Lethal Enterprise

A few weeks back, Panorama did a show on the concept of joint enterprise, which is a form of criminal conspiracy. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has been using this concept to combat gang violence finding joint enterprise in rather tenuous circumstances. Unfortunately, I can't upload this: so this will have to do. Some of the clips on the Panorama website play outside the UK and give you an idea of how this concept works.


The reason I mention this concept is in regard to this comment from MikeB's blog

You, or anyone else for that matter, have yet to prove that these are necessary measures. And yes, I refuse to be inconvenienced because some criminal thousands of miles away decides to break laws. Instead, go inconvenience the criminals by leaving them in jail.

This statement shows willful ignorance about a situation and a refusal to get involved in something which DOES affect this person. Unfortunately, the costs of society are so far removed from this person that he refuses to give a shit. Only if the effect is direct and present will this person accept that it does affect him!

I was trying to make a point that we all pay for the cost of gun violence in that post. Society pays to house the criminal, it pays to treat the victim, it pays for the psychological effect (although the economic cost may show up in other aspects such as lost productivity) to name a few ways this costs society. The post may have been too clinical to make my point to someone this woefully ignorant.

On the other hand, the concept of joint enterprise could do the trick. The major problem would be getting around the evidentiary issues: although those could possibly be lowered in regards to gun trafficking than just a case of willing ignorance. Although, I don't see US prosecutors as being willing to hit gun owners as part of a joint enterprise.

Too bad

The Cost of Gun violence

I was curious as to how much this "Freedom" and "right" costs the American public and found John Rosenthal's December 15, 2009 post Health Care Costs and Gun Violence. He's a businessman, not a public health professional, but even being in business would give him an ability to assess the costs. He gives the figure that:

On average, guns kill or wound 276 people every day in America. Of those, 75 adults and 9 children will die. In the US there are more than 30,000 deaths and over 100,000 injuries related to gun violence each year.

He also states that:

According to the Public Services Research Institute in 2008, firearm homicide and assault cost federal, state and local governments $4.7 billion annually including costs for medical care, mental health, emergency transport, police, criminal justice and lost taxes. They also state that when lost productivity, lost quality of life, and pain and suffering are added to medical costs, estimates of the annual cost of firearm violence range from $20 billion to $100 billion. According to the National Center for Disease Control, the cost of firearm fatalities is the highest of any injury-related death. In fact, the average cost of a gunshot related death is $33,000, while gun-related injuries total over $300,000 for each occurrence.

OK, That means firearms injuries cost the United States public between 20 and 100 billion dollars a year. Jens and Ludwig calculate the cost of gun violence at the higher figure ($100 billion). Fiscal Spending in the US was $2,979 Billion with medicare and medicade spending coming in at 23% at a cost of $682 Billion. That would make the cost of gun violence roughly 3 to 15% of the Medicare/Medicade budget. The 100 Billion figure puts the cost of gun violence at around 3% of the total US Spending figure.

To put this number into perspective, $100 billion could be used to cover nearly two-thirds of those in America who are currently without health insurance, or to pay college tuition at a good public university for 27 million people – roughly the entire population of New York and New Jersey combined. And this reflects the costs of gun violence for just one year.

Now, the fact that firearm injuries are preventable, which they are if we reduce the amount of firearms in circulation via registration and conditions on firearms' sales. Simply requiring a criminal background check for all gun sales would significantly restrict access to guns by those who historically misuse them without limiting the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. Of course, firearms regulation is the bugaboo of the gun cretin crowd who would fill this blog with comments, if I allowed them. On the other hand, they remain mute about the cost to society of their "right". In fact, they scream loudly about rights, yet are not willing to show responsibility. Perhaps it is time to make them pay for their right!

Rights come with responsibilities. I think that the sale of firearms, ammunition, reloading supplies, and other gun related items should be heavily taxed to defray the cost to society since it is society that must bear the burden of their "right". But why should society be burdened and why has society allowed itself to be burdened by those who claim this right, yet are not willing to shoulder their responsibilities?

If they can't exercise their right in a responsible manner, then this right should not exist in the matter of public interest.

Stop The Bullets...Kill The Gun!

Stop the Bullets, Kill the Gun is a public service announcement against gun violence brought to you by the UK radio station Choice FM. The video, produced by UK ad conglomerate Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO, uses slow motion photography to show the effects of bullets as they pass through inanimate objects.

"In the end gun violence destroys young lives and showing this ad during the summer months will hopefully put this message in the forefront of young minds when they are confronted by peer pressure or conflict situations."—Ivor Etienne, Choice FM managing director Brand Republic: Choice FM Targets Notting Hill with Gun Ad

"Unlike Hollywood films, bullets don't leave perfectly clean symmetrical holes, they leave big gaping wounds in kids faces, bodies, arms and legs. If this little film makes just one kid think twice about picking up a gun, then it's a start."—Gary Walker and Huw Williams, AMV BBDO senior directors Brand Republic: Choice FM Targets Notting Hill with Gun Ad

The US Health System Is Way Better Than Europe's -- If You Don't Count Gunshots and Auto Accidents

Ever wonder why those people are showing up with firearms at meetings where Health Care reform is being discussed?

No phrase is bandied around more in the gun debate than “freedom of the individual”. When it comes to most dangerous products such as handguns, automatic weapons and other things specifically designed to kill people, I believe control is necessary, not least because the failure to deal with such violent devices often means that other freedoms must be curtailed.


TPM LiveWire
Ensign: Our Health System Is Way Better Than Europe's -- If You Don't Count Gunshots and Auto Accidents
Rachel Slajda | September 29, 2009, 12:48PM

In the Senate Finance Committee debate on health care reform this afternoon, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) brought up what he thought was a very good point: If you don't count injuries from guns or car accidents, the U.S. health care system actually provides better outcomes than those in European and other industrialized countries.

"Are you aware that if you take out gun accidents and auto accidents, that the United States actually is better than those other countries?" Ensign said. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) had been citing the health care systems of France, Germany, Japan and Canada as more effective, but with lower costs.

"But that doesn't have anything to do with health care. Auto accidents don't have anything to do with h--," Ensign said, cutting himself off. "I mean we're just a much more mobile society. ... We drive our cars a lot more, they do public transportation. So you have to compare health care system with health care system."

"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire." From International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

from The Gun Control Network
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated): SROLL DOWN AS I CAN'T FIGURE OUT TABLES!

	Homicide	Suicide	Other (inc Accident)
USA(2001)	3.98	5.92	0.36
Italy (1997)	0.81	1.1	0.07
Switzerland(1998)	0.50	5.8	0.10
Canada(2002)	0.4	2.0	0.04
Finland (2003)	0.35	4.45	0.10
Australia (2001)	0.24	1.34	0.10
France (2001)	0.21	3.4	0.49
England/Wales(2002)	0.15	0.2	0.03
Scotland(2002)	0.06	0.2	0.02
Japan(2002)	0.02	0.04	0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.


Figure produced by IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms) and taken from their recent presentation Gun Violence: The Global Crisis.

An Interesting quote

Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent.
—Isaac Asimov

Sort of like the Ambrose Bierce Quote I like:

PATRIOTISM, n.
Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.

In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Which leads to
PATRIOT, n.
One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.

The Most Intelligent comment I've read on the "gunny" boards

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/open-carry-issues-discussions/88291-melanie-hain-oc-soccer-mom-killed-merged.html

Guns and more
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Fl
Posts: 652
Guns and more

Statistics will show two people killed in a home where guns were present.


Yeah, I guess they will--won't they. And which sets of statitistics? victims of gun violence, not defensive gun uses. Yep, Melanie and Scott are just another of the faceless victims of gun violence.

How many more can we expect?

When will people finally get tired of the carnage because dick is being done to prevent guns falling into the hands of people who really shouldn't have them?

A Meleanie Hain Memorial Shooting Match!

A Meleanie Hain Memorial Shoot? Seriously?

October 10, 2009 by Sean Kelly

Q. What’s the best way to memorialize a victim of deadly gun violence? What’s the best way to raise money for orphans of a horrific murder-suicide involving a 9 mm. automatic handgun and a shotgun?

A. Why, get the whole gang together down at the gun store and shoot off a bunch of guns, of course!

If that makes sense to you, don’t miss the Melanie Hain Memorial Shoot Nov. 1st at Heberling’s Gun Shop in Prompton, PA!

No, it’s not an insensitive, tasteless joke (Or is it…?). It’s a real event. The details are posted on the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Forum:

MELEANIE HAIN MEMORIAL SHOOT — NOV. 1ST, HERBERLINGS GUN SHOP
PROMPTON, PA.
Hemlockshooters is hosting a “Memorial Shoot” for Meleanie Hain’s children.
The time is 12:00 noon till 4:00pm.
ENTRY FEE = $10.00 P.P. AUCTION WILL BE HELD EVERY HOUR
REFRESHMENTS: Hot Dogs, Hamburgers & Sodas will be available for purchase.
100% of all moneys collected will go to whatever fund is set up for the benefit of Meleanie kids.
Hemlockshooters will be grateful for all that want to help, please PM hgsw67 or e-mail Hemlockshooters @ aol.com if you wish to donate something for the raffle, or can help with logistics.
Help us help Meleanies kids
Thanks, Harry G

So come on down for some hamburgers, hot dogs, handguns, rifles and ammo… bring the spouse, kids and firearms… What better way to celebrate The Domestic Violence Awareness Month?

Who Was Melanie Hain (shefearsnothing)?

Meleanie Hain was the pistol-packing mama who gained national prominence by insisting on wearing her loaded Glock 25 to her children’s soccer games. She solidified her role as gun-rights media icon by filing a $1 million lawsuit against Lebanon County PA Sheriff Michael DeLeo for revoking her gun carrying permit (for “bad judgement”). Meleanie Hain blamed DeLeo for, among other things, emotional distress and hurting the babysitting service she ran in her loaded-gun laden house.

The story of gun-rights advocate Hain ended both tragically and ironically. According to the Huffington Post, Meleanie’s husband Scott “used his own gun to fire several shots into his 30-year-old wife, Meleanie, while her video chat was active and perhaps as she washed dishes in their kitchen, police said. Scott Hain, 33, later killed himself in an upstairs bedroom.”

According to the Post article:

Meleanie Hain’s loaded pistol — with a bullet ready in the chamber — was in a backpack hanging from the front door….

Police found several handguns, a shotgun, two rifles and several hundred rounds of ammunition in their Lebanon home, as well as six spent shell casings in the kitchen.

Friends and neighbors told police the couple had been having marital problems, but police knew of no immediate cause of the violence. Scott Hain was living at the family home at the time, Wright said.

Their three children are ages 2, 6 and 10.

Neighbor Aileen Fortna has said the children told another neighbor that “daddy shot mommy.”

The judge who restored Meleanie Hain’s concealed-weapon permit last year questioned her judgment and said she had “scared the devil” out of other parents at the soccer field.

Self-Proclaimed Gun Control “Patriots” Put Blinders on, Close Ranks

I don’t know the answer in regard to gun control. Personally, I like shooting guns. I did a fair amount of target shooting when I was younger and I’ve shot nearly every style and caliber of pistol, rifle and shotgun… and enjoyed it. While I’ve never hunted (and would rather not) I’m not opposed to or bothered by hunting. And I’ll admit that I’m not sure where the line between public (and private) safety ends and personal liberty begins.

But just because I like guns doesn’t blind me to the fact that gun violence is a big, big problem. And it seems to me that the people who could be most helpful in addressing these serious issues refuse to acknowledge that they are obvious and serious issues. These self-proclaimed “patriots” and NRA cult members use their (unfortunately) considerable clout to automatically oppose and shoot down anything that hints of gun control regulation… or anything that might lead to it.

If you read the entries on the forum where Meleanie Hain was active, you’ll see that the PA Patriots refuse (or are unable… unwilling… or scared to…) acknowledge:

… the irony of holding a memorial shoot for the orphans of two shooting victims

… the irony of a mother being killed by that which she professed would keep her safe

… the fact that those who were afraid of the potential of gun violence were, in this case, correct

… that in a country where more than half of all marriages end in divorce, homes stocked with loaded weapons are a seriously hazardous to the health of the entire family.

What’s truly scary is that the PA gun-toting patriots have really learned nothing – and will learn nothing – from the death of their friend. They will simply demonize the distraught husband (“burn in hell” is their online refrain), feel like they are caring and compassionate by donating the hot dog and hamburger proceeds to the orphans, and then stock up on guns and ammo at Heberling’s Gun Shop to bring home to their happy households.

Until the next one qualifies for their very own memorial shoot.

A Simple Question about Melanie Hain.

Would she be dead if there were not firearms in her house?

She wasn't killed with a flyswatter, mousetrap, pencil sharpener, piece of paper, cross bow, knife, brass knuckles, axe, machete, chain saw, stapler, toothbrush, or frying pan.

SHE WAS KILLED BY A GUN

So, why do the gun cretins try to hide that point?

Precisely because their arguments are based upon lies. Actual defensive gun use is a very rare event, as opposed to the anecdotal incidents provided by the gun cretins.

Kleck and Lott are discredited surveys. In fact, John Lott makes Michael Bellesiles look positively honest, yet there are few screams from the lynch mob who went after Bellesiles for Lott's position. Google Mary Rosh next time you feel the urge to use "More Guns, More Crime" as a source when you try to argue with someone knowledgable about the issue.

The problem is that the better statistics that exist are on the side of gun control. Those being that a gun in the home will more likely harm a family member, Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed, defensive gun use is rare, and a woman is more likely to be killed by someone with a gun in a domestic situtation.

Sorry, but the numbers were against her.

But the gun cretin crowd wants to keep it so that it appears there aren't valid reasons for gun control. You can't show that most crime guns are purchased "legally" if gun trace data isn't available courtesy of the Tiahrt Amendment. You can't show gun laws work if you can't show the links between the legal sources of crime guns. You can't argue that people are more likely to be killed with their own guns with inflated numbers like those provided by Kleck's surveys. It's easier to hide under false statistics such as Kleck and Lott when there isn't a source of valid data to contradict those studies.

But, it's pretty obvious that the gun cretin crowd wants to hide from the simple fact that Melanie Hain was killed by a gun she hoped would provide her with protection.

Also another sorry, but the guns could have been taken from the home under the current weak gun laws. There was no reason for those firearms to be in her home other than her perceived "Second Amendment" (Actually it is under Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution's Declaration of Rights: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned) and her belief that her gun would be used to defend herself from unknown assailants.

Sorry, but you can't hide from reality for too long.

Because you are mentally ill if you do and you have made yourself a disqualified person.

I only rejoice that someone who was a fool has been removed from this earth and I wish that the rest of you idiots would see sense, no matter how foolish that hope might be.

Why do you want to take my gun away from me?

Why do you want to take my gun away from me?

Hey, I don't mind you having guns. In fact, I hope you gun cretins all shoot yourselves and make the world a better place just like Melanie did. No, that's not hate, just a sincere desire to see a better world, which this will be without your sorry arses preventing proper gun laws from being adopted.

I don't want to take the guns away from responsible gun owners. Believe it or not, I have quite a collection of firearms that I keep unloaded and locked. In fact, I have no ammunition in my house!

I would give up my guns if need came to as I have not shot them in 6 years. One needs to practise to be effective in using a firearm: epecially in a self-defence situation.

On the other hand, I can ask you why you fear I would take your gun from you: do you have them to wage war against the government (see US Constitution Article III, Section iii Treason)? Are you an irresponsible gun owner?

What about my right to use a gun to defend myself? Well, if you want to keep a gun for "self-protection", I can't stop you. But you need to be realistic and keep in mind that you are far more likely to harm a family member or yourself than an intruder.

Melanie Hain unfortunately is indeed a good example of what can happen to people who keep firearms for self-defence.

Most stories of defensive gun use are anecdotal rather than based in fact. US department of Justice Statistics show that defensive gun use is actually very rare. Effective Defensive Gun Use very rare.

Any right you have to a firearm would come under a state constitutional provision, not the US Constitution, especially the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, Federal law trumps state law per Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Found this little goodie in my research

Yes, gun control does work when there are effective laws. The problem with Washington, DC's gun laws weren't that they didn't work, but that there were other jurisdictions, in particular Virginia, that allowed for the easy access to firearms.

Effects of limiting handgun purchases on interstate transfer of firearms

Article Abstract:

Limiting the sale of guns to one per person per month could substantially reduce interstate gun trafficking. Many traffickers can buy guns cheaply in states with liberal gun laws and sell them at a higher price in states with more restrictive gun laws. Researchers used a firearms trace database compiled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to estimate the odds that a firearm used in a crime in the Northeast could be traced to Virginia before and after a law was passed in Virginia limiting the sale of guns to one per person per month. Virginia and other Southeastern states are the principal supplier of weapons to the Northeast. Before the law was passed, 27% of the weapons used nationwide could be traced to Virginia. After the law took effect in July, 1993, that percentage dropped to 19%. This represents a 36% drop in nationwide gun trafficking originating in Virginia. Within the Northeast, gun trafficking originating in Virginia was reduced 66%.
author: Weil, Douglas S., Knox, Rebecca C.
Publisher: American Medical Association
Publication Name: JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association
Subject: Health
ISSN: 0098-7484
Year: 1996

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Health/Effects-of-limiting-handgun-purchases-on-interstate-transfer-of-firearms.html#ixzz0TTepejNg

Still more Melanie

Shit, her husband used his own gun to kill her. Melanie had hers in her backpack as she was on a web chat, probably saying how good it is to have a gun in the house!

As you know, I was hoping that Scott would have grabbed Melanie's gun and popped her with it.

Problem, Scott Hain was a parole officer, he was not law enforcement. SO, he could have been barred from having a gun. In fact, if Melanie had the PFA (protection from Abuse) order, he would have had to have turned in his weapon: even if he were a cop.

So, sorry, gun cretins, but if the gun control options, even the worthless ones on the books as of now, were utilised. Melanie Hain's children would not be orphans.

You assholes really need to rethink your position as it is becoming obvious that it is not based in reality.

Anyway, two less gun owning idiots on this planet.

As the greaseman said in a different context, let's shoot some more!

Hey, I don't mind you having guns. In fact, I hope you gun cretins all shoot yourselves and make the world a better place like Melanie did.

Melanie Hain is DEAD!

Well, the Open Carry poster child, Melanie Hain, has been shot dead.

...by her own husband.

I am sorry, but I don't feel too much regret since looking at her smug face made me want to grab her gun and pop a cap in her ass as well. Moreover, Hain points out the flaws in the argument about defensive gun use which is that a gun in the house will stop someone from harming you. Instead, it makes it far more likely the owner will be harmed. Only an insane person or idiot would believe the arguments presented by the "gun rights" crowd about using a gun for self-defence.

Therefore, it would be funny as heck if Hain was shot with her own gun.

I am hoping that her husband turned her own gun against her.

Why?

Precisely from my Second statement: Most concealed carry idiots make me want to grab their guns and pop a cap in their sorry moronic arses.

Despite the discredited studies from John Lott and Gary Kleck, it has been shown that adding a gun to a situtation makes it more likely that someone will get hurt. In the case of an idiot, untrained civilian, it is more likely to be the idiot, untrained civilian.

It doesn't take too much brain power to get that having a loaded gun in your house makes it more likely someone will be shot accidently. I am qualifying that to say loaded gun, since an unloaded gun can't do too much.

Which is why I was trained to make sure any gun was stored unloaded and in a secure locked area.

But that's not my point here. So, let's change the statement to elephants rather than guns.

Having a herd of elephants around makes it more likely that you will be killed by stampeding elephants.

You can't be killed by stampeding elephants if there aren't elephants around: can you? If something is harmful and you have it around, there is the likelihood of harm. It doesn't take too many neurons to figure that one out. Likewise, not having a loaded gun lying around means you are not likely to be harmed by it. You can't be harmed by things that are non-existant, unless they are the statistics used by the "gun rights" crowd to back up their arguments, which are non-existant in reality.

And as Jeff Cooper's Rules of Gun Safety point out: All guns are ALWAYS loaded.

The reason for the methodologically flawed Lott and Kleck studies is to try to show utility where there is none. Quite simply a gun in the house makes it more likely that you or another family member will get shot, whether on purpose or accidentally.

Unless of course, you properly store the gun in an unloaded and locked container. Preferably a safe.

But, that makes a gun even more worthless for "defensive purposes".

Which I guess places me in the camp of being "anti" since a gun is a shit weapon for self-defence.

Have a seance and ask Melanie Hain if you disagree with me.

But right on top of Hain's getting shot, comes a study from the University of Pennsylvania. Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

Of course, the University of Pennsylvania is not the first study to show that having a gun in the house makes it more likely someone will be harmed by the firearm: here and the Wal-Hemenway study. More likely the owner or one of the owner's family members will be the victim than an intruder.

It is even more ironic that this shooting happened during domestic violence awareness month, which seeks to raise awareness about threats and violence against women. The Freedom States Alliance (FSA) pointed out that although Hain was an aggressive gun owner, her death followed a sad pattern of women being victimized by men with guns, in this case by her husband. According to a new study released this month, When Men Murder Women by the Violence Policy Center, firearms were used by males to murder 847 women in 2007 – a staggering number. More than 10 times as many females were murdered by a male they knew than were killed by male strangers.

It seems when someone uses valid data, that it is more likely that a loaded gun in the home will lead to someone having an accident, quite possibility with serious injury or even death: usually to the idiot who has it to protect himself.

If Melanie Hain proved anything, it's that the gun control crowd are bang on and the "gun rights" crowd just spout shit.

And its even stupider to have untrained civilians walking the streets carrying loaded firearms. Someone who knows what they are doing can wrestle the gun from you and use it against you. It happens to cops.

Again, another argument against guns as defensive items.

The problem is that Melanie Hain shows what anyone with any criminal justice knowledge knows, most murder victims know their killer. Again, a gun in the house makes it more likely it will be used against you.

I just saw a "gun rights" post which pointed out that knives are also used as deadly weapons. Yeah, well, it's pretty easy to defend yourself against a knife attack, especially if you are fit and trained in self-defense. Knife wounds are also easier to treat than a gun shot wound.

Being an untrained, overweight twit with a gun makes for victims like Melanie. As I said in the start of this post, I want to grab the guns from some of these CCW and open carry assholes and blast them. Sorry, dipshit, but a gun isn't going to help you if you are not fit enough to keep it out of the hands of someone who can disarm you.

Right, Melanie?

I guess that makes me a law abiding citizen as opposed to an "otherwise law abiding citizen". I would have a field day if it weren't for laws against shooting jerks who carry guns in public with their own guns.

Case in point, I was walking down the street and some jerk bumped into me. I apologised, but the jerk kept on walking in an agressive fashion. I was ready ready to pound him, but I could tell he was carrying (you know--sport shirt untucked, but not loose enough to hide the fact he was "printing").

No, it wasn't that he was packing heat that made me think twice, but the fact that it was a crowded street and I didn't want to hit a bystander.

Unlike the asshole who was packing.

But there is another side to the Melanie Hain saga, the Sheriff revoked her carry permit.

Shall issue means that idiots like Hain and the CCW Jerkoff on the street have licences to carry concealed firearms in public. It takes their doing something openly stupid, or in Hain's case something incredibly and violently stupid, to have the permit revoked. That really shouldn't be. Local law enforcement should be able to keep guns out of the hands of idiots.

Which is why there is a gun rights crowd of idiots who shouldn't own a gun, but want them anyway to the detriment of public safety and society in general.

Quite frankly, there is no such thing as "gun rights". The Second Amendment was to protect me against the establishment of a standing army. But, guess what? The military budget makes it a joke as does the gun rights argument.

I mean the questions were about the militia such as "how will your militia be armed?" when the Bill of Rights was being drafted, not how do we get firearms into the hands of criminals and irresponsible assholes like Melanie Hain? Ever wonder why the Patrick Henry Quote "Let every man be armed" isn't used much anymore, because it shows Henry was interested in the Article I, Section 8 militias and not the Melanie Hains and the other morons like her of this world.

Restrictions on gun ownership do not infringe upon my privilege as a sportsman to have a firearm (it's a privilege, not a right for a private citizen to own a firearm outside of the Article I, Section 8 militia service).

Allowing unfettered access to firearms by irresponsible people does harm the privilege of gun ownership.

I just hope more "gun rights" people will get killed with their own weapons. I can see it now, The gun rights idiot--a dying breed.

Then maybe we can have some sane gun laws.