George Bush gave America's fallen police officers a nice speech...
"President Bush paid tribute on Sunday to 156 law enforcement officers killed last year while making traffic stops, arresting criminals, investigating crimes and performing other duties...
..."All of these men and women served the cause of justice," Bush said at a memorial service on the Capitol lawn. "Our nation stands in admiration and gratitude for their service, and we ask God's blessings for the families and friends they have left behind." from: Bush honors slain police officers - 156 officers died in line of duty in 2004.
Ahhh, the police officers get God's blessings (and don't get me wrong, they deserve them). But who gets George Bush's obedience? The NRA and its fellow "any gun is a good gun" followers. I don't claim to be an expert on the gun control issue, however I believe the police officers who have to face guns everyday on the streets are experts...
“Law enforcement officers visiting Washington for National Police Week sent a message to Congress today: It's getting more dangerous for police on America's streets, not safer, because of new, deadlier firearms...
...Two police officers who have been victims - one who was shot and nearly killed, another whose police officer son was murdered - joined representatives of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Black Police Association and the National Latino Peace Officers Association in urging Congress to restrict weapons like the 50 caliber sniper rifle and the Five-Seven "Cop Killer" handgun. They were joined by Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), whose husband and son were victims of gun violence. "Congress should help the police, by keeping guns like 50 caliber sniper rifles and the Five-Seven handgun out of the hands of criminals and terrorists," said Ken McGuire, a former officer who retired after being nearly fatally shot." from: POLICE URGE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION AGAINST DEADLY NEW GUNS.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - -E
The NRA isn't as fanatical as you want to paint them to be. They support three strikes you're out legislation, they support the stiffest penalties for being caught with an illegal firearm. They have programs set up across the country for education and safety. They aren't who is responsible for gun crimes.
2 - SFC SKI
There should be even stronger laws for criminals to disregard.
3 - Dave Nalle
Sorry, this post is a (pardon my language) pile of crap. There are so many guns that can shoot through a 'bullet proof' vest that aren't even being considered for any kind of ban that the ban that has been proposed is utterly meaningless. Hell, with the right ammo any weapon of significant calibre can shoot through one.
The solution to police officers getting shot is not better body armor, it's putting the violent criminals away and keeping them put away. If you check their rap sheets the vast majority of the cop shooters are going to have long records of violence. Chances are they got out early because of prison overcrowding and overloaded courts.
The solution - let the damned drug offenders out of prison and stop prosecuting them, and use those resources to put the actual violent felons away and keep them out of society.
End of story.
Dave
4 - SFC SKI
I have to agree, Dave. Legal or not, violnt criminals will get a hold of guns and use them.
Until gun-control supporters are willing to admit that guns are only tools that can be used for any purpose peaceful or not, gun advocates will always be hostile to them and vice versa. The real issue is violient crime.
5 - Dean
I was loathe to actually post a comment here because I know instinctively that the extremists on both sides of the argument will use it to kick off a firestorm ...but:
I'm not sure I understand the argument that restricting the availability of military-grade weapons (i.e. .50 cal. sniper rifle - used with great effect by the way in Afghanistan) to the public infringes on the right to bear arms. The last time I looked there were very few heavily armored deer roaming the north woods...and a .50 cal sniper rifle for home protection is...well, a trifle excessive don't you think? if you did shot the "intruder", the chances are pretty good it would blow through him, through the walls of your house and possibly through the neighbors as well, depending on the construction.
Isn't there a line between public good and personal safety?
6 - Dave Nalle
We either have a right to bear arms or we don't. And realistically, arms should include just about any weapon that exists.
While most people don't have a need for a .50 calibre sniper rifle, some folks may want one for sporting purposes (long range competition shooting), nostalgia - i have a friend who was a sniper - or (horror of horrors) to shoot the guy trying to crash through your security gate in a truck and come in and rob your house. The truth is that very few people are going to buy a gun like this or be qualified to use it effectively. It's not like every hunter or homeowner is picking one up, so what's the point in the restriction?
And if you're going to ban the 50 cal sniper rifle, why not ban my 45-70 Sharps? It's just about as powerful and will certainly pierce body armor - hell, it will shoot through a buffalo lengthwise - and will let me hit targets at great range if I put a sight on it. Hell, if I put teflon rounds in my 30-06 I can pierce body armor and no one's banning plain old hunting rifles.
The whole body armor piercing argument is basically bogus. The kinds of people who get in gunfights with the cops have handguns, shotguns or at best maybe a small calibre submachinegun. They're not going to be lugging a .50 cal monstrosity into a convenience store - "Sanjit, back up so I can actually aim this gun at you across the counter, please."
This is just a case of incrementalism. Ban this gun so we can use it as a precedent for banning other guns...step by step we'll get them all.
Dave
7 - Eric Olsen
No rights are absolute, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So the question of where to draw the line is in no way unreasonable
8 - Shark
DaveNalle: "They're not going to be lugging a .50 cal monstrosity into a convenience store - "Sanjit, back up so I can actually aim this gun at you across the counter, please."
Yep, everyone KNOWS all convenience store clerks are dot-heads from some ferrin' country!
What a racist maroon.
===========
DaveNalle: "We either have a right to bear arms or we don't."
No, Davey, according to the Second Amendment, you have the right to a choice between a musket and an arquebus.
(Besides, do you really want Shark owning a .50 caliber sniper rifle?)
9 - Dave Nalle
Shark, my local convenience store clerk is from Bangladesh. Where's yours from? I rest my case.
Some stereotypes exist because they are true.
We actually have a business association here in austin called the Greater Austin Merchants Association, which is composed enitrely of Pakistani, Bangladeshi and other east indian type convenience store owners. If there are enough of them to have their own chamber of commerce I'm not innacurate in my portrayal of a convenience store clerk likely being of that extraction.
Plus, I like them just fine, not a bit racist. I actually like them better than the Lebanese guy who runs the slightly farther away convenience store.
But back to the point...
>>No, Davey, according to the Second Amendment, you have the right to a choice between a musket and an arquebus.<<
Actually, at the time the Constitution was written they did have rifles and arquebuses were already very obsolete. And the point of the amendment was that we should be allowed to have contemporary military armament - just like the Swiss - and that should update with time. So I should be able to own a blackhawk and park it in my front yard.
>>>(Besides, do you really want Shark owning a .50 caliber sniper rifle?)<<
Sure, so long as I have a cruise missile.
Dave
10 - Shark
Dave "Mr. Truism" Nalle: "...Shark, my local convenience store clerk is from Bangladesh. Where's yours from? I rest my case."
ANSWER: Don't rest it too soon, KlanBoy. Mine are all recently unemployed, college-educated white collar anglo-Americans who lost their jobs in the Bush economy. Oh, that and a few who used to work for Enron.
~Next question!
Dave's Interpretation of the Second Amendment:
"So I should be able to own a blackhawk and park it in my front yard."
Kinda adds ammo to your point about a "slippery slope" -- but I don't think it's the one you intended to make.
PS: Can Anthrax be considered "arms"??
xxoo,
Shark, (heading for the kitchen to cook something for Dave's Meals on Wheels)
11 - htom
Here comes the slippery slope. We shouldn't have allowed them to classify things over .50 BMG as prohibited without special license.
When was the last time you heard of someone being killed by a civilian with a .50 BMG?
12 - Nancy
"Klanboy" - ?! That's pretty funny. I myself wonder how the new Florida self-defence law is going to work out? Will crime shoot up (so to speak) from all the vigilantes defending themselves, or will it tank, because the criminally inclined aren't so sure they might not be the ones ending up on the wrong end of the bullet?
As for criminals, I agree there are too many in jail, but I think that's because not enough are getting ushered out of this vale of tears by the state (or the cops) fast enough. When someone only gets FIVE years for murder-?! And then everyone talks about 'you can't just execute these poor wayward men, it would make life cheap,' well, doesn't that make their victims' lives cheap? If we don't want to off them, then at least they can repay their debt to society by serving as test subjects for various products and medical procedures, instead of using animals. I think the probability of ending up as a living lab experiment might deter a lot more of those trigger-happy honchos out there than just jail time or death row.
13 - Shark
A few years ago, Texas instigated the ol' 'concealed handgun' law. I don't think *crime changed much -- either up or down -- but that's because most Texans have carried handguns since the 1870s -- the 'concealed' part was the only thing new.
*road rage killings seemed to be much more convenient, although many of my fellow Texans found it's hard to shoot and drive while talking on a cell phone.
14 - gonzo marx
well over 60% of those incarcerated currently are in for non-violent posession of controlled substances..
that figure goes higher in some states, where statistics show up to 80% are in for simple marijuana possesion..
shows our priorities for incarceration, eh?
Excelsior!
15 - MDE
re: Dave's "Sorry, this post is a (pardon my language) pile of crap."
and SFC's "The real issue is violient crime."
When you're right, you're right.
So-called gun control is a waste of time. Anyone can get whatever (s)he wants on the grey and black markets. What people need is a bit of self-control.
Mark
16 - Victor Plenty
Okay, maybe legalizing drugs is political suicide. Fine. Let's not talk about legalizing drugs right now.
But how about this instead: let's pass a new law saying, whenever a prison is overcrowded, and the authorities must choose between releasing non-violent potheads or releasing violent murderers with long rap sheets of armed robberies and drive-by shootings, they have to release the non-violent inmates and keep the violent ones behind bars.
Could a politician still have a career after voting for such a law?
17 - Big Time Patriot
Consider this, I don't claim to be an expert on the dangers of various types of guns to police officers.
However, I believe police officers when they give their opinion on this matter.
When people who are well out of the line of fire give their opinions on just how important the right to bear arms is, it reminds me of the large number of pro-war people in our administration who did all they could to avoid war personally but have all sorts of philosophical reasons why OTHER people should be sent off to fight wars.
It's fine that many of you think that owning guns is an absolute black and white issue, but you might consider listening to what police officers and their organizations say...
They might know a little bit more about the PRACTICAL side of the issue that some paid staff members of the NRA don't have to deal with...
18 - -E
Most of the weapons that are in the proposed ban aren't legal for the "public" to get their hands on now as it is.
As for police officers and what they say on the subject....I know many and have several in my family. They support those who want to own guns and will help them find the proper safety and education classes to ensure responsible gun ownership. I'd say all but one that I know are members of the NRA. The one that isn't isn't because her husband is.
19 - SFC SKI
Victor, I'd urge my reps to vote for a law like you propose.
I would like to see firearms owners be responsible enough to take a safety course, oh wait, many of the m do, and they are sponsored by the NRA in many places, imagine that. (I don't own a fiream, BTW)
20 - daniel
historically, there has been a slight increase in violent crime in states with CCW permits. not a huge jump, but a jump nonetheless.
and yesterday, a CCW permit holder shot a bouncer (a loving dad with four kids) outside a bar for kicking him out.
and i'm with Dave. there is no reason at all you should be able to have sniper rifles. the second amendment was built to create standing militias like the Swiss have used to great effect, not to give yahoo gun-nuts the right to own whatever instrument of death they want.
and what's so expensive in Eric Olsen's house that he has dudes in trucks barging through his front gate to rob his house (thus justifying the self-defense use of .50 calibers)? i think if he was rich enough for this to be the case he'd be too busy having a life to obsess over guns.
21 - SFC SKI
See, that is the flip-side of weapons ownership. Violent crimes like you describe above should be straight death penalty cases, no appeal, no years in jail, leet the trial be swift and fair, and if found guilty, zap.
Gun ownership is a right, but it should carry great responsibility as well. I'd go so far as to say that if you are a gun owner who is later convicted of a violent crime, domestic abuse, etc, you should forfeit gun ownership.
22 - Dean
I reiterate the point of my question (which seems to have been lost in Dave's desire to have a bigger (ahem) cannon): Isn't there a line between public good and personal safety?
At what point does the right to self-protection outweigh the overall benefit to society as a whole? In short, does it make society as a whole safer to have everyone as heavily armed as possible? Where does the line get draw? Backyard nukes?
Bear in mind also that the Founding Fathers promulgated the right to bear arms a). more than 200 years ago in an era when frontier defense was, admittedly mostly "self-help" and b). in an era where a fast rate of fire was 2 to 4 shots per minute on average.
Is the current attitude of "all that arms I can bear, I will bear" a common-sense or defensible proposition in an era where a couple of schoolkids can pull down the equivilant firepower to a colonial brigade?
23 - Dave Nalle
Snark: "Don't rest it too soon, KlanBoy. Mine are all recently unemployed, college-educated white collar anglo-Americans who lost their jobs in the Bush economy. Oh, that and a few who used to work for Enron."
Good self-serving response, but I don't believe you. I can prove mine with a photo. Bring me a photo of yours.
Shark, you can't make the Bush economy bad just by saying it. Unemployment is down, hiring is up, the stock market's doing fairly well. Your dark wishes don't blot out the sun, much though you'd like them to.
Dave
24 - Dave Nalle
>>But how about this instead: let's pass a new law saying, whenever a prison is overcrowded, and the authorities must choose between releasing non-violent potheads or releasing violent murderers with long rap sheets of armed robberies and drive-by shootings, they have to release the non-violent inmates and keep the violent ones behind bars.<<
Right on target, Victor. But don't forget the child molestors. They should be cheated just like armed robbers or murderers. We also ought to do the only real gun control which works, which is to automatically tack 10 years mandatory onto any sentence for a felony involving a gun.
>>Could a politician still have a career after voting for such a law?<<
I certainly hope so.
Dave
25 - -E
I think it depends on the attitude as to why they want guns. I have quite the collection of guns. Most of them are kept at the ranch in the "gun room" where they are all locked up. The ammo is kept in another room. Why do we have enough to fill a room with them? Well first, my family is full of hunters. Secondly, there are some cool guns out there. But they should all be treated with respect and safety because in the wrong hands they can be deadly.
I don't think that a majority of the NRA members or those wanting to protect their right to be armed think that everyone out there should own a gun and own lots of them.
And there is a reason that the NRA conventions include many manufacturers of gun safes- so that not everyone can access the guns in a building anyway.