Police: Body found at US park is that of gunman
In this undated photo provided by the Pierce County Sheriff's Dept., Benjamin Colton Barnes, is shown. Officials said Barnes is a person of interest in the fatal shooting of a park ranger at Mount Rainier National Park, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2012 in Washington State. (AP Photo/Pierce County Sheriff's Dept.)
Associated Press By MIKE BAKER | AP – 58 mins ago
MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK, Washington (AP) — An armed Iraq War veteran suspected of killing a Mount Rainier National Park ranger managed to evade snowshoe-wearing SWAT teams and dogs on his trail for nearly a day. He couldn't, however, escape the cold.
A plane searching the remote wilderness for Benjamin Colton Barnes, 24, on Monday discovered his body lying partially submerged in an icy, snowy mountain creek with snow banks standing several feet high on either side.
"He was wearing T-shirt, a pair of jeans and one tennis shoe. That was it," Pierce County Sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said.
Barnes did not have any external wounds and appears to have died from the elements, he said. A medical examiner was at the scene to determine the cause of death. Troyer said two weapons were recovered, but he declined to say where they were located.
http://news.yahoo.com/police-body-found-us-park-gunman-224005459.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
...and it is not warranted. 
"Thanks for the meaningless drive-by! 2012 will be another GREAT year for those who support the RKBA!!!!!" in response to this post? 
"Aaaaaaaaaaaalrighty then." is right. 
If I may paraphrase your eminent jurist. 
No, it wouldn't work to deny firearms possession solely on the basis of somebody's proclivity for playing with guns and taking pictures of themself with guns.
People who do that, though, may be worth a closer look by the people around them and the appropriate authorities, if those people would take the trouble to seek some official/professional attention to the situation.
Where the behaviour is accompanied by other classic signs of potentially suicidal disturbance -- a potentially suicidal individual with a bunch of guns being at risk for homicide-suicide -- a mechanism for at least temporary removal of firearms is entirely reasonable, in the opinion of a lot of people.
-- even if you don't like the idea -- that making it mandatory to have a licence in order to acquire or possess firearms would reduce the risk in the case of people like these.
Not eliminate it -- Canada will still have its Kimveer Gills and the UK will still have its Michael Athertons on occasion; no system is perfect to start with, and no system never fails.
Licensing systems still rely on humans: honesty on the part of applicants, to some extent; cooperation and common sense on the part of spouses and family members at the time of application and any other time; the ability of authorites to detect problematic applicants; etc.
But at least there are more opportunities to detect and then deal with such people -- and fewer opportunities for them to access firearms, once a system is operating that reduces both legal sources and illegal sources of firearms for ineligible individuals, and makes it less likely that eligible but problematic individuals have legal access.
Interesting article about Loughner; not really possible to form any hypotheses from it all, is it? And apparently nothing there that would actually have resulted in him not passing a NICS check -- or that could have led to any action that would have had that effect, e.g. commitment for mental illness.
On the other hand, a licensing system might have flagged him. You've seen the Canadian application form:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/pdfs/5592EW.pdf
It includes:
If you answer YES to any of the questions in this section, you MUST provide details on a separate page. Add your name at the top of each page you attach. If details are not provided, your application cannot be processed.
A YES answer does not mean your application will be refused but it may lead to further examination.
If you have received a pardon for any offence listed in box 16 a), you are NOT required to disclose the offence.
16. a) During the past five (5) years, have you been charged, convicted or granted a discharge for an offence:
(i) under the Criminal Code or the Youth Criminal Justice Act where violence was used, threatened or attempted;
(ii) involving the misuse, possession or storage of a firearm; or
(iii) involving trafficking or importing drugs or controlled substances?
b) During the past five (5) years, have you been subject to a peace bond, protection order or an order under section 810 of the Criminal Code?
c) During the past five (5) years, have you or any member of your household been prohibited from possessing any firearm?
d) During the past five (5) years, have you threatened or attempted suicide, or have you suffered from or been diagnosed or treated by a medical practitioner for: depression; alcohol, drug or substance abuse; behavioural problems; or emotional problems?
e) During the past five (5) years, do you know if you have been reported to the police or social services for violence, threatened or attempted violence, or other conflict in your home or elsewhere?
f) During the past two (2) years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?
CONJUGAL STATUS (You must answer both questions 17 a) & b) or your licence application will be delayed)
17 a) Do you currently have a spouse, common-law or other conjugal partner?
b) Within the last two (2) years have you lived in a conjugal relationship other than with the person you may have referred to in question 17 a) above?
INFORMATION ABOUT CURRENT CONJUGAL PARTNER (see Information Sheet) ...
INFORMATION ABOUT FORMER CONJUGAL PARTNER ...
If the signature of your former spouse, common-law or other conjugal partner is not provided,
the Chief Firearms Officer has a duty to notify them of your application.
IF YOU HAVE ANY SAFETY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS APPLICATION, PLEASE CALL 1 800 ___.
j) Signature of former spouse, common-law partner or other conjugal partner ...
(plus requirement for the signature of two references, with the same "safety concerns" notice)
Those questions directly address known risk factors, for people at risk of committing suicide or harming others.
Now, we might say: who is going to answer "yes" to any of those questions in 16, if they really are suicidal or wanting to kill their estranged spouse, or hold up a gas bar?
Well, getting two references who aren't themselves criminals to sign a dishonest application could be a bit of a chore ... and in fact the whole exercise would be a bit of a chore, for someone who knew they were ineligible and lying (a criminal offence). A lot more of a chore (and probably with more consequences) that taking a flyer and lying on a NICS form, certainly.
There just isn't a huge problem in Canada or the UK, for example, with licensed firearms owners committing homicides or other crimes. Yes, a disturbed person whose family and friends are unwilling to acknowledge the problem can slip through - like Gill did in Canada. Or the system could fail the victims - as in the case of Atherton in the UK (and I find the police description of that case as "he said she said" appalling).
But overall, the system as a whole -- licensing and registration, and perhaps most importantly relatively stringent restrictions on handgun possession -- is very obviously a major factor in the much lower firearms homicide and crime rates in these countries. I'll offer that picture of spousal homicide in Canada over 30 years again as illustration.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2010000/part-partie4-eng.htm
Chart 4.2
Spousal homicides by sex,
Canada, 1980 to 2009
Chart 4.6
Firearm-related spousal homicides
by type of firearm, Canada, 1980 to 2009
Something is happening there, and I think it would be foolish to say that the firearms licensing system is not part of it.
But protect his right to bear those arms at all costs...
The recent threads in the old forum contain numerous jubilant posts about how many background checks for firearms purchases have been completed recently, and how many applications for permits to carry concealed firearms have been submitted recently.
(I'm not finding one thread I'm thinking of, but someone asked what all this jubilation was about. The replies were to the effect of how glorious it was to see so many people exercising their rights. I always think that's funny, myself. I've never had that reaction when I read statistics about numbers of abortions performed, even though they represent exercises of the most fundamental rights; I don't get all gleeful when I see people exercising their right of free speech to tell lies to the public or vilify vulnerable minorities or portray abuses of women; and I've never jumped for joy when I read of someone exercising their right to end their life. But whatever.)
From what I can tell, the individual who committed this crime was not disqualified from possessing firearms.
What can I conclude from this?
Well, I'd say: "you guys want him to carry in public" is what I can conclude from it. Should I be concluding something else, and if so, why, exactly?
I don't know what that last bit of your post is about. Just another tacky bit of personal commentary based on nothing, I expect.
A propos of nothing in the post to which I am replying, and just because the OP brought it to mind:
?size=l
Posers with guns ... That's Kimveer Gill, who took his pieces to Dawson College in Montreal a few years ago and only managed to kill one person (although he did seriously injure a few others). Quite the resemblance. Of course, he wouldn't actually have been able to buy one of the other guy's weapons, or the big mag, much, I am sure, to his chagrin.
You live in North Juarez - what do you expect?
/sarcasm and a hat tip to Wayne Lapierre
Requiescat in pace Margaret Anderson
But some seem to disapprove, so I'll let you figure out the myriad number of questions this raises about the Gun Control and RKBA Group.
I think the picture itself is telling...
"It also tells me that if he'd gone berserk with a sword, we'd have heard nary a peep out of you..."
That couldn't be further from the truth...such presumptions.
...by definition is "leading"
First -- and I'm not meaning to be difficult here, just clarifying -- the subject matter in this forum really is no more restricted to "American" society than in any other forum. The Feminists forum, for instance, regularly contains discussion about situations and issues affecting women worldwide.
The Second Amendment is indeed a US-specific topic; all the rest are global. And restricting discussions of universal issues to the bell jar of one society would not be helpful in this case, any more than it would be in the case of, say, discussions of health insurance and healthcare policy. That discussion, as it relates to the US, has to be informed by knowledge of models outside the US; firearms policy is no different.
As someone mentioned in another thread on this forum recently the "sides" represented here are, for the most part, the extremes of both ends of the spectrum.
I seldom find "they're both as bad as each other" to be helpful, and that's how your comment strikes me, although I may well be reading too much into it. And in this instance, I just don't know what the middle would be, or whether you are suggesting it would be the right choice, for instance.
What is the extreme of the "side" I'm on? Ban all guns? And, as my co-vivant would say if asked, line up the non-compliant and shoot them? (He doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about firearms policy, let alone talking about it, everyone will be happy to hear.)
This forum really isn't populated by a lot of people who take that position; those whom one does occasionally see usually turn out to be gun militant goats masquerading as llamas, with short lives.
(And yes, I can cite cases, if anyone needs them: Joe Steel comes to mind; unfortunately I can't recall the name of the most recent, just a couple of weeks ago, and its posts have been wiped from the slate. ... Aha, I love google and having a unique name of my own for searching, and a good memory; I found the traces of that absent friend: Uncle Omar:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x481267#481551
I could also name another, still extant, who had a remarkable and rapid conversion after his first posts here ... but I won't
)
So that really leaves posters like, oh, moi, to represent the "extreme" end of the spectrum found in this forum. I'm such an extremist that I advocate
- mandatory licensing for acquisition/possession of any firearm
- mandatory registration of all firearms
- mandatory safe/secure storage of firearms
Oh, and yes, a prohibition on the possession of handguns by members of the public outside of facilities where they are used for sports shooting. (This I do advocate in Canada; and I have consistently worked and voted against the present Conservative government and lobbied against its repeal of the long gun registry here.)
I fully recognize the extreme unlikelihood of any of this coming to pass in the US anytime in the near future, but will still advocate it for the US (as, in fact, do some USAmericans), one reason being that firearms policy in the US affects the rest of the world, and in particular Canada, where I am. Were I in the US and involved in electoral politics there, I would advocate potentially achievable portions of that agenda within a political party, and probably work with community groups and coalitions engaged in other non-legislative efforts to reduce firearms harms. (Here in Canada I have not been actively involved in the issue because it has never been an issue -- until this fall, and the repeal of the long gun registry was a foregone conclusion once the rabid right-wingers were elected, and frankly, sometimes one just has to be depressed, look to the next election, and try to take a long view.)
To my mind, someone who opposes licensing and registration, let alone who advocates allowing the carrying of firearms in public, is indeed an extremist. (Certainly in Canada anyone who takes those positions is part of the extreme right wing.) So I couldn't disagree with your characterization of some posters in this forum as being at the extreme of one end of the spectrum.
Anyhow, I guess what I'd be interested in is what you characterize as "the extremes of both ends of the spectrum", and what you see in this forum as falling at those points -- and I'd be curious about where you would place yourself on it, and why. Otherwise, I think it's just too easy to say what amounts to "a pox on both their houses" -- although, again, I may be reading too much into that.
when we ... by which I mean me, of course ... posted all the time with reasoned, informative submissions on various aspects of firearms policy and firearms-related events -- like what you just responded to.
I've done it several times today. You might note the lack of corresponding responses.
I got tired of the responses I did get, and of pretending to believe I was dealing with people interested in reasoned, informed discussion, once I realized that in, well, a whole lot of cases, I wasn't.
I did figure once I got going that I'd over-read; thanks for the clarification, and the comments of your own. Now, if you can think of something we might argue about, we could always mount a demonstration!
Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:51 AM - Edit history (1)
... Bill Wade.
[div class = excerpt]Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision.
"The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now," Wade said.
Wade called Sunday's fatal shooting a tragedy that could have been prevented. He hopes Congress will reconsider the law that took effect in early 2010, but doubts that will happen in today's political climate.
That particular piece of legislation had absolutely nothing to do with what happened there yesterday. The man blew through a checkpoint and came out firing at the subsequent roadblock. Does anyone really think he would have been deterred by one of these?
He was wanted for another shooting. He was on the run. He was in full "High Sierra" mode. Would he have turned around and said "never mind" when he found out that guns weren't allowed in National Parks? It takes a very special brand of stupidity to think so.
Congratulations, Mr. Wade. You have dishonored the sacrifice of a brave officer with your vain attempt to score a cheesy political point.
We all know that if guns were simply illegal in national parks, this would have never happened. 
They're down to about 500 now where in Sept they were about 800 bucks and really hard to get. I'd like to invest in one, rumor has it they're on the ATF's short list to stop allowing import.
If that happens an investment of 500 bucks could equal a 300% return.
Alas I can't get the wife to bite on another shotgun, I keep getting the old "you have 12 shotguns you never shoot now." line.
Good news is I do have the go ahead to build an AR for next falls hunting season. (It's for the kids. wink wink 
)
