Nothing Like A Cop Killer To Bring The Community Together
The photo I saw in the LA Times was a shot of a sad black woman holding a photo of a black man. The caption: "Oakland gunman remembered" -- about a rally for Lovelle Mixon, shot and killed by Oakland police after he murdered FOUR officers on Saturday.
A rally for the cop killer? I had to look that up.
Sure enough, the community there managed to turn a cop murderer into a case of a black man rising up against white oppression. Here's a report from Indybay.org (from somebody who apparently skipped some school, vis a vis "total estrangers" and creative punctuation):
Family friends and total estrangers gather today's at the place where Lovell Mixon Ceased to exist in this physical form this past Saturday in Oakland CA. People were there to show solidarity and support and to tell the media and the whole police department that they can go to hell because "we don't believe in the demonization of this modern day Malcolm X". A Native American Man said " the only raper i can really think of is the ones who came and rape my mother land"
Here's the obscene Obama-ization of Mixon's face posted on feministing, but created by Kevin Weston in collaboration with art director Arturo Tejeda to accompany this piece of tripe, also by Weston.
Here's a YouTube video from the rally:
Hey, all you people at that rally -- not every cop is a saint, but when somebody's breaking into your house or doing a drive-by and you call 911, if I were a cop there, I sure wouldn't be too fast risk my ass for ingrates like you. And I say that as somebody who has a close friend who's a cop (a beautiful blonde cop) who worked the inner city as a rookie -- her first day was during the L.A. riots -- and who was beloved by some of the people on her beat, including the owners of a soul food restaurant (in other words, very non-white).
And regarding the "raper" reference above, here's more on their beloved Lovelle Mixon from an SF Chron story by Jaxon Van Derbeken:
The day before the shootings, police learned that a sample of Mixon's DNA taken after he was sent to prison in 2002 for assault with a deadly weapon matched the evidence recovered after the rape of the 12-year-old girl, police said.Lt. Kevin Wiley, who oversees the sexual assault unit, said Tuesday that the girl had been walking in the 2600 block of 74th when she was grabbed and dragged off the street at gunpoint to a secluded area between homes and sexually assaulted. The attacker then let her go, and she told her parents what happened, police said.
Given the nature of the attack on a 12-year-old, police asked the state Justice Department laboratory in Richmond to rush tests of a DNA sample from the rape to compare it with a database of the state's inmates.
Not enough time
The match to Mixon came back Friday afternoon, but police still would have needed to take a comparison sample from Mixon for him to be charged, investigators said.
Police would not go into detail about the other rapes. But they said that at least one happened this month and that another woman was dragged off the street and raped in the neighborhood in January.
The victim in that rape told police that the attacker "came up behind her. She was savagely raped and sodomized," said Sgt. Jill Encinas of the police special victims unit.
DNA tests in that case are pending, Encinas said.
Police said several victims of the early morning attacks were prostitutes or people the attacker may have believed were prostitutes. The East Oakland area, however, is not known for prostitution, Wiley said.
Most victims did not get a look at the attacker, but the 12-year-old girl did, Encinas said.
'Dead-on' sketchShe helped police come up with a sketch of the rapist that strongly resembles Mixon, Encinas said. "It's pretty dead-on," she said.
Oh, and by the way, Mixon "executed one of the officers by standing over and shooting him in the head," a KRON/Kimberlee Sakamoto story said:
Officials also confirm to KRON 4 that Mixon had tattoos glorifying gun violence. One is of him holding an assault rifle and the other glorifies shooting people in the head.
Here's video of officers from around the country and Canada showing up to mourn the murdered officers (note that a number of them are black):
Here, from an SF Chron story by Demian Bulwa and Jaxon Van Derbeken, is more on the other cops who were murdered by Mixon:
According to authorities, Lovelle Mixon used a semiautomatic pistol to shoot and kill Hege and Sgt. Mark Dunakin, 40, two motorcycle officers who pulled him over during a routine traffic stop. Two hours later, Mixon, who was holed up in his sister's nearby apartment, opened fire with an AK-47 assault rifle, killing SWAT team sergeants Ervin Romans, 43, and Daniel Sakai, 35.Another SWAT team officer, Sgt. Pat Gonzales, also was shot: A bullet ripped through his left shoulder, and another ricocheted off his helmet. He was treated for his injuries and released.
The chaotic shootout occurred in a darkened apartment filled with smoke from officers' nonlethal shock grenades and dust from bullets ripping through drywall. It ended when SWAT team officers returned fired and killed Mixon, authorities said.
...Law enforcement authorities revealed Sunday that Mixon had been investigated last year in another homicide case in Alameda County. Details of that slaying were not immediately released, but prosecutors found there was not enough evidence to charge him.
...Oakland investigators said they were not aware of Mixon's possible connection to the earlier slaying. They said they were perplexed about what triggered Mixon's sudden outburst of violence against their officers.
"This is a strange one," said Oakland police Capt. Steve Tull, who is overseeing the investigation. "We don't know what his motivation is." If authorities found he had violated the conditions of his parole, Mixon would have faced at most six months in prison, Tull said.
Mixon "weighed six months" against his own life and the lives of the officers, Tull said.
He was an animal who belonged in a cage.
Condolences to the families of the murdered police officers.
I read about this earlier and I am disgusted. How the hell is cop killing, in any way, right and glorified?
Sure, there are bad cops, BUT for every bad cop, there are hundreds of GOOD cops who try their very best to keep the law and keep us safe.
The people who are making a hero of this scum.. well.. words just escape me. I cannot believe that this has even happened. (IS happening!) It's like a bad (or good) Destroyer novel...
Truth at March 28, 2009 6:43 AM
A nit: to the media, every rifle is a "assault rifle", and every one of those is an AK-47. If, indeed, it was a Kalashnikov or a clone - renowned for its near-total reliability, a primary consideration in any weapon - it would be the semiauto version, the AKS.
But the biggest measure of how much a threat a gun poses is just one thing: who is holding it.
At work, we who know a little marvelled at the success rate the killer demonstrated. Even multiple shots don't usually kill with that high an encounter rate (encounter one adversary, one adversary down), even when police, widely mistaken to be highly trained, are shooting.
In a move typical of the nanny state, the SKS, a sort of poor relation to the AKS, was registered, then confiscated by the state of California.
Let the officer's fates teach you a lesson. Maneuver first, fast and constantly if threatened and/or attacked with a deadly weapon. There is nothing magic about making them miss, and everything to be gained with distance.
In the next few months, an evaluation of this action will probably be the subject of The Ayoob Files, a feature in American Handgunner. Mr. Ayoob is an eminent firearms action reporter and expert witness, and he'll have the details right.
He won't have much to say about glorifying killers, though. That's just sick.
Radwaste at March 28, 2009 6:44 AM
I wonder what would happen if all the Oakland cops called in sick with the Blue Flu for four days...
Eric at March 28, 2009 8:49 AM
Radwaste,
That is so common for the liberal media to demonize the tool (firearm) and not the perp.
The man charged with gunning down a pastor in mid-sermon and then stabbing two churchgoers had marked the day as "death day" in a planner found in his home and carried enough ammunition to kill 30 people, a prosecutor said Monday.
Official: Ill. slaying suspect planned 'death day'
He was carrying a Glock .45 with a total of three mags. The way it was reported though made it sound like it was a major effort to have 30 rounds. And that was depending on 1 shot = 1 kill. Anyone has been around firearms and has contemplated using it knows that is generally not the case. Between the prosecutor and the media that was left as an unchallenged statement.
Jim P. at March 28, 2009 8:49 AM
Meh, I can't get too worked up for either side. It makes perfect sense why those folks are idiots supporting a murderer. Most cops these days are corrupt as hell. Vicious cycle and all that.
The best part about that article Jim is that it ignores the likely possibility that most cops carry on their person while on duty 2-3 mags of ammo. Are cops planning on a death day? Perhaps just a few no knock warrants served to the wrong homes and a few dogs to shoot.
Puppycide in OK:
http://www.theagitator.com/2009/03/26/about-that-new-professionalism/
Sio at March 28, 2009 9:33 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/nothing-like-a.html#comment-1640590">comment from SioMost cops these days are corrupt as hell.
You know actual cops?
Amy Alkon
at March 28, 2009 9:48 AM
> Meh, I can't get too worked
> up for either side
It's not just that what you said was so reprehensible, it's that you found the ugliest possible tone, like a teenager too busy with video games to help Grandma who's fallen at the stairs.
Nobody here knows who you are; anonymity is guaranteed! You can tell the truth!—
Is your life a mess? Do you have a complete emotional disconnect from the larger community around you, as well as zero intimacy with friends, family and lovers?
Just a hunch!
Let's read it one last time:
> Meh, I can't get too worked
> up for either side
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 28, 2009 9:51 AM
Here we go; the end of the critical thinking. Hey, let's not take sides and find refuge in the La-La-Land of the middle. Let's mix police officers and ruffians together and blame the whole dough for all the hills of society.
Here's the logical fallacy; Grey doesn't exist independently from black and white because it's a mix of the two. This is why there's a difference between that thug who shoot people in a church on the same level than cops hired to serve and protect. The fraud is to refuse the rational judgement of values between the two.
As far as I am concerned, it's like being asked how much cyanide I want I my glass of whisky only to be told after my refusal that Alcohol and Cyanide are both poisons, therefore equal in value...
Lovell Mixon was a thug, a serial rapist and a cop killer. Most of his crimes before his demise were against the black community living in the area. Supporting this monster after his death is downright suicidal. Sadly, it is the norm. So normal than many cops now refuse to patrol in those areas. So this is how it goes: Cops uphold the law in Black neighborhoods? Race hustlers and the community blame them for racism in their actions. Cops refuse to patrol these neighborhoods? Race hustlers and the community blame them for racism in their inaction to fight crime.
So, here's the new slave owners of the United-States; that section of the Black population who hold as decree that they are over the "White Men's Colonialist Laws" while asking for all the perks of an American citizen. Then we wonder why Detroit looks like Zimbabwe.
Toubrouk at March 28, 2009 10:53 AM
Just when I think that my country is being taken over by members of the insane asylum, I come to Amy's site to learn of crazy stories like this south of the 49th Parallel.
Support for this despicable murderer and rapist is BEYOND SICK but seems par for the course amongst certain groups these days. If not kept in check, I predict it will spell the downfall of our society.
Robert W. (Vancouver, BC) at March 28, 2009 11:14 AM
This motherfucker knew exactly what he was facing, and rather than do life, he decided to go down shooting.
And we wonder why cops sometimes seem to have itchy trigger fingers.
The only thing that cop really has to protect him is the badge, and the fear of retribution for killing a cop. What happened in Oakland is what happens when you have an entire generation bred with no fear of retribution and no will to live.
brian at March 28, 2009 11:17 AM
Keep in mind that these protesters are of a mind with those who seek a race war in this country.
Given their (lack of) trigger discipline, I suspect they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
brian at March 28, 2009 11:19 AM
The police should go on strike in that neighborhood. I can't believe this...
crella at March 28, 2009 11:41 AM
"It's not justified, but..." That's where I tune out.
Jim Treacher at March 28, 2009 11:42 AM
Loved the protest sign that said Mixon "stood up aganist police terror." That's some might fine protest work there, Lou.
Perhaps these idiots should spend a little more time in the classroom and a little less time celebrating a child rapist.
Conan the Grammarian at March 28, 2009 11:56 AM
Nothing like killing four cops to really bring a community of like-minded individuals together for a day of celebration.
Oakland: Melding the violence of Richmond and the BS of Berkeley.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 28, 2009 11:57 AM
Not "tone" again. I've been tarred with that jismatic subjectivity before, myself. Whether from deficiencies in skill or from haste, most people aren't capable of writing in the most congruous tone in a blog post. Sio wrote something dumb. That's the problem.
If you think people here can reason about matters of degree, or even distinguish them from matters of kind, you are likely mistaken. Aside from Amy, crid, PriateJo, brian and a few others, you're outta' luck.
Toubrouk, I hope your "tone" doesn't become the central issue instead of your conclusion. Which conclusion is quite correct, IMO.
Now, on to me. Many, perhaps most, black people harbor a self-destructive anger at white people. Is that anger legitimate? On what terms should it be ended?
Jeff at March 28, 2009 12:08 PM
"I wonder what would happen if all the Oakland cops called in sick with the Blue Flu for four days..."
Awesome idea. Wish they would. Better yet, wall up the ghettos and let them kill themselves out. Between the people that kill and those who celebrate them, there is no one worth saving there.
"Meh, I can't get too worked up for either side. It makes perfect sense why those folks are idiots supporting a murderer. Most cops these days are corrupt as hell. Vicious cycle and all that.
The best part about that article Jim is that it ignores the likely possibility that most cops carry on their person while on duty 2-3 mags of ammo. Are cops planning on a death day? Perhaps just a few no knock warrants served to the wrong homes and a few dogs to shoot."
I really hate to respond to such an idiotic statement, but I have to. Most cops are NOT corrupted, any more than sot men are molesters. We just hear-loudly and widely-about the few who are. I've shot a dog before too. Ever been to the ghetto? There are viscious pits and rotts and other nasty dogs who will tear you up and kill you. Shoot or be mauled...gee, I don't know...which to choose?
I wish cops carried more ammo. They really ought to be better armed (and trained) than those they go after. My policeman younger brother just finished up a week of "jump" refresher training. You are put in situations, with a holstered (but unloaded) gun to protect but NOT use, and varying numbers of other officers jump you. He was bruised head to toe. Hellish and needed. I also have a stepdad who retired cop, a cousin cop, and most men in my family did their stint in the military too. I'd just as soon kill Sio and his ilk as look at them. That goes double for the ghetto-fabulous racist ignorant asshats.
momof3 at March 28, 2009 12:31 PM
Sio, does your problem with cops have something to do with, perhaps, a tendancy to drive around with expired stickers after 6 beers with a bag of weed in your car?
I have NEVER met a person who had a general dislike of law enforcement who wasn't a punk piece of shit.
And, yes, we should wall these people up and let them kill each other. Fuck it.
ahw at March 28, 2009 1:19 PM
It's not just cops.
Two examples: my birthfather was a firefighter in Detroit for a few decades. He was there to help, to save lives, he wasn't there to arrest anybody, but they still wanted a piece of him. Also, my neighbor is a paramedic. He went down to the Gulf after Hurricane Katrina to offer medical care (his boss paid all his crew to do this for three weeks. What a guy!) My neighbor was threatened at gunpoint because the only provisions he had in his rig were MRE's, like all the other responders. The guy with the gun wanted some McDonalds, and didn't believe my neighbor wasn't holding out on him. He refused the MRE's, so I guess he wasn't hungry enough. Stupid #$%^ like this makes me feel misanthropic.
Juliana at March 28, 2009 1:25 PM
Of course, but a bloke can dream, right? ;)
I tend to have an acidic tone when I speak about idiocy. This being said, if there's a sizable segment of the population who are out there putting sand in the gears of police work while asking for "Justice" (quite the umbrella term for all the ills of society, compared to "Functional Judicial System"), I will not waste my time to find them excuses. Excuses is the realm of the impotent.
I think that if we leave the situation like this, it will get worse. Evil, by itself is impotent. It need the sanction of the people to thrive. Adolf Hitler was a neurotic gnome who was unable to sell his paintings. He became powerful and deadly because the people supported him. Same things for the current situation. Many people in America had problems with cops; Irish, Chinese and Italian communities had their fair share of harassment. They get over it and achieved great things.
Now, with Obama in power, it's the turn of the Black American community to get over it and thrive. If they don't they will stay in their own pathetic situation, in the slums neck deep in crime.
Toubrouk at March 28, 2009 1:41 PM
> "Family friends and total estrangers"
You got that right.
Or was it no pun intended?
Jay R at March 28, 2009 2:58 PM
"If not kept in check, I predict it will spell the downfall of our society."
You can make the argument that since we have arrived at this point, society has already fallen.
Fortunately society is segmented.
All please note the little-known serendipity of the 1st Amendment: free speech means that now, you know that these people have this opinion, and can do something about it. If it weren't for the 1st, you'd be looking at a news report of retaliatory terrorism.
---
Arming police to the teeth is simply and plainly not the answer. It fosters the idea, "we're better than they are" on the part of the police. You can already measure this by asking your friends and others if they think police have more rights than they. Many say "yes", even though it's not true.
Where only the police are armed, it's called "a police state", and for good reason.
A secure population is itself armed, and has a clear idea what constitutes civil and legal behavior.
Radwaste at March 28, 2009 4:01 PM
Where only the criminals are armed, it's called Beirut. There's a happy medium. I own guns. I want the police to own better ones. I want them protecting me, and am not real concerned about some thug's right to carry. Neither is the thug.
momof3 at March 28, 2009 5:20 PM
"and has a clear idea what constitutes civil and legal behavior."
Anyone wonder why they've stopped teaching civics in some of our public schools?
Juliana at March 28, 2009 6:21 PM
They are estrangers - activities such as this estrange us decent people from them.
I an kind of wondering though - it didn't say in my local paper today, how exactly how it was that a lone man managed to kill four officers. After the dust from the ceremony settles down, people will start shouting "incompetent cops!!". Then, one or more of the dead men's families will sue the city for unsafe practices..etc...let the lawsuits begin.
Norman L. at March 28, 2009 6:39 PM
> Not "tone" again.
Why not? Tone is information. It's usually presented deliberately. It often gives a signal to distracted readers: Heads up over here! I'm saying something really stupid that you can discount after a moment's reflection.
Of course, in this case, that signal wasn't necessary. We could tell the guy was crazy as a loon.
But gosh, if Jody didn't use tone so generously, there wouldn't be so many fights to pick... She wouldn't be any more correct about stuff, but there'd be no urgency. Knowutimean?
Tone is a friend! 'Trust your feelings, Luke!'
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 28, 2009 6:39 PM
Props for the word "jismatic", though. I'm gonna steal it.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 28, 2009 6:41 PM
..not that any such lawsuit(s) would necessarily be non-valid. We shall see.
Norman L. at March 28, 2009 6:41 PM
If only his family had been given MORE welfare, I'm sure Lovelle Mixon would have turned out to be a fine young man.
Martin at March 28, 2009 7:50 PM
Some random thoughts:
Witness the efficacy of CA gun control laws. By definition, pieces of shit don't care which laws they break, decent folks do, ergo laws restricting gun ownership are less than useless.
"I have NEVER met a person who had a general dislike of law enforcement who wasn't a punk piece of shit." The ineluctable, ugly truth.
Oakland PD had better QC their tactical procedures if this POS can kill four cops.
Oakland PD won't strike, a. because they're decent people and b. because the garbage you see on the street isn't everyone in the community. A good cop knows who he protects and serves.
el duderino at March 28, 2009 7:52 PM
I'm always amazed by people who think gun control laws will protect them from the likes of Mixon. It's kind of like being a 7-year-old and declaring some area or thing "out of bounds," as if that will somehow change the laws of physics.
Amy Alkon at March 28, 2009 8:05 PM
"By definition, pieces of shit don't care which laws they break"
What if you don't give the piece of shit a gun? I don't mind so much if he exposes himself or steals a pack of gum or something. (Unless you're saying one of the laws he or she would violate is to break into a gun shop at night and steal one? I don't think that would always work).
Norman L. at March 28, 2009 8:25 PM
Amy,
I am similarly amazed by "collectors" who can't wait 15 days to get the latest Uzi.
Norman L. at March 28, 2009 8:27 PM
Come to think of it, if I was in the business of selling guns, I'd be awfully suspicious of someone who can't wait a couple weeks. It's like a coin collector standing outside a mint or something.
Norman L. at March 28, 2009 8:30 PM
> What if you don't give the
> piece of shit a gun?
You say that as if you know a piece of shit when you see one.
We're sure your intentions are 100%, but....
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 28, 2009 8:51 PM
"What if you don't give the piece of shit a gun? I don't mind so much if he exposes himself or steals a pack of gum or something. (Unless you're saying one of the laws he or she would violate is to break into a gun shop at night and steal one? I don't think that would always work)."
WHo do you think is giving them guns? They buy them illegally from other pieces of shit. Black market guns is big, big business whether you're talking countries or street level dealers. Make as many laws against it as you want, it won't stop.
momof3 at March 28, 2009 8:56 PM
"You say that as if you know a piece of shit "
You didn't understand what I'm saying: if you make it harder for *everyone* to get guns, it will be hard for the piece of shit.
momof3 citing the black market has a very good point though. But I must wonder: how do the guns get on that market in the first place? Are *they* stolen or bought or what?
I really must believe that at least some guns used for murders are bought legally. It just stands to reason.
Norman L. at March 28, 2009 10:41 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/nothing-like-a.html#comment-1640656">comment from Norman L.What if you don't give the piece of shit a gun?
Guns are readily available. As are drugs to anyone who wants them. The fact that something's illegal stops law-abiding people, not the rest. Just look to this case. Mixon was a guy who executed a police officer lying on the ground in front of him; apparently to avoid six months in jail.
Amy Alkon
at March 28, 2009 10:42 PM
If nothing else, shouldn't they at least check for previous police record? I believe it can take some time to go through that process.
I simply cannot understand why someone cannot wait a little while to get a gun, unless maybe it was someone caught up in a situation where their life was in "immanent danger" such as an upstanding citizen having been threatened by a gang.
Norman L. at March 28, 2009 10:49 PM
". The fact that something's illegal stops law-abiding people, not the rest"
What about crimes of passion and other unforseen situations? What about a kid finding a gun in his parents' house? What about "mentally unstable" or whatever they call it? Etc...
It's not as if all the ones obtaining guns are like Mixon.
I think neither of the opposing sides on this issue usually thinks the whole thing through. The NRA really shot themselves in the foot a few years ago, when they were so adamant about not waiting 14 or 15 days that they completely alienated one of their most prominent supporters in congress. I'd have been alienated too..w.t.f. is the problem with wating a little while?
The analogy with drugs may not be that great, as with drugs the user is generally only directly harming himself. On the other hand I think they should make most drugs "controlled substances" instead of illegal, but that is a different subject.
Norman L. at March 28, 2009 10:59 PM
Yeah, the SF Chron headline says he wanted to avoid prison, but then his grandmother says later in the article that he wanted go back to prison so that he could get a better parole officer. WTF?
Very depressing -- especially after reading how an Oakland resident very much respected Officer Daniel Sakai ( one of the murdered officers) who had spent a lot of time finding the person who had shot her teenage son. And that last year there were 124 homicides in Oakland. The eulogizing of this Lovelle idiot is ugly.
Two years ago, a black Oakland activist reporter named Chauncey Bailey was assassinated by a member of the Your Black Muslim Bakery when his investigations were uncovering some sketchy/violent YBMB dealings. There was some shady stuff about a black sergeant in the Oakland Police Dept. who was a YBMB "sympathizer" suppressing evidence and getting blow jobs on the side.
I remember reading a Chauncey Bailey article about black on black murders, which I think is pertinent considering this Lovelle guy gets all the attention and the other killings don't :
Jason S. at March 28, 2009 11:09 PM
Touched a nerve I did, too soon for the cynicism I suppose. Amusing that many ignore the second sentence in my drive by posting. Damn me for not putting in a /sarcasm tag and then singing Police Uber Alles as well (despite my mention of how silly the media can be about their reporting of guns). Those folks are reacting given their experiences. They're dumb because they guy obviously wasn't a hero.
I'm sorry men lost their lives but yeah, I'm fairly apathetic about the situation. It comes from reading too many horror stories in the last few years. Thats my view, take it or leave it or proffer to off me and my ilk sooner than look at me.
Yeah ahw, I don't like cops these days, I've had no real run ins with police because I'm generally a law abiding citizen (besides jaywalking). I don't smoke pot, dont drink much either (dad was an alkie). Its funny how 5 years ago, I probably would have said the same damn thing you did.
Sio at March 29, 2009 12:02 AM
> You didn't understand what I'm
> saying: if you make it harder
> for *everyone* to get guns,
> it will be hard for
> the piece of shit.
Dude. Please. Everybody understood exactly what you were saying... Never has a punch been so well-telegraphed. You want to diminish everyone's constitutional right just because some people don't do well with it.
This will be a tough sell for you. It's like saying that because some kids skin their knees on the playground, children should never be allowed outdoors.
(And actually, come to think of it....)
> I really must believe that
> at least some guns used for
> murders are bought legally.
So what? Some drugs that are abused come with prescriptions. Some food that's too salty is purchased by people who are actually hungry.
> shouldn't they at least
> check for
What do you mean "they"? Who will do the investigation? Who will pay for this "check"? Where will the data be kept? Will their be a record of your attempt to buy a gun, or even your interest? What degree of security will the data have, or will it be open to anyone who wants to call and ask?
> such as an upstanding citizen
> having been threatened by a gang.
What's an "upstanding citizen"? If you have a seven-year-old drunk driving arrest (guilty, three days pokey plus court costs) and a two-year-old shoplifting charge (innocent at trial) and three recent parking tickets, does that mean you can't buy a gun anymore?
> It's not as if all the
> ones obtaining guns are
> like Mixon.
Exactly. Most people shouldn't have their rights diminished.
> Damn me for not putting in
> a /sarcasm tag
Right. You're misunderstood. Sure.
Listen, I've never shot a firearm, but I knew I wasn't a goofy liberal anymore once I saw the NRA side of things. As Raddy has explained, the problem isn't guns, it's people. (France has nukes; nobody cares, because they've got their shit together.) And that fact that an unknown number of those around me are packing heat means that I can more through the world more securely, because bad guys won't take a chance on pulling a stunt around armed citizens.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 29, 2009 2:23 AM
There are way too many bad analogies and other nonsense in your comment to address with any brevity, but, just one question: how does a constitutional right become "diminished"? You either have the right, or you don't have it. There is a right to keep and bear arms; that doesn't mean someone has the "right" to collect forty guns in three days.
With rights come responsibilities, and a responsible gun owner should not mind waiting up to a few weeks for a background check; saying "wahh wahh give me my gun now" is not being responsible. It is more reminiscent of a child wanting his way.
Norman L. at March 29, 2009 2:39 AM
> how does a constitutional right
> become "diminished"?
When someone like you decides he can tell me when I can enjoy it.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 29, 2009 3:04 AM
Besides, the wahh wahh guy isn't asking you for a gun, Daddy.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 29, 2009 3:07 AM
Norman L, clearly you haven't addressed the gun possession issue with anything approaching diligence.
First, here's how your rights are diminished:
The Constitution is incorporated to varying degrees into state law. It appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding about Constitutionality, also: it is a restriction on what government may do, not on what the citizens may do. Now, if you take the Federal Constitutional amendments one at a time, you will find that there is a varying distance between the practice of the states and localities and that of Federal authorities. Morton v. Quilici established that yes, localities may be more restrictive than Federal authority. You can, as a town, prescribe every activity for your citizens if you wish.
(New Haven, CT confiscated the legally-owned homes of several citizens in order to allow a developer to build an office complex, which would pay more tax money. Do you like that?)
Washington, DC had a total gun ban, that is, if you weren't "important".
How important are you?
On the other hand, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring that residents own a gun. Those who didn't wish to keep one in the house could keep it down at the police station.
Which locality trusts its citizens more? Now - and don't go schizoid on me here - what form of government do we have, as in, do you tell the authorities what to do, or it is the other way around?
Ahem. Waiting periods don't work. Look up your mass shootings, etc. Apparently, you just don't understand reality.
Here's a hint. Don't miss the link to "A Nation of Cowards".
There are people who think that their self-defense is someone else's job, that crime cannot touch them because of laws, and/or that gun possession is a sign of criminal intent or paranoia.
It's not.
I know four guys at work with collections; it's a hobby. Each of them would kill somebody to defend an obvious victim when the situation represents itself. Each of them knows that gun use is not a scene from The Matrix, guns do not use themselves or possess any "evil" or "good" properties, and that there are severe, lifelong consequences to injuring or killing another person.
The subject of this article apparently didn't think of that. I hope that you can actually apply some thought.
Here's a good place to start thinking: What do police leave at the house for the family's defense while they are at work?
Say it out loud. You'll feel better.
Radwaste at March 29, 2009 5:31 AM
What if you don't give the piece of shit a gun?
On what grounds should we deny gun ownership to someone? Criminals have rights too. If a former criminal has paid their debt to society, we don't get to suppress their political speech or search their home without a warrant, so why should we infringe their right to self-defense? (For the same reason we should let felons vote.)
If we want felons to not commit crimes with guns, then make it illegal to commit a crime with a gun and make the penalty worse if the perpetrator is a felon. Don't preemptively deny someone's rights because people in their group are more likely to commit crimes. Down that path lies Jim Crow.
Pseudonym at March 29, 2009 6:05 AM
"What about crimes of passion and other unforseen situations? What about a kid finding a gun in his parents' house? What about "mentally unstable" or whatever they call it? Etc..."
All of the above together are a tiny, tiny, tiny part of gun crimes. Almost all gun crimes are scum killing other scum or scum killing innocent people.
"If we want felons to not commit crimes with guns, then make it illegal to commit a crime with a gun and make the penalty worse if the perpetrator is a felon. Don't preemptively deny someone's rights because people in their group are more likely to commit crimes. Down that path lies Jim Crow."
First off, it is illegal to commit a crime with a gun. Hence the term "crime". But, it is also more prison time to rob with a gun than without one. Felons do get more time than first-timers. See how well it's working already? Making it more time in jail if you're a felon just makes the felon go to greater lengths to not get put back (see topic of this thread). We need to deal with first time offenses decisively, IMO. I don't think violent criminals should have rights. Better yet, have armed "victims". And well armed, well armored cops that people actually cooperate with when a crime has been committed.
Second, we do need to profile based on likelihoods. How many terrorists are kept at bay by searching 60 year old white women at the airport?
DId you know a house on a block where a cop lives will cost more than an identical house 2 streets over? All other factors accounted for? People pay to have that perceived protection available. For good reason.
Most black market guns are imported large-scale from other countries where they were bought maybe legally by a weapons smuggler, and then-much like drugs-they are distributed down the ranks for sale to the general street scum. Some are stolen small-scale.
momof3 at March 29, 2009 7:44 AM
See how well it's working already?
Crime is complicated, and I don't think we can point to a single explanation. Over the years I think gun control has hurt more people than it has helped.
Second, we do need to profile based on likelihoods.
Oh, I agree, but there is a clear line between profiling and legally prohibiting. Gun control has an ugly, racist history in this country (and others).
If I were to buy a gun for self defense, I'd want something like an Uzi, which has a high rate of fire, low penetration and an intimidating appearance, and I see no legitimate reason to deny a law-abiding citizen the ability to purchase such a weapon.
My reading of the Constitution doesn't support any gun control at all, and I think we need a constitutional amendment to prohibit private possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Pseudonym at March 29, 2009 8:35 AM
"If a former criminal has paid their debt to society, we don't get to suppress their political speech or search their home without a warrant, so why should we infringe their right to self-defense?"
That one has bothered me for a long time. Martha Stewart, not only a convicted felon but an ex-con, is not allowed to defend herself or hunt ducks. How, exactly, is that protecting the community at large? The message it sends is that if you get busted, you might as well remain a criminal for the rest of your life, because the State values your safety and your family's safety less than other citizens.
And don't even get me started on the anti-gun hysterics of Feinstein, et al. She got her concealed carry permit years ago in San Francisco, where only the well-connected can get permits from the Sheriff. Unbelievable arrogance and abuse of power in a town that prides itself on equality of its citizens.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 29, 2009 9:30 AM
Norman - you're an idiot. In Australia and England it is completely forbidden for the populace to own guns. There are still murders committed with guns. Criminals by definition do not obey the law. What makes you believe that they will change their minds if you pass one banning the use of guns?
Pseudonym - You can't buy an uzi. You might be able to buy something that LOOKS like an uzi, but without a special license and exemption, citizens of the US are not allowed to own fully-automatic firearms. And the last thing you want for defense is a fully automatic weapon. The recoil means that someone who doesn't train with it regularly is going to miss with anything after the first shot, and in the dark it's not very intimidating.
You want a .40 or 20 gauge shotgun. The sound of racking a shotgun is quite distinctive, and while it's not "spray and pray", you can point in the general direction of center mass and score a lethal hit. And either of those will have much less kick than a 12 gauge.
Gog - Martha can petition the court for a reinstatement of her rights. I believe she would have to do so in order to vote again in Connecticut anyhow.
brian at March 29, 2009 3:17 PM
I wonder if this "rally" such as it is...might be taken as a sign of how desperately short of heroes that community really is.
What does it say when that is the best the community can produce?
And what is that community's future if the final days of that felon are held up as an example to their present day youth?
Are they so short of good examples for responsibility, accountability, honour, decency for the young to look to or the old cheer on, that the aforementioned killer had to be a hero just so there was someone, ANYone to look up to?
Robert at March 29, 2009 4:19 PM
The fact is that there are limits on what police can do.
Its often said that cops are never around when you need them.
The fact is...that is usually true.
Why?
Because criminals are not all complete retards.
They take great pains to not commit crimes where a cop can observe them.
The police are not our personal body guards.
What the police do is provide justice after the fact...or with any luck intervene as the comission of a crime is in progress.
On a day to day basis we are responsible for providing for our own safety.
To that end there are tools available to every citizen to provide for our private protection as individuals.
Those tools are refered to as "Firearms". With a modicum amount of training and a minimum of expense even a woman that is 100 lbs soaking wet is fully capable of protecting herself with deadly force against the largest, toughest, most violently aggressive criminal.
A population where armaments are severely restricted removes the ability to protect ourselves from those less inclinded to obedience to the law. A criminal bent on mayhem will not pay heed to a law restricting his access to the tools of mayhem.
But a law abiding citizen under the same restriction, is by consequence of that restriction, at the mercy of the one intending mayhem or murder. Counting upon the police...well even the most honest policeman is no psychic, he can do his job and put the criminal away after the fact, but after the fact justice does not raise the wrongfully dead nor unshed the tears of the violently assaulted.
If we wish to restrict the usage of firearms, we shouldn't treat the law abiding as would be criminals, but rather should treat those of criminal bent as people with criminal bent. Triple sentence requirements for any criminal who uses a firearm in the comission of a crime.
Impliment severe penalties for the posession of ammunition by those convicted of any violent crime.
Eliminate the ability of perpetrators of crimes to file civil suits against those they attempt to make into their victims for creating "unsafe conditions" or defending themselves etc.
Robert at March 29, 2009 5:22 PM
brian, pattern your 20-gauge at across-the-room ranges and you'll find it doesn't cover all that much. Aim is still important. Look through Thunder Ranch's schedule and see what they teach. You probably know this, but I'll emphasize this for everyone: this is not trivial. It is not World of Warcraft, or CSI.
To be fair, and since Risk = Probability x Consequences, you have some serious thinking to do about what your risks are, and if they're changing. Amy's done some things that make me cringe, considering there are those who would consider her a tasty snack - but these encounters do show us that most of the time, we'll be OK. It's when you won't be OK that you must plan for.
Robert, I don't buy enhanced penalties for gun use, for the simplest of reasons: they aren't that effective as an offensive weapon where stealth is important. "Status" and other ideas of potency are conveyed by the mythology of the gun, and this would be enhanced along with the penalty. This would be dispelled by classes in high school, but if you think the stink about abstinence in sex education is offensive, you should imagine what it would be if you tried to teach Johnny & Suzy what guns are. Even though NYC even had rifle teams in school until 1991.
But: if you look up Dennis Tueller - who was an instructor at Gunsite - you'll find that the knife is far and away more useful than the media claims; they can't yell about it because everybody has a cabinetful for cutting steak. Basically, if you have two felons approaching you, and one has a gun, the other has a knife, shoot the guy with the knife first - because he can't miss when he gets to you. And what caliber is a six-inch hole?
Aside: there are already Federal prison terms specified for felons possessing a firearm. They are rarely enforced.
Radwaste at March 29, 2009 5:44 PM
Rad - Yeah, I'm aware of the limitations of the shotgun in close combat.
But any kind of rifle is potentially much worse because if you miss, that round could penetrate the wall, go into your neighbor's house, and kill them.
20 gauge shotgun with buck or bird, not so much.
In any case, you need to judge your surroundings and pick your defense accordingly. But I don't think an Uzi or an AK is ever a useful defensive weapon.
brian at March 29, 2009 6:17 PM
If approached by 1 with firearm, and 1 with a knife...well realistically speaking you shoot the one with the GUN first. He can't miss up close either.
Moreover, he doesn't need to get close, and it only takes a second to shoot them both.
As far as the law goes, the degree to which it is enforced is in no small measure related to how much the citizens care to see that their officials pursue it.
"People get the government that they deserve." Is not a new truism.
Every weapon has its weaknesses.
The strength of the firearm is the ease with which its use is learned.
A simple 6 shot pistol is good enough for the protection of any private citizen in almost every situation. Contrary to the movies...no citizen is likely to get involved in a big gunfight with a crack shooting criminal mastermind.
Robert at March 29, 2009 6:42 PM
Basically, if you have two felons approaching you, and one has a gun, the other has a knife, shoot the guy with the knife first - because he can't miss when he gets to you.
WTF?
The one with a knife can't harm you until he's within stabbing range (basically, the length of his own arm).
The one with a gun can harm you NOW! If he can see you, he can shoot you.
Conan the Grammarian at March 29, 2009 6:51 PM
Pseudonym - You can't buy an uzi.
I know. That's the problem.
I'm not an uzi partisan; I used it as an example because it was previously mentioned. My point is that a weapon that is banned because of its effectiveness is also desirable for legitimate use because of its effectiveness. Automatic fire (in 3-round burst or not), intimidating appearance, armor-piercing ammunition, large magazines and other "military" features are reasons to make a weapon legal, not illegal.
Pseudonym at March 29, 2009 6:59 PM
Pseudo - You'll get no argument from me on legalization.
However, for home defense, it is suboptimal.
Robert - The revolver has a lot to recommend it - simplicity is good in a defensive weapon.
But if you're going to go the pistol route, I'd almost say the M1911-A1 .45 ACP is probably the best "bang for the buck" (pardon the pun). simple, reliable, excellent stopping power.
Even when you're dealing with an armored punk, a shot from that to the chest is gonna knock him down.
brian at March 29, 2009 7:22 PM
"I simply cannot understand why someone cannot wait a little while to get a gun"
Then you've missed the real point of the 2nd Amendment.
DavidJ at March 29, 2009 7:43 PM
Long and the short of it is that an unarmed citizen is likely to be nothing but prey against an armed perpetrator.
He puts the burden of his protection upon the police, people whom as we have previously discussed, are likely to not be present when needed.
As NRA supporters are fond of saying:
"Call for an ambulance, a pizza, and the police, see which arrives first."
If you want to defend yourself and your own, buy a pistol, learn how to use it.
Make sure the appropriate members of your family know how to use it and where to find it.
Failure to do the above, is nothing less than a failure to accept the responsibility of an adult to look after one's own.
Robert at March 29, 2009 7:46 PM
Conan, start counting the time it takes you to get your keys out of your pocket. "One thousand one, one thousand...". The thug with a knife will be on you in, literally, two seconds from ~20 feet away, and is powerfully motivated by the knowledge that he must get in contact to make the knife work. If you dodge or run, the gun is less effective; because the knife is still closing on you, maneuver is less effective.
And the damage a knife does is almost always worse than that of handguns. And it never runs out of ammunition. And it's quiet.
The battlefield is very much a different place than in a personal encounter. The knife is not to be neglected if in speaking range.
Here's the Tueller Drill illustrating knife vs. gun problems.
Do remember that single hits do not always stop the bad guy. Single cuts are mortal wounds to our good guy. The good news is, if you can stop the bleeding, a knife cut is often easier for surgeons to repair.
The best news is, you have the means to stay out of such circumstances. Maybe.
Radwaste at March 29, 2009 8:28 PM
Here's the "Hidden Lesson" of the Tueller Drill.
Awareness and maneuvering can save the day. Don't let yourself be found at the scene of the crime!
Radwaste at March 29, 2009 8:34 PM
"if you make it harder for *everyone* to get guns, it will be hard for the piece of shit"
This is how corporate dress codes get started. THIS mentality is why I can only wear jeans to work on Fridays unless I have a "jeans sticker."
Pirate Jo at March 29, 2009 8:42 PM
Robert -
I think the phrase you're looking for is:
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
Rad - someone with knife approaches, close the distance before they are ready and plant a foot in their chest. Risky, but if you haven't got a pistol, any damage you can do is to your benefit.
Another good close-quarters weapon is a baseball bat. You can seriously fuck someone up with one of those. Poke, swing at the knife, swing for the head, hell you can even throw it. You don't have to be A-Rod to put someone down with a bat.
brian at March 29, 2009 8:54 PM
Haven't you all lost focus on what is really being talked about. This was started because a group of people had a demonstration in support of a man who killed 4 Police Officers. This blog has degenerated into a discussion of the accuracy of a shotgun at short range and how a baseball bat is a better close range weapon. WTF has gotten into you people.
This Mixon person murdered 4 Police Officers and was a suspect in multiple rape cases, and his neighborhood is out celebrating him. Is it just me or have most of the people on the planet gone completely fucking crazy. How can people celebrate that kind of punk and his acts of violence, it is beyond my comprehention. What the hell are these people thinking or is it a total lack of thinking.
As for Gun Laws, we have seen how effective they have been in the last few years. Guns are being produced therefore guns are available to the general public. Am I in favor of Gun Laws, No. Until they make some kind of sense it is just wasted paper that they are writting on. Do I think that everyone and there brother needs to own a gun, again No. But it is in the Constitution and we need to respect that, Period. I beleive we need better controls on how many guns are produced and how they are sold. There are without question to many guns in the hands of criminals out there. I don't claim to have all the answers, but shouldn't we be looking at this side of the equation also?
Matthew at March 30, 2009 3:13 AM
Matthew -
We have drug control laws. How well have those worked out?
The point of the discussion was driven by the unspoken assertion that if one of Mixon's previous victims had dispatched him to the hereafter, we wouldn't have to have this conversation.
Guns aren't the problem here. Guns didn't kill those four cops.
A steady diet of resentment, hate, and left-wing ideology did.
Please note the following -
There was no mention anywhere of Mixon's father.
The area he lives in is rotten with welfare lifers and race hustlers who think that whitey owes them.
He and millions like him have spent literally every day of their lives being told that the cops are merely waiting for an opportunity to kill him.
And he was never taught that the world isn't his to simply take.
What tells a man that it's OK for him to drag a 12 year old girl off the street and rape her?
I'll tell you what.
The organized and intentional destruction of the black family by the left.
brian at March 30, 2009 5:00 AM
THe right didnt exaclty try to stop it either brian - why waste all that chep labor?
Or government subsides for private prisons?
lujlp at March 30, 2009 5:55 AM
lujlp -
try again. that comment made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
brian at March 30, 2009 7:29 AM
Its simple enough brian, corperation benifit from finacially from the thousands of poor uneducated workers, and from those who turn to crime as well, more and more prisons are being run by corperations
lujlp at March 30, 2009 8:22 AM
What tells a man that it's OK for him to drag a 12 year old girl off the street and rape her?
A community that describes that man as a loving husband and lionizes that man rather than condemning him.
Conan, start counting the time it takes you to get your keys out of your pocket.
Good points all. But close-range knife-fighting also takes some skill...especially against an opponent who is armed.
The gun has a longer reach, but don't discount the knife.
Conan the Grammarian at March 30, 2009 8:54 AM
lujlp - you're smoking something.
Are you intending to imply that the government is creating criminals for the sake of enriching a company that runs a prison?
You might want to adjust your tinfoil.
And anyhow, how does the creation of a permanent dependent underclass that doesn't work benefit corporations?
No, let me tell you what happened and how.
The Democrats hijacked the civil rights movement and decided to create a permanent dependent underclass that would keep them in power in perpetuity. You'll note that over the past 40 years the Democrats have done jack shit to improve the condition of the black man in America. Note also that they voted 95% for Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic party.
Teach a man to fish, and he doesn't need your help. Get him accustomed to free fish, and you own him for a lifetime.
brian at March 30, 2009 9:09 AM
Are you intending to imply that the government is creating criminals for the sake of enriching a company that runs a prison?
Take a look at drug laws, "deadbeat dad" laws,
sex offender statues.
Yes they are intentionlly creating criminals
lujlp at March 30, 2009 10:21 AM
wow. Just wow.
So there's a conspiracy to stop people becoming brain-dead drains on society so they can become PROFITABLE brain-dead drains on society.
Brilliant!
Do you have any idea how far into the looney pit you've gone with just one sentence?
brian at March 30, 2009 10:25 AM
Nobody but nobody should be crying any tears over this slime bucket. Little girls in the hood are safer for his demise. The only tears that should be shed should be for those officers and that little girl.
Though I've got to say it's over-generalizing to say that there are no decent folks in the neighborhood. They are just, at this point, overwhelmed themselves. If they spoke up against this idiocy, they'd be dead by morning.
Matthew, agreed but don't knock it. I found that whole discussion interesting and informative. I take every opportunity to learn whatever I can about self-defense. I figure the more I know, the better. I was amused at the reference in the link to cane as self-defense. I had to use mine as such on the bus home from work last Friday because some young thug thought they could shove me around; fortunately, it didn't come to blows because their friend had more sense than them and realized that the crazy white lady was serious when she turned the thing around and started raising it and pulled them away. Don't know who would have kicked whose ass and I'm glad I didn't have to find out but I'm damned if I ever go down without a fight, no matter how old and decrepit I get before I die. I'm convinced of only one thing: I need to get me an even heavier one.
And also, older I get more in favor of gun ownership I am. ;) It really is a rather nice equalizer when the physical odds may not be so much in your favor otherwise. I used to be sold on the gun control thing and loved to point out that bit that qualifies it to being for the purposes of a militia but I've paid attention to the arguments here and, you know, they're right. From everything from being as able to ban guns as drugs to being responsible for protecting you and yours.
And, frankly, with nutcases as bad as this running around, when it comes down to brass tacks, who do you have standing between you and them? Better damned well be able to cover your own butt.
T's Grammy at March 30, 2009 10:51 AM
Advocates of gun control will never get it because they fear guns on a primal level. Kim Du Toit calls them Gun Fearing Wussies. He's exactly right.
Change the word "gun" to "press" then heap all the controls the GFWs advocate on to the fourth estate and watch them get their over sized panties in twist.
A responsible journalist shouldn't mind waiting a few weeks to release a breaking story.
Nor should a responsible journalist mind using quill and paper or maybe a manual printing press, because that's what they had in 1776.
And no one needs to read more than one or two newspapers.
Sounds stupid doesn't it huh Norman?
When I got out if the military my local police department busted my balls about getting a concealed carry permit. Why? I had obviously been trained and could document it. I had a security clearance so I wasn't crazy or criminal. Up until the week before I was paid to do for the republic what I was then asking to be allowed to do for myself. Maybe that was it, individuals exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights sticks in the craws of petty despots everywhere.
el duderino at March 30, 2009 11:11 AM
God made man. Samuel Colt made 'em equal.
brian at March 30, 2009 11:20 AM
brian in utah my father works for the doc there care inmates serving more time for possesion with intent to distribute then for rape.
My mother current boyfreind works for a private prison out near florence - belive me jail is a profitable buisiness
You think thats odd?
Is it any odder than the government jailing men and suspending their business licences when the fall behind on child support?
lujlp at March 30, 2009 11:23 AM
It's an awfully big stretch to go from "prison is a profitable business" to "government makes people into criminals to benefit the prison industry"
That's as stupid as saying the government causes train wrecks and car accidents to support the undertaker.
If you got rid of the drug laws, you'd just have more people in the morgue from overdoses and murder. Sure, it might keep people out of jail, but is it really an improvement?
Besides, this piece of shit was wanted for one and suspected in two more rapes. If they could have put him away for life on the possession charge, I could live with that.
Of course, he got the death penalty. Which is the kind of thing that's likely to happen to you when you shoot cops.
brian at March 30, 2009 11:34 AM
I'm afraid at some point we all have to accept the ugly truth that evolution simply left these people behind. We'll need DNA re-engineering technology to fix this.
"You'll note that over the past 40 years the Democrats have done jack shit to improve the condition of the black man in America."
And what has the black man done for himself to improve his condition in the past 40 years? Obama aside, jack shit. In spite of being born in the wealthiest country in the world, with more opportunities than any other country. The typical Asian-American immigrant goes from complete and absolute poverty to extraordinary success (and integration) with no complaints in just one generation. The typical African-American is born into more privilege than the Asian immigrant who toiled their whole life just to reach the shore, yet after 8 or more generations, the former cannot integrate, cannot succeed, and remains extraordinarily, savagely violent.
Truth hurts, sorry, but to deny such a blatantly obvious elephant in the room is akin to boldly stating the sky is green.
UglyTruth at March 30, 2009 1:51 PM
"I believe we need better controls on how many guns are produced and how they are sold. There are without question to many guns in the hands of criminals out there. I don't claim to have all the answers, but shouldn't we be looking at this side of the equation also?"
Matthew, it look s like you haven't started to look for answers yet, but that's OK; many people don't know how to research this field.
Here's a shocker for you: Every firearm - each individual firearm - produced in this country is made with the express permission of the Federal government. Each individual new firearm must be sold by a licensed dealer in this country, and when it is sold, permission to sell it to a properly identified individual must be obtained by the dealer from the FBI. That's for each transaction. This info is obvious at the ATF FAQ page.
Now, for the hard part: this was enacted in 1995, at which time there were already 200 million guns in the hands of private citizens. There are actually about 250 thousand fully automatic machine guns - not junk, but purpose-built pieces - in private hands.
Hmm. If there were that many to start with, where is the problem?
The problem lies with the risk such ownership poses to power. Think about the land grab New Haven, CT made, running people out of their homes via condemnation so that they could build an office complex and get more tax money. Do you like that idea? It was ruled to be totally legal. The city even sued those people for occupying their condemned land during the trial!
What if that practice grows? It has before - and just what kind of representation do you think you'll get when government is right now meddling directly in private business? Just how much abuse like New Haven's do you think it will take before large groups of people start to say, "Hell, No!" and demand their property rights with force?
It's an ongoing movement to get people out of owning their home. You can do so much more with propertyless people.
You can insist that since they have their 1st Amendment rights, they have all of them - while simply ignoring that free speech as powerless noises.
Meanwhile - we don't have a gun problem, we have a crime problem, without which guns would be no issue at all.
Radwaste at March 30, 2009 2:04 PM
I'm afraid at some point we all have to accept the ugly truth that evolution simply left these people behind. We'll need DNA re-engineering technology to fix this.
It's not genetics, it's a subculture that glorifies crime, opposes achievement, objectifies women and does all sorts of other bad things. It's not a poor thing or an urban thing, though making bad life choices does make poverty more likely. It's not a black thing: it crosses racial, ethnic and class boundaries (and lots of black people reject it or have overcome it). If we refuse to enable it (via, for example, a welfare state) natural selection will lead to its demise. That doesn't mean that people with that culture die, it means that people will reject it for mainstream American culture.
Meanwhile - we don't have a gun problem, we have a crime problem, without which guns would be no issue at all.
Absolutely, and by increasing personal freedom and decriminalizing things that don't need to be banned or heavily regulated (like gambling) we reduce the associated violent crime as well. (When the Crips and Bloods compete they use guns; when Wal-Mart and Target compete they don't.)
Pseudonym at March 30, 2009 2:32 PM
Ugly -
They didn't do jack shit because their self-appointed "community leaders" told them that everything was owed to them.
Perverse Incentive.
You'll note that every black person who decided to say "fuck it, I'm not waiting for skittle-farting unicorns" is doing every bit as well as white, asian, etc. are doing.
But every person regardless of race or origin that bought in to the socialist welfare dream is languishing in their own filth.
There's a lesson there, but I doubt anyone who doesn't already accept its lessons as axiom is loathe to learn it.
brian at March 30, 2009 2:41 PM
"Gog - Martha can petition the court for a reinstatement of her rights. I believe she would have to do so in order to vote again in Connecticut anyhow."
Brian - BATF is the only Federal agency that can grant a petition for reinstatement of firearms rights for a felon (although there are state-level processes, they're superseded by the Fed rules), and Congress has specifically de-funded that 'program'. That's right. They simply changed the budget and made their own law.
In 2002 a Texas firearms dealer, having been turned down for reinstatement by the BATF on the grounds that Congress didn't provide funds to process his petition, took the matter to the Supremes. They sided with the Government. Clarence Thomas took the opportunity to inject a little Orwell/Catch-22ish logic to the proceedings:
"Mere inaction by ATF does not invest a district court with independent jurisdiction to act on an application," wrote Thomas for the Court.
See (Bean v. BATF, 253 F. 3d 234 (5th Cir. Tex. 2001)),
If she'd been pardoned, had her rights set aside, or expunged (not likely for someone who is not just a felon but an ex-con), she would be considered to have been not convicted. She can also apply for a Presidential pardon.
Fast forward about six years, and we have the Supremes now saying that individual gun ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution. Hopefully this will be challenged again based on their newest ruling and we can decide once and for all if conviction of a felony strips you of your American citizenship.
Not sure what the voting restoration process is in Connecticut, in some states it's by petition, in others it's by time (say, 10 years without additional convictions).
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 30, 2009 10:35 PM
That's as stupid as saying the government causes train wrecks and car accidents to support the undertaker. - brian
Or like saying the state is more likley to place children in a foster home for the sole purpose of getting matching federal funds than with their father when taken from their mother
Wait a minute, they do do that
lujlp at March 31, 2009 5:03 AM
lujlp -
There is documented evidence and policy in place concerning foster children and adoption placements.
There is no documented evidence that the government is creating criminals out of whole cloth for the purpose of putting people in prison for profit.
If you completely eliminated drug control laws, most of the people in prison for drug possession, manufacture, or sale would more likely than not end up either in prison anyway or dead. The only question is how many innocents would get taken out in the process. I suspect it wouldn't be fewer than get taken out now.
brian at March 31, 2009 7:59 AM
"There is no documented evidence that the government is creating criminals out of whole cloth for the purpose of putting people in prison for profit."
Yet land grabs and other confiscations occur frequently. You will have your money taken from you if you dare to travel with a large amount of cash, and what is that but enriching the police agency?
No, you won't find a law that says, "Get that money by putting that guy in jail!" -- but the practice goes on.
The 4th Amendment doesn't mention "prison"; it says "life, liberty or property".
And the public lets things slide so long as they don't think it applies to them.
Want to think about why the word, "detainee" is so popular? It's so people don't get fired up about somebody being held prisoner. Who started that?
Radwaste at March 31, 2009 10:10 AM
Rad - nice attempt at deflection.
lujlp's assertion is that the purpose of the so-called war on drugs is to put men in prison for the express purpose of enriching the corporations that run the prisons.
That assertion is bullshit. Politicians aren't that smart.
Which is why everything else you point out is such ham-fisted bullshit. The government doesn't use complicated Rube Goldberg mechanisms to take things from its subjects, it simply beats them over the head and grabs what it wants.
As to the distinction between "detainee" and "prisoner" it was to shut up the fucking leftist morons who demanded that if we used the word "prisoner" to describe unlawful combatants captured on the field of battle it meant we must treat them as POWs.
Which is yet another example of how we continue to lose the battle for language, but that's another story for another blog.
brian at March 31, 2009 11:24 AM
Acctually my assertion was that the government generates money off the poor wether or not they turn to crime - and sentancing guidelines were evidence of that assertion
lujlp at March 31, 2009 12:13 PM
lujlp -
Let me see if I got this straight.
I point out that the left in this country did, with malice aforethought, engineer the destruction of the black nuclear family.
Your retort was that the right didn't stop them on account of they could benefit from the cheap labor.
Which only makes sense if two things are true - 1) that the black people who find themselves on the receiving end of this actually work (hint - they're on welfare, which kinda precludes work), and that the right sought to exploit that (of which you have no evidence).
Having thus failed to make that argument stick, you then allege that the government has created laws to intentionally target blacks and imprison them for the sole purpose of enriching privately-owned jails.
Has it occurred to you that "making money off the poor" is generally a stupid thing to do on account of the poor typically don't have money, and there's a reason for it?
Sentencing guidelines exist because a few soft-headed judges decided to let criminals roam free because "society is to blame", and more people died unnecessarily. I don't like them, but that's why they exist.
brian at March 31, 2009 12:40 PM
brian, I'm not attempting deflection, but pointing out that there are many other ways official organizations benefit from misapplying laws.
An administration, for instance, will benefit from deflecting assertions of poor performance in some areas by changing the language about it (man-caused disasters).
But to get close to the topic here, take a look what you get on the search term, "prisons as a business".
They don't get money from the poor, but from taxpayers.
Radwaste at March 31, 2009 3:05 PM
I'd be willing to bet the prison that housed Martha Stewart was much more profitable than one that houses murderers and rapists.
Which STILL doesn't get us any closer to proving lujlp's asinine assertion that criminals are being actively created by politicians to benefit prison companies.
brian at March 31, 2009 3:35 PM
Has it occurred to you that "making money off the poor" is generally a stupid thing to do on account of the poor typically don't have money, and there's a reason for it? - brian
Just playin' devil's advocate here.
You don't have to make money off the poor to profit from them.
Just make sure the poor welfare-dependents vote you into office every election and you can make money off graft and bribes. The poor are just a means to that end.
Conan the Grammarian at April 1, 2009 1:41 PM
Please show me anywhere that this is a methodology embraced by "the right".
His premise is still total fucking bullshit.
brian at April 1, 2009 2:24 PM
Leave a comment