Two NYC cops gunned down ... (Discussion)

[mjustice]

Before I start my tirade, let me begin by expressing my condolences to the families of those men ruthlessly gunned down last night.

They died in vain - the government caused this problem, and pawned away their lives in an attempt to control their own ill deeds.

Yesterday, In a totally unrelated thread on Packing.org, I mentioned that the illegal gun trade is alive and well in New York City. Any system where you can sell a $75 Lorcin for $500 is going to be very difficult to shut down.

This tragic incident proved my point. $1,200 for a .357?

Now I am not naive, many of these guns are purchased by criminals for criminal activities. But some of them are purchased by otherwise law-abiding citizens for their defense. New York has had a discretionary system for gun ownership (and I am not talking about carry - just simple possession) for over 90 years now. Each attempt to bring significant reform to a clearly unconstitutional system has been thwarted by assembly members in this same city.

I'm certain I will receive some flack over this post, but I am willing to take it to prove my point - reforming the system for acquiring handguns in the State of New York would certainly take some of the "teeth" out of this trade - Even criminals are seldom *this* ruthless over a few dollars.

These men died over something that is done with classified ads in many states (selling guns, but not to criminals)


Regards,
MJ

 

[Marko Kloos]

Prohibition doesn't work. It doesn't matter whether it's booze, narcotics, or firearms. Every time the government at any level decides to "prohibit" the ownership of something, a very profitable black market will spring into existence. The only thing accomplished by Prohibition is price protection for smugglers.

Too bad that people don't learn from history. Even on the pro-gun side, too many folks deplore the idiocy of NYC when it comes to guns and gun ownership, and then turn around and rah-rah for the War on Some Drugs.

"If we make gun ownership/CCW legal, we'll have shootouts on every street corner, and gun crime will skyrocket." (That's why the streets are running red with blood in CCW states.)

"But health care costs due to gunshot victims will take money out of my pocket!" (Simple solution: Abolish public health care, and Prohibitionists no longer have the "public cost" angle to whine about.)

"If we make drug ownership legal, we'll have overdoses on every street corner, and violent crime will skyrocket." (That's why half the population drank itself to death when Prohibition was lifted in the early 1930s.)

"But health care costs due to drug overdoses will take money out of my pocket!" (Simple solution: Abolish public health care, and Prohibitionists no longer have the "public cost" angle to whine about.)

Same mindset, different pet amendments to the Constitution. Want to see a Prohibitionist? Look in the mirror. All you have to do is to find someone's hot-button issue, whether that's firearms, drugs, porn, or SUVs, and you'll see most "freedom lovers" turn into raging Statists before your eyes.

The War on Drugs is a money-making machine, keeping many agencies employed and funded. If it wasn't drugs, it would be guns, or porn, or something else that has enough people rooting against it to give a politcritter the motivation to look good by enacting a ban on it. We'll always be At War, because too many careers depend on a perpetual state of warfare. Right-wing utopians are no less evil than left-wing ones when it comes to using the guns of the State to try and enforce the Perfect Society.

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

Good reply to the initial post Lendringser. All true and accurate.
Entire black and legitimate industries are created through prohibition.

 

[cordex]

Same mindset, different pet amendments to the Constitution. Want to see a Prohibitionist? Look in the mirror. All you have to do is to find someone's hot-button issue, whether that's firearms, drugs, porn, or SUVs, and you'll see most "freedom lovers" turn into raging Statists before your eyes.

*nods*
Or murder, or rape, or theft.
Different morals. Different things held sacred.

Not arguing, lendringser, merely poking at "hot-button issues" of what could be good and decent freedom loving folk but which appear to be the beliefs of "raging Statists" in the eyes of murderers, rapists and kleptos. Again: different morals, different things held sacred. I'm as anti-Prohibition as you'll find, but I believe strongly in an absolute moral code. One that prohibits certain activities ... in most cases, those that harm others unnecessarily.

No, I'm not a relativist.

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

Most people find rape, murder and theft immoral, those that do not hold nothing sacred.......

 

[Oracle]

I can't bring myself to feel much sympathy for these "officers". They died trying to violate the inalienable rights of the citizens they are sworn to protect. In my opinion, that is an action that isn't deserving of pity or sympathy. While I do not condone the shooting of police officers, I don't think that it is wrong to protect your rights.

 

[TechBrute]

I've had a discussion with a friend of mine about NYC and guns. It would have been called a debate, had it lasted more than 6 seconds.

Me: Ah yes, I see the NYC gun ban is working. At least it keeps the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Mike: It can never work correctly as long as people can bring in guns from out of the city or state. We need to ban guns nationwide so noone will have access to them.

Me: You're right. It worked really well when we banned drugs.

The names have been changed to protect the innocent. My name is not "Me".

 

[TallPine]

cordex:

lendringser was talking about prohibition of objects, not violent acts against other people and their propery

most of us can see a big difference between those

 

[Marko Kloos]

Again: different morals, different things held sacred.

Like TallPine pointed out, there's no difference in morals here. I am talking about the immorality and futility of prohibiting non-violent acts, outlawing the possession of items. I don't know why you think an anti-Prohibition stance always includes a "lack of morals", or a laissez-faire attitude towards violent crime.

Seems like I am at least as much of a "moral absolutist" as you are. I think that initiation of force, for whatever reason, is always immoral. I do not believe that the possession of a substance or item by itself ever warrants the use of force by the State or anyone else. The use of force is only moral when used in retaliation. If someone believes that it's morally right to initiate violence to keep someone else from possessing an item which they don't like, then I'd content that their morality is indeed very relative.

 

[Poodleshooter]

I'm certain I will receive some flack over this post, but I am willing to take it to prove my point - reforming the system for acquiring handguns in the State of New York would certainly take some of the "teeth" out of this trade - Even criminals are seldom *this* ruthless over a few dollars.

I hate to be a pessimist, but it won't happen. NYS has plenty of gunowners and hunters, but too many of them are of the authoritarian mindset that their own guns are fine, but everyone else's rights should be restricted. I'm proceeding from this assumption based on the many gunowners and hunters that I've known from Watertown, to Buffalo, to Albany (I've never been to NYC for more than 1 hour at a time). Only in MD have I found as many gun rights compromisers as I did while living in NY. Couple that with a voting population that is predominately urban and you sound the death knell for gun rights. You may want your rights back, but NYC, Albany,Syracuse,Rochester and Buffalo won't give them back.