Another great article from Bloomberg Businessweek

[Stonewalker]

Thanks vince! That's what I was hoping for, as I am not knowledgeable enough about the situation. Here's hoping Mr. Barret continues the discussion.

[451040]

Paul could stand to do more investigating while conducting investigative journalism.

Thank You for posting the Bloomberg story .
Other good news sources are moveon.org -time mag -newsweek- LA Times and of course my personal favorite Nytimes.

By reading the correct leftist (big govt) views we can educate ourselves against the constant propagana of NRA- GOA and other single issue groups digging for our hard earned money

[Just Dave]

Well put Vince.

[ShootNMove]

Well, In 2006, ATF implemented a new strategy in order to combat illegal weapons trafficking from the US to Mexico, known as Project Gunrunner. After much success by arresting straw purchasers the program was changed and manipulated. Right now they're still trying to figure out who did it, and who is going to be the scape goat. According to ATF agents it went beyond the ATF, and that much is clear. Whether Obama and Holder were part of it isnt completely clear, but they've definitely been hiding the truth.

It was in 2009 when the ATF received funding to expand Project Gunrunner, and the Phoenix Arizona branch of the ATF began to substitute the existing strategy with one that instead allowed guns to walk, essentially allowing them to disappear. The whole strategy of allowing guns to walk was done after Bush, under Obama. Whether it was Obama's fault or not remains to be clear, but blaming Bush for this one would be factually incorrect.

[eaglemike]

On another note, and somewhat similar to the above -

Much more investigation is NEEDED by Mr Barrett. Taking information from a single or even a few FFL people isn't close to enough. Sure - the actions by ATF and FFL's were very similar under both programs at the FFL initial contact level, as far as I can tell. The actions diverge after that point. This is the big key. Not being able to notice the distinction is playing into the big media plan.

[formerTexan]

Mr. Paul Barrett could've done just another hour of reading and got all the facts that Vince had collected. However, for some reason, Paul did not (time reasons? when was the article written vs. published?). My hope is that he will write a followup article and correct/clarify things in the first/current article.

[ja308]

On another note, and somewhat similar to the above -

Much more investigation is NEEDED by Mr Barrett. Taking information from a single or even a few FFL people isn't close to enough. Sure - the actions by ATF and FFL's were very similar under both programs at the FFL initial contact level, as far as I can tell. The actions diverge after that point. This is the big key. Not being able to notice the distinction is playing into the big media plan.

After reading nearly everything here , I agree with your observation.

Blaming ATF is not fair either , since it was ATF agents that made this whole thing public to begin with .
Did the author miss no agents went public during the Bush years ?

Those who hired the ATF hierarchy are 100% responsibile. Someone came up the F+F and it was NOT individual agents.

[formerTexan]

I thought Paul's name was somewhat familiar to me. I now know why. Flying back from SHOT show 2011 last January, I came across a paper copy of that week's BBW, with this article:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212052185280.htm

An excerpt from the ending paragraph, this is not a quote of someone else, I would presume this is his "opinion", or perhaps Michael Riley who is also credited at the end of the article:

The rise of the Glock and other semiautomatic handguns cannot be linked to variations in overall crime rates. But that doesn't mean it would be pointless to take small steps to reduce mayhem, such as restricting magazine capacity. One lesson of Tucson is that there is a difference between a 33-round clip and an 8- or 10-round clip. The only way to make a limit work, though, would be to ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of all clips larger than the cap.

I encourage everyone to read Paul's entire Jan. 2011 article.

[SanPedroShooter]

I thought Paul's name was somewhat familiar to me. I now know why. Flying back from SHOT show 2011 last January, I came across a paper copy of that week's BBW, with this article:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212052185280.htm

An excerpt from the ending paragraph, this is not a quote of someone else, I would presume this is his "opinion", or perhaps Michael Riley who is also credited at the end of the article:
The rise of the Glock and other semiautomatic handguns cannot be linked to variations in overall crime rates. But that doesn't mean it would be pointless to take small steps to reduce mayhem, such as restricting magazine capacity. One lesson of Tucson is that there is a difference between a 33-round clip and an 8- or 10-round clip. The only way to make a limit work, though, would be to ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of all clips larger than the cap.

I encourage everyone to read Paul's entire Jan. 2011 article.

BababababaBULL****...

Sorry Paul....

[gunsandrockets]

Not our friend.

I thought Paul's name was somewhat familiar to me. I now know why. Flying back from SHOT show 2011 last January, I came across a paper copy of that week's BBW, with this article:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212052185280.htm

An excerpt from the ending paragraph, this is not a quote of someone else, I would presume this is his "opinion", or perhaps Michael Riley who is also credited at the end of the article:


I encourage everyone to read Paul's entire Jan. 2011 article.

Thanx for that excerpt and link.

Good grief. Paul's policy prescription is just as bad as his NRA bogeyman fear-mongering. About the only thing he left out was adding the cliche, "if it just saves one child's life, it will be worth it!"

His "modest proposal" is a ban on possession of magazines which hold more than 10 rounds. Modest. Yeah, right.

His modest proposal is a declaration of war even more extreme than the 1994 Brady II proposal of then-Congressman Schumer. Thankfully Paul's proposal has about as much chance of becoming law now as Brady II did in 1995.

It's worth looking in detail at Paul's proposal to ban magazines. What are it's costs and benefits?

The benefit is a theoretical reduction in the number of deaths from mass shooting crimes. Paul uses the madman Loughner as evidence to bolster his case. Does magazine capacity really make much difference though? The answer is, not really.

There are a lot of factors which go into how successful a mass killer is when he uses a firearm. Can his victims resist? Can they escape? How much time does the killer have before police intervention? How much skill with a firearm does the killer have? But magazine capacity is one of the least important factors.

Just look at these iconic massacres from history, Whitman in Texas 1966, Purdy in California 1989, and Harris and Klebold in Colorado 1999. These are exactly the kind of horrible events that Paul's magazine ban would supposedly make a difference in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Purdy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

We can see from these examples just how unimportant magazine capacity is compared to the other factors already mentioned. Purdy killed the fewest of all, almost all of which were fragile children shot at close range, despite his use of magazines with 30 or 75 round capacity. Whitman killed the most, despite that his primary weapon was a bolt-action deer rifle with a fixed 5-shot magazine and most of his victims were healthy adults shot at long range.

Most directly on point to Paul's theory of restricting magazine capacity is the evidence from the Columbine massacre. Despite the news-media's fixation on the killer's AB-10 handgun (which had three large magazines), the primary death-dealing weapon was the killer's Hi-Point 9mm carbine.

Here it is Paul.

That Hi-point carbine only had 10 shot magazines. In fact Hi-point has ONLY made 10 shot magazines for that firearm. In fact the Hi-point carbine is the kind of weapon which completely followed the prescriptions of the Federal 1994 ban on "high capacity" magazines and "assault weapons". Yet that Hi-point carbine, which is the ideal result of the theories of limited capacity magazines, was still a perfectly adequate weapon for conducting a massacre.

This is why the theory of banning 10 round magazines is so silly. Even if such a law was perfectly enforced, there is nothing to stop a would-be killer from stockpiling extra weapons and extra 10-shot magazines to increase his firepower. Or even worse, acquiring good shooting skills like Whitman had.

There is no public benefit from banning magazines which hold more than ten rounds.

And what of the costs of such a ban? The imagination boggles. The public will not give up their arms. That should be obvious, but apparently isn't to Paul who thinks such an extreme law is only a "modest" proposal.

This is what happens when people like Paul who don't really understand guns think they have a brilliant policy idea. Just ban 10+ round magazines! What could be easier!

Do you know what firearm restriction would reduce (only in theory!) the massacre potential of gun-armed killers? Think about it. What are you trying to accomplish by banning magazines? What you are really after is reducing the amount of ammunition that any person could legally possess at one time. A restriction of, let's say, no more than 10 rounds of ammunition per person at any one time. That is the minimum kind of restriction that might accomplish what the silly magazine ban is supposed to.

[SanPedroShooter]

Listening to book interview on NPR.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/24/145640473/how-the-glock-became-americas-weapon-of-choice

Its a little irritating to hear him yack on and on about "high capacity ammunition magazines"...

Give it up Paul, its never gonna happen, not anytime soon. I dont know, hearing you talk, sort of makes me like you less and less....

Its kinda not his fault, Terri keeps setting him up with these lame *** softballs. Teri: "So the shooting in tucson is cause of high capcity clips, right paul...?"

"Well you're right terri, great question..."


I think he makes up for a lot at the end though, still a good a listen.

[ja308]

gunsand rockets,
Would you kindly give us examples of the NRA fearmongering your 1st sentence referenced above ?
I enjoyed reading your well thought out post.
Regarding a law limiting possesion of more than 10 rds. It would be likely, a scumbag would violate that law, just like the murder law.

Many of us recall the worst mass murder in US history and that was the Puerto Rican nightclub massacre in new york city during the 1990s. AS I recall 92 or so people were killed when this puke used a gas bomb in the crowded club.

The unavailability of guns did not stop this evil man who was intent on murder. He simply found an alternate method. One which actually proved to be worse than a gun.

Studies as you know ,show that when mag capacity is limited , people buy larger calibers
I think it unlikely , Gabby Giffords would have survived a .40/.45/50/ or 44 mag .

Too bad the Bloomberg author did not check into these statistics. But saftey or a safe society was not his focus .

I lamented in gun free Arizona , not 1 person was armed ,to stop this nutcase !

[Stonewalker]

Guys, I suspected that Mr. Barret felt this way. It's sort of beside the point though. Even though he is an anti, he has written several articles which bring to discussion good points. Points that many (generally) anti-gun publications will not talk about.

It's not an all-or-nothing game in this area. Sometimes you have to squint to see the bigger picture.

[SanPedroShooter]

I agree, I even bought his book. All I ask is for honesty. We have the truth on our side.

Besides, if I am wrong, I would rather be corrected than live in the fantasy world our opponents seem to occupy.

[Stonewalker]

I agree, I even bought his book. All I ask is for honesty. We have the truth on our side.

Besides, if I am wrong, I would rather be corrected than live in the fantasy world our opponents seem to occupy.

Seriously! If there's one thing I've learned in the past 3 years of my life - it's 'don't be afraid to question the foundations of your worldview'. Why live in denial? About anything? On a related note - I am enjoying watching the increasingly-desperate actions of most anti-gun groups. Like that graph from the National Gun Victims Action Council. Are they even trying?? hahaha.

It's becoming so blatantly obvious that they have very little followers and they are just putting out these events and marketing pieces so they can get funding for 'just one more year'.