Discussion:
Bill's Gun Shop sold 373 guns traced to crime
(too old to reply)
C Osbourne
2004-01-13 20:27:24 UTC
Permalink
I've been a customer of Bill's Guns (off and on) for at
least 10 years now, and have witnessed a disturbing
pattern of buyers that frequent the store just after the
first of each month. This pattern is politically incorrect,
so nobody dares breath a word of it on the media, but
it's easy to verify, by going to the store in the afternoon
of the 2nd or 3rd day of the month. You will see groups
of 'poor' people that come from the near by North side of
Minneapolis. Often these groups will include a middle
aged female and at least 1 or 2 young men (of color)
The young men will have the weapon all picked out, and
the female will fill out the paperwork to purchase the
weapon(s). Do you suppose that these weapons are
the ones that later turn up in crimes?

I've asked the counter people how they can continue to
arm these tough and angry looking young men. They
say that there is nothing they can do, the woman has
no record, and qualifies to make the purchase.

I know to the average liberal on this newsgroup, this
sounds like a fantastic lie, but before you vomit yards
of text, just go over to Bills and check it out for yourself.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
2004-01-13 20:34:52 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:27:24 GMT, ***@hotmail.com (C Osbourne)
wrote:

<snip>

How many guns has Bill's sold all totalled? 373 is absolutely
meaningless unless it is compared in a meaningful context.


Tom Veldhouse
Thomas T. Veldhouse
2004-01-13 20:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by C Osbourne
I've been a customer of Bill's Guns (off and on) for at
least 10 years now, and have witnessed a disturbing
pattern of buyers that frequent the store just after the
first of each month. This pattern is politically incorrect,
so nobody dares breath a word of it on the media, but
it's easy to verify, by going to the store in the afternoon
of the 2nd or 3rd day of the month. You will see groups
of 'poor' people that come from the near by North side of
Minneapolis. Often these groups will include a middle
aged female and at least 1 or 2 young men (of color)
The young men will have the weapon all picked out, and
the female will fill out the paperwork to purchase the
weapon(s). Do you suppose that these weapons are
the ones that later turn up in crimes?
So, are you trying to say that poor black people are buying guns with
their welfare/SS checks? Do you even know when people get their
checks?
Post by C Osbourne
I've asked the counter people how they can continue to
arm these tough and angry looking young men. They
say that there is nothing they can do, the woman has
no record, and qualifies to make the purchase.
That would likely be true, as it would very likely boil down to a
discrimination suit. Do you think that is a problem with the guns,
the gunshop, or perhaps a social problem?
Post by C Osbourne
I know to the average liberal on this newsgroup, this
sounds like a fantastic lie, but before you vomit yards
of text, just go over to Bills and check it out for yourself.
Hang out there on the second of each month and see loads of poor black
people come in with cash from their welfare checks ... yep, somehow I
don't buy it. It could be true on an individual basis perhaps, but
you just describe a demographic trend ... one which I simply do not
believe without you backing it up further than just asking us to take
your word for it or "check for yourself and camp out there on Feb 2,
2004".

You just describe the link between guns, drug use and malnutrition in
kids. If we get rid of guns, all those things will be cured. You
know what, if we used the guns on the very same people, those problems
would be cured as well. My point ... you need to back up your claims
rather than slander a demographic group.



Tom Veldhouse
Mark Olson
2004-01-13 21:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas T. Veldhouse
Post by C Osbourne
I've been a customer of Bill's Guns (off and on) for at
least 10 years now, and have witnessed a disturbing
pattern of buyers that frequent the store just after the
first of each month. This pattern is politically incorrect,
so nobody dares breath a word of it on the media, but
it's easy to verify, by going to the store in the afternoon
of the 2nd or 3rd day of the month. You will see groups
of 'poor' people that come from the near by North side of
Minneapolis. Often these groups will include a middle
aged female and at least 1 or 2 young men (of color)
The young men will have the weapon all picked out, and
the female will fill out the paperwork to purchase the
weapon(s). Do you suppose that these weapons are
the ones that later turn up in crimes?
So, are you trying to say that poor black people are buying guns with
their welfare/SS checks? Do you even know when people get their
checks?
You brought up the idea it was welfare money. My guess, assuming the
OP is telling the truth, is that these are straw buyers financed by
persons unknown. I have no idea if there is a restriction on how many
handguns (or long guns for that matter) a person can buy in a month,
perhaps that would explain the monthly recurrence.
Bert Hyman
2004-01-13 21:28:51 UTC
Permalink
... I have no idea if there is a restriction on how many
handguns (or long guns for that matter) a person can buy in a month,
perhaps that would explain the monthly recurrence.
Sale of more than one handgun to the same person in a period of 5 business
days must be reported to ATF and local law enforcement.
--
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | ***@visi.com
p***@gmail.com
2018-05-03 17:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Hyman
... I have no idea if there is a restriction on how many
handguns (or long guns for that matter) a person can buy in a month,
perhaps that would explain the monthly recurrence.
Sale of more than one handgun to the same person in a period of 5 business
days must be reported to ATF and local law enforcement.
--
--
need a source. In MN there is no limit to the number of firearms you purchase in any given period of time. the requirement to report that I think you are indicating was for 5 semi-automatic firearms within 30 days but that was removed a while ago due to the expense for the ffl and the feds.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
2004-01-13 22:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Olson
You brought up the idea it was welfare money. My guess, assuming the
OP is telling the truth, is that these are straw buyers financed by
persons unknown. I have no idea if there is a restriction on how many
handguns (or long guns for that matter) a person can buy in a month,
perhaps that would explain the monthly recurrence.
I brought up welfare, but the "of the 2nd or 3rd day of the month" and
"groups of 'poor' people that come from the near by North side of
Minneapolis" and "Often these groups will include a middle
aged female and at least 1 or 2 young men (of color) " make the
implication very clear. Do you disagree?


Tom Veldhouse
Joel Rosenberg
2004-01-13 22:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas T. Veldhouse
Post by Mark Olson
You brought up the idea it was welfare money. My guess, assuming the
OP is telling the truth, is that these are straw buyers financed by
persons unknown. I have no idea if there is a restriction on how many
handguns (or long guns for that matter) a person can buy in a month,
perhaps that would explain the monthly recurrence.
I brought up welfare, but the "of the 2nd or 3rd day of the month" and
"groups of 'poor' people that come from the near by North side of
Minneapolis" and "Often these groups will include a middle
aged female and at least 1 or 2 young men (of color) " make the
implication very clear. Do you disagree?
Tom Veldhouse
The implication is pretty clear, and its born out by some things I've
observed. The general belief among folks who work in the gun shops is
that if an eligible black woman comes in to buy a gun with a black
male friend in tow, she's straw-purchasing.

Me, I dunno. If I were a thirty-something black woman who wanted to
by a handgun for my own protection, and didn't know much about guns,
I'd be tempted to bring along a knowledgable friend, who would, under
those circumstances, be more likely to be black than white.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
(Reverse disclaimer: actually, everything I do or say is utterly
supported by Ellegon, Inc., my employer. Even when I'm wrong.)
Pat Humphreys
2004-01-13 23:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Olson
Post by Thomas T. Veldhouse
So, are you trying to say that poor black people are buying guns with
their welfare/SS checks? Do you even know when people get their
checks?
You brought up the idea it was welfare money. My guess, assuming the
OP is telling the truth, is that these are straw buyers financed by
persons unknown. I have no idea if there is a restriction on how many
handguns (or long guns for that matter) a person can buy in a month,
perhaps that would explain the monthly recurrence.
An astute assumption, Mark. Now look around the
newsgroup and see if you can discover which
individuals have opposed limitations on the number of
handguns being sold to a single (straw) buyer.
Jeffrey C. Dege
2004-01-14 02:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Humphreys
Post by Mark Olson
Post by Thomas T. Veldhouse
So, are you trying to say that poor black people are buying guns with
their welfare/SS checks? Do you even know when people get their
checks?
You brought up the idea it was welfare money. My guess, assuming the
OP is telling the truth, is that these are straw buyers financed by
persons unknown. I have no idea if there is a restriction on how many
handguns (or long guns for that matter) a person can buy in a month,
perhaps that would explain the monthly recurrence.
An astute assumption, Mark. Now look around the
newsgroup and see if you can discover which
individuals have opposed limitations on the number of
handguns being sold to a single (straw) buyer.
Why don't you tell us if the states that have imposed one-gun-a-month
laws have seen a reduction in the number of sales to straw buyers?
--
If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation
should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime
rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century
and a half of trying that they must sweep under the rug the southern
attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts
in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels
in 1965-1976 establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure
of gun laws to control serious crime.
- Orrin G. Hatch
Pat Humphreys
2004-01-14 02:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey C. Dege
Why don't you tell us if the states that have imposed one-gun-a-month
laws have seen a reduction in the number of sales to straw buyers?
If you're asking for my opinion, the states that have
imposed a one-a-month law have seen a reduction
in the number of handguns sold to straw buyers.

Did you wish to refute that?

It only stands to reason, just as it stands to reason
that the answer to too many handguns is not more
handguns.
D.A. Tsenuf
2004-01-14 04:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Humphreys
Post by Jeffrey C. Dege
Why don't you tell us if the states that have imposed one-gun-a-month
laws have seen a reduction in the number of sales to straw buyers?
If you're asking for my opinion, the states that have
imposed a one-a-month law have seen a reduction
in the number of handguns sold to straw buyers.
Did you wish to refute that?
It only stands to reason, just as it stands to reason
that the answer to too many handguns is not more
handguns.
Yo, dummy...
How can one refute an OPINION ?
Because, firstly, if your opinion was based on fact instead of belief, you
could SUPPORT it.
And obviously you can't.

As to the question of "too many handguns"...
Who decides what is "too many" ?
Jeffrey C. Dege
2004-01-14 04:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.A. Tsenuf
Post by Pat Humphreys
Post by Jeffrey C. Dege
Why don't you tell us if the states that have imposed one-gun-a-month
laws have seen a reduction in the number of sales to straw buyers?
If you're asking for my opinion, the states that have
imposed a one-a-month law have seen a reduction
in the number of handguns sold to straw buyers.
Did you wish to refute that?
It only stands to reason, just as it stands to reason
that the answer to too many handguns is not more
handguns.
Yo, dummy...
How can one refute an OPINION ?
Because, firstly, if your opinion was based on fact instead of belief, you
could SUPPORT it.
And obviously you can't.
Actually, what he was expressing was an expectation, not an opinion.

And his expectation is somewhat backed by the facts - Virginia, at least,
did see a decrease in firearms traced to straw purchases, after they
imposed their one-gun-a-month law.

They didn't see any decrease in criminal gun use, though.
--
Te audire non possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.
Joel Rosenberg
2004-01-14 14:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey C. Dege
Post by D.A. Tsenuf
Post by Pat Humphreys
Post by Jeffrey C. Dege
Why don't you tell us if the states that have imposed one-gun-a-month
laws have seen a reduction in the number of sales to straw buyers?
If you're asking for my opinion, the states that have
imposed a one-a-month law have seen a reduction
in the number of handguns sold to straw buyers.
Did you wish to refute that?
It only stands to reason, just as it stands to reason
that the answer to too many handguns is not more
handguns.
Yo, dummy...
How can one refute an OPINION ?
Because, firstly, if your opinion was based on fact instead of belief, you
could SUPPORT it.
And obviously you can't.
Actually, what he was expressing was an expectation, not an opinion.
And his expectation is somewhat backed by the facts - Virginia, at least,
did see a decrease in firearms traced to straw purchases, after they
imposed their one-gun-a-month law.
They didn't see any decrease in criminal gun use, though.
But, as they'll tell you, that just means that they need more "gun
control" laws.

It's like old-time doctors applying leeches -- if it doesn't work, to
them, that's just proof that they need more leeches.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
(Reverse disclaimer: actually, everything I do or say is utterly
supported by Ellegon, Inc., my employer. Even when I'm wrong.)
Cylise
2004-01-14 18:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joel Rosenberg
It's like old-time doctors applying leeches -- if it doesn't work, to
them, that's just proof that they need more leeches.
Bad analogy. There are leeches being used in modern medicine. And
it's possible that sometimes not enough are used at the start.
Cupping / bleeding would have been a better analogy. It was used
inappropriately (wihich would be 999 times out of 1000, or more) and
overused.
--
http://www.visi.com/~cyli
Joel Rosenberg
2004-01-14 18:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Well, at least it's an imperfect analogy. And, actually, I was aware that
reaches are actually used in modern medicine, in some cases.

Come to think of it, though, that argues that it's a better analogy; I think
there are some, very limited, uses for gun control laws.

[snark mode on]
I mean, would you trust either SS or Pluto with a handgun?
[snark mode off]
Actually, I would; if you look at people who actually commit gun crimes,
they can do have a very long history of criminal activity, rather than
simply blowhard stupidity .
--
-----------------------------
Joel Rosenberg 612.824.3150
AACFI-certified MN Carry Permit Instructor and Certifier
BCA-validated Minnesota Carry Permit Instructor
NRA-certified Range Safety Officer, Pistol Instructor, Home Firearms Safety
Instructor,
and Personal Protection Instructor
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
Post by Cylise
Post by Joel Rosenberg
It's like old-time doctors applying leeches -- if it doesn't work, to
them, that's just proof that they need more leeches.
Bad analogy. There are leeches being used in modern medicine. And
it's possible that sometimes not enough are used at the start.
Cupping / bleeding would have been a better analogy. It was used
inappropriately (wihich would be 999 times out of 1000, or more) and
overused.
--
http://www.visi.com/~cyli
Bill Seurer
2004-01-15 00:07:15 UTC
Permalink
... I think
there are some, very limited, uses for gun control laws.
...if you look at people who actually commit gun crimes,
they can do have a very long history of criminal activity ...
So do you oppose checking backgrounds of people who buy guns?
Joel Rosenberg
2004-01-15 12:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Seurer
... I think
there are some, very limited, uses for gun control laws.
...if you look at people who actually commit gun crimes,
they can do have a very long history of criminal activity ...
So do you oppose checking backgrounds of people who buy guns?
Not strongly. That said, has it done any good on the bottom line?
I'd find the whole Brady check thing more persuasive if the Feds
thought that felons trying to buy guns -- remembering that the attempt
is, in itself, a felony, and that filling out and signing the form is
the confession -- was worth prosecuting, as they almost invariably
don't. (Out of the literally hundreds of thousands of Brady denials,
something like a dozen have resulted in prosecutions, last time I
checked. Either a: virtually all of the denials have been bogus, or
b: the Feds don't care to enforce the law.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg 612.824.3150
AACFI-certified MN Carry Permit Instructor and Certifier
BCA-validated Minnesota Carry Permit Instructor
NRA-certified Range Safety Officer, Pistol Instructor, Home
Firearms Safety Instructor, Personal Protection Instructor
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
(Reverse disclaimer: actually, everything I do or say is utterly
supported by Ellegon, Inc., my employer. Even when I'm wrong.)
D.A. Tsenuf
2004-01-14 19:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cylise
Post by Joel Rosenberg
It's like old-time doctors applying leeches -- if it doesn't work, to
them, that's just proof that they need more leeches.
Bad analogy. There are leeches being used in modern medicine. And
it's possible that sometimes not enough are used at the start.
Cupping / bleeding would have been a better analogy. It was used
inappropriately (wihich would be 999 times out of 1000, or more) and
overused.
--
http://www.visi.com/~cyli
He did say "old-time"...
Thomas T. Veldhouse
2004-01-14 14:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.A. Tsenuf
Yo, dummy...
How can one refute an OPINION ?
Because, firstly, if your opinion was based on fact instead of belief, you
could SUPPORT it.
And obviously you can't.
As to the question of "too many handguns"...
Who decides what is "too many" ?
Or too few!



Tom Veldhouse
Joel Rosenberg
2004-01-14 18:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Humphreys
Post by Jeffrey C. Dege
Why don't you tell us if the states that have imposed one-gun-a-month
laws have seen a reduction in the number of sales to straw buyers?
If you're asking for my opinion, the states that have
imposed a one-a-month law have seen a reduction
in the number of handguns sold to straw buyers.
Did you wish to refute that?
It only stands to reason, just as it stands to reason
that the answer to too many handguns is not more
handguns.
Which is just fine, if you define the problem in terms of "handguns." I
think the real problem is violent crime, myself, and after years and years
and years of trying to find some evidence that "gun control" laws have a
useful effect on violent crime, nobody's been able to.

But, sure, if you define the problem as guns bought in gun stores that end
up being used in crimes, you can solve all of those problems simply by
closing down every gun store.

This, manifestly, is why Washington DC is such a safe city, right, as there
are no gun stores within Washington DC. Right?

In England, by the way, where there is a close-to-virtual ban on civilian
handgun ownership and purchase , there is a much higher assault rate there
is in the United States. Ditto for Mexico . And shall we discuss "hot
burglary"?

--
-----------------------------
Joel Rosenberg 612.824.3150
AACFI-certified MN Carry Permit Instructor and Certifier
BCA-validated Minnesota Carry Permit Instructor
NRA-certified Range Safety Officer, Pistol Instructor, Home Firearms Safety
Instructor,
and Personal Protection Instructor
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
Jim Elwell
2004-01-14 20:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joel Rosenberg
Which is just fine, if you define the problem in terms of "handguns." I
think the real problem is violent crime
Yup.
Post by Joel Rosenberg
and after years and years
and years of trying to find some evidence that "gun control" laws have a
useful effect on violent crime, nobody's been able to.
The same could be said of "conceal-carry" laws.

Violent crime has dropped significantly in the US over the past few
decades. There is little credible evidence that suggests the trend is
significantly linked to changes in gun ownership or carry legislation.

-Jim
Mike1
2004-01-14 20:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Elwell
Post by Joel Rosenberg
and after years and years
and years of trying to find some evidence that "gun control" laws have a
useful effect on violent crime, nobody's been able to.
The same could be said of "conceal-carry" laws.
Violent crime has dropped significantly in the US over the past few
decades. There is little credible evidence that suggests the trend is
significantly linked to changes in gun ownership or carry legislation.
http://ron.dotson.net/statistics/concealedcarrystates.htm
http://stars.csg.org/spectrum/1997/spring/sp97spe28a.pdf
http://www.ncpa.org/ea/easo96/easo961a.html
--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Jim Elwell
2004-01-14 23:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike1
Post by Jim Elwell
Violent crime has dropped significantly in the US over the past few
decades. There is little credible evidence that suggests the trend is
significantly linked to changes in gun ownership or carry legislation.
http://ron.dotson.net/statistics/concealedcarrystates.htm
http://stars.csg.org/spectrum/1997/spring/sp97spe28a.pdf
http://www.ncpa.org/ea/easo96/easo961a.html
Your links would be much more persuasive if Lott wasn't prominently
featured in them. Lott isn't a very credible investigator.

-Jim
D.A. Tsenuf
2004-01-15 03:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Elwell
Post by Mike1
Post by Jim Elwell
Violent crime has dropped significantly in the US over the past few
decades. There is little credible evidence that suggests the trend is
significantly linked to changes in gun ownership or carry legislation.
http://ron.dotson.net/statistics/concealedcarrystates.htm
http://stars.csg.org/spectrum/1997/spring/sp97spe28a.pdf
http://www.ncpa.org/ea/easo96/easo961a.html
Your links would be much more persuasive if Lott wasn't prominently
featured in them. Lott isn't a very credible investigator.
He's a lot more credible than anyone on the anti-gun side has to offer
D.A. Tsenuf
2004-01-15 03:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike1
Post by Jim Elwell
Post by Joel Rosenberg
and after years and years
and years of trying to find some evidence that "gun control" laws have a
useful effect on violent crime, nobody's been able to.
The same could be said of "conceal-carry" laws.
Violent crime has dropped significantly in the US over the past few
decades. There is little credible evidence that suggests the trend is
significantly linked to changes in gun ownership or carry legislation.
http://ron.dotson.net/statistics/concealedcarrystates.htm
http://stars.csg.org/spectrum/1997/spring/sp97spe28a.pdf
http://www.ncpa.org/ea/easo96/easo961a.html
Considering that the CDC and Fraser Institute have both stated that
gun-control has no bearing on crime rates.
What's so surprising ?
Jeffrey C. Dege
2004-01-15 04:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.A. Tsenuf
Considering that the CDC and Fraser Institute have both stated that
gun-control has no bearing on crime rates.
What's so surprising ?
The National Institute of Justice found exactly the same thing,
twenty years ago. Which is when the anti's abandoned sociological
and criminological research in favor of the "public health" approach -
after the criminologists determined that gun control didn't work.

Now the CDC has said the same thing, which should finally put an end to
the blatant frauds that the anti-gun loons have been sneaking into the
public health journals.

Where will they go next?

Theology?
--
"Necessity is the mother of invention" is a silly proverb. "Necessity
is the mother of futile dodges" is much nearer the truth.
- Alfred North Whitehead
S. Smith
2004-01-15 04:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey C. Dege
Post by D.A. Tsenuf
Considering that the CDC and Fraser Institute have both stated that
gun-control has no bearing on crime rates.
What's so surprising ?
The National Institute of Justice found exactly the same thing,
twenty years ago. Which is when the anti's abandoned sociological
and criminological research in favor of the "public health" approach -
after the criminologists determined that gun control didn't work.
Now the CDC has said the same thing, which should finally put an end to
the blatant frauds that the anti-gun loons have been sneaking into the
public health journals.
Where will they go next?
Theology?
Canada? ;-)
Jeffrey C. Dege
2004-01-15 05:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by S. Smith
Post by Jeffrey C. Dege
Post by D.A. Tsenuf
Considering that the CDC and Fraser Institute have both stated that
gun-control has no bearing on crime rates.
What's so surprising ?
The National Institute of Justice found exactly the same thing,
twenty years ago. Which is when the anti's abandoned sociological
and criminological research in favor of the "public health" approach -
after the criminologists determined that gun control didn't work.
Now the CDC has said the same thing, which should finally put an end to
the blatant frauds that the anti-gun loons have been sneaking into the
public health journals.
Where will they go next?
Theology?
Canada? ;-)
No, gun control is a spent force in Canada, too. It will take them
longer to get back, because they've farther to go, but the philisophical
underpinnings are gone.
--
There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few
who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric
fence for themselves.
- Will Rogers
S. Smith
2004-01-15 05:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey C. Dege
Post by S. Smith
Post by Jeffrey C. Dege
Post by D.A. Tsenuf
Considering that the CDC and Fraser Institute have both stated that
gun-control has no bearing on crime rates.
What's so surprising ?
The National Institute of Justice found exactly the same thing,
twenty years ago. Which is when the anti's abandoned sociological
and criminological research in favor of the "public health" approach -
after the criminologists determined that gun control didn't work.
Now the CDC has said the same thing, which should finally put an end to
the blatant frauds that the anti-gun loons have been sneaking into the
public health journals.
Where will they go next?
Theology?
Canada? ;-)
No, gun control is a spent force in Canada, too. It will take them
longer to get back, because they've farther to go, but the philisophical
underpinnings are gone.
I'm sure you're probably right. There's no outrunning the
blight of guns down humanity's road to hell.
Fred Grosby
2004-01-15 05:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey C. Dege
Post by S. Smith
Post by Jeffrey C. Dege
Post by D.A. Tsenuf
Considering that the CDC and Fraser Institute have both stated that
gun-control has no bearing on crime rates.
What's so surprising ?
The National Institute of Justice found exactly the same thing,
twenty years ago. Which is when the anti's abandoned sociological
and criminological research in favor of the "public health" approach -
after the criminologists determined that gun control didn't work.
Now the CDC has said the same thing, which should finally put an end to
the blatant frauds that the anti-gun loons have been sneaking into the
public health journals.
Where will they go next?
Theology?
Canada? ;-)
No, gun control is a spent force in Canada, too. It will take them
longer to get back, because they've farther to go, but the philisophical
underpinnings are gone.
Very, very incorrect. Oh, they'll probably scrap the ill-conceived
gun registration scheme, but the remainder of their gun control regime
is there to stay, for the simple reason that it gives Canadians a way
to feel morally superior to the United States. And *that*, Jeff, is a
very powerful underpinning indeed.

Take it from some one who lived there.

---
Fred Grosby
***@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~fredg
Edward Bertsch
2004-01-14 20:48:22 UTC
Permalink
I suppose some tried to sell concealed carry as a method of reducing crime,
and it might even have had that effect. But I always thought the main
purpose was to provide a fair system of granting permits, something more in
line with the "bear" part of the "keep and bear arms" part of our
constitution.

Before "shall issue" legislation, getting a carry permit was a game of "who
you know". Under shall-issue, it's more of a "are you a felon or not"
question. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Shall-issue seems the
fair way to go, to me.
Post by Jim Elwell
The same could be said of "conceal-carry" laws.
Violent crime has dropped significantly in the US over the past few
decades. There is little credible evidence that suggests the trend is
significantly linked to changes in gun ownership or carry legislation.
-Jim
Joel Rosenberg
2004-01-14 23:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Bertsch
I suppose some tried to sell concealed carry as a method of reducing crime,
and it might even have had that effect. But I always thought the main
purpose was to provide a fair system of granting permits, something more in
line with the "bear" part of the "keep and bear arms" part of our
constitution.
As for me, I think that both are perfectly good reasons. But, sure, it is a
matter of basic civil rights. Which is why the civil rights language is in
the bill, despite the risk that that entailed.

As to the system not being fair, that was easy to demonstrate. It depended
for more on who you were and where you lived than anything else. Now, it's
a matter of simple, objective criteria.

--
-----------------------------
Joel Rosenberg 612.824.3150
AACFI-certified MN Carry Permit Instructor and Certifier
BCA-validated Minnesota Carry Permit Instructor
NRA-certified Range Safety Officer, Pistol Instructor, Home Firearms Safety
Instructor,
and Personal Protection Instructor
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml >
Joel Rosenberg
2004-01-14 21:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Elwell
Post by Joel Rosenberg
Which is just fine, if you define the problem in terms of "handguns." I
think the real problem is violent crime
Yup.
Post by Joel Rosenberg
and after years and years
and years of trying to find some evidence that "gun control" laws have a
useful effect on violent crime, nobody's been able to.
The same could be said of "conceal-carry" laws.
We don't have a "conceal-carry" law in Minnesota. See
http://www.concealandcarry.com , or http://www.conceal-and-carry.com.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
(Reverse disclaimer: actually, everything I do or say is utterly
supported by Ellegon, Inc., my employer. Even when I'm wrong.)
Jim Elwell
2004-01-14 23:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joel Rosenberg
Post by Jim Elwell
Post by Joel Rosenberg
Which is just fine, if you define the problem in terms of "handguns." I
think the real problem is violent crime
Yup.
Post by Joel Rosenberg
and after years and years
and years of trying to find some evidence that "gun control" laws have a
useful effect on violent crime, nobody's been able to.
The same could be said of "conceal-carry" laws.
We don't have a "conceal-carry" law in Minnesota. See
http://www.concealandcarry.com , or http://www.conceal-and-carry.com.
OK, fine, you have your "gotcha".

Set semantics aside for a moment. Can you point me to a law regarding
guns that has demonstrated a significant decrease in violent crime rates?

-Jim
Joel Rosenberg
2004-01-14 23:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Sorry; can't set aside semantics. Define "significant", and I'll see if I
can point to one, so we can argue about "demonstrated." (Which will, odds
are, bring us back to Lott, but let's leave that aside until we can agree if
what he's shown is significant, before we discuss whether or not it's
valid.) I'm not sure that you'd agree that, say, a 1% drop was significant,
frex.

Meanwhile, are we agreed that we can't find an example of a "gun control"
law that can be demonstrated to have any good effect on violent crime?

If so, can we then agree that we can find many examples of "gun control"
laws that have been demonstrated to have bad effects on violent crime?

--
-----------------------------
Joel Rosenberg 612.824.3150
AACFI-certified MN Carry Permit Instructor and Certifier
BCA-validated Minnesota Carry Permit Instructor
NRA-certified Range Safety Officer, Pistol Instructor, Home Firearms Safety
Instructor,
and Personal Protection Instructor
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
Post by Jim Elwell
Post by Joel Rosenberg
Post by Jim Elwell
Post by Joel Rosenberg
Which is just fine, if you define the problem in terms of "handguns." I
think the real problem is violent crime
Yup.
Post by Joel Rosenberg
and after years and years
and years of trying to find some evidence that "gun control" laws have a
useful effect on violent crime, nobody's been able to.
The same could be said of "conceal-carry" laws.
We don't have a "conceal-carry" law in Minnesota. See
http://www.concealandcarry.com , or http://www.conceal-and-carry.com.
OK, fine, you have your "gotcha".
Set semantics aside for a moment. Can you point me to a law regarding
guns that has demonstrated a significant decrease in violent crime rates?
-Jim
Jim Elwell
2004-01-14 23:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joel Rosenberg
Sorry; can't set aside semantics. Define "significant",
Say p<.05. A common definition.
Post by Joel Rosenberg
and I'll see if I
can point to one, so we can argue about "demonstrated."
Should be pretty straight forward. Cite a change in gun laws that has
resulted in a significant decrease in violent crime rates (controlling
for other demographic effects, of course).
Post by Joel Rosenberg
Meanwhile, are we agreed that we can't find an example of a "gun control"
law that can be demonstrated to have any good effect on violent crime?
Meanwhile, are we agreed that liberalization of gun laws hasn't had any
positive effect on violent crime rates?

-Jim
D.A. Tsenuf
2004-01-15 03:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Elwell
Post by Joel Rosenberg
Sorry; can't set aside semantics. Define "significant",
Say p<.05. A common definition.
Post by Joel Rosenberg
and I'll see if I
can point to one, so we can argue about "demonstrated."
Should be pretty straight forward. Cite a change in gun laws that has
resulted in a significant decrease in violent crime rates (controlling
for other demographic effects, of course).
Post by Joel Rosenberg
Meanwhile, are we agreed that we can't find an example of a "gun control"
law that can be demonstrated to have any good effect on violent crime?
Meanwhile, are we agreed that liberalization of gun laws hasn't had any
positive effect on violent crime rates?
In which case it follows that gun-control laws have had no POSITIVE effect
in reducing crime.
In which case, the only question left to ask, is why bother having
gun-control if if doesn't work.
And the answer to that is a very simple one.
It's not about guns per se. It's about control.
Bert Hyman
2004-01-14 23:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Can you point me to a law regarding guns that has demonstrated a
significant decrease in violent crime rates?
Why should that matter?

People choose to buy and carry guns for their own protection or for the
protection of their families. They're not vigilantes who go trolling for
criminals.

If the crime rate happens to go down when ordinary citizens are allowed
this means of protection, fine. If it goes up, too bad.

Crimes are committed by individuals. Find the criminals, hold trials,
punish them.

Leave the rest of us alone.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN ***@visi.com
Joel Rosenberg
2004-01-14 23:50:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Hyman
Can you point me to a law regarding guns that has demonstrated a
significant decrease in violent crime rates?
Why should that matter?
People choose to buy and carry guns for their own protection or for the
protection of their families. They're not vigilantes who go trolling for
criminals.
If the crime rate happens to go down when ordinary citizens are allowed
this means of protection, fine. If it goes up, too bad.
Crimes are committed by individuals. Find the criminals, hold trials,
punish them.
Leave the rest of us alone.
--
I like it when the argument from principle and the argument from expediency
lead to the same result; it's not only easier to persuade people who aren't
principled -- you know: most politicians? -- but it's good on at least two
grounds.

There are those who have problems with Lott, but look how far he's helped to
move the ball: now, the debate has shifted toward whether "shall issue"
laws have a positive net effect, or no net effect on violent crime.



--
-----------------------------
Joel Rosenberg 612.824.3150
AACFI-certified MN Carry Permit Instructor and Certifier
BCA-validated Minnesota Carry Permit Instructor
NRA-certified Range Safety Officer, Pistol Instructor, Home Firearms Safety
Instructor,
and Personal Protection Instructor
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
Bert Hyman
2004-01-15 00:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joel Rosenberg
I like it when the argument from principle and the argument from
expediency lead to the same result;
The problem with your "argument from expediency" is that it's dependent on
statistics that don't really have anything to do with what you're trying
to accomplish.

Are you prepared to surrender if the statistics turn against you? Or
worse, if someone can just make it appear that the statistics have turned
against you?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN ***@visi.com
Jeffrey C. Dege
2004-01-15 00:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Hyman
Post by Joel Rosenberg
I like it when the argument from principle and the argument from
expediency lead to the same result;
The problem with your "argument from expediency" is that it's dependent on
statistics that don't really have anything to do with what you're trying
to accomplish.
Are you prepared to surrender if the statistics turn against you? Or
worse, if someone can just make it appear that the statistics have turned
against you?
Not me.

To me, the primary use of Lott's research is to demonstrate that our
opponents haven't a clue.
--
We won't dispassionately investigate or rationally debate which drugs
do what damage and whether or how much of that damage is the result
of criminalization. We'd rather work ourselves into a screaming fit of
puritanism and then go home and take a pill.
- P.J. O'Rourke
see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm
2004-01-30 19:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joel Rosenberg
In England, by the way, where there is a close-to-virtual ban on civilian
handgun ownership and purchase , there is a much higher assault rate there
is in the United States. Ditto for Mexico . And shall we discuss "hot
burglary"?
What about the murder by gun rate? Are you implying that that is higher
in England too?
--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
UnitedHealthGroup, Inc., MN013-N400, UNIX Services & Consulting
6150 Trenton Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55440 1-763-744-1723
email: ***@uhc.com (work) ***@chris.org (home)
Joel Rosenberg
2004-01-30 20:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm
Post by Joel Rosenberg
In England, by the way, where there is a close-to-virtual ban on civilian
handgun ownership and purchase , there is a much higher assault rate there
is in the United States. Ditto for Mexico . And shall we discuss "hot
burglary"?
What about the murder by gun rate? Are you implying that that is higher
in England too?
Nope; it isn't, although I'm much more interested in the murder rate
than in the "murder by gun" rate.

In fact, the murder rate is lower in the UK than in the US. The US
runs about .05 per 1000; the UK is about .01. (The US is 23rd in
murders per capita; the UK is 46th -- Columbia and South Africa --
both with very heavy gun control laws -- are battling it out for first
place.)

On the other hand, the assault rate -- a violent crime that's much
more common -- is much higher in the UK. About 3% of UK citizens will
be the victims of an assault in a given year, compared to less than
half that in the US. Robbery is also higher in the UK, as well; ditto
for car thefts, and the burglary rate is something like twice that of
the US.

What's distinctive about the UK, though, goes to burglary; a huge
proportion of UK burglaries are "hot" burglaries, where the residents
are home; those are very much a minority in the US.
Post by see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm
--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
UnitedHealthGroup, Inc., MN013-N400, UNIX Services & Consulting
6150 Trenton Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55440 1-763-744-1723
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg 612.824.3150
AACFI-certified MN Carry Permit Instructor and Certifier
BCA-validated Minnesota Carry Permit Instructor
NRA-certified Range Safety Officer, Pistol Instructor, Home
Firearms Safety Instructor, Personal Protection Instructor
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
(Reverse disclaimer: actually, everything I do or say is utterly
supported by Ellegon, Inc., my employer. Even when I'm wrong.)
D.A. Tsenuf
2004-01-30 20:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm
Post by Joel Rosenberg
In England, by the way, where there is a close-to-virtual ban on civilian
handgun ownership and purchase , there is a much higher assault rate there
is in the United States. Ditto for Mexico . And shall we discuss "hot
burglary"?
What about the murder by gun rate? Are you implying that that is higher
in England too?
Your fixation on one particular form at the expense of the other is
disingeneous at best, dishonest at worst.
You will find with a bit of research that there is a trade-off in disarming
the population in the face of criminals who are NOT disarmed by the laws.
And the result is an increase of other forms of victimization when
people are unable to defend themselves.
Joel Rosenberg
2004-01-14 14:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Humphreys
Post by Mark Olson
Post by Thomas T. Veldhouse
So, are you trying to say that poor black people are buying guns with
their welfare/SS checks? Do you even know when people get their
checks?
You brought up the idea it was welfare money. My guess, assuming the
OP is telling the truth, is that these are straw buyers financed by
persons unknown. I have no idea if there is a restriction on how many
handguns (or long guns for that matter) a person can buy in a month,
perhaps that would explain the monthly recurrence.
An astute assumption, Mark. Now look around the
newsgroup and see if you can discover which
individuals have opposed limitations on the number of
handguns being sold to a single (straw) buyer.
No individuals on this newsgroup have opposed the present
limitation on the number of handguns being sold to a single straw
buyer which is, and is likely to remain, zero.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
(Reverse disclaimer: actually, everything I do or say is utterly
supported by Ellegon, Inc., my employer. Even when I'm wrong.)
Airkings
2004-01-14 03:25:40 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes

It's illegal to make a "strawman" purchase. The shop should refuse the sale.


Dave

--
Post by C Osbourne
I've been a customer of Bill's Guns (off and on) for at
least 10 years now, and have witnessed a disturbing
pattern of buyers that frequent the store just after the
first of each month. This pattern is politically incorrect,
so nobody dares breath a word of it on the media, but
it's easy to verify, by going to the store in the afternoon
of the 2nd or 3rd day of the month. You will see groups
of 'poor' people that come from the near by North side of
Minneapolis. Often these groups will include a middle
aged female and at least 1 or 2 young men (of color)
The young men will have the weapon all picked out, and
the female will fill out the paperwork to purchase the
weapon(s). Do you suppose that these weapons are
the ones that later turn up in crimes?
I've asked the counter people how they can continue to
arm these tough and angry looking young men. They
say that there is nothing they can do, the woman has
no record, and qualifies to make the purchase.
I know to the average liberal on this newsgroup, this
sounds like a fantastic lie, but before you vomit yards
of text, just go over to Bills and check it out for yourself.
Jeffrey C. Dege
2004-01-14 03:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Airkings
It's illegal to make a "strawman" purchase. The shop should refuse the sale.
If the shop actually has evidence that it is a strawman purchase, they
should do exactly that. But that a man and a woman walk into a store
together, he provides her with advice, and then she buys a gun, is not
evidence, even if they are members of protected minority.
--
IF 2 + 2 == 5 then 5 == 4
Joel Rosenberg
2004-01-14 18:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Sure, if they know that it is a straw purchase. If they merely suspect that
it might be the right thing to do is to report it to the authorities -- as
Mark Koscielski did, resulting in that sting that so embarrassed Lillehaug.

--
-----------------------------
Joel Rosenberg 612.824.3150
AACFI-certified MN Carry Permit Instructor and Certifier
BCA-validated Minnesota Carry Permit Instructor
NRA-certified Range Safety Officer, Pistol Instructor, Home Firearms Safety
Instructor,
and Personal Protection Instructor
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
Post by Airkings
x-no-archive: yes
It's illegal to make a "strawman" purchase. The shop should refuse the sale.
Dave
--
Post by C Osbourne
I've been a customer of Bill's Guns (off and on) for at
least 10 years now, and have witnessed a disturbing
pattern of buyers that frequent the store just after the
first of each month. This pattern is politically incorrect,
so nobody dares breath a word of it on the media, but
it's easy to verify, by going to the store in the afternoon
of the 2nd or 3rd day of the month. You will see groups
of 'poor' people that come from the near by North side of
Minneapolis. Often these groups will include a middle
aged female and at least 1 or 2 young men (of color)
The young men will have the weapon all picked out, and
the female will fill out the paperwork to purchase the
weapon(s). Do you suppose that these weapons are
the ones that later turn up in crimes?
I've asked the counter people how they can continue to
arm these tough and angry looking young men. They
say that there is nothing they can do, the woman has
no record, and qualifies to make the purchase.
I know to the average liberal on this newsgroup, this
sounds like a fantastic lie, but before you vomit yards
of text, just go over to Bills and check it out for yourself.
Airkings
2004-01-15 02:44:57 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes

Can you expand on the sting? I think that occurred while I lived out of
state.

Dave

--
Post by Joel Rosenberg
Sure, if they know that it is a straw purchase. If they merely suspect that
it might be the right thing to do is to report it to the authorities -- as
Mark Koscielski did, resulting in that sting that so embarrassed Lillehaug.
Joel Rosenberg
2004-01-15 12:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Airkings
Can you expand on the sting? I think that occurred while I lived out of
state.
Dave
--
Post by Joel Rosenberg
Sure, if they know that it is a straw purchase. If they merely suspect
that
Post by Joel Rosenberg
it might be the right thing to do is to report it to the authorities -- as
Mark Koscielski did, resulting in that sting that so embarrassed
Lillehaug.
A somewhat biased account of it is at
http://www.nisat.org/blackmarket/north_america/united_states/united_states_of_america/98.02.01-A%20gun%20shop%20sting%20a%20world%20of%20trouble.html
.

The key points (some of which aren't mentioned in the piece) are:

1. Mark noticed a pattern, reported it, and cooperated with the Feds.

2. The Feds, under Lillehaug -- the US Attorney, at that point -- let
the sting go on far too long, and settled it far too quickly, and
for far shorter sentences than they should have. They had the
ringleader on upwards of 117 straw purchases; they let him plead
out for less than four years in jail, apparently because Lillehaug
was embarrassed at how many crimes had been committed with the
sting-bought guns.

3. Both the Feds and the local politicians tried to make Mark out to
be the bad guy, when he was, demonstrably, quite the opposite.

Title: A gun shop sting, a world of trouble
Star Tribune (Minneapolis) Sunday, 1 Febuary 1998 Kevin Diaz / Star Tribune


Neighbors around Mark Kosciel ski's gun store in south Minneapolis
long had worried that some of the firearms sold there legally might
end up in the hands of criminals.

They didn't know the half of it.

Dozens of cheap handguns traced to Koscielski's Government Surplus and
to four suburban gun stores have turned up in crack house raids,
shootings, traffic stops and felony arrests, some of them involving
juveniles.

But what residents didn't know -- and what top city officials who lost a
two-year court battle to close the store didn't know -- was that about
150 guns were bought there while federal investigators were monitoring
the store and tracking buyers who resold guns to gang members and drug
dealers.

Lawyers for the suspected gun runners have accused federal agents of
contributing to the proliferation of guns in the city, a concern that
eventually led officials to close the investigation, after a year,
in 1996.

Some of the 150 guns have been retrieved during arrests, but many
apparently still are circulating in the community. Federal documents
provide a chilling glimpse into a pervasive underground gun trade
that, in Minneapolis and elsewhere, turns legally purchased handguns
into an arsenal for criminals.

One of the pistols from Koscielski's shop was found next to the body of
Derrick Adams, 22, the driver of an open T-top Monte Carlo who was
involved in a shootout at Golden Valley Rd. and Newton Av. N. in
Minneapolis.

Another, a .45-caliber pistol, fell into the hands of two boys, ages 9
and 13, who found it in a discarded purse while they played under a
south Minneapolis railroad overpass.

By June 1996, federal officials, alarmed by an increasing volume of gun
trafficking from the operation, quietly halted the investigation by
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

Tom Doyle, a top ATF official in St. Paul, said they pulled the plug to
avoid the "appearance" of government involvement in the proliferation
of guns.

"We were concerned that too many guns were going out in the street," he
told the Star Tribune in a recent interview.

Federal public defenders have accused the investigators of actually
swelling the flow of guns. In a half-dozen court cases stemming from
the ATF investigation -- the last one ended Jan. 9 with the sentencing
of a convicted gun runner -- they raised legal challenges of
"sentencing entrapment" and "outrageous government conduct."

Behind the scenes, the comfort level of some top federal law enforcement
officials was pushed to the limit, and not just within the ATF.

David Lillehaug, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, said, "As a legal
matter, that argument [for entrapment and outrageous government
conduct] was not valid.

But from the standpoint of investigative policy, more guns went out
under observation than there should have . . . The neighborhood could
have expected more from the investigation."

ATF officials maintain that they did nothing to add to the flow of gun
traffic. "Without our involvement, the guns continue to go out, then
as now," said Kelvin Crenshaw, resident agent in charge of the ATF
office in St. Paul. "The straw purchases go on."

Confirms fears

Minneapolis elected officials, told in recent weeks by the Star Tribune
about the operation, said that it confirms their worst fears about
the legal sale of guns in the city.

"Law enforcement sometimes does things that on the surface look
insensitive to the community's concerns," said Mayor Sharon Sayles
Belton. "But they do so believing that the outcome, if successful,
achieves a greater good."

In fact, the government cases all held up in court, and ATF officials
take credit for bagging eight suspected gun runners, all of them
now "dinged" by felony raps preventing them from legally buying guns.

The sales by Koscielski's and the other gun stores were found to be
perfectly legal and proper. What wasn't legal and proper was what
happened to the guns afterward.

Jerome Winzig, who lives two blocks from Koscielski's store, said the
immediate area is a solid middle-class neighborhood and wasn't harmed.

"What I think is terrible," Winzig added, "is that a gun store in our
neighborhood is being used to destroy other [crime-plagued]
neighborhoods, and we're powerless to do anything about it."

ATF officials say the illegal gun trafficking discovered in the
Koscielski (pronounced Kah-SELL-ski) investigation was a "drop in the
bucket": About 1,500 illegal guns are recovered every year in
Minneapolis.

It's an arms flow that local and federal authorities say they are often
helpless to check-- even when they know full well what's going on --
until they have proof of an illegal resale. Typically, that proof
comes with the commission of another crime. And by then, sometimes,
it's too late.

The Koscielski case also shows that, at a time when local and federal
officials have been celebrating their cooperative efforts to combat
crime, Minneapolis officials, who were trying to close the store, were
largely in the dark about ATF operations there.

Keep your hands out

The entrance to Koscielski's gun shop is a plain metal door in an alley
behind a neighborhood commercial strip at E. 48th St. and Chicago Av.
S. His "guns and ammo" sign faces a neighborhood coffee shop. Inside
the metal door, a smaller sign on a barred gate warns customers: "Keep
your hands out of your pockets."

The proprietor, 43-year-old Mark Koscielski, a lifelong Minneapolis
resident and Vietnam-era Army veteran, is usually friendly and always
armed.

When Koscielski opened for business on March 15, 1995, residents in the
adjoining Field and Northrup neighborhoods complained long and loud in a
series of public meetings. He got a bomb threat.

At the time, city planning officials were redrawing zoning districts to
contain the city's estimated 125 federally licensed firearms dealers,
most of them "kitchen table" dealers selling an occasional gun out of
their homes.

Koscielski's was one of only two or three full-fledged gun shops in
Minneapolis. Today, his is the only store in the city to deal
exclusively in firearms and related paraphernalia. He maintains that
most of his customers are police officers.

In May 1995, three months after Koscielski opened, the city began legal
proceedings to close him down, arguing that he was in violation of a
moratorium on new gun stores created by the city's zoning process.

Koscielski, accusing the City Council of political harassment,
showed up at one City Hall hearing wearing a "Murderapolis" T-shirt.

At about the same time, a 26-year-old woman named LaShawn Slayden began
visiting the store. She soon became a repeat customer at Koscielski's,
as well as at Bill's Gun Shop in Robbinsdale and the Gun Shop &
Pawnbroker in Richfield.

As it turned out, she was buying guns for her boyfriends, chiefly
Kawaskii Blanche, a reputed leader of the Bogus Boyz street gang.
Slayden eventually was indicted for making 22 "straw" purchases,
meaning she said she was buying the guns for herself but was in
fact reselling them to others, sometimes at $900 a pop -- nearly
10 times their original value.

Slayden, who confessed to buying guns under false pretenses and was
sentenced to 18 months in prison, was able to buy guns legally
because she had no prior felony record.

Not so for her customers. Blanche, for example, racked up 15 adult
convictions in a three-year period, including one for holding a gun
to his sister's head.

Mercenaries

By her own account, Slayden -- called a "mercenary" by the federal
prosecutor in her case -- remained a gun conduit for the Bogus Boyz
from June 1995 to June 1996. During that time, police estimate, the
gang was responsible for 20 shootings in which people were injured
and hundreds of others in which people were shot at.

Slayden's black-market business began to unravel in June 1996, when
11-year-old Byron Phillips was killed in what remains an unsolved
drive-by shooting on Minneapolis' North Side. Court records filed in
the investigation indicate that the leading suspects in the killing
were members of the Bogus Boyz.

The heat was on. Police searched Slayden's Minneapolis apartment looking
for guns. A month later, she was wounded in a suspected gang shooting in
St. Paul, where she was driving a car. Also in the car were 4-year-old
Davisha Brantley-Gillum and her pregnant mother. Davisha was shot and
killed. That slaying also remains unsolved, despite high-profile efforts
to urge witnesses to come forward.

June 1996 -- during one of the most violent summers on record in
Minneapolis -- also turned out to be a turning point in the ATF
investigation.

ATF agents working the gun case tracked more than 100 buys that had been
made in the previous two months by Slayden and several other suspected
straw purchasers who likely were arming criminals. For prosecutors, the
action was getting too hot to handle.

Lillehaug said that he "informed the highest levels of the Department of
Justice of my concerns," and that he issued a directive that "no more
guns go out" under the auspices of the ATF.

The ATF's Doyle said the bureau had its own concerns and decided to
suspend the operation at Koscielski's on its own.

Minneapolis Police Chief Robert Olson, who was briefed about the ATF
sting effort in June 1996, concurred in the decision to suspend the
operation. "I didn't want to get these guys that bad that we were
letting guns loose in the community -- I wasn't that comfortable,"
Olson said.

Entrapment defense

All three officials, however, denied that police or ATF agents were
pushing the sales of guns to help make their cases, a charge that
would later be made by defense attorneys.

In cases involving two minor gun buyers, Damon Starks and David Faison
-- both of whom were recently sentenced -- Assistant Federal
Defender Andrew Mohring admitted their complicity but argued that the
ATF was running up the numbers of gun sales to get longer sentences.

"The basic reality is that, working with the knowledge and blessing of
federal authorities, [Koscielski] was responsible for dispersing over
75 semiautomatic handguns into the Phillips community, the same
neighborhood about which the chief federal law enforcement officer for
this state [Lillehaug] publicly professes so much concern," Mohring
wrote in court briefs. "These sales were in turn happening at the same
time that the Minneapolis mayor and City Council were trying to get
Koscielski to close or relocate."

Mohring's protest, however, did not hold sway in court, where judges
found no evidence of misconduct by the ATF or the stores where Starks and
Faison bought their guns: Koscielski's, Bill's Gun Shop, Robbinsdale Farm
Garden Pet Supply and Outpost Hunt and Sports in Plymouth.

Volume sales

One of the central cases of the ATF operation involved Larry Klawitter,
a 22-year-old Minneapolis man who, according to court records, had vague
connections to the Gangster Disciples gang.

Klawitter told police that he bought more than 50 guns using a permit
he got in City Hall in January 1996. About 115 such permits are issued
every month in Minneapolis, police say. For Klawitter, it was a license
to print money. He told authorities he made $300 from each gun he
resold, mostly to dope dealers on the street in "drug spots" around the
city.

Several of Klawitter's guns turned up in crack raids and other narcotics
arrests, according to police records. One was the pistol found by the two
boys playing by the railroad tracks.

Klawitter was caught in the act in July 1996, when an ATF agent and an
undercover Minneapolis police sergeant watched him leave Koscielski's with
three new guns and then immediately hand them over to a juvenile.

The juvenile gave police the story, and Klawitter was busted.

In October, Klawitter was sentenced to 41 months in prison. At the
sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis called Klawitter's
clients "gang members, thugs, slimeballs and juveniles." His description
for Klawitter was even harsher: "You are a purveyor of death."

At the sentencing, though, Klawitter's attorney, Assistant Federal
Defender Katherian Roe questioned why the store and federal agents had
allowed such a high volume of handguns to be sold to the same person
repeatedly.

Police reports show that Klawitter bought 28 guns, sometimes five or
six at a time, in one two-week period alone. "There is absolutely
nothing that this young man could have been doing with these guns other
than what he was doing . . . which was buying handguns illegally as a
straw man," Roe told the court.

"There is some level of responsibility on behalf of the government for
pushing those numbers up," she said, using entrapment as a defense.

Rather than stopping Klawitter and the other suspects, she said, police
videotaped them. "Well, now we have a whole host of videotapes, but we
also have 50 some guns on the streets of the city of Minneapolis." In
the meantime, she noted, Koscielski was running for mayor.

No choice

All along, ATF officials, government lawyers -- including Lillehaug --
and Koscielski himself all have maintained that agents were merely
tracking legal gun sales, albeit suspicious ones, in the hopes of
developing evidence of illegal resales down the line.

The simple purchase of a firearm by a qualified buyer, even if it's
done over and over, is not in itself a crime, they say.

"As long as someone has a purchase permit signed by the chief of
police, I can't say I'm not going to sell them guns," Koscielski said.
"I have no choice."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Walbran, who prosecuted the Klawitter
case, called Koscielski a "very good citizen." When agents got nervous
about the bulk of Klawitter's buys, Koscielski did stop selling to him,
even though he was under no obligation to do so.

"The ATF doesn't run the private commercial world of firearms," Walbran
told the court.

The ATF's Crenshaw said that "straw man" gun purchases are notoriously
difficult to prove, absent evidence that a gun has been resold and
possibly used in a crime, usually long after the initial purchase. Even
then, it usually takes a confession.

"We're not in the business of putting guns out on the street," he said.
"We're in the business of stopping the flow."

Big Tony

In a world of legal gun sales, and an underworld where they just
disappear from sight, stopping the flow can take an uncomfortably long time.
One of the government's main suspects in the summer of 1996 was 21-year-old
Damon Young, also known as "Big Tony."

Young eventually admitted that he had a woman named Reshonda Johnson buy
about 50 guns at Koscielski's over a two-month period and then turn them over
to him. Young allegedly resold them to criminals.

Though ATF agents were suspicious of Johnson's and Young's high-volume
Gun purchases in June 1996, it would be a full year before Young was
arrested and indicted. In June 1997, he was caught paying another man $200
to buy five handguns for him.

Officials have maintained publicly that he was not prosecuted for the
larger gun purchases between May and June of 1996 because that case
remained under investigation.

Privately, however, federal prosecutors said they feared that the
extensive gun purchases at Koscielski's might give rise to successful
challenges of entrapment, leading to potentially adverse court rulings and
"bad law."

Instead, they got Young to acknowledge the 50 prior gun purchases in
1996 as he pleaded guilty to a single count for the buys he made in 1997.
He got 27 months in prison.

Mayor Koscielski

By the time Young was indicted in June 1997, Koscielski was fresh off a
Satisfying victory in federal court, which found that he had opened his
store legally before the city's new zoning regulations had gone into
effect in 1995.

The City Council agreed to pay him $1 in damages and $76,721 in
attorneys' fees.

His quixotic run for mayor was a lark. His campaign platform: Elect me,
and I'll close the gun store. He got 495 votes in the September primary,
placing sixth out of 14.

To this day, Koscielski has not cashed his $1 settlement check. It's
displayed in his gun store as a memento and political statement.

He contends that the blame for illegal gun trafficking rests squarely
with those who traffic in illegal guns or use them in crimes.

"It's like if you buy a car and you chose to go out and get drunk and
run someone over," he said. "As a salesman, yes, I feel bad. But
there's nothing I can do."

Neighbors like Winzig disagree. "When a significant portion of your
product is being used in serious crimes, there's certainly cause for
concern about what's really going on," he said.

Elected officials say it is proof that legal gun sales in the midst of
the city have been putting weapons into the hands of criminals.

"This confirms my fears that a gun shop is a nuisance that attracts an
element that isn't safe," said Council Member Dore Mead, whose ward
includes Koscielski's. "Frankly, this is the first real evidence that
we've seen."

Council Member Brian Herron, whose ward extends into the troubled
Phillips neighborhood, said, "This speaks volumes for the need to get
serious about gun legislation, not just in the inner city, but everywhere."

Chief Olson, who sought gun legislation last year at the Legislature
that would have put limits on the number and frequency of handgun
purchases, concurred.

"These guns are going out every day," he said. "We just happened to get
in on it and nab a few people. Whether we're there or not, the beat goes
on."



This sample is semi-automatically rendered from
the research database, and should not be used
for other than scholarly purposes.

END OF DOCUMENT
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
(Reverse disclaimer: actually, everything I do or say is utterly
supported by Ellegon, Inc., my employer. Even when I'm wrong.)
Fred Grosby
2004-01-14 04:46:56 UTC
Permalink
***@hotmail.com (C Osbourne) wrote ...

... a troll.

And an obvious one at that.

But she/he/it sure sucked in a bunch of you knee-jerk types.

Have a good laugh, she/he/it. You earned it.

---
Fred Grosby
***@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~fredg
S. Smith
2004-01-14 05:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Grosby
... a troll.
And an obvious one at that.
But she/he/it sure sucked in a bunch of you knee-jerk types.
And considering that it's all that C Osbourne does in this
group, you would think the regulars here would know better by
now.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
2004-01-14 14:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by S. Smith
Post by Fred Grosby
... a troll.
And an obvious one at that.
But she/he/it sure sucked in a bunch of you knee-jerk types.
And considering that it's all that C Osbourne does in this
group, you would think the regulars here would know better by
now.
I did not see the crosspost that he did either until after I replied
... or it would have stayed in politics where it belongs.

Followups redirected.


Tom Veldhouse
Mike O'Brien
2004-01-15 14:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Miami-Dade gun shop owner says study on guns used in crimes was unfair



By Madeline BarĂ³ Diaz
and Noaki Schwartz Miami Bureau

January 14, 2004

A national study by a gun control advocacy group that identifies three
Miami-Dade County gun stores as among 120 shops that sell the most firearms
used in crimes is unfair, one of the stores' owners said Tuesday.

"Basically, the more guns a gun shop sells, the more likely that some guns
will be placed as part of that list," said Javier Alonso, president and
owner of Miami Police Supply Inc., one of three Miami-Dade stores on the
list. "There are many ways in which a gun can actually reach a criminal's
hands."

According to the report by the Washington-based Americans for Gun Safety
Foundation, of 373,006 guns traced from crimes or considered suspicious from
1996 to 2000, 54,694 came from 120 stores in 22 states. The study cited data
from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that
was made public by a lawsuit the NAACP filed against gun manufacturers.

"The 120 on this list supplied 15 percent of the guns in this nation," said
Deborah Barron, spokeswoman for Americans for Gun Safety. "A small number of
gun stores in America habitually supply the criminal firearms. We're not
saying that every dealer on this list is a corrupt dealer but that they have
a disproportionate number showing up in crimes."

Of five Florida stores named in the report, three were in South Florida.
Miami Police Supply had 266 guns that were traced to crimes. The two others
in the Miami area are Hialeah Range and Gun Shop, with 243 traces, and Lou's
Gun Shop and Police Supply in Hialeah, with 574 traces.

Representatives of the two Hialeah stores declined to comment Tuesday.

Alonso said the background checks Florida requires stores to make of
would-be buyers are so rigorous that they involve checks with the FBI and
Interpol, among other databases, to determine if the person has a criminal
background. The background checks also seek to uncover if a potential buyer
has a history of mental illness.

But even if a qualified purchaser buys the gun at a gun shop, there are many
ways it can get into the wrong hands, Alonso said. Many legally purchased
guns are stolen during burglaries and some gun owners may sell their gun
privately to someone who might not have been able to pass the checks at a
gun shop, he said.

Officials with the gun safety group have acknowledged that there is nothing
to indicate that the stores sold the guns illegally or knew they were
selling to criminals.

ATF spokesman James Higgins said that the information in the report is dated
and "doesn't draw conclusions that are complete."

"The stores with a high number of traces doesn't mean they're engaging in
illegal behavior," Higgins said. "Some of these stores are high-volume
stores. Along with that, some of the stores are in some higher-crime areas,
which also lends itself to be involved in tracing more than others."



Earth is the insane asylum of the universe...



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/2004
Loading...