Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[2aguy]

Here is a defender of Lott taking on one of his critics...

My Comments on the Lott Controversy.html

 

[2aguy]

Here you go....an actual account of the guy at the giffords shooting....

The Tucson Atrocity Joe Zamudio s Story American Handgunner

QUOTE:

We do know one of the heroic first responders was indeed armed: Joe Zamudio, age 24. The following is drawn from his account of the incident from his perspective, shared with the rest of the class when he subsequently attended a Massad Ayoob Group program in nearby Sierra Vista, hosted by decorated combat vet Dan Southard of Gator Farm Tactical. This, lightly edited for space considerations, is his story.

Zamudio’s Experience

“It was Saturday,” Joe began. “I didn’t have to work, so I went to have breakfast with my mom. On the way back, I went to Walgreen’s. Walking up to the door, I saw a crowd of people (at the rally), and went in to get cigarettes before seeing what was going on. As I was asking the lady behind the counter for a pack of Camels, I heard one shot, then a chain of shots real fast, before she could hand me the cigarettes. It sounded like fireworks. I just responded and ran out door. As I cleared the door, a man in front of me who had been wounded in the leg said, ‘Shooter! Shooter! Get down!’”

Zamudio had long kept a gun in his car. The previous August, when buying a Ruger P95 9mm, he had learned from the gun dealer that Arizona had legalized permit-less carry, and from that day on had worn the Ruger constantly. Left-handed, he was carrying it that day, butt forward in the inside right breast pocket of his jacket, fully loaded with 16 rounds.

Zamudio continued, “I reached into my pocket, put my hand on my pistol, took the safety off, and ran down the sidewalk (toward the shooting scene). That’s when I saw a group of people wrestling with (Loughner). The first thing I focused on was the man closest to me. His back was to me. He raised up with a Glock in his hand, open, magazine sticking out. In that second I decided that because the gun was open, I didn’t have to shoot him. I immediately grabbed him by the wrist, turned the gun in toward him, told him to drop the weapon. He did.

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

Killer Restrained

“The world went into slow motion,” Joe continued. “I assessed the situation. Bill had Loughner by the neck on the ground. Roger stood on the gun and leaned over and grabbed Loughner’s shoulder, holding him down. Patricia had been on the ground when she grabbed the loaded magazine away from him, and she shimmied over his legs. Loughner began to struggle, and Patricia asked me to take her place. I got down onto the back of his knee and put a hand on his hip. A fourth gentleman put a foot on his back, he wasn’t going anywhere. I tried to call 911 but couldn’t get through, tried three times. The police showed up in about four minutes. All Loughner ever said during that time was, ‘Ow. You’re breaking my arm.’”

Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started. Bill Badger was bleeding, the first real blood I saw, and it hit me that this had really happened, all these people got shot. The enormity of it set in.

**************************

So....an actual, detailed account of this man's actions....hmmmmmm...different from the author of that articles report......


Okay, this is an important part of the story which the anti gunner overlooked...or didn't know about because he used an anti gunner journalist as his source...

I tried to call 911 but couldn’t get through, tried three times. The police showed up in about four minutes.

4 minutes after they had subdued this guy the police show up....after he killed those people....

And the anti gunners only want cops to have guns......

They are so lucky he shot from inside a crowd and allowed people to be close to him when he started shooting....


And another point for you brain and for you bfgrn...the only reason they were able to wrestle him....just plain, stupid luck........otherwise, he would have reloaded and kept shooting...he missed this guy....

Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started.

Not rushing the guy during a magazine change brain, and Bfgrn...he thought the guy was dead....after he shot him...and let Bill Badger get behind him.......you are wrong again brain....

 

[2aguy]

So brain.....your example of the gabby giffords shooting....as an example of tackling a mass shooter during a magazine change is completely false.....I know...it happens to me sometimes to....when you think you have gold and it turns around on you.....again...

the shooter at the Giffords rally was tackled because he actually shot Bill Badger and thought he was dead....he let Badger get behind him who then assaulted him from behind...not during a magazine change...

And the old lady who "stripped" the magazine....she had just laid on the ground in the hope that the shooter would choose another victim....and only got involved when the shooter fell right in front of her...and then she grabbed his magazine.....

So it wasn't during a magazine change...it was just plain, dumb luck for Bill Badger and the old lady.....Badger was grazed in the head when he fell...and she just laid down....

Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started.

Not rushing the guy during a magazine change brain, and Bfgrn...he thought the guy was dead....after he shot him...and let Bill Badger get behind him.......you are wrong again brain....

 

[2aguy]

And now it also occurs to me...the anti gunners keep bitching...."if you have a guy with a gun in a mass shooting he is just going to make it worse, shooting innocent people or getting in the way of the police........and on and on...."

Here we have the famous Gabby Giffords shooting....two men on the scene carrying concealed guns...in the middle of an active mass shooter...

And you know what anti gunners....neither one of them fired a shot....they did not spray and pray, they did not shoot because they couldn't wait to kill someone, they didn't shoot a minority for the fun of it....and they didn't take out their penis and measure it next to their gun....

Neither of them shot...the one guy...he didn't shoot and was waiting to see if the shooter was handled by Bill Badger and the other guy.....and the main focus of your article Bfgrn......didn't shoot either because he didn't have to, and he peacefully took the other lawful gun owner into custody until it was known he wasn't a threat....

Everything you anti gunners bitch and moan about and scream will happen in one of these events....and in one of the most famous ones in recent times.....and none of your F*****g predictions happened........

 

[Vandalshandle]

The decline in gun ranges however is quite undeniable.

Because they're harder to insure. Your simplistic reasoning leaves me appalled anew at our education system. Most people don't pay to shoot their guns, they go out to public lands and shoot for free.

This would explain why Central Park in NYC can be such a dangerous place....

I suppose you think that laws restricting honest citizens would have an effect on crime, eh? That's real smart. I can see you've given this some thought . . . Lol. That was sarcasm, of course.

I get very weary having to say the obvious, over and over. Background checks do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They restrict the right of people who have already forfeited their rights.

That's not true.....most positives are false, and go against normal, law abiding people...which delays their ability to get their weapon...most criminals get friends who can pass the check get the gun, thereby nullifying the whole thing....

Link on "most positives are false", please. And before you make up statistics, please be aware that I work for my county's sheriff Auxiliary, and we fingerprint and do background checks 5 days per week. In fact, one of my duty days was today from noon until 4, AZ time. I would also add that we do a background check on everyone who wants to volunteer for the Auxiliary. We turn away 2 or 3 people per year because of these background checks, and not once, in the 5 years that I have served, has anyone ever challenged our declination of his application to serve, because of a false background check.

 

[2aguy]

Here you go...everything you need to know about background checks...


CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center


But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system. Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives. The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious). To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.

 

[ChrisL]

Here you go...everything you need to know about background checks...


CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center


But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system. Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives. The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious). To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.

What is your opinion on background checks? For or against and why or why not?

 

[2aguy]

Here you go...everything you need to know about background checks...


CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center


But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system. Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives. The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious). To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.

What is your opinion on background checks? For or against and why or why not?

On Background checks....I would be fine with what we have now...but they need to clean it up so that it doesn't mess up so much.....I do this mainly to appease the anti gunners who want it even though it only hassles law abiding gun owners...

As to adding mental illness to the background check......I don't trust the anti gunners when they push this...they want to use it to classify any interaction with a mental health professional as a reason to pull someones gun rights...as in the case of insomnia.....

Also, they need to be instantaneous, and no permanent record...just a pass fail...otherwise you are giving the anti gunners a registry they can use later...to either ban guns or simply to publish who owns guns in the local paper...which they did after Sandy Hook....

Does that help...?

 

[ChrisL]

Here you go...everything you need to know about background checks...


CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center


But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system. Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives. The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious). To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.

What is your opinion on background checks? For or against and why or why not?

On Background checks....I would be fine with what we have now...but they need to clean it up so that it doesn't mess up so much.....I do this mainly to appease the anti gunners who want it even though it only hassles law abiding gun owners...

As to adding mental illness to the background check......I don't trust the anti gunners when they push this...they want to use it to classify any interaction with a mental health professional as a reason to pull someones gun rights...as in the case of insomnia.....

Also, they need to be instantaneous, and no permanent record...just a pass fail...otherwise you are giving the anti gunners a registry they can use later...to either ban guns or simply to publish who owns guns in the local paper...which they did after Sandy Hook....

Does that help...?

Sure does. Thanks for your input.

I would agree with the mental illness classification, because a person can be situationally depressed and seek mental health counseling for that. That, I don't think, should disqualify that person from owning a gun for self defense. Situational depression is not a "lasting" type of mental problem but only temporary. Also, that could affect those who suffer from ADD or other such mild disorders which they can outgrow and/or those which can be controlled with medication.

Now, what do you mean by cleaning it up?

 

[2aguy]

Here you go...everything you need to know about background checks...


CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center


But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system. Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives. The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious). To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.

What is your opinion on background checks? For or against and why or why not?

On Background checks....I would be fine with what we have now...but they need to clean it up so that it doesn't mess up so much.....I do this mainly to appease the anti gunners who want it even though it only hassles law abiding gun owners...

As to adding mental illness to the background check......I don't trust the anti gunners when they push this...they want to use it to classify any interaction with a mental health professional as a reason to pull someones gun rights...as in the case of insomnia.....

Also, they need to be instantaneous, and no permanent record...just a pass fail...otherwise you are giving the anti gunners a registry they can use later...to either ban guns or simply to publish who owns guns in the local paper...which they did after Sandy Hook....

Does that help...?

Sure does. Thanks for your input.

I would agree with the mental illness classification, because a person can be situationally depressed and seek mental health counseling for that. That, I don't think, should disqualify that person from owning a gun for self defense. Situational depression is not a "lasting" type of mental problem but only temporary. Also, that could affect those who suffer from ADD or other such mild disorders which they can outgrow and/or those which can be controlled with medication.

Now, what do you mean by cleaning it up?

This is from John Lott on the false positives that hassle law abiding gun owners....I posted it earlier...

CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center


But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system. Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives. The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious). To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.

 

[2aguy]

Here you go...everything you need to know about background checks...


CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center


But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system. Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives. The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious). To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.

What is your opinion on background checks? For or against and why or why not?

On Background checks....I would be fine with what we have now...but they need to clean it up so that it doesn't mess up so much.....I do this mainly to appease the anti gunners who want it even though it only hassles law abiding gun owners...

As to adding mental illness to the background check......I don't trust the anti gunners when they push this...they want to use it to classify any interaction with a mental health professional as a reason to pull someones gun rights...as in the case of insomnia.....

Also, they need to be instantaneous, and no permanent record...just a pass fail...otherwise you are giving the anti gunners a registry they can use later...to either ban guns or simply to publish who owns guns in the local paper...which they did after Sandy Hook....

Does that help...?

Sure does. Thanks for your input.

I would agree with the mental illness classification, because a person can be situationally depressed and seek mental health counseling for that. That, I don't think, should disqualify that person from owning a gun for self defense. Situational depression is not a "lasting" type of mental problem but only temporary. Also, that could affect those who suffer from ADD or other such mild disorders which they can outgrow and/or those which can be controlled with medication.

Now, what do you mean by cleaning it up?

And as far as the mental health issues...they won't just look at the big issues...depression and such.....if you see a grief counselor...or I would bet a family counselor....they will use that to take your gun rights.....don't doubt it for a second.....if you say you feel blue on any mental health exam.....they will want to pull your rights...

VS.

The Colorado theater killer, who scared his professor at the community college so much he told colleagues he expeted to get shot in the back standing at the chalk board, and the student in class who wrote in her journal that this guy would probably come back to class and kill everyone.....

those are the guys we need to stop...not the people with insomnia....

 

[ChrisL]

Here you go...everything you need to know about background checks...


CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center


But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system. Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives. The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious). To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.

What is your opinion on background checks? For or against and why or why not?

On Background checks....I would be fine with what we have now...but they need to clean it up so that it doesn't mess up so much.....I do this mainly to appease the anti gunners who want it even though it only hassles law abiding gun owners...

As to adding mental illness to the background check......I don't trust the anti gunners when they push this...they want to use it to classify any interaction with a mental health professional as a reason to pull someones gun rights...as in the case of insomnia.....

Also, they need to be instantaneous, and no permanent record...just a pass fail...otherwise you are giving the anti gunners a registry they can use later...to either ban guns or simply to publish who owns guns in the local paper...which they did after Sandy Hook....

Does that help...?

Sure does. Thanks for your input.

I would agree with the mental illness classification, because a person can be situationally depressed and seek mental health counseling for that. That, I don't think, should disqualify that person from owning a gun for self defense. Situational depression is not a "lasting" type of mental problem but only temporary. Also, that could affect those who suffer from ADD or other such mild disorders which they can outgrow and/or those which can be controlled with medication.

Now, what do you mean by cleaning it up?

This is from John Lott on the false positives that hassle law abiding gun owners....I posted it earlier...

CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center


But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system. Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives. The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious). To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.

Well how can they get away with denying a person if the individuals did not have a record which would make it illegal for them to possess a gun? Mistakes?

What is "referral guidelines?"

 

[2aguy]

You would have to read his actual research on the subject, it probably goes into more detail....

As to mental health checks...I don't know how it could be implemented and not give the anti gunners a new weapon against gun owners.......

 

[ChrisL]

You would have to read his actual research on the subject, it probably goes into more detail....

As to mental health checks...I don't know how it could be implemented and not give the anti gunners a new weapon against gun owners.......

Well, there is also a little thing known as doctor/patient confidentiality and HIPAA laws. HIPAA laws would tend to interfere with any kind of mental health background checks.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You would have to read his actual research on the subject, it probably goes into more detail....

As to mental health checks...I don't know how it could be implemented and not give the anti gunners a new weapon against gun owners.......

Would you classify me as an ant gunner? I ask, because I own 5 guns (all but the first bought after background checks), but I am a firm believer in background checks for everybody...including my X-son-in-law, who can best be described as "unstable", who bought a sniper rifle at a gun show which has a range so long that there is not a single public gun range in his state that is long enough for him to sight it in for it's intended range. His background check may, or may not reveal that he has been to see a psychiatrist for suicidal tendencies for two series of sessions in the last 8 years.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You would have to read his actual research on the subject, it probably goes into more detail....

As to mental health checks...I don't know how it could be implemented and not give the anti gunners a new weapon against gun owners.......

Would you classify me as an ant gunner? I ask, because I own 5 guns (all but the first bought after background checks), but I am a firm believer in background checks for everybody...including my X-son-in-law, who can best be described as "unstable", who bought a sniper rifle at a gun show which has a range so long that there is not a single public gun range in his state that is long enough for him to sight it in for it's intended range. His background check may, or may not reveal that he has been to see a psychiatrist for suicidal tendencies for two series of sessions in the last 8 years.

And the vast majority of gun owners agree with you:

"While gun owners, unlike the public at large, oppose gun control measures such as banning assault-style weapons, a big majority of gun owners (85%) support making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks. That matches the level of support among the general public for doing this.”

Most Gun Owners Favor Background Checks for Private Gun Sales Pew Research Center

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here you go...everything you need to know about background checks...


CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center


But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system. Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives. The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious). To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.

What is your opinion on background checks? For or against and why or why not?

On Background checks....I would be fine with what we have now...but they need to clean it up so that it doesn't mess up so much.....I do this mainly to appease the anti gunners who want it even though it only hassles law abiding gun owners...

As to adding mental illness to the background check......I don't trust the anti gunners when they push this...they want to use it to classify any interaction with a mental health professional as a reason to pull someones gun rights...as in the case of insomnia.....

Also, they need to be instantaneous, and no permanent record...just a pass fail...otherwise you are giving the anti gunners a registry they can use later...to either ban guns or simply to publish who owns guns in the local paper...which they did after Sandy Hook....

Does that help...?

Sure does. Thanks for your input.

I would agree with the mental illness classification, because a person can be situationally depressed and seek mental health counseling for that. That, I don't think, should disqualify that person from owning a gun for self defense. Situational depression is not a "lasting" type of mental problem but only temporary. Also, that could affect those who suffer from ADD or other such mild disorders which they can outgrow and/or those which can be controlled with medication.

Now, what do you mean by cleaning it up?

This is from John Lott on the false positives that hassle law abiding gun owners....I posted it earlier...

CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center


But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system. Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives. The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious). To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.

Well how can they get away with denying a person if the individuals did not have a record which would make it illegal for them to possess a gun? Mistakes?

What is "referral guidelines?"

That one is declined on a NICS background check doesn't mean he isn't allowed to purchase and take possession of his firearm if he's not a prohibited person:

“A Delayed message from the NICS indicates the subject of a NICS background check has been matched with a similar name and similar descriptive information associated with a record containing a potential state or federal firearm prohibition. The NICS Section must obtain additional information before making a final determination of a Proceed or Denied for the firearm transfer. The NICS Section is afforded three business days in which to conduct this research. If the NICS Section is unable to provide either a Proceed or Denied response to the Federal Firearms Licensee within three business days, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 does not prohibit the Federal Firearms Licensee, or FFL, from transferring the firearm; however, the FFL is not required to do so.”

FBI Reasons NICS Background Checks are Denied or Delayed

The burden of proof rests with the government, not the person buying the gun; if the government is not able to establish that the buyer is a prohibited person, the buyer is allowed to take possession of his firearm.

 

[Bfgrn]

Really?

Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload

Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles.

Maisch and her fellow heroes -- identified as Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio -- stopped the carnage after 20 people were shot, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

ABC News



And here is the rest of the story the gun clingers don't want you to know...


Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man
Joe Zamudio rushed to the scene and saw a man with a gun — but he wasn't the shooter


Does the Tucson massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second-Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him.

Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.

NBC News

Are you kidding me.....this story is....an armed civilian enters the scene of a mass shooting......sees a man with a gun.....AND DOES NOT SHOOT HIM....but disarms him...peacefully.....

Soooooo this idiot author says this was a problem....when this guy didn't shoot anyone and peacefully subdued a suspect with a gun without firing a shot....

Really.....that is what you have.?....try again....


And the best part of this idiots article......

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions.

Soooooooo all of those stupid anti gun memes about out of control, blood thirsty civilian concealed carry permit holders just waiting to be the hero so they can kill someone.....

And this guy enters the fray, doesn't shoot anyone, holds a suspect peacefully till police arrive and no one was injure by him and his gun....this author is an idiot.....

No pea brain, the guy with the gun almost fucked up the whole take-down of the REAL shooter. Thank God Patricia Maisch, Bill Badger and Roger Sulzgeber were still able to restrain the REAL shooter while the guy with the gun INTERFERED...

And the best part of the article...

"one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

You are a real fool......everything in this article supports the opposite of what you are trying to say........He didn't fuck up the whole take down he looked at the situation and didn't start shooting so that he could finally get to kill someone....as all you anti gunners claim about people who carry.....he saw the situation was under control....and didn't shoot....moron.......you are the real pea brain.....

Hello? Is there anyone home? He grabbed a GOOD GUY and shoved him into a wall...he could have fucked up the take-down of the REAL shooter. I don't question his courage, his intent or that he was trying to help.

But we are dealing with REAL LIFE situations, not the fairy tale scenarios you have infested this thread with

First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

I know in you tiny little right wing brain good guys wear white, and bad guys wear black. It makes it SO much easier to shoot the bad guy...

Fucking moron...he saw a guy with a gun and took him under control in the middle of a mass shooting............and didn't fire a shot... because he saw the situation was under control...moron.....

It makes it SO much easier to shoot the bad guy.

But he didn't shoot the bad guy you moron.....

No, he saw a GOOD GUY who took a gun away from a bad guy that just killed 6 people and thought he was subduing a bad guy. He endangered everyone by removing one of three good guys subduing the BAD GUY.

Maybe an adult in your trailer park can explain these adult issues.

 

[Bfgrn]

Here you go....an actual account of the guy at the giffords shooting....

The Tucson Atrocity Joe Zamudio s Story American Handgunner

QUOTE:

We do know one of the heroic first responders was indeed armed: Joe Zamudio, age 24. The following is drawn from his account of the incident from his perspective, shared with the rest of the class when he subsequently attended a Massad Ayoob Group program in nearby Sierra Vista, hosted by decorated combat vet Dan Southard of Gator Farm Tactical. This, lightly edited for space considerations, is his story.

Zamudio’s Experience

“It was Saturday,” Joe began. “I didn’t have to work, so I went to have breakfast with my mom. On the way back, I went to Walgreen’s. Walking up to the door, I saw a crowd of people (at the rally), and went in to get cigarettes before seeing what was going on. As I was asking the lady behind the counter for a pack of Camels, I heard one shot, then a chain of shots real fast, before she could hand me the cigarettes. It sounded like fireworks. I just responded and ran out door. As I cleared the door, a man in front of me who had been wounded in the leg said, ‘Shooter! Shooter! Get down!’”

Zamudio had long kept a gun in his car. The previous August, when buying a Ruger P95 9mm, he had learned from the gun dealer that Arizona had legalized permit-less carry, and from that day on had worn the Ruger constantly. Left-handed, he was carrying it that day, butt forward in the inside right breast pocket of his jacket, fully loaded with 16 rounds.

Zamudio continued, “I reached into my pocket, put my hand on my pistol, took the safety off, and ran down the sidewalk (toward the shooting scene). That’s when I saw a group of people wrestling with (Loughner). The first thing I focused on was the man closest to me. His back was to me. He raised up with a Glock in his hand, open, magazine sticking out. In that second I decided that because the gun was open, I didn’t have to shoot him. I immediately grabbed him by the wrist, turned the gun in toward him, told him to drop the weapon. He did.

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

Killer Restrained

“The world went into slow motion,” Joe continued. “I assessed the situation. Bill had Loughner by the neck on the ground. Roger stood on the gun and leaned over and grabbed Loughner’s shoulder, holding him down. Patricia had been on the ground when she grabbed the loaded magazine away from him, and she shimmied over his legs. Loughner began to struggle, and Patricia asked me to take her place. I got down onto the back of his knee and put a hand on his hip. A fourth gentleman put a foot on his back, he wasn’t going anywhere. I tried to call 911 but couldn’t get through, tried three times. The police showed up in about four minutes. All Loughner ever said during that time was, ‘Ow. You’re breaking my arm.’”

Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started. Bill Badger was bleeding, the first real blood I saw, and it hit me that this had really happened, all these people got shot. The enormity of it set in.

**************************

So....an actual, detailed account of this man's actions....hmmmmmm...different from the author of that articles report......


Okay, this is an important part of the story which the anti gunner overlooked...or didn't know about because he used an anti gunner journalist as his source...

I tried to call 911 but couldn’t get through, tried three times. The police showed up in about four minutes.

4 minutes after they had subdued this guy the police show up....after he killed those people....

And the anti gunners only want cops to have guns......

They are so lucky he shot from inside a crowd and allowed people to be close to him when he started shooting....


And another point for you brain and for you bfgrn...the only reason they were able to wrestle him....just plain, stupid luck........otherwise, he would have reloaded and kept shooting...he missed this guy....

Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started.

Not rushing the guy during a magazine change brain, and Bfgrn...he thought the guy was dead....after he shot him...and let Bill Badger get behind him.......you are wrong again brain....

You don't even know what YOU are posting.

Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him

 

[M14 Shooter]

You would have to read his actual research on the subject, it probably goes into more detail....

As to mental health checks...I don't know how it could be implemented and not give the anti gunners a new weapon against gun owners.......

Would you classify me as an ant gunner? I ask, because I own 5 guns (all but the first bought after background checks), but I am a firm believer in background checks for everybody...including my X-son-in-law, who can best be described as "unstable", who bought a sniper rifle at a gun show which has a range so long that there is not a single public gun range in his state that is long enough for him to sight it in for it's intended range. His background check may, or may not reveal that he has been to see a psychiatrist for suicidal tendencies for two series of sessions in the last 8 years.

And the vast majority of gun owners agree with you:

Fallacy: appeal to popularity.

Background checks create an undue burden on the exercise of the right to arms. -- the state may not presume all who seek to buy a gun are 'guilty' of dong so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.