Albuquerque Lawful Gun Owner and Hidden Criminal Finally Disarmed

[mikeb302000]

Local news reports

An New Mexico Army National Guard Sargent is charged with shooting at an Albuquerque driver he says was driving recklessly and it's a charge he's all too familiar with.

Three years ago Richard Baca, 24, was charged in a similar case where someone died.

Albuquerque police say just before three o’clock Saturday morning they got a call of a man shooting at a car. He claims the car's driver was speeding in the area, taking out a stop sign and almost crashing through a crowd of people. That is when Baca says he drew his gun and tried to pull the car over when that did not work he says he tried to shoot out the back tires.

In November of 2009 Baca faced charges of manslaughter. He shot and killed Benito Lemos following a road rage incident. The two men were fighting in Las Vegas New Mexico. Baca was acquitted of the charge claiming it was self defense.

A background investigator revealed his record isn't exactly squeaky clean. "Three misdemeanor arrests, two known convictions, eight bench warrants and two of those are for failure to appear," the investigator said.

Albuquerque Police confiscated two handguns from Baca's car Saturday and four loaded magazines.

The gun-rights folks often pretend to not understand what we mean by "hidden criminal." It's not that difficult a concept really. Among the huge body of people called gun owners there is a certain percentage that is unfit to own guns even though they do so legally. Some of these are actually criminals who simply have not picked up the required convictions to lose their gun rights. These are "hidden criminals."

Mr. Baca is a good example. Proper gun control laws, which certainly don't exist in gun-friendly New Mexico, would easily have identified him as a danger and disarmed him long ago.

Wouldn't that be better for all concerned?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Cross posted at Mikeb302000

[PavePusher]

1. Mr. Baca wasn't "hidden" at all.

Sounds like the LEO's and prosecuters did a shitty job.

That has nothing to do with the lawful, peaceful use of firearms.

[holdencaufield]

2. Gun Friendly?

[ileus]

3. By "we" you of course meant you.

[Remmah2]

4. Hidden criminal? Hell he was another government employee with a gun.

nt

[4th law of robotics]

5. So hidden criminals would be any citizen that is a criminal now

but was not at one point in the past.

Ie every single criminal ever.

Right?

And you're arguing for stripping people of their rights for simply being put on trial (even if acquitted). So . . . guilty until proven innocent and if you were innocent why would you be on trial?

/Also what kind of weapons do you suppose they issue people in the national guard? Cricket bats?

[Common Sense Party]

6. "there is a certain percentage" Yes, you have said that percentage is north of 50%

In other words, the MAJORITY of legal gun owners, in your opinion, are "unfit" to own a gun.

We are still breathlessly waiting to see your evidence in support of such an outlandish opinion.

[4th law of robotics]

8. Aren't there like 150 million gun owners in the US?

If half of them were as Mikey describes that's 75 million armed and deranged murderers on the loose.

So if roughly 1/4 of the US is filled with armed killers I have to ask: why is it still so damn hard to find parking? This place should be a lot emptier.

[mikeb302000]

16. I never said more than 50%. You are a liar. n.t.

[Common Sense Party]

28. No, Mikey. YOU are the liar, with short-term memory loss, apparently.

The pro-gun crowd is rife with these guys. Upwards of 50% of them are actually unfit to own and use guns safely due various problems, drugs being one of the most common.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=75751


Apologize now.

[mikeb302000]

36. Let me explain

"Upwards of" means "approaching" or "almost" it means "nearly" it does not mean "more than."

That's the way I've always used the phrase, anyway.

[Common Sense Party]

47. You have used it incorrectly, then.

upwards
adverb
1. up, skywards, heavenwards Hunter nodded again and gazed upwards in fear.
2. (with of) above, over, more than, beyond, exceeding, greater than, in excess of projects worth upwards of 200 million pounds
Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002

It seems reckless to call someone a liar for reporting what you said. If you don't know the meaning of the words you are using, perhaps you shouldn't use them, and you definitely shouldn't call me a liar just because I do know the meaning of your words.

[mikeb302000]

48. Thanks for schooling me, man.

I apologize again. I honestly never knew the definition of that phrase and used it wrongly many times.

Now I know.

[mikeb302000]

37. I do apologize for calling you a liar.

I see now how you misunderstood my intention. It was not to say "more than 50%. But I see how you thought that.

If my use of "upwards of" is wrong, I apologize for that too. I've always thought of that expression as I said to mean "nearly."

[glacierbay]

31. Gee Mikey

you need to delete your post and issue an apology to Common Sense Party. You have been, once again, proven to be less than honest.

[mikeb302000]

49. What "once again?" What're you blabbing about, cop? n.t.

[DonP]

32. Quick! Post 3 or 4 more old stories ... and maybe no one will notice your lies.

Not to mention all the self contradictions in many of your threads.

You've been out of the country so long you really seem to have lost any feel for the current American zeitgeist, especially on this issue.

Of course if you are being compensated for your "work" in this area, it at least makes some sense.

But if you're just another gun control advocate hoping to "win friends and influence people" to your way of thinking, you really suck at it.

[Common Sense Party]

33. Mikey never seems to remember the crap he posts

...even when it comes back to bite him in the butt.



"What? I never said that! You took that out of context! You're twisting my words! (sputter) NRA talking points!"

[mikeb302000]

38. That is taken out of context

and the statement itself contains a triple hypothetical. My real wish is to require gun owners to be qualified. I figure that would probably disarm half of you.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2011/08/my-official-goal.html

[4th law of robotics]

35. Is there really a this disconnect because sensible folks

and gun grabbers?

Do you really not understand objective reality?

You say gun crime will go up, it goes down, you offer no explanation but maintain the argument.

You claim to have not said something that is public and anyone could copy and paste for your benefit, doesn't matter. No explanation but you still believe you are telling the truth.

Do you really not get this?

[Oneka]

7. We have a word here in the USA

For these people:

Some of these are actually criminals who simply have not picked up the required convictions to lose their gun rights

CITIZEN

[Atypical Liberal]

9. When real data doesn't support your position, make shit up!

Among the huge body of people called gun owners there is a certain percentage that is unfit to own guns even though they do so legally.

It's funny, but pathetic.

When it finally becomes irrefutable that 97% or so of firearm owners are not convicted for firearm crimes every year, hey, let's start making shit up about how in reality most firearm owners just don't get caught committing crimes.

MikeB has said that 50% of firearm owners are criminals that haven't been caught, but provides no evidence to back that up.

Some of these are actually criminals who simply have not picked up the required convictions to lose their gun rights. These are "hidden criminals."

This is what normal people refer to as "due process of law".

[4th law of robotics]

10. The whole concept has a stalinesque air about it

You're a criminal, we just haven't charged you . . . yet.

Don't worry, when the time comes the court will give the "right" verdict.

[mikeb302000]

17. I didn't say that.

"MikeB has said that 50% of firearm owners are criminals that haven't been caught,"

Why do you guys have such trouble telling the truth.

My 50% include all the idiots who drop their guns and have negligent discharges. It includes the knuckleheads who think not having a gun safe is ok. AND it includes the criminals who haven't been caught yet.

50% are unfit for various reasons some of whom are actually hidden criminals.

But here's my question. If you guys have such a good argument and have the Constitution on your side and all the good shit, why do you have to exaggerate and even lie about what I say?

[gejohnston]

19. not to mention

old people, fat people, anyone taking any medication. Do I get the feeling that you also want, in addition to age and BMI, you want income, formal education, and race as well?
Your "hidden criminals" and NDs make up less than one or two percent.

[Atypical Liberal]

22. Oh, I got it now, thanks.

50% of firearm owners are criminals or morons. Got it.

[Common Sense Party]

29. He actually said that MORE than 50% are unfit to own a gun

due to criminal intentions, obesity, cough medicine use, etc., I guess...

The pro-gun crowd is rife with these guys. Upwards of 50% of them are actually unfit to own and use guns safely due various problems, drugs being one of the most common.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=75751

[mikeb302000]

39. Yes, you could put it that way. Unfit is what I'd say. n.t.

[Atypical Liberal]

44. Come one back when you have some data to back up that absurdity.

[Common Sense Party]

30. You said MORE than 50%.

You believe that the MAJORITY of gun owners are unfit to own or use a gun.

What is the percentage, since it is MORE than 50%, according to your scientific research and calculations?

51%?

55%?

68%?

99%?

What percentage of gun owners are UNFIT to own a firearm?

The pro-gun crowd is rife with these guys. Upwards of 50% of them are actually unfit to own and use guns safely due various problems, drugs being one of the most common.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=75751

[mikeb302000]

50. Op thread I apologized for misusing that expression.

I think the percentage is "close to 50%."

[Common Sense Party]

55. Fair enough. Apology accepted.

And I think your figure is ridiculously high.

If 50% of us are "unfit" to own a gun, why aren't there millions of gun deaths every month?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Just for clarification

"Some of these are actually criminals who simply have not picked up the required convictions to lose their gun rights."

So in your locale what term is it that could be used to characterize a person not convicted of a crime? Would that term perhaps be "hidden criminal" or "pre-criminal" or "future-criminal"?

Here in the US we have this Bill of Rights. Number 5 says in part, "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Don't you have anything better to do than to impune the Fifth Amendment?

[PavePusher]

12. Liar Mike doesn't like any part of the Bill of Rights.

I don't think he likes any part of the Constitution at all.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. maybe that's why he left n/t

[mikeb302000]

18. I don't say the hidden criminals should be arrested.

I do say you guys should stop pretending that gun owners are all good guys. It's not even close.

[gejohnston]

20. There are more felons in MAIG

than in the NRA. Not all non gun owners are good people, not all gun control advocates are good people either.

[Oneka]

21. of course you don't want them arrested,

you just want them, summarily disarmed, without due process.
You would like to skip right to the "deny 2a rights" without arrest, charge, or conviction of any kind. We have seen that sentiment here at DU before, with folks advocating for the use of the Bush Terrah
watch list, to deny gun purchases.

Mr. Baca is a good example. Proper gun control laws, which certainly don't exist in gun-friendly New Mexico, would easily have identified him as a danger and disarmed him long ago.

Wouldn't that be better for all concerned?

[mikeb302000]

40. I never said without due process. n.t.

[Atypical Liberal]

23. What else do you call it when 97% of them are not convicted of crimes?

I do say you guys should stop pretending that gun owners are all good guys. It's not even close.

So how about some, you know, data to back up your assertion that 50% of gun owners are unconvicted criminals or morons?

Hey, I have no doubt that some firearm owners have an undiscovered criminal past, or are idiots.

But when 97% of them are not involved in firearm-related crimes every year, who gives a fuck?

[mikeb302000]

41. I know you don't give a fuck. That's convenient.

Where's you get that 97%, by the way? Are you making shit up now, after so often accusing me of that?

[Atypical Liberal]

46. Nope, it has been detailed here before.

View profile
Where's you get that 97%, by the way? Are you making shit up now, after so often accusing me of that?


Nope. It has been hashed here before many times. I'll let you go dig it up.

I had done the legwork and showed that given the 40-80 million firearm owners in this country, and the number of violent crimes committed annually in this country, that even if every single violent crime in this country were committed by gun owners it still would mean that well over 90% (I think it was over 95%) of firearm owners can't be involved - there simply aren't enough violent crimes to go around.

Then another poster here did the legwork and determined the number of firearm-related violent crimes committed every year, which obviously is fewer than the number of overall violent crimes, and that number came to about 97% of all firearm owners.

Now you would have us believe, with no data to back up your assertion, that that over 1/2 of firearm owners are criminals who have not been caught yet, use drugs to the point where they are unsafe to own firearms, or are too old, or to infirm, or are otherwise "unfit" (your words) to own firearms.

[mikeb302000]

51. That's pretty impressive manipulation of data. n.t.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. I note that you have neither denied or refuted his premise...

[Atypical Liberal]

54. There is no manipulation required. It's extremely simple math.

It's very simple math. No manipulation required.

By many accounts, there are between 40 and 80 million firearm owners in the United States.

According to the FBI, every year there are about 1.3 million violent crimes committed in the United States.

If every single violent crime was committed by a firearm owner, that would amount to:

(1.3/40)*100 = 3.25%
(1.3/80)*100 = 1.62%

This means that if every single violent crime was committed by a firearm owner, that would involve somewhere between 1.62% and 3.25% of all firearm owners.

That means that between 96.75% and 98.38% of firearm owners cannot be involved in violent crimes each year - there simply are not enough violent crimes go go around.

Are there crimes that are not reported or where the perpetrator is not convicted? Sure. But you have your work cut out for you if you are going to try and show that any significant number of firearm owners are involved.

Let's say that for every violent crime reported, there are 3 that are not. So instead of 1.3 million violent crimes committed every year, there are really 3.9 million. Even at that, 90.25% to 95.12% of firearm owners cannot be involved.

And when you look at firearm-related violent crime, the numbers look even better.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. re: "hidden criminals"

"I don't say the hidden criminals should be arrested."

I didn't say that you said "hidden criminals should be arrested." The government needs to treat all those who have not been convicted of a crime the same. Rights are accorded to the people and only restricted by due process and conviction.

"I do say you guys should stop pretending that gun owners are all good guys."

Please explain your alternative to "pretending" that the good and just among us be sorted out from the criminals only by due process.

"It's not even close."

What isn't close?

[Common Sense Party]

34. "It's not even close."

Enlighten us, then, Mike.

you guys should stop pretending that gun owners are all good guys.

I don't think anyone here HAS ever said that ALL gun owners are good guys. There are jerks, louses and chumps among gun owners just as there are in ANY segment of the population--whether we're looking at priests, lawyers, tenured school teachers, or even amnesiac ex-pats in Italy. No group is full of 100% saints.

It's not even close.

This is were your penchant for hyperbole gets you in trouble, Mike. When you say, "It's not even close" you must mean that nowhere close to 100% of gun owners are "good guys." So obviously you think that there can't be anything like 90% or even 80% of gun owners can be "good guys"--law, abiding, responsible, FIT to own a weapon.

So the percentage must be lower, right?

So what is it?

Are 70% of gun owners "good guys"?

Only 60%?

Or, would you say--as you have elsewhere very recently--that fewer than 50% of gun owners are fit to own or use a weapon?

If that's the case--don't you think there would be MANY more shootings--accidental discharges, attempted murders, blood running in the streets--than we have right now? Th statistics are pretty minuscule at the moment, wouldn't you say?

[mikeb302000]

42. I think it's about 50/50 n.t.

[Atypical Liberal]

13. How do you square your idea with the 5th Amendment? n/t

[rl6214]

15. Are you talking about yourself here?

"The gun-rights folks often pretend to not understand what we mean by "hidden criminal." It's not that difficult a concept really. Among the huge body of people called gun owners there is a certain percentage that is unfit to own guns even though they do so legally. Some of these are actually criminals who simply have not picked up the required convictions to lose their gun rights. These are "hidden criminals." "

You did say you were a legal and illegal gun owner.








"After the military I owned guns both legally and illegally over a period of about 15 years." - Mike B.

[former-republican]

24. wow he admits to criminal behavior on an open forum

I would think the moderator would ban him from the site for a violation like that.

[oneshooter]

25. Do you activly support the Brady Campaign or the VPC?

[oneshooter]

26. Do you activly support the Brady Campaign or the VPC?

[mikeb302000]

43. I guess so. What do you mean by "actively?"

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Give them money, one supposes. God knows they could use some.

Though as I have observed many times before, given their recent record of failure on the legislative front, and the corresponding success of the NRA/SAF et al
the NRA would be well served to throw them enough cash to keep them alive- such continued ineffectiveness in an enemy is a thing to encourage and nurture...

[Callisto32]

45. These banal attempts to manipulate the language are getting really stale.

"Hidden criminals"... Give me a break, I think we useed to say "they ain' cought the asshole yet."