More drivel from WashPost & VPC


PDA






swagner89
November 24, 2010, 11:29 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/20/AR2010112002865.html

Guns used to kill police officers: Where they come from and how they get in the hands of criminals

"It is extremely easy in this country for anyone who wants to get a weapon to obtain one, particularly a handgun," said Norfolk Police Chief Bruce P. Marquis, whose department has lost five officers to guns since 2001. "There is not a lot we can do about it unless the laws are changed to restrict guns to make it harder to get them or severely punish those who knowingly obtain weapons stolen or used in other crimes."

If you enjoyed reading about "More drivel from WashPost & VPC" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MikeNice
November 24, 2010, 11:40 AM
In 107 instances the guns were obtained legally. 379 times they were not obtained legally, or the origin was unknown. So by more than a 3:1 margin the guns were not legally obtained. Yet, some how the legal guns were "the leading source." Did somebody miss math class in middle school?

I had to edit my post because they spelled out a couple of the numbers. It threw me off when I was skimming to do my math. My english professor would have kicked my butt for mixing numerals and spelling of numbers in a piece like that.

Of course, she would bop me over the head if she ever read one of my posts here.

MikeNice
November 24, 2010, 11:51 AM
More than 200 of the shooters were felons who were prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms....
At least four were previously convicted of murder or manslaughter, including a Texas man who had done time for two separate slayings and was on parole...


Imagine that criminals with a track record of ignoring the law accounted for nearly half of the murders. So how does restricting legal gun owners prevent these types from engaging in criminal activity?


And he noted that although a felony conviction makes it a federal crime to possess a gun, a misdemeanor carries no such restriction.


In NC if you are convicted of a misdemeanor that could be punished by two years in prison you are not eligible for a gun permit. So, it may not be a federal regulation but it is adressed on the state level.

Krusty783
November 24, 2010, 11:58 AM
In 107 of the 341 case studies, the firearms were legally obtained. That means that stolen or taken [from the victim] firearms were responsible for the other 234 cases, or 68.6% of the incidents.

Instead of focusing on an argument that might make sense - like increasing the penalties for stealing firearms & felons caught possessing firearms and/or giving police officers more training on how to not have their weapons stolen from them - the wp instead blames the legal minority of offenders for the actions of criminals /obviously unstable individuals.

Some people think that if there are no more guns then people will stop killing each other and we can have world peace. Of course that won't happen!!! If people don't have guns, they'll use bows & arrows or swords (like they do in Australia) or freakin' steak knives & ball point pens if that's all they can get their hands on.

Why don't they extend this logic into the geo-political arena and tell us how South Korea is to blame for the DPRK shelling that island?? N/M, I forgot that DPRK told the ROK that wanted them to halt their exercises. Really it's the ROK's fault for not listening to their crackpot neighbors and thus forcing them to attack...

SpeedAKL
November 24, 2010, 12:21 PM
Guys, consider the source. The Washington Post has some decent reporters but by and large acts as a shill for the Democratic Party and a liberal social agenda. It has it's uses, but can be laughably one-sided. I try to balance my local news intake with the Times and the Examiner.

swagner89
November 24, 2010, 12:35 PM
Legal purchase was the leading source of weapons used to kill police officers.

What does this mean exactly? i think the stats probably say that the "source"- i.e. INITIAL purchase- was legal, but then the writer discounts other transactions after. This is intentional misleading.

2ndAmFan
November 24, 2010, 01:09 PM
You can't expect straight talk on firearms from the Washington Post. This is the same newspaper which recently put together a study which failed to differentiate between armed citizens legally defending themselves from armed criminals and criminal acts involving firearms.

happygeek
November 24, 2010, 01:34 PM
More than 200 of the shooters were felons who were prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. Many had spent time in prison for illegal handgun possession. At least 45 were on probation or parole when they killed an officer. At least four were previously convicted of murder or manslaughter, including a Texas man who had done time for two separate slayings and was on parole at the time he killed his third victim: a 40-year-old sheriff's deputy with a wife and three children.



With a median age of 27, the shooters were generally younger than the population at large, while the officers' median age of 36 matched the country's. Forty-two of the killers were 18 or younger, including four 15-year-olds. The oldest shooter was 77. At least six of the suspects had been released early from prison sentences for previous crimes, including a man who was freed a day before gunning down an officer. Among the officers killed were a newly minted officer fresh from the police academy; a 31-year veteran two weeks from retirement; and one slain moments after having dinner with his family on Christmas Eve 2000. The youngest slain officer was 19; the oldest was 76.


Looks like they should be taking a good hard look at reform of the parole system as the number 1 priority. Just a thought.

Prince Yamato
November 24, 2010, 01:36 PM
Yet another article that seems to place blame on the gun, not the shooter. A gun cannot work on its own. It requires an operator. What is more disturbing to me, is the fact that nobody reports people with criminal intentions are severe mental instabilities earlier. You're telling me that a guy who opens fire on a picture of Smokey the Bear in a public parking lot didn't show previous signs of severe mental illness?

Warhawk83
November 24, 2010, 01:57 PM
You're telling me that a guy who opens fire on a picture of Smokey the Bear in a public parking lot didn't show previous signs of severe mental illness?

Maybe Smokey looked at him funny? Sorry, couldn't resist.

The problem is with the judicial system, more to the point, the criminals in the first place.
The gun is nothing more than a tool, all tools can be used for good or evil, but it's use does not make the tool inherently good or evil. It's still just a tool.

One of my favorite quotes comes from Archie Bunker, when Gloria was spouting off murder statistics involving guns. "What, little girl, would ya rather they was pushed outta windahs".

gbw
November 24, 2010, 02:52 PM
You're telling me that a guy who opens fire on a picture of Smokey the Bear in a public parking lot didn't show previous signs of severe mental illness?

Telling you exactly that. Probably just another dimwit with a gun, and most road signs in my neck of the woods show evidence of having met at least one.

We would do well to admit that there are too many dimwits and it is too easy for them to get guns. I don't know the answer, but I know it's a problem. If you doubt it, look up public range use on this forum and see how many members here avoid public ranges. Reason? They refuse to be around the public with guns.

Some people think that if there are no more guns then people will stop killing each other and we can have world peace. Of course that won't happen!!! If people don't have guns, they'll use bows & arrows or swords (like they do in Australia) or freakin' steak knives & ball point pens if that's all they can get their hands on.

C'mon, guys. This is just silly, and these arguments do not help us. I've not ever heard a single anti claim that banning guns will stop anything. Not killing, not crime, nor bring about peace.

They do claim that banning all guns would reduce the death and injury toll. They're probably right. Guns kill or maim faster, easier than anything else, whether used properly or misused. That's why they were invented. The tired old myth that ball bats, pens, knives, saws, arrows, cars, etc. etc. would cause anywhere near the death that guns do is nonsense.

But antis also claim, and this is their big lie, that half measures, "common sense reasonable gun control measures" will also help. Most won't help and the anti's know it. This is just their tactic to get the camels nose under the tent flap (incremental banning).

Our responsibility is to find ways to do visably better without surrendering our rights. It's a very tough problem, but it's in our interest to solve it else we risk losing our rights somewhere down the road. Many many others already have.

Zundfolge
November 24, 2010, 03:08 PM
They do claim that banning all guns would reduce the death and injury toll. They're probably right.
No, they're not. They're completely 110% dead wrong because banning all guns would only remove guns from the hands of the law abiding thus INCREASING the violent and deadly activity by those criminals still armed and now emboldened by the disarmament of their victims.

I would recommend you read the link in my sig titled Imagine a world with no guns! (http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml)

Deanimator
November 24, 2010, 03:15 PM
This is just silly, and these arguments do not help us. I've not ever heard a single anti claim that banning guns will stop anything. Not killing, not crime, nor bring about peace.
I've seen it so MANY times it's monotonous.

They do claim that banning all guns would reduce the death and injury toll. They're probably right.
That's errant nonsense.

Did it "reduce the death and injury toll" in Rwanda?
Would it have kept Kitty Genovese alive?
Would it have kept alive the nurses whom Richard Speck killed?
Would the family of the doctor in Connecticut still be alive?

Tell me, how many of the dead in the campaigns of Caesar were shot with firearms?

MikeNice
November 24, 2010, 03:52 PM
They do claim that banning all guns would reduce the death and injury toll. They're probably right.

Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, and dictators every where agree.

It is funny though, some of the biggest proponets of gun control in history sluaghtered hundreds of thousands and even millions of people. They told everybody to trust an armed government that would bring revolution and utopia. Then they murdered them by the truck and train loads.

Of course in England the new hot business is private security. Neighborhoods and communities are pooling their resources. They are pooling their money to pay for security forces because criminals are getting bolder. They have had guns effectively stripped from them. Now the criminals are getting more agressive and crime rates are going up. Yet the police are doing less than ever to protect the people.

Can you guess the English government's respone to the phenomenon of communities having to buy extra security? They accuse the security forces of being goons that want to get paid for beating people up. They did't consider rearming citizens, adding police, or other measures. They claimed the security guards are goons and talked about outlawing the companies helping to protect citizens.

Don't tell me anti gun people don't want to take all guns and don't tell me it will make me safer.

Deanimator
I've seen it so MANY times it's monotonous.


I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, "if you're not in the military or a cop you don't need a gun." When I went to school in a liberal town nearly everybody freaked when they found out I wasn't anti-gun. Some people would stop associating with me because I didn't believe in banning guns. If an anti-gunner tells you they don't want to bann guns they are probably not being honest.

KBintheSLC
November 24, 2010, 04:22 PM
They do claim that banning all guns would reduce the death and injury toll. They're probably right.

Stalin banned private ownership of guns... just before he slaughtered ~20 million of his own people. So... no... they're probably not "right" about that little tidbit. I did find it humorous though how The Post closed comments on the story since most commentary disagreed with them. Typical.

lonegunman
November 24, 2010, 04:24 PM
THREE guns were obtained at gun shows. That pretty much disproves the whole "gunshow loophole" thing.

1/2 of all shooters were convicted felons. That pretty much dispells the myth that making my gun illegal will stop criminals from engaging in crime.

Then they find the original owners who had their guns stolen or had sold them years before the actual crime took place and tried to imply that they somehow are at fault for the actions of criminals. Do they do the same thing to people who sold cars to killers?

gbw
November 24, 2010, 04:43 PM
That's errant nonsense.

Neither errant nor nonsense.

Did it "reduce the death and injury toll" in Rwanda?
Would it have kept Kitty Genovese alive?
Would it have kept alive the nurses whom Richard Speck killed?
Would the family of the doctor in Connecticut still be alive?

Anecdotes, especially off point, prove nothing. Again - antis do not claim crime or killing will stop, they never have. They aren't that stupid. You state both sides of a claim and then argue with yourself. Gonna go blind that way.

Don't tell me anti gun people don't want to take all guns and don't tell me it will make me safer.

OK, I won't (but they do, and it probably would, in general). If you claim that a disarmed U.S. would acutally have the same death-by-murder or accident rate as an armed U.S., we disagree. But it's a trade (safety v. lower self reliance) I'm unwilling make for many reasons.

Tell me, how many of the dead in the campaigns of Caesar were shot with firearms?

Maybe none? 'Cause they had no guns? You're making my point. They used the best killing technology available. If they'd had guns they sure would have used them. Today, guns are the best tool available to citizens. Hard to make sense that removing all guns would not reduce deaths. I want to keep my right to own guns, but I don't kid myself about the price being paid for it. I'd like to see us face facts and try to reduce that cost.

SaxonPig
November 24, 2010, 04:55 PM
"There is not a lot we can do about it unless the laws are changed to restrict guns to make it harder to get them..."

Hey, let's make murder and robbery illegal. Oh wait, those things are already illegal and yet people continue to do those things. Maybe passing a law isn't enough?

Idiot cop.

22-rimfire
November 24, 2010, 05:00 PM
I read the entire article. I didn't see a point other than a rehash of their "facts". They don't say .... this is the problem.... the article just seems to want to overwhelm the reader with their numbers.

More stingent laws would not have altered the outcome of almost all of the stories of guns used in law enforcement crimes.

If a gun is stolen, most report it to law enforcement. The insurance companies pretty much require you to list the items which were stolen for the police. That is insurnce company's only protection against fraudulent claims.

happygeek
November 24, 2010, 06:13 PM
There are a couple of case studies in what happens after you ban guns, England being one of the antis favorites to compare to us. The problem with that is that England's firearms homicide rate went up along with their violent crime rate in general following their ban.

We've also had whole cities turned into "gun free zones" right here in the states for decades and I think we've all seen the effectiveness of that.

We don't have to speculate on the effectiveness of various gun control schemes, pretty much all of them have been tried in one place or another over the years. The CDC even did a study (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) on these schemes which came to the following conclusion:

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

The CDC is hardly the NRA or the SAF, some might even call them anti-gun. Yet they were unable to find any benefit from any gun control scheme.

Of course the antis will scream that the experiment wasn't closed, i.e. guns were brought in from elsewhere, but when in real life do you ever get a closed experiment? I'd wager that even inside North Korea there's some smuggling going on. Inside the brutal German occupation of Poland people designed and built functioning submachine guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C5%82yskawica_submachine_gun).

The English put out a review of the illegal firearms market in their country in 2006 (http://www.ligali.org/pdf/home_office_gun_crime_the_market_in_and_use_of_illegal_firearms.pdf), the one issue with it that the authors were quick to acknowledge was that it relied on the data gleaned from 80 arrested convicts [users], not on the data gleaned from arresting an illegal dealer [supplier]. Out of the 80 convicts, 6 were in possession of automatics.

In the end the task of the anti-gunner is to shut down a black market, but when in history has that ever been successfully accomplished? Prostitution, The War on Drugs, Prohibition, pirated software, bootleg DVDs? Guns have been banned in Mexico for how long, yet the criminals there seem to have no problem getting ahold of everything from frag grenades to M203s to real M16s.
http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/mexican-drug-cartel.jpg

But hey, there just might be an anti-gun argument out there I haven't seen yet. But in just my not quite 2 years of gun ownership I've read everything from wanting to ban:
handguns
"assault weapons"
"sniper rifles"
"plastic guns"
all NFA items (they don't think the current laws on suppressors, SBRs, and DDs are enough, they want a total ban)
"armor piercing ammo", i.e. all centerfire rifle rounds
lead ammo
anything .50 cal (but not just .50 cal, in one article they talk about .338 and even .308)
conceal carry permits
open carry

Oh, they also want extra regulation on air guns.

If you'd like I could link you to the relevant articles on the VPC's site where they lay out exactly what they want.

Deanimator
November 24, 2010, 07:44 PM
antis do not claim crime or killing will stop, they never have
Then who was it I've REPEATEDLY seen do it? Wayne LaPierre, Charleton Heston and Ted Nugent?

Errant nonsense.

Webbj0219
November 24, 2010, 08:09 PM
I remember reading an article in Mens Health magazine some years back about steroids and the trend of LEOs taking them. As one of the ways to get the upper hand when dealing with criminals. This seems to go along the same lines of wanting the upper hand. They want to have a toolset that the average joe criminal isnt going to have. Thats all fine and dandy with me as long as it doesnt infringe on our constitution. totally disarming the public would be the most dramatic way to do this. But as our fellow countries across the pond have demonstrated. Disarming the populice might give the police a slight advantage, it gives the law abiding public a very significant disadvantage.

MikeNice
November 24, 2010, 10:15 PM
OK, I won't (but they do, and it probably would, in general).

I quoted you and still read it wrong. I agree that they do want to take all guns eventually. I don't agree it will make anybody safer. All prohibition will do is create a black market and make honest citizens targets. (Well it would increase the size of the black market.)

Chicago and Washington DC both effectively banned guns in the city. Yet for years Chicago has had a murder rate 300+% higher than the national average, per capita. Washington DC was the murder capital of the nation in 2002 with about 45.8 murders per 100,000. In 2003 their murder rate was 5.75 times the national average. Philladelphia also takes a hard line against guns. Their murder rate was more than 3.04 times the national average in 2003. Baltimore, Maryland was at 5.48 times the national average in 2003.

It seems weird to me that in 2002 Washington DC, Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago and Philladelphia were in the top five for murders per 100,000. Yet, they had some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

It seems to me that tougher regulation doesn't tend to make people more safe.

If you enjoyed reading about "More drivel from WashPost & VPC" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!