Credit Card Authorization Bformb: Fill & Download for Free

Original question: “Why are some people against better gun control in America?”Here’s something I wrote in 2013 that directly addresses that:Gun ControlSo the most recent attempt at "gun control" legislation died in the Senate to the lamentations of the Left and the media (but I repeat myself). Claims that "90%" of the populace supported "universal background checks" and that this legislation "might have prevented the next" rampage shooting have been thrown around, but as Senator Mike Lee put in his recent op-ed Why I Voted Against Background Checks:Gun-control advocates point to polls that show support for expanding background checks. But members of Congress do not get to vote on broad poll questions. They have to vote on specific legislation.As I have said in the past, when gun control laws go on a ballot they most often lose, and usually badly. ("Yes, I support more effective gun control, but not THAT!"). And that is in the popular vote, not in the houses of Congress.It was apparent to anyone who looked that this legislation would have had no effect on the Sandy Hook massacre, yet it was the families of the victims of that slaughter that were trotted out in an attempt to force legislators to vote the way the President wanted, an outright appeal to emotion defeating reason, implying that voting against it would make one an accomplice to the next such event.This essay is inspired in part by perennial gadfly Markadelphia, who in a comment thread raised a couple of points I'd like to expand upon. First:If everyone had supported this bill, the cry for action would have died down considerably.Of course it would, until the next mass shooting. Whereupon, emboldened by their success in this case, additional legislation would be passed to help "prevent the next" mass shooting that this legislation failed to prevent.There would have been virtually no chance for a new AWB or ammo clip limit.See above.You see, we've seen this strategy employed successfully in England. A heinous act committed with firearms, followed by legislation that either had nothing to do with that act, or would have had no effect in preventing that act. But it was seen as DOING SOMETHING. It was promoted as "doing something." As Say Uncle puts it, Gun Control: What you do instead of something. But it's not. It's something else.Yet with nothing being done, the next shooting will almost certainly bring more support and voters to the side of the Diane Feinstein's[sic] and Michael Bloomberg's[sic] of the world.No, I don't think so. Twenty dead children didn't do it. Newtown, Connecticut was not Dunblane, Scotland.Why not?Because enough people now refuse to take the blame for something we didn't do that we're politically powerful. We refuse to be shamed. We reject shaming. And as Instapundit put it recently,It’s pretty irritating, being shamed by people who have none themselves.Word.And in this battle, numbers count. Democracy, don't you know. And democracy works for those who show up.There is a poll on the right sidebar of that Mike Lee op-ed, asking readers whether they strongly agree, agree, don't know, disagree or strongly disagree with the Senator's piece. At the time of this writing, 55% agree, with 43% strongly agreeing. Only 36% percent strongly disagree. A similar poll on another op-ed supporting magazine size restrictions shows 74% in opposition to the editorial. Of the people who feel strongly enough to read or at least vote on these op-eds, those who support the right to keep and bear arms are in the significant majority. Supposedly 90% of the populace supports universal background checks? Well, according to a Gallup poll taken after the Sandy Hook massacre, Only 4% of Americans Think Gun Control is an Important Problem. Other current polling indicates that 51% of people now believe a gun in the home increases safety, with only 29% saying it makes a home more dangerous.Politicians know who votes. Gun owners vote.The reality is that the NRA doesn't really give a crap about the second amendment anymore. They see the shrinking number of people buying guns (even though that smaller percentage are buying more guns) and know that any sort of increased background check system is going to be mean because some of those people will fail.There's two parts to this I want to address. First, the assertion that there's a "shrinking number of people buying guns." Kathy Jackson (The Cornered Cat) wrote on her Facebook page recently:"The greatest pleasure in life is to do what people say you cannot do." – Walter BagehotLast year, I sat at a bar with a friend and listened to a friend list a dozen very logical, well-explained reasons why I'd never be able to fill serious training classes with female shooters alone, or build a business based on that model, or get any respect for teaching women's classes only.This year, I have a completely full calendar with fully-filled classes all over the country, most of them for women only.Life is sweet.And Kathy is not alone. Does that sound like a "shrinking number of people" getting into firearms? I don't know about anyone else, but I have added on average 2.5 firearms per year to my collection for the last several years. (I know, I know, but I can't afford one-gun-a-month.) With the economy the way it's been, I certainly haven't been buying in bulk. But I and people I know have been reporting a lot of newbies buying guns and showing up at the range. The National Instant Check System (the "background check" that supposedly this bill was to strengthen) reports record usage, having "nearly doubled in the past decade." Markadelphia, the New York Times and CNN would have you believe that a shrinking demographic is spending more than double what it used to, apparently building arsenals. I don't think so, and I've said why before.In fact, after Sandy Hook you can't find much on the shelves in gun stores anywhere in the country, only this time ammo is harder to find than firearms. (.22 Rimfire? Seriously?) Yet violent crime and especially violent crime involving firearms has declined pretty steadily to levels not seen since the 1960's, so it has become obvious to anyone who looks that more guns do not equal more crime. Add to that the spread of concealed-carry legislation that was predicted to bring "blood in the streets" in every state where it was proposed. Instead the worst accusation that can be made is that concealed-carry might not have contributed to the overall decline in violent crime. In view of these facts you can begin to understand why "gun control" is off the radar even for many people who don't own them. Add to that Sept. 11, 2001 and other events, and it becomes apparent why more people are buying them. But that goes against The Narrative.The second assertion is that "any sort of increased background check system is going to be[sic] mean less gun sales because some of those people will fail." This is a two-parter also. First, let's look at the NICS system and its history. Markadelphia says in another comment in that thread:As I said above, the real problem is the ongoing violence that is non-spree related.Oh, really? Well first let's look at how the NICS system has been used since it was implemented following the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban (that wasn't - but was a "good first step.") The NICS system began operation in November 1998, touted as a tool that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. In the interim, background checks were handled at the state level. A Department of Justice report on the system for the year 2010 was published in 2012, entitled Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010: Federal and State Investigations and Prosecutions of Firearm Applicants Denied by a NICS Check in 2010 (a PDF file). Pertinent excerpts:The FBI conducted over six million NICS transfer checks in 2010 and denied over 72,000 applications, a denial rate of about 1%. The most common reason for denial by the FBI was a record of a felony indictment or conviction (over 47%), followed by fugitives from justice (19%), and state law prohibitions (about 11%) Other reasons included drug use or addiction (about 10%), domestic violence misdemeanor convictions (over 6%), and domestic violence restraining orders (over 4%)(My emphasis.) So, of 72,000 denials, 97% were for things that falsely filling out the BATFE Form 4473 meant that the person denied had put his or her signature on a confession to a felony that comes with a 5-year sentence.The DENI (ATF’s Denial Enforcement and NICS Intelligence) Branch screened 76,142 NICS denials received from the FBI during 2010, and referred 4,732 denials (approximately 6%) within the established guidelines to field divisions. The referred cases were made up of 2,265 delayed denials (3% of all denials) and 2,467 standard denials (over 3%). The remaining denials (71,410, or nearly 94%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned or canceled. Overturns occurred after review by the DENI Branch or after the FBI received additional information. The FBI canceled a small number of denials in cases where a NICS check should not have been conducted.--Field offices declined to refer 4,184 cases for prosecution. The most common reasons for declinations were no prosecutive merit (1,661 cases or almost 40%), federal or state guidelines were not met (1,092 cases or 26%), and subjects found to not be prohibited (480 cases or about 12%).Other reasons for declination by a field office included closure by a supervisor (457 or 11%) and no potential or unfounded (396 cases or about 10%).--A total of 62 Federal charges from the 2010 cases were referred by field offices for consideration by prosecutors.--Of the 62 charges referred from the 2010 cases, 18 (29%) had been declined by a prosecutor as of December 13, 2011. A guilty plea was obtained on 13 charges (about 21%) and 10 charges (about 16%) were dismissed as part of a plea agreement . Twelve charges (approximately 19%) were still pending action by a prosecutor as of December 13, 2011.(Again, my emphasis.) So out of 76,142 denials in 2010, a year in which the data that USAToday says produced 14.4 million background checks, not "over six million" (though 14.4 is greater than six), sixty-two violators were referred for prosecution. That's (carry the three...) 0.5% of all background checks resulting in denials, and 0.08% of the denials referred for prosecution. And not all referrals yielded a sentence. Eighteen (29%) weren't prosecuted. Nearly half ("47%") of the 76,142 denials were due to a "record of a felony indictment or conviction." Now, either those records are severely screwed up, or a LOT of felons signed their names to a confession...and just walked away scot-free. (Bear in mind, I'm not at all happy about what qualifies as a "felony" these days, but still....)The Brady Campaign report Brady Background Check: 15 Years of Saving Lives (PDF) proclaims that over that 15 year period through 2008 the background check "blocked" 1,631,000 purchases, but the DoJ report states that from 2006 through 2010 a total of only 209 guilty pleas or guilty verdicts were recorded due to background check prosecutions. Moreover, the "referrals for prosecution" declined from 273 in 2006 to 62 in 2010."So what?" you may ask. Well, if the prohibited person wasn't put in jail, what was to stop him or her from getting a gun some other way? I mean, if we're not even willing to imprison the stupid felons, what's the point? It's as though the DoJ didn't want the background system to do the job we were told it was created to do. And if a Federal program fails, what is the inevitable result of that failure? Do It Again, ONLY HARDER!UPDATE:John Lott looks at background check denials and concludes that the records ARE severely screwed up. Which makes my next point more likely:But what if the purpose of the background check system isn't to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Then what is it for? What if its actual purpose is "less gun sales"? Each year we've added well in excess of four million new or imported old guns to those already in circulation, bringing the total in private hands to somewhere in excess of 310 million by one recent estimate. (PDF) Well, obviously it's failed there too, and thus: Do It Again, ONLY HARDER!And when Sandy Hook occurred, what was the proposed banner legislation? Strengthened background checks! (Along with the inevitable "assault weapon ban" and magazine restriction renewal, of course.)I concur totally that "the real problem is the ongoing violence that is non-spree related" which has been declining without new gun control laws, but apparently neither the government nor the "gun safety" groups do. Why do I say that? Well, instead of just taking them at their word, I observe their actions - with the exception of the Violence Policy Center which states plainly that its charter is the disarming of the American public. If "the ongoing violence that is not spree-related" was what was being addressed, we wouldn't be having this argument.It has been well documented for decades that the majority of violent crime up to and including homicide is committed by a small, identifiable population - people with prior police records of violent offenses:* From 1990 to 2002, 18% of felony convictions in the 75 largest counties were for violent offenses, including 7% for assault and 6% for robbery.* Six percent of those convicted of violent felonies were under age 18, and 25% were under age 21. Ten percent of murderers were under 18, and 30% were under 21.* Thirty-six percent of violent felons had an active criminal justice status at the time of their arrest. This included 18% on probation, 12% on release pending disposition of a prior case, and 7% on parole.* Seventy percent of violent felons had a prior arrest record, and 57% had at least one prior arrest for a felony. Sixty-seven percent of murderers and 73% of those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest record.* A majority (56%) of violent felons had a prior conviction record. Thirty-eight percent had a prior felony conviction and 15% had a previous conviction for a violent felony.--An estimated 70% of violent felons in the 75 largest counties had been arrested previously. Seventy-three percent of those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest record, as did 67% of murderers, and 53% of rapists.Sixty percent of violent felons had multiple prior arrest charges, including 40% with 5 or more, and 23% with 10 or more. About a fourth of those convicted of robbery (26%) or assault (24%)had 10 or more prior arrest charges, as did about a fifth of murderers (21%) and a tenth of rapists (10%).A majority (57%) of violent felons had been arrested previously for a felony. The percentage with a felony arrest record ranged from 40% of rapists to 63% of robbers. Fifty-nine percent of those convicted of assault and 58% of those convicted of murder had at least one prior felony arrest.Forty-four percent of violent felons had more than one prior felony arrest charge, and 22% had at least five.Criminal violence is a behavior, but it's much easier to attack a physical object, a deodand, rather than face politically incorrect facts. It's much safer to attack the law abiding gun owner in rural Arkansas or suburban Houston than Crips or Bloods in South Side Chicago, for example.Yes, "the real problem is the ongoing violence that is non-spree related." Like the 319 school-age children shot in gun-control haven Chicago between January 1 and June 15, 2011. Twenty dead schoolchildren in Sandy Hook? What about the 24 dead children in Chicago, where no one can legally own a handgun, much less an "assault weapon"? Where everyone in Illinois who wants to legally own a gun must have a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) card. How's that working out? And bear in mind, criminals are legally exempt from registering their firearms because to do so would violate their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.Apparently, dead children don't really matter to gun control supporters unless they're little white kids killed with an AR-15 or an AK-47. I'm a racist for pointing this out, but I refuse to be shamed into ignoring it.As noted, overall violent crime is down. Homicide is at rates not seen since the 1960's, and where homicide does occur is largely in densely populated urban areas, mostly by a small, easily identifiable demographic. All of this is in the face of a nationwide easing in the restrictions on firearms and their carriage. If "the ongoing violence that is not spree related" was the concern, then the gun control forces should be pleased. Instead they are desperate because "the ongoing violence that is not spree-related" isn't, in their minds, "the problem."Back in 2006 when I wrote The Other Side, I noted the single article of faith shared by all members of that Other Side™:There are too many guns.That's the single thing our side needs to keep in mind, the lens through which we need to analyze every action their side takes. Because they concern themselves exclusively with "gun deaths" and "gun violence," the problem is too many guns. From that perspective, it's a tautology: fewer guns must mean fewer "gun deaths" and less "gun violence." I've quoted this before, but it's appropriate once again - from the conclusion of the gun control study commissioned by the Carter Administration in 1978, published in 1983 and titled Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America:The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare. (3) Most of the firearms involved in crime are cheap Saturday Night Specials, for which no legitimate use or need exists. [Still true. - Ed.] (4) Many families acquire such a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime. (6) Most of the public also believes this and has favored stricter gun control laws for as long as anyone has asked the question. (7) Only the gun lobby prevents us from embarking on the road to a safer and more civilized society.The more deeply we have explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. We wonder, first, given the number of firearms presently available in the United States, whether the time to "do something" about them has not long since passed. If we take the highest plausible value for the total number of gun incidents in any given year - 1,000,000 - and the lowest plausible value for the total number of firearms now in private hands - 100,000,000 - we see rather quickly that the guns now owned exceed the annual incident count by a factor of at least 100. This means that the existing stock is adequate to supply all conceivable criminal purposes for at least the entire next century, even if the worldwide manufacture of new guns were halted today and if each presently owned firearm were used criminally once and only once. Short of an outright house-to-house search and seizure mission, just how are we going to achieve some significant reduction in the number of firearms available?To members of the gun subculture who have been around guns all their lives and have owned and used guns as long as it has been legal for them to do so, the indictments of gun control advocates must appear to be incomprehensible, if not simply demeaning. We should not be surprised to learn that they may resent being depicted as irresponsible, nervous, potentially dangerous, prone to accidental or careless firearms handling, or as using their firearms to bolster sagging masculine self-images. Of course, from their viewpoints, they have none of these characteristics and in all likelihood resent being depicted as a demented and bloodthirsty lot when they are only guilty of embracing a set of rather traditional, rural, and masculine values. Indeed, one can only begin to understand the virulence with which gun control initiatives are opposed in these quarters when one realizes that what may be at stake is a way of life.Or a system of government.Logically, if the problem is "too many guns," then the only logical solution must be to reduce the number of uncontrolled ones to some arbitrary value indistinguishable from zero. Yet we peons won't comply, and we tell our elected representatives so. We also tell them with our wallets. Gun store shelves are empty. NRA membership has surged. And the Violence Policy Center has problems making payroll. What is left for gun ban, er, control, um, safety forces to agitate with?Despite claims to the contrary, mass shootings have not increased but media coverage of them has.As Professor Brian Anse Patrick explained in his book The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage, the media overwhelmingly sees itself as the clergy of the Church of State:Journalists acquire importance in the mass democratic system precisely because they gather, convey, and interpret the data that inform individual choices. Mere raw, inaccessible data transforms to political information that is piped to where it will do the most good. Objective, balanced coverage becomes essential, at least in pretense, lest this vital flow of information to be thought compromised, thus affecting not only the quality of rational individual decision-making, but also the legitimacy of the system.Working from within the perspective of the mass democracy model for social action it is difficult to specify an ideal role model of journalistic coverage other than a "scientific objectivism" at work. An event (i.e., reality) causes coverage, or so the objective journalist would and often does say. Virtually all of the journalists that I have ever talked with regard coverage as mirroring reality.--An ecclesiastical model most appropriately describes this elite journalistic function under mass democracy. Information is the vital substance that makes the good democracy possible. It allows, as it were, for the existence of the good society, a democratic state of grace. Information is in this sense analogous to the concept of divine grace under the pre-Reformation Roman Catholic Church. Divine grace was essential for the good spiritual life, the life that mattered. The clergy dispensed divine grace to the masses in the form of sacraments. They were its intermediaries, who established over time a monopoly, becoming the exclusive legitimate channel of divine grace.--Recollect that the interposition of intermediaries, the clergy, along a vital spiritual-psychological supply route was the rub of the Reformation. The clergy cloaked themselves in the mantle of spiritual authority rather than acting as its facilitators. Many elite newspapers have apparently done much the same thing, speaking and interpreting authoritatively for democracy, warranting these actions on the basis of social responsibility.--Journalists, particularly elite journalists, occupy under mass democracy this ecclesiastical social role, a functional near-monopoly whose duty becomes disseminating and interpreting the administrative word and its symbols unto the public. Democratic communication in this sense is sacramental, drawing its participants together into one body. We should not overlook the common root of the words communication, community, and communion.--What might be termed as the process of democommunication has aspects of transubstantiation an interpretive process by which journalists use their arts to change the bread and wine of raw data into democratically sustaining information. Democracy is a kind of communion. Objectivity and social responsibility become social necessities, legitimating doctrines much like the concept of papal infallibility, which had to emerge to lend weight to interpretive pronouncements.In this light, even the laudable professional value of objectivity can appear as a nearly incredible claim. Both claims, objectivity and infallibility, function to lend credence, authority, and an impeachment-resistant moral/scientific base to organizational or professional products. Both are absolute in nature. Both also serve the quite necessary social function of ultimately absolving from personal responsibility or accountability the reporter, whether ecclesiastical or secular, who is, after all, merely duty-bound to report on the facts. As it is in heaven, so it will be on Earth; and as it is on Earth, so shall it appear in The New York Times.Or as former President of CBS News Richard Salant put it:Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.I go through this in detail in my January 2008 essay The Church of the MSM and the New Reformation, but the gist of it is, journalists overwhelmingly have what Professor Patrick calls "an administrative control bias," and see government as the solution to all problems by controlling everything centrally. They are anti-gun not because they're Leftists, but because they're authoritarians (a distinction almost without a difference, I know,) and "Guns simply invite administration." I mean, seriously.And government itself is, by definition, run by authoritarians. St. George Tucker in his 1803 Constitutional law review Blackstone's Commentaries wrote:The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.It's always been that way. As Mao Zedong put it,Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.And authoritarians are loath to share power.So the authoritarians in government, aided by the authoritarians in the media and their useful tools in the "gun safety" movement work together in their attempt to reduce the number of guns in private hands to some value indistinguishable from zero. But how to go about it? Using England as the archetype:Make gun ownership difficult thus reducing the number of lawful gun owners through attrition.Increase the difficulty and expense involved in complying with regulations,Keep making ownership more and more onerous through rule changes and fee changes.Carry out publicized prosecution of gun owners for petty or trivial violations, producing a chilling effect on other owners.Demonize guns and gun ownership in the media.Once the population of gun owners has been decreased sufficiently to make their population politically ineffective, crank up the regulation even further - impose licensing and registration.Once the population of legal gun owners is small enough to be politically impotent, start confiscation.Look at what it takes for a person who already owns guns to buy a new rifle in Australia:Shooting Buddy arrived down from "up north" yesterday so this morning we decided to attack the paperwork for the new rifles.The forms have to be completed on-line and then you take them to the Post Office for them to be sent to Firearms Branch.I logged into the online forms process on one of my computers and the form didn't display - not to be discouraged I woke up one of my other computers and tried again and this time it worked.We decided to do Shooting Buddy's application first. The form is interactive, so depending on how you answer questions additional ones come up. I am sure there are questions on there that weren't on the form last time I did it, that or I've blanked it out of my mind! You have to answer questions about names / previous names / addresses / previous addresses (sure, list all previous addresses with dates!) / criminal convictions / medication / VROs etc, etc.Once you get through these type of questions you actually get to the bit to do with the firearms. To be honest this bit was quite simple - as you require a Firearms Serviceability Certificate for each firearm which contains all the relevant details (make, model, serial number, calibre) you don't actually have to fill this in on the form - only the Serviceability Certificate Number (and attach it to your application).I only ended up having to ring the Firearms Branch twice during the process. Once was regarding how to put the 'other licencee' information (i.e. my information) in and the other time was at the end of the process as the guy on the phone had mentioned an additional form (Co-Users Permission Form) to me but the application process did not refer to this form at all. (Yes, you do need to submit it).After filling in the six pages of information for Shooting Buddy we went to print it, which requires it to contact via the Internet to Firearms Branch and get a unique barcode - and for some reason this didn't work and we lost all of the entries and had to start again. Filling it in the second time was a bit quicker!Validated and printed and then it was time to repeat the whole process for me.No problems this time and once that paperwork was also printed and supporting documentation photocopied, we headed off down to the Post Office.So for my application I had a five page printed form, a Firearms Serviceability Certificate for my firearm, a copy of Shooting Buddy's Firearms Serviceability Certificate, the Property Letter and the Co-Users Permission Form signed by Shooting Buddy.Shooting Buddy's collection of paper was similar but he had a six page printed form as he had different answers to some of the questions than I did.At the Post Office we had a short wait in the queue (apparently we were in the wrong queue but given that there was no signage showing two queues I didn't worry about that too much). Then the lady behind the counter had a look through my Firearms Application form and attachments (slight change from the last time I did this process where the initial response was "Do we process theses?") and then she asked me for 100 points proof of identification. No where in the online forms or documentation do I recall reading that I needed to supply this, however, luckily I did have enough cards in my wallet to prove that yes, I am who I say I am. (Interestingly enough the "Working with Children" Card does not count (even though it has photo, address and signature and itself was obtained with a 100 points ID check). My Medicare card - First Name & Surname only - and Credit Card - full name only - were taken in preference.Once she had scanned the form's barcode, entered the reference numbers off each of the identification cards, asked for $72.50 and printed me a receipt it was Shooting Buddy's turn.The legal hoops one must go through in Australia and the UK are designed not to reduce violent crime, but to control the number of legal guns in circulation - to make legal ownership so onerous that very few people will make the effort.Now look what it takes to buy a BB GUN in New Jersey:"You'll need a license for that," the clerk informed me when I asked to see a modestly-priced BB gun. Surprised but undaunted, I whipped out my drivers license and slid it across the counter. At which point it was obvious to me that it was obvious to him I'm not a gun person."To buy a gun in New Jersey you need a Firearm Purchaser ID Card from your Township's police chief. Even a BB gun. Can't even take one down to show you without it."For better or worse, there would be no BB gun that day. Not for me anyway. Without a comprehensive criminal background check first I couldn't buy one. I couldn't even look at one. Not even a pink one.Read that whole piece, and note that the author was pissed off enough to go through with the ridiculous effort and expense to get a New Jersey Firearm Purchaser ID card. But how many people are dissuaded? And yet Chris Christie wants to make it more difficult. Why? Well, he says:It’s hard for me to sit here today and say, ‘If all these things got imposed we’d see an ‘X’ percentage drop in gun violence in this state.’ I don’t know. Bad people are going to do bad things and so, would greater penalties deter people? You hope they do.And I think he's being honest about that (wrong, but he believes it), but look at another example, Massachusetts:In 1998, Massachusetts passed what was hailed as the toughest gun-control legislation in the country. Among other stringencies, it banned semiautomatic "assault" weapons, imposed strict new licensing rules, prohibited anyone convicted of a violent crime or drug trafficking from ever carrying or owning a gun, and enacted severe penalties for storing guns unlocked."Today, Massachusetts leads the way in cracking down on gun violence," said Republican Governor Paul Cellucci as he signed the bill into law. "It will save lives and help fight crime in our communities." Scott Harshbarger, the state's Democratic attorney general, agreed: "This vote is a victory for common sense and for the protection of our children and our neighborhoods." One of the state's leading anti-gun activists, John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, joined the applause. "The new gun law," he predicted, "will certainly prevent future gun violence and countless grief."It didn't.The 1998 legislation did cut down, quite sharply, on the legal use of guns in Massachusetts. Within four years, the number of active gun licenses in the state had plummeted. "There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in 1998," the AP reported. "In June [2002], that number was down to just 200,000." The author of the law, state Senator Cheryl Jacques, was pleased that the Bay State's stiff new restrictions had made it possible to "weed out the clutter."That's what law-abiding gun owners are to our elected officials: "clutter." And the number of law-abiding gun owners was cut by over 87%. But criminals?But the law that was so tough on law-abiding gun owners had quite a different impact on criminals.Since 1998, gun crime in Massachusetts has gotten worse, not better. In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, the Globe reported this month — "a striking increase from the 65 in 1998." Other crimes rose too. Between 1998 and 2011, robbery with firearms climbed 20.7 percent. Aggravated assaults jumped 26.7 percent.Don’t hold your breath waiting for gun-control activists to admit they were wrong. The treatment they prescribed may have yielded the opposite of the results they promised, but they’re quite sure the prescription wasn’t to blame.Gun laws strengthened, "gun death" and "gun violence" increased. Of course they won't admit they were wrong, even when faced with the fact that the Boston Marathon bombers were armed without having gotten handgun licenses first. Or explosive licenses, for that matter. The philosophy cannot be wrong! Do It Again, ONLY HARDER!They won't admit that they were wrong because this is the outcome that is desired, because from an authoritarian perspective, "guns simply invite administration." The "Fast and Furious" scheme that "walked" guns across the border into Mexico with no effort to interdict or trace them was, without a doubt, a government effort to inspire outrage over "lax gun laws" - laws that the Department of Justice and Homeland Security deliberately violated in order to put these weapons into the hands of drug cartels. The body count, attached to guns traced back to border gun shops was to have inspired calls for a renewed assault weapon ban and stronger gun laws. This is the only analysis of the program that makes any logical sense, but it blew up in the administration's face when a Border Patrol agent became one of the bodies. Violators of the existing background check system aren't prosecuted because the powers-that-be aren't interested in disarming the criminals, only the law-abiding.Declining violent crime is the death-knell for gun control, and its supporters know it. Worse, the authoritarians in government know it, too. Add to that the spreading public realization that gun control doesn't make society safer, and another nail is hammered into the coffin. The UK has universal licensing and registration, has banned full-auto weapons, semi-auto rifles and shotguns, and all handguns, yet these laws seem to have no effect on the number of guns still in criminal hands. Criminals there can get machine guns, pistols and hand grenades, and they're still trying "to reduce the number of guns on the streets," by closing "loopholes" in the "strictest gun laws in the world" though officials admit "where there's a will there's a way." Economics 101: Supply and Demand. More people every day realize that we don't need to follow their failed example.More than 300 million guns are in an unknown number of private hands here. The vast majority of gun owners are not licensed. The vast majority of firearms are not registered. Their trail ends at the Form 4473 in a dealer's file cabinet or box somewhere, and what happened to them after that is known only to the current owner. It's been this way for decades. But in order to "control" something, you must know where it is, and who has it.And the only people who will tell you who they are and what they own are the law-abiding. "Universal background checks" are the gateway to a registration system, despite denials by the parties supporting both."Gun Control" isn't about guns, it's about control. It isn't about disarming criminals, it's about disarming the law-abiding. It isn't about making the public safer, it's about controlling us. We've had almost two decades of increasing gun ownership and declining violent crime rates, and that has resulted in a population that in the majority does not view firearms as talismans of evil nor gun owners as social pariahs. As Teresa Nielson Hayden put it back in 2002:Basically, I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them.And as the GeekWithA.45 put it in 2005:In a truly civil society peopled primarily by enlightened, sober individuals, the carriage of arms might be deemed gratuitous, but it is nonetheless harmless.In a society that measures up to anything less than that, the option to carry arms is a necessity.America has achieved an armed population sufficiently large enough and motivated enough to effectively resist the authoritarian urge to disarm it. It is a never-ending struggle though, because The Other Side will not stop.

What if Star Wars had been written by you?It wouldn’t be Star Wars. I would never in a million years have come up with that from scratch. I think I could make some improvements to Star Wars but it would only be possible by standing on the shoulders of giants (Lucas, Kasdan, Johnson, Abrams, etc.). I have no illusions about my lack of ability to create something this epic on my own.I’ve already written an outline of how I have changed the prequels in my fan edits:Sean Sanders' answer to How would you fix the Star Wars prequels?Now if I could rewrite the movies any way I wanted, they would go more like this:The Phantom MenaceThe movie starts in the middle of the invasion of Naboo with the Jedi representatives evacuating Queen Amidala. Instead of a vague “trade dispute” the reasons are straightforward. The Trade Federation needs resources that Naboo has but Naboo has refused to deal with the TF.Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon are partners rather than master and apprentice. This will allow for a more brotherly relationship between them. We can also have Obi-Wan actually be the one to find Anakin.Introduce the idea of a Sith Lord manipulating events behind the scenes but do a better job of keeping the person a bit more mysterious. We rarely see or hear from Sidious directly. Instead, he is mostly referenced by his subordinates. We see orders relayed through Maul.Dooku (I’d also come up with a better name for him but we’ll stick with it for the sake of simplicity right now) is introduced in this movie as a character with a personality a lot like Qui-Gon. He sits on the Jedi Council but is typically the one presenting a contrarian view. He ends up being one of the early advocates for allowing Anakin to be trained as a padawan.Anakin is a teenager rather than a little kid. Also, his father can just be unknown, we don’t need this whole created by the Force stuff. Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon sense that he’s strong with the Force and see him using the Force instinctively. No need to introduce a means to test for magic blood.We also see an early glimpse of Anakin’s darkness. We’ll keep the podrace but make it shorter in length and also a bit more significant to the plot. Anakin uses the Force not just to enhance his reflexes but to counter Sebulba’s cheating, including by retaliation where he uses telekinesis to damage Sebulba’s podracer, leading to the pilot’s crash and death. Qui-Gon notices this and becomes concerned but decides to privately admonish Anakin and not share this incident with Obi-Wan (who is conveniently taking care of other tasks during the race). When Qui-Gon dies, this information dies with him.This movie plants the seeds for the romance between Anakin and Padme. They clearly show interest in each other and flirt but Qui-Gon essentially tells Anakin that he must choose between her and being a Jedi. Anakin appears to lean more towards love but after Qui-Gon’s death chooses to join the Jedi instead.More dialogue from Darth Maul to establish his character and repeated encounters between him and the Jedi. He finds out about Anakin due to an intercepted transmission to the Jedi Temple and sets out to capture the “Chosen One”.At the end of the movie, we see Count Dooku shedding his Jedi robes as he walks away from Qui-Gon’s funeral, signaling that he is done with the Jedi and the Republic.Attack of the ClonesThe movie begins with Obi-Wan and Anakin on assignment to infiltrate a CIS world and assess their military buildup and likely intentions (basically, figure out whether or not the CIS will start a war). This gives us a faster-paced opening that a ship blowing up followed by lots of conversation.They discover that due to vulnerabilities revealed in its droids, the Trade Federation has shifted to using clones and is sharing that technology with other CIS systems.A little dialogue exposition reveals that the Trade Federation prompted other systems to secede from the Republic due to a supposed lack of voice and representation. Anakin states his belief that no government can be effective when it has thousands of voices pulling it in different directions. Secession has never happened before. The Republic Constitution has no provision allowing it but short of a war that no one appears to want, there is no means to prevent it either.The assassination subplot begins at the same time that the Jedi return from their mission.Anakin is assigned to protect Padme. As their mutual interest is already established, this time he directly asks Palpatine to help him get that assignment, which gives us an early glimpse of their relationship and gives Palpatine an early means of leverage.After Padme leaves Coruscant, we see a Senate meeting where Palpatine uses the CIS military buildup to justify the need for a similar buildup by the Republic (for defensive purposes only, of course).We can skip the stalkerish behavior and move straight into developing a relationship between Padme and Anakin.Rather than the worst investigation subplot ever, Obi-Wan is assigned to infiltrate a new cloning facility that Republic intelligence has discovered on a supposedly neutral world. This is where Obi-Wan encounters Jango and the Kaminoans, who turn out to be masters at cloning (able to grow clones in weeks or even days rather than years, though at the cost of quality). Obi-Wan then tries to convince Kamino to aid the Republic, prompting Jango to attempt to assassinate him.Obi-Wan gets captured after pursuing Jango, Anakin and Padme go to Geonosis but voluntarily approach Dooku, thinking they can negotiate with him, resulting in their capture.When the clone army arrives to rescue the Jedi, we see them behave more recklessly and ruthlessly than the CIS clones, a side effect of their rapid growth cycles.Give more attention to some of the Jedi that we will see dying in RotS.Introduce General Grievous as a commander of the CIS army. We see him get severely wounded during the Battle of Geonosis by Anakin.Yoda doesn’t battle Dooku with a lightsaber. We see him use the Force combined with strikes from his stick.Revenge of the SithThis movie can largely remain the same with a few tweaks.The Grievous battle can be more interesting. Instead of losing within 30 seconds followed by an annoying chase scene, Grevious fights with two lightsabers and two blasters, which actually proves challenging for Obi-Wan to overcome. Grievous knows that Obi-Wan is Anakin’s mentor and friend and he takes his previous defeat personally.During the crash scene, we see Anakin use the Force to physically slow the massive ship and cushion its impact, giving us a scene that actually demonstrates this impressive strength with the Force that he is supposed to possess.During dialogue about the need to end the war, mention that shortened cloning cycles by both sides have led to clones that sometimes lose control and go into a frenzy, which has resulted in a number of atrocities being committed. This leads to comments by Anakin about the clones basically being slaves and how the Republic is becoming more corrupt.When Anakin talks about his visions, Padme explains that she’s seen all the best doctors on Coruscant and no one can find any medical problems with her. Anakin is not convinced and says that the visions are continuing for a reason. The lack of medical explanation only adds to his frustrations since he has no idea why she will die.Palpatine never picks up a lightsaber. As a master, the Force is his weapon. He taunts both Mace and Yoda for their use of weapons and claims that such actions are a betrayal of their Jedi beliefs. Mace doesn’t hesitate but this argument seems to unnerve Yoda.Padme doesn’t die because “she lost the will to live”. She has injuries that are exacerbated by giving birth. We don’t see the birth, we don’t learn that there are twins, and we don’t hear and names.Yoda states that they must go into exile because the Jedi Order has lost its way. Until they find the right path, he does not believe they will be able to overcome the Sith.We see the funeral with a pregnant Padme.There is no reference throughout the movie to Darth Vader. Even when he turns, he is referred to as Anakin.We see him kill a few Jedi including at least one that we recognize from previous films, not just younglings (although I’d still keep that scene and show it at the end of the Jedi purge scenes).At the end, we see the Emperor watching the construction of the first Imperial Star Destroyer. A man in black joins him. All we hear is “Greetings, Lord Vader”. Cut to Obi-Wan on Tatooine with a baby, roll credits.A New HopeThere’s not much to change here and these are really minor tweaks based on personal preference rather than real improvements.I’d keep the original design for the Millenium Falcon (the one that was instead used for the Tantive IV).Add some dialogue where Tarkin refuses to launch fighters to take down the rebel ships, stating that it would be a needless loss of Imperial lives. Vader then launches his personal squadron which is directly under his command.With better technology, the lightsaber fight between Vader and Obi-Wan could be faster-paced. Not prequels-style but more than tentatively tapping sabers together.Add more ships to the Battle of Yavin.Empire Strikes BackAgain, not much to change.Ian McDiarmid is the Emperor.Add more forces on each side to the Battle of Hoth.Special-Edition style Cloud City where there are windows letting us see outside.Return of the JediPersonally, if I was part of the team for this movie I would recommend not rehashing the Death Star plot. However, I can’t really think of a better way to go right now so I’ll have to keep. My only real alternatives are basically “not-Death-Stars” like a new command ship or something. In other words, it would just be a reskin and not a real change.Keep the Ewoks as Wookiees like they were originally supposed to be (the whole being captured and almost eaten scene can still work if Chewie is stated to be from a rival tribe).Leia is not Luke’s sister. That is a new character entirely. Luke charges Leia with finding his sister if he doesn’t return from his confrontation with Vader.Han dies at the end, sacrificing himself for the Rebellion and completing his character arc.The celebration scenes get replaced with scenes showing uprisings all over the galaxy. The Empire didn’t suddenly crumble because Palpatine is dead, instead this battle inspired oppressed people to band together and stand up, which is what actually brings the Empire down.The Force AwakensSo here’s where things would really start to change, largely because I would have given a different ending to RotJ.The Republic and First Order are in a Cold War. Both have their own superweapons (planet-busters, ion cannons capable of disabling entire fleets with a single shot, etc) which has resulted in a detente. The Republic feels secure with this state of affairs and as a result has drawn down its military and put most of its efforts into maintaining its superweapons and its intelligence apparatus.The Republic’s military intelligence arm supports the Resistance with information, training, and weapons. Leia is the general in charge of this support operation.We learn that as Luke searched for his sister, he came across numerous other Force-sensitives (never her, though) and took them on as apprentices until he had so many that he felt obligated to stop moving around and start a Jedi academy.Kylo Ren’s origins are largely unknown except that he is a former student of Luke’s who turned to the dark side and now serves Snoke, who is a woman.In the current film, it’s not clear why Luke is so important. Ok he was the only remaining Jedi but he was barely-trained. Why is it a big deal to find someone who has voluntarily withdrawn from the galaxy? Make it clear that Snoke is personally scared of Luke. She has built up the First Order as a cult of Force-worshippers and thus believes that any powerful Force user not under her control could be a threat. This is also why Kylo Ren has so much authority. The other Knights of Ren are also significant leaders in the First Order.The map to Luke isn’t incomplete. It seems pretty dumb that even a small piece couldn’t be matched up against existing maps. Instead, it’s a hyperroute overlay but it needs a key that explains how to reference it against existing galactic maps. The key was corrupted. R2 and BB-8 join forces to salvage the file. This means R2 can be awake from the start since this process will presumably take a while instead of inexplicably waking up at the end to be like “oh yeah I have that thing you needed earlier”.In the absence of Han, Finn and Rey encounter Chewie who recognized the Falcon. He helps them escape bounty hunters looking for them since it seems unlikely that he’d be mixed up in shady business without Han. They make their own way to Maz’s castle to help return BB-8 to the Resistance. FO and Resistance both appear, battle, Rey is captured, we know how this part goes.Although this was explained in the TLJ novelization and was heavily implied in the movie, apparently people can’t grasp Rey’s use of the Force without hanging a sign around her neck so an added line of dialogue can make it clear that after reading Kylo Ren’s mind she learned how to use the Force.Starkiller is a game-changing superweapon designed specifically to break the deadlock between the First Order and the Republic.The Resistance learns of the weapon through Finn. General Organa sends a message back to the Republic to mobilize their military in response. She also authorizes the Resistance to launch a strike against the base.The Resistance attack is successful but comes too late. During the battle, the weapon fires. It destroys the Republic homeworld and its arsenal of superweapons, tipping the balance of power in the First Order’s favor. This leaves the First Order as the dominant power despite having nowhere near the personnel or fleet size of the old Empire.The Last JediIn broad strokes, the movie is the same.Canto Bight can be a bit less hamfisted. We don’t need blatant animal cruelty to drive home the point that not all of these people are nice guys. They can be a mix of crime lords, arms dealers, powerful businessmen, I’d even throw in a Lando cameo. No cheesy hope speech.Cut out the animal chase scene, just let them escape and move on. We really don’t need to drag out something that has no significance to the overall plot.Canto Bight is the closest location with a master codebreaker, not the only one, which opens up the possibility from the start that more than one person can do this job.When they get captured on the Supremacy, the execution scene made no sense. “Make them suffer” by chopping off their heads and killing them instantly? Instead, we’ll borrow from a deleted scene. When they are about to be executed, Finn exposes Phasma’s treachery aboard Starkiller, prompting the stormtroopers to hesitate. Phasma kills the stormtroopers rather than risk them turning on her, then Finn and Rose seize the opportunity to take cover and start fighting until the kamikaze run gives them an opening to escape.For the space chase subplot there will be a few minor changes:Holdo is a Republic admiral. The ships she brings are some of the survivors from the scattered remnants of the Republic fleet but she knows there are more out there.As a member of the Republic Navy, she doesn’t really know or trust the Resistance, which plays into her treatment of Poe. Instead of just sucking at managing subordinates, she and Poe are technically from different military forces entirely and not even in the same chain of command. She looks at Poe the same way that US soldiers view Afghan or Iraqi soldiers, a useful proxy but not someone you would trust with any secrets or your own strategy or often even your own security.Poe and the other Resistance leaders are tired of being sidelined by the Republic commanders. Leia was their advocate and go-between prior to being incapacitated.When Holdo makes her kamikaze run, an extra bit of dialogue along the lines of “Wait, if a ship if that size rams into us…quick get our shields up!” just before the Raddus jumps will be a cue to the audience that this isn’t something that can be pulled off all the time or with any old starfighter. I think we’ve seen that audiences like to read way too much into things and aren’t good at subtlety.Rey’s training is pretty similar.Luke still wants the Jedi to end and explains the faults of the Jedi Order.He explains that he originally came to this place because he thought he failed due to his own lack of training. Yet then he discovered that the old Jedi Order was even more flawed than his new academy. This prompted him to abandon his goal of rebuilding the Jedi Order.Luke insists repeatedly that even if he went back, he cannot kill Snoke or Kylo Ren.As explained in the novelization but not explained in the movie, Luke finally decides to join Rey and return to the Resistance. However, when he walks into the hut to tell her this and sees her and Kylo Ren mind-linked, he changes his mind and orders her to leave.When he insists that “this is not going to go the way you think” Rey asks why not. Luke gets a haunted look in his eyes and turns away but can’t bring himself to explain his statement.We get a similar but slightly different explanation of why Luke was so broken.Kylo Ren was his most promising student but he worried that the boy was turning towards the dark side.He thought he could save Kylo Ren similar to Vader. He thought hope and love were enough. He believed it was working.When he finally probed Kylo Ren’s mind, the truth was shocking and horrifying. Kylo Ren was deeply entrenched in the dark side, he would be responsible for countless deaths.Luke also sees that Kylo Ren was deliberately left for Luke to find. Snoke has been reading his mind to spy on Luke and his academy.At that moment, Luke ignites his lightsaber but then hesitates realizing that Kylo Ren was indoctrinated in his ways from childhood. The rest plays out as we already know.The Snoke-Kylo-Rey subplot doesn’t have to change much. Despite being his mother, Snoke is still abusive and manipulative. She wants to keep her son firmly under her control.Snoke first tries to turn Rey. This provides an opportunity to explain her own past and how the Jedi and Luke failed her. She describes growing up on an Outer Rim world until the Empire came and enslaved her. She thought when Luke killed Vader and the Emperor (that being the popular story that the galaxy believes) that he would come and save her. He never did. She was herded onto an Imperial prison ship, which retreated with other remnants of the Imperial fleet further and further into the Unknown Regions.She felt Vader’s death in the Force, which triggered her own awakening. She learned to use the Force and she had plenty of despair and anger to draw upon. As her power grew, she was able to see her own past through the dark side (this should have significance for Rey who jumped into a dark side cave looking for her own past). She was Luke’s sister, yet he never came to save her, never rescued her from the Empire. She had to save herself. She sees Rey as a kindred spirit given their similar circumstances.Rey is shocked by this but in true Rey fashion continues her attempts to kill Snoke. Snoke orders Kylo Ren to kill Rey and the rest plays out as we expect.We see a quick cut of Luke breaking down in tears after feeling the death of Snoke. We realize that this is why Luke couldn’t fight the First Order. He spent years searching for his sister. Once he learned who she was, he couldn’t bring himself to kill her but he also knew he couldn’t save her.No faux-superweapon arc on Crait. No cringy “we win by saving those we love” line. Holy shit that was dumb. Yes genius, that’s exactly what Finn was trying to do. He was trying to save all of you.The speeders go out with the express purpose of slowing the First Order advance so they can call for help.The idea is for the signal to rally the remaining ships from the scattered Republic fleet.Poe orders a retreat when he realizes the First Order just keeps on marching as they shoot. They are losing people for nothing and the outdated speeders can’t scratch (or trip) the walkers.Finn tries to keep fighting anyway due to a blind hatred of the First Order, prompting Rose to intervene. This keeps the broad strokes of what happened while just being a bit more logical.The ending remains the same. Luke wins by being the most Jedi Jedi of all the Jedi. The remnants of the Resistance escape.Rogue OneThe general outline and tone works, it just needs some tweaks.An opening crawl can let us cut to something more interesting than the opening exposition scene. We can start with Jyn’s rescue instead.It should not be clear to the rebels how far along the Death Star is to completion. As currently written, killing Galen Erso made no sense at all.Add some actual character growth for Jyn.The ending is slightly different.The characters on the beach are killed getting the gate to open again.Jyn and Cassian escape Scarif through the gate on a stolen Imperial shuttle before Tarkin fires the Death Star. The others are killed as seen in the current version. The U-Wing is destroyed before the gate opens.Their shuttle docks with the Profundity, carrying the data tapes with them.Vader boards the ship.Jyn and Cassian are killed buying time for the plans to be transmitted.We see the Tantive IV jump into the system briefly, then jump away. This just meshes a little better with the opening of ANH rather than it being docked with a rebel ship and being seen fleeing the Battle of Scarif.SoloPerhaps rewrite this movie to make it focused around the Kessel Run instead of a series of heists that all feel too hasty and not very complex or interesting. I’d prefer that movies be centered on a plot idea, not just on a character backstory, especially when it doesn’t really add much and instead just checks the blocks that we already knew had to happen.Instead of dragging the ending out with stuff we already know has happened, I’d end the movie during the final card game between Lando and Han after Han has stolen Lando’s cheat device. I know I said subtlety doesn’t seem to work well with audiences but fuck man, we don’t need to see everything step by step when ESB already told us exactly what happens.

On April 15, 2013, at approximately 2:49 PM EST, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev planted two bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon in Boylston Street, killing 3 people and injuring more than 264 others. The first bomb, detonated by Tamerlan, killed Krystle Campbell and injured and maimed many others. The second bomb, detonated by Dzhokhar, killed Martin Richard and Lingzi Lu and injured and maimed many others.On April 18, 2013, at approximately 5:00 PM EST, the FBI released the photos of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to the public. Tamerlan was called "Suspect 1" and Dzhokhar was called "Suspect 2" since the authorities did not know their names when they released the brother's photos.On April 18, 2013, at approximately 10:00 PM EST, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev armed themselves with five IEDs, a Ruger P95 9mm semiautomatic gun, ammunition for the Ruger, a machete, and a hunting knife, and drove in their Honda Civic to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts.On April 18, 2013, at approximately 10:25 PM EST, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev murdered MIT police officer Sean Collier by shooting him at close range with their Ruger gun. Since they had only one gun, they attempted to steal his service weapon, but it was locked in a holster, and thus they were unable to steal the weapon.On April 18, 2013, at approximately 11:00 PM EST, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev carjacked Dun Meng’s leased Mercedes. Tamerlan Tsarnaev pointed a gun at D.M. and threatened to shoot him (D.M.) if he (D.M.) didn’t comply with his (Tamerlan’s) demands. D.M., who was absolutely frightened by Tamerlan’s threats, immediately gave his wallet and other possessions to Tamerlan. Tamerlan then asked D.M., “Did you hear about the Marathon explosion”?. D.M. replied, “Yes, I did”. Tamerlan then asked him, “Do you who did it?”. D.M. replied, “no”. Tamerlan replied, “I did it and I just killed a policeman in Cambridge. So don’t do anything stupid”. They loaded the trunk of the Mercedes with pressure-cooker bombs, similar to the ones they used in the marathon attack. They told D.M. that they intended to travel to Times Square as their next target where they planned to detonate their remaining explosives. They then forced D.M. to go to a gas station where they planned to fill the Mercede’s gas tank. While they were searching for a gas station, they stopped by a Bank of America in Watertown Square. They forced D.M. to give them his ATM debit card and PIN. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev then entered the Bank of America and used D.M’s credit card and PIN to withdraw $800.00 from D.M’s bank account against D.M’s will.On April 19, 2013, at approximately 12:15 AM EST, D.M. escaped from the Mercedes and called 911. He alerted and told the store clerk that the two carjackers, the Tsarnaev brothers, were the suspects of the marathon explosion on 4/15/2013.On April 19, 2013, from approximately 12:43 AM to 12:50 AM EST, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev were engaged in a tense shootout with Watertown police officers. They exchanged more than 200 shots with the officers and threw or attempted to throw 4 IEDs at the officers.On April 19, 2013, at approximately, 12:50 AM EST, after attempting to shoot, kill, bomb, and disable the police officers who were trying to apprehend the Tsarnaev brothers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev surrendered and threw his empty gun at officers. He was then tackled and held down to the ground by three officers: Sergeant Jeffrey Pugliese, Sergeant John McLellan, and Officer John Reynolds. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev reentered the Mercedes and drove it directly at the three officers. His intention was to drive the car at the three officers and kill them. Instead, he nearly missed Sergeant Jeffrey Pugliese, who was attempting to bring Tamerlan Tsarnaev to safety. He then inadvertently drove over Tamerlan Tsarnaev, seriously injuring him and ultimately contributing to his death. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was then transported to a hospital in Cambridge during the early morning hours of 4/19/2013 where he suffered massive bleeding. A few hours later, he was pronounced dead. In the course of making his escape in the Mercedes, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev caused Richard Donohue, a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority officer, to sustain serious bodily injury.After escaping in the Mercedes, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev abandoned the car in Watertown, smashed his cell phones, and hid in a boat behind David Henneberry’s house until he was captured by the police. A bomb technician who was searching for explosives inside the boat found a note written by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. He wrote the following on an interior wall inside the boat: “The U.S. Government is killing our innocent civilians”, “I can’t stand to see such evil go unpunished”, “We Muslims are one body, you hurt one you hurt us all”, “Now I don’t like killing innocent people it is forbidden in Islam but due to (unintelligible) it is allowed”, “Stop killing our innocent people and we will stop”, “I’m jealous of my brother”, and “I do not mourn because his (Tamerlan’s) soul is very much alive”. These statements provide a crucial insight into Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s and Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s motives for bombing the marathon on 4/15/2013.On February 6, 2013, at an unknown time, Tamerlan Tsarnaev traveled to Phantom Fireworks in Seabrook, New Hampshire (about a half an hour drive from the Tsarnaev residence), and bought 48 mortars containing approximately eight pounds of low explosive powder. In total, he spent approximately $199.99 on the fireworks kit.On April 23, 2013, investigators visited the New Hampshire fireworks store to interrogate the store manager, April Walton. She told authorities that Tamerlan Tsarnaev asked her for the “biggest and loudest kit”. She even showed them the fireworks that he bought. Investigators were able to track down Tsarnaev’s purchase on 2/6/2013, but were unable to find video surveillance of his visit to the store.On an unknown day (a few days or weeks before the bombing), Tamerlan Tsarnaev is caught on surveillance camera exiting a Watertown Target store with a plastic Target bag that contained two black backpacks.Also on an unknown day (a few days or weeks before the bombing), Tamerlan Tsarnaev is alleged to have purchased five Fagor brand pressure cookers at a Macy’s store in Saugus, Massachusetts.Also on an unknown day (a few weeks before the bombing), either Tamerlan or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, went to a Home Depot store in Watertown to purchase nails, BB pellets, shrapnel, and a soldering gun (in order to heat the metal). It is not clear which bomber made the Home Depot purchase.On March 20, 2013, at an unknown time, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev went to a gun firing range, in Manchester, New Hampshire. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev rented two 9mm handguns, bought 200 rounds of ammunition, and engaged in practice with Tamerlan Tsarnaev for approximately one hour. There is also a video surveillance of the Tsarnaev’s leaving the gun range.On April 5, 2013, at an unknown time, Tamerlan Tsarnaev used the internet to order electronic components that could be used for making IEDs and bombs and two remote control bomb detonators. The components and remote control devices were then delivered to the Cambridge residence shared by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev by the United States Postal Service.On April 14, 2013, at an unknown time, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev opened a prepaid cell phone account under the name “Jahar Tsarni”. He would later use the prepaid cell phone to call Tamerlan Tsarnaev to tell him when to detonate his bomb.On April 15, 2013, at approximately 2:40 PM EST, Tamerlan Tsarnaev walked to the front of Marathon Sports where he placed his pressure cooker bomb concealed in a black backpack among a dense crowd of spectators who were watching, enjoying, and cheering on the race and the marathon runners.On April 15, 2013, at approximately 2:40 PM EST, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev walked to the front of the Forum restaurant where placed his pressure cooker bomb concealed in a black backpack among a dense crowd of spectators who were watching, enjoying, and cheering on the race and the marathon runners.On April 15, 2013, at approximately 2:48 PM EST, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev called Tamerlan Tsarnaev using his prepaid cell phone and spoke with him for a few seconds.On April 15, 2013, at approximately 2:49 PM EST, just seconds after Dzhokhar Tsarnaev completed his call with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Tamerlan Tsarnaev detonated his bomb, killing Krystle Campbell and injuring and maiming many others.On April 15, 2013, at approximately 2:49 PM EST, just seconds after Tamerlan Tsarnaev detonated his bomb, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev detonated his bomb, killing Martin Richard and Lingzi Lu and injuring and maiming many others.Tamerlan Tsarnaev wore a dark Bridgestone hat, sunglasses, a white shirt, dark coat, and tan pants. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wore a white baseball cap backwards, a gray hooded sweatshirt, a lightweight black jacket, and dark pants.On April 18, 2013, at an unknown time, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev stored his computer and his backpack containing fireworks in his college dormitory room.On April 18, 2013, at approximately 8:45 PM EST, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev texted a classmate and close friend, "If you want u can go to my room and take what you want."On April 15, 2013, at approximately 3:14 PM EST, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is seen on videotape entering a Cambridge Whole Foods store to buy milk. He leaves and then reenters the store to exchange the milk. Tamerlan Tsarnaev is said to have waited in their car in the Whole Foods parking lot. Tamerlan even called a friend and said, “The Boston blasts could have been an accident”.On April 15, 2013, at an unknown time, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev downloaded to his computer a digital copy of a book called, "The Slicing Sword, Against the One Who Forms Allegiances With the Disbelievers and Takes Them as Supporters Instead of Allah, His Messenger and The Believers." The version that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev downloaded had a foreword by Anwar Al-Awlaki, a well-known Al-Qaeda propagandist. This publication urges and encourages Muslims not to give their allegiance to governments “that invade Muslim lands”.On April 15, 2013, at an unknown time, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev downloaded to his computer another publication entitled, "Defense of the Muslim Lands, the First Obligation After Imam," by Abdullah Azzam, who is also known as and revered by Islamic extremists as "the Father of Global Jihad." This publication advocates violence designed to terrorize and commit acts of violence against the perceived enemies of Islam.On April 15, 2013, at an unknown time, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev downloaded to his computer a digital copy of the publication, "Jihad and the Effects of Intention Upon It." The version he downloaded was published by an extremist web forum called At-Tibyan publications. The publication glorifies martyrdom in the service of violent jihad.On April 15, 2013, at an unknown time, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev downloaded to his computer a copy of Volume One of Inspire magazine (an Al-Qaeda terror guide with the subtitle, “May Your Souls Be Sacrificed”), which includes instructions on how to build IEDs and bombs using pressure cookers or sections of pipe, explosive powder from fireworks, shrapnel, nails, and BB pellets, among other components.On April 23, 2013, about a week after the bombing, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told authorities that he and his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev were inspired to attack the marathon for retaliation for U.S. wars and killings of Muslims in the Middle East and by listening to radical Islamist messages (mainly from Anwar Al-Awlaki). He also told authorities that they intended to travel to Times Square to detonate their remaining explosives and learned to create the bombs and IEDs from Al-Qaeda’s Inspire magazine. In a stunning twist, he also told authorities that he and his brother originally planned the bomb attack for July 4, 2013, but since they ended up making the bombs quicker than they expected, they chose the new attack date for 4/15/2013.From January 2012 to Late July 2012, Tamerlan Tsarnaev spent six months in Dagestan. It is believed that he met radical Islamists during that trip, visited several mosques, and possibly even received training. Dagestan, like its neighbor Chechnya, is torn by frequent ethnic violence. When Tamerlan returned to Cambridge in July 2012, he is said to have become “radically different”. Even among mainstream Muslims in Cambridge, he stood out as “radicalized and angry”. It is very likely that he planned the Boston Marathon Bombings in Dagestan as he kept a very low-profile in the city.On April 12, 2013, three days before the bombings, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev went to a Cambridge Mosque to pray. They then went to John Allen’s gym in Boston for a workout. Tamerlan is seen to be physically active and jumping forcibly up and down and jumping on both legs. Dzhokhar is also seen jumping up and down. They are accompanied by another unknown individual.On April 19, 2013, reporters and journalists interviewed Ruslan Tsarni, the uncle of the then-alleged Boston Marathon bombers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. He told reporters, “I’ve been following this (the bombing) from day one, but could never ever imagine that somehow children of my brother would be associated with that”. He attributed their alleged actions to “being losers”, “unable to settle themselves”, and “hatred for those who were able to settle themselves”. He also stated that any notion, insinuation, or suggestion that they were influenced by their Islamic faith or other political reasons or motives was a “fraud, a fake”. He said, “anything to do with religion or politics, it’s a fraud, a fake”. He expressed condolences to the victims of the bombing and their families, referring to Martin Richard as “this 8 year old boy”, Lingzi Lu as “this Chinese girl”, and Krystle Campbell as “this 29-year old restaurant worker”. He urged and ordered Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving suspect, to surrender to authorities and ask for forgiveness from the victims of his and his brother’s actions. “Dzhokhar, if you are alive, turn yourself in and ask for forgiveness from the victims”. He condemned his nephews for their alleged actions and told reporters that they “had put a shame on the Tsarnaev family” and “the entire Chechen ethnicity”. He went on to say, “somebody radicalized them, but it’s not my brother (their father, Anzor Tsarnaev)”. He said that a mysterious radical mentor named “Misha” brainwashed and radicalized the older bombing suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. “Misha” was later identified as Mikhail Allakhverdov, a resident of Rhode Island. He denied to authorities of ever influencing, inspiring, or radicalizing Tamerlan Tsarnaev to bomb the Boston Marathon finish line. He even said, “I wasn’t his teacher” and “If I had been his teacher, I would have made sure he never did anything like this”.Tamerlan Tsarnaev seemed to have a quite difficult time finding his place in and assimilating in American society. At one point he told a reporter, “I don’t have a single American friend. I don’t understand them”. In 2009, he was arrested for domestic violence where he allegedly slapped his then-girlfriend, Katherine Russell. She was born in Texas and is currently 32 years old. According to people around her, she was an all American-girl until Tamerlan brainwashed and forced her to become a Muslim and adopt a strict form of Islam. Tamerlan’s passion and outlet for fitting in American society was boxing. He was such a talented boxer. He even won the 2009-10 New England Golden Gloves and ended up winning the Rocky Marciano Trophy. In May 2009, he fought in the nationals, but lost in the first round. But then came a sharp and stinging blow: Tamerlan Tsarnaev was barred from ever participating in a national boxing tournament because he was not an American citizen. Ever since that rejection, Tamerlan is said to have found a belonging and safe haven in and an obsession with radical Islam. There is even a photo of him wearing a traditional white Islamic keffiyeh, holding and brandishing a black gun, and standing in front of a large Islamic scripture. During his trip in Dagestan, he even emailed Dzhokhar video links of radical Islamic messages (one of them including an article of Osama Bin Laden’s martyrdom) and wrote, “Watch this ...It’s interesting” and “Those who help Allah’s cause, Allah will help them”. A few months before the bombing, Tamerlan had two minor outbursts at a Cambridge mosque where he objected to the Imam praising Martin Luther King Jr. and saying that Muslims can also celebrate Halloween. He even went as far as to accuse the Imam of “contaminating people’s minds” and called him a “non-believer”. As for Tamerlan’s objection to the Imam’s praise of MLK Jr., he objected to the imam by saying that “He (MLK) is not a Muslim”. Tamerlan was allegedly kicked out of the mosque for his “hate-filled” tirades and rants against the Imam. His close friends described him as “sometimes rough, aggressive, and intimidating as a boxer”. They also stated that he started to talk more about religion and anti-Jewish conspiracies in the gym. Despite these minor outbursts, Tamerlan did not seem to exhibit or show any signs of violence or a desire for terrorist activity. He also had his own YouTube channel playlist under the title name, “Terrorists”. Tamerlan also liked a video from the Australian radical Islamic cleric and preacher Sheikh Feiz Mohammed, where Mohammed makes a bizarre anti-Harry Potter rant and tells “good Muslims” to not let their children watch Harry Potter movies or read Harry Potter books. He also dubbed J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series as “un-Islamic”.Meanwhile, his younger brother, Dzhokhar, seemed to have such an easy-going and likable experience in American society. He spoke clear American English without any accent. He was also talented in wrestling. He even got a scholarship to go to college at University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and was such a popular kid among his circle of friends. At one point, he even worked as a lifeguard at UMass Dartmouth. On September 11, 2012, he became an American citizen. But he also had a dark side: he dealt and smoked a great deal of pot. He even at one point profited from selling pot. There is also a photo of him posing in front of an ISIS flag in his Cambridge residence. In the months preceding the bombing, Dzhokhar’s grades are said to have plummeted immensely. In January 2013, he even told his teachers that he might quit his college 2012-13 year. Ever since then, he and Tamerlan started spending more and more time together and listening to radical Islamist messages. Anwar Al-Awlaki once stated, “The way you should see it as a Muslim is that you are one year closer to your death. Did I prepare myself for this?” and “A Muslim cannot afford to waste any time”.In late May 2013, Al-Qaeda praised the Tsarnaev brothers as “two great brothers” for their then-alleged role in the Boston Marathon Bombings and referred to the blasts as “BBB” (Blessed Boston Bombings). It stated, "The act of the two great brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, is but the true image reflected by the bloody deeds of your hands, reflected by the oppressive policies of your downtrodding regimes”, "Americans, you should understand this simple equation: as you kill, you will be killed.", "The Blessed Boston Bombings (BBB) have been an absolute success on all levels and domains, and "By tracking the course Tamerlan and Dzhokhar -- may Allah reward them -- ran along April 15 until they crossed their own finish line... we can confidently say that the real worthy winners of the Boston Marathon were the Tsarnaev mujahideen Brothers." It also praised Michael Adebolajo and Michael Abebowale, the two suspects of the brutal daylight murder of British army soldier and serviceman Fusilier Lee Rigby. According to a video of one of the suspects speaking shortly after the attack with blood on his hands, that assault was carried out "because Muslims are dying every day" at the hands of Western troops.On April 8, 2015, the surviving bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found guilty of all 30 counts of the indictment, ranging from carjacking and using a weapon of mass destruction resulting in a total of 4 deaths and more than 260 injuries. 17 of those 30 counts carried a possible death penalty. Bill and Denise Richard, the parents of Martin Richard, a charming 8-year old 3rd grader and the youngest victim of the bombing, publicly opposed the death penalty for Tsarnaev. Their daughter, Jane, lost her left leg in the blasts, while their oldest son, Henry remained completely unharmed from the blasts. Meanwhile, the Corcoran family and Mrs. Norden were outspoken advocates for the death penalty for Tsarnaev. On May 15, 2015, Tsarnaev was sentenced to death by lethal injection. After the verdict, many survivors and families of the victims were grateful for the verdict and found it as a sense of closure. Michael Ward, a firefighter during the bombing, said of Tsarnaev, “he wanted to go to hell and he’s going to get there early”. Karen Brassard said, “Even though there’s a long way to go and many more dates to come”, she found it as a sense of closure. On June 24, 2015, Tsarnaev was formally sentenced to death by Judge George O’Toole. Patricia Campbell told him, “You could have asked your brother for help” and “I know that life is hard, but the choices you made were despicable and what you did to my daughter is disgusting”, although Krystle Campbell was killed by the bomb that Tamerlan detonated. Martin and Denise Richard said of Tsarnaev, “He chose hate. He chose destruction. He chose death” and “This is all on him”, meaning that Tsarnaev chose not to stop his older brother and bombing mastermind Tamerlan and instead decided to go along with Tamerlan. Rebekah Gregory stated to Tsarnaev, “I am not a victim-- not yours and definitely not your brother’s”. She went on and said that Tsarnaev and his brother ended up unifying the city of Boston and the entire nation and “We are Boston strong. We are America strong. Choosing to mess with us was a terrible idea”. U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz stated, “The defendant claimed to be acting on behalf of all Muslims” and “This act does not reflect the beliefs of Muslims or any other religion or political reason”. She said it was a “hate crime” and a “terrorist act”. William Weinreb said Tsarnaev showed “no remorse” and did not renounce terrorism at all. Other families and victims said Tsarnaev showed no remorse for his actions. Tsarnaev, who was mostly disinterested and disengaged during the trial, finally broke his silence on June 24, 2015, stating to the families of the survivors and victims in his Russian accent solemnly and softly, "I am sorry for the lives that I've taken, for the suffering that I've caused you, for the damage that I've done — irreparable damage”. "All those who got up on that witness stand and that podium relayed to us, to me — I was listening — the suffering that was and the hardship that still is, with strength, with patience, with dignity”, he also said. Jennifer Rogers, the sister of MIT police officer Sean Collier who was murdered by the Tsarnaev brothers during their escape 3 days after the bombing, called Tsarnaev a “leech abusing the privilege of American freedom, and he spit in the face of the American dream”. Judge George O’Toole told Tsarnaev, "The evil that men do lives after them. The good is often interred with their bones." "So it will be for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. O’Toole also told Tsarnaev that no one will remember that his teachers were fond of him, that his friends found him fun to be with or that he showed compassion to disabled people. O’Toole said, "What will be remembered is that you murdered and maimed innocent people, and that you did it willfully and intentionally. You did it on purpose”. "He can't possibly have had a soul to do such a horrible thing," said Karen Rand McWatters, who lost a leg in the attack and whose best friend, 29-year-old Krystle Campbell, was killed in the blasts. His apology was a five-minute address peppered with religious references and praise of Allah. He paused several times, looking as if he was trying to maintain his composure. He stood and faced the judge while speaking, but spoke of the victims. Twenty-four people in all gave so-called victim impact statements at the sentencing, some of them urging him to explain himself and utter the words of remorse they longed to hear. Even though he was sentenced to death, the appeals process has already begun and it could take several years or even several decades for the appeals to be sent to the courts. Timothy McVeigh, one of the Oklahoma City Bombers was executed in Terre Haute, Indiana on June 11, 2001. The other bomber, Terry Nichols, was sentenced to life imprisonment without any possibility of parole. Richard noted that his family would have preferred that Tsarnaev receive a life sentence so that he could have had "a lifetime to reconcile with himself what he did that day." Richard said his family has chosen love, kindness and peace, adding: "That is what makes us different from him.” Judy Clarke was Tsarnaev’s lawyer. She had a knack for avoiding the death penalty for previous notorious killers and murderers in the U.S. Her strategy was not to fight the charges but instead fight the death penalty. The defense’s argument was that Tsarnaev was swayed and coerced into his older brother’s malevolent plot to bomb the finish line of the marathon. They also stated that the overwhelming evidence against the Tsarnaev brothers suggested that Tamerlan was the mastermind behind the bombings. Meanwhile, the the prosecutors argued that Tsarnaev was an equal partner in terrorism with his older brother. They also cited his lack of remorse for tearing the fleshes, bodies, and legs of innocents by showing the videotape of him entering a Whole Foods Milk to buy milk, 24 minutes after the bombing, as if nothing had happened. They stated that he could not blame his actions on his brother. The jurors apparently rejected the defense’s argument that Tamerlan was the mastermind behind the terror blasts and gave Tsarnaev the death sentence. It is feared that like-minded future terrorists could make a martyr or hero out of him if he is executed. Tsarnaev wore a black suit, a black suit pant, and a white button shirt during the trial and the sentencing.On January 15, 2016, a federal judge rejected Tsarnaev’s request for a new trial. He argued that he did not receive a fair trial due to the intense publicity that his case received. He also argued that he was denied due and fair process and “innocent until proven guilty”. The same federal judge forced Tsarnaev to pay more than $101 million dollars to all of the victims of the twin blasts.On July 1, 2016, Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri warned that the U.S. that they would face “the gravest consequences” if Tsarnaev or any other Muslim prisoner in the U.S. is executed by U.S. officials. He stated, “If the U.S. administration kills our brother the hero Dzhokhar Tsarnaev or any Muslim, it will bring America’s nationals the gravest consequences”. He continued that if the execution of Tsarnaev or any Muslim prisoner were to occur, the U.S. “will only have themselves to blame”. He opined that Western powers are “criminals who only understand the language of force”. He urged on Muslims to commit more sophisticated and deadlier terrorist attacks against Western countries and powers and to take as many Westerners as hostage as possible.On July 31, 2020, Tsarnaev’s death sentence was overturned due to the insufficient attention paid to the potential juror bias during the 2015 trial. The Justice Department is now seeking for a new trial and also to reinstate the death penalty for Tsarnaev. Survivor Rebekah Gregory tweeted and reacted, “So people are sitting on death row for far less, and the US Appeals court chooses to overturn the sentence of this COWARD??! All this does is give him the attention he wants, and prolongs the nightmare we have been living the last SEVEN years. Disgusting”.Adrienne-Haslet Davis reacted on Instagram:“Right back atcha motherf*cker.I’m so livid at today’s ruling by the federal court. First and foremost, I cannot emphasize enough, without a shadow of a doubt, that the criminal justice system needs a complete overhaul to stop racial profiling, and the death penalty is used in far too many cases of injustice. AND. The death penalty should be used in this particular case.This terrorist admitted in court he was guilty of crimes committed against our country. He confessed, with his brother, to a man who testified in court that their plans were to drive to New York and bomb the city too. This terrorist gave the finger when asked if he felt guilty. AND.The warden of the jail where he would be housed for life testified that, indeed, other terrorists have committed crimes on the World Trade Center through messages on pipes of the jail. I know, this sounds crazy. But that is why I stood by the death penalty in this particular case. He is a threat to all of us and he needs to die.I cannot imagine the comments I’m about to get for speaking my mind, but these have been my thoughts since I testified. I’m not a woman with a grudge, I’m a human with a brain.Login • Instagramhttps://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/bostonstrong/Also props to me for putting his ugly face on my Instagram that’s freaking growth if I’ve ever seen it!!! I’m ready to testify again. LFG 💪🏼🇺🇸”.She also posted a photo of Tsarnaev showing the middle finger in his jail cell at a camera. Below that photo, she posted a picture of herself showing the middle finger as she entered the courtroom. Haslet-Davis also stated that she is ready to testify again should the need occur.Kim Donohue, the husband of Richard Donohue, who was seriously injured by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the course of his escape in Dun Meng’s Mercedes, tweeted and reacted, “Today’s death reversal doesn’t change me or my husband’s happiness. It doesn’t bring back our friend Sean. I’ve been inspired by survivors, moved to tears by doctors, and forever indebted to those who saved Dic’s life in Watertown. No sentencing will ever change that”. She also posted a picture of her husband Richard Donohue standing with survivors Jeff Bauman and the cowboy hat hero Carlos Arrendondo, who saved Bauman’s life.Both Gregory and Haslet-Davis lost at least one leg from the blasts.