Cop Deaths Down Since Reagan Era; High Gun Ownership Rates Don’t Help

Data, cursèd data!

World of Violence Could Be New Norm” said my local paper this week following the murder of five police officers in Dallas. The mental health expert cited in Elisa Sand’s article suggested the “new norm” is the intense media coverage of violence, not the violence itself.

This chart from the Washington Post, based on data from the Officer Down Memorial Page, shows that the number of police killed on the job each year by assault, bombing, stabbing, gunfire, and vehicular attack as declined under each President since Reagan:

Police murders Reagan–Obama

Anyone blaming President Obama for police deaths is not paying attention to reality and should immediately burn any portraits of Reagan hanging on their walls.

Folks concerned about the murder of police officers should also look at their state gun laws:

…[L]ate last year, researchers at Harvard and elsewhere discovered an alarming fact: Police officers are much more likely to be killed in the line of duty in states with high rates of gun ownership.

The study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, used FBI data to track police officer deaths in the line of duty from 1996 to 2010. They cross-referenced this with state-level gun ownership rates as measured in a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey that asked about gun ownership from 2001 to 2004….

The results were shocking: line-of-duty homicide rates among police officers were more than three times higher in states with high gun ownership compared with the low gun ownership states. Between 1996 and 2010, in other words, there were 0.31 officer fatalities for every 10,000 employed officers in low gun ownership states. But there were 0.95 fatalities per 10,000 officers in the high gun ownership states.

“Higher levels of private firearm ownership likely increased the frequency with which officers faced potentially life-threatening situations on the job,” the study says. High rates of officer homicides appeared to be caused “by more frequently encountering situations where privately owned firearms were present,” it says [Christopher Ingraham, “More Police Officers Die on the Job in States with More Guns,” Washington Post, 2016.07.08].

Sometimes even a good guy with a gun can’t stop a bad guy with a gun. Making it easier for bad guys to get guns makes good guys’ lives harder… and sometimes shorter.

p.s.: Interestingly, South Dakota doesn’t seem to fit the latter correlation. According to the AJPH report, South Dakota is in the top quintile for gun ownership but the second-from -bottom quintile for law enforcement officer homicides.

137 Responses to Cop Deaths Down Since Reagan Era; High Gun Ownership Rates Don’t Help

  1. mike from iowa

    ….yeah,but, guns don’t kill people. Must be other explanations for their deaths.

  2. barry freed

    It was written to garner more cash from Brady Gun Control, the Joyce Foundation, and to generate paid speaking engagements.

  3. The data is biased toward the liberal agenda. More factors need to be considered. Chicago highest murder rate in nation toughest gun control laws.

    If one believes the liberal agenda move to the back areas of Mexico where citizens get robbed every day and have no defense since they are not allowed to own guns

  4. owen reitzel

    “Chicago highest murder rate in nation toughest gun control laws. ”
    True. But the counties around Chicago have lax gun laws. Guns are brought into Chicago. Maybe the “tough” gun laws should be extended.

    Biased toward the “liberal” agenda? These are what are called the facts.

  5. Donald Pay


    Describe how the data are biased. If you look more closely you will see the data do not single out guns.

    I think the raw numbers probably understate the decrease in deadly assaults on police. Since the Reagan era we’ve added more people and more cops, so you might expect that the per capita and per officer numbers of deaths are significantly lower.

    Now we can argue about the reasons for this. One reason might be the cops are wearing body armor during tense situations. Others might be that violent crime statistics have trended down during this same time frame, so there aren’t as many bad guys out there.

    I’m not sure how much gun laws or their absence has to do with the statistics, positive or negative. But better background checks would make some sense.

  6. owen reitzel

    Don, cops are wearing body armor because of the guns the “bad guys” have available to them. My son is a cop and he always wears his vest. I’m guessing on a 100 degree he’d just as soon not have it on.

    This is where I have a problem with my liberal friends. They cry about the militarization of the police but they have to do that just to keep up with the weapons available out there.

  7. Roger Elgersma

    When I was farming only miners had a higher death rate on the job than farmers. Not sure how far down the list cops dying on the job was. I still believe that an intentional murder is horrible and brings more outrage than an accidental farm death. But seeing a few people die is not a reason not to become a cop or change ones life’s purpose. The overall murder rate in this country is horrible. But seeing presidential candidates constantly promoting bullying and carpet bombing is just not the right mindset.

    Thanks for the data Cory.

  8. mike from iowa

    Owen-it isn’t us liberals putting those weapons on the street.

  9. Richard Schriever

    owen and Sam@ – so why are all those weapons of war available out there? You know – making life more dangerous – for cops and the rest of us? Who’s “agenda” is that situation reflective of?

  10. owen reitzel

    @Mike- I totally agree that it isn’t the liberals put the guns out there, but I’ve seen the police being ripped by liberal groups for becoming militarized. They have to. Sadly the days of Barney Fife with 1 bullet are long gone.

    @Richard-one word. “NRA.”

  11. Your observation of the nationwide correlation between gun ownership and police shootings seems intuitive. The same likely holds true for shootings as a whole. The South Dakota anomaly is probably due to the good nature of South Dakotans and our wide open spaces.

  12. Stace Nelson

    Immaterial statistics. There is not one cop worth their salt that would ever advocate taking away law-abiding people’s right to protect themselves, as we know that in no way shape or form can law enforcement protect people 24-7.

  13. Sam@, the articles explains the methodlogy, the efforts the researchers made to account for a variety of factors.

    Reality tends to have a liberal bias.

  14. Stace, you can’t dismiss data. No cop worth his salt ignores facts. And haven’t we had cops testify against guns-on-campus bills in the South Dakota Legislature? Are they advocating “taking away law-abiding people’s right to protect themselves”, or are they saying, “We’ll all be a lot safer if fewer folks are carrying guns around”?

  15. Stace Nelson

    @CAH A police officer is a public servant, not the public’s master. 23 1/2 years of carrying on the job, relying on that ability to defend myself and the public, made it very clear the need to ensure law-abiding people retain that Condtitutional right.

    The irony of the Left’s attacks on LE while saying LE should be the only ones with guns? Enough to choke an earthworm.

  16. Homework for this week everyone – let’s all find some legitimate statistics on which group is killed the most by cops – blacks, hispanics or whites.
    I’ve done some browsing and it is partisan, conservative websights say whites are killed more by cops. Other more nonpartisan sources say blacks are.
    I’ll be searching.

  17. Gone are the days when the police carried a 6 shot 38 special revolver. Now it’s a 9 mm or .40 with a 12 or 15 round clip. Sometimes bigger caliber. That’s some serious fire power. But it’s dangerous out there. Just last week there was a news story about people stupid enough to leave pistols in their unlocked cars at night in Sioux Falls who woke up to find their pistols missing. Those stolen pistols are comparable to what the police carry and are destined for no good purpose. Careless gun owners like the Sioux Falls idiots that didn’t lock their car doors should have their concealed carry permits revoked.

  18. Stace, I’m not attacking law enforcement. You’re trying to lay a straw-man template on me that does not fit the hard, evidence-based arguments I’m making that you can’t beat.

    By the way, open-carry by citizens makes cops’ work harder: “It’s logical to say that in a shooting situation, open carry can be detrimental to the safety of individuals,” says Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings. Citizens were carrying rifles at the Dallas BLM march. Cops had to round those people up as persons of interest. Also, those armed citizens appear not to have helped police stop the attacker; instead, those armed citizens appear to have run helter-skelter like everyone else.

  19. Stace Nelson

    @CAH ? While you hail from the Left, and you carry much of SD’s Left momentum in your wake? You obviously do NOT carry the bucket for the anti-cop movement on the Left. You are part of the wing that does infer or openly preach that only cops should have guns wing. Your distractive protest aside, the cop prejudice is undeniably evident in some of your readers’ posts herein.

  20. Darin Larson

    Cory, so you have apparented hit upon the issue of why the initial reports were of three to four gunmen. Police and witnesses couldn’t tell who was a good guy with a gun versus who was a bad guy with a gun. It takes precious time to sort that out. In the meantime the real perpetrator goes on killing unfettered. Welcome to Stace’s Wild West!

  21. Darin Larson

    PS it’s pretty rich for Stace to rip on the many law enforcement officials who wants rational reasonable Common Sense gun control and now Stace acts like he is the defender of law enforcement.

  22. There is no anti-cop movement on the left, what is there is anti-murder by cop. Mr. Nelson is really really really trying to get back in. Probably one of the best things that has happened to the state was when he got sent home. A good place for him after reading his bs.

  23. Here is what Mr. Nelson’s white view is for how a state should run its citizens, know your place and STFU and eat your beans. Private property for people other that white, no longer exists in a police state. If oil is spilled on your property, you cannot do a damn thing about it. If the police brutalize you on your own property, you should have purchased that property somewhere else. Nelson’s world has kind of a Putin aroma to it.

  24. @Darin Is that all you can muster You can’t win on the facts so you distract from that by resorting to grade school playground antics? Show me a cop advocating taking guns away from cops… There may be a minority hypocritical few who advocate gun control of the public, not of themselves; however, of my numerous former colleagues I have kept in contact with on FB, I have NEVER seen one advocating for the gun control advocated by the Left.

    @Jerry You are clueless. This is the least amount I have ever campaigned on any of the races I was in. I effectively stopped campaigning in March and have 1/3 the amount of signs up I normally have. Your ignorant personal comments aside, Even Ray Charles can see the the sects of anti law enforcement and anti-military on the Left. That Bill Ayers sect of liberals go waaaay back. But quick! Point out I’m broken-down, overweight, graying, ugly, and fighting a receding hairline to distract from it! ?

  25. There are definitely people on the left who are anti cop, just as there are cops who are trigger happy idiots – some of whom are racists. Let’s not stereotype people though. The left is not about anti-cop, and cops are not all trigger happy racists. If Mr. Nelson had his way, people could carry concealed without a permit. The left and police come together in favoring permits for concealed carry. While Mr. Nelson probably has a concealed carry permit, as I do, I suspect he has carried concealed illegally in the state capital building. Neither police nor “the left” approve of such violations of the law.

  26. White terrorists, armed to the teeth, take over a national park. These same terrorists put BLM officers under ambush and force them to abandon their jobs. The latter, no shots fired and no one was molested. The second one, a deadbeat welfare recipient drew a weapon and was killed, LaVoy is a goner. Gun ownership by those that want to live outside of the law should never be acceptable, Nelson thinks so though. He supports these terrorists with his rhetoric, because “God” tells them that is the way it is done.

  27. Ray Charles is a dead as your ideas Nelson. At least he was a brilliant entertainer and certainly not a quitter or a pouter.

  28. Stace Nelson

    @Jerry Just because some jack-wagon like you throws such utter male bovine excrement out in a blog post, doesn’t make one iota of the nonsense you typed, factual. I challenge you to cite the bills I sponsored that support your idiotic assertions. The facts are? I fought for private property rights of all South Dakotans, against eminent domain usage. I fought against illegal search and seizure efforts by state law enforcement. The problems we face in the USA are from clowns like you who run off at the mouth maligning people and spreading YOUR ignorant prejudices purely out of hate and ignorance. put up or shut-up, Jackwagon… Cite the bills I personally sponsored that support your libel.

  29. Sam: “The data is biased toward the liberal agenda.”

    Data doesn’t hold a bias Sam. You could argue someone can resort to bias when they interpret such data, but the data itself is 100% neutral.

    The numbers don’t lie – people do though.

  30. Why Mr. Nelson, you are sounding like you are anti-cop will those “illegal search” thingy’s. You are typical with what goes on in Pierre by speaking out of both sides of you mug. You all want it both ways so you can hide behind either one as needed. Typical pol.

  31. @Jenny: The actual numbers killed by police vary depending upon which metric you look at (and before we go there, let’s all remind ourselves that the vast, vast majority of people killed by police are legitimate shootings where a credible threat to an officer and/or other civilian prompted the shooting).

    There are actually more (in sheer numbers) white people killed by police each year, but as a percentage of population, there are more blacks killed by police. Blacks make up around 13% of the US population yet they are 24% of the deaths at the hands of police. So both sides are right depending upon how they wish to spin it. And spin it they do.

    Now before we make assumptions about race alone, we would need to neutralize variables to determine if race is really the factor here. The fact is, low income citizens of all races are at a much higher risk of being shot by police. Those who live in high population density areas are also at a higher risk. This is because more violent crime is committed in cities, and more crime is committed by those of lower incomes.

    When you look at the breakdown of other races, you see that they aren’t as far out of whack. In fact Asians are killed by police at a rate below their percentage of the population, and it isn’t a coincidence that Asians have a higher income per capita than other races. So big picture – we likely have a poverty issue which produces more crime, and that crime often leads to police shootings. This isn’t the “fault” of any specific race as it is a societal issue and poverty tends to continue generation after generation which means we experience the same issues decade after decade. So over time some perceive one race as being the problem, and that leads to profiling, more arrests, more crime, more people in prison and the cycle continues.

    Sociologists probably have a lot of good suggestions on how we could begin to address these issues, but for the time being this is where we are. We can’t stop humans from killing one another, and there will always be the need for law enforcement to defend themselves from someone who wishes to harm them, but perhaps we could do a better job of resorting to firearms as a truly last resort rather than (as we recently saw in Minnesota) the first reaction an officer has to someone who is just reaching into a pocket.

    Do we have an issue with race? Certainly – but not all cops are racist, and not all black people are criminals. The real issue is more complex than just skin color.

  32. Stace Nelson

    @Jerry In what delusional sicknfantasy do you know what I think. How about you stick to muddling through your own Freudian case study existence, and leave your nonsensical hypothising about me out of sensible conversations.

    @Rorschach You and Jerry’s obsessive fascination with me might be disturbing to someone less secure, and bespeaks of latent tendencies. To address your ignorant assertion, It was the legal and formal opinion of the SD Attorney General in 2011, that Craig Tiezen, Gene Abdallah, and myself were covered under the and were explicitly able and requested to carry in the Capitol in 2011 out of concerns for legislators’ safety in the aftermath of the attack on Congresswoman Gifford. So, you are wrong (as usual) in your ignorant conjecture.

    You are correct in reciting my position of record that the 2nd Amendment does not require conceal carry permits for law-abiding people to enjoy their Constitutional right.

  33. Stace: “The irony of the Left’s attacks on LE while saying LE should be the only ones with guns?”

    I think reality is somewhere in between the left wanting to take everyone’s guns away, and the right wanting everyone to have a gun.

    Yes there are SOME on the left that believe nobody (perhaps aside from law enforcement or military) should have guns, but those are the small minority on the fringe. Most on the left that I have spoken to or heard from or read about aren’t talking about complete bans but instead want gun control. They want to ensure those with histories of violence can’t buy a gun, or those with documented mental health disorders can’t pass a background check.

    Will these things stop all gun crime? Nope. But if it prevents even a small percentage isn’t that a good thing?

    I’m a gun owner myself and would never support any attempt to remove firearms from the hands of the law abiding citizen. I don’t feel restrictions on the type of rifle or the existence of a bayonet mount will have any impact upon the amount of gun violence whatsoever, and I don’t think such laws will prevent mass shootings in the future, but I am willing to at least talk about some common sense reforms that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals or those who have mental health disorders.

    What I do know is our current system doesn’t work. I know this because I have an acquaintance that was in an inpatient mental health facility and was documented as a danger to himself and a danger to others. When he was released, not only was he able to keep his rather large collection of firearms, but he actually was able to purchase another one a few months later. I’ve filled out the ATF form myself and know it asks about the “danger to others” issue so I asked him point blank. His response? He just lied on the form – and nobody to this day has ever called him out on it.

    The system will never work when someone can just lie and get what they want. Surely there has to be a better way.

  34. Don’t flatter yourself Mr. Nelson – though I know it’s hard for you in particular to avoid. I like to point out your hypocrisy, your foolish and extreme positions, and your narcissism.

  35. Stace Nelson

    @Jerry You showcase your ignorance with such comments. I’m about as typical a politician as you are a stellar member of the intellectual community. One of the first bills I ever brought Dully noted that you have not cited even one bill to support your ignorant claims about me.

    @Craig and Jenny There is s reason for the numbers and the anticop narrative pushed by the Left HURTS black communities more

  36. And I doubt if Senator Tieszen – whose name you misspelled – or Rep. Abdallah appreciate you publicizing that they carry concealed.

  37. Speaking of ignorance Mr. Nelson, you have that bullcrap mountain all to yourself. You and your kind are exactly what the state of South Dakota keeps needing, more bullcrap slathered with a generous coating of stupidity. Don’t listen to me though, listen to the voters of the state when they showed you exactly how they interpreted your silly message. How did you do on that state wide vote Mr. Nelson, I can’t seem to remember the outcome, but it sure put you on the pity pot.

  38. “@Rorschach You and Jerry’s obsessive fascination with me might be disturbing to someone less secure, and bespeaks of latent tendencies.”

    Wow. That’s a state legislator.

  39. Stace Nelson

    @Rorschach Thanks for the chuckles. My positions are all long held traditional American beliefs, and you got zilch on the hypocrisy and narcissism claims. But you keep playing goofy internet anonymous doctor with an ironical right-wing comic book character’s name.

  40. stace they dont like cops or peoples religen here dude. just sayin n they want our guns

  41. I am sure that Senator Tieszen and former Representative Abdallah share my opinion that you are an idiot’s idiot overly fond of his own bloviation (a word Sen. Tieszen uses from time to time). Neither one of them would welcome having their name in the same sentence as yours, Mr. Nelson. Please stop associating yourself with those fine public servants.

  42. I am sure this will break your “only conservative in the race” heart.

    Ouch, biff, bang blooey! Progressives win one for the team!

  43. Stace Nelson

    @Jerry I lost a 5 way race where each candidate claimed to be as conservative as me, to a career politician lying that he was conservative like me, who outspent me 17(?) to 1. The candidate who had that election bought for him with DC $? Mouthed my “silly message” to fool the voters and win the election. So, your low brow efforts to insult were DOA.

  44. Bob Newland

    Cops pretty much do what they are told to do. Unfortunately, cops are the point of interface between the politicians and the people.

    The politicians have been passing ever-more vicious laws in an attempt to (among other things) protect the pharmacy/industrial complex from competition with non-govermentally-approved substances. The prohibition of some “drugs” has made it immensely profitable for some people to supply those substances to a market desirous of them.

    The politicians told the cops to stop this market activity by any means necessary. That has led to hundreds of murders of innocent people by cops, along with the SWAT phenomena that is designed to provide opportunity to shoot people, “innocent” or “guilty.”

    The principle effect of drug prohibition has been to create suppression and oppression of minority populations and lower economic classes in general. Two side effects are a steadily increasing appetite for psychoactive substances and hatred of the thugs hired by the politicians to enforce unconscionable laws.

  45. You just called someone else low brow when no more than a half hour ago you insinuated some men were “obsessed” with you because they were latent homosexuals. And you did it publicly as a seated representative in the State of South Dakota. The fact this isn’t going to be so much as a blip on anyone’s radar is mind blowing.

  46. So then, who won? It does not look like you really had an impact on that. You should try again to amuse the rest of us. PS, try spending some money if you can find someone who will support your “conservative” ways. Looks like those were indeed DOA.

  47. mike from iowa

    So, your low brow efforts to insult were DOA.

    Did’ya shoot’em with your shooty gun, Ace?

  48. Mr. Nelson is obsessed with me, Dicta. He’s desperately trying to figure out who I am, and repeatedly shows his frustration about not knowing.

    You’re welcome for the chuckles, Mr. Nelson. I’m picturing the Pillsbury doughboy commercials. Now I’m chuckling.

  49. I’m just surprised how blatantly an elected official uses implications of homosexuality as an insult. I mean, it’s right there.

  50. This will certainly help the policing situations around the country. Thanks progressives

  51. Mr Nelson, again, here we are with your broadbrush painting of things, and defensiveness. Yes, you are correct, law enforcement is a dangerous gig. No doubt. But please stop digging in your heels, and not recognizing (or refusing to, I can’t decide where you are) that there are racial problems in this country. And that white privilege doesn’t exist. It does!! And specifically, when it comes to law enforcement. No, no, no, I’m not saying all LEO’s are racist, they aren’t. No way no how. But also, not all people of color are cop haters. The Rodney King tape should have woken us up race relations/law enforcement, and that was how many years ago? And now, in today’s age, with so much more video and audio readily available – actually being able to show those times when police officers are exploiting their badge and their powers to use excessive force and be racist, can you imagine the things that HAVEN’T been captured on video/audio? If you think that isn’t out there, you are putting your head in the sand.

    White privilege. You want examples of where your white privilege has helped you. Just the mere fact that you even say something like that, shows that you being white (and male) hasn’t hurt you one bit, and has actually helped you. The first step in improving or helping things, is recognizing that there is a problem. You refuse to do that. Rapid City Police Chief Jegeris admits there is a problem with race relations and it taking steps, as a community, to try to improve that. Dallas Police Chief, in his press conference this morning, flat out said that “we in law enforcement have a ways to go” in improving LEO relations with the community. If officers (and those that defend police) keep drawing lines in sand and refuse to recognize that there are issues, that is very disturbing and explains why improvement, if any, is slow. You really can’t comment until you’ve walked a mile….

    The BLM movement isn’t anti-cop. They are anti BAD cops. Anti RACIST cops. Is there a person from time to time that claim to be a part of that movement that are anti cop? Sure. But that is the minority. Once the good officers start standing up and rooting out the bad/racist cops, then communities of color are going to start taking LEO’s efforts seriously. But when people are bloviating, saying that there is no such thing as white privilege, cops can do no wrong, etc etc……then I’m afraid we have a long way to go.

    Side note. I’m a retired LEO of 28 years from a big city in Colorado. So yeah, I think I’m fairly qualified to talk about these things with a degree of knowledge and confidence. I just don’t feel that I need to remind everyone of my background everytime I post on this blog. Mr Nelson, that is really weird that you do that. Really weird.

    Now, I’ll wait, while you ready a response to me telling me how full of it I am and whatever wording that you like to use. And then, like you did a few years ago, tell me to move back to Colorado. I’ll wait…..

  52. I’m not offended by Stacey Nelson’s insinuations, Dicta. Their just the typings of a highly secure person, as he describes himself. And he’s not an elected official.

  53. Mr. Dicta, my dad used to tell me when I was a kid that when someone is obsessed with a lie like that, it usually means that is what they are. Bless his heart, he does seem to be in the know about such things as the conversation was about police.

  54. “I’m not offended by Stacey Nelson’s insinuations, Dicta. Their just the typings of a highly secure person, as he describes himself. And he’s not an elected official.”

    My fault, I forgot he didn’t run for re-election in 2014. He’s a candidate for Senate in 2016, right? I don’t think you are offended, btw, but it’s disappointing to see someone use being gay as a shot at someone else. That’s playground in the early 90’s nonsense.

  55. bearcreekbat

    Craig, is your observation that “I don’t feel restrictions on the type of rifle or the existence of a bayonet mount will have any impact upon the amount of gun violence,” consistent with our experience in regulating machine guns? When is the last time that we have heard news reports of an American criminal using a machine gun for mass shootings?

  56. Oh, come on, boys. Stace is not a bad person, just gets a bit riled up like we all do when it comes to opposing viewpoints.
    I think his lines about the obsession with him was funny myself.

  57. Funny in a good way, Stace. :)

  58. Mr. Buresch, how many of these protests have you attended? BTW, what do you think the protests are really about? Are they unhappy because of lack of employment, lack of schools, lack of police protection? Nope, the common denominator is the murder of unarmed black men by rogue police. So when you heard that chant from all the Black Lives Matter protests you have attended, that chant has been directed at those rogue police that shoot and kill unarmed minority men.
    It is hard to protest something that has not harmed you or your community. Take a look at yourself, when do you protest and why?

  59. Stace Nelson

    @Dana P Who is labeling whom and what, with broad stereo type brushes… It is absolutely asinine to lump in unrelated incidents across the nation, and claim correlations and wide spread problems, where there are none. It is intellectually dishonest and a disservice to some of the most criminally oppressed communities in our nation, who are in the greatest need for the very police departments that they are being encouraged, to perpetuate stereo types vilifying the cops and alienate them from the very people they need. Everyone has instinctual distrust of people different from themselves, EVERYONE has the potential to be racists and bigots. Pushing the narrative that cops are white, racists and bad, that there is a major problem, when there is none? That is racism.

    @Jenny God bless you, you get me. I prefer good old fashioned fisticuffs (thus my straightforward, unpretentiousness, civil uncivil responses) but, alas… who will dance the beautiful mad fandango with an ugly, old, broken down, narcissist, like me… ?

  60. Stace Nelson

    @Dicta Moses! There are so many problems In the world, and you feel the need to break out a microscope to imagine a social slight? Subtlety is not my forte. If offense is intended? I am more than happy to retort offensiveness with genuine affront. What’s telling is the examination of your Freudian slips expressed as you stumbled over yourself.

    Good for Rorschach and Jenny for spotting sarcasm.

  61. One of the primary reasons I live in South Dakota is that I don’t need a gun to feel safe out here. It would be a fruitless chore to have to lug my pistol around with me just to feel safe – and then you would all have to question my penis size too.

    People who think you need a gun for your safety in SD are more paranoid delusional than the gun owners in most every other state. Thank God that the rest of the country gives barely any attention to our backwards defunct philosophies on guns and more.

    Maybe we should be the last state in the union to allow the sale of guns to terrorists? That would be the most pro gun thing you nut bags could ever stand for. Come on, pony up with your cold dead hands and —- – fight for your obsolete puritanical ideology.

  62. “Subtlety is not my forte.”

    We get that, Stace. You weren’t subtle at all.

  63. @bcb – if one wishes, they can still purchase a “machine gun” (aka: fully automatic rifle)… it just requires the right paperwork with the ATF and a barrel full of cash.

    That said, if one wished they could modify a weapon to essentially be fully auto quite easily. These days you can even purchase an off-the-shelf stock that includes a buffer spring so the gun will essentially shoot as a full auto even though the trigger assembly is setup for semi-auto.

    As far as when the last time I heard of a machine gun used for a mass shooting… well – that depends. I hear of machine guns used for mass shootings all the time, but there is just because the average journalist has no idea what a semi-automatic gun is, so they often mistakenly call them machine guns. I think your point is probably when is the last time an actual machine gun was used in a mass shooting to which I’d admit I have no idea. Most shootings are done with semi-automatic handguns and some are done with semi-automatic rifles. There is a reason even our military transitioned away from fully automatic shoulder fire weapons – because they waste ammunition and are less accurate. One could argue a semi-automatic weapon could actually inflict more damage simply due to accuracy because the gunman isn’t likely to run out of ammunition as quickly.

    I stand by my statement – but I made it in context of our current debate. Many think we should ban “assault weapons”, but the definition of what some consider an assault weapon is so vague it is hard to know what they mean. Since most gun violence is from handguns, I find the assault weapon speak to simply be based in fear because a little black rifle looks scary and menacing, so they make easy targets (no pun intended). I’ve known many hunters who own semi-automatic shotguns and you can actually purchase magazines for some of them that can hold dozens of shells. So in theory they could be used in mass shootings too although I’ve yet to hear of anyone suggesting they should be banned.

    If someone really has their mind set on hurting others, the weapon probably isn’t as dangerous as the mind. We saw that on 9/11, we saw that in Oklahoma City, we saw that in Boston… and I’m sure we will see it again.

  64. mike from iowa

    who are in the greatest need for the very police departments that they are being encouraged, to perpetuate stereo types vilifying the cops and alienate them from the very people they need.

    Cops are doing a bang up job alienating themselves from those they swear to protect and serve.

  65. bearcreekbat

    Craig, I agree that regulating or restricting any weapon is not going to end violence or murders. On the other hand, if we could restrict access to certain weapons we might actually reduce a killer’s ability to commit some mass murders.

    I quit using the term “assault” rifle for the same reason you mention – people get hung up on definitions. My choice of terms is semi-automatic rifle with large magazines as that seems to be the weapon of choice for many killers.

    I have searched google to find any reports of machine gun murders or fully automatic murders, but have found only reports of mass murders with semi-automatic rifles. This suggests that the high cost and paperwork involved in acquiring a fully automatic weapon has discouraged killers from trying to obtain one. It seems to me that is a good result and it would make sense to treat semi-automatic and large magazines in the same manner.

    Your point about semi-automatics being more effective than fully automatics reinforces my argument, as well as your point about how easy it would be to convert a semi-automatic into a fully automatic. If we make it very difficult and expensive for people to obtain existing semi-automatic large magazine weapons, and prohibit the future manufacture and sale of them to civilians, these weapons will gradually become as rare and hard to get as fully automatics.

  66. mike from iowa

    White privilege at work. Ex wingnut blogger pulls gun at a BLM rally in Portland, Oregon and gets shot to pieces by LE-NOT!

  67. mike from iowa

    North Hollywood bank robbery from 15 years ago had select fire Aks and a fully auto AR-15.

  68. mike from iowa

    North Hollywood shootout was 19 years ago.

  69. Stace, name one Leftist legislator you served with who is part of an “anti-cop movement.”

  70. bcb: “If we make it very difficult and expensive for people to obtain existing semi-automatic large magazine weapons, and prohibit the future manufacture and sale of them to civilians, these weapons will gradually become as rare and hard to get as fully automatics.”

    Perhaps not quite as rare since there have been millions produced (fully auto machine guns were never sold in such quantities), but I get your point.

    However, who decides what constitutes a large magazine? 30 rounds is fairly typical for an AR-15 used at a range or for hunting coyotes, but in some areas we have limits of 10 rounds or perhaps 15. New York City, Chicago, California, and several other areas have these limits in place already but they don’t do much to stem gun violence.

    I’m somewhat torn. I know the vast majority of such hardware is purchased and used by law abiding gun owners. So I have a hard time banning something which is simply abused by a small minority. If I thought it would actually result in lives being saved perhaps, but since most shootings are via handgun and semi-automatic handguns typically hold 10-17 rounds, I doubt limiting magazine sizes will really help. We are never going back to the days of a single fire musket or a time when revolvers held five or six shots and that was it.

    I suspect this is more of a feel good item. Someone could carry half a dozen 10round magazines and do as much damage as someone carrying two 30 round magazines but there is the inconvenience of reloading (although that doesn’t seem to have slowed some of our recent mass shootings). Someone could also carry a lever action rifle or even a bolt action rifle and inflict mass damage if they knew what they were doing. In fact a simple shotgun with five or six shells can be deadly and with quick loading tubes they can be reloaded in seconds.

    If we really wanted to ban any gun capable of being used in a mass shooting… aren’t we talking about banning all guns? Like it or not the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms and although some limits seem acceptable, I don’t foresee the day where we will ban assault rifles or semi-automatic weapons. Even if we did, I don’t feel it would prevent mass shootings or mass murders. If someone wants to kill, the tool they use isn’t really as important. Guns are convenient, but cars, explosives, and poisons have been shown to be capable of much worse.

  71. I love it when people trivialize the definitions of words like “large magazines” and “assault weapons” in order thwart smart civilized people from talking about improving gun control.

    I’d bet that >50% of South Dakota would do away with background checks on gun purchases altogether. I’d also bet that gun nuts secretly love it when mass shootings take place – it’s the only reason I can imagine for defending the status quo.

  72. bearcreekbat

    Craig, my idea is really a pipe dream these days anyway.

    Adam, I expect that most gun owners are heartbroken by mass killings. The main beneficiaries of mass shootings are the owners of the current NRA – gun manufacturers and sellers. Sales of semi-automatics tend to spike shortly after every mass murder, which lines the pockets of those folks in the business. See e.g.:

  73. Donald Pay

    Here are my two cents.

    I suspect the folks on this thread who say that there isn’t a “major problem” with how police are or are not policing in certain places aren’t going to understand it no matter how many facts are presented. When ideology trumps facts, you are a long way down the road to never solving the issue peacefully. So keep on ignoring the facts, and you can keep up the nonsensical rhetoric for as long as you can bear to watch the bodies stack higher.

    I’m about half the size of Stace, but I have never felt it necessary to carry a weapon for protection. I don’t have a problem with folks out in the country or women working late at night carrying a weapon if they desire. But when some man in the middle of the afternoon in downtown Rapid City feels a desperate need to carry I consider him nothing more than a puffed up, preening pussy, so completely out of touch with reality that it automatically ought to disqualify him from owning a gun.

    So, yeah, I’d register guns and license gun owners. Too many of them think they are living in the days of Wyatt Earp. Hey, it’s 2016. And gun owners ought to prove their sanity and their ability to handle a firearm (ie., can they shoot straight should be a minimum requirement). And if you commit a crime with a gun, no matter if no one is injured, it’s bye-bye for a long time. And if you are a domestic abuser, no gun for you.

    What many people don’t understand is that most people in crime-filled minority communities want an active police force and an effective justice system. They want the police to focus on deterring criminal behavior and catching criminals, not harassing law-abiding citizens, and not being judge, jury and executioner.

    So, policing needs to change drastically. I understand the need to have some “militarized” police training to prepare for certain types of incidences, but turning residential streets in an Iraqi-like war zone is way overboard.

  74. owen reitzel

    what you are suggesting Donald is common sense gun control. That’s what most people are asking for. Sadly the far right uses the excuses that the their guns are being taken away, which just isn’t the case.

  75. oh brother . . . meanwhile

    1. 20 to 30 ammosexuals practiced open carry of long guns in and around the peaceful Dallas demonstration. Exactly none of them did anything to subdue the killer. Feel safer yet?

    2. The city of Dallas, its mayor and nationally regarded police chief criticized the Texas state open-carry law saying it made the shooting situation far more confusing and complex since the officers were unable in the echo chamber of a city downtown, to discern where the shots came from — so anyone carrying a gun was a suspect — and many, perhaps most were taken into custody until cleared — thus detracting from the killing emergency at hand. “When you have gunfire going on, you usually go with the person with a gun.” Feel safer yet?

  76. mike from iowa

    Meanwhile a prisoner took a deputy’s gun away and killed two bailiffs in Michigan court house today. Prisoner was killed shortly thereafter.

    So, I guess it is true someone took someone’s gun away from them.

  77. Truly, John, open carry is an anti-police policy… And y’all don’t have to take our for it, listen to the Dallas Police Chief lately.

    One time, I heard SD Sen. Larry Rhoden say something to the effect that, “the stupidest thing I’ve EVER HEARD was someone trying to tell me that the good guys won’t know who to shoot at if everyone has guns during a shooting.” – and he was promoting kids and professors all having guns on campus and in class rooms. – which in itself is one of the most misguided thing I have ever heard anyone say – LOL

    With open carry laws in effect, it it appears to take roughly 200 good guys, 5 will die and 8 will be injured, to stop one bad guy with a gun.

  78. dicta-“Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process.” cornell edu law

    when I get back to this i’ll try to show you why “fundamental” and 2nd amendment doesn’t belong in the same sentence. since yor so smart an’ everything. I could be wrong in my gut but Scalia died for your sins:)

    can’t remember if strict scrutiny applies but it makes me laugh thinking Scalia and his clerks wring their hands over how to make this slave killer phase vital to our nation’s welfare. and that you blow horn this bit of drivel like its meaningful.

    look forward to enduring your insults.

  79. I’m with Adam. I’m not here to have a gun-nerd tech debate. I’m here to have a practical, moral debate about how to keep police and the general public safer. The evidence above appears to show that high gun ownership rates correlate to more risk of violent death for police.

    And as John pointed out, there were lots of people openly carrying firearms on the street in Dallas, and not one of them helped stop the shooter. They only made it harder for police to do their jobs, because every moment that police officers spent looking at those fleeing gun-toters was a moment they were not looking at the real threat.

  80. “Open carry is detrimental to public safety, period.”

  81. barry freed

    The authors of this study are paid hacks, paid by Brady to travel the country lying with statistics

    your citation is over 20years old written by the Clinton Admin.

    You don’t need a gun as your neighbors are carrying all of your weight for you. That’s fine, just don’t think that your safety comes naturally and freely. You are invited to stroll in Falls Park in Sioux Falls or Memorial Park in Rapid after midnight. Stumble a little to illicit help from those there to shop for your property. Please report back when you get out of the hospital.

    ‘Death rates down, gun ownership up” … and that means more risk? What have you been drinking? You hypocritically condemn civilians for both having a gun and not using it as you preach for confiscation. Pick a lane.

    No real gun solution has ever been suggested on this blog. So let’s apply to the 1A, all laws promoted for the 2A. Most here would lose their 1A Right for cyber bullying, libel, and lying.

  82. mike from iowa

    You hypocritically condemn civilians for both having a gun and not using it as you preach for confiscation. Pick a lane.

    Barry-it is you and your boys that preach a good guy with a gun stops the bad guys with guns. How well did that work in Orlando and Dallas?
    Talk about hypocrisy. Your good guys with guns didn’t even make an attempt to stop the bad guy in Dallas. Now why is that? Because even armed they are gutless cowards!

  83. mike from iowa

    Now I want to hear your pathetic excuses for the cowardice of good guys with guns.

  84. Barry, you know I don’t drink anything stronger than orange juice and Cherry Pepsi.

    I offer two key bits of empirical evidence here. One says that, since the Reagan era, police deaths have steadily declined. The other says that, even with nationally declining rates, we still find differences in police murders from state to state, with the states with more guns also having more police deaths relative to states with fewer guns. There’s nothing contradictory in the co-existence of those two facts.

  85. What real gun solution do you want, Barry? I acknowledge that no law we pass next year will stop every violent act. I acknowledge that certain levels of safety require unacceptable infringements of liberty.

    I do contend that our national obsession with guns leads us to far overestimate the utility of guns in our daily lives. One way to check that obsession would be a marketing campaign showing video of those ammosexual gun-toters at the Dallas BLM rally running terrified and fecklessly away from the shooting. As Mike says, a lot of good those guns did.

    Another would be to limit the size of magazines for rifles, just as we do for shotguns in hunting. No civilian really needs more than a six-shooter. Allowing 30-round clips to be sold freely unnecessarily infringes on the liberty of other citizens to defend themselves from shooters.

    Another would be to follow the rich case law from around the country that the Ninth Circuit used to rule that the 2A does not include a sacred right to carry concealed weapons (recall: and at least not expand concealed carry rights any further.

    Another would be to repeal the school gunslinger law. Tri-Valley made the wrong decision (recall: rather than teaching our kids that we have to have guns to solve our problems, our schools must model to our students faith in our civil institutions.

    Another non-legislative solution would be to recognize (as Brooks Briscoe does! recall that the NRA isn’t fighting for our rights. The NRA is fighting for gunmaker profits. Just that cognitive shift would help us make more sense of gun law debates and come to more rational conclusions.

  86. barry freed

    Troll from Iowa,
    The cops didn’t know who to shoot, but civilians are supposed to discern that the guy dressed as a cop is the bad guy? As far as your intentionally provoking and insulting “cowardice” name calling rants: who have you ever served or saved?

    Obama won’t own a gun, seizes them from Vets by EO, but said he would buy assault weapons to keep around his wife and children if he had to live in Iowa. Another murder/suicide in the making.

  87. mike from iowa

    HTF did Obama get dragged into the good guys with guns turned tail and ran?
    Put your money and guns where your mouth is and go stop a bad guy with a gun, tool. Actions talk, bull#### walks!

  88. barry: “You are invited to stroll in Falls Park in Sioux Falls or Memorial Park in Rapid after midnight.”

    Technically Falls Park officially closes at 10PM so you shouldn’t invite anyone there after midnight, but I have to ask… do you actually live your life in constant fear and need to carry a gun with you?

    I’ve lived my entire life without ever feeling the need to have a gun on me. I have the right to – and I have the license that says I can conceal my handguns, but yet I don’t bother because I’ve never felt that I needed one. Yet I’ve never been shot, stabbed, assaulted, or otherwise inconvenienced to the point I regretted my decision to leave my guns at home.

    Personally if someone feels they cannot be safe without a gun and fears being in a park after dark without their sidearm…. I’d guess their insecurities are a bigger concern here.

  89. barry freed

    Nobody said anything about “every” violent act, and not “every” violent act is committed with guns as your line suggests. That is cheap debate. In school debates, how many points does one lose for such distractions?

    Cory said: “I acknowledge that no law we pass next year will stop every violent act. I acknowledge that certain levels of safety require unacceptable infringements of liberty.”

    You won’t accept those very infringements on the 1A and you surely can’t claim that words don’t kill. (Please God, let us limit MFI to three words per post)

    “ammosexual”, more cheap sensationalism meant to obscure a lack of argument. One would think a homosexual would be more sensitive to such language. You can’t blame those you would disarm for not fulfilling your Dirty Harry fantasy. You can’t have it both ways and civilians ARE using guns to stop crimes every day.

    So that’s it? Limiting magazine size will do it? Your claim is a good guy won’t hide behind cover and shoot an active shooter, but he will leave cover to rush the active shooter’s gun in the 2.2 seconds it takes to change a mag. Of course not, so your next thought will be: ban everything if my fantasy can’t be true.

    Let’s forgo dismantling your other urban legends and stick to magazines for now. Keep selling, you haven’t found the magazine solution yet, but please deal with the frustration of being wrong, and leave the name calling for the trolls.

  90. mike from iowa

    Fake Noise firearms expert on Dallas shootings-
    During a discussion on the guns used against police in Dallas, and how you can get them, Fox News hosts invited on a “forensics expert” by the name of Jennifer Barringer, to offer more insight.

    What she gave was nothing short of nonsense. Barringer puts her ignorance regarding firearms on full display for the world to see.

    “These guys could have used hunting rifles, in fact,” said Barringer. ” The big difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle is, frankly, the scope that one puts on it.

    The fun doesn’t stop there, though, as Barringer continues to embarrass herself.
    “This could have been done on spurt of the moment, with a hunting rifle very easily, as long as it was a double shot weapon,” said Barringer. “They could easily do it with something you could purchase at a grocery store.”

    OH my.

  91. bearcreekbat

    barry, your comment that my “citation is over 20years old written by the Clinton Admin” is unclear. What is your point – you doubt the integrity of the factual reporting from the DOJ during the Clinton administration? Do you have something more recent to show that our country’s criminals and mass shooters are hoarding and using fully automatics for their criminal activity, after we began heavily regulating such weapons?

    While probably not politically feasible in light of the NRA ownership of Republicans, it is a reasonable prediction, based on our factual experience with regulating fully automatic weapons, if we stopped the future manufacture and sale of semi-automatics with large magazines, and required current owners of such weapons to register and license them, they would eventually become as rare as fully automatics.

    And good guys who want such a weapon should have no problem working with law enforcement by registering the semi-automatics and working to keep such weapons away from bad guys, just as the folks who own fully automatic weapons do today.

    This is a practical common sense solution aimed at reducing the availability of mass kill weapons to killers that has worked very well with full-autos while totally protecting our 2nd Amendment rights, including the 2nd Amendment right to own a fully automatic machine gun. Indeed, as many posters have pointed out you can still own a machine gun as long as it was manufactured before 1986 and you comply with the application procedure and background check. I still don’t see the down side of doing the same thing with semi-automatics with large magazines.

  92. mike from iowa

    (Please God, let us limit MFI to three words per post)

    Too late, tool. Yer god don’t exist. Trust me on this one.

  93. barry freed

    Oh, so they banned travel in Falls Park as some would ban guns. That ended crime after 10pm, right? Don’t suggest that because someone is aware of potentially dangerous places and situations that they live in fear. It is also a cheap distraction from the point being made.

    So your Doctorate in Psychology is the basis for your concern?

  94. barry freed

    My point is it is your citation old, it was biased from conception, i.e. lacking in truthfulness. We knew him to be a liar when early on he said: “I smoked but didn’t inhale” He either lied about inhaling or he lied in his actions to convince the other smokers, he too. was cool.

    Nobody cared about full auto in the 30’s for the same reason as now: they aren’t that much fun when they can eat up $300 per minute in ammo. Like now, it didn’t affect anybody but the gangsters, who weren’t affected much. In reality, with people like Nixon in mind, the Law was aimed more at Unions and community organizers than gangs.

    When we get your ban, we can be like Australia, increased violence and rape.

    BCB said: I still don’t see the down side of doing the same thing with semi-automatics with large magazines.

    Just a little thing called the Bill of Rights, the thing that keeps you out of jail and lawsuit trouble with the 1A.

  95. mike from iowa

    Sorry Barry, but I seriously doubt Bill Clinton wrote the report for his justice department. Maybe you can get congress to open another investigation so they can impeach him again.

  96. bearcreekbat

    barry, then would you contend that our current regulation of machine guns also violates the Bill of Rights? If that is your position my argument fails and we are probably at the end of any meaningful discourse on my proposal.

    But if you believe our current regulations on full-autos is consistent with the Bill of Rights then your argument is difficult to understand – why does the Bill of Rights prohibit similar regulations on semi-autos and large magazines?

    And if the regulation of machine gun ownership violates the Bill of Rights, would that also be true of our current regulations limiting who can own other types of guns and defining the steps that must be taken when acquiring a gun from a licensed seller?

    In your view do all of the regulations concerning guns contained in the follow statutory schemes violate the Bill of Rights?

    (1) National Firearms Act (“NFA”) (1934);

    (2) Federal Firearms Act of 1938;

    (3) Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968;

    (4) Gun Control Act of 1968;

    (5) Firearm Owners Protection Act;

    (6) Undetectable Firearms Act;

    (7) Gun-Free School Zones Act;

    (8) Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act;

    (9) Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

    Under your view of the Bill of Rights what sort of regulations over guns are permissible, if any?

    And did you find any documentation supporting your statement that gangs in America are killing each other with fully automatics?

  97. barry: “Oh, so they banned travel in Falls Park as some would ban guns. That ended crime after 10pm, right?”

    I never said it did – I merely said you shouldn’t be inviting someone to a park when the park is closed. If you want to ignore the laws that is your choice. Either way if I was visiting Falls Park at 1:00AM I still wouldn’t feel the need to have a gun with me, but you seem to be suggesting someone would end up in a hospital if they fail to do so.

    “Don’t suggest that because someone is aware of potentially dangerous places and situations that they live in fear. It is also a cheap distraction from the point being made.”

    I’m not sure what the point being made actually is. You seem to suggest you can’t go to a park in the middle of the night without a handgun otherwise you’re sure to end up in the hospital, and to me that suggests you would be afraid to go to a park late at night without a gun. If that isn’t living in fear I’m not sure what is.

    “So your Doctorate in Psychology is the basis for your concern?”

    You said something about a cheap distraction earlier…. remind me again how that works.

  98. Don Coyote

    @cah: “No civilian really needs more than a six-shooter.” Why just six? Seems like an arbitrary number to me. Why not 10 or 12? Just as arbitrary.

    The fact is most semi-automatic handguns don’t have 6 shot magazines and those size magazines aren’t made for them. I own a handgun with a 12 shot magazine and 10 shot magazines are no longer made for it. Almost impossible to find. By outlawing larger magazines you are de facto instituting gun confiscation by making millions of guns illegal to possess.

  99. barry: “When we get your ban, we can be like Australia, increased violence and rape.”

    First of all barry, that is a strawman as nobody is calling for a complete ban on firearms. Second, I’m not sure where you get your information, but the crime rate in Australia – including the amount of firearm related shootings – has dropped considerably.

    “In the seven years before the [Australian National Firearms Agreement], the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)”

    One might also note that since the NFA in 1996, Australia hasn’t experienced a single mass shooting incident.

    That said, it is a false comparison, because nobody is suggesting anything like the Australian NFA.

    BCB said: I still don’t see the down side of doing the same thing with semi-automatics with large magazines.

    barry: “Just a little thing called the Bill of Rights…”

    barry again you’re being deliberately dishonest. The Bill of Rights doesn’t prevent the government from placing certain restrictions on gun ownership and that has been confirmed by the SCOTUS. This is why there are regulations surrounding the transfer of full-auto rifles and why some cities and states have successfully banned things like high capacity magazines. The Bill of Rights would not in any way prevent states or the federal government from placing the same restrictions upon semi-automatic weapons as they already do on full-automatic weapons.

  100. mike from iowa

    Here is a white knight for the Stace Nelson’s and Barry Freed’s of the world-

    This nutjob has been banned from so many courts for filing frivolous lawsuits, it is a wonder he can actually ever get to court.

  101. Coyote, there has to be a number. That number will always be somewhat arbitrary. But we cannot let fear of slight arbitrariness paralyze us and thus allow everything. We know zero is too low. We know a million is too high. There is obviously some Goldilocks zone that we can approximate.

    I’m not going to confiscate your gun. I might require you to install a plug if you take that gun off your collector’s shelf, or at least to never load more than six shells (seven? four?) if you take that gun out for hunting.

    SDGFP forbids your hunting mourning doves with shotguns that hold more than three shells:

  102. Bob Newland

    Apparently no one thinks we should hold politicians accountable for giving impossible tasks to their hired thugs.

  103. mike from iowa

    Used to be you had to plug your shotguns to hunt waterfowl. 3 shell limit, plus federal duck stamp and habitat stamp plus hunting license. Plus ducks were scored by a points system. You were allowed 100 points and female ducks like Mallards were 90 point birds if I remember.

  104. barry freed

    Craig the GUN OWNER:

    You are after a complete ban, but you are not honest enough to admit to it. AU rapes and home invasions are through the roof since the ban, but yeah, they have fewer of the rare to practically non-existent mass shootings. Notice nobody rapes Monguls in AU, they have guns.

    The corrupt government, with the help of simpletons and fascists, passes unconstitutional laws all the time.

    I have been waiting patiently for the SCOTUS to find sobriety check points and forced taking of bodily fluids as unconstitutional, but they haven’t because they don’t decide law, they vote their own agendas. Liberals are fine with giving up the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. Just don’t touch the 1st as they LOVE to hear themselves lie, misrepresent what others say, and cyber bully.

  105. mike from iowa

    Barry the cherry picker-

    Australia did not “BAN” all guns. Gun ownership is down from 7% to 5% of citizens.

  106. Steve Sibson

    “Interestingly, South Dakota doesn’t seem to fit the latter correlation.”

    That means there are other factors, besides gun ownership, that are more influential on cop homicides…like Black Lives Matters Neo-Marxist propaganda.

  107. [CAH edit: Right on, Barry!!!!!!!!!!]

  108. Barry, your problem is that you’re trying to reduce all of your opponents to straw men by assigning to them an absolute position that they aren’t taking. Craig doesn’t want a complete ban on firearms. Neither do I. But Craig and I both agree there are some sensible restrictions we could impose to reduce gun violence.

  109. Steve Sibson

    “Australia did not “BAN” all guns. Gun ownership is down from 7% to 5% of citizens.”

    “Craig and I both agree there are some sensible restrictions we could impose to reduce gun violence.”

    Then why don’t you liberals just all move to Australia, and take Hillary and Obama with you. Perhaps then we can start teaching American kids some morals, personal accountability, and respect for others so that we can reduce crime and keep our AR15s at the same time.

  110. Steve, I’m gravely disappointed. You’ll notice that, as much as I disagree with various commenters on this thread and others, I never resort to telling those I disagree with to leave South Dakota or the United States. This land is my home. This land is your home. Neither of us has the right to demand that the other leave. We have a duty to figure out a practical modus vivendi.

    I happen to believe we can coexist better if we don’t allow people to walk down the street with machine guns and 500-round ammo belts.

  111. Daniel Buresh

    From Snopes: “The rates of various types of violent crimes (sexual assault, kidnapping, homicides of all types) have scarcely changed at all, and while the robbery rate rose substantially in the 1998-2001 timeframe”

    And to put it in a Marisa Tomei tone….”Now I ask you: Would you give a f— what kind of weapon the son of a b—- who killed you was using?!”

  112. Darin Larson

    Coyote says “By outlawing larger magazines you are de facto instituting gun confiscation by making millions of guns illegal to possess.”

    Yes, Don, it is a known fact that the gun industry doesn’t like to make money selling gun accessories. I’m sure no company would step in to make legal magazines. People would just have to throw their guns away.*************

    ************* denotes sarcasm.

  113. mike from iowa

    This is a reality for cops, but they show remarkable restraint in not murdering armed whites as opposed to unarmed Blacks.

  114. Steve Sibson

    Looks like the terrorists can still implement mass murder in countries that already have gun control:

  115. Great logic Sibson, the windscreen of the truck was riddled with bullet holes from the police. Lets see here, if all 84 men women and children would have been armed, when would they have had the opportunity to shoot the driver of an oncoming truck that is firing on them? You watch to many silly movies where it is one shot one kill. Grow up into the real world.

  116. The Dallas cop killer used Facebook to buy an AK-47, if you want something, you can get it, no matter where in the world you are.

  117. Steve Sibson

    “when would they have had the opportunity to shoot the driver”

    Sooner than it took for “the windscreen of the truck was riddled with bullet holes from the police.”

  118. mike from iowa

    Sibby, since you-as a good guy? with a gun- didn’t bother to save those people in France, stick a sock in it.

  119. Steve Sibson

    “You watch to many silly movies where it is one shot one kill.”

    That is why we need to keep our AR15s and all other semi-automatics that were banned in Australia.

  120. Daniel Buresh

    You can find an AK-47 in every gun shop and pawn shop in SD. Big deal if he went through facebook. Most are inaccurate worthless pieces of junk. The shooter was using a Saiga AK-74, which is built quite a bit better and a lot more accurate and reliable. Neither are prohibited to buy/sell. Saiga’s and Kalashnikov-made weapons have been banned for import so there are a limited number which is why their value has gone up quite a bit.

  121. mike from iowa

    Philando Castile murder video transcript. Warning-contains nasty verbiage.

  122. In Dallas, ALL of the good guys with guns ran away from the shooter – except the police.

    It showed what kind of heroics open carry loving citizens are actually capable of – turns out it’s zero.

  123. marisa, marisa, as much as we all love her…

    “Holmes fired 76 shots in the [aurora]theater: six from the tactical shotgun, 65 from the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle, and five from the .40-caliber Glock handgun.[23]…The first phone calls to emergency services via 9-1-1 were made at 12:39 am. Police arrived within 90 seconds[24]…. during the midnight screening of the film The Dark Knight Rises the gunman, dressed in tactical clothing, set off tear gas grenades and shot into the audience with multiple firearms. 12 people were killed and 70 others were injured, which was the largest number of casualties in a shooting in the United States[3] until the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. wiki

  124. I think some of these 82 victims would mind what kind of a magazine and AR15 was used.

  125. 90 seconds.

  126. and let’s not leave Daniel untested. “waiting patiently for the SCOTUS to find sobriety check points and forced taking of bodily fluids as unconstitutional, but they haven’t because they don’t decide law, they vote their own agendas.”

    in your opinion, dan. no factual or judicial reasoning involved, right?

  127. Sibson, where the hell were you when the country needed you to do that quick reaction shoot to kill? You need to be trained to shoot accurately when you are taking incoming. How fast do you think the truck was coming? What is the distance? That windscreen is not like looking at a drive in theater screen. Hitting a moving target is not easy and that is why you always go hungry at hunting season. You prefer roadkill, yummy.

  128. Daniel, Lee Harvey Oswald purchased a cheap gun (or did he?) through the US Mail. Those shots changed history. There is actually an unlimited amount of Kalashnikov’s in this country and they are not hard to find.

    Regarding the truck in Nice, France. Does it not make you wonder why a truck that was reported to be “loaded with automatic weapons, ammo and grenades” suddenly run through a crowd to kill just 84 people when those guns, ammo and grenades could have outfitted many shooters to do much more damage. Why did the driver do that?

  129. Turns out that the driver was just another mentally ill ammo sexual. The truck load of guns and ammo turns out to be as fake a the grenade not grenades. My own question is answered. So then, it then goes to the question of how a mentally ill man could possess a gun there just like here.

  130. Sibson, see all the cops. I cannot see someone like yourself being able to correctly get anything done but peeing your pants while you are running.

  131. If Sibson would have been in Dallas, he wouldn’t have ran when the shooting started. Like James Bond, his focus only would gotten clearer, and like the true apex predator he is, he’d have hunted down that bad guy and brought him to justice – before so many people had to die – and then he would have had hot sex with a gorgeous woman afterwards – just like James Bond – LMAO

  132. There’s never a reason / justification to ambush a cop or first responder.
    Yet, it is surprising that the revenge shootings did not begin much earlier. They are a predictable symptom of systemic policing / prosecutorial / and court abuses.
    First Dallas, now Baton Rouge. I sadly suspect there will be more prior to systemically addressing and fixing the problem.

    By the way note that the Cleveland police union begged the Ohio governor to suspend open-carry in Cleveland during the Republican Convention — for public safety. Someone learned a lesson from Dallas; the governor, not so much. There are ways to suspend this for a specific reason, specific area, etc., – look the convention areas have “freedom of expression zones” as a lawful gimmick to limit the constitutional right of freedom of expression – so why not put the open-carriers in an other fenced area to parade around?! And there is always the potential to declare martial law . . . .

  133. mike from iowa

    Kasich says no to gun ban. Claims city is ready for anything with the possible exception of open warfare on the streets.

  134. mike from iowa

    with the possible exception of open warfare on the streets.

    To keep people from freaking out, I added this part of the last sentence.