December 26, 2012

It’ll be unpopular to say this, but you can’t have a police state without police

And while I know many here are pro-law enforcement without reservation, it’s stuff like this –misinformation from someone you’d expect to know better — that makes me less willing than ever to hand domestic security over to police alone.  Speaking of the ex-con who set an elaborate ambush to kill two firefighters, the NYPost reports:

Cops believed [William Spengler Jr, who isn't allowed to own a gun, being an ex-felon, convicted before on murder] used a .223 Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle — the same military-style weapon used in the Newtown school slaughter and mass shootings this year in Aurora, Colo., and Portland, Ore.

Police also recovered a 12-gauge shotgun and a .38 revolver.

“He was equipped to go to war, kill a lot of innocent people,” said Webster Police Chief Gerald Pickering.

Police recovered several 30-round clips for the assault rifle, which they believed he used in the attack, along with four whiskey bottles holding gasoline.

Sorry, but somebody has to say this:  when a police chief or the Fraternal Order of Police and other politically-conscious law enforcement organizations are engaging in anti-gun propaganda, it may be time to accept that while many law enforcement officers are staunch supporters of the second amendment and gun owners themselves, when it comes right down to it, some may be willing to trade some of your liberty for their perceived safety.  And as a matter of practicality, who can blame them?

But the principle is the thing, and it is the principle — the natural right — that must be guarded.

Even though we know statistically that only a very small percentage, somewhere in the neighborhood of two percent, of gun violence occurs by way of “assault rifle” — that is, by way of an ordinary semi-automatic weapon with certain arbitrarily chosen comfort features — we’re being fed a constant stream of propaganda to ban from civilian non-law enforcement officer hands what will remain perfectly legal for law enforcement officers to carry. The rationale, naturally, will be that we want police to have the advantage over criminals — so yes, their guns should be superior to those who they may likely encounter in a gun fight scenario.

— The obvious problem with such a rationale being that, here again, a criminal who wasn’t allowed to own the weapon he used on the firefighters nevertheless ignored the law and got himself one anyway.  Because that’s what criminals and killers do. 

Those pushing for bans on assault weapons as a result of cases like this one are therefore compelled, whether they recognize it or not, to suggest that these murders didn’t happen.  After all, how could they?   Spengler couldn’t legally own a gun.  Therefore, it follows that he didn’t have one.  And consequently, no one was shot, “sniper-style” or otherwise.

Which of course is ridiculous.

But there’s a second problem with such a rationale:  it presupposes that law-abiding, non law-enforcement civilians trust entirely in law-enforcement officers who by way of legislation will be granted superiority in firepower over their fellow citizens.  And while many here trust blindly any and every police officer, my own experiences tell me that, while most police are perfectly professional and trustworthy, others are not.  And as a matter of constitutional principle I don’t wish to live any less prepared to defend myself than a police officer.

Chief Pickering may perhaps be taken out of context here — the tenor of the story suggests that much of the specific anti-gun slant may be coming from the several authors looking to incorporate all the buzzwords and help readers reach the “correct” conclusions — but it is at the very least hyperbolic and disengenuous, or at the very least ignorant, to suggest that owning a 5.56 Bushmaster, a shotgun, and a pistol, along with gasoline, makes one “equipped to go to war.”  Because the truth is, Spengler’s “military-style weapon” packs less punch than an ordinary hunting rifle — and it certainly can’t stand up to an actual military-ready AR-15, which only requires a single trigger pull to empty the magazine.  Meanwhile, a shotgun and a .38 revolver don’t typically stack up well against automatic weapons and precision optics, including current generation night vision.

Hardly the tools you’d want to “got to war” with, then — unless, of course, you’re going to war against those you know or believed to be unarmed. In which case, any weapon is an advantage.  Including, one can argue, gasoline, which Obama isn’t so much banning as he is trying to drive up the price.

Here is the truth that needs to be repeated:  the size of the magazines and the configuration of the Bushmaster had no special impact on the ambush murder of two firefighters.  Just as the configuration of the Bushmaster and the size of the magazines had no special impact on the killings in CT.  Two semi-automatic pistols chambered in self-defense 9mm hollow point ammo would have held the same or more cartridges than the Bushmaster with a single magazine.  And pistol magazines, because they take up less space, are much easier to carry around and just as quick to reload.

Meaning, the CT shooter, particularly given the range he was shooting from, would have killed just as many children with a semi-automatic hand gun as he would have with the Bushmaster and it’s adjustable stock and pistol grip.  And because it’s one pull, one cartridge either way, he would have done it in the same amount of time, too, only with greater portability and maneuverability.  The case holds for a revolver, as well — though that would have taken slightly more time on reloads.  Still, with speed loaders and practice, he could have gone through thirty rounds quite rapidly with a revolver before police arrived on scene.

All of which is moot. Because he broke the law when he stole the guns from his mother, broke the law when he forced his way into the school, broke the law when he killed the children, and broke the law when he killed himself.  Suggesting to me at least that the fear of breaking laws didn’t much matter here or on Spengler’s case.

It’s one thing when ditzy ex-CNN anchors or morons like Piers Morgan or David Gregory engage in a campaign of anti-gun propaganda and camouflage it as news.  It’s quite another when the FOP and some local police chief aid in that campaign, either through ignorance or malice.

We expect police to protect our rights, not to agitate for their surrender.  Which means we expect to much.

And that’s a habit some of us are going to have to break.

(h/t geoffB)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:21am
76 comments | Trackback

Comments (76)

  1. …the same military-style weapon used in the Newtown school slaughter and mass shootings this year in Aurora, Colo., and Portland, Ore.

    1. A .223 is not a “military style” weapon. It’s not even an AR-15. No auto, and the round is less powerful, so, bullshit.

    2. There was no mass shooting in Portland. 2 murders does not a mass shooting make.

  2. Thank God the psycho didn’t use his explosive assault bottles!

    A .223 is not a “military style” weapon. It’s not even an AR-15. No auto, and the round is less powerful, so, bullshit.

    And even the round being less powerful is, like nearly everything where firearms are concerned, qualified. 5.56×45 certainly packs more “oomph,” say, but the boys at Lake City aren’t loading 77 grain “match” grade bullets atop that larger powder charge either.

    Although in fairness, I don’t know enough to know if any manufacturer is offering such a factory load in .223 rem. either.

  3. Not to be picky, but in many jurisdisctions I think it is also against the law to kill your mother. J/k

    The weird thing about the post-Newtown hysteria (omitting the name of the killer on purpose) is that virtually all aspects of weapons prohibition could have been gotten around by a determined killer.

    Which basically means that the anti-gun crowd aren’t really serious about stopping another Newtown, they just don’t want anyone else to have guns.

    There’s another way to tell this, BTW. They don’t want armed guards or armed personnel in schools. Because “it won’t work.” But we already know many schools do have armed guards and they do work. So why do they say that? Because — they don’t want it to work. They want the guns to go away.

    Another way to tell is if you bring up the Petit rape murders that took place in Cheshire in 2007. Maybe weapons wouldn’t have stopped that, but, if I lived in the area — Cheshire is not far from Newtown — I would definitely want to have a weapon at home.

  4. The police are rented security without the legal obligations and responsibilities you and I have been relegated to live within and under. We are law enforcement, god dammit. We are the thin line.

    Well, us and Pablo.

    when a police chief or the Fraternal Order of Police and other politically-conscious law enforcement organizations are engaging in anti-gun propaganda, it may be time to accept that while many law enforcement officers are staunch supporters of the second amendment and gun owners themselves, when it comes right down to it, some may be willing to trade some of your liberty for their perceived safety.

    Republicans need to get a solid perspective on this, not only on this but on proper national defense and the entire “free” economic system to add to their evidently mild views on socialism. All of them are compromised to the extent that all have gone critical.

  5. Considering this whackjob (how the hell does he get out of prison after murdering his grandmother with a hammer?) was intent on burning out the neighborhood and still had 4 Molotov cocktails in his possession, it may be that Pickering’s use of the word “war” was more rhetorical than literal.

    Of course for the gungrabbers, it was a bonus line.

  6. If he was equipped to go to war, I guess I was a whole army before the tragic boating accident.

  7. Not to mention, that if “assault rifles” are banned, and the domestic gun industry is decimated (note, these are two separate events) then what will be the gun of choice, for those who wish to buy guns more powerful than they are allowed, and those who wish to sell them?

    I expect it will be the same as in the rest of the world- the AK-47. I’m sure that there are folks down in Mexico who would love to take the world surplus of Kalashnikovs, smuggle them in across the border, and sell them at inflated prices.

  8. Yeah, same here. My first thought was to wonder how someone who beats his FREAKIN’ GRANDMOTHER to death with a FREAKIN’ HAMMER gets out of jail.

    Clearly he was a peaceful sort of dude until the Evil Gun Rays warped his mind.

  9. “I’m sure that there are folks down in Mexico ”

    Yep. And there’ll be no reason to make them semi-auto, either.

  10. There are millions of legal ARs in private possession now. After a new ban, they would still be legal to sell, I presume. I don’t know, maybe that’s one of the “loopholes” DiFi, licensed to pack the heat, plans to close. Probably she does, but I’m doubtful that she can and still get the bill passed. Anyways, my point is that there will still be a thriving market for ARs after a ban. Just like there is now.

  11. Warning: overly self-referential and long. Long ago, in beautiful Ft. Knox, KY, this young 19D US Army Private first became properly acquainted with the much-ballyhooed M16A1 rifle (which, of course, disperses the .223cal/5.56mm at both semi-auto and full auto rates of fire, thus an actual mil-spec “assault rifle”). The weapons instructor giving us our initial orientation made it clear that the platform, cartridge and bullet size settled on by Uncle Sam sometime between Korean and ‘Nam wars, was certainly capable of killing the enemy. However, the ugly truth of preparing for actual “…go to war” is that it was also selected for portability, efficiency and, frankly, the propensity to cause evac-inducing wounds rather than outright killing – thus occupying 2-3 enemy soldiers and additional equipment.

    As a part of a fully outfitted combat unit, that 5.56 bullet-slinger would be further equipped with an M203 grenade launcher and a .45cal pistol on my person. Those items were accompanied by 30 similarly-equipped soldiers, five M113 Armored Personnel Carriers (topped with various assortments of belt-fed M2 .50 cal and TOW missile platforms) and 4 x M60A3 Tanks (loaded with scores of 105mm frowny-face makers).

    With all due respect to Chief Pickering, that’s what “equipped to go to war” looks like (or did, 25 years ago – now it’s full of lasers, drones and music ). However, he’s stumbled into an irony: If a shotgun, pistol and moderately powered sub .30cal semi-auto rifle plus some gasoline are all that’s required to be combat ready for a war over inalienable gun rights, then there should be an insurmountable army fully prepared to defend them.

    Stand United Outlaws!!

  12. And speaking of the border, that brings up the point Jeff made about police chiefs and professional organizations supporting gun bans because in theory they’ll make life easier for police officers.

    No. They. Won’t. Law abiding gun-owners are no more of a threat to police than other law abiding citizens. Where cops are out-gunned now, like that aforementioned southern border, they’ll still be outgunned.

  13. Police chiefs have to be political animals. Real cops don’t.

  14. Per the Atlantic’s earlier vomit on ARs being the choice of “murderers and consumers,” I guess Toyotas are the choice of “third-world terrorists, murderers, journalists, and other consumers.”

    I wonder if any terrorists used iPhones, we can get them on that as well.

    Oxygen!

  15. It is often the opinion of LEOs that they are the only citizens who should be armed. I’ve heard it many, many times from them.

    Fortunately, we have that pesky 2nd Amendment that says otherwise.

  16. Well, everyone wants to feel special, don’t they?

  17. Well, I know I do.

  18. Police chiefs have to be political animals. Real cops don’t.

    For what it’s worth, when I was on the job there was always a huge disconnect between administration and the rank-and-file. That’s all over the country, by the way, not just certain jurisdictions. And the FOP is like any other national, public-sector union.

    At any rate, I think you would be very hard pressed to find street cops willing to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens. Of course you would have some automatons who would do whatever they were told. But most guys, at least in my experience, would refuse.

  19. So must “military-style ammunition belt[s],” whatever the hell that means in this instance.

    (reposted from an earlier thread, because I think it’s interesting, he sniffed)

    haughtily, like John Kerry

  20. WTF was a convicted murderer doing OUTSIDE OF A JAIL CELL???

    There’s your first question, the second one being that perhaps capital punishment would save us all kinds of trouble.

  21. It’s New York state, di. He pound Grandma’s skull over thirty years ago.

    I guess they figured he got better.

  22. “He was equipped to go to war, kill a lot of innocent people,” said Webster Police Chief Gerald Pickering.

    As a good American, I’ve read every book Louis L’Amour every wrote, and remember at least three of his books featured a scene where the main character goes into the dry goods store and wants 200 bullets, whereupon the store clerk asks “damn mister, you planning on a war?”.

    I only bring this up because I just ordered 200 bullets from Cabela’s (back ordered of course).

  23. I have one too many y’s in that last comment…don’t ask why.

  24. By the way, hope you all had a good Christmas. Mine was awesome, mostly because I refused to think of the political for the last two days.

    Very nice…

  25. why the y’s?

  26. The FOP is a union. The union bosses have been anti-gun for over 30 years.

  27. I’m glad you had a good Christmas, Lee. I did, too even though it was my birthday and none of youse wished me a happy birthday.

    But, I forgive you for your thoughtlessness.

  28. belated happy happy

  29. Thanks, nr.

  30. Oh! Happy belated BDay, and also a Happiest New Year! Have an extra glass of champaign for me!

  31. Thanks! Same to you, serr8d.

  32. Happy Birthday Leigh.

    I should have remembered as that is my nephew’s B-day too.

  33. I’m glad you had a good Christmas, Lee. I did, too even though it was my birthday and none of youse wished me a happy birthday.

    I may have sent your birthday card to Jesus by mistake. Sorry about that.

  34. Thanks, geoff. It’s surprising all the people I’ve known who are born on Christmas.

    I’m just teasing you all about being upset, anyway. Hell, my own relatives can’t remember. It used to really make me mad when I was a kid. It would be Christmas at Grandma’s and I’d get a lot of “Oh, I forgot! Here. Have this for both!”

    ‘Gee thanks’, I grumbled to myself.

  35. So the government wants to prohibit something? WHat sort of approach are the willing to take? Just how stupid are they?

    Well…just how stupid WERE they about their prohibitions in the past?

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.single.html

    REAL REAL stupid.

  36. Leigh, my policy has been, re birthdays, to give the gift of ignorance when it comes to elderly ladies.

    You’re welcome. = )

  37. What, I’m just being topical*!

    *”It’ll be unpopular to say this…”

  38. Happy belated, leigh!

  39. Thanks, Spies!

    Lee, you sir, are a bounder.

  40. Ah, another disgruntled Capricorn. Happy B-Day, leigh!

  41. Thanks, my fellow goat. We are a disgruntled bunch, aren’t we? It’s a good thing we’re smart and good-looking.

  42. We’re only one day late, not three days like ATF. Nice to have pull in high office when you do something stupidly illegal.

  43. you sir, are a bounder.

    Ha! I doubt anyone younger than us has even heard the expression a boomer even knows what that means!

  44. Who is this we you speak of? I would have been you, had I not been impatient a week. Thus, I am Centaur. Like blondes, we have more fun. But, my parents were both goats, so I get it.

  45. At least you’re not a cad too.

  46. As far as you know…

  47. I mean, yeah, what you said…

  48. One of my sons is a Sag, one a Libra, and one an evil scorpion.

    Sags are a lot of fun. Libras, too—when they aren’t doom and glooming all over the place. Scorpios? The bad seeds.

    Lee, at least I don’t have grandkids. Pops. ; )

  49. Me neither.

    31 year old son been married for over 3 years. What’s up with that?

  50. People are starting to notice how y’all fantasize about murdering cops that come for yer guns.

  51. Cops coming for our guns is your fantasy slipshod. Our fantasy is, there are no cops…

  52. Give me a break. The only comment in this thread that says anything like that is yours. I agree with LBascom’s first sentence, cops coming for guns is your fantasy.
    Now, as long as we’re putting words into other peoples mouths, I’ll point out that people are starting to notice how y’all fantasize about murdering 100 million citizens of the United States after you disarm them.

  53. That troll slipperfidy is but a poorly wired projectionist, a calculating troll loosed from a mediocre all-circle-jerk lefty site.

    If he’s the best they have, then they are wasting their time. At least Yelverton was sincere, and SEK somewhat interesting. This one needs stepped on, like a cockroach.

  54. This is where I chime in and point out we did vote for a ban.

    Does that mean we’ll need to tent pw and call in terminix for a day though?

  55. also i was trying really hard not to think about the political

    no dice. my dad picked up the phone for a tea party robocall and was all THE TEA PARTY IS THE WORST THING TO HAPPEN TO THIS COUNTRY

    sigh.

  56. Slippy is confusing us with Bill Ayers?

  57. Yeah, Slippy, because the original Patriots thought agents of tyranny should be coddled.

  58. I’m thinking about dusting off that old Trollhammer script.

  59. I’m thinking about dusting off that old Trollhammer script.

    If you offer a working Trollhammer script for sale at a reasonable price, I’ll buy.

  60. A belated Merry Christmas to all and birthday wishes to leigh. And a hearty “Piss off, proggy” to slipperyknickers.

  61. Ah, no one’s fantasizing about sniping soldiers and cops…

    Yeah, Slippy, because the original Patriots thought agents of tyranny should be coddled.

    Except SDN, who is.

  62. You obviously have trouble with the distinction between a government of men as opposed to laws. If we still had the latter no one would have to give rebellion any consideration.

  63. But, then, you need the government to do the stealing you never could.

  64. The fantasies are yours alone, slope. And as with all subpar fantasies, you should keep them to yourself.

  65. You would think a moral human would wish to end the year without indulging in intellectual dishonesty.

  66. You would think a moral human would wish to end the year without indulging in intellectual dishonesty.

    Yes, but we’re talking about slippy.

  67. Blessings of the season to you and yours, cousin McGehee.

  68. Likewise, I’m sure.   ;-)

  69. Slippy, if I fantasized about shooting anyone, it would be the Leftists like you who put cops in a position of having to carry out illegal orders and enforce tyrannical laws.

  70. Pingback: When the People Are Disarmed, Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? | Daily Pundit

  71. At any rate, I think you would be very hard pressed to find street cops willing to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens. Of course you would have some automatons who would do whatever they were told. But most guys, at least in my experience, would refuse.

    Yeah, some would. For example, Katrina. But I’ll give those guys a small break by recognizing that they probably weren’t thinking straight given the exigent circumstances.

  72. Jim, those circumstances are also the reason you didn’t see any resistance at the time. People had other things on their minds.

  73. Slip proclaimeth:

    Except SDN, who is.

    Except the quote you quoted didn’t say that.

    You simply “presumed” that was what he meant. Assigning intent, as it was. “Interpreting” even.

    Or lying your ass off, essentially.

  74. He does that all the time, Pat. He’s ‘reinterpreting’ what we’ve said so that it sounds like wing-nut to him rather than reading the statement for what it is.

    (He’s done it to me twice today, so that’s the ‘we’ up there.)

Leave a Reply