Three police officers shot to death in Birmingham, Alabama

[funkybutt]

CNN breaking news

http://www.cnn.com

[Renew Deal]

1. That's very sad.

:cry:

[Jabbery]

2. Whoa -

Not good. The perp better hope he goes down in a hail of bullets. Alabama still has old Sparky in use.

[Syrinx]

20. no old sparky anymore

They switched to lethal injection a while back.

[LizW]

48. Yep, and it was called Big Yellow Mama

'cause it was painted bright yellow, for some ungodly reason.

[htuttle]

3. There was a guy shot on my street last week

Assaulted an officer, stole a police car, got shot 4 times and then crashed into a tree.

Anyone see anything about it on CNN? Nope, didn't think so...

Not that it's not tragic when any public worker gets killed in the line of duty, but is it really 'breaking national news'? Only when there's something else they are trying to distract us from...

[Qanisqineq]

4. there has to be a car chase

then it is news

[0007]

24. Car chases are big - NASCAR mentality I think!

[Renew Deal]

7. Three dead cops is a big deal.

They would be a disaster, even here in NY.

[htuttle]

29. Of course it is

And I'd expect to see it in the 'Headline News' rotation for that day.

But is it 'Breaking News'? There was a time when I'd see 'Breaking News' flash on the screen, and drop everything to find out what blew up. Now, it's more than likely a local story writ large, that has no 'breaking' bearing on my area -- no need to take shelter, flee, panic in the streets, etc...

[progressivebydesign]

37. I think when a criminal dies, as opposed to those who protect us..

.. well I think it has a BIT more impact and newsworthyness... but this IS DU, where all cops are presumed to be murderous thugs, and all criminals are good guys. I sometimes forget.

[JayS]

40. I support our police and want them to have the resources and...

...support they need to do their job. There are a few bad apples...as there are in any profession.

That said, I also support the kind of gun control that the police support and would hope that our political heroes would also. Note that by police I mean those officers out on the streets, not those driving a desk in their elected offices.



******************************************

Project Targets Gun Criminals
June 4, 2004
Reported by KPLC Staff
http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1919376&nav=0nqxNfmq


You may wonder why police seem to seize so many guns-- well, getting guns used for crime off the streets has been a high priority of Lake Charles Police Chief Don Dixon since he became chief in January 2002. The special emphasis seems to have reduced local crime involving firearms.

*SNIP*

Chief Dixon says it's an initiative targeting federal prosecution of gun criminals: "If you're a convicted felon and we catch you in possession of a gun, there is no good excuse. There is no good reason. You're up to bad intent. These are the people out there who are repeat offenders, habitual offenders, and that's basically how they survive-- by committing crimes with guns. You take just one of them off the street it's going to help."

So, Dixon explains, whenever they find a gun they run a trace on it through the federal ATF . If possible, they pursue federal prosecution which Dixon says has great results: "It speeds the system up. These cases, normally, by the time the incident happens, we send it over. It usually goes before a grand jury within three or four months, we have an indictment, 95% of the time they're detained in the federal system which means they're a danger to the community-- there is no bond."

But even better perhaps, Dixon says there's been a tremendous reduction in the number of guns on the streets and in crimes involving guns: "Our reduction in gun crimes from 2003 compared to 2002--which is armed robberies with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, I think is about a 30 per cent reduction."

*SNIP*





Cops to crack down on gun violations
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Cops to crack down on gun violations
By WILLIAM F. AST III / H-P Staff Writer
http://www.heraldpalladium.com/articles/2004/06/03/news/news3.txt


CASSOPOLIS -- Southwest Michigan law enforcement officials on Wednesday announced a new program that Dowagiac Police Chief Thomas Atkinson said will "send away the bad guys for a long, long time."

"The goal is to move them out of the community and away from this area," Van Buren County Sheriff Dale Gribler said. Project Safe Neighborhoods-Southwest will provide Berrien, Cass and Van Buren counties with a "gun detective" who will work full time on cases involving convicted felons with guns, according to Margaret Chiara, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan.

That detective, working with federal agencies, will send appropriate cases to the "federal system because our penalties are so much more substantial for this particular crime rather than the state system, where they are minimal," Chiara said. The detective's job will be mostly paid for by the federal government.

Felons found to be in possession of a firearm face two years in prison under Michigan law, Gribler said. The average sentence in federal court is 69 months, he said.

*SNIP*

[Occulus]

54. judging from all my personal experience

with police vs. the people who commit "crimes", I'd heartily agree with that assessment. There are indeed some police who like to exercize their power far more than they desire to protect the public. They're called the "bullies with a badge."

[Skittles]

59. that is not true

you can't paint all of DU that way

[Roy]

96. Read your Sig line..............

Before posting a statement as stupid as this!

[DoNotRefill]

74. it's breaking news because three got shot at once.

eom

[JayS]

5. Let me guess the rest of the story...

Serving warrant on a man with an arrest record as long as can be without becoming a novel. Multiple arrests for violent behavior. Short stays in prisons heavily shortened by "good time" credits.

[PopSixSquish]

6. As a Person Who Has Several Friends

who are police officers and firemen, I always hurt when I hear a story like this.

God bless their families and loved ones.

[colonel odis]

8. i'm in birmingham today.

apparently, they were helping a local municipality cop (birmingham is not a metro city-county) serve a misdemeanor warrant when a guy with an assault rifle came out the door a-blazing.

but even though we have three dead cops, let's be sure to pause for a moment and thank the nra for upholding and protecting the murderer's second amendment right to have an ak-47.

[JayS]

9. Yup, blame the NRA. That is always the easy option. n/t

n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. Well, who made it so easy to get an AK-47? eom

[JayS]

11. Assuming you mean an AK-47 knockoff, as you can't get...

...a full-auto AK-47 here legally, and assuming the suspect has a record, I'd have to lay much of the ease of purchase on the drug war. If it is a full-auto AK-47...well, the drug war wins again.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Oh yes, the drug war we are losing.

Still, the NRA is a useful aide to keeping overly powerful weapons in the hands of our citizens.

[JayS]

16. Really? What would those weapons be? n/t

n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

19. Anything automatic or high caliber.

[JayS]

21. Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since...

...1934. To my knowledge there is not much above a fifty caliber weapon on the market today.

[DoNotRefill]

75. Dude, it was an SKS rifle.

They're chambered in an intermediate caliber (roughly compatable to the venerable .30-30), they are NOT automatic, they have a 10 round integral box magazine (so no magazine swaps, gotta be reloaded one round at a time through the top of the action).

As far as guns go, this was middle of the road rifle. Low capacity, intermediate power, and not automatic.

BTW, these are VERY popular for hunting deer.

[joanski01]

13. Your Republican Congress.

That's who. And in September, they will fail to renew the ban on AK-47 assault weapons. The gun stores want to sell weapons, make money, money, money. :cry:

[JayS]

18. The ban doesn't cover AK-47 assault rifles. Those are a...

...military weapon. You can get knockoffs here though. I can't remember if the knockoff was on the list of the nineteen banned weapons. If it was I imagine it was, like all the others, modified to conform to the ban and are back in the stores.

[DoNotRefill]

98. And who signed the bill with the sunset provision?

eom

[colonel odis]

12. i wasn't blaming the nra

that was a sarcastic aside at the nra, long a backer of assault weapons.

sarcasm. it's an english word that means a satiric or ironical utterance designed to cut.

sorry it escaped you.

[JayS]

15. I got your sarcasm. It amounted to the same tired line. n/t

n/t

[colonel odis]

17. then why did you say i was blaming the nra?

when i wasn't.

[JayS]

23. Because what you said invaribly amounts to the same thing. n/t

n/t

[billbuckhead]

26. The death toll is what is tiring

No other industrialized nation has the easy availibilty of guns and the highest murder rate that goes with it.

[JayS]

30. Broken record. n/t

n/t

[lazarus]

36. maybe

but is it wrong?

[JayS]

38. It is correct if you pretty much drop off every country that...

...has a majority of people with a darker shade of skin and emphasize those countries with a largely white population and/or homogeneous culture. Needless to say, I don't use that quote any.

[depakid]

46. An equivocal argument

as many third would countries have had unstable governments for many years- which of course lead to the proliferation of firearms, deep seated vendettas and conditions of abject poverty that are much rarer here in the states.

So even where the comparison seems true (which more often than not- by the numbers, it isn't) other factors account for the violence that have nothing to do with conditions here.

[JayS]

49. Yes, but not all of those countries are third world, or non-

...industrialized, or have unstable governments, and so forth. The ironic thing is, some of those countries have violence caused primarily by the drug trade with the biggest customer being the U.S.

Come to think of it, most of our violence is linked to the drug trade...

[depakid]

50. You're certainly correct about the drug trade

it's a major factor here and abroad that calls for different solutions than most people have the political courage to stand behind....

[JayS]

51. Is that not the truth. The is so much money involved in the War...

...On Drugs that I don't know if it is even stoppable any more. Not to mention that posse comitatus has been pretty much set aside and now the distinction between the military and police is getting blurred in some areas. I'm working some with a state politician, that might just want to make a name for himself, to see if he can do anything. (The younger the politician the better) Here in Texas our prison population represents every race...well, not the white one...unless they are poor.

We have a wonderful network here for transporting drugs that is unbreakable. The network is also used to transport guns and other contraband. Participants in this network have a terrible business model when it come to violence....

Disclaimer: I don't drink or do any drugs, so legalization is not something I have a direct interest in. I just want a society more like what we used to have that the War On Drugs is killing. I want it to be like when I was in high school. You could take a gun to school if you were going hunting with a teacher or another student after class...but you had to leave the gun in the principal's office. Knives in school were okay, as long as they were not so big as to cause a distraction.

[lazarus]

60. on this we agree

eliminating the War on (some) Drugs would go a great way to helping our society.

I don't think we'll ever go back to the glory days of your high school; Pandora's Box has been opened.

But something has to be done to reduce the level of fear in this country. A nice, long liberal domination of the upper levels of government (and the media) could go a long way towards that goal.

[DoNotRefill]

76. but there are countries with HIGHER firearms ownership rates...

and LOWER homicide rates. If guns are the cause of homicides, how can that be?

[Tight_rope]

68. What I wanna know is why the "HELL" people need guns away!

And don't give that "BULLSHIT" about it being a sport or gaming to kill animals that you like to eat. Hell they sell just about every kinda damn meat I can think of in the grocery stores nowadays. Standing about shooting at bottles and cans is another pathetic excuse too. Hell, take up bowling, golf or tennis. The costs is equally to what you would spend buying a gun or guns and bullets.

And let's not use the excuse that you need it for "PROTECTION". Hell get an alarm and a baseball bat...it's just as good.

[JayS]

70. Well, it is not for you to decide what someone else needs.

Perhaps if we actually kept the violent in jail and quit using the War On Drugs to create so many criminals guns would be less of an issue.

[Tight_rope]

71. In response!

I'm not saying that "I" should make the ultimate decision on who should own guns. However, I do believe that American should take a vote (not Congress...they are unless) Let the people decide if they want any guns on the streets. In response to ending the War on Drugs. Let's face it. Americans are dope-heads. Whether legal or illegal everyone is on something. People take pills to sleep, to wake up, loose weight, to gain weight, to play faster, harder, better. People to pills get it up, get it down, speed it up, slow it down and of course just to feel good, least we forget some actually use it for medicinal purposes.

And in your response to keeping people in jails. I'll simply state a passage from one of my favorites by Lucky Dube called "Prisoner"...We don't build any schools anymore all we build are prisons we don't build anymore schools all will build are prisons!"

[JayS]

72. Yes, let the people vote. How about we put abortion up for...

...a public vote? Or maybe voting on that pesky separation of church and state? Or the freedom of speech? Careful what you wish for; you just might get it.

Do you know what the War On Drugs is by any chance? Do you know how much violence is caused by it? How many families it destroys? How many lives it destroys? How many weapons it puts on the streets? How it fills up the jails...with mostly minorities and/or the poor?

And getting guns off the streets...how do you propose to do this? What purpose would it serve if it were even possible? Even if you could remove one of the tools from the violent offender's arsenal, do you think the killing would stop?

I have no idea who Lucky Dube is. He/she sounds fond of meaningless catch phrases though.

[Tight_rope]

77. Sorry you feel that way!

However, before insulting his phrases because you just didn't understand it maybe you should have try listening to the whole song or finding about who he is.

And as for you ignorant comment "Do you know what the war on drugs is by any chance". I say to you that "You must be out of touch with reality if you think that anyone who lives in American and is in DU would not know what the "War of Drugs" really is about!

I still say that Americans are dope-heads whether they take, use, or sell "LEGAL OR ILLEGAL" drugs.

[JayS]

83. I'll state it as do you understand what the War On Drugs is. It...

...does not appear to me that you understand it. It is not a question of whether or not America is full of dope heads, it is a question about how we are fighting the WODs and what the outcome of this fight is.

And I understand his phrases quite well. I've been listening to variations of his theme for a good many years.

[Tight_rope]

85. I know what the War on Drugs is!

I know that it's so-called main purpose to it get illegal drugs like marijuana, cocaine (crack), heroin, etc. off the streets of American as well as guns that seem to kill just as many people if not more then the usage of the drugs. I know that America has been fighting the war on drugs for many years and in my opinion America is no more better off then the day they started the "war on drugs".

However, I was stating the the real war should not just be about getting "illegal" drugs off the street. But getting people to stop taking, using or selling drugs period unless for medicinal purposes. I work for a group of Oncologist/Hematologist and I know how easily people become addicted to prescription drugs as well.

[JayS]

112. The War On Drugs does try to kept the country free of certain...

...drugs, but has nothing to do with guns. I have not seen much evidence that the use of illegal drugs or the abuse of legal drugs is very high relative to the abuse of alcohol. We do spend incredible amounts of money combatting wimpy drugs like marijuana but little combatting serious drugs like alcohol. This inverted model needs to change but there is so much money involved in the drug war that this most likely will never change.

The violence generated by the War On Drugs is incredible but little commented on. Unless this changes there is no hope of decreasing the violence. If you don't want as much violence, including gun violence, then you have to support changing how we deal with illegal drugs. The two cannot be separated.

And humans, and some animals, always seek ways to "get out of our heads" at times. I don't know exactly why that is but this behavior is something that will not change by legislation.

[DoNotRefill]

79. Yup, just like we should vote on owning slaves...

Civil rights are NOT negotiable...

[Tight_rope]

87. Not anymore....the Patriot Act fix that!

Civil right my ass. How does it go, "You are innocent until proven guilty"...then why the fuck do I need to hire a lawyer to help me prove I'm not guilty.

"Justice is blind". Bullshit...blind my ass. The judge and the jury can see everything going on in the court room.

[DoNotRefill]

78. tightrope, you're wrong.

your best means of surviving an attack unharmed is if you resist with a gun. If you resist with a gun, you have a 1:5 chance of being hurt, if you don't resist at all and do what they want, you have a 1:3 chance of being hurt, and if you resist with a baseball bat or any other weapon but a gun (or your fists) you have a 1:2 chance of being hurt. Which odds would you prefer?

Remember, Kellermann, the very (in)famous gun control proponent, has stated that if his wife were to be attacked, he'd want her "to meet the attack with a .38 in her hand", because it's the BEST way to survive without being injured or killed.

[Tight_rope]

86. You know I could take the easy way out and say...

That I prefer resisting with a gun so I can have the 1.5 chance. But I know that it's not that easy and in my mind I'm thinking about how many people have bought guns for that exact reason, of having that 1.5 chance, only to regret it was their children are killed because they took that 1.5 chance.

I don't have children, so I could take the easy way out and have the 1.5 chance. But instead I've chosen to take 1.2.

By the way how many points would I get for having an alarm.

[DoNotRefill]

91. It's NOT 1.5...

it's 1:5, 1:3, and 1:2. They're ratios. The ":" means "in". So, for example, 1:5 = "one in five". That means 1:5 = 20% chance 1:3 = 33% chance, and 1:2 = 50% chance. So switching from a 1:5 risk to a 1:2 risk means you are two and a half times more likely to be injured. Or, if 10 people in each category were attacked, 2 people defending themselves with guns would be injured, three people who just complied would be injured, and 5 people who resisted without a gun (with an alarm,with their fists, or with a baseball bat, for example) would be injured.

Use of an alarm would take you from a 33% chance of being injured for compliance to a 50% chance of being injured since you're offering resistance (not effective resistance, but resistance nonetheless). You're far better off not using an alarm or offering no resistance at all to using an alarm or offering resistance with ANY method other than a firearm.

There's a greater risk that a person in the household will commit suicide with a gun in there's a gun in the house. That does NOT mean that there's a greater chance that a family member will commit suicide if there is a gun present, but rather that if they're going to commit suicide, and there is a gun present, they're more likely to choose the gun than another method. Of course, that's just common sense. If you decide to kill yourself and want to hang yourself, but there's nothing available to use as a rope, you can't hang yourself, can you? If you really want to commit suicide with a gun, but there isn't a gun present, you have two choices. You can either get a gun (in which case you fall into the "house with gun category, even though the gun only came into the house so you could kill yourself with it) or you can kill yourself without a gun (hanging, "blue suicide", death by car, et cetera) in which case you didn't use a gun, but you're just as dead.

The odds of ACCIDENTALLY being shot if you own a gun or are near a gun are miniscule. For example, out of the approximately 100,000,000 gun owners in the US, there were fewer than 800 accidental gun fatalities last year. Do the math...your odds of dying in a bathroom accident are FAR higher than your odds of being accidentally shot.

[Tight_rope]

106. Whatever the case maybe...

I'm still taking a chance! No of your chooses are anywhere near being between 90-100%...Life is a "BIG FAT CHANCE"!

[JayS]

111. DoNotRefill was showing you the odds that IF you are attacked...

...what things you can do to increase your chances of survival. If you are never attacked you will never have anything to worry about.

Is your alarm on a battery backup? Does it place a call to the police for you? If someone wants to attack you and rely on the lower priority alarm calls are given then you would be wise to have some plan in those circumstances. In my area, shutting off the power to the house and cutting the phone line at the junction box is not all that uncommon.

[DoNotRefill]

113. Didn't Ghandi say something about....

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest"?


BTW, if you don't want to survive an attack, that's your business, and your choice. Depriving others of the choice to survive by disarming them is another matter entirely.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

101. I blame the NRA...no reason to own those fucking things and they gave

us George W Bush....I blame them a whole lot....I'll bet my hat my ass and my overcoat the cops in the field serving a warrant for a misdemeanor charge do too. Fuck the NRA and fuck people who defend them.

[Tight_rope]

107. I second that motion!

[JayS]

108. "Fuck the NRA and fuck people who defend them"

And f*ck the chances of us getting in the White House.

[DoNotRefill]

115. Whew...you said: "fuck people who defend them."

So, I guess you gave up your ACLU card?

[NickB79]

139. Yeah, fuck anyone who has pepper spray too!!!

And pocketknives, and whistles, and knows martial arts, and can box or throw a decent punch.

Yeah, fuck people who defend themselves!!!

[DoNotRefill]

73. hate to tell you this....but an SKS rifle isn't an "assault rifle"...

It's got a fixed 10 round integral magazine (that means no rapid reloading, 10 rounds is what you've got), no pistol grip, no flash supressor, no collapsable stock, and most no longer have bayonet lugs.

It was a rifle, nothing more. There was no "assault" part of it.

[pinniped]

88. You forgot to mention the SKS WITH detachable 30rd mag...

and this DOES mean rapid reloading. And yes, I can differentiate what a real "assault rifle" is.

The SKS is not an "assault rifle" as strictly defined but depending on how one's detachable mag SKS is configured it would certainly qualify as an "assault weapon" under the new criteria set by the politicians.

There is also an SKS w/30rd fixed mag in case you didn't know.

[DoNotRefill]

92. Are you saying the SKS in question had a 30 round detachable mag?

because there needs to be fairly extensive modifications to the gun for that to work, which is normally done "at the factory". My sources tell me that it was a "stock" SKS that was used, with the 10 round fixed magazine.

[pinniped]

117. Oh, I didn't see where in post #73 you were talking specifically...

about the SKS the assailant "allegedly" used. You made a general statement about the SKS and it's obviously inaccurate. Since we know there are detachable mag and 30rd fixed mag models.

Here you now state your sources tell you it was a "stock" SKS. If accurate now we can apply your analysis of the 10rd "fixed" mag model to the SKS the "alleged" asailant used.

But if the "alleged" gunman was good with stripper clips he could certainly reload slightly faster.

[Merlin]

22. Guy came out the door and sprayed cops with an ASSAULT WEAPON!

HELLO!

How many people have to die before we fucking ban ASSAULT WEAPONS in this country?

Jesus, maybe we should just legalize private use of landmines, hand grenades, and ICBMs.

[JayS]

25. If he was doing any spraying it was a fully automatic weapon and...

...those have been severely restricted since 1934.

[sendero]

27. Ban em, ban em...

... ban 'em like pot. Ban 'em like crank. Ban 'em like heroin. Ban 'em like cocaine. Ban 'em like pipe bombs. Ban 'em like swithblades.

Ban 'em, ban 'em, ban 'em.

One definition of insanity is when one continues taking the same action but expects a different result. Banning anything won't do jack shit. And if you don't know that, what cloud do you live on?

[UpInArms]

28. are you implying that prohibition

was a failure?

:evilgrin:

[jdj]

53. I'd like to see drugs decriminalized.

Drug treatment is cheaper than incarceration anyway. Anything that will change people's emotions significantly with little input effort will go mafia if banned. This has been proven time and again, and we just create crime when we criminalize things like drugs, prostitution and alcohol.

[DoNotRefill]

81. yup, since we banned coke and pot...

you sure can't get them any more....

:SNORT:
:smoke:

[progressivebydesign]

39. Don't we all know? Assualt weapons are only for...

.. um.. shooting deer? target practice? keeping vermin out of your garden? Or, are they simply for killing people as rapidly as possible. Choose one!

[JayS]

42. Well, assault weapons are not easily available to you and me...

...as they are military weapons...but if you mean the assault weapons knockoffs, you can buy those at the store now. You will be disappointed to find that they are merely scary looking versions of their traditional counterparts and no more powerful either. The main use of "assault weapons" is taking their mere existence and keeping Democrats out of office.

[pinniped]

120. Maybe you didn't hear, there is a NEW definition of "assault weapon"...

these days, v.2.0. Politicians revised the meaning and they now include assault weapon "knockoffs" as you call it.

Now you can keep correcting people over and over by saying those assault weapon knockoffs used today aren't true "assault weapons", but that doesn't matter one bit to the powers that be who eventually write the laws and refer to them as "assault weapons".

Should they rename the AW ban to something like, "AW knockoff" ban?

[JayS]

129. I really don't care what new definition of anything politicians...

...have come up with. Since we are talking about the AWB, we will use the definition provided in the text of the AWB.

[pinniped]

132. Huh?

In that case AWs are still readily available to you and me. I don't see where in the text of the AWB it bans selling an AW to a private party. Assuming it's legal to possess said weapon in one's city or state.

[JayS]

133. I probably misunderstood your statement. n/t

n/t

[-..__...]

43. No, he didn't...

use an "assault weapon".

The media is reporting the firearm used as an SKS.

http://www.nbc13.com/news/3430859/detail.html

An SKS is not an "assault weapon", nor is it covered under the current legislation (illegal conversions aside).

[JayS]

44. "An SKS is not an "assault weapon""

But can't you use it as a bullet hose to spray from the hip using a pistol grip and a silencer to make you invisible? :)

[NickB79]

65. For those of you who don't know what an SKS looks like:

Here is an SKS:

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976414967.htm

It has a fixed wooden stock, no pistol grip, and a 5-round magazine.

Here is a Remington 7400:

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976472202.htm

It has a fixed wooden stock, no pistol grip, and a 3-5 round magazine.

Both fire in semi-automatic fashion, with the Remington 7400 being chambered in rounds MORE powerful than that of the SKS. So tell me why the SKS is considered a horrible assault rifle and the Remington an excellent deer rifle?

[pinniped]

119. Uh, maybe you should show us a pic of the 30rd detachable...

mag SKS and the 30rd "fixed" mag SKS. Just to be fair of course.

[Tight_rope]

69. It's not like some people don't have them...if you want it bad enough

you can get it. Everything has a price and everything can be obtained in the US.

[DoNotRefill]

80. it was an SKS, NOT an assault weapon...

eom

[Paladin]

90. Why Don't You Pass That On.......

....to the families of those dead cops? I'm sure that the fact that their loved ones were slaughtered by someone using a weapon that doesn't fit your definition of an "assault weapon" will perk them right up......

[DoNotRefill]

93. And if they'd drowned or been killed in a car wreck....

I'm sure the family would be just as devastated.

Your point?

Oh, yeah....that your side is trying to use a tragedy to make political points....Just like Bush did with 9/11...

[Paladin]

94. You're Cute When You're Obtuse

You know the point I'm trying to make. Every time an incident like this one happens---and God knows, they happen all too frequently---we can count on the same frantic response from the gun militants here in D/U. Rather than expressing any sympathy for the loss of life or destroyed families, you start squealing about how the Nasty Old Media didn't describe the firearms perfectly in every detail. Pathetic.

And spare me the attempted linkage to Bush, OK? You gun-loving "Democrats" continue to publicly moan that the party's position on guns isn't NRA-friendly enough for you, thereby doing your part to assure that we get four more years of John Ashcroft instead of John Kerry. If you want to align yourself with the kind of camoflage-clad mouthbreathers who congregate around the AK-47 tables at gun shows, people who are going to vote for Bush over Kerry 10-to-1, be my guest. But don't think you can fuck with my party and not get challenged on it.......

[DoNotRefill]

95. So, you're saying that pro-gun people have no place....

in the Democratic party?

I'm sure the blue-collar labor union folks will LOVE that....

Anti-gun zealotry like yours has cost us control of both houses of Congress, and kept Gore from winning in a landslide that would have been IMPOSSIBLE for the Repukes to steal.

The anti-gunners put Bush in the White House by driving pro-gun people AWAY from the Democratic party. You've got a LOT to be proud of. /sarcasm

[JayS]

116. frantic response from the gun militants here in D/U.

I find the anti-gun militants here in D/U are always the first to appear anytime something of this sort happens, even before anything in the way of facts are in the public domain.

And this is not your party. It belongs to all of us. One thing that has been killing us is our party's love of gun control laws. Not of actual gun control, just gun control laws. Awareness of these do-nothing approaches to crime have long since spread from just gunowners to portions of non-gunowning voters. Recognition of this may allow the Democratic Party to keep the donkey as a mascot instead of the dodo bird or passenger pigeon.

[Paladin]

118. The Fact Of The Matter Is........

.....the Democratic Party has never been as anti-gun as you RKBA radicals claim it to be. Rather than pointing that fact out, you people are adhering to and constantly promoting the position spouted by the NRA, the Gun Owners of America, and every other gun organization that despises the Democratic Party. If I refer to it as "my party," it's because I think there's only a slim chance that any of you will end up casting a vote for John Kerry, for all your pretenses here in D/U. And as I've said before, anybody who believes that four years of John Kerry will be more harmful to gun rights than four more years of John Ashcroft probably shouldn't be trusted with guns anyway.

By the way, read your morning paper. The Democratic Party is doing very well these days, no need for a "dodo bird or passenger pigeon" as a mascot (thanks for that optimistic assessment). And it's doing well without the critical support of assault weapon lovers. Imagine that.....

[DoNotRefill]

125. Heh....yeah, right.

Compare the Democratic Party in 1992 (right before the AW ban) to the Democratic Party today. If that's a party that is thriving by your definition, I'd hate to see what you'd consider a party that's in decline.

[Paladin]

127. Defeatist Gun-Lust Drivel, Unworthy Of A Response

N/T

[DoNotRefill]

128. There are none so blind....

as those who refuse to see.

[JayS]

130. It sounds like your definition of "doing well" is vastly different...

...from mine. I see the House, Senate, and Presidency all in Republican control. This is the case in my state also, for the first time since Reconstruction. What part of this means that we are "doing well" and how do you arrive at this conclusion?

As to what you call NRA talking points, please point them out. We are supposed to love the truth here, so lets see some examples of lies.

[Paladin]

140. Defeatist, Gun-Lust Drivel, Unworthy Of Response

N/T

[sendero]

122. Is that worse.....

.... than the morons who say if we had "gun control", this would not have happened?

But these morons are everywhere. And they are costing the Dem party millions of votes in their quest for a nonexistent, impossible, gun-free nirvana.

What can be done?

[depakid]

31. How can anyone NOT blame the NRA and the culture of guns?

I think there are some people in serious denial here-

Are there other factors, including, as was mentioned- the drug wars, or the climate of fear purveyed by the corporate media? (see, i.e. Bowling for Columbine). Sure.

But it's the NRA, the pervasive culture of guns and the collective attitudes it reinforces that makes tragedies like this relatively common here compared to other countries.

Not that there's much that can be done about it in the short term. But as any addiction counselor will tell you, admitting that there is there is a problem is always the first step.

[funkybutt]

32. New Orleans: 2 accidental shooting deaths involving youths this week!

n/t

[Swamp Rat]

102. Where?

Where?... I live uptown.

[JayS]

33. The problem is that no one wants to talk about why we have...

...these violent people in the first place. It just is not a sexy issue. Try and talk about it and people that don't even wear watches will look at their wrists and remember they are late for a meeting.

Not to mention the fact that we have had no effective gun control in decades. If you want good gun control, see the stories below for an example of what works. These programs will help with the gun violence but the conditions that caused the rise of violent offenders will still need to be addressed.


******************************************

Project Targets Gun Criminals
June 4, 2004
Reported by KPLC Staff
http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1919376&nav=0nqxNfmq


You may wonder why police seem to seize so many guns-- well, getting guns used for crime off the streets has been a high priority of Lake Charles Police Chief Don Dixon since he became chief in January 2002. The special emphasis seems to have reduced local crime involving firearms.

*SNIP*

Chief Dixon says it's an initiative targeting federal prosecution of gun criminals: "If you're a convicted felon and we catch you in possession of a gun, there is no good excuse. There is no good reason. You're up to bad intent. These are the people out there who are repeat offenders, habitual offenders, and that's basically how they survive-- by committing crimes with guns. You take just one of them off the street it's going to help."

So, Dixon explains, whenever they find a gun they run a trace on it through the federal ATF . If possible, they pursue federal prosecution which Dixon says has great results: "It speeds the system up. These cases, normally, by the time the incident happens, we send it over. It usually goes before a grand jury within three or four months, we have an indictment, 95% of the time they're detained in the federal system which means they're a danger to the community-- there is no bond."

But even better perhaps, Dixon says there's been a tremendous reduction in the number of guns on the streets and in crimes involving guns: "Our reduction in gun crimes from 2003 compared to 2002--which is armed robberies with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, I think is about a 30 per cent reduction."

*SNIP*





Cops to crack down on gun violations
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Cops to crack down on gun violations
By WILLIAM F. AST III / H-P Staff Writer
http://www.heraldpalladium.com/articles/2004/06/03/news/news3.txt


CASSOPOLIS -- Southwest Michigan law enforcement officials on Wednesday announced a new program that Dowagiac Police Chief Thomas Atkinson said will "send away the bad guys for a long, long time."

"The goal is to move them out of the community and away from this area," Van Buren County Sheriff Dale Gribler said. Project Safe Neighborhoods-Southwest will provide Berrien, Cass and Van Buren counties with a "gun detective" who will work full time on cases involving convicted felons with guns, according to Margaret Chiara, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan.

That detective, working with federal agencies, will send appropriate cases to the "federal system because our penalties are so much more substantial for this particular crime rather than the state system, where they are minimal," Chiara said. The detective's job will be mostly paid for by the federal government.

Felons found to be in possession of a firearm face two years in prison under Michigan law, Gribler said. The average sentence in federal court is 69 months, he said.

*SNIP*

[Democracy Died 2004]

34. The gun dilemma

It goes like this:

he says Blah blah blah blah blah
then the other guy says Blah blah blah
then a whole bunch people say Blah blah blah

But in the end too many people have died from guns and stupidity in the time it took this to be written and yet we still sit here and blah blah blah blah each other.

[JayS]

35. I take it you neither read my post or checked the links. n/t

n/t

[depakid]

41. The NRA has been touting tough criminal sanctions for 20 years

and they have been implemented all over the country. Yet the tragedies continue. So, a logical person may well conclude that either they do not work (i.e., they do not deter) or they fail to address to roots of the problem. Either way, it's obvious something else is necessary if one is interested in changing the status quo.

Moreover, the laws you mention have little or no effect on accidental deaths (particularly those involving minors) and have no effect on domestic violence tragedies.

Nor do they or any other argument I've heard from the NRA address the fact that having a gun in the house substantially raises the risk of a household member dying by firearm.

There are a host of studies detailing such findings. Some of their conclusions are summarized here:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=home

[JayS]

45. Oh, the Brady Campaign...now there is a source of information.

The program I listed is not twenty years old. And yes, it has shown great promise and is an easy sell. Since no gun control we have done in the past few decades has worked, it is logical to try something different. Sadly, it took a change of administration to do it.

And yes, common ordinary people can be irresponsible and even violent. I don't fault the NRA for that.

I have also seen those "findings" from the Brady Bunch. They are humorous in a way but it is sad that so many people buy into them.

[depakid]

47. Ahem- you might look at the sources-

and attempt to refute them, rather than shoot the messenger.

If you've that ability, Kellerman's work makes a good target....

CDC, NCIPC, Web-based Injury Statistics Query Reporting System, 2002.

Kellermann, AL et al., "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." The Journal of Trauma, Infection, and Critical Care. Volume 45, No. 2, August 1988

Police Foundation, Guns in America: Results of a comprehensive national survey on firearms ownership and use, 1996
Police Foundation, 1996.

National Safe Kids Campaign, 1997.

Kellermann AL., Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995.

CDC, NCIPC, Web-based Injury Statistics Query Reporting System, 2002.

CDC, NCIPC, Web-based Injury Statistics Query Reporting System, 2002.
Peter Hart Research Associates and the Center to Prevent Handgun
Violence, 1998.

Peter Hart, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Parents and Kid: A Nationwide Study, 1998

CDC, "Rates of Homicide, suicide and firearm-related death among children - 26 industrialized countries." Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report, 02/07/97; 46:5. 101-105.

[JayS]

52. Yup, I am familiar with some of these. They get posted down...

...in J/PS from time to time. Some are better than others but some are outright terrible. The thing that happens most often is quotes are pulled out of context to make a point, something that both sides do.

[NickB79]

63. Touting yes, but no one bothers to listen

The NRA has supported tough, mandatory-time sentences for anyone caught with a gun while committing a crime (Project Exile). What does Congress pass? The do-nothing 1994 AWB. Instead of punishing criminals for gun use in general, it outlaws various guns that are used in less than 1/10 of 1% of all crime.

What really infuriates me is that they didn't even enforce most of the Brady Bill's clauses! For example, do you recall proponents of the Brady Bill claiming that these background checks have stopped hundreds of thousands of criminals from purchasing firearms? On the bottom of the 4473 background check form you must fill out while purchasing a gun, it asks for your signature, with the expressed warning that lying on this form is a FELONY. If you lie on the form in an attempt to buy a gun, sign it, and then get stopped by a background check, YOU HAVE JUST COMMITTED A FELONY!!! How many of those hundreds of thousands of felons that were prevented from buying guns were arrested? Hint: its far fewer than 10%, if that even. I worked at a Gander Mountain Sporting Goods store for a year, and several times we had customers denied for a firearms purchase. The forms were filed away and the customer walked back out the door without a gun. Assuming there wasn't a computer error and the person really did lie on the 4473 form, that was an unprosecuted FELONY. And then we're all left to wonder: will he stop trying to buy a gun, or will he simply get one on the black market? Sadly, I doubt it is the former.

[JayS]

67. I think Rep. Dingell (D) expressed the lack of convictions the best.

August 1, 2000



The Honorable Janet Reno

Attorney General

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Reno:

I read with great interest Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder’s June
4,
2000, announcement regarding the release of two Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) reports on Federal Firearm Offenders and Background
Checks
for Firearm Transfers. As you are aware, effective and timely
enforcement
of our nation’s federal firearms laws is of tremendous importance to
the
Congress. As we continue to look for effective strategies to prevent
firearms from falling into the wrong hands and reduce gun violence,
reports
such as these are useful in evaluating the progress of the
Administration
on this front.

As Mr. Holder notes in his statement, "the Brady Law has stopped
536,000
felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and other persons not legally
allowed
to have a gun from getting a gun." This is indeed an impressive record.
The
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is one of the
most
effective tools we have to crack down on gun criminals and prevent
crime.
However, stopping the sale of a firearm to a prohibited person is only
one
component of an effective strategy to reduce violent criminal behavior.
Prosecuting those felons, fugitives and domestic abusers who attempt to
purchase a firearm is the other half of the equation.

The BJS report on Firearm Offenders states that an average of 6,700
defendants were charged with a firearm offense in U.S. district courts
between 1992 and 1999. On its face, that number of prosecutions seems
incredibly low given the number of prohibited persons stopped by the
instant check system. An analysis of the BJS reports confirms that the
number of federal prosecutions is severely inadequate.

As you are aware, 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) makes the attempted purchase of a
firearm by an individual who knowingly provides false information on a
firearm transfer application (ATF Form 4473) a federal felony offense.
In
simple terms, it is a federal felony, punishable for up to ten years in
prison, for felons, fugitives, domestic abusers or any other category
of
prohibited person to attempt to purchase a firearm if they knowingly
falsify the purchase application.

Of the 204,000 attempted purchases stopped by NICS in 1999, the BJS
report
states that 71 percent of the rejections were for a felony conviction
or
indictment, 12 percent were for a disqualifying domestic violence
conviction and three percent were rejected because the applicant was a
fugitive from justice. Thus, 86 percent (approximately 175,440 persons)
of
those rejected by the instant check system had de facto committed
another
felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473. However, federal firearm
prosecutions
in aggregate totaled only 6,728. Although the report indicated the
statistics for 1999 are preliminary data, that is a prosecution rate of
only 3.29 percent. To put it another way, for every thirty rejected
applications for a firearm transfer, there was only one prosecution.

If we are to concern ourselves with 1998, the latest year for which we
have
final data, the record is demonstrably worse. Of the rejected
applications,
totaling 90,000 in 1998, a mere 102 cases were federally prosecuted.
That
equates to a prosecution rate of less than one percent. Thus in 1998,
for
every 882 rejected applications for a firearm transfer there was only
one
federal prosecution. And while some have made the case that these cases
are
difficult to prosecute, I would note the statement of former federal
prosecutor Andrew McBride of the Richmond office, now in private
practice,
that such cases are as easy to prosecute as "picking change up off the
street."

Needless to say, these statistics are less than impressive. It is not
hard
to understand why this Administration has been criticized for being lax
in
enforcing existing federal firearm laws. In an effort to better
understand
why the Department of Justice is not doing more to prosecute violations
of
18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), I would appreciate your answers to the following
questions:

Some of the reasons for this poor prosecutorial record are indicated
in
the BJS Federal Firearm Offenders report. Citing table 1,"Firearm
suspects
declined for prosecution by U.S. attorneys, by reason for declination,
1998," some of the reasons listed for not prosecuting known gun
criminals
include: minimal federal interest and DOJ/U.S. Attorney policy. I find
this
very curious. Please tell me:
What exactly is the policy for prosecuting violations of 18
U.S.C(a)(6)?

Why there would be a DOJ/U.S. Attorney policy not to prosecute those
who
violate federal firearms laws?

Why there would be "minimal federal interest" in prosecuting those who
violate federal firearm laws?

Another reason that was cited in table 1 for declining to prosecute was
"weak evidence." Without knowing the facts of each individual case, I
would
note the following: If an individual knowingly makes a false statement
on
ATF Form 4473, that is a felony. Form 4473 requires the prospective
purchaser to state whether or not he/she is disqualified from
purchasing a
firearm. Furthermore, each disqualifying criterion is listed on Form
4473
and requires a yes or no answer. Form 4473 also requires a signature by
the
prospective purchaser and the seller. Form 4473 also requires many
other
identifiers to verify the identity of the transferee. Thus, if an
individual is rejected because NICS system reports that a prospective
purchaser is a convicted felon and falsified a document in an attempt
to
obtain a firearm, that is a violation of U.S.C. 922(a)(6). It seems to
me
that this should be a relatively open and shut case.
However, of the 204,000 individuals denied the purchase of firearm
"nearly
3 out of 4 rejections for firearm transfer occurred because the
applicant
either had a felony conviction or was under felony indictment."
Therefore,
it follows that over 150,000 individuals committed a federal felony by
falsifying ATF Form 4473. Yet, a February, 2000 General Accounting
Office
report on the Implementation of NICS showed that in FY 1999, U.S
Attorneys
filed only 278 cases involving alleged false statements of 18 U.S.C.
922(a)(6) and 316 cases were pending at fiscal yearend. Please explain
the
lack of federal prosecutions for false statements on ATF Form 4473.
Also
explain towhat degree "weak evidence" contributes to the unwillingness
of
U.S. Attorneys to prosecute 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) violations.

Appendix III of the GAO audit describes federal enforcement policies
regarding falsified firearm purchase applications. It states:
In November 1998, EOUSA provided
Brady Act prosecutive guidance . . . The guidance stated that thousands
of
potential Brady false-form cases would likely reach ATF field offices
annually, and that the system "would grind to a halt if ATF
investigated
all the denials."

The report goes on to say that the EOUSA guidance recommended that U.S.
Attorneys should "make every effort to increase the number of Brady
false-form prosecutions (from the current annual level of 50 cases)."

The GAO audit also states that in deciding which false form violations
to
forward to U.S. Attorneys, ATF’s policy is to refer those cases where
the
"denied purchaser’s criminal history has records of violent felonies,
serious drug trafficking, or prior firearms convictions." Yet the GAO
report indicates that over half of the referrals of violent criminals
were
closed without investigation or prosecution.

In light of these GAO findings, I would like answers to the following:

Why were half of the referrals of violent criminals closed without
investigation or prosecution?
What efforts has the Department of Justice undertaken to increase the
number of false form prosecutions? Has EOUSA issued any additional
guidance
regarding 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) violations?
Since November 1998, how many 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) violations have been
referred to U.S. Attorneys by ATF field offices?
How many 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) false form prosecutions have U.S. Attorneys
undertaken since the November 1998 EOUSA guidance?
I do not believe that violent felons, upon learning they are
disqualified
from firearm ownership, give up their search to obtain a firearm.
Please
explain why U.S. Attorneys are unwilling to enforce 18 U.S.C. (a)(6)
even
for violent felons who attempt to purchase firearms?
At a June 21, 2000, hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding
improvements to NICS, Mr. David Loesch, Assistant Director in charge of
the
Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI testified
that
the law prohibiting felonious misrepresentation of firearm eligibility
"is
essentially unenforceable." Would you please expand on this statement
and
explain why your representative characterized this law as such? Do you
share the view that this law is unenforceable? Please comment on the
enforceability of U.S.C. 18 (a)(6) in all its specifics and in general.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. I look forward to
your response. If you have any questions about this matter, please have
your staff contact Michael Hacker of my office at [phone].

With every good wish,



Sincerely,





John D. Dingell

Member of Congress

[DoNotRefill]

82. depakote, you got something against adults committing SUICIDE?

because that's where the VAST majority of the "43x" statistic comes from. Read Kellermann's endnote, where he says what's in that "43x" figure.

Over twice as many Americans commit suicide with a gun each year than are murdered with guns.

If somebody wants to commit suicide with a gun, that's OK with me. It'd be more humane if they could go to their doctor and get a lethal suicide pill, but that's illegal. Guns are the closest thing to "death with dignity" that most Americans will ever have available.

[depakid]

123. Oh, yeah- I certainly do-

having lost one of my best friends to suicide, it's an issue that not only strikes home, but that I put considerable personal and professional effort into.

Most violent suicides are commited by men (as opposed to my friend, who intentionally overdosed) and men also have a much greater tendency to commit homocides along with taking their own lives.

It's a major problem (particularly this time of year, as strange as that might sound). Having a gun in the house is NEVER a good idea for people with either situational depression or who have unipolar or bipolar disorders- particulary if they are untreated or if they "self medicate" with alcohol.

We're not talking people who dying from terminal illess here- we're talking about extremely bright individuals, artists, writers, musicians- many of who really do have so much to live for... and so much to contribute to society.

[DoNotRefill]

126. So, because they could contribute....

they shouldn't be allowed to commit suicide?

Who the FUCK do you think you are, to make such a decision for other people?

I've lost friends to suicide with guns. Some were terminally ill. Some just wanted to die. It's none of your fucking business (much less the Government's business) if somebody else wants to take their own life, just as it's none of your fucking business (much less the Government's business) if a woman wants to have an abortion.

Medical decisions belong ONLY with the individual.

[depakid]

134. It's everyone's business....

It's regrettable that you don't understand and feel the need to pepper your response with expletives. It might be a good idea for you to spend some time listening to suicide survivors or talking to people who have worked in mental health.

A good place to start might be with DBSA (the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance). A lot of people who are hurting begin their healing there.

[DoNotRefill]

137. Private medical decisions are everybody's business?

where's your justification for such a statement?

It's not everybody's business ethically.
It's not everybody's business morally.
It's not everybody's business legally.

So how, exactly, is what a person does with their own body "everyone's business"? That's Freeper thought.

[depakid]

138. You don't get it-

Not morally, legally or ethically. Almost all suicides result from untreated depression and/or Bipolar Disorder. In fact, studies show close to 20% of all people with untreated Bipolar Disorder will die from suicide- and the peak suicide risk is right about now- at the end of spring and beginning of summer, due to the prevalence of what's called a mixed state- something that I guarantee you would not want to experience.

Since it's obvious that you have never talked someone down from a manic or a mixed state or counseled people for clinical depression, you probably don't view suicide as they or I do. You somehow seem to think it's a rational decision- and that it's somehow the ethical to let people suffer to such an extent that they would take their own lives at a time when they're incapable of seeing that there are other ways to make the pain go away. That's a hard, cold and cruel set of attitudes- though unfortunately, all too common.

The barriers we put up to treatment in this country are nothing short of unconscionable- from the stigma people place on mental illness to the exorbitant prices we allow the thieves at PhARMa to charge for lifesaving drugs.

I'm truly sorry that you don't understand- perhaps the words of John Donne might help you see:

No man is an island entire of itself ... any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

[DoNotRefill]

141. I'm looking at it rationally....

while you're allowing emotion to rule your position.

The Government has NO business telling people that they MUST undergo medical treatment, and that INCLUDES depression. The Government has NO business telling people that they MUST live if they don't want to.

There's a HUGE difference between OFFERING mental health services and FORCING mental health services. Even if it means that the person dies, deliberately (due to their choices) or due to the progression of disease.

I have no problem with OFFERING mental health services, but once you cross the line into COMPULSORY mental health services, the government controls your life, and they have NO business doing that.

This involves many health issues. For example, people who refuse certain medical procedures due to religion, people who choose not to undergo lifesaving medical procedures, people who choose to have an abortion, and people who choose to die. The Government has NO right to tell people that they cannot do ANY of these things.

For hundreds of years, suicide was seen as a sin against country and God. People who committed suicide lost their property, it was forfeited to the Crown. People who attempted suicide but failed were punished. We've come a long way since then, but there are still remnants out there that seek to wrest control back from the individual and give it to the State. They offer various reasons.....religion, some misguided notion that people owe "service to the State", or, in your case, a desire to force people to do things they don't want to do because "you know best." It's elitist, morally repugnant, and inconsistent with the concept of personal liberty.

If people WANT to seek mental health services, fine, it should be available. But if they don't, they shouldn't be stigmatized because they don't. That's what you're doing.

[biftonnorton]

61. Guns Have Been Around Longer Than NRA

So, I think the "culture of guns caused by NRA" argument is a bit shaky.

[UpInArms]

55. related article: New Details Emerge After Three Alabama Officers Slain

http://www.thewmurchannel.com/news/3433409/detail.html

UPDATED: 10:02 am EDT June 18, 2004

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- New details are emerging about the fatal shooting of three police officers in Birmingham Thursday. Police said they went to a reputed "crack house" to make an arrest and were shot shortly after they arrived.

<snip>

Police officials at the scene told TV station WVTM that they believe that the officers were shot by SKS automatic rifles as they approached a house to serve the warrant. According to officials, an SKS rifle would be powerful enough to penetrate the bulletproof vests that are a standard item issued to each Birmingham officer.

...more...

[DavidMS]

56. The drug war claims more lives.

In this case the problem was the drug trade producing criminals.

[JayS]

57. It looks like my prediction came true, not that it took any...

...skill to make said prediction; is not the War On Drugs a smashing success...

I don't think there is an automatic version of the SKS but I may be wrong on this. It would not be legal in this country if it was automatic anyway. They must have mixed up automatic with semi-automatic, a common mistake. (Although law enforcement here has busted some people for having fully automatic weapons, explosives, and what not in recent months)

The bulletproof vests that these officers were most likely wearing, judging from the standard issue remark, are designed to block most handgun rounds, not rifle rounds. There are vests that will block rifle rounds but they are bulky and uncomfortable to wear. For these busts, I wish the officers were required to wear them though. Some cities may not be able to, or willing to, afford them. I am checking with my city to see if these are available to our officers. If the city will not buy them I am sure I can work an intersection for donations and be able to get the money for one in a few hours without even showing my legs. :)

[saigon68]

58. An SKS is perfectly legal

Its no more dangerous than a 30-30

[biftonnorton]

62. Yes And It Can Penetrate Ballistic Vests

But so can an icepick. Next thing you know, idiots will be wanting to ban icepicks. Come to think of it, I haven't seen an icepick in some time... hmmm... have they been banned? People, remember-- whatever you "ban", criminals will still get! Kinda why they're called criminals.

[Jake_DeLeon]

66. My friend has an SKS.

has the built in folding bayonet too.

My friend also smokes marijuana, he hasnt killed any cops though.

The war on drugs is definately the real problem.

[NickB79]

64. "Bulletproof" vests ARE NOT BULLETPROOF!!!!

I hate it that people use this term so often, and then hear a story like this saying "the bullets can penetrate a bulletproof vest." It makes people unfamiliar with firearms and ballistics think "my God, he must have been using a friggin cannon!" and start seeing visions of machine guns and such. Most "bulletproof" vests are ONLY rated to stop HANDGUN rounds, such as 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, etc. These vests were never designed to stop rifle rounds. Only high-class (either III or IV, I forget) will stop SOME rifle rounds, and even then they need to use ceramic inserts that make the vests bulky and heavy. Even with these plates, some big-game hunting rifles can still penetrate.

And lest you think you need a massive gun like a .50 BMG to penetrate a vest, that is not the case. It is a matter of velocity that defeats Kevlar, not mass. A small, fast bullet can slip between the fabric, which is why the .223 Rem/5.56mm Nato round used in the M16 is so good for defeating body armor. This round isn't even legal for deer in most US states though, being so small and low-powered. At really close range, there are even some rimfire rounds (the type used for squirrel and rabbit hunting) that will penetrate. The ironic thing is that virtually all of the guns banned under the 1994 AWB use rounds that are LESS powerful than common hunting rounds.

[DoNotRefill]

84. Heh...

"According to officials, an SKS rifle would be powerful enough to penetrate the bulletproof vests that are a standard item issued to each Birmingham officer."


That's because the vests they issue are CRAP, rated to only stop small PISTOL rounds. You can poke an icepick through a IIA police-issue vest using just your arm...they're kleenexes.

[saigon68]

89. The Chinese used to sell steel cored 7.62 x 39

It made the average flak jacket look like cheese (SWISS) Even a muzzle loader with a sabot round will penetrate cheap flak vests.

All this talk about guns is bad for the democratic party. The gun control folks here obviously want to allow Johnny Asscrap to be in charge of securing their lives

[Robin Hood]

97. Here in Portland Oregon the cops constantly kill unarmed minorities.

This is a very white city, so I don't know where the cops find all these African Americans that they kill. But they find them, and they are innocent and non-thrreatning, so they kill them, and they get away with it. Often receiving a promotion. I don't know what for, but I assume markmanship.

So that is why it's a little hard for me to be sympathetic to dead police men.

[sazdem]

99. That

Has got to be one of the most ridiculous posts I have seen in quite awhile. Am I suppose to believe that police officers in Portland Oregon are systematically hunting minorities? I certainly hope that you have some facts to back up this outlandish claim.

[Robin Hood]

105. lol..

I live here. The only people that the cops kill around here are African Americans, and they are a very small minority. The police killings in the last few years have been against un-armed African Americans who are sitting behind the wheel of their car.

Search the Oregonian news paper and do your own homework.

[JayS]

109. "do your own homework"

I did a search on your area and found nothing that could even remotely be considered reliable. We have had some shootings that part of our population is in an uproar over and if I read their press I would think our policemen are all violent racists. Three different investigations cleared the officers so now we have a national civil rights group here either fighting for what they believe in or soliciting donations; I'm not sure which. Looking into the cases they are mad about it does not take long to realize that there is no substance to their arguments that the police were at fault.

[Robin Hood]

110. Here you go for starters, I have to go to work or I would give you more.

http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/PPR26/hammickshooting26.html

You people think that I make this shit up?

[JayS]

114. This site is the equivalent of one we have here. Do you have...

...anything that would be less biased?

I see this statement so much...

The family admits Hammick had a past history with drugs, but claims that he was not violent. The coroner said Hammick had PCP and meth in his system.

[Robin Hood]

121. I see.

He's on drugs or had a history of drug use so he deserves to be shot and killed. The man was killed while he was sitting behind the wheel of his car.

And you call the family biased? Wow!!

[sazdem]

124. Last year

An Arizona police officer shot a woman while she was sitting in her car. Come to find out she attempted to run the officer over(They were both white by the way). The site you provided is clearly biased and leaves out almost all of the details surrounding the shootings. If a person is doing drugs, abusing children and robbing stores there is a good chance you are going to get shot. At the very least it is going to increase your chances.

[JayS]

131. I said that the site you provided is strongly biased.

It is an advocacy site, so naturally it would be.

[TX-RAT]

135. What a crock

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[metasphere]

103. I hope you are being sarcastic

to say that those police officers who were murdered deserved it.

Maybe we should just dispense with all laws and everyone can run wild. Who needs police officers?

[RummyTheDummy]

104. Here's another gem

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x633323

[Romulus]

136. spot the "illegal assualt weapon" that was used

Which is the "illegal assault weapon" that is

1) a semiautomatic
2) centerfire rifle
3) that fires a .30 cal round
4) that can be loaded with a detachable magazine

And which is the "legal okey-dokey hunting rifle" that also has all of the above?

#1


#2



Anyone? Anyone?

[Ripley]

142. You know, living right next door...

to B'ham in a smaller city...it's too bad that this thread has to be about how great guns are to some, when 3 guys doing their job got mowed down by some freak.

Anarchy is not the answer.