. Nobody is spraying 800 rounds per minute at home invaders.

Right tool for the job, right? One well placed bullet is likely to do more stopping than sixty badly placed ones.

One well placed bullet is all that is needed. Now you try hitting that bullseye when you just woke up from a dead sleep, your heart rate has increased to 160 beats per minute, and you are experiencing an adrenalin dump. Will it take sixty rounds? You never know what it will take.

I work for a police department and get to see a lot of reports the public doesn't. This little anecdotal story comes from one of those reports.

I recently read a report about a home invasion. The man was asleep in his bed when three men kicked in his front door. By the time he heard the sound, woke up and got his gun they were in the bed room with him. He shot bad guy number one three times with a handgun. Two bullets ripped open the guys stomach and the third hit his heart. Bad guy number two continued advancing and caught two bullets one in the throat and one through the skull. The first two guys died quickly.

The third intruder beat the man in to a coma. His five shot revolver was completely empty when the third guy got to him. So, guy number three shot the man twice. His gun failed. When his gun failed he decided to use it as a club. Now the thirty-four year old home owner spends his days fighting for his life because he couldn't get it done with a revolver. His shooting was impeccable given the circumstances. He just didn't have enough ammo to keep going.

Some questions based on real world defensive uses. Do you think someone has the time to aim if they are involved in a hands on confrontation? Say a woman is trying to fight off a rapist while drawing and firing her weapon. A man finds himself being attacked by multiple people and is fighting just to stay on his feet. When will they have time to aim for that surgical accuracy?

Sorry for all gramar, spelling, and punctuation errors. I wrote this after a 13 hour shift and I am dead tired.