Anti-Gun Democrats DEFEATED, Again - NINE (9) Pro-Gun Bills Advancing in Tennessee!
Patriot Games
Numerous Pro-Gun Bills Advancing in the Volunteer State!
Friday, May 08, 2009
The following NRA-backed bills are currently working their way through
the legislature, as the session is winding down. Please contact your
State Senator and State Representative and respectfully urge them to
support all of the NRA-backed bills listed below without any
restricting amendments. For contact information or help identifying
your State Legislators, please click here. For Tennessee Legislature
Committee information please visit www.capitol.tn.gov/committees/. For
contact information or help identifying your State Legislators, please
click here.
House Bill 716, sponsored by State Representative Frank Niceley
(R-17), would allow any resident who has a valid handgun carry permit
to possess a handgun while within the boundaries of any state park. HB
716 passed the House by a vote 71 to 22, on Monday, April 20. It was
amended to remove the fiscal note. Senate Bill 976, sponsored by State
Senator Mae Beavers (R-17), is the companion bill to HB 716. SB 976
was amended in the Senate Judiciary on Wednesday, May 6, to allow for
permit holders to possess a handgun, while within or on a public park,
wildlife management area, natural area, historic park, nature trail,
campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place
that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or
locality. SB 976, passed as amended 7 to 2, and now moves to the
Senate Finance Ways and Means Committee.
Senate Bill 264, sponsored by State Senator Doug Jackson (D-25), would
authorize the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency (TWRA) to issue sport
fishing and hunting licenses, at no cost, to Tennessee residents who
are 100 percent disabled and receive social security disability. SB
264 passed out of the Senate Environment, Conservation and Tourism
Committee unanimously on April 7. House Bill 569, sponsored by State
Representative David Shepard (D-69), is the companion bill to SB 264.
HB 569 has been deferred to the last calendar in the House Committee
on Conservation and Environment. SB 264 and HB 569 have a significant
fiscal note attached and are not expected to be voted on until a later
date.
Senate Bill 1557, sponsored by State Senator Tim Burchett (R-7),
requires the Tennessee Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)
commission to establish by rule how it will implement the federal "Law
Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004," relative to the carrying of
firearms by qualified and retired law enforcement officers. SB 1557
passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, May 6. House Bill
1117, sponsored by State Representative Glen Casada (R-63), is the
companion bill to SB 1557. HB 1117 has been moved to the last House
State and Local Committee Calendar.
Senate Bill 1908, the �Second Amendment Protection Act,� sponsored by
State Senator Doug Jackson (R- 25), would prohibit the sale of
micro-stamped firearms or ammunition in Tennessee. This preventive
measure is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee and has
been deferred to Wednesday, May 12. House Bill 1924 sponsored by State
Representative Henry Fincher (D-42), is the companion bill to SB 1908.
HB 1924 has been referred to the House Judiciary�s Sub-Committee on
Criminal Practice and Procedure, and is expected to be heard in the
coming weeks.
House Bill 82, sponsored by State Representative Johnny Shaw (D-80),
would authorize current and retired judges who possess a handgun carry
permit to carry a firearm under the same circumstances and conditions
as law enforcement officers and correctional officers. HB 82 passed
the House on April 2, 85 to 10, and has been referred to the Senate.
Senate Bill 19, sponsored by State Senator Dolores Gresham (R-26), is
the companion bill to HB 82. SB 19 passed the Senate Judiciary
Committee unanimously on Wednesday, May 6, and now moves to the Senate
Calendars Committee.
House Bill 390, sponsored by State Representative Henry Fincher
(D-42), would allow handgun carry permit holders to possess or carry a
loaded rifle, loaded shotgun, or loaded magazine or clip while in a
motor vehicle. HB 390 passed the House on March 19, 82 to 10, and will
now be considered by the Senate. Senate Bill 578, sponsored by Senator
Doug Jackson, is the companion bill to HB 390. SB 578 passed out of
the Senate Judiciary on Wednesday, April 29, 6 to 2. SB 578 is
scheduled to be heard on the Senate Floor for Monday, May 11.
House Bill 959, sponsored by State Representative Eddie Bass (D-65),
would ensure the privacy of handgun permit holders by making records
of permit applications and renewals confidential. HB 959 was amended
to allow for the sharing of statistical information. HB 959 passed the
House 83 to 12, on Monday, May 4. Senate Bill 1126, sponsored by
State Senator Mark Norris (R-32), is the companion bill to HB 959. SB
1126 was amended to allow the release of permit information to the
office of the comptroller to ensure the Department of Public Safety is
complying with state law relative to the issuance of carry permits. SB
1126 is expected to be voted on by the Senate in the coming weeks.
House Bill 961, sponsored by State Representative Mike Bell (R-26),
would authorize a person with a handgun carry permit to possess a
firearm in a refuge, public hunting area, wildlife management area, or
on national forest land. HB 961 has been referred to the House
Finance, Ways and Means Subcommittee on Budget. Senate Bill 1519,
sponsored by State Senator Tim Burchett (R-7), is the companion bill
to HB 961. SB 1519 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday,
May 6, and has been referred to the Senate Finance, Ways and Means
Committee.
House Bill 2376, sponsored by State Representative David Shepard
(D-69), would modify the methods of disposing of certain confiscated
firearms. HB 2376 would prohibit the destruction of confiscated
firearms and require them to be auctioned off or sold to federally
licensed firearms dealers. Proceeds from the sale of these firearms
would be used to benefit law enforcement agencies. HB 2376 passed the
House Judiciary Committee and is expected to be heard by the House
Finance, Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday, May 12. Senate Bill
2334, sponsored by State Senator Doug Jackson (R- 25), is the
companion bill to HB 2376, and is currently in the Senate Judiciary.
SB 2334 is expected to be heard in Senate Judiciary on Wednesday, May
12.
Currently one pro-gun bill is awaiting Governor Phil Bredesen�s (D)
consideration.
House Bill 70, sponsored by State Representative Henry Fincher (D-42),
would remove the prohibition against using deadly force in protection
of personal property. It would also expand your right to self defense
to a business. HB 70 overwhelmingly passed the House on March 19, 89
to 1. The Senate adopted and passed HB 70 on Thursday, April 30, by a
unanimous vote of 29 to 0. Senate Bill 474, sponsored by State Senator
Andy Berke (D-10), was the companion bill to HB 70 and was
automatically sent to a dead file. Please contact Governor Bresden at
(615) 741-2001 and urge him to sign this important self-defense
measure.
Below is a list of pro-gun bills that have been signed into law:
Senate Bill 2276, sponsored by State Senator Jim Kyle (D-28), would
authorize the Department of Safety to present a law enforcement
officer�s service weapon to the spouse or child of an officer who dies
in the line of duty. SB 2276 was signed by Governor Bredesen on May 5.
House Bill 46, sponsored by State Representative Joshua Evans (R-66),
would prohibit the Department of Safety, or any department-approved
handgun safety employee from requiring an applicant for a carry permit
to furnish any identifying information concerning any handgun the
applicant owns or possesses. HB 46 was signed by Governor Bredesen on
April 27.
House Bill 254, sponsored by State Representative Glen Casada (R-63),
would eliminate the requirement to provide a thumbprint as part of the
background check process when purchasing a firearm. HB 254 was signed
by Governor Bredesen on April 27.
Thank you to fellow sponsors, State Senator Jim Tracy (R-16),
Republican Majority Leader, State Senator Mark Norris (R-32), and
State Representative Eddie Bass (D-65) for their hard work and
dedication in passing these important pro-gun measures.
Cormagh
> http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4847
>
> Numerous Pro-Gun Bills Advancing in the Volunteer State!
>
> Friday, May 08, 2009
>
> The following NRA-backed bills are currently working their way through
> the legislature, as the session is winding down. Please contact your
> State Senator and State Representative and respectfully urge them to
> support all of the NRA-backed bills listed below without any
> restricting amendments. For contact information or help identifying
> your State Legislators, please click here. For Tennessee Legislature
> State Senator Doug Jackson (R- 25), would prohibit the sale of
> micro-stamped firearms or ammunition in Tennessee. This preventive
> measure is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee and has
> been deferred to Wednesday, May 12. House Bill 1924 sponsored by State
> Representative Henry Fincher (D-42), is the companion bill to SB 1908.
> consideration.
>
> House Bill 70, sponsored by State Representative Henry Fincher (D-42),
> would remove the prohibition against using deadly force in protection
> of personal property. It would also expand your right to self defense
> to a business. HB 70 overwhelmingly passed the House on March 19, 89
> to 1. The Senate adopted and passed HB 70 on Thursday, April 30, by a
> unanimous vote of 29 to 0. Senate Bill 474, sponsored by State Senator
> Andy Berke (D-10), was the companion bill to HB 70 and was
> automatically sent to a dead file. Please contact Governor Bresden at
> (615) 741-2001 and urge him to sign this important self-defense
> measure.
>
> Below is a list of pro-gun bills that have been signed into law:
>
> Senate Bill 2276, sponsored by State Senator Jim Kyle (D-28), would
> authorize the Department of Safety to present a law enforcement
> in the line of duty. SB 2276 was signed by Governor Bredesen on May 5.
> House Bill 46, sponsored by State Representative Joshua Evans (R-66),
> would prohibit the Department of Safety, or any department-approved
> handgun safety employee from requiring an applicant for a carry permit
> to furnish any identifying information concerning any handgun the
> applicant owns or possesses. HB 46 was signed by Governor Bredesen on
> April 27.
>
> House Bill 254, sponsored by State Representative Glen Casada (R-63),
> would eliminate the requirement to provide a thumbprint as part of the
> background check process when purchasing a firearm. HB 254 was signed
> by Governor Bredesen on April 27.
>
> Thank you to fellow sponsors, State Senator Jim Tracy (R-16),
> Republican Majority Leader, State Senator Mark Norris (R-32), and
> State Representative Eddie Bass (D-65) for their hard work and
> dedication in passing these important pro-gun measures.
We're goin' t' have a shootup down thar' r'al soon, I bet!
robw
> http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4847
>
> Numerous Pro-Gun Bills Advancing in the Volunteer State!
>
> Friday, May 08, 2009
>
> The following NRA-backed bills are currently working their way through
> the legislature, as the session is winding down. Please contact your
> State Senator and State Representative and respectfully urge them to
> support all of the NRA-backed bills listed below without any
> restricting amendments. For contact information or help identifying
> your State Legislators, please click here. For Tennessee Legislature
It's Tenn.
What do you expect from a bunch of paranoid inbred rednecks?
Patriot Games
wrote:
>> State Senator Doug Jackson (R- 25), would prohibit the sale of
>> micro-stamped firearms or ammunition in Tennessee. This preventive
>> measure is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee and has
>> been deferred to Wednesday, May 12. House Bill 1924 sponsored by State
>> Representative Henry Fincher (D-42), is the companion bill to SB 1908.
>> consideration.
>> House Bill 70, sponsored by State Representative Henry Fincher (D-42),
>> would remove the prohibition against using deadly force in protection
>> of personal property. It would also expand your right to self defense
>> to a business. HB 70 overwhelmingly passed the House on March 19, 89
>> to 1. The Senate adopted and passed HB 70 on Thursday, April 30, by a
>> unanimous vote of 29 to 0. Senate Bill 474, sponsored by State Senator
>> Andy Berke (D-10), was the companion bill to HB 70 and was
>> automatically sent to a dead file. �Please contact Governor Bresden at
>> (615) 741-2001 and urge him to sign this important self-defense
>> measure.
>> Below is a list of pro-gun bills that have been signed into law:
>> Senate Bill 2276, sponsored by State Senator Jim Kyle (D-28), would
>> authorize the Department of Safety to present a law enforcement
>> in the line of duty. SB 2276 was signed by Governor Bredesen on May 5.
>> House Bill 46, sponsored by State Representative Joshua Evans (R-66),
>> would prohibit the Department of Safety, or any department-approved
>> handgun safety employee from requiring an applicant for a carry permit
>> to furnish any identifying information concerning any handgun the
>> applicant owns or possesses. �HB 46 was signed by Governor Bredesen on
>> April 27.
>> House Bill 254, sponsored by State Representative Glen Casada (R-63),
>> would eliminate the requirement to provide a thumbprint as part of the
>> background check process when purchasing a firearm. HB 254 was signed
>> by Governor Bredesen on April 27.
>> Thank you to fellow sponsors, State Senator Jim Tracy (R-16),
>> Republican Majority Leader, State Senator Mark Norris (R-32), and
>> State Representative Eddie Bass (D-65) for their hard work and
>> dedication in passing these important pro-gun measures.
>We're goin' t' have a shootup down thar' r'al soon, I bet!
Beginning over 20 years ago that sentiment was said EVERY time a State
instituted Concealed Carry legislation.
However, the "shootup down thar' r'al soon" NEVER HAPPENNED, NOT ONCE,
NOT ANYWHERE.
Its not my fault you're stupid.
Patriot Games
wrote:
>On May 9, 10:05�am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4847
>> Numerous Pro-Gun Bills Advancing in the Volunteer State!
>> Friday, May 08, 2009
>What do you expect from a bunch of paranoid inbred rednecks?
Al 'Chicken Little' Gore is a paranoid inbred redneck?
Alex Haley is a paranoid inbred redneck? (Alex Haley wrote some stuff
about your family ancestory, in case you didn't know.)
Learn more here: http://www.tntrivia.com/famous_tennesseans.htm
robw
> On Sat, 9 May 2009 07:14:37 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
I was talking about the inbred rednecks who want to play Wild West.
Don't think that would include Gore or Haley.
And Haley did not write our ancestry.
Paulie Walnutts
>
> - Show quoted text -
You stupid inbred dwarf. Just because you are TOTALLY clueless about
guns and why people own them why not keep your worthless opinion to
yourself? You have no opinion about kids,guns or the miltary. You have
no experience in any of them. If we want an opinion on smoking
dope,sucking black cock or taking it up the ass we know you are the #1
source of first hand info.
robw
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have experience with the military. You kind of get that when you're
awarded a C.O. Of course you bent over the desk and took it up the ass
so you got the "Yes Sir! No Sir!" tour.
And while we never had kids of our won there are two young ladies who
will start college next year who name me as their most dominate male
figure. (and thankfully I helped them to not turn out like a Bristol
Palin type slut)
Have known them for over a decade. Great people.
Guns? Never shot one. But I know the harm they bring and that idiots
like you are more worried about rights than people.
As far a s your sex comment I have straight sex with my wife.
You can't even say that.
Limp dicked or is it her?
Patriot Games
wrote:
Your PUBLIC APOLOGY is accepted.
>Don't think that would include Gore or Haley.
>And Haley did not write our ancestry.
Not "our" ancestry. YOUR ancestry.
Roots: The Saga of an American Family is a novel written by Alex Haley
and first published in 1976. It was adapted into a hugely popular,
12-hour television miniseries, Roots, in 1977, and a 14-hour sequel,
Roots: The Next Generations, in 1979.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots:_The_Saga_of_an_American_Family
Patriot Games
wrote:
>I have experience with the military. You kind of get that when you're
>awarded a C.O.
Oops!
CO (Conscientious Objector Status) is NOT an award, it is NOT
"awarded."
BUSTED!
robw
> On Sat, 9 May 2009 11:14:24 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I have experience with the military. You kind of get that when you're
> >awarded a C.O.
>
> Oops!
>
> CO (Conscientious Objector Status) is NOT an award, it is NOT
> "awarded."
>
> BUSTED!
Awarded, granted.
All the same.
"BUSTED"?
Don't think so.
Patriot Games
wrote:
Well, well, well....
Now that you have swallowed the bait (including the hook) thus
eliminating any chance of backtracking let's explore your claim, shall
we?
---------------------
Original Thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/browse_thread/thread/8987697300bf4cb1/b2fb2e4472b940c8?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=robw+draft+dodge#b2fb2e4472b940c8
ROBW: "A person is conditioned in the military."
Paulie Walnutts: "What the FUCK do you know about how things are done
in the military you blithering fool?"
ROBW: "I have friends who were in the military. I know enough of how
it works to know the idea is to break you down and build you back up
the military way."
ROBW: "I have experience with the military. You kind of get that when
you're awarded a C.O."
-----------------------------
WHERE did you go to Boot Camp and WHAT was your MOS?
Dave Heil
> I have experience with the military. You kind of get that when you're
> awarded a C.O.
No, that didn't give you "experience with the military". You never served.
> Of course you bent over the desk and took it up the ass
> so you got the "Yes Sir! No Sir!" tour.
I think you went into the wrong room.
> And while we never had kids of our won there are two young ladies who
> will start college next year who name me as their most dominate male
> figure.
Did you really mean "dominate" or might you have meant "dominant"?
Even if it was "dominant", what could you mean? Do you believe that
women find you "dominant"? Whatever on Earth for?
> (and thankfully I helped them to not turn out like a Bristol
> Palin type slut)
Remarks like that will get you scratched from just about anyone's list
of admired people. Your statement is a mark of low breeding.
> Have known them for over a decade. Great people.
If they're great, why are they spending time with you?
> Guns? Never shot one.
Pathetic.
> But I know the harm they bring...
Harm? A gun doesn't have to bring harm at all. Maybe the harm is that
it jams for misfires. One may come to harm without a gun.
> and that idiots
> like you are more worried about rights than people.
There you go calling names when you're short on knowledge and long on
invective. Objects don't have rights. People have rights. Among my
rights is the one which says I may keep and use firearms.
I live in the countryside. I may use my guns for bringing food to the
table. Since a Sheriff's Deputy could take thirty minutes to arrive at
my home after a call is made, I count on my guns for the protection of
my home and those who live therein.
> As far a s your sex comment I have straight sex with my wife.
Why is it that you think those reading this newsgroup need to know about it?
> You can't even say that.
Not saying something isn't the same as not being able to say it.
> Limp dicked or is it her?
I'd love it if the fathers of those two high school girls you think view
you as "dominate", could see what you've written here.
Dave Heil
robw
Emily's Mom and her real Dad broke up when Em was three. Katy's Dad
passed from cancer when she wqas five.
Jen and Amy have always made it clear to any guy they've dated that if
the girls have a problem or want to talk they'd more than likely come
to me. (and the Artsit/Muse)
Both have been remarried for a few years and the guys are cool with
the arrangement.
Seems I rememebr you asking me a similar question about Alex's
parents.
Nothing new?
Cormagh
> On Sat, 9 May 2009 07:08:30 -0700 (PDT), Cormagh <cookl...@yahoo.com>
> >> State Senator Doug Jackson (R- 25), would prohibit the sale of
> >> micro-stamped firearms or ammunition in Tennessee. This preventive
> >> measure is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee and has
> >> been deferred to Wednesday, May 12. House Bill 1924 sponsored by State
> >> Representative Henry Fincher (D-42), is the companion bill to SB 1908.
> >> consideration.
> >> House Bill 70, sponsored by State Representative Henry Fincher (D-42),
> >> would remove the prohibition against using deadly force in protection
> >> of personal property. It would also expand your right to self defense
> >> to a business. HB 70 overwhelmingly passed the House on March 19, 89
> >> to 1. The Senate adopted and passed HB 70 on Thursday, April 30, by a
> >> unanimous vote of 29 to 0. Senate Bill 474, sponsored by State Senator
> >> Andy Berke (D-10), was the companion bill to HB 70 and was
> >> automatically sent to a dead file. Please contact Governor Bresden at
> >> (615) 741-2001 and urge him to sign this important self-defense
> >> measure.
> >> Below is a list of pro-gun bills that have been signed into law:
> >> Senate Bill 2276, sponsored by State Senator Jim Kyle (D-28), would
> >> authorize the Department of Safety to present a law enforcement
> >> in the line of duty. SB 2276 was signed by Governor Bredesen on May 5.
> >> House Bill 46, sponsored by State Representative Joshua Evans (R-66),
> >> would prohibit the Department of Safety, or any department-approved
> >> handgun safety employee from requiring an applicant for a carry permit
> >> to furnish any identifying information concerning any handgun the
> >> applicant owns or possesses. HB 46 was signed by Governor Bredesen on
> >> April 27.
> >> House Bill 254, sponsored by State Representative Glen Casada (R-63),
> >> would eliminate the requirement to provide a thumbprint as part of the
> >> background check process when purchasing a firearm. HB 254 was signed
> >> by Governor Bredesen on April 27.
> >> Thank you to fellow sponsors, State Senator Jim Tracy (R-16),
> >> Republican Majority Leader, State Senator Mark Norris (R-32), and
> >> State Representative Eddie Bass (D-65) for their hard work and
> >> dedication in passing these important pro-gun measures.
> >We're goin' t' have a shootup down thar' r'al soon, I bet!
>
> Beginning over 20 years ago that sentiment was said EVERY time a State
> instituted Concealed Carry legislation.
>
> However, the "shootup down thar' r'al soon" NEVER HAPPENNED, NOT ONCE,
> NOT ANYWHERE.
>
> Its not my fault you're stupid
Actually, there is no proof that liberal gun laws lower violence.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/reports/no-gun-left-behind.pdf
Paulie Walnutts
You call dodging the draft "military experience"??!! HUH ??!! Just out
of curiosity, how many drugs do you take every day?? You've have GOT
to be the most confused individual on usenet.(And that's saying a LOT)
Paulie Walnutts
>
> - Show quoted text -
SHEEEEEEEEESSSSHH !! At least you've never had chidren of your own.
Maybe your DNA pool with die with you. We can only hope. What a
fucking idiot.
Paulie Walnutts
>
> - Show quoted text -
As opposed to the gun totin' gangsta' wannabe street thugs and
whiggers in the "City of Brotherly Love". You won't carry a gun to
defend yourself because you're terrified of them yet every punk in
Philly is packing heat. Btw,wearing dirty dreads, your pants around
your ankles,turning your ball cap backwards,a "Steelers"
hoodie,tattoos and shooting hoops won't keep you from getting mugged
or carjacked at gunpoint in your fine northern city.
When seconds count the cops are minutes away.
robw
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, when I went for my C.O. I had to deal with "Woolworth's"
Moron.
Your military experience was doing what nyou were told for a few
years.
Oh, that and losing in "Nam.
Yeah, you got me there.
We smoke on occassion (haven't in over a week) Outside of that I take
nothing else.
Not even anything when I have a cold.
How many medications are you on?>
robw
>
> - Show quoted text -
Emily and Katy will attend fine schools next fall.
Both have their head on straight when it comes to things like sex.
Looks like we did a better job than Palin.
Did any of your kids get knocked up out of wedlock?
For that matter, what is the age of your oldest kid?
Paulie Walnutts
>
> - Show quoted text -
To all of the above. None of your business.
robw
>
> - Show quoted text -
We won't carry guns beacuse we feel that's the domain of idiot
rednecks like you.
Besides, my penis works just fine soi I don't need compensation.
And that's what a gun is.
Bet I wash my hair more than you do. Don't dress the way you
described. Wouldn't do the low pants thing and I sure as hell wouldn't
sport Steelers gear in Eagles Country.
Don't you know anything about sports?
robw
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah, so your wife was a slut who has a kid out of wedlock who turned
out to be a slut who had a kid out of wedlock...........
You're White Trash.
Steve
wrote:
>On May 12, 9:03�am, Paulie Walnutts <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
There are restrictions on you children carrying guns anyway...
robw
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 06:32:00 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
I'm 56 my wife is 38.
Care to say anything else that is completely stupid?
I don't need a gun to be a man.
That's for cowards like NoNutts and mutants lkke you.
Steve
wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry, I was judging you on your size... You do wear
children's size shoes and clothes don't you?
>Care to say anything else that is completely stupid?
>
>I don't need a gun to be a man.
You sure need something to be a man...
BTW, it probably would be a good idea for a girly sized guy like you
wandering around the streets in Philadelphia at night looking for your
drug dealer.... But then you can probably take that big, old, ugly,
fat-assed woman with you and she scares off the muggers with her
toothless smile and hairy armpits.
Patriot Games
wrote:
>Actually, there is no proof that liberal gun laws lower violence.
>http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/reports/no-gun-left-behind.pdf
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/
Myths About Gun Control
Policy Report
No. 176
December, 1992
by Morgan O. Reynolds and W. W. Caruth III
Firearms are used to commit as many as 650,000 crimes each year. But
firearms are also used to prevent crimes as many as one million times
each year. In fact, criminals are three times more likely to be killed
by armed victims who resist them than by the police. Would tougher gun
control laws make our lives safer? Fair appraisal of the issue
requires us to put aside some common myths.
Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A careful review of 18 academic studies
shows that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the
amount of crime in the United States. International evidence tells a
similar story.
Myth No. 2: Gun control laws reduce crime. The nation already has
20,000 gun control laws, and the police arrest 220,000 people a year
on weapons violations. Yet the violent crime rate is at an all-time
high. Moreover, considering that fewer than 1 percent of all guns are
involved in a crime and only 12 percent of all violent crimes involve
a gun, gun control laws could have only a modest effect on crime -
even if they worked exactly as intended, which they don't. For
example, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., experienced sharp
murder-rate increases after passing tough gun control laws. Canada,
Taiwan and Jamaica reported similar experiences.
Myth No. 3: Guns are of little help in defending against criminals. In
fact, guns are a big help. Each year, potential victims kill from
2,000 to 3,000 criminals and wound an additional 9,000 to 17,000. And
mishaps are rare. Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent people
only 30 times a year, compared with about 330 mistaken killings by
police. Criminals succeed in taking a gun away from an armed victim
less than 1 percent of the time.
Myth No. 4: Killing someone is the only reason to buy a handgun. The
vast majority of gun owners cite protection from crime as one of the
main reasons they own a gun. And for good reason. Americans use guns
for self-protection about one million times a year. In 98 percent of
the cases, they simply brandish the weapon or fire a warning shot.
Myth No. 5: People who buy guns are more prone to violence and crime
than are other people. Violence and crime are higher among black than
white, lower-income than middle- or upper-income, young than
middle-aged, single than married, and urban than rural individuals -
all contrary to the pattern of gun ownership.
Myth No. 6: Criminals mainly have guns in order to commit crimes. The
number one reason criminals acquire guns is for self-protection
against other criminals. Fewer than half of felons think handguns are
important for use in committing crimes.
Myth No. 7: Killings and other violent crimes were prevalent in the
Old West because guns were so plentiful. Much of the violence on the
frontier involved clashes with Indians, bandits and foreigners. Even
so, the frontier was a lot safer than America is today. There was very
little ordinary crime - less than in most cities in the East.
Myth No. 8: Gun controls keep criminals from obtaining guns. In
surveys of prisoners, a majority said that prior to imprisonment they
had owned a handgun. But fewer than one in six guns had been purchased
from a retail dealer. Three-fourths of the felons said they would have
no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released, despite legal
prohibitions.
Myth No. 9: Required waiting periods would prevent some of the most
vicious crimes. If the Brady bill were law, it would not have saved
Jim Brady. Nor would it have prevented the Killeen, Texas, massacre or
the slaughter at McDonald's in Stockton, Calif. However, an instant
records check (to identify felons when they try to purchase guns from
retail dealers) and better enforcement of existing laws (to turn
criminals into convicted felons) might well prevent some vicious
crimes.
Myth No. 10: Most murders are committed by people killing friends or
family members. The actual number is about one out of five. Most
in-household killings are not crimes of passion. They're the
culmination of years of abusive behavior, and often it is the abuser
who is killed.
Myth No. 11: The availability of guns contributes to crimes of
passion. In about 90 percent of "crime-of-passion" domestic homicides,
the police had been called in previously to break up violence. In half
the cases, the police had been called in five or more times. There is
no evidence that a significant number of homicides occur simply
because a lethal weapon is handy.
Myth No. 12: Automatic rifles and so-called assault weapons are too
dangerous to be left in private hands. Over the past 50 years no
civilian has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a violent crime.
And despite their repeated use by drug dealers on "Miami Vice" and in
the movies, no Uzi has ever been used to kill a police officer. Even
gun control advocates concede that so-called assault weapons play a
minor role in violent crime.
Myth No. 13: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent the
purchase of "Saturday Night Specials." Inexpensive handguns are
involved in only 1 to 3 percent of violent crimes, and criminals are
no more likely to use one than any other type of handgun.
Myth No. 14: People don't need guns for self-protection because they
can rely on the police. About 83 percent of the population will be
victims of violent crime at some point in their lives, and in any
given year serious crime touches 25 percent of all households.
Considering that, effectively, there is only one police officer on
patrol for every 3,300 people, the odds are not likely to improve. And
the courts have ruled that government has no duty to protect
individual citizens from crime.
Myth No. 15: Gun ownership is not a constitutional right. The Second
Amendment reflects the founders' belief that an armed citizenry
(called the "general militia") was a necessary precaution against
tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government
has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally
foreign to the intent of the Constitution's framers.
The controversy over gun control laws is not new, nor is it confined
to the United States. Consider Cesare Beccaria, an 18th-century
economist, writer and founder of the classical school of criminology
(1738-1794). Concerning arms control laws, he wrote:1
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real
advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would
take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown
in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that
forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. They disarm those
only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . .
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the
assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an
armed man.
Most gun control laws make no distinction between law-abiding citizens
and lawbreakers. They imply that anyone possessing a gun is likely to
use it to break the law, so they typically attempt to limit possession
to those who are able to justify their specific need for a gun to
government officials. Controls, especially as administered by ordinary
people, give little consideration to any benefits of gun ownership or
to the possible need of law-abiding persons to resist criminals. As in
the case of efforts to control people's use of illicit drugs, there
are good reasons to doubt government's ability to control the
possession of guns, even with intrusive infringements on liberty.
Advocates of gun control laws contend, among other things, that the
easy availability of firearms " particularly handguns " leads people
to kill friends or family members during disputes or fights, that guns
bear much of the responsibility in cities with high murder rates and
that guns used for defense are often turned against the user. They
maintain that the high rate of serious crime is related to the freedom
to buy and own firearms.
Echoing those beliefs, the Journal of the American Medical Association
and C. Everett Koop, a former U.S. Surgeon General, have called
gunshot wounds and deaths a public health epidemic. They have called
for the licensing of all gun owners, requiring them to meet
qualifications similar to those for drivers' licenses. Others, of
course, would go much further.
The intended effect of most 20th century "gun crime" legislation has
been to prevent criminals from obtaining guns or from using the guns
they obtained. Yet the number of armed criminals and the amount of
armed crime has increased during a period in which gun control laws
have proliferated. On the surface, it would appear that the actual
effects of legislation have not been the intended ones.
Why then is there such strong support for laws controlling firearms?
Much of it may stem from a belief in one or more myths about firearms
and laws governing their possession. This study examines the most
popular of these myths.
Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime.
The National Crime Survey estimates that 83 percent of Americans will
be victims of violent crime at some time in their lives.2 Parties with
diametrically opposed views on gun control seize on this estimate to
support their positions. Those favoring gun control laws claim that
such laws would keep more guns off the streets and out of the hands of
criminals in an increasingly violent world. Opponents of new gun
restrictions contend that a firearm in the hands of a law-abiding
person is one of the best deterrents to crime, protecting people with
limited physical strength from physically stronger criminals. Let's
take a look at the available evidence.
Domestic Studies.
Several sophisticated statistical models have attempted to measure the
net effect of firearms on criminal violence. On balance, they show
that there is nothing to be gained from reducing the general level of
gun ownership.3
A thorough review of 18 studies of the effects of gun availability
among potential victims and criminals found that the overall effect on
criminal violence was zero.4
In one study, researchers found no significant differences in total
robbery rates between cities where guns were widely available and
cities where they were not; in cities with fewer firearms, armed
robbers simply used other weapons.5
The best available evidence, based on at least eight national surveys
of the general adult population, indicates that guns are used about as
often for defensive as for criminal purposes.6
This conclusion is especially true of handguns.
International Evidence.
The experience of other nations also provides little support for the
notion that guns causecrime:7
Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, and it
requires all able-bodied males between the ages of 20 and 50 to have a
military-issued automatic weapon, ammunition and other equipment in
their dwellings.8
Israel, which has an extremely low crime rate but is vulnerable to
enemies including terrorists, depends on the defensive value of
widespread civilian gun possession.
Denmark and Finland also have high rates of gun ownership and low
crime rates.
The experience of these countries shows that widespread gun possession
is compatible with low crime rates. On the other hand, nations like
Japan and England also have low crime rates but low gun ownership.
There is no simple relationship between firearm availability and
crime.9
Crimes Involving Guns.
How many violent crimes involving guns are committed each year? FBI
data for 1990 show that criminals used firearms in about 258,000
violent offenses, or about 16 percent of the 1.6 million crimes
reported to the police. Fewer than half of all violent crimes are
reported to the police, however. The National Crime Survey (NCS)
estimates that there are about 5.4 million violent crimes (both
reported and unreported) and that guns of all types are involved in
some 650,000 or 12 percent.10 In other words, 88 percent of violent
crimes do not involve firearms.
While certainly a very large annual number, reported and unreported
violent crimes committed with guns remain relatively rare events. Less
than 2 percent of the estimated 36 million crimes of all types (in the
National Crime Survey) committed each year involve a gun. A majority
of gun crimes are assaults, but only one in 42 handgun crimes involves
a victim being shot. While there is a lot of violent crime in America
relative to other industrial nations, an overwhelming majority of the
violence involves knives, hammers, sticks, broken bottles, hands and
feet and other weapons besides firearms.
Guns are used in a majority of murders (from 59 percent to 66.3
percent in each of the past 10 years) and accounted for 14,265 deaths
in 1991. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, 53.1 percent of
reported murders in 1991 were committed with handguns, 5.2 percent
with shotguns and 3.4 percent with rifles, while miscellaneous and
unknown firearms accounted for the remaining 4.6 percent. (Long guns,
although virtually uncontrolled, were involved in only 8.6 percent of
homicides.) By contrast, firearms were used to commit about 70 to 75
percent of homicides in the 1920s, a higher percentage than the
average 60 percent rate during the 1980s.11 Firearms were the
instrument of death in 60 percent of murders in 1980 and 66 percent in
1991 " the highest percentage in recent years " suggesting an upward
trend. Firearms were used in 40 percent of all reported robberies but
in only 11 percent of all rapes, 12 percent of severe assaults and 12
percent of all violent crimes. [See Figure I.]
Guns Involved in Crimes.
No one knows what fraction of firearms ultimately is used to commit
crime, but the percentage is almost certainly tiny. Even if the same
gun were never used more than once in committing a crime, only one out
of every 309 guns would be involved in a crime in a given year.12
Overall:
Only one out of every 123 handguns (less than 1 percent) and one out
of every 1,247 long guns (less than one-tenth of 1 percent) are used
in crime in any given year.13
Even under very generous assumptions to maximize the estimated
percentage of guns used in a crime, at most 6.7 percent of handguns
would ever be involved in a crime.14
If we realistically allow for repeated criminal uses of the same
weapons, the fraction of all guns that are ever involved in crime
would be less than 1 percent, with long guns under 0.5 percent and
handguns under 2 percent.
Gun control laws cannot possibly reduce the crime rate unless they
affect the 1 percent of guns that are actually used in crimes. Even if
the laws did this, criminals would find it easy to acquire new guns.
The numbers by themselves raise doubts about the efficacy of general
restrictions on gun ownership in decreasing the frequency of gun use
in violent crime.
Case Study: Killeen, Texas.
George Hennard crashed a pickup truck through the front of a Luby's
Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, on October 16, 1991, got out with two
semiautomatic pistols and methodically killed 23 people in 10 minutes
before police finally arrived and killed him.
Dr. Suzanna Gratia, who watched as her mother and father were shot to
death by Hennard, said later that she had left a pistol in her car
outside the cafeteria because Texas law forbade carrying a weapon.
From where she lay, she said, she had a clear shot at Hennard early on
- and would have taken it. "We were sitting ducks and that just makes
me so blasted mad," said Dr. Gratia, a chiropractor. "I've got a right
to protect myself."15
On that day, coincidentally, Congress was debating a crime control
bill. Congressman Chet Edwards, in whose district the massacre
occurred, said the event convinced him to favor a ban on so-called
assault weapons (although assault weapons were not used in the Killeen
massacre).
Case Study: Anniston, Ala.
Two months later, two armed robbers herded 20 customers and employees
in an Anniston, Ala., Shoney's restaurant into a walk-in cooler and
held the manager outside at gunpoint. Then they spotted Thomas Glen
Terry, a customer, hiding under a table and began shooting at him.
Unlike the situation in Texas, Terry, who had a permit, was carrying a
.45 caliber automatic handgun. He shot back, killing one robber and
wounding the other. The manager and the hostages were released.
unharmed.16
Case Study: Los Angeles, Calif.
Rioters in Los Angeles in the spring of 1992 looted and burned a store
owned by Korean-Americans in Hollywood, even though they had to break
through steel roll-down doors with crowbars and sledgehammers to get
at it. But they spared a similar business in Koreatown. The reason?
The rioters could see commandos with Uzi machine guns on top of the
Koreatown building. The merchants later revealed that, although they
did have a few guns that they fully intended to use if necessary, the
"Uzis" were toys, and the "commandos" were costumed merchants.17
The looters and arsonists tended to leave houses and apartment
buildings in the riot area of Los Angeles alone - not out of
compassion, but because, as a 13-year-old neighborhood resident said,
"They (the residents) got guns and everybody knows that. Nobody's
going to want to mess with folks in houses."18
Myth No. 2: Gun Control Laws Reduce Crime
Despite some 20,000 gun laws in the United States, mostly at the state
and local levels, there is little evidence that any but the most
weakly motivated citizens have been discouraged from gun ownership.
And there is no evidence that these gun control laws have made a dent
in the crime rate.
Domestic Evidence.
If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime. For
instance:19
New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun
law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46
percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and
its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2
by 1977.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun
control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has
risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2
percent.
Defenders of the Washington law say it isn't working because criminals
are getting guns in Virginia, where the laws are more relaxed. But
just across the Potomac River, Arlington, Va., has a murder rate less
than 10 percent of that of Washington (7.0 murders versus 77.8 per
100,000 population). Can the difference be explained by the fact that
Washington is a large city? Virginia's largest city, Virginia Beach,
has a population of nearly 400,000, allows easy access to firearms -
and has had one of the country's lowest murder rates for years (4.1
per 100,000 population in 1991).
An analysis of 19 types of gun control laws [Table I] concluded that
not only do they fail to reduce rates of violence, they even fail "to
reduce the use of guns or induce people to substitute other weapons in
acts of violence."20 For example:21
When Morton Grove, Ill., outlawed handgun ownership, fewer than 20
were turned in.
After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the
largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it
experienced no decline in violent crime.
Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have
restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent
of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. -
and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and
20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact
that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the
places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons:22
International Evidence.
Other countries have had similar experiences. After Canada passed a
gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed
robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership,
increased.23 (Canadian homicide rates are slightly lower than those in
states along the U.S. border.) Violent crime accelerated in Taiwan and
Jamaica after handguns were banned.24
Why Gun Control Laws May Benefit Criminals.
An increase in violent crime that appears to follow a tightening of
controls on gun ownership and use is consistent with economic
reasoning. Gun control laws are most likely to be obeyed by people who
are otherwise law-abiding if, indeed, they are obeyed by anybody. Thus
measures that apply equally to criminals and noncriminals, if they
affect behavior at all, are almost certain to reduce gun possession
more among noncriminals. As the popular slogan puts it: "If guns are
outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Scholarly studies have not been able to demonstrate any effect of gun
control laws. But if there is an effect, it is likely to benefit
criminals in two ways: fewer armed victims to worry about and fewer
criminal justice resources to devote to prosecuting real criminals. If
fewer potential victims have guns for defense, the balance of power
tilts slightly toward criminals. The overall crime rate tends to
increase, although guns may not be used in any more crimes because, on
average, victim resistance is lowered.
Because more police resources are spent on gun registration, gun law
enforcement and gun law convictions, fewer resources are available to
deter real criminals. Arrests for weapons violations already exceed
220,000 per year,25 a nontrivial load on the criminal justice system.
A Chicago judge from one of the two courtrooms exclusively dedicated
to trying gun law offenses in that city testified a few years ago:26
The most striking experience I can take away from the Gun Court . . .
is . . . the kinds of people that appear there as defendants. . . .
This is their very first arrest of any kind. Many of them are old
people, many of them are shopkeepers, persons who have been previous
victims of violent crime.
Although many of these "criminals" get probation, the advocates of
stricter gun laws press for mandatory sentencing. Meanwhile,
punishments meted out for gun law violations not connected with real
crimes tend to depress citizens' respect for law and the criminal
justice system. As attorney David B. Kopel puts it, "In a world where
first-time muggers often receive probation, it is morally outrageous
to imprison . . . everyone who carries a firearm for self-defense."27
Myth No. 3: Guns Are Of Little Help In Defending Criminals
Over the years, police and other experts have changed their
recommendations about how to deal with criminals. In the early and
middle 1970s, they advised cooperating with robbers and rapists to
minimize chances of personal injury. Today, some who gave that advice
tacitly admit that it was misguided. They now urge resistance in
selected instances, especially for rape victims. Studies show that
robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely
to suffer injuries as those who put up no defense.28
Why Guns Deter Criminals
Advocates of gun control have paid for several studies, hoping to
prove that guns are not useful for self-defense. But every study has
shown the opposite: Handguns are used at least as often in repelling
crimes as in committing them and are particularly successful as
weapons of defense.29 This is one reason why 88 percent of the
nation's command-rank police officials disagree with the statement, "
The banning of private ownership of firearms will result in fewer
crimes from firearms."30
In the 1960s a New York-based antigun group printed signs for its
members to post on their homes, "THERE ARE NO GUNS IN THIS HOUSE." But
the signs came down and the organization withered after a large number
of those homes were robbed or burglarized.31 On the other hand, during
a 1974 police strike in Albuquerque, N. M., armed citizens patrolled
the streets - and felonies dropped sharply.32
Americans use firearms for protection an estimated one million times
each year. Ninety-eight percent of the time, they simply brandish the
weapon or fire a warning shot.33 But not always34
Each year, gun-wielding citizens kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000
criminals in self-defense, three times the number killed by police.
They wound another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals each year.
Criminals may not read statistical studies, but they are generally
aware of the large number of firearms in existence and of the fact
that law-abiding citizens own most of them. Although violent crime and
total crime reported to the police is much higher in the United States
than in Western Europe, U.S. burglary rates are about the same, or
lower, probably because of the deterrent effect of civilian
firearms.35 Burglars say they spend an average of two hours "casing" a
house to establish that no one is at home.36 They avoid late-night
burglaries because " that's the way to get shot."37 Interviews with
convicted felons are especially revealing:38
As Figure II shows, a survey of 1,874 felons in 10 states found that
most worry more about meeting an armed victim than about running into
the police.
42 percent reported they had encountered a victim armed with a gun,
and 38 percent had been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an
armed victim.
A majority agreed that " a store owner who is known to keep a gun on
the premises is not going to get robbed very often."
Adverse Results are Rare.
Despite stories of gun owners who mistake family members for intruders
and shoot them, and of criminals harming victims with the victims'
guns, the fact is that defending oneself with a firearm generally is
safer than the alternatives:39
The accidental shooting of an innocent person mistaken for an intruder
occurs in fewer than 30 fatal firearm incidents a year, about 2
percent of all fatal firearms incidents.
At a maximum, criminals take a gun away from armed victims only 1
percent of the time (while 10 percent of police who are shot are shot
with their own guns).
Interestingly, 70 percent of defensive gun uses are against criminals
who do not have a gun.
A nationwide comparative study conducted by Don B. Kates, Jr., at the
St. Louis University School of Law found that armed citizens were
quite responsible in using handguns.40 The vast majority of people are
not violent and use firearms only as a last resort. When they do use
them, firearms can be effective:41
� As noted above, private citizens kill about three times as many
criminals as do law enforcement officials.
� And although only 2 percent of those involved in civilian shootings
are misidentified, 11 percent of individuals involved in police
shootings were later found to be innocents misidentified as criminals.
Of course, police must enter situations in which they are not
personally involved, while the private citizen is likely to be under
attack and unlikely to mistake the target, so there is a greater
likelihood that police might make a misidentification.
Myth No. 4: Killing someone is the only reason to buy a handgun
Advocates of gun control frequently argue that there is no defensible
reason for innocent people to own handguns, since the only function of
such weapons is to kill other people. Actually, there are a number of
legitimate reasons to own a handgun - not the least of which is self
defense. Pistol shooting (at inanimate targets) is a sport, and some
professionals in the sport have million-dollar contracts.42 And,
contrary to antigun propaganda, pistol hunting is also a sport.43 More
important, as noted above, firearms are used one million times a year
to ward off criminals and most of the time they are not discharged.
Who Owns Guns.
Surveys show that owning a gun is associated with peace of mind. Those
who own guns are less fearful of walking in their neighborhoods. They
are less apt to be afraid at night in their homes, less likely to have
been burglarized or robbed within the last year. They also are more
likely to be political conservatives and hunters. The overall pattern
of gun ownership has been relatively stable over the past 30 years.
The biggest single predictor of whether a householder owns a gun is
whether he or she grew up in a household with a gun. This helps to
explain the deep-seated cultural conflict between those who find gun
ownership wholesome and judicious and those who find it abhorrent and
in need of control.44
Guns for Self-Protection.
Higher crime in an area sometimes stimulates more people to buy
firearms for protection. Twenty-seven percent of gun owners say they
have a gun mainly for protection. Another 62 percent say that
protection from crime is at least one of the reasons they own guns.45
Of households with guns, those with no adult male are twice as likely
as others to keep a loaded gun. Black gun owners are four times as
likely as white gun owners to keep a loaded handgun.46
Criminals vs. Noncriminals.
Survey data show that gun ownership among people who are arrested is
moderately higher than in the general population, but the difference
is modest for handguns, the type most frequently involved in
violence.47 Scattered evidence suggests that during the period of
fastest increase in violent crime, from 1964 to 1974, gun possession
grew more rapidly among criminals than among law-abiding citizens.48
Perhaps the sturdiest evidence is that the fraction of homicides,
aggravated assaults and robberies involving guns increased from 1964
to 1974.
Myth No. 5: People who buy guns are more prone to violence and crime
than are other people.
There is little association between gun ownership and attitudes toward
violence:49
� Overall, gun owners disapprove of violence to the same extent as or
even more strongly than those who do not own guns.
� However, gun owners are more likely to approve of using defensive
force against attackers.50
� Those who exhibit "violent attitudes" - as reflected in their
approval of police brutality, violence against social deviants and
dissenters, and so on - are less likely to own guns.
The traits associated with gun owners show virtually no statistical
association with criminal or violent behavior. If anything, gun
ownership is inversely correlated with criminal characteristics.
Although crime and violence " as well as gun ownership " are more
frequent among males than females and in the South (a region with a
moderately higher rate of violence), a closer look tells a different
story. Violence is higher among black than white, young than
middle-aged, single than married, lower-income than middle- and
upper-income and urban than rural individuals - all contrary to the
pattern of gun ownership.
In terms of crude statistical association, violence and crime are
higher in locales and among populations with lower gun ownership
(cities) and lower in places and populations with higher gun ownership
(rural).51 These facts also cast doubt on the theory that violence is
impulsive and/or fostered by the presence of guns. (See the discussion
below.)
Myth No. 6: Criminals mainly have guns in order to commit crimes.
The number one reason criminals acquire handguns is not to commit
crimes but, like noncriminals, to protect themselves.52 Criminals
keenly feel the need for self-protection because they associate with
other criminals and are likely to be victims as well as victimizers.
As Figure II shows:
� In a survey of imprisoned felons, 58 percent said protection was a
very important reason for getting a handgun and 26 percent said it was
a somewhat important reason.
� Only 28 percent cited use in crime as very important and 20 percent
said it was somewhat important.
Myth No. 7: Killings and other violent crimes were prevalent in the
Old West because guns were so plentiful.
There was violence along the frontiers, but most of it was related to
clashes with Indians, bandits or foreign nations. There was not a
great deal of "ordinary" crime. From 1870 to 1885, the era of the Wild
West when "everybody wore a gun," arrest rates per 100 residents were
much lower in the West than in eastern cities.53 Moreover, "the
Western frontier was a far more civilized, more peaceful, and safer
place than American society istoday."54 Contrary to the impression
left by movies and Western novels, crime and homicides were rare. For
example:55
� In 1880, wide-open towns like Virginia City, Nev., Leadville, Colo.,
and Dallas had no homicides.
� By comparison, Cincinnati had 17 homicides that year.
� From 1870 to 1885, the five Kansas railheads of Abilene, Caldwell,
Dodge City, Ellsworth and Wichita had a total of 45 homicides, or an
average of three per year - a lower homicide rate than New York City,
Baltimore and Boston.56
� Sixteen of the 45 homicides were committed by duly authorized peace
officers, and only two towns " Ellsworth in 1873 and Dodge City in
1876 " ever had as many as five killings in any one year.57
With a few legendary exceptions, law enforcement officers in the Old
West were rather ineffective. Still, there were few robberies, thefts
or burglaries in western towns, primarily because almost everybody
carried or possessed firearms and was willing to resist. "The citizens
themselves, armed with various types of firearms and willing to kill
to protect their persons or property, were evidently the most
important deterrent to larcenous crime," said one author.58 Unlike
"Gunsmoke's" Matt Dillon, the much-heralded western peace officer
actually faced fewer problems than his counterpart elsewhere. The
westerner, said one student of the era, "probably enjoyed greater
security in both person and property than did his contemporary in the
urban centers of the East."59 "It's a fairly recent idea that guns
aren't a good thing," says Jon Weiner, a professor of history at the
University of California. "The image of the lone man defending his
homestead . . . is deeply embedded in the American psyche."60
Myth No. 8: Gun control laws keep criminals from obtaining guns.
Because less than 1 percent of firearms is ever involved in a crime
and because felons acquire only a small fraction of their guns through
licensed channels, all gun control measures suffer from a "needle in
the haystack" problem. New restrictions could reduce the small number
of guns that criminals obtain through regulated dealers but probably
would have little effect on the total number of guns in criminal
hands. Where do criminals get their guns? The previously cited survey
of prisoners in 10 states found that:61
� Just over half of the felons (compared to one-quarter of the general
population) said that they owned handguns.
� Fewer than one in six had purchased their guns from a retail dealer.
� Three-quarters of the felons agreed that they would have "no
trouble" or "only a little trouble"obtaining a gun when they were
released, despite the legal barriers to such purchases.
� Half had stolen at least one gun in their criminal careers; between
40 percent and 70 percent of the handguns these men possessed most
recently were stolen.62
These were incarcerated felons, likely to be among the most active and
strongly motivated criminals. Advocates of gun control measures may
believe that weakly motivated, infrequent criminals can be disarmed or
prevented from acquiring guns through regulation. However, even among
members of the general, noncriminal population, about 36 percent of
guns are acquired through private parties, often as a gift.63 This
implies that of an estimated 8.6 million firearms transactions each
year, some 3.1 million are outside licensed retail sources. While some
jurisdictions try to regulate the informal markets in gun trades, such
transactions are invisible to authorities. And virtually all social
scientists who have investigated the question have concluded that gun
control laws are ineffective in denying guns to criminals because guns
are so available on the underground market.
Do Gun Laws Matter?
Existing studies find that current U.S. gun laws have no substantial
impact on gun ownership or crime. Two possible exceptions are the 1934
federal machine gun ban and well-enforced prohibitions on carrying
guns - although 5 percent of all U.S. adults regularly carry guns.64
Overall, restrictive gun laws raise the price of acquisition and
diminish the value of guns, but the impact on both felons and
nonfelons appears to be weak or nonexistent.
Other Methods of Deterrence.
Harsher punishment of armed criminals by the criminal justice system "
such as mandatory prison sentences for using a firearm in the
commission of a crime " appears to be one of the few effective crime
deterrents. Mandatory penalties appear to reduce armed robbery rates,
for example.65 And one study found that gun offenders receive harsher
treatment at all stages of court processing and, when convicted,
receive substantially longer prison sentences.66
Myth No. 9: Required waiting periods would prevent some of the most
vicious crimes.
One of the most popular forms of gun control is a mandatory waiting
period. For example, if the Brady bill (named after Ronald Reagan's
press secretary, James Brady) were law, all U.S. citizens would have
to wait seven days before purchasing a handgun. Do such laws make
sense?
To generate support for waiting-period laws, proponents frequently
refer to the Brady case and to other vicious crimes committed with
guns. [See the sidebar on "How Waiting Periods Would Have Affected
High-Profile Crimes."] Unfortunately, the cure has nothing to do with
the disease. The Brady bill would not have saved Jim Brady. Nor would
it have prevented the Killeen, Texas, massacre or the Stockton,
Calif., massacre. In each case, the predator still could have legally
obtained the weapon he used, because he had no previous felony record.
Gun control proponents argue that, during the waiting period,
officials would have the opportunity to check out the criminal records
of potential purchasers. A waiting period does give them that
opportunity. But as a practical matter, most criminal records are not
kept where they are accessible to gun dealers, police departments or
anyone else. In general, there is no national reporting of criminal
records and no computer records system that can be tapped into.
Without providing funding, Congress has asked the U.S. Justice
Department to bring its records up to date and maintain them in
easy-access form on computers. A nationwide database system would
permit gun dealers to instantly check for a purchaser's criminal
record before selling a gun. Of course, if instant record checks were
possible, there would be no need for a waiting period.
Myth No. 10: Most murders are committed by people killing friends or
family members.
A majority of murders involve strangers or people with whom the killer
is not well acquainted. Fewer than a fourth of all murders involve
family members or friends. In particular, only 12.5 percent of victims
are members of the same family. Of the 38.4 percent called "unknown" ,
it is likely that relatively few of the murderers are relatives or
friends of the victims.
The notion that most murders are committed by friends killing friends
(or family members) is based on a flawed study and biased descriptions
of the study�s findings.67 The myth has been reinforced by three other
factors. First, the media sensationalizes multiple-death family
murders, exaggerating public perception about their frequency. Second,
murders involving family members or friends have been a declining
share of all murders, and perception has lagged behind the facts
(murder within the family was one-fourth of all murders in 1974 -
twice its current level). Third, many sociologists and criminologists
tend to characterize criminal violence as impulsive, irrational and
unrelated to consequences. The third factor fosters the belief that
much criminal violence occurs simply because someone becomes angry at
home and the means of lethal violence (a firearm) is handy. Neither
logic nor evidence supports this belief.
Myth No. 11: The availability of guns contributes to crimes of
passion.
Are most murders, particularly of friends and relatives, committed by
otherwise peaceful citizens who happen to have loaded guns available
in a moment of anger, and who make one slip? Rarely. Domestic homicide
usually is a terminal episode in a syndrome of violence rather than an
isolated event. When a husband kills a wife, it usually is with his
fists or a bludgeon, and he has beaten her many times before.
Significantly, if a firearm is used when one spouse kills another, it
more often is the wife who uses it in defense against her larger, more
aggressive male partner.68 Most of these wives are never indicted
because they are legally defending themselves or their children.
About 40 percent of defensive gun uses are connected with assaults in
the home,69 and most presumably are cases of family violence.70 But
the notion that much serious violence is accounted for by
previouslynonviolent people in "crime-of-passion" domestic homicides
is wrong.71 For example, in a Kansas City study, in nine out of ten
domestic "crime-of-passion" homicides, police had responded to
disturbance calls at the same address within the preceding two years
an average (median) of five times.72 Moreover, it's not clear what
difference gun control laws would make. A large number of men who kill
in these circumstances have a previous history of convictions and, as
felons, are forbidden by current law to have a gun. One crime study
concludes:73
It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially
homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence
(firearms) are readily at hand, and thus that much homicide would not
occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive
evidence that supports this view.
Myth No. 12: Automatic rifles and so-called assault weapons are too
dangerous to be left in private hands.
On "Miami Vice," the weapons of choice among drug dealers are Uzi
machine guns and M-16 military automatic fire weapons. Don Johnson,
amazingly, manages to prevail week after week using only a handgun. Of
course in real life, Don Johnson wouldn't stand a chance against such
superior fire power. Fortunately, in real life criminals don't carry
machine guns.
Criminals overwhelmingly choose handguns for their concealability and
small size.74 Guns that are rare in the nonfelon population are also
rare in the criminal population. If a weapon is useful for crime, it
is also useful for legitimate purposes. Even drive-by shootings
involve mostly handguns and shotguns. And, despite television and the
movies, most Florida police agencies have not come across a single
"assault weapon."
Automatic Rifles.
Since 1934 it has been unlawful for civilians to possess
automatic-fire weapons without special permission of the U.S.
Department of Treasury, and since 1986 all importation and manufacture
of these weapons for private use have been prohibited. Furthermore, no
semiautomatic weapons sold to civilians are readily convertible to
automatic fire. Nonetheless, it is fairly easy for a law-abiding
civilian to get permission to own one of these weapons as a
"collector" and about 103,000 are in private hands.
The existence of guns that are legally in private hands has posed no
threat to the rest of us, however. Over the past 50 years, no civilian
has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a violent crime. Even the
illegal use of machine guns by drug dealers and other violent
criminals is close to nonexistent. Since 1980, when the first Uzi was
imported into the United States, not one police officer has been
killed with an Uzi machine gun.
Assault weapons.
The official Department of Defense definition of an assault rifle is
one capable of "selective fire," that is, of both automatic fire (many
shots per trigger pull) and semiautomatic (one shot per trigger pull).
The media, however, have broadened the term "assault rifle" to include
any semiautomatic rifle with a military appearance (e.g., plastic
stock instead of wood stock, loop for a lanyard and dull instead of
shiny surface). There is no mechanical difference between these
weapons and those with different styling used for hunting and target
shooting. The only difference is cosmetic.
Semiautomatic weapons are rarely used in crime. When they have been
used " as in Stockton, Calif. " they caused no more damage than easily
could have been caused by a garden-variety weapon.75 In fact, the
death toll from a shotgun or full-power hunting rifle probably would
have been higher. Overall:
� All rifles are involved in less than 3 percent of homicides.
� Of 14,988 guns seized by police in Chicago in 1988, only 3.1 percent
were semiautomatics of any kind.
� Of 217 homicides committed in Dade County (Miami), Fla., in 1989,
only three involved an "assault weapon."76
The total number of felonious deaths of police officers has been
declining since 1980 and the maximum number killed by an "assault
rifle" was 11 during 1987. Even a spokesperson for Handgun Control,
Inc., the primary gun control lobby, conceded that assault weapons
"play a small role in overall violent crime."77
Cop-Killer Bullets.
The political debate changes periodically to focus on other specific
weapons, such as "cop-killer" bullets and plastic guns. To the best of
our knowledge, teflon-coated bullets " which were developed by and for
the police " have never been used in a crime. Nor are they the only
danger faced by police officers. An ice pick will also pierce a
bulletproof vest and kill the wearer.
In general, the piecemeal approach to weapons control is ineffective
because it overlooks substitute weapons. Success in getting rid of one
type of weapon would encourage criminals to use another. For example,
it is highly unlikely that even extensive reductions in handguns would
reduce homicides because offenders would substitute long guns, often
sawed-off, which are as much as three times deadlier than handguns.
The circumstances of most homicides imply that a long gun could easily
have been used.
Myth No. 13: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent the
purchase of "Saturday Night Specials."
So-called Saturday Night Specials are small caliber, inexpensive
handguns. These have been commonplace in the United States since the
19th century. Gun control advocates argue that cheap handguns serve
little or no legitimate purpose and are used to commit most crime.
These claims are wrong. Only 10 percent to 27 percent of crime
involves handguns that fit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
definition of a Saturday Night Special (SNS). Since handguns are
involved in only 10 percent of violent crime (another 2 percent
involve other firearms), SNSs are involved in only 1 to 3 percent of
violent crime. Criminals are no more likely to rely on SNSs than the
share of SNSs in the handgun stock (about one in five), and therefore
criminals cannot be said to prefer Saturday Night Specials. Because
they are less expensive, most SNSs are probably owned by lower income
people for protection, and any laws to ban them would
disproportionately hurt the poor, who are the most frequent victims of
crimes.
Myth No. 14: People don't need guns for self-protection because they
can rely on the police.
One of the most prevalent myths is that people don't need firearms
because law enforcement officers can protect them. But just how much
protection against criminals can citizens expect?
Protection from Ordinary Crime.
There are about 500,000 police officers in the United States.
Adjusting for three shifts per day, vacations, desk duty, etc., leaves
about 75,000 police on patrol at any moment to protect 250 million
Americans.78 That's one police officer for every 3,360 potential
victims. And experience shows that's not enough:79
Every year nearly five million people are victims of violent crimes -
murder, rape, robbery or life-threatening assault.
98 percent of the time, violent and serious property crimes do not
result in a prison sentence.
The median sentence actually served by state prisoners declined from
21 months in the 1950s and early 1960s to 13 months in 1988.
The expected punishment for all serious crimes, taking into account
the low probability of going to prison, declined from an estimated 24
days in prison in 1950 to 8.5 days in 1990.
Riots and Civil Emergencies.
After the Los Angeles riots, Korean-American merchants said they had
no choice but to defend their stores and, in some cases, shoot at
looters. Police, they said, ignored pleas for help that included
attempts to flag down patrol cars and dozens of calls to the 911
emergency number80 Men with guns also defended Mann's Chinese Theatre
and nearby businesses through the first night of rioting. At midnight
the following night, a squad of National Guardsmen arrived but, after
talking with the defenders and looking over what they were doing, the
commander concluded that his men could be of greater use elsewhere,
and they left.81 After Hurricane Hugo devastated the U.S. Virgin
Island of St. Croix in 1989, National Guardsmen and local police did
nothing to stop the looting. Some even took part in it. Only one
shopping center was spared - because the owner had heavily armed men
patrolling the roofs.82
Lack of a Right to Government Protection.
Gun control laws implicitly assume that the criminal justice system
has the duty and the ability to protect individuals. Our judges have
ruled otherwise.83 For example, New York State's highest court ruled
in 1968 that a victim who was attacked after seeking police protection
to no avail had no right to protection. The court refused to create
such a right, saying it would impose a crushing economic burden on the
government.84 For the most part, federal courts have agreed. The
Supreme Court held in an 1856 case85 that local law enforcement
officers had a general duty to enforce laws, not to protect a
particular person. In 1982,86 a federal court of appeals said:
. . . [T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state
against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the
state fails to protect its residents against such predators, but it
does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendment or,
we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution
is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people
alone, it does not require the federal government or the state to
provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and
order.
These rulings are probably consistent with the original intent of the
founding fathers. Some legal scholars argue that the framers of the
U.S. Constitution assumed that law-abiding people would largely be
responsible for their own safety.87 They note that under English
common law, which is the basis for U.S. law, the sheriff's main jobs
were collecting taxes and enforcing government decisions. Keeping
public order was a secondary duty.
Myth No. 15: Gun ownership is not a constitutional right.88
A primary obstacle in the path of those who seek to expand
governmental control over private ownership of firearms is the United
States Constitution's Second Amendment, which says:
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
Note that the right to bear arms is not granted by the amendment.
Instead its existence is presumed, probably as part of the general
right of self-defense.
Note also that since the founding fathers made this right second on a
list of ten, they must have believed that it was especially important.
Some people argue that the right to bear arms is conditional upon the
need to have an armed citizenry as part of our national defense. Thus,
if the need were not there, the founding fathers would not have
asserted the right. In the modern era, supposedly the need is not
there. Does this mean there is no longer any constitutional right? At
the time the Constitution was written, "militia" had two meanings. The
"select militia" was the forerunner of our modern national guard. The
"general militia" referred to all able-bodied men with arms. Both are
distinct from the "army."89
The founding fathers strongly believed in the right of ordinary "
nonarmy " citizens to bear arms, and not just for defense against
foreigners. In general, people feared the new federal government and
its standing army as much as they feared foreign invaders. As James
Madison explained in the Federalist Papers, the primary check on
government tyranny and an abusive army was citizens with their own
arms.90 As Tench Cox, a friend of Madison, wrote at the time the
Constitution was being adopted:91
As civil rulers not having their duty to the people duly before them,
may attempt to tyrannize and as the military force which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country might convert their power to
the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the
next article [2nd Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their
private arms. The founders' purpose was to constitutionalize the right
to arms, which they knew from English common law and Enlightenment
political philosophy. Militia laws blended three related purposes:
opposition to standing armies, dependence on militias and support of
the armed citizen and his willingness to defend himself and his free
society. Standing armies were considered a threat to the development
of the virtuous, self-reliant citizen on whom the republic's vitality
rested.
All subsequent 18th- and 19th-century legal interpretation understood
the Second Amendment right to arms as a guaranteed constitutional
right. It was among Blackstone's five "absolute rights of individuals"
at common law. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was
self-defining to the founders. They felt that clarification was
unnecessary. Familiar to them in Colonial law, derived from the
earliest known English codes and its Greek and Roman antecedents,
proclaimed by every commentator known to them, the right to bear
private arms not only was hailed as fundamental to republican
institutions and popular liberty but was viewed as inherent in the
natural law right of self-defense.
It is also worth noting that the Revolutionary War was sparked by the
British attempt to confiscate the patriots' privately owned arms at
Lexington and Concord. Thus the notion that the founding fathers, or
for that matter anyone alive at the time, thought that the government
had a Constitutional right to disarm peaceable citizens is ludicrous.
Conclusion
Although firearms are used in about 12 percent of violent crimes, it
is unlikely that any kind of gun control legislation could remove more
than a handful of those firearms from felons' hands - and there is no
evidence that the disarmed criminals using them would not then turn to
other weapons. Most criminals do not obtain firearms through
conventional sources. Thus, as opponents of gun control correctly
contend, gun control measures in the United States, if anything,
contribute to increased criminal violence because they deny guns to
honest citizens but not to criminals. They might accurately be called
victim disarmament laws.
Armed citizens pose a risk of punishment to criminals - perhaps more
so than does the criminal justice system. Gun ownership may exert as
much deterrent effect on violent crime and burglary as the criminal
justice system does. The battle over gun control is not about
controlling inanimate objects; it is about controlling people. To
extend gun controls would make the nation better for criminals and
worse for the rest of us.
Notes:
1.Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments (Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill, 1963 [1764]), pp. 87-88.
2.U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Lifetime Likelihood of
Victimization," BJS Technical Report, Washington, DC, U.S. Government
Printing Office, March 1987.
3.Gary Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Hawthorne,
NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), p. 203.
4.Not all 18 came to this conclusion. But some earlier studies that
did not were shown to be defective by later studies. See Kleck, Point
Blank, pp. 185-203.
5.Philip J. Cook, "The Influence of Gun Availability on Violent Crime
Patterns," in Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, eds., Crime and
Justice: An Annual Review, Vol. 4 (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1983), pp. 49-90; and David McDowall, �Gun Availability and
Robbery Rates: A Panel Study of Large U.S. Cities, 1974-1978, - Law
and Policy, 1986, Vol. 8, pp. 135-48.
6.Gary Kleck, "Lifesaving Benefits to Use of Weapons for
Self-Defense," Houston Chronicle, May 31, 1992, p. 1E.
7.David B. Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy (Buffalo,
NY: Prometheus, 1992); and Kleck, Point Blank, pp. 188-91.
8.Martin Killias, "Gun Ownership and Violent Crime: The Swiss
Experience in International Perspective," Security Journal, 1990, Vol.
1, pp. 169-74; and Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy, ch.
8.
9.The same is true of weapons of war and international aggression.
While weapons serve aggressors, they also serve to deter aggressors.
Most students of war doubt the value of mutual arms reductions as a
device to reduce the chance of war. See James L. Payne, Why Nations
Arm (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), p. 166.
10.Kleck, Point Blank, p. 44; U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Handgun Crime Victims, July 1990.
11.H. C. Brearly, Homicide in the United States (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1932), p. 68; and Kleck, Point
Blank, p. 20.
12.Since there are 650,000 crimes involving guns each year and 201
million firearms, the maximum number of guns that could be used to
commit a crime each year would be 650,000/201,000,000 or 0.3 percent.
13.Long guns are twice as numerous as handguns, yet account for only a
sixth of gun crime.
14.See Kleck, Point Blank, pp. 44-45; and Gary Kleck, "Evidence that
�Saturday Night Specials� Not Very Important for Crime," Sociology and
Social Research, 1986, Vol. 70, pp. 303-07.
15.The Gun Owners, December 1991, p. 3.
16.The New Gun Week, January 17, 1992, p.3.
17.Reported in the New American, June 15, 1992, pp. 14-15. In another
incident during the Los Angeles riots, merchant Byung Kim and his sons
abandoned their south Los Angeles appliance warehouse after gunfire
hit two Korean-American friends helping to protect the property. The
undefended property was burned to the ground. Their well-defended
Koreatown store " where the Kims and others stood on the roof with
rifles " wasn�t touched. (Wall Street Journal, June 16, 1992, p. A5.)
18.New American, June 15, 1992, p. 15.
19.Morgan O. Reynolds, Crime By Choice: An Economic Analysis (Dallas:
Fisher Institute, 1985), pp. 165-68.
20.Kleck, Point Blank, p. 397-99.
21.Ibid., p. 408-11.
22.Ibid.
23.U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, International Crime Rates, May
1988; and Ministry of Supply and Services, Canada Yearbook, 1980-81
(Ottawa, Canada: 1981), p. 55.
24.Kopel, The Samurai, The Mountie and the Cowboy, ch. 7.
25.U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Statistics
1991, p. 432.
26.David T. Hardy, "Gun Control: Arm Yourself with Evidence," Reason,
November 1982, p. 41.
27."Trust the People: The Case against Gun Control," Cato Policy
Analysis No. 109, July 11, 1988, p. 29.
28.Kleck, Point Blank, ch. 4 and pp. 170-73.
29.Kleck, Point Blank, and Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the
Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems, 1988, Vol. 35, pp. 1-21.
30.Gun Week, June 15, 1990; National Association of Chiefs of Police,
American Law Enforcement Officers Poll, 1989.
31.Handloader Magazine, no date available.
32.Carol Ruth Silver and Don B. Kates, Jr., "Self-Defense, Handgun
Ownership, and the Independence of Women in a Violent, Sexist
Society," in Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, Don
B. Kates, Jr., ed. (Croton-on-Hudson, NY: North River Press, 1979), p.
152.
33.Kleck, Point Blank, p. 116.
34.Kleck, Point Blank, pp. 111-17.
35.U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, International Crime Rates,
Special BJS Report, May 1988, pp. 1, 3. Australia, Canada, Denmark,
Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden all have
much lower overall crime rates but higher reported burglary rates than
the United States. Also see Kleck, Point Blank, p. 140.
36.George Rengert and John Wasilchick, Suburban Burglary: A Time and
Place for Everything (Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas, 1985).
37.Ibid., p. 30.
38.James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous:
A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de
Gruyter, 1986). The true percentages are likely to be higher because
they were obtained from interviews with self-conscious "tough guys."
39.Kleck, Point Blank, Chapter 4.
40.Unpublished study reported in Carol Ruth Silver and Don B. Kates,
Jr., �Gun Control and the Subway Class, Wall Street Journal, January
10, 1985; and Don B. Kates, Jr., "Some Remarks on the Prohibition of
Handguns," St. Louis University Law Journal, Vol. 23 (1979).
41.Ibid; Kleck, Point Blank; Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private
Use of Armed Force," Social Problems, 1988, Vol. 35, pp. 1-21; and
Gary Kleck and Karen McElrath, "The Effects of Weaponry on Human
Violence," Social Forces, Vol. 67, No. 3, March 1991, pp. 669-92.
42.Sporting events also feature the firing of machine guns and
so-called assault weapons.
43.For example, some people hunt deer with pistols.
44.Barry Bruce-Briggs, "The Great American Gun War," The Public
Interest, 1976, Vol. 45, pp. 37-62.
45.Kleck, Point Blank, pp. 25-26.
46.Ibid., p. 117.
47.Kleck, Point Blank, p. 23.
48.Ibid., p. 24.
49.Ibid., pp. 35-38; and Jo Dixon and Alan J. Lizotte, "Gun Ownership
and the �Southern Subculture of Violence�" American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 93, September 1987, pp. 383-405.
50.Of the "good Samaritans" who came to the aid of victims of violent
crime, 81 percent are gun owners because they are "familiar with
violence, feel competent to handle it, and don�t believe they will get
hurt if they get involved." Ted L. Huston, Gilbert Geis and Richard
Wright, "The Angry Samaritans," Psychology Today, June 1976, p. 64.
51.Legal gun ownership is unrelated or negatively related to gun crime
rates, even after statistical control for urban locales. See Kleck,
Point Blank, pp. 201-02, and studies cited therein.
52.Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous; and D. E. S.
Burr, Handgun Regulation (Tallahassee: Florida Bureau of Criminal
Justice Planning and Assistance, 1977).
53.Charles F. Eckhardt, "Debunking the Wild West Fantasy," Guns &
Ammo, September 1973, pp. 36-37.
54.W. Eugene Hollon, Frontier Violence: Another Look (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1974).
55.Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill, "An American Experiment in
Anarcho-capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West," Journal of
Libertarian Studies, Vol. III, No. 1, pp. 9-29.
56.Robert R. Dykstra, The Cattle Towns (New York: Knopf, 1968), p. 44.
57.Ibid.
58.Roger D. McGrath, Gunfighters, Highwaymen and Vigilantes (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1984), p. 247.
59.Frank Prassel, The Western Peace Officer: A Legacy of Law and Order
(Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972), p. 22.
60.New York Times, June 28, 1992.
61.Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous.
62.The 40 to 70 percent gap represents the inmates� own uncertainty
about the source.
63.DMI (Decision-Making Information), Attitudes of the American
Electorate Toward Gun Control (Santa Ana, CA: DMI 1979), p. 71.
64.Roper Survey 1985, DIALOG database, cited in Kleck, Point Blank, p.
117.
65.Lee R. McPheters, Robert Mann and Don Schlagenhauf, "Economic
Response to a Crime Deterrence Program: Mandatory Sentencing for
Robbery with a Firearm," Economic Inquiry, 1984, Vol. 22, pp. 550-70.
66.Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous.
67.A study conducted at Case Western University concluded that a gun
in the home is six times as likely to kill family members as it is to
kill an intruder. Among other defects, the study: (1) included
suicides (which accounted for most of the incidents) as "killings,"
(2) focused exclusively on that category of crime (home burglary)
which almost never results in a criminal�s being killed and (3)
ignored the number of times that guns were used to defend a home
without resulting in a killing. The study results were published in
Norman Rushforth et al., "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a
Metropolitan County," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 100,
1975, p. 499. For a critique of the study, see Kleck, Point Blank, pp.
127-29; and Don B. Kates, Jr., "Guns, Murders and the Constitution,"
Policy Briefing, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1990,
pp. 24-32, 43.
68.Cynthia K. Gillespie, in Justifiable Homicide: Battered Women,
Self-Defense and the Law (Columbus: Ohio State University Press,
1989), estimates that there are as many as 500 homicides each year in
which women kill their husbands or men with whom they live intimately;
she concludes that the majority are self-defense, saving innocent
lives.
69.This means that of the one million instances of the use of firearms
for self-defense, 400,000 were against another member of the same
family.
70.Kleck, Point Blank, p. 110.
71.See Don B. Kates, Jr., Gary Kleck and David J. Bordua, "The Factual
Foundations for Certain Key Assumptions of Gun Control," Law and
Policy Quarterly, 1983, Vol. 5, pp. 271-98; Murray A. Strauss, Richard
J. Gelles and Suzanne K. Steinmetz, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in
the American Family (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1980); and Gary Kleck
and David J. Bordua, "The Assumptions of Gun Control," in Don B.
Kates, Jr., ed., Firearms and Violence (San Francisco: Pacific
Institute for Public Policy Research, 1984), pp. 39-44.
72.See G. Marie Wilt et al., Domestic Violence and the Police: Studies
in Detroit and Kansas City (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1977); and Glenn D. Walters, The Criminal Lifestyle: Patterns
of Serious Criminal Conduct (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990).
73.Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous.
74.There are also other reasons why handguns are preferred by
criminals. The ammunition fired by semiautomatic rifles is smaller
than average and has milder wounding effects than civilian hunting
ammunition or regular infantry rifle cartridges. While a semiautomatic
can easily fire six rounds within 1.5 seconds, an ordinary revolver
can be fired equally fast. Military-style semiautomatic weapons can
use large ammunition magazines, but so can civilian-style weapons. Gun
assaults usually involve only a few shots being fired, anyway. In
shoot-outs with New York City police, suspects average only 2.5 shots
fired at the police. See Kleck, Point Blank, p. 79.
75.Purdy fired 110 rounds in three or four (or more) minutes " about
30 rounds per minute " a rate of fire available with an ordinary
double-action revolver. No higher rate of fire was necessary for Purdy
to carry out his murderous aim - he did all the shooting he wanted in
four minutes, then killed himself. See Kleck, Point Blank, p. 70, and
Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy, p. 390.
76.Kleck, Point Blank, p. 73.
77.New York Times, April 7, 1989. Cited in Kleck, Point Blank, p. 73.
78.Don B. Kates, Jr., and Patricia Terrell Harris, "How to Make Their
Day," National Review, October 21, 1991, p. 31.
79.Morgan O. Reynolds, "Why Does Crime Pay?" NCPA Policy Backgrounder,
No. 110, National Center for Policy Analysis, November 6, 1992.
80.Editor & Publisher, August 1, 1992, p. 20.
81.FreeMarket, July 1992, p. 1.
82.Reuters dispatch, Dallas Morning News, September 21, 1989.
83.For further discussion of this point, see "The War on Gun Ownership
Still Goes On! Dial 911 and Die!" Guns & Ammo, July 1992, p. 23, p.
87; and "Police Protection or Self-Defense?" New American, April 20,
1992, p.16.
84.New American, April 20, 1992, p. 16.
85.South v. Maryland, 1856.
86.Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d
616 [1982].
87.New American, April 20, 1992, p. 16.
88.See Don B. Kates, Jr., �Handgun Prohibition and the Original
Meaning of the Second Amendment, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 82,
November 1983, pp. 205-75; Bernard J. Bordenet, "The Right to Possess
Arms: The Intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment," Journal of
Firearms and Public Policy, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 1992, pp. 127-58; J.
Neil Schulman, "The Text of the Second Amendment," Journal of Firearms
and Public Policy, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 1992, pp. 159-63; and Sanford
Levinson, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment, " Yale Law Journal, Vol.
99, December 1988, pp. 637-59.
89.The "militia" was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not
simply allowed to keep their own arms but were required to do so. The
duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just those
containing persons subject to militia service. In 1792 Congress,
meeting immediately after adoption of the Second Amendment, defined
the militia to include all able-bodied military-age male citizens of
the United States and required each to own his own firearm (First
Militia Act, 1 Stat. 271, 1792). The founders invariably defined
militia in some phrase like "the whole body of the people," while
their references to organized military units as militia were
invariably termed "select militia" and were strongly pejorative,
dating back to the reign of Charles II, who was believed to have used
"select militia" to disarm and tyrannize the people.
90.Writing in Federalist Paper No. 46, James Madison says: Let a
regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed;
and let it be entirely at the devotion of the Federal Government:
still, it would not be going too far to say that the State Governments
with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The
highest number to which, according to best computation, a standing
army can be carried in any country is not to exceed 100th part of the
whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to
bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the U.S., an army of
more than 25 or 30 thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia
amounting to near a half million citizens with arms in their hands,
officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their
common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing
their affections and confidences. It may well be doubted whether a
militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a
proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the
late successful resistance of this country against British arms will
be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage
of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost
every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which
the people are attached and by which militia officers are appointed,
forms the barrier against enterprises of ambition more insurmountable
than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of
Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear,
the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
91.The Federal Gazette and Pennsylvania Evening Post, June 18, 1789,
p. 20.
Patriot Games
wrote:
>Actually, there is no proof that liberal gun laws lower violence.
>http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/reports/no-gun-left-behind.pdf
New Hampshire has the lowest gun homicide rate (0.43 per capita) but
the percentage of homicides committed without guns (69.3%) is more
than TWICE the percentage committed with guns (30.8%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
New Hampshire allows OPEN CARRY.
http://freestateblogs.net/nhgunfaq
Vermont has the second lowest gun homicide rate (0.48 per capita) but
the percentage of homicides committed without guns (81.3%) is more
than FOUR TIMES the percentage committed with guns (18.8%). In fact,
in Vermont people kill each other TWICE as often with knives.
Vermont DOES NOT require ANY permit or license to carry a gun.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/
Now let's look at Hawaii. Hawaii has the third lowest gun homicide
rate (0.51 per capita) but the percentage of homicides committed
without guns (80.6%) is more than FOUR TIMES the percentage committed
with guns (19.4%).
Hawaii does issue carry permits but only under exceptional
circumstances. NOT ONE such permit has been issued in the last 15
years.
http://www.carryconcealed.net/legal/hawaii-ccw-state-laws.php
In states where its EASY to get a gun, where they wear guns IN THE
OPEN, they have the LOWEST gun homicide rates! In states where its
EASY to get a gun they RARELY kill each other with guns yet they kill
each TWICE as often with knives!
Illinois and Wisconsin, NEIGHBORING states, DO NOT allow carrying a
firearm, period. Yet they have gun homicide rates of 4.59 and 1.80
respectively. Why the huge difference between neighboring states,
especially when considering Chicago BANS firearms?
Illinois and Wisconsin, DO NOT allow carrying a firearm. Yet they
have 75.2% and 64.5% of all homicides committed with guns!
Let's recap. Where people can easily get guns and wear them in the
open they kill each other with guns about 20% of the time. Where
people have a much harder time getting guns, or where they are banned,
and where they cannot carry guns they kill each other with guns about
75% of the time.
By now you should have figured out its NOT ABOUT GUNS.
Its about PEOPLE, specifically CRIMINALS.
Patriot Games
wrote:
>Actually, there is no proof that liberal gun laws lower violence.
>http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/reports/no-gun-left-behind.pdf
Who actually cares about a ridiculous comparison?
Every single LIVING person who has used a gun to defend their life (or
the life of someone else) in the last couple of decades (since Florida
pioneered concealed carry) is HAPPY TO BE ALIVE.
If YOU had YOUR way they WOULD ALL BE DEAD.
---------------------------------------------------------------
More guns equals less victims.
Comparing the United States to the UK, Canada and Australia we find
that the US has the most Assaults yet the fewest Assault victims.
Assaults are personal crimes against actual people. How can the US
have the most Assaults and yet the fewest Assault victims? Because
more Americans are armed and by fighting back they prevent themselves
from being victims.
Assaults (per capita) by country:
#6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
#8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
#10 Australia: 7.02459 per 1,000 people
Assault victims by country:
#2 United Kingdom: 2.8%
#4 Australia: 2.4%
#5 Canada: 2.3%
#11 United States: 1.2%
Comparing the United States to the UK, Canada and Australia we find
that the US has many more Robberies yet the fewest Robbery victims.
How can the US have more Robberies and yet the fewest Robbery victims?
Because more Americans are armed and by fighting back they prevent
themselves from being victims.
Robberies (per capita) by country:
#8 United Kingdom: 1.57433 per 1,000 people
#11 United States: 1.38527 per 1,000 people
#15 Australia: 1.16048 per 1,000 people
#22 Canada: 0.823411 per 1,000 people
Robbery victims by country:
#3 Australia: 1.2%
#4 United Kingdom: 1.2%
#9 Canada: 0.9%
#17 United States: 0.6%
Comparing the United States to Canada and Australia we find that
Canada and Australia have more than twice as many Rapes and Rape
victims as the US. This is because more American women are armed and
by fighting back they prevent themselves from being victims.
Rapes (per capita) by country:
#3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people
#5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people
#9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people
Rape victims by country:
#5 Australia: 1%
#8 Canada: 0.8%
#13 United States: 0.4%
More guns equals less victims.
Patriot Games
wrote:
Well, well, well....
Now that you have swallowed the bait (including the hook) thus
eliminating any chance of backtracking let's explore your claim, shall
we?
---------------------
Original Thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/browse_thread/thread/8987697300bf4cb1/b2fb2e4472b940c8?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=robw+draft+dodge#b2fb2e4472b940c8
ROBW: "A person is conditioned in the military."
Paulie Walnutts: "What the FUCK do you know about how things are done
in the military you blithering fool?"
ROBW: "I have friends who were in the military. I know enough of how
it works to know the idea is to break you down and build you back up
the military way."
ROBW: "I have experience with the military. You kind of get that when
you're awarded a C.O."
-----------------------------
robw
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 06:45:13 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
Sorry, no.
I wear a waist size 33 and a 9 1/2 size shoe. Hardly kid's sizes.
What size shoe do you wear on your fake leg? Is it the same as your
real one?
Is your vision 20-0?
She's five foot eight and weighs about a buck twenty five.
Hardly fat. Shaves under her arms (and other places, in you get my
gist) and has a great smile.
Describe your sweetie of two years.
robw
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 06:04:00 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> Well, well, well....
>
> Now that you have swallowed the bait (including the hook) thus
> eliminating any chance of backtracking let's explore your claim, shall
> we?
>
> ---------------------
>
> Or:http://tinyurl.com/olmf2c
>
> ROBW: "A person is conditioned in the military."
>
> Paulie Walnutts: "What the FUCK do you know about how things are done
> in the military you blithering fool?"
>
> ROBW: "I have friends who were in the military. I know enough of how
> it works to know the idea is to break you down and build you back up
> the military way."
>
>
> Or:http://tinyurl.com/os73bn
>
> ROBW: "I have experience with the military. You kind of get that when
> you're awarded a C.O."
> -----------------------------
I stand by everything I said.
Sorry.
Steve
wrote:
>On May 12, 10:18�am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
I never wear a regular shoe on my left side. I offered to do so at my
daughter's wedding last year but she said, no, it wouldn't be me
unless I walking on some strange looking shiny gadget and wearing the
eye patch.
I have several different attachments depending on what I'm going to be
doing. They're either all stainless steel or stainless steel with a
rubber tread. Some have two contact points, some have one big curved
contact point. I have one that has a hard rubber rounded contact
point that I designed for dancing. I have a couple that are resin
that I had made to fit into a dive fin. I designed most of them
myself and had them built. I have a brand new one that locks onto
the pedal of my new recumbent bike. I like to experiment with them,
changing the design and adjusting the angles of the joints. Most
have spring loaded joints. I have some where I can change out the
springs. I have some variable rate springs that work really slick.
>Is your vision 20-0?
>
>She's five foot eight and weighs about a buck twenty five.
Don't believe you... I see too many of you little wimpy guys with
the big fat women.
>Hardly fat. Shaves under her arms (and other places, in you get my
>gist) and has a great smile.
You have quite an imagination, anyway.
>Describe your sweetie of two years.
She's Filipino, her parents brought her to America when she was a
baby. Now, she's a lawyer like her father was. She inherited her
father's law office. Dark eyes, dark hair, a little over 5 feet and
a little over a hundred pounds, and runs marathons. Finishes well.
Hit's the workout place two or three nights a week. We're both
pretty deep into fitness. She's a bicycle rider too. Belongs to a
club that goes on long distance bike rides. Has been after me for
years to come up with a way for me to go biking with her and now,
since my doctor has cut out the marathons for me, I've got the
recumbent.
We've been together way longer than two years.
robw
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:54:12 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
Sorry, but the Artsit/Muse is just as I desrcibed.
I can get on any bike without having it be tripped out.
Same with anything else I do where you need all kinds of adjustments.
A little over five foot?
Is she a "Sanrio" doll?
The nArtist/Muse has a thing for "Bad Batz Maru."
Perhpas they could make a doll out of your ladyfriend.
And you were the one who said two years.
As far as the shaving.....
Back in the 90's she had a thing for dying her hair a different color
every other week. I'd come home from work, she'd emerge out of the
bathroom and I'd say "It's you, right?" all in fun.
One particular color could have been described as "Ronald McDonald
Red."
We were walking past the Betsy Ross House and this idot tourist (you
could tell) said to her "Sweetie, does the carpet match the drapes?"
When she replied "Hardwood floors" the guy's jaw dropped and hit the
pavement.
We just laughed and walked away.
Patriot Games
wrote:
WHERE did you go to Boot Camp and WHAT was your MOS?
robw
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:54:12 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
Cool.
Does she double as girfriend and nightstand?
robw
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:57:12 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I didn't have contact with the military in getting my C.O.?
Paulie Walnutts
>
> - Show quoted text -
Military??? LMMFAO !! You had contact with the draft board you fucking
dingbat.The closest contact you've had with the "military" is watching
old John Wayne war movies !! ROTFFLMMFAO !! !!
robw
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why won't you tell us the age of your oldest kid?
Patriot Games
wrote:
WHERE did you go to Boot Camp and WHAT was your MOS?
robw
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:57:35 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, you're right.
Getting a C.O. has nothing to do with the military.
Jackass.
Paulie Walnutts
>
> - Show quoted text -
UUHHH-OOOHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ANOTHER $100 !! WOOO-HOOOO !!!!
(Letsee,according to my calculations you and your "group" owe me
$5,500.00 already. And this is only May !! ) HOTTDAMNN !! At this rate
I'll be able to charter that Lear Jet I've been wanting to fly !! Keep
up the good work wicca boy !!
Paulie Walnutts
>
> - Show quoted text -
What you meant to say is "I have had NOTHING to do with the military
because I'm a yellow-bellied runt".
Patriot Games
wrote:
>Getting a C.O. has nothing to do with the military.
Last chance: WHERE did you go to Boot Camp and WHAT was your MOS?
Patriot Games
>> Getting a C.O. has nothing to do with the military.
>> Jackass.
>because I'm a yellow-bellied runt".
No sir...
What he MEANT to say was 'I LIED ABOUT GETTING A CO!'
Dave Heil
>>>>>>>>>> State Senator Doug Jackson (R- 25), would prohibit the sale of
>>>>>>>>>> micro-stamped firearms or ammunition in Tennessee. This preventive
>>>>>>>>>> measure is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee and has
>>>>>>>>>> been deferred to Wednesday, May 12. House Bill 1924 sponsored by State
>>>>>>>>>> Representative Henry Fincher (D-42), is the companion bill to SB 1908.
>>>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>>> House Bill 70, sponsored by State Representative Henry Fincher (D-42),
>>>>>>>>>> would remove the prohibition against using deadly force in protection
>>>>>>>>>> of personal property. It would also expand your right to self defense
>>>>>>>>>> to a business. HB 70 overwhelmingly passed the House on March 19, 89
>>>>>>>>>> to 1. The Senate adopted and passed HB 70 on Thursday, April 30, by a
>>>>>>>>>> unanimous vote of 29 to 0. Senate Bill 474, sponsored by State Senator
>>>>>>>>>> Andy Berke (D-10), was the companion bill to HB 70 and was
>>>>>>>>>> automatically sent to a dead file. Please contact Governor Bresden at
>>>>>>>>>> (615) 741-2001 and urge him to sign this important self-defense
>>>>>>>>>> measure.
>>>>>>>>>> Below is a list of pro-gun bills that have been signed into law:
>>>>>>>>>> Senate Bill 2276, sponsored by State Senator Jim Kyle (D-28), would
>>>>>>>>>> authorize the Department of Safety to present a law enforcement
I'm certain that both you and she believe that she is a class act.
Dave Heil
robw
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, sorry.
I was awarded a C.O.
Kills you, doesn't it?
robw
>
> - Show quoted text -
We will.
robw
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, I didn't bend over and take it up the ass like you did.
robw
> >>>>>>>>>> State Senator Doug Jackson (R- 25), would prohibit the sale of
> >>>>>>>>>> micro-stamped firearms or ammunition in Tennessee. This preventive
> >>>>>>>>>> measure is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee and has
> >>>>>>>>>> been deferred to Wednesday, May 12. House Bill 1924 sponsored by State
> >>>>>>>>>> Representative Henry Fincher (D-42), is the companion bill to SB 1908.
> >>>>>>>>>> consideration.
> >>>>>>>>>> House Bill 70, sponsored by State Representative Henry Fincher (D-42),
> >>>>>>>>>> would remove the prohibition against using deadly force in protection
> >>>>>>>>>> of personal property. It would also expand your right to self defense
> >>>>>>>>>> to a business. HB 70 overwhelmingly passed the House on March 19, 89
> >>>>>>>>>> to 1. The Senate adopted and passed HB 70 on Thursday, April 30, by a
> >>>>>>>>>> unanimous vote of 29 to 0. Senate Bill 474, sponsored by State Senator
> >>>>>>>>>> Andy Berke (D-10), was the companion bill to HB 70 and was
> >>>>>>>>>> automatically sent to a dead file. Please contact Governor Bresden at
> >>>>>>>>>> (615) 741-2001 and urge him to sign this important self-defense
> >>>>>>>>>> measure.
> >>>>>>>>>> Below is a list of pro-gun bills that have been signed into law:
> >>>>>>>>>> Senate Bill 2276, sponsored by State Senator Jim Kyle (D-28), would
> >>>>>>>>>> authorize the Department of Safety to present a law enforcement
She'd have never siad it if the guy hadn't been an asshole.
He got what he deserved.
And it was funny.
Dave Heil
>>> awarded a C.O.
>>
>>> Of course you bent over the desk and took it up the ass
>>> so you got the "Yes Sir! No Sir!" tour.
>> I think you went into the wrong room.
>>
>>> And while we never had kids of our won there are two young ladies who
>>> will start college next year who name me as their most dominate male
>>> figure.
>> Did you really mean "dominate" or might you have meant "dominant"?
>>
>> Even if it was "dominant", what could you mean? Do you believe that
>> women find you "dominant"? Whatever on Earth for?
>>
>>> (and thankfully I helped them to not turn out like a Bristol
>>> Palin type slut)
>> Remarks like that will get you scratched from just about anyone's list
>> of admired people. Your statement is a mark of low breeding.
>>
>>> Have known them for over a decade. Great people.
>> If they're great, why are they spending time with you?
>>
>>> Guns? Never shot one.
>> Pathetic.
>>
>>> But I know the harm they bring...
>> Harm? A gun doesn't have to bring harm at all. Maybe the harm is that
>> it jams for misfires. One may come to harm without a gun.
>>
>>> and that idiots
>>> like you are more worried about rights than people.
>> There you go calling names when you're short on knowledge and long on
>> invective. Objects don't have rights. People have rights. Among my
>> rights is the one which says I may keep and use firearms.
>>
>> I live in the countryside. I may use my guns for bringing food to the
>> table. Since a Sheriff's Deputy could take thirty minutes to arrive at
>> my home after a call is made, I count on my guns for the protection of
>> my home and those who live therein.
>>
>>> As far a s your sex comment I have straight sex with my wife.
>> Why is it that you think those reading this newsgroup need to know about it?
>>
>>> You can't even say that.
>> Not saying something isn't the same as not being able to say it.
>>
>>> Limp dicked or is it her?
>> I'd love it if the fathers of those two high school girls you think view
>> you as "dominate", could see what you've written here.
> Emily's Mom and her real Dad broke up when Em was three. Katy's Dad
> passed from cancer when she wqas five.
Somebody's responsible for them. Whoever those people/that person
are/is, I'd like for him/them to read your comments accusing someone of
being "limp dicked".
> Jen and Amy have always made it clear to any guy they've dated that if
> the girls have a problem or want to talk they'd more than likely come
> to me. (and the Artsit/Muse)
> Both have been remarried for a few years and the guys are cool with
> the arrangement.
What guys?
> Seems I rememebr you asking me a similar question about Alex's
> parents.
Who the hell is Alex?
> Nothing new?
Not from you. I commented about guns, my right to own them and my need
for having them.
I commented on rights. No response from you.
I commented on your name-calling. No response from you on that either.
I commented on your claim that guns cause harm. There's been no
response from you.
Dave Heil
Steve
wrote:
>On May 15, 12:44�pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
Why are you proud of a "Cowards Out?"
>Kills you, doesn't it?
Anybody can get a "Cowards Out." All you have to do is have your
mommy bring you to the draft board and have her tell them that you
still wet the bed whenever you have bad dreams. The C O is an
important tool for the military.. Lets them weed out the girly-boys
early on before they waste any time on 'em.
Steve
wrote:
>On May 16, 7:30�pm, Dave Heil <k...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Actually, it was totally dumb... you could have had the same, exact
effect by dropping a big, loud, smelly fart.... ....and of course,
it never happened at all...
You invent these fantasies as a way to set up in your mind, a payback
to all the people who have, over the years, given you the impression
that they were disrespecting you.. You have no way to actually pay
them back, so these strange fantasies are the best you can do.
Steve
wrote:
>On May 13, 6:09�am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Ah, when you make them up, as you did, you can describe them any way
that trips your trigger....
>I can get on any bike without having it be tripped out.
>Same with anything else I do where you need all kinds of adjustments.
but not an airplane.. nor a sailboat,
>A little over five foot?
>Is she a "Sanrio" doll?
>The nArtist/Muse has a thing for "Bad Batz Maru."
>Perhpas they could make a doll out of your ladyfriend.
She's already quite a doll
>And you were the one who said two years.
Nope.. never said any such thing. Your imagination is hard at work
again.
>As far as the shaving.....
>Back in the 90's she had a thing for dying her hair a different color
>every other week. I'd come home from work, she'd emerge out of the
>bathroom and I'd say "It's you, right?" all in fun.
>
>One particular color could have been described as "Ronald McDonald
>Red."
>We were walking past the Betsy Ross House and this idot tourist (you
>could tell) said to her "Sweetie, does the carpet match the drapes?"
>
>When she replied "Hardwood floors" the guy's jaw dropped and hit the
>pavement.
>
>We just laughed and walked away.
Again, your imagination is hard at work.... You must sit around all
night trying to think up these silly little "replies" that your
imaginary friend would say.... that is.... if she wasn't
imaginary...
As I've been telling you, Noddyboy, you're trying way to hard.. the
way you present your life, it totally revolves this Artsit/Muse
fantasy of yours.. which leads me to believe that she's not only a
wishful fantasy of yours, but that you're some sort of a shut in
yourself... living your life through fantasies.....
If you really are, as I suspect, confined to a bed or wheelchair and
wearing diapers, I truly and honestly feel sad for you.
Patriot Games
wrote:
>I was awarded a C.O.
WHERE did you go to Boot Camp and WHAT was your MOS?
Patriot Games
>>I was awarded a C.O.
>Why are you proud of a "Cowards Out?"
>>Kills you, doesn't it?
>Anybody can get a "Cowards Out." All you have to do is have your
>mommy bring you to the draft board and have her tell them that you
>still wet the bed whenever you have bad dreams. The C O is an
>important tool for the military.. Lets them weed out the girly-boys
>early on before they waste any time on 'em.
Many people think that a CO means you DON'T have to SERVE in the
military...
Most of them are WRONG.
Which, of course, is WHY the LIAR "robw" refuses to answer the
question...
Steve
I suspect that Noddyboy couldn't serve for physical reasons.. I think
he's a complete shut in... probably wears diapers and needs help
feeding himself. Why else would he fantasize about his imaginary
girlfriend "putting down" total strangers by talking about her crotch?
If that's the case, I'm feeling sorry for him...
Tom Sr.
Advancing in Tennessee!
-----
http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm
* States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in
Gun Death:
Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, and Nevada Have Highest Gun
Death Rates *
Washington, DC -- States with higher gun ownership rates and weak gun
laws have the highest rates of gun death according to a new analysis
by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of just-released 2006 national
data (the most recent available) from the federal Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control.
The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita
gun death rates were Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, and
Nevada. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far
exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000
for 2006. Each state has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates.
By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun
ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last
in the nation for gun death was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. (See below for top and bottom
five states. See http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart09.htm for a ranking
of all 50 states.)
---
* States with the Five Highest Gun Death Rates *
1 - Louisiana --
Household Gun Ownership: 45.6%
Gun Death Rate per 100,000:: 19.58
2 - Alabama --
Household Gun Ownership Gun Death Rate per 100,000: 57.2 percent
1Gun Death Rate per 100,000: 6.99
3 (tie) - Alaska
Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent
Gun Death Rate per 100,000: 16.38
3 (tie) - Mississippi
Household Gun Ownership Gun: 54.3 percent
Gun Death Rate per 100,000: 16.38
5 - Nevada
Household Gun Ownership: 31.5 percent
Gun Death Rate per 100,000: 16.25...
[ TENNESSEE ranks number EIGHT with a Gun Death Rate of 15.52 per
100,000. ]
...VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, “More guns means
more
gun death and injury. Fewer guns means less gun death and injury.
It’s
a simple equation....”
-----
The *real* people who are loosing here *are* the people of the state
of Tennessee!
“More guns means more gun death and injury. Fewer guns means less gun
death and injury. It’s a simple equation.”
-Tom Sr.
Patriot Games
That would be my guess too.
>I think he's a complete shut in... probably wears diapers and needs help
>feeding himself. Why else would he fantasize about his imaginary
>girlfriend "putting down" total strangers by talking about her crotch?
Yep. And as he's getting older he's feeling deep shame and disgrace
for not having served and made a contribution to America, so he
invents an 'excuse' for not having served....
>If that's the case, I'm feeling sorry for him...
I'm not as nice as you are.
The honest truth is I'd enjoy dragging him into the street and setting
him on fire in front of a crowd that would surely cheer.
But I wouldn't enjoy prison so I must refrain from some of Life's
Pleasures...
Patriot Games
<tomswif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Re: Anti-Gun Democrats DEFEATED, Again - NINE (9) Pro-Gun Bills
>Advancing in Tennessee!
>of Tennessee!
The law-abiding citizens of TN are winning because they can better
defend themselves against the criminals.
Certainly not a sock-puppet
> The *real* people who are loosing here *are* the people of the state
> of Tennessee!
>
Learn the difference between LOSING and LOOSING, imbecile.
robw
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 11:24:39 -0400, Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 17 May 2009 11:07:10 -0400, Patriot Games
> ><Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
> >>On Sun, 17 May 2009 07:44:17 -0400, Steve
> >>>On Sat, 16 May 2009 20:09:16 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, the idiot made a comment about the Artist/Muse's hair and she
shot him down. Even people passing by who heard her were cracking up
laughing at the guy.
She humiliated him.
Sorry, but I'm not a shut-in.
Don't wear adult diapers.
I even have both my legs and eyes.
Patriot Games
wrote:
>shot him down. Even people passing by who heard her were cracking up
>laughing at the guy.
>She humiliated him.
>Sorry, but I'm not a shut-in.
>Don't wear adult diapers.
>I even have both my legs and eyes.
WHEN and WHERE did you go to Boot Camp and WHAT was your MOS?
robw
>
> - Show quoted text -
When did I ever say I served in the military?
Oh, right.
I never did.
Put you and Stevie together and you'd have two legs, two eyes but
still only half a brain.
.
Paulie Walnutts
>
> - Show quoted text -
Man,that's almost as funny as the story you told about your "wife"
flashing her tits in a crowed restaurant just to embarass the "old
folks" with their kids. What a classy woman !! WOOO-HOOO!!
Steve
wrote:
>On May 17, 4:18�pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
Bullshit.. If it really had happened, which of course it didn't, it
wouldn't shoot down anyone, it would only demonstrate that the woman
was a slut.
>She humiliated him.
<LOL> Bullshit.. I was decidedly stupid and immature.. the kind of
thing only a thirteen year old would get a laugh about....
>Sorry, but I'm not a shut-in.
Sorry, but the strange stories that you tell indicate that you have
very little knowledge of how the real world works....
Patriot Games
wrote:
>Oh, right.
>I never did.
You didn't say because you THOUGHT that CO meant you got off...
It DOES NOT.
You MUST SERVE. There is NO OPTION to NOT SERVE.
There NEVER HAS BEEN an option to NOT SERVE, EVER.
This is how I know YOU ARE LYING.
Your ONLY options would have been non-combat military service (which
means boot camp and an MOS) OR "Alternative Service" WHICH WOULD HAVE
LASTED TWO (or more) YEARS - AND you would have a SPECIAL
Classification.
>Put you...
Once a LIAR, ALWAYS A LIAR.
------------------------------------------------------
SERVICE AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
Two types of service are available to conscientious objectors, and the
type assigned is determined by the individual's specific beliefs. The
person who is opposed to any form of military service will be assigned
to Alternative Service - described below. The person whose beliefs
allow him to serve in the military but in a noncombatant capacity will
serve in the Armed Forces but will not be assigned training or duties
that include using weapons.
ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
Conscientious Objectors opposed to serving in the military will be
placed in the Selective Service Alternative Service Program. This
program attempts to match COs with local employers. Many types of jobs
are available, however the job must be deemed to make a meaningful
contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and
interest. Examples of Alternative Service are jobs in:
- conservation
- caring for the very young or very old
- education
- health care
Length of service in the program will equal the amount of time a man
would have served in the military, usually 24 months.
http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm
------------------------------------------------------
Once a LIAR, ALWAYS A LIAR.
YOU are a BUSTED LIAR...
Paulie Walnutts
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 10:22:11 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
How could he?? He stays stoned so he won't have to deal with the "real
world".
Paulie Walnutts
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 11:26:12 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Once a LIAR, ALWAYS A LIAR.
>
> YOU are a BUSTED LIAR...
BUSTED !!
robw
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 20:14:54 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
Sorry, it happened.
And you need to understand that, first off, I've been quite popular
with people all these years and secondly, if someone makes a remark I
respond the same way she did. I can be the nicest, most polite person
in the world if you're nice to me.
Piss me off and I let loose.
I can be a smart ass=Philly Attytude.
I will say it's a shame you didn't get to know me under different
circumstances.
I really am a very nice person (you can't be successful in feild
retail being a prick)
that holds doors, smiles and makes conversation with just about
everyone for starters.
Being nice costs nothing and puts smiles on people's faces.
You should try it.
robw
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 06:12:04 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
Well, the Artist/Muse is a very big part of my life. Probably the
reason we've been together in one form or another simce 1993. Sorry
that when I tell you about my life you can't find it to be true but it
is.
Tell you what, it might be some time (we've got the cruise and want to
do other stuff with our other vacation weeks) but next time we're
visiting my friend in Bradenton we'll swing over and take you and your
girl out to dinner. We always visit the Dali Museum when we're down
your way.
robw
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 07:44:17 -0400, Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 16 May 2009 20:09:16 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
But you can serve in a civilian hospital.
robw
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 11:07:10 -0400, Patriot Games
>
>
>
>
>
> <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 17 May 2009 07:44:17 -0400, Steve
> >>On Sat, 16 May 2009 20:09:16 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, not a shut-in.
I was totally fit then and I still am.
I'm on no form of medication and have never spent a night in the
hospita for reasons pertaining to my health.
.
robw
>
> - Show quoted text -
Never said that.
It was a Republican Election Headquarters and she didn't flash.
She purchased a "Sarah Palin's Pit Bulls" t-shirt, crossed out the
"pit" and wrote "all."
The exposure, as it was, happened as a result of a "wardrobe
malfunction."
Got it now?
robw
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 10:22:11 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, it really happened.
And it was feaking funny.
The look on the guy's face was priceless.
"I was decidedly stupid and immature."
Really?
When were you like that?
Days that end in a "Y"???
(snicker)
robw
>
> - Show quoted text -
We haven't smoked up in a couple weeks.
Haven't had anyhting to drink stronger that chai tea in the same
period of time.
We're doing our voluntary detox thing.
robw
>
> - Show quoted text -
Worked in a civiian hospital.
It's what they have you do when you are against both wars and anything
to do with the military.
Not busted.
Doc Holliday
> Re: Anti-Gun Democrats DEFEATED, Again - NINE (9) Pro-Gun Bills
> Advancing in Tennessee!
>
>
> * States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in
> Gun Death:
> Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, and Nevada Have Highest Gun
> Death Rates *
>
> Washington, DC -- States with higher gun ownership rates and weak gun
> laws have the highest rates of gun death according to a new analysis
> by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of just-released 2006 national
> data (the most recent available) from the federal Centers for Disease
> Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and
> Control.
>
> The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita
> gun death rates were Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, and
> Nevada. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far
> exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000
> for 2006. Each state has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates.
>
> By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun
> ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last
> in the nation for gun death was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts,
> Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. (See below for top and bottom
Shut them down!
snip>
In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA
09 Aug 2004
An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially
preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000,
2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records
that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality
company.
The HealthGrades Patient Safety in American Hospitals study is the
first to look at the mortality and economic impact of medical errors
and injuries that occurred during Medicare hospital admissions
nationwide from 2000 to 2002. The HealthGrades study applied the
mortality and economic impact models developed by Dr. Chunliu Zhan and
Dr. Marlene R. Miller in a research study published in the Journal of
the American Medical Association (JAMA) in October of 2003. The Zhan
and Miller study supported the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) 1999
report conclusion, which found that medical errors caused up to 98,000
deaths annually and should be considered a national epidemic.
The HealthGrades study finds nearly double the number of deaths from
medical errors found by the 1999 IOM report "To Err is Human," with an
associated cost of more than $6 billion per year. Whereas the IOM
study extrapolated national findings based on data from three states,
and the Zhan and Miller study looked at 7.5 million patient records
from 28 states over one year, HealthGrades looked at three years of
Medicare data in all 50 states and D.C. This Medicare population
represented approximately 45 percent of all hospital admissions
(excluding obstetric patients) in the U.S. from 2000 to 2002.
"The HealthGrades study shows that the IOM report may have
underestimated the number of deaths due to medical errors, and,
moreover, that there is little evidence that patient safety has
improved in the last five years," said Dr. Samantha Collier,
HealthGrades' vice president of medical affairs. "The equivalent of
390 jumbo jets full of people are dying each year due to likely
preventable, in-hospital medical errors, making this one of the
leading killers in the U.S."
HealthGrades examined 16 of the 20 patient-safety indicators defined
by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) - from
bedsores to post-operative sepsis - omitting four obstetrics-related
incidents not represented in the Medicare data used in the study. Of
these sixteen, the mortality associated with two, failure to rescue
and death in low risk hospital admissions, accounted for the majority
of deaths that were associated with these patient safety incidents.
These two categories of patients were not evaluated in the IOM or JAMA
analyses, accounting for the variation in the number of annual deaths
attributable to medical errors. However, the magnitude of the problem
is evident in all three studies.
"If we could focus our efforts on just four key areas - failure to
rescue, bed sores, postoperative sepsis, and postoperative pulmonary
embolism - and reduce these incidents by just 20 percent, we could
save 39,000 people from dying every year," said Dr. Collier.
The HealthGrades study was released in conjunction with the company's
first annual Distinguished Hospital Award for Patient SafetyTM, which
honors hospitals with the best records of patient safety. Eighty-eight
hospitals in 23 states were given the award for having the nation's
lowest patient-safety incidence rates. A list of winners can be found
at http://www.healthgrades.com.
Study Highlights Among the findings in the HealthGrades Patient Safety
in American Hospitals study are as follows:
-- About 1.14 million patient-safety incidents occurred among the 37
million hospitalizations in the Medicare population over the years
2000-2002.
-- Of the total 323,993 deaths among Medicare patients in those years
who developed one or more patient-safety incidents, 263,864, or 81
percent, of these deaths were directly attributable to the incident
(s).
-- One in every four Medicare patients who were hospitalized from 2000
to 2002 and experienced a patient-safety incident died.
-- The 16 patient-safety incidents accounted for $8.54 billion in
excess in-patient costs to the Medicare system over the three years
studied. Extrapolated to the entire U.S., an extra $19 billion was
spent and more than 575,000 preventable deaths occurred from 2000 to
2002.
-- Patient-safety incidents with the highest rates per 1,000
hospitalizations were failure to rescue, decubitus ulcer and
postoperative sepsis, which accounted for almost 60 percent of all
patient-safety incidents that occurred.
-- Overall, the best performing hospitals (hospitals that had the
lowest overall patient safety incident rates of all hospitals studied,
defined as the top 7.5 percent of all hospitals studied) had five
fewer deaths per 1000 hospitalizations compared to the bottom 10th
percentile of hospitals. This significant mortality difference is
attributable to fewer patient-safety incidents at the best performing
hospitals.
-- Fewer patient safety incidents in the best performing hospitals
resulted in a lower cost of $740,337 per 1,000 hospitalizations as
compared to the bottom 10th percentile of hospitals.
The complete study, including the list of AHRQ patient-safety
indicators, can be found at http://www.healthgrades.com.
"If the Center for Disease Control's annual list of leading causes of
death included medical errors, it would show up as number six, ahead
of diabetes, pneumonia, Alzheimer's disease and renal disease,"
continued Dr. Collier. "Hospitals need to act on this, and consumers
need to arm themselves with enough information to make quality-
oriented health care choices when selecting a hospital."
Distinguished Hospital Awards and Findings
In addition to its findings on patient safety, HealthGrades today
honored 88 hospitals in 23 states with the Distinguished Hospital
Award for Patient Safety, the first national hospital award to focus
purely on hospital patient safety. The award was designed to highlight
hospitals with the best records of patient safety in the nation and to
encourage consumers to research their local hospitals before
undergoing a procedure.
HealthGrades based the awards on a detailed study of patient safety
events in hospitals nationwide from 2000 to 2002, using the list of
patient-safety incidents developed by AHRQ. "Best" hospitals were
identified as the top 7.5 percent of the hospitals studied and had
significantly different patient-safety incident rates and costs
compared to hospitals that were average or in the bottom 10th
percentile. Among the "best" hospitals, the lower number of avoidable
deaths and in-patient hospital costs were directly related to their
lower overall patient-safety incident rates.
"If all the Medicare patients who were admitted to the bottom 10th
percentile of hospitals from 2000 to 2002 were instead admitted to the
"best" hospitals, approximately 4,000 lives and $580 million would
have been saved," said Dr. Collier.
About HealthGrades
Health Grades, Inc. (OTCBB: HGRD) is the leading independent
healthcare quality company, providing ratings, information and
advisory services to healthcare providers, employers, health plans and
insurance companies. HealthGrades works with healthcare providers to
help assess, improve and promote their quality. HealthGrades provides
consumers access to information about healthcare providers and
practitioners through its Web site and provides liability insurers,
employers and payers with critical information about healthcare
quality.
Source:
Sarah Loughran,
HealthGrades
Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php
Main News Category: Litigation / Medical Malpractice
Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a
substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any
action before consulting with a health care professional. For more
information, please read our terms and conditions.
Save time! Get the latest medical news headlines for your specialist
area, in a weekly newsletter e-mail. See http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newsletters.php
for details.
Send your press releases to pressr...@medicalnewstoday.com>end
Peace,
Doc
Steve
wrote:
>On May 17, 11:24�am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
If thats the case, you should get yourself out and try to figure out
what's cool and what's not... Start with the fact that you're
not....
Steve
wrote:
>On May 18, 5:31�pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Your bullshit doesn't compute.. You're a sad little wannabe so far
removed from reality that you don't have a clue about what its all
about..
Steve
wrote:
>On May 17, 7:44�am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Blah, blah, blah....
>And you need to understand that, first off, I've been quite popular
>with people all these years and secondly, if someone makes a remark I
>respond the same way she did. I can be the nicest, most polite person
>in the world if you're nice to me.
>
>Piss me off and I let loose.
You wet your pants......
>I can be a smart ass=Philly Attytude.
You aren't fooling anyone...
>I will say it's a shame you didn't get to know me under different
>circumstances.
I stay far away from immature little poseurs like you.... feel sorry
for you, perhaps, but want nothing to do with you...
Steve
wrote:
>On May 17, 7:44�am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
It's all a fantasy and a sad one at that..
>Tell you what, it might be some time (we've got the cruise and want to
>do other stuff with our other vacation weeks) but next time we're
>visiting my friend in Bradenton we'll swing over and take you and your
>girl out to dinner. We always visit the Dali Museum when we're down
>your way.
You're all talk and your travels are all in your head. You really
should try to grow up....
Paulie Walnutts
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're a bald faced liar. But it's been over a year since you spun
that yard. You know you said it. So do I.
Paulie Walnutts
>
> - Show quoted text -
You've blamed your typos and disjointed posts on being high. You said
you smoke pot. OK,so you're not high on pot. Is it Krylon now??
Paulie Walnutts
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bullshit.
robw
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 15:50:35 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
It's all real.
Sorry.
Steve
wrote:
>On May 18, 9:14�pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
BTW, your claims of "we're going to come and visit you" don't bolster
your claims on little bit.....
>> You're all talk and your travels are all in your head. �You really
>> should try to grow up....
>
>It's all real.
You're full of crap right up to your ears.... and the fact that you
always seem think your silly, made up stories represent some kind of
retribution against the big bad world tells a sad, sad story about
you... what you are is a wee, little person (emotionally) whose been
picked on and disrespected and has nothing but these wild fantasies
about how to fight back...
>Sorry.
You're one of the sorriest little loons I've ever come across.. You
obviously live in your little fantasy world.
robw
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 20:31:23 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
I think you're projecting.
But hey, today wasn't about a mutant monster.
It was about snagging NoNutts in an art prank and making him look like
even more of an idiot.
It's not about you today..
Don't pout, someone will ackownedge you.
Steve
wrote:
>On May 19, 6:07�am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
<LOL> The only "thinking" you do is conjuring up your ridiculous,
immature stories.... you must spend hours fantasizing about getting
back at all the normal people that you believe to be laughing at you
behind your back... and, of course, that makes those fantasies self
fulfilling... your silly stories really does make others laugh at you
Patriot Games
wrote:
>It's what they have you do when you are against both wars and anything
>to do with the military.
>Not busted.
You said "Worked for free in a NYC hospital."
WRONG answer, LIAR!
Patriot Games
wrote:
You said "Worked for free in a NYC hospital."
You LIED.
Ball's in YOUR Court, LIAR.
PROVE you "served" OR "Worked for free in a NYC hospital."
Begin here: _____________
We're waiting....
robw
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:34:36 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
Everything I say is true.
Sorry you don't have a life.
robw
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 15:52:07 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It was a form of what was called an 1-W.
Steve
wrote:
>On May 19, 10:17�am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
I suppose you wish it were true.... which is sad because even your
fantasies are quite abnormal... for instance, the woman you conjure
up would be little better than a gutter sow...
>Sorry you don't have a life.
<LOL> That's from a little couch potato that thinks a cruise ship is
the way to see the Caribbean.
Paulie Walnutts
"hospita"? Hell you can't even spell hospital you fucking coward.
robw
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you're going to show in Houston this fall?
Hell, when you thought the prank was real all you did was sit and
threaten.
robw
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 20:10:02 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Told you.
We'll take you and your pygmy nightstand out for dinner next time we
visit our friend in Bradenton.
We have nothing against you outside of the fact that you're incredibly
stupid.
Sitting around?
Try the fact I'm out in the world seven days a week.
Steve
wrote:
>On May 20, 6:28�am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
<LOL> and I told you, your claims of "we're going to come and visit
you" don't bolster your stories one little bit.....
>We have nothing against you outside of the fact that you're incredibly
>stupid.
>
>Sitting around?
That would be you.. <LOL> on the deck chairs of a cruise ship ( if
I were to believe your stories) ... on your couch or a bar stool in
front of a TV.... in a seat at a stadium or ball park..... you seem
to be sitting around quite a bit....
>Try the fact I'm out in the world seven days a week.
Oh yeah, I remember.... you claimed you wandered around in shopping
malls....
robw
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 04:53:00 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
Sit around at the stadium or ballpark. (you forgot arena)
An Eagle's game?
If you're sitting at an Iggles game you have to be a cripple.
It's on your feet for the entire thing.
You really don't know much about sports, do you?
And if we go to a bar I'm standing a good portion of the night.,
But you don't get out much so how would you know that's what many
people do.
I really want you to take us up on the dinner offer.
I want to see your face when you meet the Artist/Muse.
I've told you before, I hit the lottery.
Steve
wrote:
>On May 20, 8:12�am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
I know a bit about doing sports.... ..not much about watching them
as you say you do.... I've never been much of an observer
>And if we go to a bar I'm standing a good portion of the night.,
>But you don't get out much so how would you know that's what many
>people do.
You're quite right in that I haven't been in too many bars...
...especially low brow bars where people are standing up, screaming
and shouting while wandering around, and jostling each other. The
"bars" I've been in are pretty quiet and people sit and talk quietly.
>I really want you to take us up on the dinner offer.
>I want to see your face when you meet the Artist/Muse.
<LOL> That wouldn't happen even if you did manage to get yourself
down to the Tampa area. You're definitely not the kind of person we'd
have dinner with...
>I've told you before, I hit the lottery.
Hardly... the woman you describe would be a common gutter slut....
... talking to strangers about her crotch being shaved... <LOL> what
a disgusting pig you conjured up.