Barf Alert - Why Are All Those People Applying to Buy Guns?

Oatka

New member
New Math at work - "8.6 million Americans" are considered a minority.

Lots to choose from - take Maalox first.


http://www.newsday.com/coverage/current/editorial/thursday/nd7892.htm

Why Are All Those People Applying to Buy Guns?

Marie Cocco.

GUNS AND good news. They do not often mix.

The Justice Department reported the other day that Brady Law background checks stopped 204,000 people from getting guns last year -people who should not be in posession of weapons. They are felons and people under felony indictment. They are people who have histories of domestic violence. And some people with histories of mental illness in states that keep good records about such things.

This is the good news about guns. Since the Brady Law went into effect in 1994, about half a million people who shouldn't have guns were stopped from buying them. Buying them legally and from a licensed dealer, anyway.

And here is the rest of the news: There were 8.6 million Americans who applied to purchase firearms last year, more than double the number who sought to buy guns in 1998.

No matter how you look at this, good or bad, it is a lot of guns. And a lot of people who think they want guns, or need guns. Or maybe a lot of people who just wanted to upgrade to a shinier, spiffier model the way some folks upgrade to faster and faster modems for the computer they actually use mostly for games and for e-mail.

Usually, when a government statistic doubles in one year, someone takes note of it. But no one has really noted the astonishing burst in the number of people who applied to buy guns. The attention, when the report came out, was on the Brady Law and whether it works.

Part of the upsurge, the Justice Department said, resulted because background checks now are required on the transfer of long guns (rifles to those unfamiliar with gun chat) and pawn shops were added to the roster of establishments required to conduct the checks. This is what is known as a statistical glitch.

It explains part of the reason why the number of Americans applying to buy guns legally more than doubled in just one year - a year, by the way, in which crime continued to drop pretty much everywhere. It doesn't explain December.

Last December, gun applications surged to about 1.2 million, capping an upward monthly trend that began in August. Perhaps it was the prediction of apocalypse.

Tom Diaz, a longtime critic of the gun industry and author of the book "Making a Killing," said the gun culture - the interlocking network of gun manufacturers, gun groups and gun publications - pushed the idea in 1999 that you'd better be locked and loaded for 2000.

"Nineteen ninety-nine was the famous Y2K panic," Diaz said in an interview.

We are, though, still here. Still enjoying low crime rates and living pretty much as we were before. Plenty of water. No planes falling. No dark forces threatening the communal well-being.

And what we are left with, besides the bottled water and the cans of tuna that have been eaten or donated already, is the guns. Where are they? Added to the stockpile of 200 million or so guns that are privately owned.

Waiting to be transferred to other owners, perhaps as gifts. Or sold at a weekend gun show where it will not be necessary for an unlicensed dealer to obtain from the buyer an application, or to conduct a criminal background check.Waiting, maybe, to be stolen from an unlocked basement cabinet or a dresser drawer by a teenager with a grudge against a teacher or a classmate.

You can control guns all you want, and still there will be this vast arsenal in the hands of a minority of American adults, some very responsible.

And some very irresponsible.Still there will be this mystery of why 8.6 million Americans went out to buy guns last year and how we came to have a society in which almost no one found that remarkable.

Copyright © Newsday, Inc.

-- 30 --

You can reach Mary at: cocco@newsday.com

You can cc the Publisher, President and CEO at: rjansen@newsday.com


------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.

[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited June 16, 2000).]
 
Why are more people buying guns? Maybe they plan to take a stroll through Central Park in New York. Oh, I forgot, you can't have a gun there, it might violate the civil rights of the guy ripping your daughter's dress off.
 
My letter to "cocco"

Although I find you commentary to be beneath you writing skills, I believe the primary reason for the upsurge in gun ownership is because we, law abiding, freedom loving people know that socialists such as yourself who approach life's difficulties with emotion and eschew logic and the hard way for the feel good approach are proposing the elimination of the Bill of Rights.

What you media people fail to realize is that once we start down that slippery path, the Freedom of the Press nuisance (I say nuisance because you use this right irresponsibly) will be the second to go. If you are against guns in ideology, there are many who are not, you should be for the freedoms that this country stands for. I as a gun owner do acknowledge that there is a greater need for gun owner responsibility, but rather than us spending all of our energy teaching and promoting, we spend a great deal of energy fighting knee jerk reactors who want to burn the 2nd amendment.

I care about children; I care about life. Columbine would still have happened, what do we do outlaw pipes, propane tanks and youth violence. Is posting the Ten Commandments going to breed morality or is it just an attempt to make adults who refuse to listen to what society's problems really are, feel better.

I think that your journalistic talents could be spent reporting news and doing a collective good, rather than trying to sway opinions through misinterpretation and out of context remarks about society. The reason why society does not care about 8,000,000 guns is because we are subjected to guns all of the time. I can see "Natural Born Killers" on network TV, but show me breasts? No way. The media's selective morality is the root of our twisted morals.

Regards,

Dan Huben

_______________________________________________________________________
Daniel J. Huben, P.E., MSEng
Sr. Engineer
Colorado Interstate Gas Co.
POB 1087 Colorado Springs, CO 80944


[This message has been edited by hube1236 (edited June 16, 2000).]
 
Dan,

Your letter's tone was unnecessarily antagonistic. Nowhere did she suggest that the guns were un-needed, just why no one even noticed. I look it as perhaps even a pro-gun article

------------------
There are two types of men: those with guns, and those at their mercy.
 
Here's my email to Marie CoccO:

Dear Ms. Cocco:

As a long-time Long Islander currently living in the Midwest, I still read
Newsday every chance I get. As a result, I had the opportunity to read your
article entitled "Why Are All Those People Applying to Buy Guns?". As a
licensed gun owner, my curiosity was piqued.

By and large, your information appears to be accurate and your conclusions
well-thought out. However, I have one bone to pick with you re the following
paragraph (you're discussing where all these guns are):

"Waiting to be transferred to other owners, perhaps as gifts. Or sold at a
weekend gun show where it will not be necessary for an unlicensed dealer to
obtain from the buyer an application, or to conduct a criminal background
check.Waiting, maybe, to be stolen from an unlocked basement cabinet or a
dresser drawer by a teenager with a grudge against a teacher or a classmate.
"

In reality, the great majority (well over 99%) of legally purchased weapons
are not stolen, are not used by teenagers with a grudge and are not used for
the nefarious purposes to which your article alludes. Actually, firearms are
collected by average, normal folks who enjoy the mechanics of shooting, who
appreciate the quality of engineering found in firearms and often collect
these weapons for historical purposes. However, the most important
statistic, which you omitted, is one relative to self-defense.

In 1-2 million occurrences per year, legally owned firearms, used by legally
entitled citizens in asserting their second amendment rights, are employed
in the prevention of crime. In fact, the occurrences of legally entitled
owners using their firearms illegally is so small as to be statistically
negligible.

Please understand that I am not disputing the need to keep firearms out of
the hands of violent felons nor am I arguing that all gun laws should be
erased from the books. All I ask is some fairness.

Thanks for listening,

Jeffrey B. XXXXXXXX
 
Okay, so crime was dropping and people bought a whole bunch of guns. And they still have them and crime keeps dropping. You'd think that in the time it takes to write the article and edit it, that a little light might come on somewhere.
 
It's a strange article. I'm still not sure whether she is pro or anti in her message and I think as Mikul said, it could be read either way. There are elements of both sides in the article but I'll admit I assumed it was anti the first time I read through it. This paragraph caught my attention though:

"We are, though, still here. Still enjoying low crime rates and living pretty much as we were before. Plenty of water. No planes falling. No dark forces threatening the communal well-being. "

I guess her point is just her last line:

"Still there will be this mystery of why 8.6 million Americans went out to buy guns last year and how we came to have a society in which almost no one found that remarkable."

My response to her point is, "who cares?"
 
Mikul, gnl - no problem in divining her intent, to these biased eyes. ;)

This is in line with my approach of attacking their professionalism. The CEO was cc'd.

I apologize for the length, but I was on a roll.

Dear Ms. Cocco:

Some weeks back, editors throughout the Union gathered and expressed considerable angst over the public's distrust of the Fourth Estate.

Once regarded as watchdogs over the government, the media are now looked upon as their intellectual whores. The epithet
"presstitute" has been appled to reporters (in name only) who sold out their profession.

Your article is a prime example. It has been posted on the Internet under the titles of "Agitprop 101" and "Newsday: This month's nominee for the Josef Goebbels Excellence in Propaganda Award". I suspect this is not quite the legacy Newsday is looking for.

Anti-gun statistics routinely repeated; quotes, apparently accepted on blind faith, by known anti-gun hacks, etc. Whatever happened to investigative journalism?

If the above seems too harsh, let me explain.

"GUNS AND good news. They do not often mix."
i.e. Guns are most always bad news. In a way that's true for I have never seen any articles in Newsday where a gun saved lives by driving off or destroying those feral humans preying on law-abiding citizens.

"The Justice Department reported the other day that Brady Law background checks stopped 204,000 people from getting guns last year . . ."
This is vintage Clintonism. No mention that the majority of those people were initially denied because of incomplete records (arrested but not convicted) or the application was simply not completed within the time limit and had to be re-filed. The flip side of this bogus number is that since it is a felony to apply for a gun if you have a record, the question arises as to how many were actually prosecuted? The latest number is 19.

"Since the Brady Law went into effect in 1994, about half a million people who shouldn't have guns were stopped from buying them. Buying them legally and from a licensed dealer, anyway."
Reinforcing the above lie. The last sentence is classic innuendo. A suble swipe at the bogus "gunshow loophole" as well as inferring that legal private sales between individuals is somehow evil. The only loophole is from a confiscation standpoint. How can all guns be seized if their owners/whereabouts are unknown?

"Or maybe a lot of people who just wanted to upgrade to a shinier, spiffier model . . . ".
Or maybe a lot of people saw the media-generated hysteria over Columbine, accompanied by the anti-gun people's cynical blood dance and decided they better get a gun while they could. An interesting sidebar is that during the Columbine media frenzy, John (I'm MUCH better now) Hinckley, who crippled Mr. Brady so grievously, was paroled to a halfway house. Sarah Brady was too busy denouncing the NRA to comment on this outrage.

"Tom Diaz, a longtime critic of the gun industry . . . said the gun culture . . . pushed the idea in 1999 that you'd better be locked and loaded for 2000."
Please name the publications instead of blindly quoting a known anti. What I saw was another media blitz on power outages, food shortages, ad nauseum. Only the improvident would not take steps to insure their survival under those conditions.

"Nineteen ninety-nine was the famous Y2K panic," Diaz said in an interview.
We are, though, still here. Still enjoying low crime rates . . ."
How can this be? Gun ownership up a horrendous amount, by your calculations, and yet crime is down. Maybe it's not all those law-abiding citizens owning guns, maybe, just maybe, it's Project Exile type law enforcement getting the violent criminals locked up. The simile of the Body of Society eliminating it's cancerous cells applies here.

"Where are they? [guns] Added to the stockpile of 200 million or so guns that are privately owned."
So, if the crime rate is dropping, what is the concern? Their location is only a problem to the Statist.

"Waiting to be transferred to other owners, perhaps as gifts."
Insinuation again. This is perfectly legal. See above statement.

"Or sold at a weekend gun show where it will not be necessary for an unlicensed dealer to obtain from the buyer an application, or to conduct a criminal background check."
Another anti-gun catch-phrase repeated without question. Even unlicensed dealers are using background checks, as a CYA, if nothing else. I doubt you have ever been at a gun show or you would not have made that statement. I repeat, their location is only a problem to the Statist.

"You can control guns all you want, and still there will be this vast arsenal in the hands of a minority of American adults,
. . ."
This must be the New Math. Eighty million gun owners are a minority? That's roughly one-third of the population!

". . . some very responsible. And some very irresponsible. "
Very adroit. Since the great majority ARE responsible, the "And some" neatly places the two in equillibrium. Yes, I think the nomination is merited here. Josef must be beaming - "you have done well, grasshopper".

"Still there will be this mystery of why 8.6 million Americans went out to buy guns last year and how we came to have a society in which almost no one found that remarkable."
No mystery here. The media's anti-gun blitz backfired, plain and simple. Society finds it remarkable that you still haven't figured it out.

Prestitutes indeed.

Yours, etc.

------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.

[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited June 16, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited June 16, 2000).]
 
Why aren't there 204,000 trials going on for violating Federal Law? :mad:

------------------
BOYCOTT SMITH AND WESSON!!!
Defend the Constitution from the foreign threat!!!!

Yeah, I got a permit to carry,it's called the friggin Constitution.---Ted Nugent

"Man killing is nasty business"---Finn Aggard
 
It seems to me that an underlying assumption of this article is that those 8.6 million Americans--and presumably the tens of millions of other American gunowners--are doing something wrong. I don't see that the author of the article gives any thought to the possibility that most or all of those 8.6 million Americans are solid, trustworthy, honorable, informed citizens, and that what they're doing is worthy of respect just because they, as free American citizens, are choosing to do it.

Is the author of this article intrusive, arrogant, condescending, elitist, and smug in her ignorance and narrow-mindedness? Yes, I'd say that she's all these things.

IOW, anti-gun, anti-rights, and anti-populist.

My $0.02.



[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited June 17, 2000).]
 
"Why aren't there 204,000 trials going on for violating Federal Law?" Due to a SC decission. They can not prosocute one for filling out the brady check as it is considered self incrimination and violates their 5th amendment rights (for convicted felons or others not eligable to own guns). So they can not use the forms with their signature on it to put them away. The only way that they can is have an officer present who observes the crime being committed, which is very unlikely.

In addition they can not use this law to convict one for not using the brady to purchase a gun (again only applies to convicted felons or others who can't legally buy a gun).

My question is why, even now, does not someone in the newsmedia bring this up?

There is an excellent article out on this subject by Clayton Craymer (sp?). I suggest you look up a copy and read it. If you can't find it e-mail me and I'll get a copy off to you. Don't have it right now, but do have it on my other computer.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
One point no one brought up, is that the great majority of the 204,000 refusals to purchase guns were people who moved, mistaken spelling of a name, minor traffic violation, etc.
These people were eventually approved to purchase. And this is what sticks in my craw. We need government approval to engage in a CONSTITIONALY PROTECTED RIGHT. :mad: :barf:
 
I sent an email to her as well.

Actually, I think Marie just didn't get the word from the 'journalists' union' [ ;) ] that 'we' aren't supposed to mention this unfortunate fact. The number of gun owners is supposed to be declining, the owners are supposed to be 'Neanderthals', and 'we' shouldn't mention that some people still believe in that old fashioned notion of self defense ... Marie is simply 'not with the program' here.

Considering the crescendo of anti-self defense hysteria, a full court press by the 'press', aggressive statist politicians, etc., etc., it is a wonder there weren't even more firearms sold.

And, last week we had the U.S. Attorney argue in U.S. v. Emerson that no American citizen has the right to own a firearm. Any firearm. Unless, of course, you're on duty in the military or the National Guard.

It's about freedom, stupid! Tell people that you're about to permanently remove their ability to protect themselves and their families, and gee ... many of those people decide they damn well better buy a firearm. Or two, or three or ... ?

Yes, this is quite confusing. ;)

More evidence that journalists are at the low end of the food chain.

Regards from AZ
 
David Scott-

[Why are more people buying guns? Maybe they plan to take a stroll through Central Park in New York. Oh, I forgot, you can't have a gun there, it might violate the civil rights of the guy ripping your daughter's dress off.]

Great comment!

Oatka-

[The last sentence is classic innuendo. A suble swipe at the bogus "gunshow loophole" as well as inferring that legal private sales between individuals is somehow evil.]

I could not agree with you more. Excellent letter.

One point, however...Ever since someone pointed this out to me I have passed along the info to others- "You make an implication, but you draw an inference." The proper word is "implying" in this case because she is making an implication as the writer or speaker. As the reader or listener you can "draw the inference" from her implication.

I have learned a lot from guys like you on this site. I hope you appreciate the tip in the spirit I pass it along.

I love you guys! :-)
 
Back
Top