Prometheus 6

I've seen this in a few places. Most people seem to ignore the "suspected" part & rant about how terrorists are buying those dreaded "semi-automatic assault weapons" legally.

But it's pretty much a non-issue for a multitude of reasons - not the leats of which being that terrorists have not used firearms in the past - preferring mass bombing to achieve their goals.

Sadly most people I've seen that were alarmed by this are calling for a reversal of the innocent until proven guilty doctrine - one that's on shakey ground as it is.

I wonder how many of these suspected terrorists live in Idaho, Montana and eastern Washington?

The Ku Klux Klan used guns, ropes, bombs, fire and anything else they could get their hands on to terrorize people.

Publicola:

You'll notice we do not disregard the "suspected" part.

American terrorists tend to be fixated on race. I'm as concerned about American terrorists attacking Black folks (and they use guns!) as your standard red stater is about Arabs blowing up all their cows and corn...and American terrorists don't even need to evade customs.

This reminds me, P6, about the discussion we were having a little while ago about that high powered rifle that used a .50 caliber shell. Last week, there was a news report about a pistol that the police, of course, had labled as being a "cop killer". Apparently, this hand gun has the capability of firing a slug through the metal plate of kevlar chest protector. One of the guns had turned up in the hands of a Camden-based drug dealer who had purchased it through the underground illegal hand gun market in Philadelphia. You may recall that I had noted that this market is made possible and thrives because of the Second Amendment fanaticism of many of Pennsylvania's gun owners. In other words, Philadephia is forbidden by the Republican controlled state legislature from enacting laws and regulations that would make it extremely difficult if not impossible for weapons like the gun I described to be purchased in the city and resold in New Jersey.

The next time a Republican tells you that they want to do something about crime in urban areas feel free to laugh out loud.

PT Cruiser,
The largest concentration of terrorists in the u.S. can be found in Washington D.C.. They're called Congress. The people in the western states you mentioned don't usually fall under the definition of terrorist. There are some to be sure, but no more than in any other state. Most people I've seen, known or heard about in the states you mentioned simply want to be left alone. I'll get to your second point in a moment.

P6,
No; to your credit you didn't gloss over the "suspected" & move into the same realm that most others did. If I would have had more time I would have made clearer that my mentioning of it was because as I expected you didn't make that basic an error.

As for the klan & racist aggressors using guns - you're correct. But let it also be noted that many klansman went home with an unburned cross & buckshot in their ass because black folk were armed when they came a calling. In general I'd much rather take my chances with someone that has a firearm rather than someone who likes to plant bombs.

PT Cruiser,

The .50 BMG chambered rifles are really no more of a threat than what many people use for deer hunting. You're talking about a 35 pound four foot long rifle. That's not easy to lug around or conceal, let alone shoot. The people that use them do so for long range target competitions (1,000 & 2,000 yards)but I guarantee you that you'd have to spend a lot of time (months if not years) to get to their level of skill. It's really not as easy as it looks - & they're shooting at stationary targets.

The FN Five SeveN is not anything like the anti-gun lobby is making it out to be. First of all we're talking about a 5 inch + long handgun (i.e. not easily concealable unless you're 6'3"). It runs right at $1,000 per pistol (not something the average street thug is going to fork over for a pistol) & the ammo for it that's labeled "armor piercing" is not available to civilians. In addition this "cop killer" strangely hasn't been used to kill any cops so far (like most other items labeled "cop killer").

So the biggest unrestricted cartridge (the .50 BMG) & one of the smallest mildly restricted cartridges (the 5.7x28 that the FN pistol is chambered for) simply aren't as ominous as the anti-gun lobby would have you believe.

In addition "bullet proof" vests are more accurately called "bullet resistant". It's simple physics> You can stop any projectile with a certain type of material in a certain thickness. They make vests that will stop all but the most powerful rifle cartridges but the trade off is you are stuck wearing a 14 pound t-shirt that doesn't bend when you do. Most vests are rated for pistol cartridges, like .38 Special but they won't stop a more powerful cartridge like the .41 magnum. It's just how they're designed. & all but the heaviest vets won't stop the weakest centerfire rifle cartridge. Again it's a design of the vest, not a failure because of advanced technology. Hell, if you take any musket used in the war for American Independence & fire it at most vests that cops use it will penetrate.

That's the short version of a slightly complex subject. & my point is don't be so astounded that a vest won't stop any & every bullet shot at it, or that you can trust the anti-gun lobby or the press when it comes to technical matters involving firearms.

As for Pa having lax gun laws - they're not lax enough. NJ is too strict. The gist of my reasoning is that in NJ it's damn difficult to comply with all the firearms laws & when you do (depending on your situation) you'll find you aren't allowed to have or use your firearm when you need it most. The laws only effect those who don't intend any harm so as a practical matter it'd be best to repeal the laws that interfere with a person being able to defend themself. So the next time a Democrat (or a Republican) tells you that they want to get tough on crime by enacting more gun control ask them why they want more victim disarmament zones & defenseless victims to occupy them.

P6,
My offer still stands - anything I can do to help you acquire the arms & training you feel you need then I'm at your disposal. If you're really concerned about race based violence (& in some places anyone should be) then having the most options ot protect yourself is the best solution you're going to find - well unless you've figured out a way to use education to eradicate such unpleasantness.

The largest concentration of terrorists in the u.S. can be found in Washington D.C.. They're called Congress.

My first reaction to this was, "Okay, you keep saying that, I'll keep saying all white people hate all Black people and we can be ignored together."

My second reaction was, "Corporate power + government power = fascism." My objection is the practice rather than the principle, though.

As for your offer, let's say I haven't written it off. You know my position on gun control...I have no objection to it operating automobile registration. And right now the threat is pretty distant from me (though not as distant as Al Qaida...), but I am seriously watching. The Jews that were smart enough not to be in denial about Hitler's intent are unnamed intellectual heros of mine.

"The FN Five SeveN is not anything like the anti-gun lobby is making it out to be. First of all we're talking about a 5 inch + long handgun (i.e. not easily concealable unless you're 6'3"). It runs right at $1,000 per pistol (not something the average street thug is going to fork over for a pistol) & the ammo for it that's labeled "armor piercing" is not available to civilians. In addition this "cop killer" strangely hasn't been used to kill any cops so far (like most other items labeled "cop killer")."

Thanks for the information but somehow you seemed to have missed my point. Folks who are dealing heavy drugs and making real money at it are not "average street thug(s)". The facts are that these guns are on the street in Camden, New Jersey and, no, the retail and black market costs for these pistols are not a deterrent to them being acquired by folks who probably shouldn't own them. My point, however, was that Philadelphia should be allowed to enact gun laws and regulations that it believes will result in making the city and its surrounding municipalities like Camden a little safer.

I'm not trying to take away guns from people but given the problem of gun violence in Philly and Camden, for example, I don't think that anyone should be allowed to purchase as many handguns as he or she desires and then not have to account for the whereabouts of those weapons. By the way, hown many guns do you think you need to have on your person at one time in order to set some "street thug" right?

By the way, hown many guns do you think you need to have on your person at one time in order to set some "street thug" right?

Good point.

Why are they worrying *now* about which suspects of what are buying firearms, when they (Congress) are responsible for not upholding the ban on restricting purchase of semi-automatic weapons? Laws passed under the current administration result in less meticulous or long-term record keeping than in the past (background checks are supposed to be performed in 24 hours rather than 5 days, and if nothing is found, the gun-buying applicant's information is disposed of rather than being kept on record -- someone please correct me if I'm mistaken, I can't recall where I heard this information).

In all but nine cases, the F.B.I. or state authorities who handled the requests allowed the applications to proceed because a check of the would-be buyer found no automatic disqualification like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or someone deemed "mentally defective," the report found.

Funny, the article makes the above sound like injustice, rather than an example of the way the system should work. My question is, what disqualified the other nine would-be buyers?

P6,
The crack about Congress wa smeant tongue in cheek, but if you slip into Jedi training mode you could probably see that it's true - depending on your point of view.

PT Cruiser,
I didn't miss your point - I was trying to counter it. The FN FiveseveN isn't a big deal - there are other choices which are cheaper, more concealable & more powerful. The focus on this particular pistol is just an attempt by the anti-gun lobby to capitalize on the newest thing. Most people don't know that much about guns ot begin with & they're hoping that their BS will be believed over facts.

& Philly should not be allowed to enact gun control stricter than the state. Doing so presents more problems than solutions - the main one being people with no harmful intent inadvertently violating a law they're not familiar with when they pass through. But the bigge rpicture is that gun laws don't usually effect crime that much either way. Crime is a result of many complex socio-economic issues. Banning guns (which is what Philly would eventually do) doesn't do a damn thing except make it easier for those with harmful intent. Hell, Look at D.C. - they have a complete handgun ban with some of the highest crime in the nation (excluding what happens on capitol hill :D )

Congogirl,

It wasn't a ban on semi-automatics - it was a ban on certain semi-automatics. But in either case a ban really doesn't accomplish the purported goals. Columbine happened despite th eban if you recall. So did a lot of other things - like shop keeprs in Cali using semi auto rifles to protect their businesses during riots.

& the law that was passed happened a while back - under Clinton. It simply said that once a background check is completed then they have to destroy the records within 24 hours. This is to keep us gun nuts from sweating a national gun registry, which in our view always (albeit not right away but eventually) leads to confiscation. But the way it works is the FBI has 3 days to complete the background check. If they can't find anything in those three business days it's okay to proceed with the sale. 24 hours after the sale is approved the records are supposed to be (not that I don't trust them - well yeah, it is that I don't trust them) destroyed. records of those denied are kept indefinitely.

Now to the question of PT Cruisers that I've been saving for last -

If I'm having a good day it I wouldn't "need" a gun at all. But see it's not about "need' or what other people think someone else "needs". Try this - if you you're significant other & your kids (let's say two of them) were on a boat how many life jackets would you "need"? You could get by with two & you & the other adult trade off while holding the kids up. But you'd be a bit upset if anyone told you you could only have two wouldn't ya? Even if they made a case for not "needing" more than two.

But generally I feel better having one handy if not two close by. It's not so much that it's all that I"need" but it's much better to have options. Like the old saying goes it's better to have & not need than to need & not have.

But here's the counter question - how would you be safe when a street thug takes an interest in you without a firearm? (there are ways to be sure, but none as effective or appropriate in certain circumstances).

Okay Publicola, I'm not going to pretend I didn't take that way too seriously.

"...violating a law they're not familiar with when they pass through..."

I think you are a little off-base here. Philly doesn't want to prevent people who are passing through town, say, drivers on I-95, from having guns. It wants to shut down a system in which if you are over the legal age and have no criminal record you can purchase as many handguns as you can afford as often as you want. Even Stevie Wonder could see that many of the guns are being sold to drug dealers and street thugs in Camden, where, because it is in New Jersey, the sale of hand guns is severely restricted. Camden is now considered to be the most violent city in the country as the result of this unchecked black market in handguns.

The issue is not the type of handgun or the ability of "street thugs" to purchase more costly and powerful weapons. There are too many handguns being sold in the Greater Philadelphia area and many of them are not being purchased because folks want to protect their homes. Most of those folks already have some pieces. And, anyway, a shotgun does a better job against an intruder than a Glock.

Hey, man, I have walked down mean streets in my life and done things I would never have told my parents about but I have never felt the need to carry a gun or use one to defend myself. I own guns, to be sure, but I don't need to carry one. I'll probably make an exception this summer if I take my kids to the Grand Tetons given the growing idiocy of too many folks in Idaho. If I need to carry a gun in Philly then I would be someplace where I don't belong. I'm just tired of teenagers and children getting clipped because some fool can get his hands on a gun as easily as I can buy my kids a quart of ice cream.

PT Cruiser,
I understand what you'd like to see happen & I can't say I'm not in agreement with your ultimate goal (which if I'm reading you right is the reduction of predatory violence). But going after guns simply won't do much to that end while it will tread on both the Rights & the safety of those who don't have harmful intent.

Look at any prohibition in this country. Alcohol? Drugs? Yet despite nationwide prohibitions no one was ever more than mildly inconvenienced in searching for them - except those who sought to obey any & every law thrust upon them. If Philly were to enact a law restricting sales (or the whole nation for that matter) it wouldn't have much of an effect on crime. Well, other than making it more difficult for people to purchase arms for defense. Plus you get into the slippery slope scenario. Typically a place will enact modest gun control & claim that's all it's going to do - until it proves ineffective at its purported goals, then more is enacted. D.C. & NYC & Chicago didn't become defenseless victim zones overnight ya know.

As for the teenagers & kids getting killed by guns it's not as big a problem as you've been led to believe. Sure; each & every individual case is tragic. But we're talking less than 800 negligent discharges resulting in death every year. About a tenth of those are children under a certain age (10 years old I believe but I could be mistaken). Water filled buckets kill more kids under a certain age every year than firearms.

& I'd say 99% of the time I've not felt that I "needed" a gun when I left the house. 99% of the time I've not felt that I "needed" a spare tire or fire extinguisher.

& you're right - shotguns are better thna handguns when dealing with a threat. Personally if I know there's going to be trouble I'd rather having something on wheels that fires by pulling a long string. But handguns are, well, handy. Makes it much easier to comply with the first rule of gunfighting (i.e. have a gun).

Now trying to wind this back to the original topic - the hype oer the FN FiveseveN is just that - hype. As is the story about people suspected of terrorism being able to legally purchase guns. If you really want to do something about crime &/or terrorism then instead of calling for useless & harmful gun laws a better approach would be to instruct the people that they - & not the government - are responsible for the safety & well being of themselves, their families & communities. Gun control won't reduce crime. Neither will passing out guns to everyone. But caring neighbors will - as long as they have the correct mindset & a lack of legal hinderence in performing their responsibilities.

I have no desire or interest in prohibiting the ownership or use of guns for lawful purposes. I even realize that I can't stop all or even most of the use of guns for unlawful purposes. Somehow despite the torrent of statistics, words and rationales that you keep offering you keep missing my point here. I think I am being pelucidly clear but I wonder if your attachment both to the physical presence of a gun and the idea of a gun are so overwhelming that you are not able to take a step backward and be a little less romantic for the sake of civil society.

What I am opposed to is the current laws and regulations that permit people in Pennsylvania to purchase as many handguns as they can afford to buy as often as they deem desirable. This state of affairs has led to criminals buying handguns in places like Phialdelphia and reselling them illegally in places like Camden, New Jersey. If you can't get this then you and I really don't have anything more to discuss on this issue.

If you are opposed to gun control in any way, fashion or form then our exchanges won't amount to any understanding because I don't think it would be a good idea to permit my fellow citizens to own, for example, Uzis or mortars. I don't give two turds in the gutter whether Uzis or mortars are effective weapons against "street thugs" or not.

By the way, very few people are killed by fire extinguishers and almost none by spare tires. I don't care if you want to carry a gun. I know people who do and they don't worry me. I would worry if you bought a dozen handguns a month and started making trips to Camden.

PT Cruiser,
My point was that gun control like the type you say Philly should be allowed to enact is at best a feel good measure & at worst can cause inconvenience for people with no harmful intent. The more you try to prohibit something then usually the more the underground market for it increases.

& while we're speaking of selling guns "illegally" do you knwo what it takes to be disqualified from legally owning a weapon? A conviction of any crime punishable by one year (sometime two) in prison. Not sentenced to more than one year, but convicted of. get a 1 day suspended sentence on something that could land you 366 days & you're verboten from ever touching a gun again. & don't get me started on the domestic violence misdemeanor thing.

The point is who exactly determines who may or may not possess a firearm? I'm not qualified to read aperson's intent or ability. Are you? We cna make guesses & some with more certainty than others but no one I have ever met in this world has any moral authority to tell another person they can't posses the most effective means of defense.

& defense against the common street thug is a good justification for owning a firearm, but it's not the main one. There are many good reasons, such as assuming more responsibility than you otherwise might (both personally & socially) as well as providing recreation or food. But the most important reason is one P6 eluded to earlier (although I'm not sure if he meant it in this way) - an armed populace provides at best a deterent & at worst a chance against a government with a mind to subjegate them. Burglars are worrisome in some places to be sure, but a tyrannical state should be th emian thing all of us keep in mind when we decide whether or not to be armed.

Getting back to the limited gun purchases thing - I think you realize (at least I hope) that it won't have much of an impact on the crime in Camden. Limiting gun purchases simply doesn't do that. If it did then England with its almost complete gun control would be a crime free paradise. They're not. In fact in many areas they're worse than us. What does happen is it inconveniences &/or harms people who aren't wanting to hurt anyone. Say a collector wants ot buy a pair of matching pistols, or a husband wants to buy a gun for him & his wife. They'd be out of luck under a limited purchase law. Ditto for the person who bought a gun & had it stolen shortly thereafter - no replacement for X weeks. I'll grant these are all straw men but I don't see how it's worth risking those scenarios to feel good about something you can't change through gun control.

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying - I just do not see the logic in it. But don't worry - as much as I would like to sell guns to the poor people of NJ I won't risk it. I carry as I please & more or less the heinous state of affairs with NJ's gun control laws would most likely be a death sentence for me if I ever drifted that far north.

"...don't get me started on the domestic violence misdemeanor thing."

This partial sentence tells me all that I need to know. I appreciate the exchange of views but the distance between us is too vast to even begin measuring.

PT Cruiser,
Somehow I feel you aren't up on what constitutes a domestic violence misdemeanor or the application of said law. It's not nearly as simple as you'd think.

Don't much matter. You raised the issue--whatever the issue is--the entirely wrong way. You've lost your audience. And no, I'm not interested in picking up that end of the conversation either.

Understand I have no sympathy for anyone who finds themselves needing to justify themselves about domestic battery or child support. None.

Publicola -

My other half sits on the board of the statewide coalition against domestic violence and in her previous job she, among other things, was responsible for managing the Commonwealth's county-based initiatives for funding domestic violence programs. In addition, the executive director of the state's nationally recognized domestic violence program is a personal friend of ours.

Now what is it that you believe that I don't understand about the application of the laws pertaining to domestic violence and why do you believe that you are qualified to instruct me on this issue?

Postscript -

In Philadelphia last night a nineteen year-old black male was shot seven times - once in the face - and killed. A fifteen year-old who may or may not have been walking with him was wounded. The dead man was a witness to a murder that took place two years ago and had recently received a subpoena to testify.

Yes, whoever killed this young may have been able to acquire a gun no matter what laws were on the books but why are those of us who claim an affinity for civil society so invested in trying to make such acquisitions easier?

PT Cruiser,
Well I feel I'm qualified to instruct you on the Lautenburg Amendment (which covers domestic violence misdemeanors & firearms possession) because I don't believe you have read that particular law or understand its implications. I could be wrong & we could just have differing views but from your comments I'll assume you're not familiar with all the particulars of said law or its application. (State law is another matter & since I'm not even sure which state you reside in I'll make no claims about knowing what the state laws are in your area.)

The name doesn't always portray the subject of the law accurately. (see The Patriot Act for another example of this). What the Lautenburg Amendment did was to make a domestic violence misdemeanor a disqualifying factor for firearm possession & it did so retroactively.

Now constitutionally it's on shakey ground - while most attorneys will tell you it doesn't violate the ex posto facto clause (since a loss of a right is not considered a punishment) in fact there's many a good argument that it does so in spirit.

But to address the issue I believe you're having - we're talking about misdemeanors. Not felonies. Misdemeanors are not as serious infractions as felonies are. & again this involves a conviction, not a sentence. Get a suspended sentence because while the judge felt you technically violated the law you did so innocently & you're still prohibited from possessing a firearm for life.

Now before you think I'm trying to stick up for spouse abusers let me clarify what could & has been known to constitute a domestic violence misdemeanor:

Say a person's spouse become agitated & gets up in his/her face. If that person pushes the other person back - even gently - that could qualify as a DVM. Say a man comes home drunk & starts using very indiscreet & profane language to accuse &/or threaten his g/f. If she slaps him that's a DVM. Two brothers who get into a spirited shoving match (partially in jest) could get one of them (possibly both) prohibited from ever possessing a firearm. A Mother who pushes an unruly child away could also get charged with a DVM.

None of the situations above are ideal or to be recommended as the best approach to a situation, but none merit a lifetime prohibition on the most effective means of self defense.

Couple that with the restraining order provision:

Any restraining order means you must relinquish possession of your firearms until said restraining order expires. What you immedietely think of is a case of spousal abuse where the woman seeks legal protection from the man. what is most common though are restraining orders filed solely for the sake of making a spouse look more favorable in a divorce proceeding. There are varying opinions on how easy or difficult it is to get a restraining order & both are probably accurate depending upon locality & the judge involved. But I'd think that judges would tend to ere on the side of caution & grant restraining orders unless a compelling case can be made against it. Prior to 98 this wasn't a big deal but since then it means rendering a person who may be innocent of harmful intent entirely defenseless or he risks becoming a felon by not relinquishing his Right.

So the main problems with the law are it raises certain constitutional questions as well as being too severe while not doing anything to materially address the problem.

Tell me, what kind of self defense programs does the organization that your wife is involved with run? If it's anything like the ones I've come in contact with then they probably focus on some sort of emotional empowerment with legal (i.e. hoping the cops get their in time) protection being all that is offered.

I've spent some time dealing with the issue of domestic violence The majority of my friends over the years have been female & a startling number have experienced it in some form or the other. My role has ranged from talking to them on the phone trying to console them after the fact to providing a safe place for them to stay or staying at their place in case somethign else happened. In just about all the situation where they sought some form of organized assistance the most effective solution was discounted. That's teaching them the how's & why's of defending themselves (& their kids). When done properly this accomplishes two thing: it provides a mental/emotional source of stability which encourages & promotes their recovery from an ordeal & it gives them more of a sense of empowerment than counseling or candlelight vigils ever could. It teaches them self reliance & independence which is something that most women in that situation are sorely lacking.

Restraining orders don't do any material good until after the fact. But it's really really hard to beat up a woman with a shotgun & the knowledge to use it.

The Lautenburg Amendment does absolutely nothing to protect women (especially since most cases of domestic violence - even those that lead to death - don't involve firearms) while it does do a good job of disarming people who are mostly innocent of harmful intent. It nets too many non-bad guys to justify the few bad guys it may (repeat may) slightly hinder.

In regards to the very sad news you relayed, did you hear about Tyler Texas a few weeks ago? A man shot uo the courthouse. he killed his ex wife & was moving in to finish off his son when a concealed carry permit holder shot him. The permit holder was killed but he bought the son time. Another permit holder then started shooting at the murderer & drove him off.

Or did you know that in around 30% of the school shootings in this country that civilians with firearms stopped them?

Defensive use of firearms happens as much or perhaps more frequently than offensive use. It just doesn't get the press coverage. Here's a link you might find surprising

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/

P6,
I'm not trying to justify anyone beating up or otherwise seriously threatening their significant other. But the DVM encompasses a very broad range of actions, most of which aren't as serious as what you'd consider domestic battery. In varies slightly from locale to locale but if a woman tries to slap you & you merely put up your hand to block it, that (in some places) can get you charged & convicted of a DVM. Ideally altering the laws to have some consistency would be best, but in any event if something is considered trivial enough to be a misdemeanor then it shouldn't warrant a lifetime prohibition on a Right. Felony abuse is another matter & if it can be proved my idea of fair punishment would cause invectives accussing me of having a less than civil nature but we're not talking about spouse beaters here. If the action was that serious then it should be upgraded to a felony. If it doesn't merit a felony charge then why does it come with a lifetime prohibition of the Right to Arms?

So?

So is this why apples are more often red than green and roads in country are sometimes long?