I need to do more research on this but it does look like there is evidence that Atta & Co. visited this wealthy family's home--and then the family suddenly moved out less than 2 weeks before 9/11, leaving everything behind except what was in the safe and possibly some computers.
Maybe if you have that much money you always move out this way; you can always buy more stuff!
I have been looking at "Time to Crime" data and it indicates to me that if we figured out a way to stop the flow of guns to criminals, it would mean a yearly drop in gun sales of AT LEAST 10%.
So I think it is time for Joe to get out there and extract a promise from gun manufacturers that they would be willing to accept a AT LEAST A 10% sales hit in order to keep our streets safer.
Here's how I came up with this. The Mayors Against Illegal Guns web site, tracetheguns.org, says that nationwide, 22.6 % of the guns recovered in crimes are less than two years old.
Today's post looks at corrupt Federally Licensed Firearms dealers (FFLs) and straw buyers. Here is what I suspect, and I may or may not be able to prove it.
It's about the money.
The gun industry, by selling guns to criminals, creates a commensurate need for self-defense in the "law-abiding" public. And like Doublemint gum, it's double the pleasure, double the fun for gun manufacturers and dealers.
As I think about gun-owners today, I think they can be placed in a few different groups. There are similarities with discussions we have about medical errors and negligence--because there are sometimes tragic injuries and deaths involved. So bear with me here as I talk about the similarities. This isn't going to be artful.
1. There are legal, responsible gun owners who are concerned about their Second Amendment rights. Fair enough. Their right to bear arms is guaranteed under the Constitution--but as with doctors, if one of them makes an error, the results can be deadly.
Ok, so it seems to be legal to keep a loaded gun on your nightstand in most or all states, with some exceptions for those who live in California.
I'm going to go way out on a limb and propose that we make a federal law that if a gun is to be kept within 20 horizontal feet of a room where people sleep, the ammunition must be kept in a small biometric or combination safe, separate from the weapon itself. Call it a "clip-keeper."
These threads on gun laws go bad fast. So I'm just going to propose one issue with each post. Please confine yourselves to one brief reply or clarification, and for the sake of keeping things neat, please try not to comment on other people's comments. So here is my first question:
Would you be in favor of:
Limiting magazine capacity to 10 and banning possession of larger-capacity magazines nationwide? (This would probably involve some kind of buyback/trade-in program.)
A good article about how strategy was modified after Columbine, steeped in the understanding that in these situations, we may have to choose between trying to avoid casualties altogether, and keeping the numbers down.
Last night I decided that the absolute best way to lower the number of guns in the country and force safer behavior from current owners/users would be to create a nationwide rule that bars a person from touching a gun if their blood alcohol content is over .06. I believe this would make it substantially less fun to own/use guns, lower the number of accidents and discourage irresponsible persons from the hobby.
Because as I wrote last night, "What's the point of being prepared for Armageddon if you can't get drunk and shoot varmints with your buddies in the meantime?"
A couple of people asked for clarification on sensible practices so I checked out some of the existing gun laws and made a list. This doesn't get into the whole permit/waiting period issue, which is confusing and different from state to state. Please comment.
Well, I checked and it looks as if, even after Newtown and some stores pulling the gun off the shelves, sales of the Bushmaster rifle are up. Go figure.
Reluctantly I have to agree with DF that at least some of this is fueled by people who believe that the gun will be outlawed, and that it is counter-productive.
If we're talking about increasing gun safety through numbers reduction, the most effective words in the English language will be "Ewww," "So 2011," and "Jesus, what a pain in the ass."
Our discussion of which weapons and ammunition to ban (See "Black Rifle Blues") is fraught with inconsistencies and plagued by the reality that sometimes, making something illegal increases its appeal.
But MADD and the anti-tobacco folks understood that the perception of unfashionableness is among the world's most powerful forces, and used it to their advantage. It took a long time, but fewer people drive drunk now, and these days, you can go to a bar in quite a few places without coming home smelling like smoke. In the case of tobacco, this was accomplished by some lawsuits, a few bans, and a lot of encouraging people to see cigarettes as just not as cool as previously thought.
Some of these may already be in place in certain locations. But here goes. This is a grab bag--some ideas are practical, some aimed at taking guns out of the hands of irresponsible owners, some are pure marketing. Regarding the assault weapons ban, maybe it's great, maybe it's dumb. My sense is that it probably needs some work. What doesn't?
As AT pointed out, the law would have kept a gun out of Adam Lanza's hands if his mom hadn't been a "prepper." (And maybe he wouldn't have tried to buy one if she hadn't been. The investigation may reveal more about this.)
