Community Calendar
Community
Calendar
Tomahawk Leader Internet Edition - Newspaper in Tomahawk Wisconsin Photo Album
Photo
Album
Map
Map of
Tomahawk, WI
Grey Bar
The Tomahawk Leader is a state and national prize-winning weekly newspaper serving the scenic Northwoods area in and around Tomahawk, WI.

It is currently Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:02 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:01 pm 
Offline
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 684
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Tie to Tomahawk: I grew up there & family
Spambot: No
Eunice,

Sorry, but I can't even comprehend half of what you're saying...

However, the idea that if more people had been armed at schools the shooting could have been stopped is a pipe dream as well. There was an armed police officer at Columbine. Admittedly, they were trained to wait for backup at the time, but just because someone is present doesn't mean a shooter can be stopped.

In response to Sandy Hook a school in Michigan hired a retired firearms instructor who proceeded to leave his gun in a bathroom at the school less than a week after starting.

A 4 year old shot and killed the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy who was busy showing his guns to a relative.

In 2007 there were 122 unintentional firearm deaths in children and an additional 3,060 nonfatal gun and shooting accidents, resulting in 1,375 children needing to be hospitalized for their injuries. How many kids died in school shootings that year? I can find record of 47 people dying in 2007 school related shootings and a majority of those were colleges (27 of which was one incident at Virginia Tech).

Even well trained people make mistakes. Placing more guns in an environment full of children only increases the likelihood of accidents. I'm extremely defensive of the right to keep and bear arms. However, putting more guns in schools is NOT a good idea.

By all means, carry a concealed firearm if it makes you feel better. But that responsibility should mean you're willing to train, regularly. You should be able to demonstrate that you know how to handle a firearm safely and can shoot proficiently. Many states won't recognize Wisconsin's conceal carry permits because our training requirements are a joke.

And you might want to check on your story that the Oregon mall shooter stopped because someone had a concealed carry weapon. The person with the gun took cover in a shop after deciding NOT to shoot (probably the smartest decision he could have made). The shooter MAY have seen him but do you really think they feared someone with a gun that ran the other way? http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-a ... 93571.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:46 am 
Offline
Typical Poster
Typical Poster

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:17 pm
Posts: 75
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 4 times
Tie to Tomahawk: my cottage and hunting camp
Spambot: No
Kerry Tobin wrote:
River Rat wrote:
Source please. I suspect this is another one of those items presented with "only half of the truth" provided.


It's been widely reported recently but here's one source

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/opinio ... 2fe74.html

And since I suspect that won't be enough for you, how about some more information straight from the FBI? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

Just the NICS Section of the background checks (for firearms and explosives) issued a denial 88,479 times in 2012. That doesn't include the state users checks according to their information. From November 30, 1998 to March 31, 2012 there were 1,015,699 denials. Wisconsin had 469,375 firearms checks in 2012 or 2.3957% of the 19,592,303 checks. Based on that number, if Wisconsin followed the national average for denials there would have been 2,119 in Wisconsin last year (the FBI doesn't make a state by state count available on their website and I don't think submitting a Freedom of Information request to please someone on a message board is necessary). As of March 31, 2013 there were 10,313,822 active prohibited records in NICS, 5,312,456 of those are for Illegal aliens.


I beleive I pointed out before that these data do not include false positives. In other words, a denial does not mean that a person who should not own a gun tried to buy one.
The last time I looked into this over 90% of denials were in error and overturned, thus allowing the person to legaly purchace the gun. The gun grabbers love spewing out this misleading data, they sucked you right into it too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:58 am 
Offline
Typical Poster
Typical Poster

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:17 pm
Posts: 75
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 4 times
Tie to Tomahawk: my cottage and hunting camp
Spambot: No
Kerry Tobin wrote:
I'm extremely defensive of the right to keep and bear arms.


Maybe you are, but your consistant writings on this forum and the points you make, in my opinion, do not support such a statement. I really don't think I'm alone either. I don't understand how you can say such a thing while supporting every single idea that limits, and even in some cases prohibits, the ability of a law abiding person to aquire a firearm. It make no sense to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:49 pm 
Offline
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 684
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Tie to Tomahawk: I grew up there & family
Spambot: No
River Rat wrote:
I beleive I pointed out before that these data do not include false positives. In other words, a denial does not mean that a person who should not own a gun tried to buy one.
The last time I looked into this over 90% of denials were in error and overturned, thus allowing the person to legaly purchace the gun. The gun grabbers love spewing out this misleading data, they sucked you right into it too.


When was the last time you looked into this because your reporting horribly inaccurate statistics (I'd be called out and asked to provide a source).

Quote:
In 2012, the NICS Section received a total of 26,357 VAF applications and appeal requests. Of those, a total of 1,618 received were submitted by persons denied by POC state agencies. In 2012, the NICS Section’s research resulted in the overturn of 4,020 deny transactions.


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/r ... 012#Future

Oh, and fun fact. One of the things that actually hinders the appeals process is that ALL records of a specific search having even occurred have to be destroyed within 24 hours.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:50 pm 
Offline
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 684
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Tie to Tomahawk: I grew up there & family
Spambot: No
River Rat wrote:
Kerry Tobin wrote:
I'm extremely defensive of the right to keep and bear arms.


Maybe you are, but your consistant writings on this forum and the points you make, in my opinion, do not support such a statement. I really don't think I'm alone either. I don't understand how you can say such a thing while supporting every single idea that limits, and even in some cases prohibits, the ability of a law abiding person to aquire a firearm. It make no sense to me.


I haven't seen anyone that's show my suggestions limit anyone who legally can own a firearm is prevented from doing so. You can still buy the gun, you just need to pass a background check to do so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:37 pm 
Offline
General User
General User

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:01 pm
Posts: 45
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Cottage on Lake Alice since 1962
Spambot: No
Kerry Are you a member of the NRA? simple question yes or no
Maybe just maybe if 99% of these folks commiting these acts were where the be long this would be a mute subject.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:54 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:34 pm
Posts: 115
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
Tie to Tomahawk: Born and raised in Tomahawk.
Spambot: No
Tom B wrote:
Maybe just maybe if 99% of these folks commiting these acts were where the be long this would be a mute subject.
[quote="Tom B"]

Pretty funny that you say that since the NRA is against background checks because they are paranoid about a database being set up and somebody stealing all their guns in the future.

Are you ok with a felon going to a gun show and buying any gun, no questions asked? Because they can do that right now and the NRA supports continuing them the "right" to do that. The "right" for felons to buy guns no questions asked at gun shows and over the internet. Unbelievable.

The NRA is around to drive gun sales by scaring their members into thinking somebody is going to take away their guns. They use fear to drive sales up and get more money from gun manufacturers in return. Great organization.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:40 pm 
Offline
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 684
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Tie to Tomahawk: I grew up there & family
Spambot: No
Tom B wrote:
Kerry Are you a member of the NRA? simple question yes or no
Maybe just maybe if 99% of these folks commiting these acts were where the be long this would be a mute subject.


Tom, I considered joining the NRA multiple times and each and every time I've decided against it. The NRA has gotten too extreme in my personal opinion and therefore I won't support their organization. Since it's estimated that somewhere between 43-55 million households in the US have a gun and the NRA only has 4.5 million members does that mean all those other households don't support gun ownership???

Do you realize that surveys have repeatedly found a majority of NRA members believe everyone should have to pass a background check to get a gun? Do you realize that the position of the NRA is predominately controlled by the gun manufacturers? Do you realize that THEY don't want background checks on everyone, even if someone can figure out a way that is free and doesn't take any time or effort and generates no paper trail, because it reduces the size of the market THEY can sell guns to?

Do you donate to the ACLU? They defend your First Amendment rights, right to due process and right to privacy. I don't agree with some of the things they do either so they don't get anything from me.

How about EFF? They defend your electronic freedoms and work to ensure you have legal protections in the electronic world. I have donated to this organization.

Choosing to be a member of an organization or not doesn't demonstrate diddly-squat about what someone believes or doesn't believe. Nor is it indicative of their actions. I'm sure we both can point out plenty of evil people that are or were members of churches as well. Again, membership (or lack there of) in any organization doesn't mean jack.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:13 pm 
Offline
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 684
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Tie to Tomahawk: I grew up there & family
Spambot: No
A few more statistics for people (calculated from the information already posted).

4.5 of every 1,000 (0.45%) of background checks last year led to a denial
29.8% of the denials last year were appealed
Only 4.5% of the background check denials last year were overturned
1.3 of every 1,000 (0.13%) background checks run last year led to an appeal that was overturned


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:03 pm 
Offline
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 827
Location: Tomahawk
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 33 times
Tie to Tomahawk: Born, raised and live in Tomahawk
Kerry wrote;
Quote:
Tom, I considered joining the NRA multiple times and each and every time I've decided against it. The NRA has gotten too extreme in my personal opinion and therefore I won't support their organization. Since it's estimated that somewhere between 43-55 million households in the US have a gun and the NRA only has 4.5 million members does that mean all those other households don't support gun ownership???


I have to agree with Terry, I mean Harry, I mean Kerry or what ever his name is. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

At one time I was an NRA member and for the same reasons dropped my membership. There is a difference in defending what you believe in and getting extreme over things that in the long run are common sense. It doesn't seem that they know the meaning of negotiations. Sometimes you have to give a little on the less important things so that you can stand firm on other issues. Right now my feeling is that they are making themselves look bad in the eyes of Mr. and Mrs. average American by the way they are conducting themselves, and that isn't helping them one bit.

I don't believe in creating a paper trail that can lead to registration. I am also concerned that those with an FFL will take advantage of mandatory background checks and charge outrages amounts to conduct them for a sale between individuals.

I question how this will be enforced if two people just make a sale under the table and don't report it. Did that person own the gun before the law was passed or not. Only he and the seller will know and they aren't talking.

At the same time I think about all the guns that change hands daily and wonder how many of them end up in the hands of someone who shouldn't have it. Again, there is no way of knowing unless someone commits a crime and gets caught with the gun. At this time is the seller held responsible? If he made the sale in good faith and had no knowledge of the buyers background probably not. If the seller is buying and selling multiple guns on a weekly basis that might be different. Will this still happen, probably, but it will make people think twice before selling a gun to someone of questionable character.

Any way you look at it, it could become a slippery slope if not done correctly. I have a feeling that background checks will go through, and it also looks like there will be exemptions for transfers between family etc.

Some of the rest of the proposals are just plain ridiculous and won't do anything to solve the problem but will just make life more complicated for the honest citizen. Lets hope that our senators and representatives are smart enough to reject them.

_________________
The National Institutes of Health has just released the results of a $200 million research study completed under a grant to Johns Hopkins.
The new study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:03 am 
Offline
General User
General User

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:01 pm
Posts: 45
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Cottage on Lake Alice since 1962
Spambot: No
I have to disagree.
I am 100% sure if there was no NRA we right now would not have the right to own guns as a matter of fact I think every NRA member is carrying the load for all you people who do own guns. Who in this country does more for not only gun owners but also gun safety? There is no organization that teaches and does more for the safe handling and use of a gun than the NRA.
For instance the Eddie the Eagle course.
We have back ground checks in place now.
Fact: did you know legally armed citizens kill between 1500 to 2800 felons a year compared to 300 to 600 killings national by law enforcement.
Where do you think these people received there training and who sponsored the gun clubs that trained them, who sponsors the hunter safety courses.
As for the comment about driving the sales of weapons up for the gun industry answer me this.
Why did homeland Security buy 1.6 billion rounds of AR-15 ammo? Are they expecting some kind of ground assault we don’t know about?
Why are the police departments across this country now having problems finding that same ammo for training? Who’s really driving the costs up and why?
How can you sit here and say the NRA is responsible for these problems when our own federal government has on numerous occasions attempted sting operations such as fast and furious only to have it back fire and put thousands of Illegal weapons in the hands of felons. Here and abroad. And yes ICE did the same thing in Milwaukee and now can’t find the weapons they put on the streets. Into felons hands mind you.
Let me ask you this why is it that nearly all respected economists and criminologists have tested and retested and come to the conclusion that limits on Magazines, back ground checks and the so called assault rifle band do nothing to stop murders. The only policy that has had a proven effect on public shooting is Concealed Carry.
This debate has started cause of the mass shooting craze None let me repeat that None of these murderers were felons but they all had one thing in common Every single one of them should have been institutionalized.
Go do your homework as Kerry would say go back to 1970 to today. From 1900 to 1970 there was an average of 4 mass shootings per decade, In the 70tys when the federal government decided it was time to start treating the mentally ill as if there was nothing wrong with them it sky rocketed to where we are today an average of 36 mass shooting per decade. You want the truth Mass shooting didn’t go up with gun ownership but it did with putting the mentally disturbed out on the street. Sorry but that’s the truth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:15 am 
Offline
General User
General User

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:01 pm
Posts: 45
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Cottage on Lake Alice since 1962
Spambot: No
Old Scout: I understand what your saying but as a member for the past 50 years do you remember when we did try and work with the anti’s and every time we gave they wanted more till it got to the point now that we have nothing left to give.
I understand what your saying about Mr. and Mrs. Average American but don’t you think that there Idea of putting armed retired offices and military people in schools would seriously help these senseless murders.
It’s a shame but that’s where this country has gone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:08 pm 
Offline
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 684
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Tie to Tomahawk: I grew up there & family
Spambot: No
Tom B wrote:
Why did homeland Security buy 1.6 billion rounds of AR-15 ammo? Are they expecting some kind of ground assault we don’t know about?
Why are the police departments across this country now having problems finding that same ammo for training? Who’s really driving the costs up and why?


Ah, one has to love conspiracy theories. It's funny though, how rarely they're based on anything but speculation... Let's trying going to the sources for the real answers perhaps?

http://www.federalpremium.com/company/faq.aspx
Quote:
WHY ARE YOU SELLING ALL OF YOUR AMMUNITION TO THE DHS?

The Department of Homeland Security contract makes up a very small percentage of our total ammunition output. This contract is not taking ammunition away from civilians. The current increase in demand is attributed to the civilian market. Our production volumes on government contracts have been stable since the mid-2000s.

ARE CERTAIN CONTRACTS TAKING AMMUNITION AWAY FROM CIVILIANS?

No. We remain committed to serving all channels of our business. The majority of our product serves the commercial market.


http://www.hornady.com/support/availability
Quote:
Since we can’t find your product you must be selling it all to the government.

Nope, less than 5% of our sales are to government entities.


http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/04/02/ammo-shortage/

Quote:
First, ammunition manufacturers have been running at or near capacity for at least 10 years. Some of their production is still earmarked for military contracts, even though the U.S. military’s presence overseas is being reduced. But the fact of the matter is most ammo makers have barely recovered from the last ammo-buying panic. Nobody who makes ammo has had it sitting around getting dusty on their shelves. They were barely able to keep up with commercial demand before the country went into panic-buying mode.


http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/2/dr-coburn-releases-correspondence-with-dhs-regarding-ammunition-purchases

The DHS has allocated $37,263,698 toward the purchase of ammunition in 2013. By comparison they spent $36,535,910 in 2012 to purchase 103,178,200 rounds, $38,237,305 in 2011 to purchase 108,664,054 and $47,945,115 in 2010 to purchase 148,314,825.

Many of the agencies allocate 1,000 rounds per year for training and qualifications. I suspect many of the panicked ammo buyers are hoarding much more.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/14/why-is-department-homeland-security-buying-so-many-bullets/
Then you can look at the fact that the DHS training facilities provide training to more than 90 federal agencies and over 70,000 agents and officers used the department's facilities last year. That 1.6 billion ammo purchase is a maximum purchase spread over the next 4-5 years and is intended for both training and field use. Including by ICE which requested 450 million rounds of .40 cal duty ammunition and 40 million rounds of rifle ammunition a year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:58 pm 
Offline
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 827
Location: Tomahawk
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 33 times
Tie to Tomahawk: Born, raised and live in Tomahawk
As for the Gov. buying all the ammunition, within days of the shooting out at Sandy Hook, and the subject of gun control was brought up ammunition was flying off the shelves. A friend of mine in Austin, TX was telling me that within days the shelves were either empty or ammunition was being rationed at one box per customer. Even now it is sold as fast as it comes in to the store.

It is the same situation with reloading supplies. Try buying powder, primers or bullets. Supplies for rifles aren't too bad, but supplies for pistols are just about impossible to find. I really doubt that the Gov. is into reloading and buying all these supplies.

A friend of mine lives near Minneapolis, and his wife works for Federal. They are working at max production and can't keep up with demand and this is for ammunition that the Gov. or the Army doesn't use. This is a case of demand being greater than supply and the demand is from the gun owners who are making sure that they have their fair share just in case.

I was talking to a gun dealer just today, and he commented that things are finally starting to catch up and he is getting ammunition and guns that he has ordered into the store. He also feels that it was panic buying that created the shortage.

_________________
The National Institutes of Health has just released the results of a $200 million research study completed under a grant to Johns Hopkins.
The new study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:29 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:55 am
Posts: 135
Location: Central Coast of California
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times
Tie to Tomahawk: Past Resident
Who ever it was that said gun control is about power is 100% correct!

I am sorry Kerry, usually I see pretty good logic in your ideas and opinions. However this time my friend, I believe you are misguided.

The concept of gun control being put forth by the Obama people as a way of fighting crime is a smoke screen.

Obama and the other Obama liberals have one goal in mind and only one. The formation of the United Socialist States of America under a communist dictatorship.

They need to disarm America for that to happen.

I am not going to support any type of gun control. Trigger guards, background checks, cooling off periods, none of that or anything else put forward.

What are you going to do if some gang-banger, that did not have to get a back ground check on his back alley, no cooling off period purchase, comes charging through your front door with an illegal gun? Ask him to hold on a minute while you find the key to you trigger guard?

They should be figuring out ways that disarm the criminals, not the law abiding citizens. All of the stuff I see is only going to hinder the honest gun owner. Not the criminal. None of that stuff is going to slow them down even a little.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY
Localized by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr