What Philly Should Know
I just sent the following to David Gambacorta in response to an article he wrote that was published today in the Philadelphia Daily News about an increased call for a futile "assault weapon" ban in the wake of a police officer being killed by a burka-wearing thug armed with an SKS carbine during a bank robbery on May 3. One of the three criminals involved was killed the day of the robbery. Another was captured Sunday, and the third was captured today.
I suspect my letter will fall upon deaf ears. Far some, particularly in liberal urban areas, attempting to legislate teh behavior of an inanimate object while at the same time ascribing to it human characteristics (typically those associated with evil or ill intent) is "logical," even as they avoid to making attempts to correct or eliminate the criminal culture responsible for the crime. Instigating firearms bans doesn't work, but it is easy and gives politicians the appearance of caring and of "doing something," even when that appearance is merely a mirage of effectiveness. Expect Philadelphia to push an "assault weapons" ban. If passed, don't expect it to save a single life.
I just read In wake of Liczbinski slaying, a push for assault-weapon ban and thought I might be able to help correct some erroneous information contained within that story that I'm sure was accidental. Mayor Nutter states:
"I don't understand how anyone can stand up and make any kind of argument or defense as to why someone should have an AK-47 or an SKS or whatever," Nutter said yesterday, while he paid tribute to fallen officers at the Living Flame Memorial in Franklin Square Park. "These weapons . . . are for one purpose only, to maim and destroy human beings," he said. "We should have statewide legislation. The federal government has a role to play here as well."
Mayor Nutter, while obviously impassioned, is factually wrong in several respects. The "argument or defense" for these kinds of firearms are to be read in the context of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which was written to insure that "we, the people" have a enumerated right to military-grade small arms suitable for militia service, to defend ourselves not only from foreign aggressors, but from rogue governments bent on enslaving the population. A simple reading of the Founding Fathers confirms this view. The Second Amendment is not about hunting, but armed community defense by citizens. Firearms that have practical military use are more protected according to the founders principles than hunting or target guns would be. You would hope that the mayor of the city where our founding documents were created would have a better understanding about their origins and meaning. In addition to Nutter's obvious historical ignorance, the SKS has far more uses than one, and "to maim and destroy human beings" is the function in which it is least used in this nation. The cartridge fired by the SKS, the 7.62x39, is very similar to the .30/30 cartridge commonly chambered in lever-action rifles. Because of this fact, and because the SKS and its ammunition are far less expensive than many .30/30 rifles and the bullets they fire, they are commonly used in hunting medium-sized game such as deer at short to medium ranges. Because the ammunition for the SKS is readily purchased at reduced cost, it is also a favored centerfire "plinker" rifle useful from building familiarity with rifles, and those made in China are typically found with shortened stocks, which is often advantageous for women and smaller-framed men. It is an excellent all-purpose utility rifle. Phil Goldsmith, who has an obvious bias as a member of an anti-gun group, is deceptive when he claims that "a weapon this destructive has no legitimate place or purpose in Pennsylvania." As I just noted, the SKS and the cartridge it fires is similar to .30/30 rifles and is therefore certainly no more "destructive" than this and other rifle rounds of moderate power. The SKS is far less powerful and has a shorter range than most common hunting rifle cartridges, including, but not limited to the following standard cartridges: the .270 Winchester, 7x57 Mauser, the .308 Winchester, .30-06, and all other long-action and magnum-action cartridges. Goldsmith, I will reiterate again, is being blatantly and purposefully deceptive when claiming that the relatively anemic 7.62x39 cartridge is especially dangerous when compared to other common rifle cartridges. These are the corrected facts. Now I'll editorialize a bit, and note that gun laws only disarm those citizens prone to following laws. As criminals by definition do not obey the law, such laws only serve to create more victims and more violence. If you doubt this at all, you need to look no further than Washington DC and Chicago. Both cities have excessively strict gun control laws, and both have an extreme level of violent gun crime. Contrast that with other metropolitan areas where the laws are more intelligent and citizens have the right to earn concealed weapons permits, and you'll see cities with far less gun crime. It seems paradoxical, but it really isn't. Criminals know they can terrorize the law-abiding in cities where gun control is out of control, and that the only legally armed force (the police) are not likely to arrive until well after they've committed their crimes and escaped. Others illegally armed like themselves are unlikely to intervene on behalf of the victims and expose themselves to legal jeopardy. Contrast that against a city such as Charlotte or Raleigh (the two cities in North Carolina with the highest population and highest number of concealed carry permits issued) and you will see far less violent crime. Criminals are unsure of who is armed, but most are smart enough to know concealed carry holders can only draw their weapons if life is at risk. As a result, we may have higher strong-arm robberies and property crime, but less gun crime. It is a pragmatic decision criminals have made to keep from dying at the hands of their potential victims. If you truly want there to be less violence in Philadelphia, allow your citizens the freedom to defend themselves against petty tyrants both criminal and political. Once upon a time your city didn't have to be told that. Perhaps it is your turn to remind them what they once were, and could be again if the "City of Brotherly Love" only loved its citizens enough to trust them to do the right thing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:53 AM
Comments
1
All three of the clowns involved in the bank robbery and shooting had criminal records that would prohibit them from purchasing the weapons used.
Nutter is just trying to add fluff by having what is already illegal made illegal again.
Call it Fluff 'o Nutter.
Nutter is just trying to add fluff by having what is already illegal made illegal again.
Call it Fluff 'o Nutter.
Posted by: Neo at May 08, 2008 12:00 PM (Yozw9)
2
I would never run for office if I had a surname like Nutter. Douchebag maybe, but not Nutter.
Jebus - Mayor Nutter - no wonder their down is screwed.
Jebus - Mayor Nutter - no wonder their down is screwed.
Posted by: Dan Irving at May 08, 2008 12:21 PM (Kw4jM)
3
Has anybody who had to give up their weapon because they moved to a city that had a tight gun law, or beause that city passed a tight gun law , and was subsequently injured or had a loved one injured because of their inability to defend themselves sued a city? I know courts are usually worse than governers mansion on these things but ... we do have the right to life, libery, the pursuit of happieness and the abulity to defend these rights. Dont we?
Posted by: Web at May 08, 2008 01:57 PM (Bo1bB)
4
The Philly media is gonna be screeching as loud as they can on this, they want gun control in a huge way, but the rest of us in PA keep their Marxist authoritarian asses in check.
Philly passed or is in the process of passing a bunch of unconstitutional gun control laws that are in direct violation of PA state law, and will likely be unceremoniously b!tchsmacked down by the courts. Fast Eddie Rendell wants to pass some anti gun measures too, being from Philly.
Oh, and one last thing, its my understanding that SKS' aren't permitted for hunting in PA because they have rules against semi-autos. Not that it detracts from your point, Bob, but I guarantee that'll be pointed out and probably be the defense used.
Philly passed or is in the process of passing a bunch of unconstitutional gun control laws that are in direct violation of PA state law, and will likely be unceremoniously b!tchsmacked down by the courts. Fast Eddie Rendell wants to pass some anti gun measures too, being from Philly.
Oh, and one last thing, its my understanding that SKS' aren't permitted for hunting in PA because they have rules against semi-autos. Not that it detracts from your point, Bob, but I guarantee that'll be pointed out and probably be the defense used.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at May 08, 2008 02:49 PM (ZuzXA)
5
Ah yes, an "assault weapon" ban. Fortunately, there is a federal model for whatever the nutters (whoops, I mean Mayor Nutter) might propose: The late, unlamented (by any rational being) federal Clintonoid assault weapon ban. It was in place across America for a decade, and allowed to sunset, because despite desperate attempts to find data that proved its worth by organizations diametrically opposed to freedom and liberty, no such evidence could be found. The "studies," such as they were, were reduced to observing that the ban had no positive effect whatsoever on crime. In short, the ban, for ten years, did nothing but inconvenience the law abiding. Brilliant political accomplishment.
This is hardly surprising, after all, in that gun control has nothing whatsoever to do with crime control. But those who hate liberty and the honest citizens they rule, embracing the criminal class with whom they are most comfortable (remember Mayor Marion Berry smoking crack on tape?), will never admit the obvious: Gun control is a shoddy smoke screen to cover up the incompetence of politicians who will not treat criminals as criminals.
This is hardly surprising, after all, in that gun control has nothing whatsoever to do with crime control. But those who hate liberty and the honest citizens they rule, embracing the criminal class with whom they are most comfortable (remember Mayor Marion Berry smoking crack on tape?), will never admit the obvious: Gun control is a shoddy smoke screen to cover up the incompetence of politicians who will not treat criminals as criminals.
Posted by: Mike at May 08, 2008 11:45 PM (Em1ZY)
6
Hunting big game with semiautos is illegal in the state of Pennsylvania unless one is disabled (i.e., has lost the total use of at least one hand. Source) PA, fortunately, has full pre-emption, so Philly can't pass its own gun laws; however, many of its laws are somewhat wonky with respect to Philly--e.g, PA is shall-issue for CCW, except in Philadelphia, which is may-issue. The PA state legislature has enough Republicans and pro-gun Democrats that a gun ban of this sort would be exceedingly unlikely to pass.
Unfortunately, there's been a murder epidemic in Philly, particularly of cops (5 in 6 months). However, all of the cop killers were already unable to legally own any gun, and this is (to my knowledge) the first of the five not committed with an illegally-possessed handgun. To any reasonable person, this would suggest that the problem isn't assault rifles or more gun laws for criminals to ignore, but an inability to enforce laws already on the books.
Unfortunately, there's been a murder epidemic in Philly, particularly of cops (5 in 6 months). However, all of the cop killers were already unable to legally own any gun, and this is (to my knowledge) the first of the five not committed with an illegally-possessed handgun. To any reasonable person, this would suggest that the problem isn't assault rifles or more gun laws for criminals to ignore, but an inability to enforce laws already on the books.
Posted by: Matt at May 09, 2008 12:25 AM (uI85d)
7
i really dont think this is about gun control to save lives, i think its the politics seeing how far they can get with disarming america without the people going crazy. they wait until there is a reason to ban the weapons and then use it as a tear jerking story to stir up the emotions of people. then they pound at the unfortunate killing until the bill passes. i still dont get the .50 cal ban. i have never heard of a criminal killing anyone with a .50 cal in the US. they are too large and too expensive for the average criminal. there are far more weapons that fit what the criminals need to commit crimes.
Posted by: Brett at May 09, 2008 03:02 PM (ZPCqS)
8
Excellent article and analysis. Ever notice why the gun ban nuts never like to review the crime rates in jurisdictions were such bans exist? One only look at the example of the UK and Australia to see how their bans impacted on the crime rates. Since these bans London has a violent crime rate three times as bad as NYC? Armed crimes have surged. Lession-disarming law abidding citizens gives criminals all the chance they need to prosper.
Thats why gun free zones are the scenes of massacres and gun stores and gun shows aren't.
Thats why gun free zones are the scenes of massacres and gun stores and gun shows aren't.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at May 09, 2008 04:28 PM (LHaZf)
9
This is just insane.
A cop is more likely to be killed with his own weapon than being killed by an "assault weapon".
Of all the murders committed in the US last year, only 2% of them were committed with rifles. Less than 1% were classified as "assault rifles".
This is just insane. When are people going to learn?
A cop is more likely to be killed with his own weapon than being killed by an "assault weapon".
Of all the murders committed in the US last year, only 2% of them were committed with rifles. Less than 1% were classified as "assault rifles".
This is just insane. When are people going to learn?
Posted by: Eric at May 09, 2008 07:16 PM (9V6Vj)
10
Similarly, in the local paper I got as far as the headline and nearly wept: Mayor Daley proposes ban on automatic weapons.
I won't list the hundred or so reasons that headline is a sick joke as I assume your blog readers have the mental capacity to understand how very, very wrong it is.
I won't list the hundred or so reasons that headline is a sick joke as I assume your blog readers have the mental capacity to understand how very, very wrong it is.
Posted by: DoorHold at May 11, 2008 01:27 PM (bLVoQ)
11
First ban the inexpensive pistol as a "Saturday night special" (which eventually includes ALL pistols not in the possession of police and military), then ban the "assault weapons" because they're favored by criminal gangs (while issuing them to the police and military), then the "sniper rifles" favored by terrorists (but also includes your daddy's old deer rifle), then ban any firearm which fires multiple projectiles for every trigger pull (which sounds like it only covers machine guns, but, *OOPS!* also includes your grandpa's duck-hunting shotgun). *Viola!* Now all guns are banned from civilain ownership.
Posted by: Mattexian at May 11, 2008 09:23 PM (yc/eh)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0104 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0076 seconds, 19 records returned.
Page size 17 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.