Just What We Need - More Gun Control
As much as I'd like to get into a more detailed post responding to this Boston Globe article, I promised my dead horse he could have President's Day weekend off. Besides, there's not a lot of new material here, just the predictable regurgitation - by the usual suspects - of the Brady Bunch talking points memos calling for a ban on the FN Herstal Five-seveN handgun, and its "cop-killer" ammunition.
Legislators voice fear on new armor-piercing weapons
Shit, they needed "data" to tell them that? Is the time-tested truism that criminals can get their hands on anything they want (drugs, guns, money), regardless of its legal status, some kind of revelation for these people? Are they just now waking up to this?
Fucking brilliant, I say.
So, who's up for a quick study in contradictions?
Therein lies the gaping disconnect from reality that exists in the feebly-lit minds of those who see gun control legislation as a remedy to all our societal woes.
In one breath they propose banning the sale of handguns to law-abiding citizens, to get them "off the streets". In the very next breath they acknowledge that criminals intent on violating the law will have no problem buying ammunition for the hopefully-soon-to-be-banned handguns on the black market.
Just where do they think the criminals are getting their guns in the first place?
Bottom line - and stop me if you've herard this one before - is that laws such as this affect only those citizens prone to - wait for it - obeying the law. The principle of supply and demand that drives the black market cannot be wished away by any level of feel-good, hand-holding, fairy tale adventures in lawmaking.
A couple "quick" points before I go. I'm starting to hear some grumblings of discontent from the stable. Also from the above-linked Boston Globe article:
Yes, you read that right. Violent gangbangers, intent on murdering their fellow scumbags, are walking the streets with complete disregard for Attorney General Reilly's Approved Firearms Roster.
Shocking, no?
And, from our courageous Police Commissioner:
Yes, Kathleen, that's it. There's simply not enough gun control here in Massachusetts. Though, who could blame you for taking that stance? There's actual, dangerous policework involved with "stringently regulating" criminals. It's so much easier (not to mention, possible) to restrict my rights by passing more gun laws instead.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, lady.
Look, I'd favor any legislation that would actually keep our police officers (and ordinary citizens) safe. This ain't it, though. If anyone can explain to me how a person willing to point any kind of gun at a police officer (or a 7-11 clerk, or a pizza guy) and pull the trigger is going to give one hairy rat's ass about one more gun control law, whether dealing with licensure or the legality of various types of firearms, I am all ears.
Carpundit has more, including this insightful gem in the comments there explaining why he thinks this latest gun ban du jour isn't such a bad thing after all.
"Freely available"? To "anyone who wants it"?
Where do I sign up for mine?
Oops. So much for being brief. Sorry 'bout that, Horse.
Legislators voice fear on new armor-piercing weapons
Data show guns may reach gangs
Shit, they needed "data" to tell them that? Is the time-tested truism that criminals can get their hands on anything they want (drugs, guns, money), regardless of its legal status, some kind of revelation for these people? Are they just now waking up to this?
Fucking brilliant, I say.
So, who's up for a quick study in contradictions?
US Representative Martin T. Meehan said he has cosponsored legislation that would ban a handgun called the "FN Five-Seven."
[snip]
"It's very easy to get ahold of bullets that pierce body armor," Meehan said.
[snip]
[Rick DeMilt, a spokesman for FNH-USA] said that the company's more powerful gun and ammunition, available only to military and law enforcement agencies, is strictly regulated, and that his company cannot be responsible for illegal sales of the more powerful ammunition.
[snip]
DeMilt says the commercially available bullets can penetrate body armor only in rare cases.
But Meehan said that was not true, and even if it were, it is not difficult for criminals to buy the armor-piercing bullets on the black market.
Therein lies the gaping disconnect from reality that exists in the feebly-lit minds of those who see gun control legislation as a remedy to all our societal woes.
In one breath they propose banning the sale of handguns to law-abiding citizens, to get them "off the streets". In the very next breath they acknowledge that criminals intent on violating the law will have no problem buying ammunition for the hopefully-soon-to-be-banned handguns on the black market.
Just where do they think the criminals are getting their guns in the first place?
Bottom line - and stop me if you've herard this one before - is that laws such as this affect only those citizens prone to - wait for it - obeying the law. The principle of supply and demand that drives the black market cannot be wished away by any level of feel-good, hand-holding, fairy tale adventures in lawmaking.
A couple "quick" points before I go. I'm starting to hear some grumblings of discontent from the stable. Also from the above-linked Boston Globe article:
Legislators expressed concern yesterday over the distribution of a new firearm that can pierce body armor, after internal Boston police documents confirmed that the powerful weapon was used in two recent shootings in the city, and that it may have fallen into the hands of Boston street gangs.
[snip]
DeMilt said Massachusetts is the only state in the country in which the gun is not sold to the public, because, he said, it has never been approved here.
Yes, you read that right. Violent gangbangers, intent on murdering their fellow scumbags, are walking the streets with complete disregard for Attorney General Reilly's Approved Firearms Roster.
Shocking, no?
And, from our courageous Police Commissioner:
The Boston police commissioner, Kathleen M. O'Toole, said in an interview Friday that the FN Five-Seven is "designed to kill people" and said she would like to see firearms more stringently regulated.
Yes, Kathleen, that's it. There's simply not enough gun control here in Massachusetts. Though, who could blame you for taking that stance? There's actual, dangerous policework involved with "stringently regulating" criminals. It's so much easier (not to mention, possible) to restrict my rights by passing more gun laws instead.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, lady.
Look, I'd favor any legislation that would actually keep our police officers (and ordinary citizens) safe. This ain't it, though. If anyone can explain to me how a person willing to point any kind of gun at a police officer (or a 7-11 clerk, or a pizza guy) and pull the trigger is going to give one hairy rat's ass about one more gun control law, whether dealing with licensure or the legality of various types of firearms, I am all ears.
Carpundit has more, including this insightful gem in the comments there explaining why he thinks this latest gun ban du jour isn't such a bad thing after all.
Gun bans generally don't work. Hell, anything bans usually don't work. But I'd like to see a ban on this weapon for the message value, to tell FN Herstal that decent people don't appreciate their making a weapon of murder freely available to anyone who wants it.
"Freely available"? To "anyone who wants it"?
Where do I sign up for mine?
Oops. So much for being brief. Sorry 'bout that, Horse.
