NYC mayor on deadly shootout: `Too many guns'

[undeterred]

By COLLEEN LONG and ADAM GOLDMAN (AP) – 1 hour ago

NEW YORK — The mayor railed against gun violence on Friday, one day after a street peddler armed with a machine pistol died in a shootout with police outside a hotel in bustling Times Square. Raymond Martinez, 25, was killed by a plainclothes sergeant Thursday after trading gunfire in an area crowded with tourists and holiday shoppers.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg was asked about the shooting while appearing at a Manhattan charity event, and he used the question to discuss one of his signature issues — illegal firearms and gun violence in New York and other big cities. "We've got to stop this," Bloomberg said. "This is one of the great public health threats. And our police officers are clearly in danger."

Investigators were trying to determine whether Martinez was selling illegal weapons before he was fatally wounded in the taxi area of the landmark Marriott Marquis hotel. They say the gun he fired, a Mac-10 9 mm that held 30 rounds, was reported stolen in Richmond, Va., on Oct. 28. Police say Martinez also was carrying several business cards linked to Virginia gun dealers near Richmond, in Hampton Roads and in Ivor. All the gun shops declined to comment.

One card had a handwritten message on the back: "I just finished watching 'The Last Dragon.' I feel sorry for a cop if he think I'm getting into his paddy wagon," according to police. It's unclear who wrote the message, which apparently references a 1985 martial arts movie.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jvfD1QMzNyAm2iykQtY5tuhyjrkgD9CH7SGG0

[anonymous171]

1. Because the war on drugs and poverty have nothing to do with it

If they did, someone might have to do something about it. And that would probably cost a lot of money. So, for people like Bloomberg, it is much easier to ban guns than deal with actual problems.

[TheWraith]

3. Bing! Conveniently ignoring the fact...

...that not only does NYC have a total ban on firearms ownership, it even goes so far as to ban TOY guns as "dangerous objects," and yet Bloomberg and crew STILL complain that it's not enough.

But hey, it's easier to blame the fact that Virginia doesn't ban handguns than it is to own up to the gang problem your own prohibitionist policies helped create. And if it weren't Virginia, it would be North Carolina, or Oklahoma, or Mexico. Never mind the fact that gun laws in Mexico are also far tighter than in the US, and they have an even bigger problem with gun violence. Why? Surprise, it's poverty and the illegal drug trade!

[Libertas1776]

7. NYC doesn't have a "total ban on firearms ownership"

although, it does require one to go through a number of bureaucratic hurdles to get a permit to possess one.

[TheWraith]

10. Hurdles which they only allow celebrities, politicians, and police to get past.

The NYPD is well known for only issuing unrestricted firearms permits to people who have political clout. Chuck Schumer has one, so does Donald Trump, dozens of other politicos and celebrities, but they're almost NEVER issued to regular people even with extremely good cause. And permits issued elsewhere in New York aren't valid in NYC.

[Libertas1776]

13. I can recall a case from not too long ago

where the NYPD confiscated a revolutionary war musket from a history buff in Brooklyn because they said he needed a permit. Of course, it was returned to him not too long after, since city law was on his side and such an antique rifle needed no such permit. Don't get me wrong, I'm no big fan of guns, but even this case was just too much for me. Evidently the NYPD's greater priority is an antique 200 year old rifle and not the thousands of drug war and criminal underground supplied illegal guns flooding the city streets.

[cabluedem]

64. What does this story have to do with getting modern guns off the streets? nt

[PavePusher]

78. Whoooooosshh............ n/t

[SteveM]

94. NYC's "Sullivan Laws" were passed during anti-Italian/immigrant hysteria...

It is not surprising that celebrities, anti-gun politicians, wealthy business people can get a license: the City allows for "may issue" (leaving discretion to authorities). This "may issue" standard is modeled on Jim Crow laws in the South.

They were into anti-immigrant hysteria before it was "cool."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Others do it to. Mostly white and well off. NYC anti gun fascism is true to its racist and classis...

roots.

[leftynyc]

27. Nonsense

I know several ordinary NYers - a lawyer, a wall streeter and a nurse who all have handguns legally obtained.

[benEzra]

46. I doubt "a lawyer, a wall streeter, and a nurse" are a cross-section of NYC society.

They would seem to me to be at the wealthy/highly educated/has-generous-leave-policy end of the employment bell curve, which is typically the intent of regressive fee/process structures. Fees and procedures that would be only a hindrance to the upper middle class and higher could be insurmountable walls to someone of more modest means or who can't miss much work, which is why the process is structured that way; it's the same idea behind poll taxes.

Here's what's involved simply to own an ordinary handgun on a fricking target permit in NYC. Do you expect that this might have a teeny bit of a disparate impact on minorities and the lower middle class?

http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/nycgun.html

And that was fifteen years ago; the fees appear to have nearly doubled now. And if you can afford all the city fees, range fees, and time off work, it still can take you six months for each handgun, and it's still a crime for you to keep it loaded in a quick-access safe, unless they've changed their rules to comply with D.C. v. Heller (which, as long as Bloomberg is at the helm, will happen only when they are forced to by a judge).

The process seems designed to be as expensive and onerous as possible; heck, the fees alone are five hundred dollars, not counting all the work time you have to miss if you are a blue-collar peon. And forget about a carry license unless you are wealthy, politically connected, or handle lots of money. Donald Trump and Charles Schumer can get carry licenses, but I suspect you can't.

Here in NC (13th strictest gun laws in the nation, according to the Brady Campaign), if I want a handgun, I get a $5 purchase permit from the local sheriff, which covers the background check (don't even have to go to the office, can get them at gun shows) and go buy it from a gun store or private seller. I can configure the gun and storage setup for defensive purposes if I choose without violating any laws.

Getting a carry license is more involved (8-hour class on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum, complete records check including mental health check, and demonstrate competence on a range, live fire) but the total fees AND the class are only $145, the class is generally on a weekend, it only takes a half hour or so to submit the paperwork, and you don't have to be wealthy or politically connected in order to be approved. And once you obtain a CHL, the purchase permit is no longer required, as the CHL process covers the background check.

[Euromutt]

89. We need to make a distinction between ownership and carry permits

It's quite true that the NYPD in practice doesn't issue carry permits to all but a relative handful of the rich, famous and/or politically connected. They're slightly less restrictive about issuing permits to own and keep a handgun, but not carry it.

[leftynyc]

26. Bullshit

NY does not have a total ban on handguns. Whereever did you get that idea?

[TheWraith]

29. The fact that they don't allow the non-powerful to own handguns.

I don't call letting ex-cops, Chuck Schumer, and Donald Trump have pistol permits as being a fair cross-section of society being allowed to protect themselves.

[leftynyc]

32. Like I said in another comment

Three non-powerful people I know have handguns. As I recall, a backround check and a waiting period were all that was required. It's not hard at all unless you're looking to kill someone that very minute. NY got a weird "no gun allowed" rep because they don't hand them out at Wal-mart.

[Tejas]

50. Nice BS statement you made there.

"As I recall, a backround check and a waiting period were all that was required. It's not hard at all unless you're looking to kill someone that very minute."


How long is the waiting period?

Why have a waiting period to begin with?

You do realize waiting periods support the black market economy, don't you?

[cabluedem]

65. Waiting periods affect the black market? What a load of horse manure! nt

[Tejas]

67. Those who won't (or can't or simply refuse to) wait for that almighty court order

to scare their antagnonist into submission turn to the black market all the time.




Now, you were saying?

[PavePusher]

75. I see your comprehension of economics...

is as poor as your comprehension of gun laws and sociology.

:shrug: :shrug: and an honorary FACEPALM.

[benEzra]

51. This is "not hard at all"?

http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/nycgun.html

That's a hell of a lot more than "a backround check and a waiting period". "A background check and a waiting period is all that's required" is a good description of buying a handgun in Florida; not so much in NYC.

From looking at the application processes, it is probably easier to get permission to own a silenced Title 2 restricted machinegun in Massachusetts than it is to get permission to own a .22 target pistol in NYC, and even then (AFAIK) you're not allowed to secure it loaded.

[PavePusher]

76. From the article...

"He asked if I wanted the
"residence/limited target" permit, which allows two trips per
month to the range, you specify them in advance and they are
listed on your permit, but lets you keep the gun loaded at home."


That's not an infringement? Holy Temple of the Everloving Fuckstick, can you spell "Civil Rights Violation"?

[Euromutt]

91. We have some crossed wires here

A number of the statements made by TheWraith upthread are substantially correct, except that they apply to NYC permits to carry a handgun, rather than permits to simply own one. Yes, you don't have to Chuck Schumer, Arthur Sulzberger, Donald Trump or Robert de Niro to own a handgun in NYC, but you most assuredly do to be allowed to carry it on your person in public.

But even though you're basically correct, it doesn't help your case to make assertions like "NY got a weird 'no gun allowed' rep because they don't hand them out at Wal-mart."

For starters, Walmart doesn't sell handguns. Anywhere.

Second, there is no place in the United States where any licensed retailer "hands out" any type of firearm. Every transfer of a firearm by a federal firearms licensee to a private party requires the filling out of an ATF form 4473 and a NICS background check. Additionally, many states impose additional requirements; for example, my own state of Washington (which is considered pretty gun-friendly) requires a state-level background check on the sale of handguns, to be carried out by the local police dept. or sheriff's office, and which the agency has to complete within five business days. In effect, it's a five-day waiting period, though it's waived in the event the transferee has a state-issued Concealed Pistol License (which requires a full state police and FBI background check to get).

[Xenotime]

97. There should be. It would stop this type of bullshit.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

100. So criminals intent on murdering others will respect a ban on handguns?

Is that really what you think will happen?

Personally, I think criminals would ignore a handgun ban and continue to procure them illegally.
They're criminals that's what they do... ignore laws.

[Libertas1776]

2. Oh, now there's too many guns, eh Bloomie?

How many inner city kids get gunned down every other night? But, hey, that's not news, right? A "shootout" on Times Square in front of the famous Marriott Marquis with thousands of tourists and rich people about (thousands more than usual since Bloomie closed the Square off to traffic) NOW that's NEWS!!!!:sarcasm:

[TheWraith]

4. Hey, it doesn't matter when the NYC police are shooting brown children over toys...

...At least, not enough for them to tell the NYC police to STOP DOING THAT. But something that imperils the tourism trade? My God, the HORROR!

[Raineyb]

16. But of course.

Scaring the people who live here is perfectly fine. It's the tourists whose safety is paramount don't you know?

:sarcasm:

[kerrywins]

5. too many guns, too many drugs, too much piracy...

let's outlaw all of them....

oh wait....we're trying that right now...

[nyc 4 Biden]

6. A guy pulls out a Mac-10 uzi, starts blasting away in a crowded area...

...and the mayor says there are too many guns on the streets.

What are you all complaining about again?

Can even one news story go by without some DUers making ridiculous statements? Liberals support gun control, accept it.

[derby378]

9. This liberal doesn't...

...and a growing number of my fellow liberals and progressives don't, either. Our consciences are clear.

http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/2009/07/01/A_Liberal_Democrat_Who_Loves_Guns.aspx

[TheWraith]

15. You're not well informed about the subject.

First off, a MAC-10 is not an Uzi. That's like saying the guy had a "Ford Honda." Second, contrary to popular opinion, the knockoffs of those firearms available in the US are not fully automatic the way you see in movies. Illegal full-auto weapons are almost nonexistent in this country.

Third, there's a long history of the failures of gun control to stem crime. DC, New York, Chicago, and LA all effectively ban private firearms ownership, or did, and they all had massive gang crime problems. Proponents of gun control blame the fact that guns are still legal in neighboring states, but when NJ passed restrictive laws too, they just started blaming Virginia. But that's just passing the buck for their own failures to fix the underlying problem instead of blaming the effects.

Gun control is like the idea that if we just ban drugs, they'll stop existing. It's a total and unrepentant myth masquerading as sound policy. Cocaine isn't legal ANYWHERE in the US, but it's still easily available. So too would be guns, even if you enacted a total nationwide ban. For that matter, you can't make cocaine in the US, but you can make guns in a reasonably well equipped machine shop.

And something else is also true of guns and drugs--neither is really responsible for our social problems. They're just the visible symptoms. The real problem lies in the fact that we've got a massive poverty-class in our inner cities who are in the position of scratching out a living any way they can, combined with the lucrative black market that our government has created by criminalizing drugs instead of implementing sound policies for drug treatment and regulation. Thus you've got an unending stream of desperate, hopeless teenagers who see joining a gang and slinging drugs as the only chance they have to get out of the poverty cycle that their families have lived in for who knows how many generations. And that means gang wars, dead teens and young adults, and more coming out of the poverty-stricken neighborhoods to replace them.

This problem didn't magically spring up because drugs turn everyone around them into a sociopathic killing machine, or anyone with a gun decides to run out and shoot random people. This is something that generations of bad policy based on authoritarian, prohibitionist attitudes created. And supporting more gun control or "Just say no" bullshit is not going to solve the problem.

[Euromutt]

47. Well put (n/t)

[appal_jack]

22. The best liberal gun control is...

The best liberal gun control is proper muzzle & trigger discipline at all times, and tight groups on the paper downrange.

I also support criminal background checks and most of the other firearms laws presently on the books in my present home state of NC. But NYC's firearms laws are oppressive, not liberal. And Bloomberg is not a liberal either: he is a whiny-sounding apologist for the wealthy elite, who cares little for the majority of the citizens he claims to represent.

I'll put my own liberal creds up for anyone to review:
I've been a non-violence trainer for direct actions, a counter-recruitment counselor during the Persian Gulf War 1, and a backwoods support crew-person during Earth First! encampments. I've been arrested doing non-violent civil disobedience in support of nuclear disarmament (once) and shutting down Wall Street (twice: 1989 & 1990). Back when Cheney was a Senator voting to still do business with Apartheid South Africa, I was in Dag Hammarskold Plaza demonstrating in favor of divestment and Nelson Mandela's freedom. I have taught courses on the environmental racism and toxicology of Cancer Alley in the Mississippi River Delta region, and won two major regional awards in the last three years for my present work in the fields of community and ecological sustainability.

I also strongly support all of the liberal notions enumerated in our nation's Bill of Rights, including the right for all citizens who so choose, to keep and bear arms.

This also happens to be my 1000th post at DU. I'm proud to make it on this topic, and to encourage you, nyc 4 Biden, to reconsider your own concept of liberal values.

-app

Edit for detail, and to say that Wraith's post just above mine is spot-on!

[anonymous171]

28. Dianne Feinstein supports gun control. Does that make her a liberal? nt

[Tejas]

52. WTH is a "Mac-10 uzi"?

whut?

[beevul]

60. What is a "Mac-10 uzi"? N/T

[Pavulon]

71. No they dont. That bamboozle is over.

everyone figured out that gun control only impacts the law abiding and those people (me) dont appreciate it. Gun control is smoke and mirrors, easier than addressing root cause of violence.

Gun control in nyc is about money. I can get a carry permit there in 10 days with 10k cash to a lawyer. All quite legal. Without that 10k, will never happen.

[rd_kent]

79. Liberals support civil rights and the Constitution. Accept it.

[rd_kent]

98. Oh, my mistake. I thought liberals supported civil rights and the Constitution.

[slackmaster]

8. Is it ;possible that there might actually be a problem with too many criminals?

Just a thought.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. Criminal Without Gun = Pedestrian

Criminal With Gun = Problem

[Rebubula]

14. LOLZ

Criminal without gun = Criminal
Criminal with gun = Criminal with gun

There are PLENTY of criminals that do not use guns and still wreak havoc on the rest of us.

[slackmaster]

17. Gun Without Criminal = No Problem

Criminal Without Gun = Criminal (still a problem)

I know a man who is serving an 18-year sentence in prison for multiple robberies that he pulled off with a plastic toy gun. He's a second-strike felon, and was unable to buy a real gun because of his criminal record.

:hi:

[TheWraith]

18. Where the hell do you live?

Knives. Screwdrivers. Boxcutters. Broken glass. Fists. What do you think most criminals rely on when they can't get a gun?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

25. Get a job?

Because it's pretty hard to pull of a respectable drive-by shooting with screwdrivers.

[TheWraith]

30. Drive by shootings happen far more in Hollywood than they ever did in the real world. nt

[struggle4progress]

36. Mobile man grazed by bullet in drive-by shooting (Thurs)

Mobile man grazed by bullet in drive-by shooting
By Jillian Kramer
December 10, 2009, 5:27PM
MOBILE, Ala. -- ... the man was inside his Second Street home when a man and woman drove by and fired on the house and a car parked in his driveway ... http://blog.al.com/live/2009/12/mobile_man_grazed_by_bullet_in.html

[struggle4progress]

37. Clovis Police Investigate Early Morning Drive-By Shooting (Thurs)

http://www.kmph.com/Global/story.asp?S=11656572

[struggle4progress]

38. Police continue to search for Markham, Richmond Hill shooting suspect (Wed)

... At about 10 p.m. Wednesday, a man was shot in the chest and shoulder while sitting in his car ... Witnesses saw the shooter driving away from the scene southbound ... http://www.theliberal.com/News/Regional%20News/article/100567

[struggle4progress]

39. Man targets ex-girlfriend in drive-by shooting (Wed)

... A Wednesday afternoon drive-by shooting was a man targeting his ex-girlfriend, police said ... http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/187771.asp?from=blog_last3

[struggle4progress]

40. Woman shot inside her home (Wed)

... Police identified a suspect accused of injuring a 25-year-old woman inside her home during a drive-by shooting Wednesday night ...

http://www.murfreesboropost.com/woman-shot-inside-her-home-cms-20858

[struggle4progress]

41. Huge Turnout at a Murdered Visalia Teens Vigil (Tues)

... Marcus Corral was killed in a drive-by shooting Tuesday night ... http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=7164737

[struggle4progress]

42. Two arrested in Sebastopol drive-by shooting (Tues)

Two Sebastopol teens were in custody .. suspected of attempted murder for firing a shotgun into a group of teens and young adults at Ives Park Tuesday afternoon ... The shooters drove into the parking lot of the Sebastopol Veterans Memorial Building, adjacent to the park, and a shot was fired toward parked cars and a group of teens and young adults hanging out on the grass ... http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20091209/NEWS/912099996/1350?Title=Teen-hurt-in-Sebastopol-drive-by-shooting-two-arrested-

[struggle4progress]

43. Salinas man injured in drive-by shooting (Tues)

A 20-year-old man was shot several times in a drive-by shooting Tuesday night in east Salinas ... http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20091209/NEWS01/912090321/1002/NEWS01

[struggle4progress]

44. Teenager shot three times on MLK Drive; victim isn't talking to police, officials say (Tues)

A teenager was hospitalized after being shot in a drive-by shooting on the east side. Officers responded to the scene on MLK Drive and Wheatley around 9:45 p.m. Tuesday ... http://www.kens5.com/news/Teenager-78861292.html

[struggle4progress]

45. My little Tues-Wed-Thurs news sample suggests 1000+ drive-by annually

[GreenStormCloud]

48. How many of those were done with LEGALLY owned guns?

I doubt that any were. Please remember that it is illegal for a person with a criminal record to own a gun.

[eqfan592]

49. is that allowing for multiple stories about the same event?

And sorry, but this is hardly scientific. Though you don't really seem to get that, s4p. You likely never will understand that anecdotal stories are not the end all and be all of scientific inquiry.

EDIT: So far, the only source I've been able to find is the VPC, which does concur with your 1000 or so annual drive-by shootings number. However, given the source, I'm less than confident in these numbers.

But still, it didn't take me long to find this, and you posting these numbers would have been more convincing than spamming random news stories. There's a lesson in there for you s4p.

[Pavulon]

72. N is a tricky think. N being fucked up suggests 1.7 million dead in iraq.

lies damn lies and statistics. None of that shit has anything to do with guns. You have a people problem. I'll trade ya, finish up the drug ban and I will turn in all my legal firearms. good luck.

[GreenStormCloud]

87. 1,000+ drive-bys annually? Ban cars! N/T

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. Has there been a rash of drive by shootings in your area?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

53. No. But there has been a nasty rash...

Talcum ought to do it...

Just in case it's not obvious at this point, I'm not taking this subject all that seriously.

[eqfan592]

55. Jeff, did you know that Milwaukee's DA is pushing for concealed carry?

Not sure if that's something that interests you or no, but thought I'd mention it :)

http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/article-8973-district-attorney-chisholm-reform-our-gun-laws-a-strict-concealed-carry-permitting-system-plus-background-checks-would-make-wisconsin-safer-da-says.html

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

59. I'd heard that

I'll be serious for just a moment. If the DA and Cops are OK with it, I don't object. They're the ones who have to clean up the mess.

[eqfan592]

63. And that's assuming there'd be a "mess" to clean up in the first place.

Other states that have shall issue laws do not have any sort of apparent mess to clean up as a result of it.

But good deal though. At least you're on board with it :)

[GreenStormCloud]

69. What mess?

39 states have shall-issue and they don't have any mess.

[jeepnstein]

77. There will be no "mess".

We hear that same old complaint every time a state gets ready to pass CCW.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

80. Every major metropolitan area has a mess...

It's called Friday and Saturday night. If the Cops don't think that CCW will contribute to the mess they already have, then I don't have a beef with it.

[PavePusher]

82. Doesn't matter what the police (as a body) think.

Police, as a group, do not get to decide what your Civil Rights are. If you would be comfortable with them doing that, we will not agree on many things.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

85. At least we can agree that we won't agree on much (nt)

[GreenStormCloud]

86. OK. I now understand what you mean. Sorry I misunderstood earlier. N/T

[SteveM]

95. A word about "drive-by shootings...."

Since you broached the subject, do you have any data which breaks out firearms-related homicides into categories, including "drive-bys," and if so, what percentage of the overall firearms-related homicides can be described as "drive-bys?"

BTW, I have a standing bet: $10 says that in any given week more people are killed by full-auto weapons ("machine pistols" and such) on T.V. crime drama shows than in 10 years of real life in the U.S.

Any takers?

[michreject]

20. Criminal With Gun = Worm food

Or it should be.

[appal_jack]

31. No: consult a dictionary.

Criminal Without Car = Pedestrian

Criminal With Car = Driver

Still a criminal either way. Yes, the car (and/or the gun) could be used to increase the harm done by the criminal, but that fact shouldn't be construed as support for banning cars.

-app

[PavePusher]

35. Are you actually that stupid?

Or do you just play that role here in the Guns forum?

If you remove your cranial extremity from your lower colon, and read a newspaper or three, you would see that a large percentage (perhaps a majority) of crime is commited without a firearm.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

54. I'm actually FAR MORE stupid than that...

For starters, I bothered to read your post.

Grow a dick.

[eqfan592]

56. Dude, did you really have to resort to a "dick" insult so quickly?

Lame man, just lame.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

57. I counted to ten...

Nine, actually, but it took a while to tpye the response, so I figure it was close enough.

[PavePusher]

61. To be fair...

I was somewhat insulting in my post. But it seemed an appropriate response at that time. It occurs to me now that he may have been being sarcastic and I missed it.

If so, I offer my humble apologies, otherwise, my current dick is sufficient to my and my companions needs, thank you very much.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

81. Yeah, but you still throw like a girl!

:rofl:

[PavePusher]

83. I know some girls who can throw knives...

and hit dart boards at 35-40 feet.

I wish I could do that.

I like dangerous Ladies.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

84. Hell, I know some softball pitchers that I can't touch...

Literally or figuratively!

[S_B_Jackson]

58. LOL.

Criminal without gun = criminal who doesn't WANT a gun
Or
Criminal without gun = criminal who HAS gun, just not with him
Or
Criminal without gun = criminal who knows who to contact (likely a drug dealer or someone else who deals in contraband goods) if he decides to get a gun.

[pipoman]

62. Wow...didn't think it possible...

a statement related to gun control which is actually stupider and more erroneous than the classic, demonstrably wrong, 'more guns = more crime'..nice..:dunce:

[cabluedem]

66. Person with gun=capable of killing a dozen people in a minute. nt

[slackmaster]

70. The same could be said of a person with a car

Yet amazingly enough, most of us who have cars and/or guns never kill anyone.

[PavePusher]

74. I work in aircraft maintenance.

Were I to feel particulary perverse, I could arrange the deaths of hundreds... using nothing more innocuous than a screwdriver or wrench, or even a pencil. Yet somehow I manage to restrain myself. Odd, isn't it.

Your strawman, it burns most brightly... and is useful for navigation at night.

[Tejas]

93. Not even Jack Bauer can do that.

You watch too much TV.

[closeupready]

12. Except that he would never get behind stripping law enforcement officers of their guns, would he?

As they do in London?

[TheWraith]

19. In Bloomberg's world, only the state deserves the power of owning a gun.

The only thing that the NYPD seems to take more time and energy to prevent than an armed criminal is an armed law abiding citizen. They're even well known for threatening people with arrest and felony prosecution over reproduction flintlock muskets, which aren't even legally regulated in NYC.

[Tejas]

73. Maybe it's just me but

odd how his #1 priority concerning crime seems to be "protect our policemen".

[michreject]

21. Times are a changing

Guns for bobbies on the beat

Armed police on the beat have been introduced to the British mainland for the first time.

The decision by Nottinghamshire police to arm officers patrolling two inner-city housing estates breaks one of the longest standing traditions of unarmed bobbies on the beat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/986835.stm

[closeupready]

23. But of course.

The same corrupt society that fails to hold Tony Blair to account for his actions is the same society that gives agents of the state the tools with which to kill defenseless UK citizens.

If George Orwell were still alive and today released a sequel to 1984, it would be panned as dated.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. Machine pistol? I call bullshit.

A machine pistol is a handgun that is also fully automatic. Unless one has a stock to attach to the gun, they are next to impossible to control. Think of the recoil in a single shot that makes the gun bounce. Now have that recoil hitting ten or more times a second. The muzzle of a machine pistol climbs upward so fast that the third round is shooting at the clouds.

Think of this. No military in the world uses machine pistols. The Germans played around some with them in WWII, but that about it. Nobody uses them now. The reason no military wants them is that they are useless.

[Tejas]

68. Maybe like DC calling a 9mm a "machinegun"?

With what is supposed to pass for a reporter/journalist nowadays, color me surprised. Odd though that they would use the term 'machine pistol', can't recall the last article I've seen that used that term.

[Euromutt]

88. You're not entirely correct about the use of machine pistols

The vz. 61 Skorpion is often considered a machine pistol, and the Czech army still issues it as a sidearm to AFV crews and vehicle drivers. There are quite a few other governments that use it as well. Still, that probably has a lot to do with the fact that the governments in question currently can't afford to replace them with something better.

The Soviet Stechkin machine pistol (APS, for Avtomaticheskiy Pistolet Stetchkina) was similarly intended as a sidearm for artillerymen and AFV crews, and reportedly, the Russian interior ministry's OMON units (police paramilitaries) have started pulling some old Stechkins out of storage.

Then there's the Glock 18, which was originally developed at the request of the Austrian federal police counter-terrorism unit (then the Gendarmerieeinsatzkommando, now Einsatzkommando Cobra), and is used by the Portuguese navy's "Special Actions Detachment" (Destacamento de Acções Especiais).

Still, you're fundamentally correct that the idea of the machine pistol as a general-issue military weapon has been tried and found wanting, and that machine pistols now occupy at best a highly specialized niche as a backup CQB weapon with a comparatively small number of special-purpose units.

More relevant to this discussion is that it's highly unlikely that the weapon in this incident was actually a machine pistol, as opposed to an "assault pistol"; that is, a semi-auto-only version of an SMG design. Evidently, even the term "assault pistol" isn't scary enough for the news media anymore, and they now feel they have to misuse existing terms that mean something else to grab people's attention.

[SteveM]

96. Note the source in OP: AP. There is a "new" trend in this aggressive anti-gun ...

news organization to classify ANY use of a semi-auto weapon (even pistols) as "machine," "machine gun fire," "machine pistol," etc. Associated Press is the most rabid anti-gun news organization out there, and have well-positioned itself in some progressive blogs.

They misuse terms and are rather proud of the fact they do.

[Euromutt]

105. You're right, and I can only think of one explanation

I remember the AP initially reported the weapon in the shooting at the Sheraton in Baltimore as being an Uzi submachine gun, which then turned out to be a TEC-9 that jammed after the first shot. And I noticed AP didn't actually bother to correct the old version, they just ran a new article.

The only explanation I can think of is that the term "assault weapon" has finally become so overused that it no longer conveys any odium to the audience. So AP are now having to ramp it up, and instead of using a term that was meant to imply "automatic weapon" without actually meaning it, they're now using a term that actually means automatic weapon.

[SteveM]

106. The terms of debate become more shrill just as the "cause" fails (nt)

[TPaine7]

90. Disarm his security detail and strip all of his political cronies

and all the actors, billionaires and luminaries of their concealed carry permits.

That should be a good start to minimizing "guns on the street."

[JonQ]

92. I think the problem is too many unsupervised

new yorkers. Those things are dangerous.

I'm not suggesting an outright ban, but we need to start incrementally reducing them in the general population. Otherwise these sorts of things are going to keep happening.

[spin]

99. Obviously you don't trust citizens...

but you do trust government.

Government and religion have been the source of most of the problems humankind has faced through history.

The foundation of our country is a distrust of government and the belief in the wisdom of the average citizen.

Jeffersonian Democracy also established what the purpose and role of governments are. "That to secure these natural rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever . . . Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."2 This idea comes directly from the philosophy of Locke.

Good government should not be a conflict between sovereign and subject, but a compact between man and man. The ultimate supreme power should not be vested in the scepter of the king, it should remain in the hands of the people. The Community at large has the right to cancel the compact if the government has violated its conditions.3

Ideally, then, under Jeffersonian Democracy, the government is the people, and people is the government. Therefore, if a particular government ceases to work for the good of the people, the people may and ought to change that government or replace it. Governments are established to protect the people's rights using the power they get from the people.

Jefferson himself favored a small, weak central government. To strong a central government, he believed, would trample the very rights it was meant to protect. He believed in a more complete democracy based on mutual trust among men. "I cannot act as if all men are unfaithful because some are so . . . I had rather be the victim of occasional infidelities than relinquish my general confidence in the honesty of man."4 The weak central government that Jefferson favored would give more power to the people, thus making a more democratic society.
http://www.byzantinecommunications.com/adamhoward/homework/highschool/jeffersonian.html

How did Jefferson feel about guns?

When writing in 1824 to the great English Whig John Cartwright, Jefferson could observe: "The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people;… that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed…" http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/ThomasJeffersonForever.htm

Our country is a great experiment. The right to own firearms is extremely important to that experiment. Take that right away or severely restrict it and we merely become another nation of the powerful and the slaves who merely serve.

I once heard a very intelligent individual say that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. He may be correct, but history shows that such leaders rarely appear.

I prefer our form of government. It may be far from perfect and in fact I fear we are moving from a government of the people, by the people and for the people to a government of the corporations, for the corporations and by the corporations.

But we have the power to change this without violence, and if absolutely necessary with violence. Very few nations in our world can say this.

[JonQ]

101. Er?

Where did you get that notion?

[PavePusher]

102. You forgot to use the 'sarcasm' tag and spin took you literally. Oops. n/t

[JonQ]

103. I thought it was obvious

I was talking about registering and incrementally reducing the human population.

[spin]

104. Sorry, wasn't totally sure where you were coming from...

the sarcasm thingy is helpful at times.