MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Sunday, December 28, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 23.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:23 pm

In light of the recent Brookfield massacre:

Democratic state lawmakers plan to reintroduce a bill designed to take guns away from perpetrators of domestic violence.

The call to pass the proposal comes in response to a shooting Sunday in a spa near Milwaukee in which authorities said Radcliffe Franklin Haughton killed his wife and two others before killing himself.

A judge issued a restraining order against Haughton on Thursday and prohibited him from owning a firearm.

Democratic state Sen. Lena Taylor said there are inconsistent standards across the state for the collection of weapons. The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department has not responded to messages left asking whether Haughton surrendered any weapons as ordered.

Under the bill previously introduced in 2009, those ordered to turn over their weapons would have to comply within 48 hours or face arrest.

I assume the bill went nowhere in 2009 because of NRA opposition. I wonder if the NRA (or its surrogate who posts on this forum) is still opposed.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20286
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:57 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:In light of the recent Brookfield massacre:

Democratic state lawmakers plan to reintroduce a bill designed to take guns away from perpetrators of domestic violence.

The call to pass the proposal comes in response to a shooting Sunday in a spa near Milwaukee in which authorities said Radcliffe Franklin Haughton killed his wife and two others before killing himself.

A judge issued a restraining order against Haughton on Thursday and prohibited him from owning a firearm.

Democratic state Sen. Lena Taylor said there are inconsistent standards across the state for the collection of weapons. The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department has not responded to messages left asking whether Haughton surrendered any weapons as ordered.

Under the bill previously introduced in 2009, those ordered to turn over their weapons would have to comply within 48 hours or face arrest.

I assume the bill went nowhere in 2009 because of NRA opposition. I wonder if the NRA (or its surrogate who posts on this forum) is still opposed.


Interesting assumption. So you think the Democrats who controlled both houses, and the governors mansion shot down this bill because of the NRA?

Even had the 48 hour deadline been in place, I would be shocked if it would have prevented this tragedy. He would have been late by 1 day, and I doubt the Milwaukee County Sheriff would have picking him up in that short a time frame. I'm sure Clark is too understaffed :roll: to do something like enforce the ruling of one of the darn liberal judges who are soft on crime.

On the other hand, maybe someone needs to find out why the Brown Deer cops decided to end an armed stand off with this guy last year, by driving away.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:00 pm

There are Democrats as well as Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature that are beholding to the NRA.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20286
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:18 am

That law wouldn't have mattered anyway

The injunction prohibited Haughton from buying a gun from a dealer. But Haughton sidestepped federal law by purchasing the gun privately, which meant a background check is not required. Private sellers also do not have to follow a 48-hour waiting period, required for gun dealers in Wisconsin. The waiting period was intended, in part, as a cooling-off period in domestic violence cases.


Can't imagine any attempt to change it going very far, but it's beyond insane that a person can bypass all regulations and checks by buying a gun from a private owner.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:21 am

I hope D-man weighs in here to explain why unchecked private sales are not only reasonable, but necessary. Without that, it makes no sense at all.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3192
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:25 am

wack wack wrote:I hope D-man weighs in here to explain why unchecked private sales are not only reasonable, but necessary. Without that, it makes no sense at all.


Me too,

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.

pretty sure it that word buy or sell doesn't appear any where in there.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:46 pm

Presumably Senator Taylor is referring to 2009 Senate Bill 380. I've read the text of it a couple of times, plus the two amendments that she introduced. I see nothing in it that says anything about requiring a person to turn their firearms over within 48 hours. If I've missed that language someone kindly point out where it is in the text of the bill.

The record indicates that bill "failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1." Democrats held an 18-15 advantage in the Senate at the time, so feel free to identify which ones were "beholding" to the NRA.

As I read it, the main point of the bill was to make state law similar to federal law. Apparently the federal law did nothing to prevent the Brookfield shooting, but I'm open to hearing why anyone believes having a similar state law may have made a difference.

Whether any misdemeanor conviction ought to result in a lifetime debarment of a constitutionally protected right is highly doubtful to me, but I'm sure there are many people who would impose a law prohibiting brown-eyed people or those over 6' in height from ever possessing of firearms if they could.

Background checks on private sales? From wiki:

"Presently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows."

Thank god in these states nobody can get their hands on a gun who shouldn't have a gun! By all means enjoy the safety of gun-free Chicago when you visit!

From what I've gathered, Mr. Haughton had a long history of incidents that resulted in either poor follow-up by the police or prosecutors. If you want to point fingers I might suggest asking if whether the failure, if there was one, lies in that area.

I'll say it again: the only law that is going to really keep guns out of someone's hands is the law that keeps them behind bars. The rest is feel-good legislation with little to no impact on anyone except the law-abiding majority of people. Anyone, and I mean anyone ,who is not behind bars will be able to get their hands on a gun if they are determined to do so.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:08 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Background checks on private sales? From wiki:

"Presently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows."

Thank god in these states nobody can get their hands on a gun who shouldn't have a gun! By all means enjoy the safety of gun-free Chicago when you visit!


Ahh, the ol' "look over there!" explanation. Perfect.

I wonder why the shooter chose to buy the gun from a private individual rather than a gun shop.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3192
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:02 pm

Nice misdirection D-man, but your little attempt falls kind of flat when the facts of the case in question clearly show that Haughton would not have been able to buy a gun on Saturday and shoot his wife the next day if private sales of firearms had to follow the same rules as dealer sales.

Either of the two regulations he side stepped by purchasing from a private seller would have at the least slowed him down (maybe even long enough to come to his senses) or stopped him outright. If private sellers had to wait 48 hours, He doesn't get the gun till Monday at the earliest, and has two more days to think about his situation. If private sellers had to run a back ground check, he doesn't get the gun at all.

Yes the police screwed up the handling of the situation, but it's hardly the only place where the system failed to protect innocent life.

Can you give any justification why private sellers shouldn't follow the same laws as dealers?
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:59 pm

wack wack wrote:Ahh, the ol' "look over there!" explanation. Perfect.


Well, if you do not "look over there" to see if those laws are working elsewhere then you're a blind fool. Please provide any actual evidence of the effectiveness of those laws in the listed states then we'll talk, ok?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:33 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Nice misdirection D-man, but your little attempt falls kind of flat when the facts of the case in question clearly show that Haughton would not have been able to buy a gun on Saturday and shoot his wife the next day if private sales of firearms had to follow the same rules as dealer sales.

Either of the two regulations he side stepped by purchasing from a private seller would have at the least slowed him down (maybe even long enough to come to his senses) or stopped him outright. If private sellers had to wait 48 hours, He doesn't get the gun till Monday at the earliest, and has two more days to think about his situation. If private sellers had to run a back ground check, he doesn't get the gun at all.

Yes the police screwed up the handling of the situation, but it's hardly the only place where the system failed to protect innocent life.

Can you give any justification why private sellers shouldn't follow the same laws as dealers?


As I said, the assumption that his Friday-issued restraining order would have even made it into the gun-hotline system by Saturday is a huge and probably incorrect assumption. That said, he probably could have walked out of any gun shop with a rifle or shotgun (with no waiting period for those) and walked into the spa with even more lethal weaponry than the handgun he had.

To a certain extent private sellers of guns do have to follow at least some of the laws as licensed dealers. Namely, they can't knowingly sell a gun to someone who is prohibited from possession them. Hey guess what! In some parts of Nevada you can go to a licensed brothel and have sex. Can you think of any justification why private sex shouldn't follow the same laws? For example, those brothel girls are required to have regular physical exams. But the risks associated with indiscriminate sex that is conducted "privately" is probably not much different than sex which is conducted at a licensed brothel.

Maybe the government has little business nosing around or butting in private matters between adults.

Finally, name a place where black market guns aren't available to anyone who can come up with the right amount of money. You don't think you'd be able to buy a black market handgun in England? In Mexico? In Russia? In any country? In Chicago? In New York? In Milwaukee? I'm sure the criminals there will laugh if you say "no." What law can you write that will stop that? Apparently all the attempts elsewhere haven't worked, so I await to hear your version of such a law.

My comment was no "misdirection." I live in reality and the reality is that background checks and waiting periods will have no practical effect on someone who is determined to be armed with a gun. And in reality he probably could have caused an equal amount of carnage with a knife from his kitchen.

In reality there is nothing that will guarantee your personal safety-- least of all some law on the books-- but there are measures you can take to enhance your safety. If you choose to rely on the abstract law or a paper sign on a door to protect you, that's your choice and good luck!
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:33 pm

So based on your brothel worker comparison, private gun sellers don't actually get paid to sell the weapon, so no commerce is taking place, and the government has no business regulating it.


You also seem to think that one man can stab, or slash 7 people (3 fatally) just as easy as he can shoot them

And that no one would notice a man walking from his car to the entrance to a place of business while carrying a long arm and be able fore warned.

Dangerousman wrote:I live in reality


No, you don't
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:55 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:So based on your brothel worker comparison, private gun sellers don't actually get paid to sell the weapon, so no commerce is taking place, and the government has no business regulating it.


You also seem to think that one man can stab, or slash 7 people (3 fatally) just as easy as he can shoot them

And that no one would notice a man walking from his car to the entrance to a place of business while carrying a long arm and be able fore warned.

Dangerousman wrote:I live in reality


No, you don't


You don't read very carefully. No surprise.

I could sell you my back issues of Guns and Ammo. Where does the government have a role?

I didn't say he could use a knife "just as easy." I said he could have caused the same amount of carnage. The "just as easy" would depend upon his skill with a knife. After near 40 years of researching the topic, I think I have a fairly good handle on what can be done with guns and knives. Would you like to compare notes?

You're absolutely right, there's no way he could sneak in a rifle or shotgun, particularly if it has a folding stock or has be sawed down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epeo8Pfm1xM
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:49 pm

40 years of research... would that be the back issue of Gun's and Ammo you want to sell me?

No thanks, I'll stick with my state training.

I have no doubt he could kill cause serious harm or even death to 2-3 people with a knife. There is a reason a knife is considered a deadly threat within 20 feet. It's the 4 other people that would have most likely run away in that time frame that make the same level of carnage unlikely. Apparently Guns and Ammo didn't explain that living targets move when threatened.

As far a sneaking a shortened weapon in, sure he could do that. I suppose we could assume he has the same black market contacts that you seem to have, but the fact that he bought the gun "legally" seems to make that a questionable claim.

BTW you still haven't answered my question: Why shouldn't private sellers follow the same laws as dealers? (and no, saying private people has sex without regulation isn't answering the question, unless of course you think paying for sex in normal in a private exchange)
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:11 am

Francis Di Domizio wrote:40 years of research... would that be the back issue of Gun's and Ammo you want to sell me?

No thanks, I'll stick with my state training.

I have no doubt he could kill cause serious harm or even death to 2-3 people with a knife. There is a reason a knife is considered a deadly threat within 20 feet. It's the 4 other people that would have most likely run away in that time frame that make the same level of carnage unlikely. Apparently Guns and Ammo didn't explain that living targets move when threatened.

As far a sneaking a shortened weapon in, sure he could do that. I suppose we could assume he has the same black market contacts that you seem to have, but the fact that he bought the gun "legally" seems to make that a questionable claim.

BTW you still haven't answered my question: Why shouldn't private sellers follow the same laws as dealers? (and no, saying private people has sex without regulation isn't answering the question, unless of course you think paying for sex in normal in a private exchange)


"State training?" Care to elaborate? Lay your credentials down and I'll do the same.

As for your belief that he'd be able to kill 2-3 with a knife and the rest would escape:

October 2008, Seoul, South Korea: 5 dead, 7 wounded, 4 seriously in a knife attack.

July 2008, Shanghai, China: 6 police officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded.

June 2008, Tokyo, Japan: 4 killed, 8 wounded with a knife.

March 2008, Sitka, Alaska: 18-year old kills 4 with a knife.

March 2008, Tsuchiura, Japan: 2 killed, 7 wounded by man with a knife.

May 2006, Berlin German: 41 wounded, 6 seriously by drunk 16-year old with a knife at train station.

September 2004, London, UW: Mentally ill man kills 4 and wounds 2 with a knife.

June 2001, Osaka, Japan: 8 dead, 15 wounded by Janitor with a kitchen knife.

Thanks for conceding that he could have taken a long gun in. Remember this was a big guy, could have easily taken a couple of long guns in concealed. If it had been a shotgun we'd be lucky to have any survivors.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

cron
Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar