Miami Herald artcile about assault weapons

[TonyStarks]

I found this article on the sunday paper, just thought i'd post it to share with everyone here.
_________________________________________________________________
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/columnists/ana_menendez/story/239241.html

By ANA MENENDEZ
[email protected]
Officer Jose Somohano, 37, father of two, was the 151st person in Miami-Dade shot dead this year.

Outrage came quickly after Thursday's shooting. But it followed a numb, familiar pattern: Death followed by grief followed by some new atrocity that serves to inure us further to violence.

By now, only the most sheltered television-bereft hermit would be shocked at the image of cops in fatigues and combat helmets going after a madman with an AK-47.

Is this normal? A major American city that acts like it's at war?

Is it right that a place with a population of just over two million should lose more than 150 people yearly to guns?

We've created such a thoroughly messed up society, no one even remembers what safe means.

WHERE GUN LAWS WORK

Spare me the guns-don't-kill-people, people-kill-people platitude. Other countries are also full of people. And, with the possible exception of Iraq, few populations are killing each other with the competence we manage.

Take Sweden. In 2004, the country of nine million lost just 37 people to guns -- an entire country with fewer gun murders than Miami-Dade. England and Wales lost 73 people. Australia lost 56.

The number of people murdered with guns in the United States during the same period: 9,326 -- almost 10 times the rate in Sweden and three times the number of victims lost in the 9/11 attacks.

The difference is not that Sweden has fewer crazies. Or that Australians are unusually peace-loving. The difference is the law.

''European countries have extraordinarily strict gun laws,'' said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign, which seeks to reduce gun violence here. ``In some countries, it's virtually impossible to get a handgun.''

It's tragic that thousands of men, women and children are perishing in this country. It's terrifying that the people meant to protect them can't protect themselves.

''Sometimes we feel like we have water pistols against these guys,'' Police Benevolent Association president John Rivera told me Friday. ``Our weaponry does not match up with theirs. Even our vests don't match what they have.''

It's a problem facing police departments nationally, and some, including Miami, have opted to equip their cops with assault rifles. Rivera would love every officer to carry those kinds of weapons.

Even the Brady Campaign supports the idea. Said Hamm: ``Police officers should not be outgunned on the streets.''

Of course not. But I have a hard time accepting that more firepower is the solution. It sets in motion an endless arms race. So the cops get better guns. And the thugs get better guns. And the cops get better-better guns. And 100 years from now, everyone is packing customized nukes.

A CULTURE OF GUNS

There is, of course, a more sane solution. Though it's doubtful that we could reverse the damage of an out-of-control gun culture, at least we might outlaw assault rifles. Is that too much to ask?

It's still not clear how Shawn LaBeet got the assault rifle he used to kill a cop in Cutler Bay on Thursday. But most people are allowed to own one. That's right, unless you're a convicted felon or mentally ill, it's perfectly legal to own a weapon that can fire 600 rounds in one minute.

That's insane. These aren't made for hunting animals; they're for killing people. Why are these things even for sale?

Renew the assault weapons ban. It will be too late to save Jose Somohano, but it might save the next victim. Maybe even you.

 

[exar]

And 100 years from now, everyone is packing customized nukes.

Renew the assault weapons ban. It will be too late to save Jose Somohano, but it might save the next victim. Maybe even you.

That's some mighty fine mindless ranting.

 

[damien]

Well, I left her the following nastygram:

No offense, but if a controversial opinion piece like this only garners one reply (so far), you must mot be very widely read.

I will rebut you article with a simple fact. Rifles are only used in about 3% of all reported murders in the United States, according to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html). In my state of Illinois, we had 328 murders with handguns in 2005, only 4 with rifles.

These numbers are for all rifles, including lever action, bolt action, and single shot. Even if every one of these rifles was a semiautomatic, and a ban was actually effective (which history shows would be unlikely), banning these guns would at most reduce crime by only an imperceptible number. Even those crimes would probably still occur, but instead be committed with a handgun.

I recall back in the 1980s that there was a substantial movement for the banning of handguns. The logic was the exact same as the logic in this article. That failed, not a single state adopted the ban. Now your article is rehashing the same old tired arguments as "who needs a semiautomatic rifle" instead of "who needs a handgun". But this time you don't even have compelling numbers to back up your call for a ban.

I can only conclude that you know that your proposal would have no positive impact on crime in the United States. You are simply trying to get the camel's nose under the tent. Unfortunately, people are now more sophisticated than they used to be and what once was a clever tactic has become terribly obvious. We are not going to ban semiautomatic weapons. We are not going to bad handguns. We are not going to ban anything. Write as much as you wish, but few people seem to be reading.

 

[ConfuseUs]

I submitted a comment yesterday that questioned her professionalism as a journalist. Essentially I stated that good journalists find out the relevant facts before writing opinion pieces and then stated what the relevant facts were in this case. I'm sure that there are many other comments to the same effect, but the Miami Herald won't post them because that would show that they have poor standards for journalism. Ergo, the one comment on an opinion piece dealing with a controversial issue. In reality there are probably tens if not hundreds of comments on this piece.

 

[JLStorm]

Well, I left her the following nastygram:

No offense, but if a controversial opinion piece like this only garners one reply (so far), you must mot be very widely read.

I will rebut you article with a simple fact. Rifles are only used in about 3% of all reported murders in the United States, according to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html). In my state of Illinois, we had 328 murders with handguns in 2005, only 4 with rifles.

These numbers are for all rifles, including lever action, bolt action, and single shot. Even if every one of these rifles was a semiautomatic, and a ban was actually effective (which history shows would be unlikely), banning these guns would at most reduce crime by only an imperceptible number. Even those crimes would probably still occur, but instead be committed with a handgun.

I recall back in the 1980s that there was a substantial movement for the banning of handguns. The logic was the exact same as the logic in this article. That failed, not a single state adopted the ban. Now your article is rehashing the same old tired arguments as "who needs a semiautomatic rifle" instead of "who needs a handgun". But this time you don't even have compelling numbers to back up your call for a ban.

I can only conclude that you know that your proposal would have no positive impact on crime in the United States. You are simply trying to get the camel's nose under the tent. Unfortunately, people are now more sophisticated than they used to be and what once was a clever tactic has become terribly obvious. We are not going to ban semiautomatic weapons. We are not going to bad handguns. We are not going to ban anything. Write as much as you wish, but few people seem to be reading.
__________________

It's good that you took the time to write her, but it sounds like you are in favor of a handgun ban by your response, even though Im sure that wasnt your intention. The last thing pro gun people need to do is hint that we are ok with any gun bans.

 

[kurtmax]

M16 -> Customized Nukes??!!!

So that's the progression! I always wondered what the next step in infantry carried weapons were.

And what is a 'customized' nuke. Does it change the color of the explosion or leave messages in the sky or something?

 

[Igloodude]

It's still not clear how Shawn LaBeet got the assault rifle he used to kill a cop in Cutler Bay on Thursday. But most people are allowed to own one. That's right, unless you're a convicted felon or mentally ill, it's perfectly legal to own a weapon that can fire 600 rounds in one minute.

I'd give a fair amount of money to make the term "assault weapon" go away and instead have people refer to semiautomatic or fully automatic rifles only. It's obvious that the author of this article isn't clear on the concept.

 

[bsf]

I want a customized nuke. Finally I would be able to deal with those little punks egging my house.

Back on topic, it seems an almost insurmountable task to address all the stupidity in this world in any substantive way. People just keep regurgitating the same garbage.

 

[eric.cartman]

OMG :banghead:

Can someone explain to me one thing: why do the antis always jump right to the "well why don't we all have nukes" crap?

I have a best friend from NYC, and he ALWAYS compares rifles and especially full autos to nukes. Saying how it's too much power in one person's hands. And how they spray bullets left and right, and how they would make drive bys soo much easier.

WHAT'S WITH THE GUNS AND NUKES WITH THOSE PEOPLE ??? :banghead:

 

[LAR-15]

Ironic that the Brady Campaign supports keeping 'assault weapon' makers in business by selling to the police.

If you run 'assault weapon' makers out of business Mr Hamm, who will arm the po-po?

 

[glummer]

eric

Can someone explain to me one thing: why do the antis always jump right to the "well why don't we all have nukes" crap?

It's the equivalent of "Would you want your sister to marry one?" It's all bigotry, fear & hysteria. Based on the recognition that cowardice is a shameful vice - UNLESS everyone else is just as afraid as your friend - then he is 'normal."

 

[eric.cartman]

glummer,
my friend now claims that he's afraid to take a subway at night or walk the streets, because of me. because i exposed him to some of the crime issues and CCW. he also claims that, if every one carried a gun, then he would be constantly afraid for his life. he claims to understand why I do, but at the same time, thought of a person having a full auto frightens him more than a violent criminal.

i guess it comes down to elitist attitude... basically thinking everyone is less responsible and smart than "you" are.

oh, he also lives with his finance, and claims that defense with a firearm at home is absolutely not an option for him. he rather barricade the doors, install new locks, and fight with a stick. but he does not want to have the "option of taking a life".

truly sad. otherwise he's a very smart fellow, with two B.S. Degrees from a top university.

 

[MechAg94]

The fear part is just silly and emotional thinking.

The choice not to arm himself is his choice. It may bite him or it may not.

 

[glummer]

eric.

i guess it comes down to elitist attitude... basically thinking everyone is less responsible and smart than "you" are..

My theory is that that is what he is TRYING to believe. The only alternative is that HE is less responsible and smart than "everyone else". That's where the hostility comes from - the existence of actual real-life responsible gun-owners make it difficult for him to hide his inferiority. Gun-control is analagous to smashing mirrors, so that he doesn't have to look at himself too closely.

 

[benEzra]

my friend now claims that he's afraid to take a subway at night or walk the streets, because of me. because i exposed him to some of the crime issues and CCW. he also claims that, if every one carried a gun, then he would be constantly afraid for his life. he claims to understand why I do, but at the same time, thought of a person having a full auto frightens him more than a violent criminal.

Is he aware of how tightly controlled automatic weapons are in this country?

 

[Stretchman]

funny. Someone robbed a Winn Dixie with an assault weapon. Now, I know no one here like assault weapons, or the terminology, but I for one, can readily associate what an assault weapon is by hearing the term. Here, they actually use the term assualt rifles, but everyone knows that probably not very likely.

Link to the story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20830345/

The thing is, now that's been on the news, everyone here who has an assault weapon will probably use it in a crime now. Seeing as how they can ballistically defeat multiple armed police officers. But then, it'll mean that the police will have to have assault rifles of their own, and of course, be a hazard to little ol ladies and small furry creatures.

Does it ever end? Probably not. because the norm, and not the exception , is that when all is said and done, the cops, and the rest of the judicial system make deals with the criminals, and the people who suffer from those deals are normally the people who were the victims in the first place... Best thing to do is become either a cop or a criminal, or in the case of South Florida, more often than not, both.

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Interestingly, one of the "assault rifles" was a shotgun.

 

[eric.cartman]

Is he aware of how tightly controlled automatic weapons are in this country?

Sorry, I meant carrying a gun, not having full auto (God, I wish). Sorry for the confusion.

And yes, he does know how tightly regulated they are.

 

[Spot77]

Ironic that the Brady Campaign supports keeping 'assault weapon' makers in business by selling to the police.

If you run 'assault weapon' makers out of business Mr Hamm, who will arm the po-po?

Government owned armories of course.

 

[Frog48]

''Sometimes we feel like we have water pistols against these guys,'' Police Benevolent Association president John Rivera told me Friday. ``Our weaponry does not match up with theirs. Even our vests don't match what they have.''

Uh no, I dont buy that.

Seeing as though some police departments buy AR's en-masse, not to mention surplus APC's and other armored vehicles, they cant use that excuse anymore.

Police just love to allude to the North Hollywood bank shootout, and milk it for all its worth. But the thing is, such events are so rare that the need for such assets is virtually nonexistant.

If it were up to the cops, every one of them would be equipped like a SWAT wannabe.

 

[SWMAN]

Quote:
''Sometimes we feel like we have water pistols against these guys,'' Police Benevolent Association president John Rivera told me Friday. ``Our weaponry does not match up with theirs. Even our vests don't match what they have.''

Uh no, I dont buy that.

Seeing as though some police departments buy AR's en-masse, not to mention surplus APC's and other armored vehicles, they cant use that excuse anymore.

Police just love to allude to the North Hollywood bank shootout, and milk it for all its worth. But the thing is, such events are so rare that the need for such assets is virtually nonexistant.

If it were up to the cops, every one of them would be equipped like a SWAT wannabe.

Boy, I sure agree with Grant48. If criminals can get weapons and body armor, then why can't the cops? Are the cops that dumb? Nah! They get surplus equipment from DoD and federal funds to buy their military equipment. Cops just love to dress up in the latest tactical equipment. Alot of them are like kids at Christmas. With all the equipment they get these days, they may as well employ cops in fire teams rather than as individuals. I'm surprised the PD hasn't asked for grenade launchers and 60mm mortars.

VA state police carry a pistol, shotgun and M4/M16 in their patrol cars.