MikePapa1

No matter how well intentioned Dr. Mangine's suggestions, they are fraught with disaster. The one you pointed out causes me less concerned than the other one. No person should be debarred from their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms absent a well set path of due process. In a citizen's petition, evidence of some sort would have to be presented before any reasonable judge would enter such an order . His suggestion of the immediate suspension based upon a mental health provider's say so alone, though is truly frightening. It allows no due process, no mechanism to appeal or any of the attributes that the rule of law requires. I posted this because I found it interesting, but I couldn't disagree more with Dr. Mangine's proposals.

<header> Steps to keep mentally ill from buying guns By Steven Mangine Posted: 12:00am on Feb 13, 2011; Modified: 1:54am on Feb 13, 2011 <figure class="vertical">Buy Photo For an alienated and unbalanced young college student, chronic misery is fast spiraling into violent desperation. In the classroom, he laughs with no cause, stares, expounds bizarre numerological theories. He proclaims his college itself unconstitutional. A professor worries aloud that the young man could shoot up the classroom. When the institution finally dismisses him, he becomes still more agitated, sleepless, paranoid. He enters a Sportsman's Warehouse store and picks out a Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol. The clerk calls in the required background check — usually cleared while the customer waits — and is told that this customer cannot buy a firearm. Officials at his college had petitioned a local judge to suspend his ability to buy a weapon, and the suspension was entered immediately into the federal database established by the Brady Bill. A Jan. 8 "Congress on Your Corner" meeting in Tucson, Ariz., proceeds without incident. Alas, the account above is fictional. No such procedure for preventing a mentally ill and dangerous person from buying a firearm actually exists. On Nov. 30 of last year, Jared Loughner did purchase the pistol he used to kill six people and injure 14 others five weeks later. Three years before, Seung Hui Cho, despite a history of mandated mental health treatment, bought the Glock semiautomatic pistol that cut down 32 people at Virginia Tech University. Despite multiple police contacts and obvious signs of mental illness, both Loughner and Cho bought their weapons legally. Clearly we need a procedure for preventing such individuals from buying firearms — the sooner, the better. Many have blamed the Tucson disaster on a failure of the mental health system. After all, Loughner showed signs of mental disturbance and aggression so obvious and public one classmate always sat near an exit, poised to flee on the grisly day she knew was coming. Surely, the mental health system should have intervened, compelling treatment with or without his consent. Unfortunately, in a free society, managing potentially violent mentally ill persons poses daunting legal and ethical dilemmas. Some existing laws do attempt to balance the demands of public safety with the rights of mentally ill citizens. For example, a therapist must break confidentiality and inform the police if a client makes a direct threat against another person. Likewise, any citizen can petition a judge to authorize the involuntary hospitalization of a mentally ill person who presents a danger to self or others. It is doubtful, however, that either of these legal options could have prevented Virginia Tech or Tucson. Since neither Cho nor Loughner was in treatment just before the shootings, no therapist had any information to disclose. Pima Community College could have petitioned for Loughner to be hospitalized against his will. But legal standards for involuntary hospitalization require not only bizarre behavior or verbal aggression, but a clear threat of harm to self or others. It is unlikely either Cho or Loughner would have met that strict legal standard before their crimes. The following relatively simple, twofold legal mechanism might have prevented both tragedies and a significant number of suicides, since research shows many firearm suicides are completed with newly purchased weapons: ■ Any citizen could petition a judge to suspend an apparently aggressive or suicidal person's right to buy a firearm. The potentially dangerous person would not have to be in treatment to be subject to this suspension. ■ Any licensed health care professional with reason to believe a patient posed a danger to self or others could enter an order to block firearm purchases directly into the federal database. In either case, the affected person would have the right to challenge the suspension, via either a full psychological examination or a legal hearing. This public safety measure seems as commonsensical as allowing a physician or a judge to suspend the license of a driver impaired by uncontrolled epilepsy or Alzheimer's disease. If you agree, spread the idea around. It would certainly not prevent every potential tragedy, but it could buy precious time in many situations. For some husband, wife, parent or friend, that could make the difference between a heart-rending loss and a near miss. About the author Steven Mangine is a clinical psychologist practicing in Lexington and an adjunct faculty member in the University of Kentucky's department of psychology. Read more: Steps to keep mentally ill from buying guns | Op-Ed | Kentucky.com </figure></header>

I found out over the weekend that soon, the beautiful City of Gallatin will be the home of an authentic Chicago Style pizza parlor on the Public Square in the historic Suddarth Building. I was speaking to a young man, from Chicago who said his family was setting it up. I can't comment, yet, on the quality of their product but as soon as it opens, I'll be happy to give you my review.

It's important to teach your kids gun safety ... even if you don't own a gun Story Discussion It's important to teach your kids gun safety ... even if you don't own a gun LEE B. ROBERTS lroberts@journaltimes.com JournalTimes.com | Posted: Sunday, February 13, 2011 1:30 am | 1 Comment <dl id="story-font-size" class="moz-border"><dt>Font Size:</dt><dd>Default font size</dd><dd>Larger font size</dd></dl> It's important to teach your kids about gun safety, even if you don't own a gun. (Graphic illustration by Dan Talsky, daniel.talsky@journaltimes.com) No matter how parents feel about guns, there's a chance their child will come in contact with one at some point. Federal statistics show that as many as 50 percent of U.S. households contain guns. And while parents in many of those homes say they discuss gun safety with their children, others do not. Parents who don't own guns are even less likely to discuss gun safety with their children, according to a National Poll on Children's Health conducted for the University of Michigan's C.S. Mott Children's Hospital in August. The poll, which surveyed 1,621 parents, found that 18 percent of those parents who reported having a gun in their household said they have never talked with their children about gun safety - while 52 percent of those who do not have a gun at home have not had that conversation. With nearly 30 children injured or killed every day by firearms in the U.S., gun safety seems like something every child should be taught. Without proper education, preventative measures are nearly useless, according to Firearm Education information on the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources‘ website at http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/enforcement/safety/firearm.htm. Keeping youngsters in the dark only insures that they will not understand the potential danger and increases the likelihood that they will seek to satisfy their curiosity without proper supervision, the DNR says. "Guns are very much a part of our society and for parents to not address children's natural curiosity about guns is a mistake," said John Bronikowski, Recreational Safety Warden with the Wisconsin DNR's Southeast Region-South. "The best thing parents can do is talk to their children about it." Here are some suggestions for starting the conversation: Start now: "I don't think it can be too early, as long as the child is mature enough to understand what you are talking about," says officer Buddy Buchanan who, as the Racine Police Department's Officer Friendly, talks to kids in area schools about gun safety as part of a general safety presentation. Even before a child can understand detailed instructions, parents can begin by setting a proper and consistent example, says the Wisconsin DNR. "If parents treat guns with care and respect, children will likely follow their lead." Keep the message simple: Even the youngest kids can be taught "Hands Off." Children should never handle a gun they find, even if they don't think it's real, said officer Buchanan. "Always treat a gun as if its real and loaded," he said. And drive home the point that once the trigger is pulled, there is no way to get the bullet back. Eddie Eagle program: The National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program offers the following message: "If you see a gun: STOP!, Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult." Aimed at children as young as 10, the Eddie Eagle program was developed by a team of clinical psychologists, reading specialists, teachers, curriculum specialists, urban housing safety officials and law enforcement personnel. For more information go to www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie Get Help from Professionals: Hunting safety courses are offered through the Department of Natural Resources for children as young as 10 years old. The classes, which cost $10, are available through the DNR's Sturtevant office and are held at locations throughout Racine County. Even kids who are not interested in hunting can benefit from the classes, said Bronikowski. The Recreational Safety Warden highly encourages parents to take the class with their children. "Every adult in the home should be educated about gun safety." For more information about the DNR's Hunting Safety classes, as well as general firearm safety in your home, go to: http://dnr.wi.gov/org Firearms safety courses are also offered by area sportsmen's groups and shooting ranges. General information about gun safety is also available on the DNR's website, as well as at the Sturtevant service station, 9531 Rayne Road. Questions can be directed to John Bronikowski at (262) 884-2383. Free gun safety locks, as well as gun safety brochures (including a coloring book), are available at the Racine Police Department's Community Resource Office at Regency Mall. The office is located near the northeast entrance to the mall, across from the video arcade. Office hours are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, but it is best to call before coming to pick up materials to make sure an officer is there. Call (262) 598-4140. Be Proactive: Don't be embarrassed to ask other adults about gun safety practices in their homes before allowing your child to visit. Finding out if there are guns in the home and where they are kept is just part of being a good parent, Buchanan said. "You want to make sure any guns are secure and not accessible in any place your child is going to spend time." Even if the chances of your child encountering a gun in the home are slim, it is not worth risking that one chance it could happen, he said. "There is no take back with a gun." It's important to teach your kids gun safety ... even if you don't own a gun

Guns as art By Anonymous Created 02/13/2011 - 00:00 Never wanted a rifle? avid Price could change your mind. I am not a gun owner or a hunter, but I'm not particularly against gun ownership. My dad had a collection of rifles and pistols that he inherited from his father, an avid sportsman. I fired his Walther PPK .32 a few times. I also remember shooting a big .45 revolver that nearly broke my wrist. I owned a BB gun as a kid and was a menace to the chickadees in my back yard. But I had not shot a gun in nearly 20 years. As a homeowner I feel relatively safe in New Hampshire without a weapon, and I honestly have no use for a firearm right now. I don't need a gun, but after meeting David Price of Contoocook I find myself wanting one really, really bad. I learned about Price from his granddaughter Lily, a flute student of mine. She told me about his work building antique rifles and shooting in competitions with his guns. When she showed me a photo book of his custom-made flintlock rifles, I was stunned by his work. I pored over the pages, marveling at the decorative guns he has built with gold inlay, fiddle back maple and hand-carved stocks. "Your grandfather built these?" I asked her. They were beautiful. I just had to meet this man. Price is a man of the woods. He's lived most of his life along the Contoocook River, hunting and fishing. On a snowy Saturday I stand in the living room of his riverfront home, listening to his story of life along the banks: younger days when the pickerel ran thick and moms let their children live and play in the woods for days at a time. A massive caribou head watches over us as the conversation turns to Price's hunting excursions to Canada. Price builds highly collectible rifles. He makes flintlock rifles, and only flintlock rifles, one at a time at his small shop. He is relatively famous among gun collectors, and his flintlocks command a high price: They start around $8,000 and can run considerably higher, depending on workmanship, materials and features. Still his demeanor is quiet and reserved in a traditional Yankee way that most locals can appreciate. Price is no doubt an artist. He is a juried member of the League of New Hampshire Craftsmen and has presented at the Smithsonian Folkways Festival in Washington, D.C. "A few ladies were concerned whether guns should be a part of the festival," he says. But in taking one look a Price flintlock up close, they realized what I was about to learn: that his guns achieve a level of high art. Price's work blends several different forms of media: metalworking, woodworking, gold and silver-smithing and gun-building. He is adamant about this last title. "I'm not a gunsmith," he says. "A gunsmith works on modern guns, and I don't have anything to do with that. I'm a gun builder of fine flintlock rifles." Originally built for King Louis XIII, the flintlock has been around for nearly 400 years. It became popular in European armies by 1630 and eventually made it to the New World. During the Revolutionary War foot soldiers on both side carried flintlocks: the British with their famous "Brown Bess" musket and the Americans with the more accurate long rifle. This is the weapon that won America its freedom. It is also the weapon that the men who ratified the Second Amendment likely had in their homes. Price's workshop is warm and well lit. A drying rack of rough-cut wood hangs from the ceiling, filled with stump maple, cherry, curly maple and tiger maple. The walls are covered with hunting photos of Price and his family. Machines for working both metal and wood are scattered throughout the space. Usually Price makes one gun at a time from start to finish. They take two to three months to complete, depending on the features the client requests. On his bench are two identical rifles he's building for his granddaughters. Although he has a waiting list two years long, his grandchildren, who have outgrown the original flintlocks, get to cut in line. Price is working on the carving along the stock and cheek-piece. With small chisels he cuts beautiful vine and leaf designs in relief along the grip. Since the guns will be identical, Price transfers the design from one to the other, making an imprint with cellophane tape. He shows me sketches he'll later use to inlay intricate designs in silver leaf along the stock and wrist of the gun. To further accent the silver leaf Price will inlay silver wire, a few thousandths of an inch thick, in swirling loops around the gun, trailing off in a decorative "s" shaped slalom pattern. Sophisticated - and functional Next, Price gives me a lesson on the "lock" mechanism, which fires the gun. Although the flintlock is considered old technology, it is sophisticated and functional. If you've ever seen a movie about the Revolutionary War, you're familiar with the loading process. First, a measure of gunpowder is poured down the barrel of the gun. Next, a cloth patch and lead ball are packed into the barrel with a long rod. With the gun now loaded, it must be primed. This is done on the lock mechanism, which sits alongside the barrel right above the trigger. First, the shooter half-cocks the hammer, a cobra-shaped piece of steel that holds a sharp chunk of flint in its mouth. Directly in front of the hammer is the "frizzen," a steel plate on which the flint will strike, creating a spark. Beneath the frizzen sits the pan, a small bowl into which fine gunpowder is poured. On the inner edge of the pan is the "touchhole," a small opening that leads directly to the gunpowder charge packed inside the barrel. The frizzen is closed, the hammer is cocked backed to full, the trigger set. The gun is now ready to fire. This entire process takes a minute or two, though Revolutionary War soldiers were able to get two or three shots off in a minute. The trigger pull starts a complex chain reaction. The hammer spring fires the flint forward, striking the frizzen plate, which makes a shower of sparks. The sparks ignite the powder in the pan beneath, which explodes, blowing flames through the touchhole into the powder charge in the barrel. It explodes and propels the ball out of the barrel. Price demonstrates the process with a lock removed from a gun. Although the loading and priming process is complicated, the final firing sequence happens in the blink of an eye. Gold, brass, silver In the rear of Price's workshop is a large bank safe where he keeps his guns. He shows me flintlocks he's built for his clients, each more beautiful than the last. The level of detail on the finished guns is in stark contrast to the roughed-out guns in progress on his workbench. A rifle he built for his grandson David is made precisely to scale to fit his young hands. The flames in the highly polished wood jump from the grain. Gold, brass and silver inlay dance across the wood. The lock plates, finished in zebra striped Damascus steel, are engraved with high relief floral designs. I'm amazed at the craftsmanship. In several guns Price has inlaid an elegant ivory hunter's moon. The smiling profile of the man in the moon has become his trademark. To complete each gun Price engraves his name and the year of completion on top of the barrel in flowing script. Finally, Price shows me his masterpiece: "Midnight Lace." About a year ago, a gun collector contacted Price about a unique commission. The collector had chosen 10 builders from across the country and challenged them to build for him the ultimate gun possible. Money was no object. Midnight Lace is a heavy but balanced gun: a swivel loader with two rotating barrels. The cherry wood is stained dark, almost black. Thick bands of gold and silver wire dance like snakes intertwined along the lock-plates and barrel. Atop the barrel and rimming the swivel, Price has chiseled out the steel and inlayed a background of 24-carat gold. "There's $2,000 of gold in this gun alone," he says. His signature hunter's moon is inlaid in wooly mammoth ivory along the stock. It's stunningly beautiful, and Price is immensely proud. Upon its completion Price learned that other builders in the competition had experienced delays, and the collector gave them another year. Price took the news as an opportunity to build another gun better than "Midnight Lace." "In a year I can top this," he says. He will start over, building another masterpiece from scratch with more even decoration and even more gold. Target practice Now it's time to go shooting. Price takes one more gun down from the safe, his own .40 caliber target shooting rifle. We go outside behind his shop to a wooded area, and he staples a fresh paper target to an old cardboard box. He explains the point system of rings on the target: the outer rings worth seven to 10 points each, with a bulls-eye, about the size of a quarter, worth "10X." We pace off 25 yards and Price begins loading. It takes a minute or two in the cold. When ready, he hands the gun to his granddaughter, Lily, a competitive shooter. She sets the trigger, raises the gun, waits, then touches the trigger. The blast is deafening, much louder than the .22 I used to shoot with my dad. A tongue of flame roars from the barrel and a cloud of smoke puffs from the lock. Lily has hit the target but has not scored. Price reloads for his other granddaughter, Paige. I expect the blast this time, but it still makes my heart jump. Her shot is high, and off the target too. The girls mumble excuses. Finally it's my turn. Price walks me through the firing process and lets me dry fire to practice a few times. He reloads and hands me the weapon. I raise it up, finger off the trigger. I eye down the length of the barrel, knocking the 24-karat gold front sight into the rear sight slot. I slow my breathing and aim carefully, letting the gun settle where I want it, right on the 10X ring. Finally I touch the trigger, ever so lightly. Blam. The gun leaps in my hands. Through the smoke I see the box jiggle just slightly. There's a clean hole in the 9 ring. Price reloads another round. On my second turn I score a 10, just barely crossing into the 10x line: nearly a perfect shot. On my way home, I'm thinking about all I've learned. I'm still struggling with this country's conflicts over guns. I can't deny the importance of their role in our history. I support their use for sportsmen and hunters. But I still fear them. I can't forget the fact that a gun in the hands of the wrong person can create nothing but pain and misery. But after spending the day learning and shooting with David Price, master builder of fine flintlock rifles, I'm reassured that a gun in his hands can bring infinite beauty. (Mike Alberici of Concord is a professional musician and educator. He is a member of the Monitor's board of contributors.) Guns as art | Concord Monitor

Gun Sales Rise Around Valentine's Day Posted Saturday, February 12, 2011 ; 06:07 PM | View Comments | Post Comment Updated Saturday, February 12, 2011; 08:05 PM FBI gun statistics show an increase in gun sales around Valentine's Day. By Mike Krafcik Email | Bio | Other Stories by Mike Krafcik MORGANTOWN -- David Helms of Marstiller Gun Store says for the past 20 years he's worked there, he's noticed the trend. "A lot of woman are buy their fella a gun, and then a lot of guys are buying their wife or girlfriends guns, even granddaughters," Helms said. According to the FBI gun statistics, firearms background checks in West Virginia have increased from more than 20,000 in the past five years. The store says it sees an increase in the amount of gun sales not only around valentines day but other holidays. Helms has seen more woman take concealed weapons courses and says gun ownership among them is increasing. "Once they find out that they're good at it, they're def better at it when they thought when they first came in," said Helms. Shelley Hopkins is about to hit the range for the first time with her husband. She says she would a firearm would make a nice Valentine's day gift. "It sounds strange to me, but to be honest, if its something we can do together I think it be a very nice gift," she said. Gun Sales Rise Around Valentine's Day - WBOY-TV - WBOY.com

Every Day's Take Your Gun To Work Day in Indiana — By Emily Loftis | Thu Feb. 10, 2011 3:00 AM PST — Gideon Tsang/Flickr. Just because your assistant keeps an AK47 in her car, doesn't mean you can fire her—at least, that's what Indiana legislators are gunning for. With Tuesday's 38 to 10 vote, Indiana's senate passed a law that would prevent employers from discriminating against employees or job applicants based on the gun collections they bring to work. If passed in the State House as well, "Parking Lot 2.0" will act as an amendment to a 2010 bill which gave employees the right to bring a gun to work as long as it's locked up in the parking lot. The National Rifle Association—which has been encouraging members to press for similar gun deregulation laws in thirteen other states—is singing the praises of the bill. And it's no wonder: Parking Lot 2.0 was co-authored by state senator Johnny Nugent who just happens to be on the NRA Board of Directors. (I called Nugent several times, but he said he didn't have time to talk.) <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input id="jsProxy" type="hidden"> Advertise on MotherJones.com Despite the Hoosier affinity for small government in matters of property rights and business regulation, Parking Lot 2.0 would allow employees or job applicants to file a civil action case against buisiness owners who demand to know what weapons are being stored on their property. State Senator Tim Lanane sounded frustrated when I called him up. He clarified that he's a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but belives this bill goes too far. "This crosses over Second Amendment rights and intrudes into private property owners' rights, a business owner's rights." The bill went so far, explained Lanane, as to say that even if an employee reports being threatened by a co-worker, a manager inquiring about guns on the premises could face litigation. When the scenario was presented on the floor, Lanane said supporting senators suggested an employer call the police. "I'm not sure what they're going to do," said Lanane. Tom Trine* owns The Windmill Grill in Kokomo, a city in northern Indiana. Like Lanane, Trine's a supporter of gun rights, and when pressed about what the bill would mean for him, he said, "I think the government infringes on our rights way more than it should. When it's criminal to own a gun, only criminals will own guns." But the problem is that Trine's hands aren't just tied when it comes to gun-related inquiries: He's also not allowed to ask applicants about drug use or mental health history. In any other situation, this would be understandable. Who wants to be badgered about the three months in college they were depressed? But the compounded effects of keeping employers in the dark about employee's guns, drugs, AND mental health could create a potentially volatile situation, even for a gun-owner like Trine. Trine (who doesn't bring his gun to work) says, "It probably does bother me. But where do you draw the line? I think you should be able to put a sign at the entrance that says 'No Firearms Allowed on This Property'. I wouldn't, but I think you should have the right to." Thanks to a law passed last March, Trine—and any other curious citizen—can't even access the Indiana gun-permit database to research which employees do or do not own guns. It's true that Indiana isn't the nexus for firearm deaths. For every 100,000 Hoosiers, more than ten died from handgun deaths in 2007, which is just a shade higher than the national average. However, one violent crime happens every 25 minutes, and urban areas like Gary far exceed the state, as well as national averages for murder rates. In 2003, Gary, which held the title of "murder capital" of the country for years, had nearly nine times as many murders as the national average, and the rates are rising. I called a couple of gun shops to find out just how hard it is to get a gun. It turns out that as long as I haven't been committed to a mental hospital, a simple criminal history check and an Indiana ID is all I really need to carry my very own gun to work. The waiting period is a whopping five minutes, assured the dealer. I even asked one merchant if a previous Lithium perscription (given to people with bi-polar disorder) would be an obstacle. Evidently, that's okay too. Despite this easy access, the gun de-regulation to-do list is long. Bills currently sitting in the state house include one that would make it a misdemeanor rather then a felony to carry a firearm onto school property [PDF]; a bill that would allow un-licensed gun owners to carry guns in cars, someone else's private property [PDF], and on snow mobiles [PDF]; and a provision that would exempt guns completely manufactured in Indiana from federal regulation [PDF]. Any Hoosier can tell you that snow mobile drivers don't need to be worried about being mugged (the provision is likely for hunters), but we all know the dangers of mixing mentally ill workers with guns (e.g. Atlantis Plastics, Goleta USPS, ConAgra). It seems as if the laws above, and Parking Lot 2.0, won't be the last of Indiana's pro-gun bills. Although the NRA didn't bother to contact Senator Lanane on Parking Lot 2.0, he believes the organization's presence in the Indiana senate is strong: "There's no doubt they are influential. They call the shots when it comes to gun legislation in the Indiana senate." *Full disclosure: Several years ago, I was a part of Tom Trine's original serving team at the Windmill Grill. Every Day's Take Your Gun To Work Day in Indiana | Mother Jones Makes me proud to be a Hoosier expatriate.

"Iron River of Guns" a Myth, STRATFOR Says By Matthew Harwood Created 02/10/2011 - 11:00 Wrap-Up?: No Weight: 0 Lead Headline?: No Date: 02/10/2011 By Line: By Matthew Harwood Teaser: The belief that the overwhelming majority of firearms used by Mexico's drug cartels come from the United States is a myth, according to the private intelligence firm. The oft-claimed statistic that approximately 90 percent of the seized firearms used by Mexico's ultraviolent drug cartels come from the United States is a myth, according to a private intelligence firm. In a report released today [1], STRATFOR notes that this widely-held belief stems primarily from a June 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. In its analysis, the GAO found that 87 percent of traceable firearms seized in Mexico came from the United States between 2004 and 2008. While the firm doesn't discount that American guns play a significant role in Mexican drug violence, it notes that the report's statistics have been misleadingly used and cited in the public. STRATFOR's Scott Stewart explains why using the GAO's 2008 statistics: According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States. This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States. One reason the Mexican government doesn't submit a significant portion of its seized weapons to the United States for tracing, according to Stewart, is because it reflects badly on the government. "Such weapons include firearms they identify as coming from their own military or police forces, or guns that they can trace back themselves as being sold through the Mexican Defense Department’s Arms and Ammunition Marketing Division," he writes. (For more on U.S. arms ending up in Mexico, see "U.S. Needs to Stop Flow of Guns Into Mexico, Experts Say [2]," from June 2010; American Gun Flow into Mexico Must be Stopped, Lawmakers and Officials Say [3]," from March 2009; and "An 'Iron River of Guns' Flows South [4]" by John Barham from the June 2008 issue of Security Management.) STRATFOR's intelligence brief goes on to describe where certain classes of cartel weapons come from geographically, and why globalization and Latin America's black-arms market ensure that cartels will always procure the powerful weaponry they need to ply their trade—even if the U.S. government could prevent American guns from ending up in cartel hands. "There has clearly been a long and well-documented history of arms smuggling across the U.S.-Mexico border," Stewart concludes, "but it is important to recognize that, while the United States is a significant source of certain classes of weapons and ammunition, it is by no means the source of 90 percent of the weapons used by the Mexican cartels, as is commonly asserted."

I hate to rain on the parade here, but I think the chances of this bill passing are nil. Every piece of proposed legislation has a revenue note attached telling how much it will cost. As it removes from the TBI a source of revenue in lean times, it will not get a favorable review, hence has little chance of passage.

Feb 10 2011 07:07 AM ET 19Share 'Justified' season premiere review: Pullin' guns and 'cultivatin' herb' by Ken Tucker Categories: Dramas, Justified, Lost, Television, TV Last Night, TV Review Comments 72 Add comment Justified demonstrated at the start of its second season last night that it’s working on a level that is, if anything, even more cool, witty, and serene than its debut season. It takes some guts to avoid trying to rev up the pace just to show viewers we’re back!, and to resist worries about the sophomore-year jinx. Timothy Olyphant is the actor most attuned to Elmore Leonard’s source prose since George Clooney captured the polite-cool-cat pose perfectly in Out of Sight. Wednesday night’s Justified revisited old friends. Thank goodness Walton Goggins is still around as the grinning bad man Boyd Crowder; even better, Boyd’s dropped much of his born-again piousness but remains a devious rascal. And how nice that Olyphant’s Deputy U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens is amorously assiduous in his persistent pursuit of his ex-wife, Winona (Natalie Zea). By the way, fans of Ava (Joelle Carter) did not need to despair, since she’ll now intriguingly, bafflingly be reunited with Boyd. (We love Boyd for his volatility, but why would any woman want to live with that?) Added to the mix was Mags Bennett (veteran character actress Margo Martindale, getting a fine showcase here), a backwoods big-time pot grower now looking to take over Bo’s market for meth dealing. Mags is as ruthless as her son Dickie (Jeremy Davies – Lost’s Daniel Faraday) is gimpy. Mags has two more sons who are dumber but no less mean than their mama. Add Raylan’s track-down of a fugitive sex offender, good use of a bear trap, and prickly 14-year-old Loretta, and I thought the season was off to a great start. How about you? Twitter: @kentucker 'Justified' season premiere review: Pullin' guns and 'cultivatin' herb' | Ken Tucker's TV | EW.com

I grew up in Indy and traveled often to Chicago and am a big fan of the pizza. There are several places in Indy as good as Chicago, but alas, I've found none here. My wife gave me a bread maker so I make my own. Here's the recipe I use, the only difference is I add beer to the dough instead of water. Pizza Recipe : Chicago Style Pizza

They are the same. You're not confused. The .380 is known as the 9mm kurz (short) in Europe.

What's shocking? You can't be serious, man. Would anyone Paint the White House green? Would someone put a miniskirt on the Statue of Liberty? Is nothing sacred anymore? A DAO 1911? We really are living in the End Times. That can only be a sign of the Apocalypse.

J, I understand perfectly. Much of the chatter is of the my gun is the world's best, yours isn't worth anything nature. Not so much here, but in many other places on the net. I have no substantive criticism of Glocks, in fact they're clearly great firearms. They're just not my cup of tea. Now, that being said, I do like to kid Glock owners, well, because many are so sensitive about their guns being called "tactical Tupperware" and such. But mine is good natured. I never had a malfunction with any of the Glocks I owned, I just found I couldn't fall in love with them. I sort of equate most of these discussions on the same level as the Ford/Chevy/Mopar discussions that were rampant when I was growing up. I never really got worked up over them either, after all, I drove a British car. No one who had a love affair with British cars ever had the guts to criticize anyone else's car. I think the same goes for pistol preference.

A DOA 1911? That's, well, almost blasphemy isn't it? What sort of a monster even thinks of such things?

Really? I love it. My first real pistol was a S&W 69 followed by a Walther PPK before I got my first SIG, the 226. After that I never looked back. The DA/SA, for me. makes me more deliberate on the first shot and then quicker on followup shots. I guess it all boils down to personal preferences. I've had four or five Glocks over the years and for some reason, they just never felt right, so they're all gone. Of course, so's the 69, traded for my second SIG and the PPK, sold because the slide kept cutting through the web of my hand and was taking longer to heal each time. I'll never be a Glock guy, but I can't criticize them, they're just not for me. I like real guns, like SIGs.

Yes, Mike, but let's face it you are really a strange guy. What sort of person sells SIGs to buy anything? I mean, well, that's simply irrational.

My Scary Encounter With Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley By John Lott Published February 01, 2011 | FoxNews.com Print Email Share Comments (62) Text Size AP Chicago-style politics is infamous for kickbacks, dead people voting, and thuggery. Alas, it is not just a relic of the past. In fact, witness recent stories of Chicago city workers being hired or promoted based on how well they got voters to the polls and not how well they did their official jobs, children getting admitted to prestigious city schools based on political connections, and the granting of city contracts. Unfortunately, I know first hand more than I would like about Chicago politics. A decade ago, I was working at the University of Chicago Law School as an Olin Fellow, doing research and some teaching, when I happened to cross paths with Mayor Richard Daley. As he is now about to retire from office, it is time for the facts to come out. As the author of the book "More Guns, Less Crime" and someone living and working on Daley's home turf in Chicago, I was not one of his favorite people. Daley has long been one of the nation's strongest gun control proponents, and his behavior has sometimes bordered on the irrational. This past spring he attacked a reporter who asked: "since guns are readily available in Chicago even with a ban in place, do you really think it’s been effective?" Daley shouted in front of stunned reporters: “Oh, it's been very effective. If I put this up your butt, you’ll find out how effective it is.†YOU MIGHT ALSO BE INTERESTED IN Man Survives 1,000-Foot Fall Down Mountain, Standing When Rescuers Arrive Egypt: Why the Markets Care Intel Discloses Chip Design Glitch, Hurting Sales by $300M 6 Expenses You Should Never Put on a Credit Card Indonesian Star Jailed for Sex Tape Scandal The University of Chicago is one of the nation's top private universities, and, despite its name, it does not have any formal links with the city of Chicago or any other government entity. Yet, one day, I was suddenly faced with immediate removal from my position at the university. What had happened? On December 15, 1998, I learned from Dan Fischel, the law school's Dean, that Mayor Daley had called up the president of the University of Chicago, Hugo Sonnenschein. Mayor Daley reportedly had told Sonnenschein that he had great plans for the relationship between the city and the school but that my continued presence at the university was going to do “irreparable harm†to that relationship. I was then faced with two different termination options: immediately resign from the university or stay until July and promise not to talk to the press any more while I was there. What had I done? On December 10, 1998, Daley had organized a conference with four other mayors to discuss suing the gun makers. Because of my book, “More Guns, Less Crime,†which argued that Daley’s gun laws did more harm than good, reporters from the local CBS and Fox stations who were already at the conference asked me to meet them to talk about the lawsuits. I had originally planned to arrive after the mayors had made their presentations, but when I arrived, the mayors were behind schedule. I met then CBS reporter Mike Flannery outside the auditorium where the mayors' presentation was about to take place, and he suggested that I attend the meeting so that I could better answer any questions that he might have. Mayor Daley went first and then other mayors made statements. When the audience started yelling questions, I raised my hand in an attempt to get called on. At that point a woman walked over to me and asked me if I was John Lott from the University of Chicago. I said that I was, and she informed me that I was not allowed to ask any questions -- no additional explanation was offered. This appeared awfully strange, and it bothered me that someone would be singled out in the entire crowd. So after about 10 minutes, I decided to raise my hand again to ask a question. The same woman reappeared, this time signaling to two plainclothes men to come up behind me where I was seated. The woman stated that only the press were allowed to ask questions and that I would have to leave. While she was speaking to me, one of the men gave me a couple of solid hits in my back and then pushed me hard on my shoulder, almost knocking me out of my chair. I told her that I wasn't leaving, but that I wouldn't raise my hand again. Some in the audience noticed. A reporter from the Baltimore Sun (Joe Mathews) had been seated next to me and gave me his card, stating that he thought the whole thing looked surprising. After the Mayors’ presentation, Mike Flannery suggested that it would be better to do the interview outside. However, after the interview, I still needed to contact the reporter from the local Fox station so I tried re-entering the building to use a pay phone. One of the men who had come up behind me earlier in the auditorium was at the door and said that I was not allowed to enter and that I had "lied" to get in to begin with. He claimed that I had lied about being a member of the press to get in. He also told me that I was not a real university professor and that in my public criticism of Mayor Daley's gun policies I was abusing the University of Chicago's name and using it for my own political purposes. I told him that I would like to reenter to make a telephone call and that I had not lied to get in -- I told him that he could check the log book and see that I signed in as being with the University of Chicago. At this time the female guard locked the door into the facility and said to the plainclothes man that it was now impossible for me to enter. The man appeared to have no interest in checking the log and told me to leave or he was going to call the police. All of this was quite unsettling, but still I had no inkling of what was yet to come. In a few days, I got an e-mail from the Dean of the Law School, Dan Fischel, where I was a fellow: "I received a disturbing call last Friday concerning alleged events involving you at the mayor's press conference the previous day. I need a memo from you describing in detail what happened." Thus, I e-mailed the Dean describing the above details. A few days later, I was given an ultimatum. I had to either: 1) immediately resign from the university and I would receive the money that I would have gotten through the end of the year or 2) Stay on through the end of my contract in July but promise not to talk to the press any more while I was there. I wrote back to Dean Fischel -- with whom I believe I had been on good terms with -- that I was "stunned and shocked at being requested to resign" and pointed out that I had gone to the conference to answer questions about my research at reporters’ requests, not to cause trouble. And I asked him whether, if I took option 2, I could still talk about my book that had been released that year and my other research. He responded: "I cannot give you a specific answer to your questions," and noted, "With respect t[o] damage to your reputation, many think you have only yourself to blame by winding up in a public confrontation at the mayor's press conference." In a later e-mail, he added: "If you cannot make yourself for all practical purposes invisible (at least in terms of any mention of the university), you should resign." I ended up taking the second option, and completely stopped talking to the media for about 4 months. Only in March with just a couple months left at the University of Chicago did I again start accepting requests to write op-ed pieces and do radio and TV interviews on my book. In retrospect, I probably should have gone to the press immediately. But, at the time, I worried that doing so would make life difficult for others who caught in the middle of all this, such as Dean Fischel. I was also worried that telling these almost unbelievable events would be harmful for myself because academia frowns on people who generate controversy. Chicago magazine ran a story on this incident in August, 2006, and described the events this way: "a man in the audience, a fierce defender of the right to carry a gun, tried to interrupt the mayor with pointed questions. That was John R. Lott . . . stories made the rounds that he had heckled the mayor until police took him from the room. Lott denies this account vigorously." It should have been easy to check whether I had left the event with reporter Mike Flannery or whether I heckled the mayor and was removed by police. I had provided the author of the Chicago magazine piece, James Merrier, all the material presented here. After the piece ran, Merrier responded to an e-mail by me, noting: "I did talk with Mike Flannery and his memory of the incident largely squared with yours. Largely for that reason, I did not go into more detail about who was there and why. Had I done so, I doubt it would have survived the editing process." Unfortunately, Chicago magazine was more interested in repeating the more sensational, false charges against me than in letting readers know whether they were correct. Alas, despite my request, not even the University of Chicago checked whether my version of events was true and they never contacted the reporters that I had cited. Presumably it just would have been too inconvenient to obtain information that contradicted Mayor Daley's version of events. In any case, the desire to avoid the whole issue has remained more than a decade after the original events. Even the University of Chicago Press, publisher of "More Guns, Less Crime," refused to allow me to discuss the events about the mayor in the third edition, which came out in 2010. With Daley about to leave office, there will be a lot of retrospectives in the media about his tenure as mayor. Daley obviously feels passionately about gun control, but using government threats to stop academics from taking positions that he disagrees with goes too far. Who knows how extensive these methods of chilling speech were? It's unlikely that my unfortunate experience was the only instance of Mayor Daley silencing his opposition. John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of the just released revised edition of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2010). Read more: FoxNews.com - My Scary Encounter With Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley

I have two 5.11 covert carry shirts I got on clearance for something like $10 each. I love them and the conceal well, though using the interior pockets for a large gun is very impractical.

Actually, I think the Iver Johnson's were the ones with OOB discharges. See: M1CarbinesInc.com

I had one, but sold it. I have two GI ones and love them. They simply seem to be more tight in construction than the Universal. Can't go wrong with a 30 Carbine of any type. ( I had an Iver Johnson once, as well.)

Hmmmmmm. I've read this entire thread with interest. I guess I would be classified by many as a gun snob, too. I tend toward SIGs. For example, when I was looking for a pocket BUG, I decided I'd see what was out there. I ended up buying a KelTec in .380. I hated it, hated the way it fired (every time by the way, no malfunctions, it worked "fine" but I hated the way it felt). I sold it and bought a SIG P238 and have not regretted that decision for a millisecond. I don't recall ever criticizing another's choice in guns. I think Jennings and Lorcins, for that matter, are junk. Before you go off, yes, I've owned them too, but they are long gone. If someone wants something I think is junk, that's their choice. I won't say anything to them about it, but it doesn't change the fact I think they're junk. I'm sure there are some who think my preferences are junk, as well.

Welcome from your neighbor.

Hey, I was one, I can tell you, Mike.

I called Smith with my serial number on my Grandfather's S&W Safety Hammerless in .32 short and they told me the manufacture date and the original dealer. They were very helpful.