America....and nutters....and guns

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Washington Post....

People are getting shot by toddlers on a weekly basis this year

By CHRISTOPHER INGRAHAM | 10:16AM Wednesday, October 14, 2015

THIS WEEK a 2-year-old in South Carolina found a gun in the back seat of the car he was riding in and accidentally shot his grandmother, who was sitting in the passenger seat. This type of thing happens from time to time: a little kid finds a gun, fires it, and hurts or kills himself or someone else. These cases rarely bubble up to the national level except when someone, like a parent, ends up dead.

But cases like this happen a lot more frequently than you might think. After spending a few hours sifting through news reports, I've found at least 43 instances this year of somebody being shot by a toddler 3 or younger. In 31 of those 43 cases, a toddler found a gun and shot himself or herself.



In August, for instance, a 21-month-old in the St. Louis area found a loaded handgun at his grandmother's house and shot himself in the torso. His mother took him to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Earlier in the year a Michigan 3-year-old found a loaded .40-caliber handgun in a closet while his dad and brother were outside. He shot himself in the head and died before rescue workers arrived.

The stories go on and on like this: Roughly once a week this year, on average, a small child has found a gun, pointed it at himself or someone else, and pulled the trigger. Boys are disproportionately likely to do this: I could find only three cases where a girl under the age of 4 wounded someone with a gun. In 13 of the 43 total incidents, a child's self-inflicted injuries were fatal. In two other cases, another person died after being shot by a toddler: a father in Alabama, and a 1-year-old in Ohio.

In one instance, a 3-year-old managed to wound both of his parents with a single gunshot at an Albuquerque motel.



Shootings by toddlers have happened in 24 states so far this year. Missouri has seen the most, with five separate incidents. Florida has had four. Texas, three. Due to the low number of total cases and the isolated nature of these incidents I'd caution against drawing broad conclusions from the map above. But it is worth noting that the shootings don't necessarily follow broader population trends. California, the most populous state in the nation, hasn't had any. Nobody has been shot by a toddler in New England or the Upper Midwest.

These numbers are probably an undercount. There are likely instances of toddlers shooting people that result in minor injuries and no media coverage. And there are probably many more cases where a little kid inadvertently shoots a gun and doesn't hit anyone, resulting in little more than a scared kid and (hopefully) chastened parents.

Notably, these numbers don't include cases where toddlers are shot, intentionally or otherwise, by older children or adults. Dozens of preschoolers are killed in acts of homicide each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But I haven't included those figures here.

These cases are invariably referred to as “accidents” in media reports. But as Everytown for Gun Safety, a group that advocates for stricter gun laws, argues, many incidents like this are preventable. In a study of accidental shootings by children of all ages (not just toddlers), they estimate that “more than two-thirds of these tragedies could be avoided if gun owners stored their guns responsibly and prevented children from accessing them.”

There are policy and technical responses to preventable childhood gun deaths as well. States and localities could require guns to be locked up at home, a policy supported by 67 percent of Americans. Various types of smart gun technology, which prevent anyone other than their owners from firing a given gun, exist as well. But gun lock requirements and smart guns have been vehemently opposed by the National Rifle Association and its allies.

Instead, the NRA continues to promote a response that seeks to solve gun problems with more guns, and aims to broaden the saturation of firearms in nearly every sphere of public and private life, from homes to schools to churches to bars to airports and beyond. In a country with more guns than people, it's only natural that a certain number of small children are going get their hands on an unsecured firearm, with tragic consequences.

Depending on where you stand on gun policy, you may feel that 13 dead toddlers in 10 months is too many. Or, you might reason that stuff happens, and that this is part of the price we must pay to protect our gun rights.

I've included my tally of toddler shootings below. News sources are linked in the City column. Know of any this year that I missed? Drop me a line.

• Christopher Ingraham writes about politics, drug policy and all things data. He previously worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center.

__________________________________________________________________________

LEFT TO RIGHT: Date — City (link to news story) — State — Child's age — Child's gender

□ January 8th, 2015 — High Rock Lake — North Carolina — 3 years — male

□ January 21st, 2015 — East Lake — Florida — 2 years — male

□ January 21st, 2015 — Benton Harbor — Michigan — 3 years — male

□ January 24th, 2015 — Las Vegas — Nevada — 3 years — male

□ January 31st, 2015 — Albuquerque — New Mexico — 3 years — male

□ February 3rd, 2015 — Davie — Florida — 3 years — male

□ February 9th, 2015 — LeBleu Settlement — Louisiana — 3 years — female

□ February 23rd, 2015 — Florissant — Missouri — 3 years — male

□ February 27th, 2015 — Houston — Texas — 3 years — male

□ March 3rd, 2015 — Hillsboro — Tennessee — 3 years — male

□ March 8th, 2015 — Green River — Utah — 3 years — male

□ March 19th, 2015 — Chatsworth — Georgia — 2 years — female

□ March 26th, 2015 — Montoursville — Pennsylvania — 2 years — male

□ March 30th, 2015 — Jefferson — Georgia — 3 years — male

□ April 3rd, 2015 — Raleigh — North Carolina — 2 years — male

□ April 12th, 2015 — Cleveland — Ohio — 3 years — male

□ April 30th, 2015 — Peoria — Arizona — 2 years — male

□ May 9th, 2015 — Louisville — Kentucky — 2 years — male

□ May 9th, 2015 — San Antonio — Texas — 3 years — male

□ May 15th, 2015 — Oklahoma City — Oklahoma — 2 years — male

□ May 17th, 2015 — Venice — Florida — 3 years — male

□ May 19th, 2015 — Snowville — Utah — 3 years — male

□ May 23rd, 2015 — Jackson — Mississippi — 3 years — male

□ May 25th, 2015 — Lunenburg — Virginia — 2 years — male

□ May 30th, 2015 — Myrtle Beach — South Carolina — 3 years — male

□ June 12th, 2015 — Jeffersonville — Indiana — 2 years — male

□ June 12th, 2015 — Cincinnati — Ohio — 3 years — male

□ June 15th, 2015 — York — Pennsylvania — 3 years — male

□ June 26th, 2015 — Pontiac — Michigan — 3 years — male

□ June 29th, 2015 — Franklin Township — Michigan — 3 years — male

□ July 2nd, 2015 — Shreveport — Louisiana — 3 years — male

□ July 6th, 2015 — Spring — Texas — 3 years — male

□ July 14th, 2015 — Conway — South Carolina — 3 years — male

□ July 15th, 2015 — Kansas City — Missouri — 3 years — female

□ July 18th, 2015 — Columbia — Missouri — 3 years — male

□ July 21st, 2015 — St. Louis — Missouri — 3 years — male

□ August 4th, 2015 — Miami — Florida — 3 years — male

□ August 5th, 2015 — South Anchorage — Alaska — 3 years — male

□ August 18th, 2015 — Hoover — Alabama — 2 years — male

□ August 25th, 2015 — Hanley Hills — Missouri — 1 year — male

□ September 22nd, 2015 — Lake Placid — New York — 3 years — male

□ September 22nd, 2015 — Dallas — Oregon — 2 years — male

□ October 12th, 2015 — Rock Hill — South Carolina — 2 years — male

__________________________________________________________________________

Read more on this topic:

 • How often do children in the U.S. unintentionally shoot and kill people? We don't know.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

It's good that those dead toddlers are mostly from the redneck states (the south and the midwest bible-belt).

Most of them would have turned out to be Republican-voting rightie retards when they grew up, so it's good that they are killing each other off at a young age.

It will result in less warmongering-boofheads in a few years time, raising the collective IQ of the USA 'cause of the higher proportion of lefties in the population.

A classic case of future morons removing themselves (and occasionally their parents) from the gene pool.

[reality]

whereas in NZ..its toddlers getting murdered..maybe the US is more civilised and we still have some evolving to do

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Yep....no wonder Americans get off on killing doctors and kids in Afghanistan....it's part of their sick gun culture.

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Washington Post....

The multimillion dollar Wisconsin gun store verdict
that could reverberate in the gun debate

By MARK BERMAN | 5:20PM - Wednesday, October 14, 2015


Graham Kunisch right, and Bryan Norberg left, leaving court on Tuesday. — Photograph: Rick Wood/Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel via Associated Press.

IN AN unusual case, a jury in Wisconsin declared on Tuesday that a gun store had to pay millions of dollars to Milwaukee police officers who were shot by a firearm bought at the store.

The case offered an attention-grabbing combination of factors, including a rare loss for the firearms industry, a verdict awarding more than $5 million in damages, injured police officers and a contested gun sale. And it also arrived as the country discusses gun violence in the wake of another mass shooting, an ongoing conversation that has led to presidential candidates debating a federal law that protects gun sellers and manufacturers from liability.

Experts say the Wisconsin verdict's long-term impact could be significant if it prompts a surge in new lawsuits aimed at the firearms industry and at the federal law's exemptions, though they caution that the case is far from over, as the lawyer for the gun store says he plans to appeal.

“We may be at the threshold of something, but you can't predict it right now,” said Marshall S. Shapo, a law professor at Northwestern University and an expert in product liability. “When you get a blip like this, it may signal that there's a target of opportunity but you have a long way to go.”

The case centered on a gun that was sold to one person, given to another and then used not long after to shoot two police officers.

In 2009, two Milwaukee police officers named Bryan Norberg and Graham Kunisch were attempting to stop an 18-year-old named Julius Burton for riding his bicycle on a sidewalk. Burton opened fire at the officers, hitting both of them. Norberg was shot in the face, shoulder and knee, while Knusch was shot in the face, hand, shoulder and neck, according to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's account of the case.

Burton was found guilty in 2010 and sentenced to 80 years. He pleaded guilty and later tried to withdraw these pleas, but the state Supreme Court denied that request. Jacob Collins, who bought the gun, was convicted of violating federal gun laws and sentenced to two years in prison.

Norberg and Kunisch both survived and filed a civil lawsuit against Badger Guns, the store that sold the gun Burton later used to shoot them. They argued in the lawsuit that the store knew or should have known that Collins was buying the firearm for Burton, who was too young to buy the gun.

Jurors on Tuesday deliberated for about nine hours before coming to a decision that Milwaukee County Circuit Judge John DiMotto read from the bench. Among other things, DiMotto said that the jury had found the sale to be negligent and that this was responsible for the injuries to both officers.

James B. Vogts, the attorney for Badger Guns, said in an e-mailed statement late on Tuesday that he and his clients expected it to wind up in the appellate courts.

“Significant legal issues were decided in the case that impacted the evidence the jury was permitted to consider and the legal standards they were told to apply,” Vogts said. “We will appeal.”

The same night the verdict was read, Democratic presidential candidates participating in a debate in Las Vegas sparred over gun violence and the federal law that provides rare protection for companies that sell or make firearms.

This shield law — known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act — has been praised by the firearms industry and decried by supporters of gun-control. The law was passed in 2005 following a wave of lawsuits from victims of gun violence and cities. More than 30 states also enacted similar statutes, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The federal measure also offers some exceptions that allow for civil lawsuits, including when someone knows a firearm will be used for violence, when a sale could violate a law or when the seller is negligent. The civil complaint filed by Norberg and Kunisch highlighted some of the exceptions in the federal law.

This liability protection has drawn new coverage recently as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who voted against the 2005 law as a senator, said she would push to repeal the federal law if elected president.

Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent-Vermont), who voted for the bill while he was in the House, has come under fire for his stance on guns.

During the Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Sanders said he did not support shielding gun companies from lawsuits, but he did say action was needed to stop manufacturers for knowingly allowing criminals to get guns.

Sanders also said the country had to deal with the straw purchasing issue at work in the Wisconsin case. (A “straw purchase” is when one person who can legally buy a gun purchases it for someone who cannot or will not.)

Attorneys for victims of mass shootings have been critical of the federal law for limiting their ability to file lawsuits after such violence, but the gun industry contends that it is necessary. The National Rifle Association, which pushed for the law, says the shield protects the industry from lawsuits it describes as unfair.

The law is needed to protect companies from being blamed for the “criminal misuse of lawfully sold, non-defective firearms,” said Lawrence G. Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the the firearms industry’s trade association. Since 2000, the foundation has run a campaign aimed at stopping straw purchases, he said.

Keane said the federal law was never intended to offer blanket immunity, and said that the jury verdict in Wisconsin shows that the law is functioning as it should.

“The Badger Guns case makes the case that the statute works exactly as Congress intended,” Keane said. “If a law pertaining to the sale of firearms has been violated, they can be sued. There's no need to repeal the statute, it works exactly as intended.”

Keane said that his group would fight any effort to repeal the law. “Even Bernie Sanders has said it's wrong to sue a manufacturer,” he said. “You wouldn't sue Budweiser for a drunk driving accident.”

The Wisconsin verdict was believed to be the first such jury verdict since the 2005 shield law was passed. In June, jurors in Alaska cleared a gun shop owner accused of illegally selling a gun later used to kill a man.

“Lawsuits against gun stores and manufacturers really died down to a trickle after the immunity bill was passed in 2005,” said Timothy D. Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University College of Law in Atlanta.

Lytton said that some suits were still filed, but nothing like the dozens of cases that had been filed in the years before the law. This verdict “may actually encourage plaintiffs' attorneys to bring lawsuits” under these exceptions.

“This looks like a possible resurgence,” he said.

Lytton said that in the wake of high-profile shootings like the violent rampages at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and Umpqua Community College shooting in Oregon earlier this month, the public does not expect new legislation pushing for gun control.

“Given that you're not likely to have legislative responses, where are you going to get pressure?” he said. “The answer is civil liability. It provides incentive to gun stores to follow these sorts of guidelines and for an industry to try and police them.”

Keane said the Wisconsin verdict is “absolutely an outlier” and said that he expected gun control groups to push for more lawsuits in the future, even though he did not expect a wave of verdicts ruling against gun stores.

“Whether this sort of opens the proverbial floodgates, that is unlikely because it's very, very rare that you would find this sort of set of facts that they appear to have, that the jury found in the Badger Guns case,” he said. “The vast, overwhelming majority of dealers are law-abiding.”

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which has sharply criticized the 2005 federal law, also said that most gun dealers were not breaking the law, adding that it hoped the verdict would be a cautionary tale for any other gun sellers who may try to skirt the law.

“Most gun dealers are decent, responsible business people who already do what they can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” Jonathan Lowy, director of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence’s Legal Action Project, said in a statement.

He continued: “But to those dealers who choose to irresponsibly supply and profit from the criminal market, the message from Milwaukee is clear: protect people over profits, or you will have to pay the consequences to your victims.”

• Mark Berman is a reporter on the National staff at The Washington Post. He runs Post Nation, a destination for breaking news and developing stories from around the country.

__________________________________________________________________________

Read more on this topic:

 • The landmark verdict that says a gun store owes the officers more than $5 million

 • After years of hesitation, Democrats rally around calls for gun control

 • How Senator Sanders characterized the 2005 law

 • The federal shield law that has frustrated victims of mass shootings and their families

[reality]

look forward to it...cant wait

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Washington Post....

After years of hesitation, Democrats rally around calls for gun control

By PHILIP RUCKER and ROBERT COSTA | 9:47PM - Wednesday, October 14, 2015


Concerned about their safety and fed up with Congress, university students, organized by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,
gathered for a demonstration at Capitol Hill, Washington D.C. on October 6th. — Photograph: Evelyn Hockstein/The Washington Post.

LAS VEGAS — The Democratic presidential candidates have thrust gun control forward as a dominant issue for the national election, signaling a sea change in the politics of a controversial subject that recent Democratic nominees have often avoided.

After years of deadly mass shootings across the country, and with President Obama voicing deep frustration with inaction by Republicans in Congress, the Democratic candidates led by Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed in a debate here Tuesday night to toughen restrictions on gun owners and gun manufacturers.

Most seemed not merely willing but determined and eager to lead the push for gun control into next year's general election and effectively declared war on the National Rifle Association.

“We have to look at the fact that we lose 90 people a day from gun violence,” Clinton said at the CNN event. “This has gone on too long, and it's time the entire country stood up against the NRA.”

But many Republicans say they welcome the turn, arguing that Democrats are underestimating the power of the pro-gun-rights movement and risk overplaying their hand on the issue.

In a sign of how potent this issue has become among Democratic primary voters, Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent-Vermont) — who represents a rural state with a rich hunting tradition — has shifted position after past Senate votes in favor of gun rights. He now says he supports a comprehensive approach that includes expanding background checks for gun purchases, eliminating what is commonly known as the gun-show loophole and addressing the scourge of mental illness.

Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley has been particularly passionate in discussing guns. He frequently notes that as governor in 2013, in the wake of the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, he ushered in sweeping new gun laws.

“We did it by leading with principle, not by pandering to the NRA and backing down to the NRA,” he said at this week's debate, adding later: “It's time to stand up and pass comprehensive gun-safety legislation as a nation.”

On Wednesday, O'Malley held a news conference on gun safety in Las Vegas and met with Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter, Jessie, was killed in the 2012 shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.

Both O'Malley and Clinton named the NRA when asked on Tuesday whom they considered their enemies. The NRA responded by warning that by championing gun control, Democrats risk a backlash in the general election.

“The only problem with the Democrats' anti-Second Amendment strategy is that the vast majority of Americans disagree with them on this issue,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.

Grover Norquist, a conservative activist who is on the NRA's board, went so far as to predict Democrats would “now lose the presidency” for speaking out on guns.

“When they start to say that people with guns are the problem, that they don't trust people with guns, and that people with guns are somehow connected to mass murders, that's what turns voters off,” Norquist said.

Senator Joe Manchin III (Democrat-West Virginia), a moderate who has co-sponsored legislation to expand background checks, applauded the debate but also cautioned that Democrats need to be careful how they frame the issue. “Coming from a state with a gun culture, we need to remember to talk about plain gun sense rather than gun control,” Manchin said. “I'm a gun owner and like to hunt and shoot and enjoy all that.”

Democrats argue that the numbers are on their side. Support for background checks is extremely high — 85 to 92 percent in recent polls — and wins backing from both gun-owning households and other households. Support is also high for laws preventing those with mental illness from purchasing guns and for a federal gun database.

At the same time, only about half the public feels an impetus for greater restrictions on gun ownership. People are also split on the effectiveness of stricter gun laws or background checks in stopping convicted criminals from buying guns.

In addition to the presidential race, guns are also likely to be a factor in some Senate contests next year as several Republicans elected in the 2010 GOP wave defend their seats in blue or swing states — and their party's slim Senate majority. In Pennsylvania, Senator Patrick J. Toomey (Republican) broke with his party to become a point man on Capitol Hill for expanded background checks and is up for re-election in 2016.

The Democrats' evolution on the issue has been vivid. More than a decade ago, while serving as chairman of the party, Terry McAuliffe cautioned Democrats to bypass gun control, especially in swing states. Now as Virginia's governor, McAuliffe has become a leading advocate for universal background checks and has called himself “the most aggressive candidate ever in Virginia history talking about safe, common-sense gun regulations.”

In the 2008 campaign, the Democratic candidates studiously avoided talking about guns. After Barack Obama was criticized for saying people “cling to guns or religion,” he rarely brought up the issue again, including in his 2012 re-election campaign. Then came Newtown and a string of mass shootings in the three years since.

• Robert Costa reported from Washington.

• Philip Rucker is a national political correspondent for The Washington Post, where he has reported since 2005.

• Robert Costa is a national political reporter at The Washington Post.

__________________________________________________________________________

Read more on this topic:

 • The multimillion-dollar Wisconsin gun store verdict that could reverberate in the gun debate

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-years-of-hesitation-democrats-rally-around-calls-for-gun-control/2015/10/14/13e3f896-7293-11e5-8d93-0af317ed58c9_story.html

[reality]

kj..."After years of hesitation, Democrats rally around calls for gun control"

haha..ahh..yeah..nah..I wish them luck with that...but in the end..we can be safe in the knowledge that because they are a democracy they will get what the majority want..aint democracy great


they like having guns..we love torturing and murdering  babies

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

WE??

You talking about yourself?

SICKO!!

[reality]

.,.ahhh....no...but  many in our population obviously like to neglect,  torture and murder babies..

..why would that be ..do you think..any ideas


..is it John Key..or Bill English to blame?

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Washington Post....

How the nation's most notorious crime-gun store cleaned up its act

By DAN SIMMONS | 7:21PM - Saturday, October 17, 2015


Brew City Shooter's Supply, formerly known as Badger Guns. — Photograph: Mike De Sisti/Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel via Associated Press.

WEST MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN — Badger Guns, an unassuming gun shop set amid the strip malls and industrial sites just south of the ballpark where the Milwaukee Brewers play, was once America's most notorious purveyor of guns used to commit crimes.

The place peddled 3,000 guns a year and didn't care much about who bought them, police and prosecutors say. In one two-year period, six Milwaukee police officers were shot and wounded with weapons purchased at Badger Guns.

“Everybody knew about … Badgers,” testified Julius Burton, who was 18 when he persuaded a 21-year-old friend to buy him the gun he used to shoot two Milwaukee police officers in 2009. Burton is serving 80 years in prison. “This is where a lot of people go, so I was like, ‘I'll go there’.”

Last week, a jury found the store liable for Burton's actions and awarded the grievously wounded officers, Bryan Norberg and Graham Kunisch, nearly $6 million. The landmark ruling is the first of its kind against a gun store, and it has raised alarms throughout the firearms industry. The case is on appeal, but several other lawsuits are in the works, including one against Badger Guns by two other Milwaukee police officers.

“We may be at the threshold of something,” said Marshall S. Shapo, a Northwestern University law professor and an expert on product liability. “When you get a blip like this, it may signal that there’s a target of opportunity.”

For gun stores contemplating whether to change their practices to protect themselves legally, there's a model for them to follow: the new Badger Guns.

“It's not the place to go anymore,” said West Milwaukee Police Chief Dennis Nasci, who has worked closely with store owners to improve the shop's image. “Quite honestly, it's off the radar.”

Much has changed at Badger Guns, starting with its name. These days, the store is doing business as Brew City Shooters Supply.

The ownership has changed, too. Owner Mike Allan, a veteran of the Iraq war, took over the shop in 2012 from the previous proprietors: his father, Walter, who started the business in 1987 as Badger Guns and Ammo; and his brother, Adam, who ran it as Badger Guns from 2007 to 2012.

Mike Allan's first move was to adopt a members-only model that requires customers to register with the store and to pay a membership fee. Would-be buyers must also demonstrate proficiency with a firearm.

Those changes, Nasci said, set the tone for driving off unsavory types.

“To make it more like a shooting club, that really was the turning point,” Nasci said. With “so many extra steps to get the gun, you're going somewhere else if you're a straw buyer” — the term for an eligible buyer who obtains a weapon for an ineligible buyer, such as someone with a criminal record or someone like Burton, who was too young to legally buy a gun.


In this October 5th, 2015 photo, Milwaukee Police Officer Bryan Norberg describes being shot while testifying
in court. — Photograph: Mike De Sisti/Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel via Associated Press.

The store now has a smaller customer base made up of gun enthusiasts such as Joe Schwarz, 34, a clean-cut salesman who drives a Kia hybrid. One day last week, Schwarz showed up at the store with a case of 9mm pistols, intending to get in his weekly round of target practice at Brew City's indoor range.

The store is “like ‘Cheers’,” Schwarz said. “Everybody knows you by name.”

The store's transformation is evident in other ways. It still has plenty of standard-issue gun-shop decor: An ode to the Second Amendment. A bumper sticker that declares, “Support Packing in Packerland”. A sign on the front desk that reads, “Complaint Department” next to a toy grenade with a take-a-number ticket attached to the pin.

But there are also signs laying out strict rules for would-be buyers:

“Must be 21 to enter. Proper ID required”.

“No cell phones allowed”.

And for the droopy-drawered set of possible customers: “Pull your pants up or don’t come in. Try to have some decency and respect. No one wants to see your underwear”.

The rules are serious, Schwarz said: Staff members “will ask you to leave” if you show up with a cellphone. The policy is designed to prevent straw buyers from texting photos of guns to friends outside.

Employees, too, stress safety.

“We need to make sure you know what you're doing with a firearm,” a clerk told a young man shopping for a pistol with a female companion.

“I need to check that ammo,” another clerk said to three young men who brought ammunition to use on the gun range.

“No membership, no gun,” an older clerk explained to a longtime customer wearing blue overalls and a black shirt.


Badger Guns owner Adam Allan, left, his father, Walter Allan, right, and Mick Beatovic, center, listen to testimony.
 — Photograph: Mike De Sisti/Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel via Associated Press.

Although the reinvented Badger Guns is no longer a problem, Nasci noted that all is hardly well in Milwaukee. Gun shops can't operate within the city limits, but many, like Badger Guns, have cropped up in bordering towns.

As Badger became Brew City and tightened its standards, other stores, including chain outdoors retailers and smaller suburban gun shops, have seen a troubling increase in the number of guns they sold that wind up being used by criminals, Nasci said. Milwaukee is also struggling with a huge spike in homicides and other violent crimes.

“We have a whole other group that now are the top crime-gun sellers in Wisconsin,” Nasci said.

Brew City is not immune. Nasci said police have recovered some guns sold by Brew City during investigations of recent crimes. Still, he said, the store has mostly stayed true to Allan's pledge to clean up his father's business.

Last week, Allan politely declined to discuss the jury's verdict against the store or answer other questions. He merely noted that the place is under new management and that the new signs went up “a few years ago.”

Walter Allan hung up when a reporter called seeking comment. Adam Allan did not respond to messages.

Store employees also declined to speak publicly, citing a store policy of not talking to news media.

Walter and Adam Allan haven't been to the store in years, according to a person familiar with the store's management who spoke on the condition of anonymity. That's partly out of necessity: The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives revoked Adam Allan's license in 2011. Walter Allan still owns the property — along with his original co-owner, Mick Beatovic, who retired in 2006.

Nasci said Mike Allan actively sought help from police to remake the store and followed through on Nasci's recommendation to add more cameras and to turn over to police the applications of buyers rejected for gun sales.

“Gun rights activists were pretty upset with him,” Nasci said.

Allan also checks with Nasci when he buys guns to make sure they're not stolen or fraudulently acquired, a step he is not legally required to take. And Nasci said he keeps much better records than his dad did.

“Quite honestly,” Nasci said, “his dad's record-keeping habits kind of sucked.”

• Tom Held in Milwaukee and Mark Berman and Alice Crites in Washington contributed to this report.

• Dan Simmons is a freelance writer.

__________________________________________________________________________

Read more on this topic:

 • The multimillion-dollar Wisconsin gun store verdict that could reverberate in the gun debate.

 • The Hidden Life of Guns: A Washington Post Investigation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/how-the-nations-most-notorious-crime-gun-store-cleaned-up-its-act/2015/10/17/9ff3c52e-74ea-11e5-8248-98e0f5a2e830_story.html

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

ktj your stinking life is stuck in a gun fixation mode

if guns are so dangerous why the hell has no one shot you for being a  such a whining bitch

more people die from car accidents in the us

your retarded  ktj
so when i read your head lines all i see is blaa blaa blaa ktj is a bitching wanker

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Washington Post....

The NRA will fall. It's inevitable.

Just look at the demographics.

By ADAM WINKLER | 9:47AM - Monday, October 19, 2015


People look at handguns at the Nation's Gun Show at the Dulles Expo Center earlier this month. — Photograph: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post.

THE recent deadly shooting at an Oregon community college, like so many before it, isn't likely to lead to new federal laws designed to curb dangerous people's access to guns. While this understandably frustrates supporters of gun safety legislation, there is reason for them to be hopeful. The National Rifle Association's days of being a political powerhouse may be numbered.

Why? The answer is in the numbers.

Support for, and opposition to, gun control is closely associated with several demographic characteristics, including race, level of education and whether one lives in a city. Nearly all are trending forcefully against the NRA.

The core of the NRA's support comes from white, rural and relatively less educated voters. This demographic is currently influential in politics but clearly on the wane. While the decline of white, rural, less educated Americans is generally well known, less often recognized is what this means for gun legislation.

Polls show that whites tend to favor gun rights over gun control by a significant margin (57 percent to 40 percent). Yet whites, who comprise 63 percent of the population today, won't be in the majority for long. Racial minorities are soon to be a majority, and they are the nation's strongest supporters of strict gun laws.

An overwhelming majority of African Americans say that gun control is more important than gun rights (72 percent to 24 percent). While the African American population shows signs of slow growth, other racial minority groups are growing more rapidly — and report even greater support for gun control.

The fastest-growing minority group in America is Latinos. Between 2000 and 2010, the nation's Latino population grew by 43 percent. Hispanics, which make up 17 percent of the population today, are expected to grow to 30 percent of the population in the coming decades.

Gun control is extremely popular among Hispanics, with 75 percent favoring gun safety over gun rights.

Asian Americans also represent a growing anti-gun demographic. Although only about 5 percent of the population today, the Asian American population is predicted to triple over the next few decades. A recent poll of Asian American registered voters found that 80 percent supported stricter gun laws.

After the 2012 election, Republican officials said the party needed to do more to appeal to the growing population of racial minorities. Yet the party's refusal to bend on gun legislation highlights the difficulty of such efforts. If the GOP compromises on guns to appeal to minorities, it might lose support among its core of white voters.

Rural Americans tend to oppose gun control, with 63 percent saying that gun rights are more important than gun control. The country, however, is becoming less rural and more urban. Recent years have witnessed a significant increase in the number of people living in cities, with big metropolitan areas experiencing double-digit growth.

This shift, like that on race, is a boon for gun control. Urban residents strongly prefer gun control to gun rights (60 percent to 38 percent), for reasons that aren't hard to understand. When gun violence is on your television news every night and police are commonplace, people may come to view guns more as a threat than a savior.

Support for gun control is correlated, too, with levels of education. Gun rights are favored by a slim majority of those who attended only high school (50 percent to 47 percent). Among those with a college degree, however,  58 percent favor gun control, compared with 38 percent for gun rights. This demographic is also trending in a favorable direction for gun control advocates. Between 2002 and 2012, enrollment in degree-granting institutions increased by 24 percent.

Other changes occurring in the United States further complicate matters for the nation's leading gun rights organization. For years, the NRA focused on the interests of hunters and recreational shooters. As hunting declined precipitously after 1970 (when over 40 million Americans had hunting licenses, compared with 14 million today), the NRA's justification for gun ownership shifted toward self-defense.

During the 1970s and '80s, when crime rates were skyrocketing, the self-defense argument easily found an audience. Yet recent years have seen a drastic reduction in crime; today the crime rate is half of what it was in 1980. Given that this drop coincided with a serious economic downturn, which is usually a predictor of an increase in crime, it is not unreasonable to predict that crime rates aren't likely to climb significantly anytime soon.

There is one demographic change that helps the NRA. Americans are aging, and older people tend to favor gun rights over gun control by a slim margin (48 percent to 47 percent). Yet these numbers aren't radically different from young people (48 percent to 50 percent), so even an aging population won't be nearly enough to counter the other, stronger demographic shifts.

Of course, the NRA will continue to fight, and fight hard, against gun control. But the heart of the organization's power is the voters it can turn out to vote, and they are likely to decline in number. Unless the organization begins to soften its no-compromises stance on gun safety legislation, it's likely to become increasingly marginalized in a changing America.

• Adam Winkler is a professor at UCLA School of Law and the author of “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America”.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/the-nra-will-fall-its-inevitable

[reality]

yup...always nice to see democracy in action...the majority of people get what they want

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Washington Post....

EDITORIAL: Keeping guns out of children's hands

THE WASHINGTON POST'S VIEW

By EDITORIAL BOARD | Monday, October 19, 2015


CHANTILLY, VIRGINIA — OCTOBER 3RD: People look at handguns as thousands of customers and hundreds of dealers sell, show, and buy guns.
 — Photograph: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post.

OF ALL the sad statistics associated with U.S. gun violence, none is more pitiful than the single digits that represent the ages of little children who unintentionally shoot themselves or others after getting hold of a gun.

The boy in Chicago who over the weekend fatally shot his younger brother in the face after he retrieved a gun from atop a refrigerator to play “cops and robbers” was 6 years old. His brother was 3. The child in South Carolina who shot his grandmother last week after finding a gun in the back seat of a car was 2 years old. The Oregon boy who wounded himself last month after his father left a gun unattended also was 2. In the St. Louis area, it was a 21-month-old who died in August after shooting himself with a gun he found at his grandmother's house.

“The stories go on and on,” wrote The Washington Post's Christopher Ingraham in a searing analysis of news accounts that found 43 cases of children 3 or younger shooting themselves or someone else this year. That is, on average, a shooting a week. It's likely that the tally — 13 toddlers who killed themselves, two who killed someone else, 18 who injured themselves and 10 who injured others — is an undercount because not all shootings are covered by the media. No count can capture the lasting emotional damage of these shootings, to those who shoot as well as, if they survive, those who are shot.

Invariably, the incidents are catalogued as accidents, but that misses the simple — and maddening — fact that they are entirely preventable accidents. We know how to keep 6-year-olds from being killers. States and localities could require gun owners to lock their guns away or use trigger locks. Consumers have become accustomed to passcodes or thumbprints to safeguard their phones; the same technology could be used to keep guns from being fired by anyone but their owners.

That these lifesaving efforts are not a routine matter of law or practice is due to the opposition of the gun lobby. Perhaps the National Rifle Association is prepared to argue that “guns don't kill people, toddlers kill people.” Most everyone else ought to welcome policies that keep guns out of the hands of young children.

__________________________________________________________________________

Read more on this topic:

 • Colbert I. King: I'm a gun owner. The NRA doesn't speak for me.

 • Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes: Common-sense gun policies that would save lives

 • Fred Hiatt: A gun-free society

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/keeping-guns-out-of-childrens-hands/2015/10/19/ff1fbb14-7686-11e5-bc80-9091021aeb69_story.html

[reality]

'She's going down 100 per cent' - Gun City owner David Tipple vows to prosecute Heather du Plessis-Allan

6:27 AM Thursday Oct 22, 2015
Gun City's multi-millionaire owner David Tipple has pledged to privately prosecute TV3 journalist Heather du Plessis-Allan and leave her with a criminal conviction after she bought a rifle without a licence.

Mr Tipple said he would go ahead with a private prosecution if a police investigation into the current affairs sting decided against prosecution.

Mr Tipple said he was "so upset" du Plessis-Allan used false details to order and collect a rifle from his store.

"I'm ready for the battle," he said. "She's going down 100 per cent. They're going down.
What so many people don't remember is even if the cops say we won't prosecute her, then I can prosecute her and I will. She will get a criminal record because of what she has done."

Mediaworks' stars du Plessis-Allan and her Story co-host Duncan Garner revealed the gun purchase on the Radio Live afternoon show. The pair discussed how du Plessis-Allan set out to test online gun buying for the Story show and had successfully purchased a .22 rifle using false details.

Du Plessis-Allan told the Herald the story was done because there was a need to change the system and that had already happened.

She said the police had changed the mail order system so online gun order forms were now left at the police station for officers to authorise and then send.

The previous system had seen the prospective buyer send in the form, which had allowed the details of a fake police officer to be used where the authorising officer should have been. "We feel this is a massive loophole in the system and we do feel an obligation to expose it. We've affected change already."

The announcement was followed by the police launching a criminal investigation into the purchase even as officers arranged to collect the rifle from Mediaworks. The police press statement also said an audit which had just been carried out into online gun buying was leading to new processes which appeared to close the loophole that allowed the Mediaworks exploit.

Mr Tipple said police had a "public interest" clause which stopped a prosecution. But he said the response on social media since the revelation of the gun purchase showed many people believed his company - which bills itself as the "world's largest gun store" - was in the wrong.

"I can't afford half the people looking at this and thinking we did something wrong. People get the idea that the only one in New Zealand who can do a criminal prosecution is police. I've done it once before, taken a private prosecution. It cost them a fortune. It cost me a grand."

Mr Tipple said the stunt saw false details used to trick his staff - and it was done by inventing the details of a police officer who was meant to carry out the safety checks. It was a case of any system being able to be fooled if the person doing so was intent on it, he said.

He said anyone who tried a similar stunt would be caught when the police officer's details manufactured on the form were checked. At that point, he said it would have seen the Armed Offenders Squad sent to the house where the rifle was delivered.

Mr Tipple said du Plessis-Allan had also been lucky when the firearms licence number used was confirmed as valid when the shop staff checked with police before sending the rifle out.

"She made up the number but she hit the jackpot." Staff were able to check the number by the system used by police meant gun shops weren't able to check the name matched up, he said.

He said the consequence of it was to give people the false impression there was a problem with illegally purchased guns on New Zealand streets.

TV3's Story broadcast a story about the gun purchase after co-host du Plessis-Allan told Radio Live the .22 rifle had been bought for $300 using false details. "It wasn't difficult for me to do this. I didn't have to make fake IDs or anything."

She then outlined the process she went through. "I used a fake name. I used a fake gun licence." She said she filled it out and sent it in.

She said it was worrying she was able to buy a gun "under the name of someone who doesn't exist".

Garner, who interviewed du Plessis-Allen, said the rifle had been bought to test the law and there was a strong "public interest" defence.

A spokeswoman for Mediaworks said: "We believe it is in the public interest that this serious loophole in the gun laws is closed. We support this story and the Story journalists completely."

Inspector Peter Gibson said an investigation had been launched after an allegation "false details had been used to fraudulently obtain a firearm via an online dealer".

"To obtain a firearm online, the buyer must provide the seller with a written order countersigned by Police proving that they have a current firearms license. This is to satisfy dealers that the person is an appropriately licensed user," the police press release said.

The police release said possessing a firearm without a legal licence was a criminal offence and if successfully prosecuted could lead to three months in prison or a $1000 fine. The charge for "obtaining by deception" carried penalties up to seven years in prison, the police statement said.

Mr Gibson said: "Police takes any incident involving the illegal obtaining or possessing of firearms extremely seriously."

The press release said a review of firearms licensing was already underway and it included an audit of the country's largest online retailer.

It said the audit revealed no problems with online sales but a wider audit of all major online gun dealers was being carried out.

The statement said police was also updating its systems for buying guns online, meaning those doing so would have to go to a police station and show the police arms officer the firearms licence before any online purchase was approved.

- NZ Herald

[reality]

Man shot outside East Auckland bar in early morning fight
 
Police are seeking any witnesses to the early morning fight or anyone who may have caught the incident on camera.

A man was shot outside an East Auckland bar early on Saturday in an apparent fight between rival gangs, police say.

Detective Senior Sergeant Ross Ellwood said police were called to the 123 Palm Bar in Highland Park at about 2am following calls about a man being shot.

Ellwood said the man had been shot in the leg and was taken to hospital with serious injuries.

Several cars in the parking lot outside the bar have smashed windows.

It's understood the man is in a stable condition.

A police spokeswoman said a "large group" of people were involved in the fight but could not confirm exact numbers.

Five cars also sustained major damage in the fight with windows smashed, including body damage to one vehicle.

A handful of other cars inside the cordon had minor damage.

Numerous onlookers noted the area had a reputation for "dodgy behaviour" in the early hours.

One Howick mother, who wanted to remain unnamed, said bars' late closing times attracted people to the area.

"There have been a number of incidents where there've been knives or screwdrivers used in fights and so forth," she said.



"There seems to be a bit of dodgy behaviour, it puts you off coming near at night."

Ellwood said police were seeking any witnesses to the fight or anyone who may have caught the incident on camera.

Contact the Counties Manukau crime squad on 09 261 1321.

A cordon remained in place at the scene until early afternoon.

 - Stuff

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Yep.........you're dumber than a bucket of dog-shit, alright.

[reality]

yes..the use of guns to injure other people should be banned in NZ...please help Hillary

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

All the “Hillary for president” you can possibly handle

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist | 3:29PM PDT - Friday, October 23, 2015


“Calm under pressure” doesn't quite seem to cover it.

TO all the soldiers in the sad, seething army of perpetually acidic (male) conservatives who openly despise Hillary Clinton and don't care who knows it: Rough news cycle for you, yes? You poor dears.

Indeed, your party's latest, perhaps greatest gratuitous witch-hunt of an attempt to destroy Clinton (again, for the 8th time — or was it the 800th?) not only failed spectacularly, it quite thoroughly backfired, and now the nightmares are back and that weird genital rash still won't go away. Thank goodness you still have Trump, right? Or, you know, perhaps not.

Conversely, if you were already a Hillary supporter, well, your estimation of her has just been fantastically validated, if not amplified, all due to her stellar, galvanizing marathon appearance at the latest Benghazi battering — AKA 11 hours of shamelessly partisan, entertainingly inept, savagely single-minded bile aimed solely at bringing Hillary, once at for all, to Republican heel. Whoops.


Eleven hours of relentless Republican baiting, badgering and mansplaining, and she emerged smiling and stronger than ever.
Role model, what?

That Clinton calmly held her own for the entirety of the rather sickening, epic assault, during which not a single new or damning fact was uncovered, isn't the most impressive part. It's the other thing, how Clinton essentially showed America and the world exactly how she'll respond — with what level of class, calm and intelligence — when she's faced with this exact level of GOP venom and ineptitude nearly every day of her stewardship, should she become president.

In short: She's ready for them. More than ready. Obama-level ready. She can take the “worst” the GOP has to offer — their most calculating buffoons, their nastiest pile-on tactics, their months of savage preparation, their inbred misogyny — and leverage it to her/our advantage, all without even breaking a sweat.

But it's not just the GOP. It's safe to translate that skill, that temperament straight over to how she'll deal with all those other supposedly tough-minded, troublesome, macho world leaders, from Putin to Netanyahu, the U.N. to King Salman. “Reassuring” doesn't begin to cover it. “Totally in control and sort of badass?” That's more like it.


Benghazi committee chairman Trey “Flop Sweat” Gowdy, the latest to try — and epically fail — to bring Hillary to heel.
See you in the footnotes of history, kid.

But there's an even larger upshot: No more lukewarm liberal support. No more tepid fence-sitting for the large chunk of Democrats who've long been wary of Clinton, who've complained that, despite her obvious smarts and tenacity, she's far from an ideal progressive candidate, for all the reasons you already know: too hawkish, too front-loaded with political baggage, too friendly with Wall Street, and so on.

Well, enough of that. If you weren't much impressed by her before, it's downright impossible not to be, now. Yes, Bernie is engaging, too. But Hillary just took it all to the next level — the truly presidential one.

But don't just take it from me. Donations to Hillary's campaign just surged to record highs, immediately after Benghazi committee chairman Trey Gowdy's sweaty gavel closed the sham hearings. Her poll numbers are way up. Ten million skeptics have been instantly converted. The GOP is, naturally, equally furious and dumbfounded, all over again.



It's as though everyone suddenly got the same memo, all at once: Here's your undeniable proof, doubters. Here's the clearest snapshot yet of what we can expect from a Hillary presidency, of how she'll handle the right’s sexism, their outright hatred of both the Clinton name and the idea of a female American president, not to mention how she'll deal with Congress, with world leaders, with her gnarled past and our even more gnarled future.

Which is to say: With class, with calm intelligence, with a bemused, wary understanding of the cruelest workings of the DC's inbred political machinery.

She's still far from perfect — hell, she's a big part of that machinery herself — but once you throw in some Zen meditation and a little yoga, the truth becomes even more undeniable: This is the most powerful, badass, superhero grandma we could possibly ask for. Doubt her at your peril.

• Email: Mark Morford

• Mark Morford on Twitter and Facebook.

http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2015/10/23/all-the-president-hillary-you-can-possibly-handle

[reality]

..speaking of nutters...these are some of our own


Siblings removed from Gloriavale by CYFS


Five brothers and sisters have been removed by social workers from the South Island's reclusive religious community Gloriavale.

One of Gloriavale's leaders Fervent Stedfast, confirmed the children had been uplifted by Child Youth and Family (CYF) staff.  It follows allegations earlier this year of physical and sexual abuse inside the closed West Coast Christian community.


The children who were removed from CYF care have been returned "healthy and happy" back at Gloriavale with their parents.
SUPPLIED
The children who were removed from CYF care have been returned "healthy and happy" back at Gloriavale with their parents.

"Yes they were taken but they have been returned," said Stedfast. He added the children were "healthy and happy" back at Gloriavale with their parents.

 It is understood CYF were investigating claims the five children, believed to be aged between seven and fifteen, had been subjected to physical abuse including being smacked hard and beaten with sticks.

The children have two older sisters, both now aged in their 20s. One fled Gloriavale three years ago and the other two years ago. The sisters told TV3's Campbell Live in April they were both subjected to sexual, verbal and physical abuse inside the community.

One was "shunned" and kept in isolation at age 14 for having a relationship with a boy. She said she was kept alone in a primitive bush shack without food for four weeks as punishment. The sisters said they had been beaten from the age of five.

The sisters claimed child abuse was "not unusual".

"My dad used to beat us all the time, for no reason."

"I never knew why. You'd go home and Dad would be angry and the first thing he'd do was get a stick and start hitting you."

Ad Feedback

The sisters also claimed they had been forced to fast because leaders considered them overweight.

"If there's a girl putting on weight the amount of insults they get, it's incredible."

The sisters had since been spoken with police as part of its ongoing Gloriavale investigation.  Fairfax Media understands the five children were in CYF care for between two and three weeks before they were returned.

The sisters said they had not seen their brothers and sisters while they were care and only knew their siblings had been taken when their estranged mother contacted them from inside Gloriavale to ask if they knew of their whereabouts.

CYF would not respond to questions about why the children had been uplifted and returned.

"In many cases it is not helpful for children and families involvement with Child, Youth and Family to be played out in public. As a result we generally do not confirm nor deny Child, Youth and Family involvement and will not be responding to your request in this instance," said a spokeswoman.

Police declined to comment specifically on the removal of the children. The separate investigation into allegations of abuse at Gloriavale was "proving to be a slow process".

The community's leader, Hopeful Christian, was sentenced to six years in prison on eleven charges of indecent assault in 1994 but the Court of Appeal quashed the sentences and his convictions and ordered a new trial.

He was found guilty on three charges of sexual abuse on young community members at his second trial in December 1995.

 - Sunday Star Times

[reality]

...yup...hes a traitor...needs a fair trial before being hung


DOES EDWARD SNOWDEN HAVE BLOOD ON HIS HANDS?
by Cameron Slater on November 17, 2015 at 5:00pm
Personally I think the gutless little traitor does have blood on his hands. His stolen documents and his work alongside Julian Assange have actually killed people.

Worse their actions set back the West and their capabilities for several years while the Russians, Chinese and Islamic enemies carried on regardless.


 
New Zealand’s spy agencies are encountering an increasing amount of “dark communications” that they can’t monitor, Prime Minister John Key says.

The weekend killings in Paris have raised questions around interception capabilities and Mr Key says Islamic State has become better at knowing what forms of communication can and can’t be monitored.

“The amount of ‘dark communications’ that can’t be monitored by our agencies is increasing,” he told reporters in Vietnam, where he is leading a trade mission.   


“The level of encryption is very high… my agencies talk to me all the time about whether someone is communicating in a particular way and if so, what they can cover and what they can’t.”

Mr Key says that going from media reports of the Paris attacks, it seemed there were no communications between the perpetrators.

“So it seems they were obviously aware of the risk of being monitored… the issue is that this technology is very difficult to break into.”

They were very aware and we know why, because Edward Snowden told the world precisely how the West was monitoring terror activities.

Snowden, Assange and other are not heroes, they are traitors and they have enabled our enemies to kill innocent people.

It is my belief that they do have blood on their hands.

 – 3News
by Cameron Slater on November 17, 2015 at 5:00pm

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Washington Post....

[reality]

..mm..I guess if those 33,000  were born  in NZ alot would have been killed as children

..because NZ excels in child neglect, torture and murder..

..Americans love guns..and their constitutional right to have guns...and they are a democracy...so if they cared....they could change it..

...so..if they wish for the situation to continue...they can...aint democracy great

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

Senator David Leyonhjelm warns the US not to adopt Australia's gun control laws



Senator David Leyonhjelm has labelled Australia "a nation of victims" and discouraged the United States from following Australia's example on gun control.

The Liberal Democrat made the comments in an interview with the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) which was screened on YouTube.

Key points:

Senator David Leyonhjelm urges US not to adopt Australia's gun control laws
Labels Australia a "nation of victims" in an interview with the NRA
Says tighter gun control laws have not made "slightest bit of difference"
His interview appears in a clip attacking presidential hopeful and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton over her pro-gun control stance and comes as the race to the White House heats up.

Senator Leyonhjelm told the NRA that Australia should not be a model for gun control, stating that John Howard's 1996 gun legislation - pushed through in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre - had made "no difference".

"We are a nation of victims," he said.



"You cannot own a gun for self defence ... the criminals still have guns. There's a very vigorous black market for guns, so it's not made the slightest bit of difference.

"If you want a gun, you can get one."

Senator Leyonhjelm has pushed for the rights of gun owners in Australia since his election in 2013 and recently negotiated a 12-month sunset clause on a ban on importing the Adler lever-action shotgun.

Mr Howard, whose 1996 ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons prompted Senator Leyonhjelm's departure from the Liberal Party, has said he does not believe Australians want to see looser restrictions.

"If the Government ends up letting this [shotgun] in, and not treating it as I think it should be on the evidence available to me at the moment - treated as akin to an automatic or semi-automatic - then I would be very critical of that," Mr Howard said at a Gun Control Australia function in Sydney earlier this year.

"That would be a huge mistake. I don't think a great majority of Australians want to see a weakening of gun laws."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-17/david-leyonhjelm-discourages-us-from-adopting-stronger-gun-laws/6948656



https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2015/september/latest-crime-stats-released/latest-crime-stats-released



Top Counter-Terrorism Agency: Citizens Should Be Armed To Stop Terror Attacks

The head of the world’s international police agency (Interpol) – which is very active in counter-terror efforts – said last October that arming citizens might be the best way to stop terrorism.

ABC News reported:

Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month’s deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.
 
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called “soft targets” are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.
 
“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”
 
***
 
The secretary general, an American who previously headed up all law enforcement for the U.S. Treasury Department, told reporters during a brief news conference that the Westgate mall attack marks what has long been seen as “an evolution in terrorism.” Instead of targets like the Pentagon and World Trade Center that now have far more security since 9/11, attackers are focusing on sites with little security that attract large numbers of people.
 
***
 
“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?” Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. “What I’m saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?‘ This is something that has to be discussed.”
 
***
 
“For me it’s a profound question,” he continued. “People are quick to say ‘gun control, people shouldn’t be armed,’ etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: ‘Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you’re in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'”
If you are for gun control – as I used to be – you may want to note that a top liberal Constitutional law scholar, Ghandi and the Dalai Lama are all  for the right of citizens to bear arms.

Perhaps more importantly, look at the alternatives …

Would you rather let the government keep on waging its virtually endless, counter-productive , freedom-destroying and ruinously expensive War On Terror?

Or would you rather arm yourselves and take your chances?

I know a native American man who has a bumper sticker on his truck which reads:

Open Hunting Season on Terrorists
I think he’s got the right attitude.

Postscript:  For those who think that guns are “unhealthy” or “disgusting”, please note that Freud disagreed.  Specifically, he argued that when men give up the primal drive to protect ourselves, our families and our communities – and that power is transferred to standing armies – it disempowers us and makes us weak psychologically.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-22/top-counter-terrorism-agency-citizens-should-be-armed-stop-terror-attacks