Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, February 8, 2013

Gun Nuts with Badges

Posted by on Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:12 AM

So, the manhunt for that cop-killing ex-cop, Christopher Dorner, is collecting some collateral damage, as two Latina women delivering newspapers had their pickup truck shot to pieces by cops on the hunt for this nut. Be sure to click through and look at the bullet holes in the vehicle.

My attitude when gun nuts tell me that if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns is to remind them that, No, you idiot, sheriffs and other lawmen will still have guns. I generally trust well-trained cops to have guns, and I'd be delighted to live in a nation where only law enforcement had access to the killing power of firearms. But maybe I'm wrong about that if cops are willing to open fire like this just because of the make and model of the truck, without first confirming whether it's being driven by an African-American man (the subject of their search) or a 77-year-old Latina grandmother and her 44-year-old daughter.


Comments (54) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
south downtown 1
yup. all hell's gonna break lose. just wait and see...
Posted by south downtown on February 8, 2013 at 10:24 AM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 2
How could the cops possibly know who was in that truck with the black windows? Aren't there laws regarding tinting of vehicle windows? If so, they may be among the most poorly followed and enforced. This must make the cops even more jumpy than they otherwise would be, since for all they know, someone is already aiming a gun at them every time they approach a car.

This heavy tinting is a constant annoyance to me, since between this and the SUV craze, you can't see traffic when making a turn off a side street. Used to be you could look right through almost any vehicle's "greenhouse" and see what was coming beyond it.

Note: I'm NOT justifying shooting into a vehicle based on not being able to ID the occupants, just pointing out that it is a problem for the cops.
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on February 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM · Report this
So... anybody who uses guns in their line of duty is a gun nut?
Posted by GermanSausage on February 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM · Report this
So, in the manhant for whistleblower, Christopher Dorner, two innocent women are shot by the LAPD --- sounds like stantard operating procedure for the LAPD (that's SOP, to the lowbrows out there).

In LA, they are calling it:

LAPD: Operation Scared Shitless

Throughout the rest of the nation, where this reads like the classic whistleblower case, where the good guy or gal gets thoroughly trampled by our lawless legal system, it sounds more like:

Revenge of the Whistleblower

Where instead of being trivialized and financially destroyed by legal costs, this time the whistleblower, Mr. Dorner, is exacting mortal vengeance on the bad guys.

If only that happened more often in Amerika!

We are at the stage, and have been for quite some time, when the only recourse open is such revenge.

Anyone such as that fnarf clown/character, the trust fund baby with no consistency in his messed up neurons, who believes the USA hasn't yet reached that stage, is completely ignorant and uneducated. No debate. Period.…
Posted by sgt_doom on February 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM · Report this
Here's a link to the full text of his "manifesto":…

If you believe him, maybe he has a reason for his anger.. On the other hand, he's just a crazy guy and the LAPD would never be anything but Honest and Forthright.
Posted by randoma on February 8, 2013 at 10:32 AM · Report this
Phoebe in Wallingford 7
Please think things through before you extrapolate the singular to the plural, Chicago Fan:
if cops are willing to open fire like this
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on February 8, 2013 at 10:36 AM · Report this
Apparently, this was one of two similar incidents that occurred in the vicinity - both BTW involving vehicles which were similar to the one being searched for only to the extent they were "pickup trucks", as otherwise, neither were the same year, make, model, or color.

Not to mention the fact that two Latino ladies look nothing like a 6 foot-tall, 270 pound black man...
Posted by COMTE on February 8, 2013 at 10:39 AM · Report this
Just another example of what happens when scared people have guns.

Posted by Brooklyn Reader on February 8, 2013 at 10:43 AM · Report this
@4, no, you useless shitbag, Dorner is an over-armed asshole who's running around shooting people. He's a murderer.

You lose any kind of "whisleblower" cred when you murder someone because of something her dad may or may not have done.
Posted by shabadoo on February 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM · Report this
The make and model were not the same at all, and as for tinting, @2, you can completely black out everything but the front side and front windshield (otherwise panel vans would be illegal).

Just for the record:

Hope the two ladies heal okay and they catch the real guy before anyone else gets shot.
Posted by Big Harv on February 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM · Report this
#1: Ah, but does the sin of tinted windows on their truck, really require the punishment of a 71 year-old woman SHOT IN THE BACK, TWICE.

Especially since her truck, WAS THE WRONG COLOR AND MODEL: something tinted windows did nothing to obscure.
Posted by judybrowni on February 8, 2013 at 10:51 AM · Report this
Dr_Awesome 13
Sgt. Doom: the conspiracy-nut version of Goddess Kring.

Please tell me he also has a goofy-assed and poorly-produced late-night public access teevee show. I will get massively stoned and watch the shit out of it with my buddies.
Posted by Dr_Awesome on February 8, 2013 at 11:04 AM · Report this
delirian 14
If a citizen did this it would be attempted murder and a life sentence.

If a cop did this, then they will be 'sternly' reprimanded and perhaps given a couple of days of with full pay and benefits (for the stress).
Posted by delirian on February 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM · Report this
Thanks @5, and also here:

(Chris Dorner's manifesto)

To all those who claim self-defense is never justified, or taking responsible actions in reaction to the soulless ones and the daily crap they perpetrate on us, you are simply rationalizing your spineless, gutless, cowardice; your sheeple status, your love of murder which replenishes your monies, etc.

Your family probably is employed at Boeing, or a bankster, or currency speculators or derivatives dealers, as is usually the case for such troll comments.

Too many people love to cash their blood-money paychecks, never giving a thought (as if they'd be capable of such) to where their cold cash derives from.

Shame, shame on all of you!

Posted by sgt_doom on February 8, 2013 at 11:20 AM · Report this
@13, the illiterate and aliterate douchey:

You ever read the Warren Commission report?

You ever read the TNEC study?

You ever read any of Wright Patman's congressional reports?

You ever read the 9/11 Commission report?

You ever read the FCIC report (Financial Crises Inquiry Commission)?

You ever read, period?????

Didn't think so, ye of the most sordid species of all, ignoramus Americanus.
Posted by sgt_doom on February 8, 2013 at 11:25 AM · Report this
@10, simpleton --- your government has been saying it's OK for well over forty years, and calling it "collateral damage" --- deal with it, douchey!
Posted by sgt_doom on February 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM · Report this
Unregistered User 18
@16 Just so we're ABSOLUTELY CLEAR: You support revenge killings of the children and relatives of the people who you PERCEIVE to have wronged you or others, correct?
Posted by Unregistered User on February 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM · Report this
r.chops 19
Don't forget, if only sheriff's and other lawmen had guns it would be the end of America because tyranny, you guys.
Posted by r.chops on February 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM · Report this
seatackled 20
Phoebe is making herself appear even stupider than usual today, though I'm sure it's a deliberate attempt to excuse police violence.
Posted by seatackled on February 8, 2013 at 11:40 AM · Report this
Boring Dad is Boring 22
I think it's a fair wager that anyone writing "I generally trust well-trained cops to have guns, and I'd be delighted to live in a nation where only law enforcement had access to the killing power of firearms" has never had the experience of dealing with a puffed-up county sheriff, game warden, or local cop who thinks his shiny badge makes him the ruler and you his subject.

The continuing conceit around here that "tyranny" equates only to the 101st airborne storming your backyard is a joke. You live in a country that appears to be completely comfortable killing children (or US citizens, or both) with flying robots, regularly sends teams of cops into the wrong homes to shoot dogs or citizens in order to stop them from growing plants, and keeps citizens in custody and even solitary confinement without charges for months without repercussions, including here in our backyard.

Do you really doubt that a significant number of these people, at all levels of 'authority,' would hesitate for a second to smash your door in at the whim of whatever the political flavor of the month was if they were guaranteed to face nothing more dangerous than your soon to be dead dog and maybe a paid leave of absence?

Feel free to hang a sign in front of your house saying "GUN FREE ZONE" if you'd like, just don't expect the rest of us to do so.
Posted by Boring Dad is Boring on February 8, 2013 at 11:50 AM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 23
@12 If you're actually calling out me @2, maybe you should reread my last sentence, because your comprehension seems FUCKING HORRIBLE.
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on February 8, 2013 at 11:54 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 24
We outlawed machine guns and outlaws no longer had machine guns. And the police stopped carrying them too. Imagine.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on February 8, 2013 at 12:01 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 25
I once saw a movie where only the police and military had guns, it was called Schindler's List,
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on February 8, 2013 at 12:25 PM · Report this
sgt_doom: In your world, is it strictly necessary to write a big long rant on Facebook before you start murdering people? Or can you just yell "I'm really mad" before you start murdering the in-laws of people you don't like? Do you support the murder of family members of all police officers, or only some of them?
Posted by shabadoo on February 8, 2013 at 12:27 PM · Report this
"I generally trust well-trained cops to have guns, and I'd be delighted to live in a nation where only law enforcement had access to the killing power of firearms."

Wait for it ...

"But maybe I'm wrong about that if cops are willing to open fire like this just because of the make and model of the truck, without first confirming whether it's being driven ..."

And hence the 2nd Amendment.
Read some history.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 8, 2013 at 12:41 PM · Report this
meanie 28
@24 absolutely untrue, swat and police armory's have access to purchase and obtain LEO restricted class three firearms including full auto PDWs As does the secret service and many private security firms.…
Posted by meanie on February 8, 2013 at 12:43 PM · Report this
@24 - you are wrong about what the police are carrying. They of course have an exception to the laws around fully automatic weapons and they regularly buy surplus weapons and equipment from the military.

But it's ok. You and I both know that no matter how bad things get with this event in LA everyone will spin the facts to fit their political agendas.
Posted by Neurotic Cat on February 8, 2013 at 12:47 PM · Report this
gttrgst 30
In the manifesto the shooter supports the assault weapons ban, as well as Obama, Chris Christie, and Charlie Sheen.
Posted by gttrgst on February 8, 2013 at 1:05 PM · Report this
@3, no, anybody who unloads a few dozen rounds into a car without having any idea who's in it is a gun nut. A nut in general but also a gun nut.
Posted by Root on February 8, 2013 at 1:22 PM · Report this
hold up,
Officers thought they recognized the truck, and fired on it? Without verifying that the suspect was in the truck? Without the suspect showing signs of aggression? This is the same organization that fired Dorner because he alleged another officer used excessive force [let's be real: we all assume he wasn't lying] and now they nearly kill two women in an EXTREMELY reckless fashion.
Posted by fetish on February 8, 2013 at 1:48 PM · Report this
I feel bad to think this way but the first thing that pops into my head is that they unloaded into a truck with intent to kill and couldn't even kill a 70 year old woman and only gave the passenger a wound to the finger. Boy do I feel safe to have them protecting me.

Does anyone else wonder if Sgt Doom and Dr. Awesome are the same people? I just can't see anyone else bothering to reply to his nuttiness. (Shabado your style is different enough I don't suspect you.)
Posted by MikeB on February 8, 2013 at 2:37 PM · Report this
delirian 34
@32: Their 'gang' has been attacked. This is how the police respond to such things. The police were trying to outright murder the occupants of the vehicle. And if it was Dorner, they would have made up some story to justify the use of force. Heck, they could probably make up a story to justify the use of force against almost anyone--except an elderly woman and her middle age daughter delivering newspapers.
Posted by delirian on February 8, 2013 at 2:38 PM · Report this
they got spd in la now?
Posted by juan gabriel on February 8, 2013 at 3:20 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 36
@29 @28

You're assuming "access" means they actually use them. When was the last time any police force in the US fired an automatic weapon? Before 1936 cops and robbers used to have running gunbattles with submachine guns. Then all that ended. Why?

The argument that gun restrictions don't apply to criminals is clearly false. The criminal gun market is an appendage of the legal gun market. Remove the legal trade in machine guns, and the illegal market dries up. If you had said "When machine guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have machine guns", you'd have been dead wrong.

And the level of weapons used by police is on par with civilians: most police use handguns, with a small number of semi-automatic assault rifles. The same makeup as civilian weapons. It wouldn't surprise me at all if removing civilian assault weapons led to a parallel de-escalation among police departments.

Or maybe can you cite for me some instances of a police force using a fully automatic rifle? They're as rare as criminals using them, because the 1936 restrictions on machine guns worked, and they were not circumvented by an illegal machine gun trade.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on February 8, 2013 at 3:50 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 37

Here is a good example of a police force using a fully automatic rifle.…

Here is a video version since you have proven to not have the best reading comprehension, being as you support racism and tyranny.…

Also I would say that the end of prohibition and the arrest of high profile mobsters had more to do with the lack of machine gun violence than the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on February 8, 2013 at 4:14 PM · Report this
@36, The gang violence you refer to was already trending down due to the end of Prohibition.

Most SWAT teams in the US have fully automatic capable M16's and MP5's (also considered an automatic weapon) are fairly common.

The reason why there is not much of an illegal machine gun trade is because fully automatic fire is generally pretty useless except for suppression. Even the US Army has been trending to burst fire (3 round max) rather than fully automatic weapons
Posted by randoma on February 8, 2013 at 4:17 PM · Report this
@36 - the google search you want is 'police militarization' - but I'll understand if you don't bother with it. Your mind is already made up and besides its a depressing topic to research.

The level of weapons used by the police is not on par with civilians. They are buying up machine guns and other lethal toys to fight the war on terror/drugs/immigrants.

"when machine guns are outlawed, only the police will have machine guns. and god have mercy on your soul if you have tinted windows"

When was the last instance of a police force using a fully automatic rifle? Probably within the last 24 hours when they served a warrant and shot some poor bastard's dog.

Posted by Neurotic Cat on February 8, 2013 at 4:22 PM · Report this
/me looks at the posts from 37, 38, and 39

@36 is just fucking trolling us isn't he?

Posted by Neurotic Cat on February 8, 2013 at 4:25 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 41
He isn't a troll, he really is that stupid.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on February 8, 2013 at 4:57 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 42

1946! 67 years ago! A mere 10 years after the 1936 firearms act. And it wasn't just crime -- it was an actual rebellion.

Thank you. I rest my case. Machine gun use by criminals is virtually unheard of, as is machine gun use by police.

@38 @39 @40

Cite me more examples of police using automatic weapons. Come on. "Probably within the last 24 hours?" Then cite it. And if police and criminals find full automatics useless except for suppression, then explain the amazing coincidence that they seemed to want them very much before 1936. Cops and robbers have no use for suppression because...? Before the law changed they liked submachineguns just fine. Talk about sour grapes!

The fucking law worked. It's obvious. When machine guns are outlawed, outlaws don't have machine guns.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on February 8, 2013 at 5:21 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 43
Hey guys, while your wracking your brains to come up with more special pleading to argue all the reasons why criminals before 1936 were sooooo different than criminals today, and why booze smugglers were so different than drug smugglers, how bout you also 'splain me this one: where are the gun silencers? What criminal wouldn't want a silencer? If there's anything that draws unwanted attention, it's the sound of a gunshot. Yet we find so few examples of criminals using silencers. Why?

I think it's because when silencers are outlawed, outlaws don't have silencers.

Grrrrrrrr I know that makes you mad but it's not my fault. It's because you've declared war on reality, and that's a fool's war. Reality's a bitch.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on February 8, 2013 at 5:37 PM · Report this

"But as decades went by, police started to use them [MP5's] to enforce drug warrants and then started carrying them on routine calls."

For illegal use, the North Hollywood Shootout is the big one:…

And is a major part of the reason why SWAT, today, is armed with full-auto capable firearms.
Posted by randoma on February 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 45

Indeed, North Hollywood Shootout. Another unicorn. From 16 years ago. That shootout was a major turning point, wasn't it? California restricted magazines to 10 rounds in response. It only underscores how rare the use of automatic weapons by criminals is. When it does happen, it's a shocking event.

Hey, where are all the silencers?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on February 8, 2013 at 6:21 PM · Report this

1910-1919 shows approximately 2.1-2.6 deaths by firearms per 100k population. They don't appear to show automatic or non-automatic. However, apparently you could go down to the corner store and buy a fully automatic weapon, no questions asked. So you can probably assume that they were not rare.

From 1920-1929, Firearm homicides accounted for 66-72% of homicides or 3-6 deaths per 100k.

Firearm homicides peaked in 1933 at 6.3/100k. And then steadily declined to 3.5/100k by 1940.

Since the NFA law of 1934 did not include mass confiscation, I think it can be assumed that the total number of automatic weapons in civilian hands was probably pretty stable between 1934-1940.

So, firearm related homicide was relatively low before prohibition and relatively low after prohibition, despite widespread availability of automatic weapons. So was it Prohibition or was it availability of automatic weapons?

The majority of crime is committed with "Saturday Night Specials" - extremely cheap handguns. You think the guys buying $100 handguns are going to spend $1k on a suppressor? (Illegally purchased or not.)
Posted by randoma on February 8, 2013 at 6:34 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 47

Complicated argument, based on lots of assumptions. It's quite telling how much you guys have to piece together all sorts of disparate clues, pick out certain statistics while ignoring others, and make a huge deal out of well-chosen outliers.

Instead of facing the simple, obvious story: we cracked down on machine guns, and they all but disappeared. We cracked down on silencers (or "suppressors" for those who think using gun geek lingo will get you laid), and they are as rare as machine guns.

You can do parallel comparisons too: the UK doesn't have a huge problem with gun smuggling. Why? They certainly have a huge problem with heroin and cocaine and all the rest of the drug trade. There are gangs who are happy to break the law. But, like most of the developed world, the guns in the hands of criminals are a subset of the guns in the hands of civilians.

Crooks get guns locally. Guns that started out legal. They don't develop and maintain independent supply lines of guns that aren't already in the legal market. Too much overhead, too many people involved, too many moving parts, too many risks, all for contraband with small profit margins. If you're going to work that hard to move goods from far away, you're going to move goods that will make you a lot of money and sell fast: drugs.

But I like your idea of outlawing Saturday night specials. Cheap handguns are a scourge. And we know, from history's lessons, that if cheap handguns are outlawed, outlaws will not have cheap handguns.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on February 8, 2013 at 7:12 PM · Report this
It was easy to ban suppressors since they don't do a very good job of suppressing gun noise. BTW there is not now, nor has there ever been a silencer that actually worked as a silencer. The best that I am aware of does a masterful job of dropping the noise level down by 30db. This still leaves it well above your average jackhammer in the shear volume of the noise. You can't even silence a 22 much less something with more gunpowder in the round. The purpose of a noise suppressor (silencer) isn't to hide the noise so much as hide the location. It MAY sound like the weapon is being fired from a location further than the correct one but that is all you can expect from it. If you want a silent weapon I would recommend using a crossbow. Decent range and fairly silent from over a few yards away.
Posted by Romial on February 8, 2013 at 8:29 PM · Report this
@47, How is that a complicated argument in any way? It is extremely simple, does not rely on any outliers and is based on a single statistic - homicide rate by firearm.

The UK also doesn't have a homicide rate that is any lower than it was before guns were banned.

Even so, let's say that the only reason why fully automatic weapons didn't exist after the 1930's was because of regulation. At that time there were around 5-30,000 man-portable automatic weapons in civilian hands. That numbered ballooned to around 230,000 by 1986 when civilians were no longer able to purchase newly made automatic weapons and has been stable since then. So, let's see, 230k out of 300+ million firearms, that's .07% of all firearms. Which probably explains why they make up less than 0.1% of firearm related violence (and yes, I am aware that in 1986, automatic weapons actually made up closer to .2% of all firearms, it is still a tiny number). It also explains why laws banning them were able to be passed - there weren't a whole lot of legal owners to complain.

Now, compare that to "assault weapons". There are something like 10-30 million "assault weapons" in civilian hands. So about 10% of the currently available firearms. Do you think that if any of the "assault weapon" bans pass that those 10-30 million firearms are going to turn into magic pixie dust and disappear? However, whether or not they're banned or not banned, they're not likely to end up in the hands of crooks for exactly the reasons you state.

A criminal doesn't want a >2' long, 8lb firearm that costs $700-2,000. Nor do they want to deal with moving them and selling them. They want a cheap, small firearm that is easy to conceal, has few parts and is effective out to 20-50' which is about the maximum range most homicides/crimes occur at. That said, even if you outlaw 'Saturday Night Specials', there are millions and millions of them out there. It will take a long time to get rid of them. I'm not saying that I don't think that is a worthwhile endeavor, just realistic.
Posted by randoma on February 8, 2013 at 8:46 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 50

Gosh, I can't imagine why a criminal would want to hide their location when they fire a gun. And 30db is nothing to sneeze at. Less noise means less attention, less chance of the cops being on top of you before you can flee the scene of a shooting.

And that's granting your extreme claims are true. We know that in fact they've been used extensively in espionage, and by numerous special forces around the world. So I'll take the endorsement of these experts of some guy on the internet. It's obvious that a criminal would benefit from a silencer just as much as a spy or commando.

If they were widely available in the legal market, criminals would use them too. It's worth noting that the arms manufactures and their NRA lackeys are hard at work trying to bring that about. The NRA is the criminal's best friend.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on February 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 51

Yes, legal firearms production ballooned. Restricted firearms did not. That's exactly the point. Nobody expects an assault weapons ban to have any effect right away. It takes years to undo the damage caused by the gun industry flooding the country with assault weapons. There's big profits there and that's what this is really about.

Regardless of how long it takes, the first rule of holes is to stop digging. The sooner we turn the tide, the better.

The UK has a homicide rate one fourth the US. Just like all the other industrialized countries that don't have our flood of guns. The correlation is obvious. The US states with the worst suicide rats are the ones with the most guns: Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc.

Finally, some machine guns are pistols. The Mac-10 was custom designed for the drug dealer market. But without a large legal, civilian trade, they don't end up in hands of many criminals.

Again, and again, and again, the strident claim that "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" is disproved. By the example of the UK and other countries such as Australia, and by our own experience with machine guns and silencers. Or take explosives. Yet another example where military grade explosives are rarely seen in use by criminals and terrorists. Instead they get their hands on the same things you find widely available to civilians.

When the NRA says that bans of certain weapons, or background checks, or other restrictions are ignored by criminals, they are dead wrong.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on February 9, 2013 at 9:44 AM · Report this
@51, The difference is, the NFA laws were introduced before fully automatic weapons were common. A ban on "assault weapons" is too late. It will take many decades, if not longer, before the current supply is inadequate, by which time there will be better solutions.

You keep talking about the suicide rate (when we're talking about criminal uses) for Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho..etc. However, let's take a look at the homicide rate for the top 5 states/firearm ownership:

Wyoming: 47th for firearm homicides @ 0.59/capita
Alaska: 26th for firearm homicides @ 2.58/capita
Montana: 29th for firearm homicides @ 2.31/capita
South Dakota: 43rd for firearm @ 0.74/capita
West Virginia: 31st for firearm homicides @ 1.9/capita
Average of 1.62/capita

Now, let's compare them with the 5 lowest states for firearm ownership:
Hawaii: 48th for firearm homicides @ 0.51/capita
New Jersey: 25th for firearm homicides @ 2.65/capita
Massachusetts: 33rd for firearm homicides @ 1.53/capita
Rhode Island: 34th for firearm homicides, @ 1.48/capita
Connecticut: 37th for firearm homicides @ 1.4/capita
Average of 1.5/capita

Do you notice anything about these figures? There is not a hell of a lot of difference between firearm homicides in the states with the lowest level of gun ownership compared to the states with the highest level of gun ownership.

I know you LOVE to talk about suicide, without ever providing any links to actual data, but we have been talking about crime. So who is cherry picking and who has to "piece together all sorts of disparate clues, pick out certain statistics while ignoring others, and make a huge deal out of well-chosen outliers." (I guess you are familiar with those words because you do it ALL THE TIME.)

Can you provide any evidence showing that the UK's gun law reduced homicides or violent crime? The per capita murder rate is finally back down to what it was pre-ban - almost 10 years later!

Historically, even when the UK had relatively lax gun laws, their homicide rate was significantly lower than the USA's.

The Mac-10 was designed for the Vietnam war. One of the reasons why the company that originally produced it went out of business was because they ignored the private market. When they were used by drug dealers they were used in their semi-auto configuration, not their full-auto configuration. And even then they were quite rare because they are far more expensive than a "Saturday Night Special."

As far as explosives go, how many gang bangers (sorry, but that is where most of the violent crime stems from) are going to go around blowing stuff up with explosives? Considering that it is easier to make various high grade explosives than it is to make crystal meth (or at least it was before people started killing themselves with 'shake-and-bake' recipes), if drug-related criminals wanted explosives, they'd fucking make them.

Incidentally, the worst case of domestic terrorism in the USA pre-9/11 was done with a truck full of fertilizer. Why bother with military grade explosives when there is a good, easy to work with, extremely cheap alternative? Better yet, a gallon of gasoline - don't have to be worried about getting arrested for it, easy to obtain, and quite explosive with (in)correct application.

What was it you said again about how you have to "piece together all sorts of disparate clues, pick out certain statistics while ignoring others, and make a huge deal out of well-chosen outliers." Oh yeah. I guess that is what you said.

Oh yeah - one other thing, when the Tommy Gun was available during Prohibition, it and a modified 1911 were basically the only easily man-portable sub-machine guns available. They also cost half as much as a Model-T. Only the very richest gangsters had them (and most of the ones in use by criminals were stolen, not purchased). They were hardly a nationwide problem.
Posted by randoma on February 9, 2013 at 8:13 PM · Report this
Dr_Awesome 53
Boring Dad: So you assert that, like many of us, the cops are over-armed and eager to use their weapons. And the risk is that they either storm the wrong house by mistake, guns blazing, or they storm YOUR house for some reason, guns blazing.

And you somehow think that if you are armed well enough, you can resist and push back the sheriff's forces? With your guns? And your family, I assume also using their (or your) guns?


You really think that's a viable scenario? You and your guns will successfully resist an armed Sheriff's team or a SWAT team, and, when confronted with evidence that you are a well-armed citizen who luckily understands all about the second amendment, the Sheriff's team will then decide, in the face of your withering crossfire, "Whoops, we got a well-regulated militia member here, can't be the guy we're looking for, let's go home, boys."

You really think that?

Look, Boring Dad, many of us don't disagree with you in the dangers of the over-armed and eager police forces that have developed in the past decade or so. The Stranger and other media outlets have been writing about it for some time now. But the solution to that can only be via pressure applied to the political body. For example, Mayor McSchwinn responding to citizen outrage and banning the SPD from using drones. Did you see that happen? Did you notice nobody anywhere drew any guns in order to make that happen? Did you?

Your fantasyland idea that somehow you can overcome a supposed tyrranical police state just through your personal firepower is, to put it politely, deluded. And wrong.

And it is unfortunately a common idea that's pervasive in the fringes of the Yay, Guns crowd.

If the day that you fear ever comes, the day that a Sheriff's team or a SWAT team comes knocking at your door (or geezus, even the meter reader? What will set off your paranoid fantasy trigger?), when that day comes I do not want to be your neighbor. I don't want to be anywhere near you. It's gonna be a bloodbath, and it is not gonna end well for you and your family. You think your guns and your second amendment rights will protect you. I have some bad news for you.

Posted by Dr_Awesome on February 10, 2013 at 8:01 AM · Report this
Boring Dad is Boring 54
@53: I don't know if you're being cute or really haven't thought about this.

None of us stands a goddamn chance if these assholes come and break the door in and start shooting on an individual basis. Yep - if you get targeted, as a person, you're fucked. No question.

What does give you an actual chance and hope to *actually effect the political change that you rightly point out is the only way to fix this*, is having even a modicum of ambiguity on the part of these guys on an aggregate level as to which door is OK to break down at any point in time, whether it's for growing the wrong plants, or having the wrong book, or the currently disfavored religious beliefs, or incorrect sentiments in the national purge of the day.

Cops and soldiers, as it turns out, often love breathing, and love their children, and their dogs as well. Criminals, as it turns out, are similar and dislike the idea of being perforated at the hands of an unexpectedly armed person sitting in his house.

This is not a fantasyland idea, this is the practical reality of living in a country and within a species where there is, whether you like it or not, a strong urge toward militant tactics against people who do not agree with the flavor-of-the-month political standards, and a population of thugs which proves itself comfortable victimizing other people.

If you're a Black Panther in 1967, or an Anarchist associate in 2012, or Muslim in 2013, you have reason to fear the door getting kicked in, and you appreciate any ambiguity on the part of the kicker-inner as to what waits inside.

I can completely sympathize with people who dislike guns intensely, and I'm not and will never be militant against anyone who feels that way. What I am not and won't agree to be, though, is part of a movement that makes us all into sheep sitting quietly in the pens to be at the mercy of whatever politician or violent criminal chooses to decide our fate.

If you trust the type of person who all-too-often becomes a politician or cop, or have an abiding faith in violent criminals to see the light, I have some bad news right back at you.

Posted by Boring Dad is Boring on February 10, 2013 at 8:16 PM · Report this
It's clear from this shooting that LAPD have no interest in justice in this case, but that they are heading directly for a summary execution. They are more frightening to me than Dorner is.
Posted by Phil M on February 11, 2013 at 8:33 AM · Report this
toyotabedzrock 56
Three points need to be made.

1. In countries with stricter gun laws the police where also required to partly disarm.

2. If your a cop it is your job to be in danger. That means you don't shoot if you have not verified who you are shooting at.

3. Police use bullets that are almost always fatal. The type they use is actually outlawed for use during war by the Geneva convention.
Posted by toyotabedzrock http:// on February 11, 2013 at 9:54 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy