NY Times - - - Week In Review 4/9

B

Blue Jays

New member
Good Evening Everyone-

What's everyone think of the Week In Review section of the 4/9/2000 New York Times? There's a story called "Biography of a Gun" by Jayson Blair and Sarah Weissman. While I don't have a direct link, you can sign-up for free at The New York Times website.

Wait until you see the photograph that accompanies the story! Talk about violating basic firearm safety training. :eek:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Do NOT place finger inside on trigger until you are prepared to shoot.
<LI> Do not aim firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy...in this case it would be the reader of the article!
</UL>

The article goes on to discuss the Southern California "Ring of Fire" and how they promote crime and criminality, blah, blah, blah. Wait until you see the rap sheet on the last character to be in possession of that sidearm, he should have been in jail ages ago!

Eventually, everyone will begin to recognize the importance of personal responsibility in this world....

Regards,

~ Blue Jays ~
 
Gee, I hate to stop a good rant but the picture is part of a presentation.

In many motion pictures, the muzzle obviously sweeps the camera crew and the director.

So that is not a devasting criticism.

One should also try to understand your enemy and the Times made a good presentation that proponents of the RKBA should be ready to counter. At some time, the gun left the normal procedures due to a straw man sale.

The article then suggests to avoid that happening, registering guns and yearly inventories of one's holdings should be required. See below quote:
***
In August 1998, Classic resold the gun to a
Georgia woman for about $150. Investigators
believe that the woman was buying the 9
millimeter gun as a straw purchaser on behalf
of Charles Chapman. He was prohibited by
federal law, because of a previous felony
conviction, from purchasing firearms.
Investigators say they believe Mr. Chapman
drove the firearm to New York, where it was
sold to a member of the Bloods gang. And that
is how, investigators say, the gun got to
Demeris Tolbert.

Howard Safir, the New York City police
commissioner, has proposed tighter, uniform
national licensing regulations, and the
annual registration of firearms to hold
owners accountable for the illegal sales of
weapons they purchase.

****

Now I am not a registration fan as it is the real step to confiscation.

So the better response to the article is to suggest how strawman sales can be stopped.
That the BG wasn't in jail is a good one.

I am still outraged that the girl in Columbine who supplied some of the guns just walked
and actually made antigun speech.

One should argue the point they made which was that a gun got into the wrong hands too easily. Was that really the case? Are we happy with the current systems? Can they be fixed?
Do they need be?

That is the challenge of an article like this.
The proposal has surface validity. Thus, protests from the choir aren't really any good.

One might argue that abuse of purchasing by strawmen is not a significant problem (but it may be). One could argue that lax enforcement lets it happen, etc.
 
-----------------
"I am still outraged that the girl in Columbine who supplied some of the guns just walked
and actually made antigun speech."

-----------------
If i recall she said something like " if there were background checks i wouldn't have done it"

I guess it doesnt matter if it is illegal, only if you can get caught!

7
 
Glenn: How can strawman sales be stopped? Look, strawman, and everyotherman sales of cocaine are illegal, and they still happen, right?

No law is going to disarm criminals. Period. End of story. It's not even worth wasting time thinking about it.

Now, what WOULD be worth figuring out, is how to make the public realize this, and understand that disarming criminals is the last thing on the minds of the people pushing gun control.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
"No law is going to disarm criminals. Period. End of story. It's not even worth wasting time thinking about it."

An interview with Maryland's Gov. Glendening on CSPAN the other day indicated that some people are thinking about it. Gary Kleck estimates that 0.6 to 1.8 million guns are stolen each year in the U.S., enough to resupply every gun criminal in the country. One point made by Glendening in favor of smart gun technology is that it would make a stolen gun useless to the thief. Isn't that true?

Byron
 
Uh, No

If every gun in america was a "smart gun" I can gauranty that every method to make the gun "smart" would be circumvented by the criminals whom aquired the gun.

Even that paragon of virtue Colt has had to admit that due to liabality issues when the batteries die (and ALL batteries die) the gun becomes "dumb" so I guess cirminals (and those of us forced to use this stupid tech to extend the metaphore) will either remove the battery or leave the gun in the sun for 8 hours or so to dumb down our guns. If only putting a battery in a politician would turn it form "dumb" to "smart"



[This message has been edited by Nestor Rivera (edited April 10, 2000).]
 
Byron: Even supposing not one gun was stolen from this day forward, guns are easy to manufacture, and don't require specialized materials and tools. They could be manufactured on the black market easily enough. NOTHING can keep criminals from getting guns. Except putting them behind bars, and leaving them there.

Glendening isn't thinking about how to disarm criminals, he's thinking about how to disarm US, under the pretext that he's disarming criminals.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
I understand the arguments against smart guns as they are currently envisioned. But history has demonstrated that betting against technological innovation is not the way to fund your retirement account. Research into smart gun technology should go forward on as many fronts as possible; let's see what ideas develop over a period of time. Most attempts will be failures for one reason or another, of course. The breakthrough ideas, if there are any, will likely not come from firearms manufacturers, but from companies in some seemingly unrelated area who look at the problem with fresh eyes. But who knows? Nobody can predict now what the state of that technology will be twenty years down the road or what path it will take to get there.

Meanwhile, I share the concern that we will be forced into buying a smart gun technology that is too undeveloped to make it on its own in the marketplace. If a really good smart gun is developed, a lot of people will buy it voluntarily, and that is the only way it should succeed, not by legislative or regulatory fiat. I think our efforts should be directed against those possibilities by, for example, being very specific about what the irreducible, non-negotiable characteristics of an acceptable smart gun must be. Furnish the specs, in other words. That seems to me a better approach than standing with our arms folded declaring that "It'll never work."

Byron
 
I've written to the reporter/editor whenever I see them complain about the straw man
"problem".

I ask them to get a copy of ATF Form 4473 and read section 9a. Then I ask them which headline would get the straw man's attention:
"Straw purchaser get $5000 fine and mandatory 5 years in a Federal prison"
OR
"Politician's pass a One Gun A Month" law to deter straw purchasers".

They have yet to answer.

A variation of the enforce current laws bit.
I tell them that one or two highly publicized prosecutions like this would really curb that abuse. As in many, if not all, gun control laws, the real intent is to make life hard(er) for the gun owner.

------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
Byron: Sure, I think a reliable smart gun could theoretically be developed; You could fasten the gun to somebody permanently, with a deadman switch to destroy it if it's removed without a disarming code, for instance. Better be water-proof, though, 'cause I take frequent showers. And my wife might have something to say about it, too.

Seriously, this isn't a case of technology vs. nature, where we might very well win; This is a case of technology vs. technology; The real problem with smart guns is JAMMING. Any gun smart enough to identify it's owner is smart enough to be lobotimized by the right equipment, remotely. And jamming is always easier than defeating jamming; Just pour on the power, and you can defeat ANY technology!

So why don't we start with this simple requirement: The proposed smart gun has to be tested by being used exclusively by the bodyguards of politicians for five years, and then be released to the market if it worked.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Brett: Debating about what will turn out to be possible can raise issues, which is extremely valuable, but it can't resolve them. That will depend on the future course of events that are by their nature unpredictable. If resistance to remote jamming is important (yes!), then that goes on the spec sheet as non-optional. Will it be possible to meet that specification? Nobody knows, so we'll just have to see how things go.

I also don't know what the patent on a good smart gun technology would be worth, but hopefully enought to motivate a competitive effort involving many diverse players. Again, I think our task should not be to launch a Luddite attempt to thwart that effort (not that we could). Instead, the contribution of the gun community might be twofold (1) To provide the specifications for what an acceptable smart gun would be; and (2) to use our political muscle to insure that some unacceptable technology is not pushed into the marketplace by government action.

If we merely declare that It Can't Be Done, we will by default leave these things up to people like Gov. Glendening, who doesn't know anything about guns or the circumstances of their use. If this pony is going to end up riding in the right direction, we need to be in the saddle, too, not chasing along behind later when it's too late.

Byron
 
I don't think that "smart gun" technology is beyond the realm of possibility. Look at the progress in this century... from horse drawn wagons to the space shuttle.

Unfortunately, Gov. Glendenning, the Mass. AG, and the S&W deal impose an artificial deadline on smart guns that may be wholly unrealistic. It also will not solve the problem of the 100 million dumb guns already out there, which are ripe for the stealing and misuse.

Getting people to secure their guns, in gun safes small or large or secure rooms in homes, to protect them from theft, should be a very high priority. My guns are locked in a 400 lb safe when they aren't with me. The average residential burglar is an opportunist... in and out as quickly as possible. ANYTHING you can do to slow them down could prevent them from success. They generally aren't pros, and don't have safecracking tools or the expertise.

All this PC smart gun crap and these lawsuits are such a wasteful exercise in politics and posturing. Consider this: Paul Januzzo of Glock estimates that if NYPD alone were to dump their Glocks and get S&W's, it would cost $35 million. Take that figure and divide by $150, the wholesale cost of a small pistol safe. Result: you could buy about 233,000 pistol safes and distribute them free to the people of NY (or wherever), thereby securing that many or more guns from theft and misuse. Scale that up on a national level, and we could secure almost every pistol legitimately owned in this country. Please tell me why Klinton & Co can't see the very obvious. I despise them, and their thinly disguised motives, which IS NOT in our best interest.
 
Covert: I think you are right on the money. The 3-year deadline is out of thin air (when is Glendening's term up?). It will have to be extended as necessary, IMO, requiring only a good-faith effort and (ahem) some signs of progress. Sort of like re-certifying Mexico every year for its progress in fighting the Drug War. The trick will be to not allow these folks to define some halfway technology as good enough, thus my argument for a clear set of specs.

Your example about gun safes is exactly the kind of point that NRA and others need to publicize, because it exposes the politically-driven cynicism of the Clinton-HCI crowd. The fixation on trigger locks is mindless, when quick safes are so much better in every respect, including theft deterrence.
 
Good Evening Everyone-

Good point, 7.62 x 39

Glenn, we're absolutely on the same sheet of music in regard to straw purchases. I would have to believe that every law-abiding, upstanding gunowner would be against that criminal behavior.

The compelling photograph on the front of the section is certainly designed to shock the gentle non-gunowner into "imagining" himself or herself experiencing the horror of peering down the business-end of a sidearm.

The "cartoon-board" style narrative then tells the "biography" of a single firearm produced by Jennings, as if this one "agent" was representative of all that is bad in this world.

This strikes me as an awfully simplistic approach to the actual problem...the sophisticated puzzle of why evil people hurt, maim, and kill other humans without provocation.

If we can easily identify people like this man Chapman detailed below, why aren't we tossing him in jail and throwing the key into the ocean?

Yes, the pictures are all part of a "presentation," but I'm clear-headed enough to recognize that it is specifically designed to alarm, frighten, and prey upon certain segments of our society in an "editorial" fashion.

Best Regards,

~ Blue Jays ~
 
Blue Jay -
the reason the picture doesn't bother me is that all sides use similar imagery to make their point.

When I argue for the RKBA, I am capable of painting the image of a masked assailant at the foot of the stairs, carrying a razor,
with the noble dad and mom protecting their brood.

Guns and Ammo has a stock picture of such that they have run for years. There is the Beaver Clever family, dad with a shotgun,
Mom on the phone and the beautiful little boychild cowered behind the bed.

In fact, I've shot at targets with evil looking dudes pointing at me with a big gun,
so that doesn't bother me.

The strawman aspect bothers me, especially the lack of enforcement. Look at Columbine,
the guy who illegally sold the gun is appealing his sentence of 6 years as being to harsh. He claims he did not know why the gun was being purchased and folks in similar circumstances only got a few months. In fact, the DA recommended only 6 months probation but the judged nailed him.

The girl, who definitely was a straw person, just walked.

Then she goes to make antigun speeches.

Bah
 
Good Evening Everyone-

Glenn, my concern with the articles in the New York Times is that they overwhelmingly don't appear as "editorials", they are portrayed as honest-to-God "fact."

When we talk about imagery, I'm totally cool with using "hostage" targets and "friendly-BG-friendly" targets or reviewing the latest magazine articles. Guns & Ammo and similar publications are appealing to gunowners, they don't pretend to be impartial bearers of the daily news!

The bottom line is that the average reader/citizen thinks that straw purchasers/buyers exist on every streetcorner and that anyone can obtain an unlicensed gun within a half-hour. That just ain't so in 99% of the country!

One "journalist" had a story where he maintains:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"It is easier to obtain an illegal gun than to procure and fill a prescription for Tylenol with Codeine."[/quote]

That, is a bald-faced lie. Stage a race between two soccer moms from Anytown, USA:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Soccer Mom Alpha has to find a way to fill this Tylenol with Codeine prescription in a pharmacy of her choice.

<LI>Soccer Mom Bravo has to find and purchase a functioning sidearm. She can go anywhere in town and secure the help of all the straw purchasers that she can find.</UL>

Care to take bets on who would win the race?

The fact-of-the-matter is that illegal gun distribution is not as widespread as decent Americans are being led to believe. It simply isn't as pervasive countrywide as one would think.

Legal gunowners are not to be feared, we're not part of the problem! Heck, we should be embraced since we've been determined to be "clean" thanks to all the background checks. :)

Let's find this small minority of straw purchasers, lock them up, throw them in the ocean (thanks, Danger Dave ;) ), and hold onto the key in a safe place.

Regards to all,

~ Blue Jays ~
 
This issue of smart guns needs to die. I find it hard to believe that people who are supposed to be pro RKBA would even think of supporting this BS. Those of you who say technology has come a long way, ie horses to shuttle, need to remember that there has not been a single shuttle lauch without delay. Just think of how easy our lives were supposed to be with PC's. That is except when you have to rebuild your system cause of some fatal error. Have you tried to work on your car lately??? Used to be I could fix my cars on the side of the road with minimal tools. Now if my car breaks down I have to call for help on my handy technologially advanced cell phone, that is unless the batteries are dead or I just happen to be in a dead zone. Anything that is technologially advanced is also easy to break. This is why guns are as simple as they can be. The fewer gizmos the less likely that it will break when needed. I dont want my life depending on some chip that can get fried by a Radio Shak contraption, or overheat and shut down... I dont care how many PhD's came up with the plan and how advanced the manufacturing capabilities are. If my life depends on it it is KISS. Smart guns are the antithesis of KISS. Why do you think that the LEOS and bodyguards of these moronic liberal a$$holes are to be exempted from using smart guns? Cause everyone knows they can be disabled. The only way to disable my pre high-tech designed 1911 is to disable me, which is exactly how I want my self defense tools to be. Smart guns are a dumb idea, sponsored by a bunch of self serving hypocrites whose only purpose in life is to ensure that they can piss on anybody without possible recourse.

------------------
"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes."
-R.A. Heinlein
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top