Author: Kevin

KevinLeave a comment

I Need to Win the Lottery



After those last two fisks, I WANT TO BUY A GUN! I want to buy A LOT OF GUNS!

Anybody else seen CDNN’s latest catalog? (It’s a 13.5Mb PDF download – broadband strongly recommended.) It’s got things like this in it:

And this:

UPDATE: I found one of these “tangent sight” Hi-Powers in a local gun shop today. Asking price: $799

And this:

And I REALLY want one of these:

In .40 S&W. I really like that “Safety-Fast System” action in a single-action pistol. Hammer down and locked until the safety is released, then it’s ready to go! Besides, everybody should own a Hi-Power. It’s John Moses Browning’s other masterpiece.

*GASP!* Did You Know an AR-15 can SHATTER CONCRETE?

KevinLeave a comment

Well, yes, actually, I did. The pipsqueak .223 round will do a number on cinderblocks, as CNN illustrated quite graphically in May of 2003, and I covered their little piece of propaganda when I started this blog in The Lying “News” Media, Pt. II. But apparently this was news to a New York Daily News writer in her hysterical phillippic:

Weapons that can shatter concrete

Semiautomatic assault rifles have returned, and cops who face them know all too well what they can do
By PATRICE O’SHAUGHNESSY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

The Cold (That’s COLT, moron – ed.) AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle is long, black and sleek and shoots .223-caliber ammunition, or 2-inch long bullets.

First paragraph SENTENCE, two technical errors. The COLT AR-15 fires the .223 Remington/5.56Nato cartridge, with bullets (the projectiles) that are about 3/4″ long and 0.224″ in diameter. The overall cartridge (case, bullet, primer, powder) is about 2.2″ long. Let’s get more from the “expert,” shall we?

For 10 years, the sale and manufacture of the fearsome weapon was illegal anywhere in America.

Only Colt’s version, if it was marked “AR-15.” Lots of other manufacturers made it, and sold it with perfect legality. And many other manufacturers made weapons chambered for the (apparently fearsome) .223 Remington round. It’s quite the small game round.

Last week, as some Southern stores resumed sale of the rifle, Police Officer Darrell Corti demonstrated its destructive power.

Oh, I’ll bet he did. Just like Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne did back in May, 2003.

Corti aimed the weapon at a cinderblock at the NYPD firing range at Rodman’s Neck in the Bronx and pulled the trigger. The burst of gunfire rang loudly in the ears despite protective gear. The narrow bullet traveled at such a high velocity that it pierced a half-dollar-sized hole in the inch-thick side of the stone before shattering into shiny fragments.

“Burst” of gunfire? As in “full-auto?” Probably not, but that’s the impression it’s supposed to leave. Hell, you liked that? You should see what my 1896 6.5×55 Swedish Mauser will do to one! Or my 1917 Enfield chambered in .30-06. Or a .45-70 Government round that dates back to the Old West. Half-dollar-sized hole? Hell, that cinderblock would be dust!

The round is capable of penetrating some bulletproof vests.

Actually, the .223 round will penetrate just about any vest a duty officer would be willing to wear. I covered that, too in Speaking of Teddy Kennedy… Any rifle bullet will, including the venerable old .30-30 deer cartridge. Most police vests are designed to stop handgun bullets only.

“These are weapons of war, and to make them more readily available is certainly a concern for us,” said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. “It is a concern for police officers because they’re the ones at 2 a.m. who are most likely to confront these types of weapons.”

My 1896 Swede is a “weapon of war.” My 1917 Enfield is a “weapon of war.” My No. 5 Mk I Lee-Enfield, built in 1945 is a “weapon of war.” What’s your point?

But so-called “assault weapons” are not “more readily available.” They were “readily available” all through the so-called “ban”. That was a fact decried by the gun-control groups calling to “strengthen” the “ban.”

More than a decade ago, the AR-15 had been routinely used by dealers to guard drug dens. Now it can be legally sold in federally licensed gun shops in certain states, along with Uzis, Macs and Tec-9s, the sinister-looking pistols toted by thugs who devastated the city.

Now there’s a bold-faced lie. The AR-15 has never been “routinely” used by druggies because it’s too large to easily conceal. They liked small guns. Now, they did like the Uzi and the Mac and the Tec, but that’s because they can be concealed relatively easily. But every one of those fires the 9mm pistol cartridge, and is no more deadly that a police-issue Berretta or Glock.

But you’re not supposed to know that.

With the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban two weeks ago, will the guns that held neighborhoods in the clench of violence in the late 1980s and early 1990s be making a comeback?

Well, since they never left, why should they?

“Assault weapons will be more lethal and less expensive.”

Say WHAT? “More lethal” than WHAT? The same gun without a bayonet lug?

“High capacity magazines will be back in production for civilian sale,” the Consumer Federation of America darkly concluded after polling weapons manufacturers.

Yeaaa! No more $50 magazines!

New York’s own ban on assault weapons remains in effect, and the city has some of toughest gun laws in the nation, but traffickers have managed to smuggle in thousands of illegal handguns each year through Southern states, where lax laws allow multiple purchases and the use of so-called straw buyers.

Really? The law allows this? I thought those acts, like bringing guns into NYC and selling them out of the backs of cars was illegal. That means NOT ALLOWED. Did somebody forget to send me a memo when the definition of “illegal” changed? What about the Brady Background Check? Isn’t it working? No? Why not?

Authorities are concerned that as stores now offer the higher-powered weapons, as well as certain styles favored by criminals and magazines holding as many as 50 bullets, that the weapons will make their way into the arsenals of the city’s gangs and drug organizations.

Um, those weapons and magazines were already out there. If the cities “gangs and drug organizations” wanted them, they’ve got ’em already. The elevated price didn’t worry them any. They’re selling drugs. That’s a high profit-margin business, I understand.

“We are concerned anytime illegal firearms, whether handguns or rifles, are trafficked or possessed in New York City,” said William McMahon, special agent in charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives New York office. “In the hands of criminals, any of these weapons can be deadly.”

In the hands of criminals, any gun is “deadly.” Doesn’t matter if it’s a zip-gun, a sawed-off, or a full-auto. THEY’RE CRIMINALS! GUN LAWS MEAN JACK SHIT TO THEM.

The new availability of increased firepower is a major concern. Under the ban, dealers could not sell magazines holding more than 10 bullets.

Another bold-faced lie. Dealers could sell all the “pre-ban” “normal capacity” magazines they could get their hands on, and there were tens of thousands of them. Only the price went up. And criminals and drug dealers can afford it.

“With the magazine limitation lifted, you have in effect what amounts to putting an automatic weapon on the street,” said Kelly. “A 30- or 50-round clip put in a semiautomatic, you just keep pulling the trigger and you put out an awful lot of firepower.”

So, my post-ban AR with my pre-ban 30-round magazines is equivalent to an “automatic weapon?” Really? Tell that to the Army. They’ve been paying extra for the full-auto option.

“They’re going to shoot what they’ve got,” said a Bronx investigator.

But the National Rifle Association said the fears are unfounded.

“We’ve received phone calls from numerous rank-and-file police who know this ban had nothing to do with crime,” said Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman. “These guns have been available in different forms. A magazine is a piece of metal. The focus ought not to be on an inanimate object, but on the criminal, who gets guns through the black market.”

This is the writer’s deliberate effort to be “fair.” Moving on…

The ban on 19 weapons was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton after shootouts among drug dealers claimed hundreds of innocent lives in inner cities and deranged killers armed with assault rifles grabbed headlines in pristine suburbs.

Note that she didn’t say “shootouts among drug dealers armed with assault rifles.” That’s supposed to be implied, but deniable.

Assault rifles had such features as a folding stock, a night sight, a flash suppressor, a bayonet mount, a pistol grip and a large magazine capacity.

Right. And prohibiting the folding stock, flash suppressor, and bayonet mount made these guns so much more “less lethal.”

Now, read this part:

Of 125 guns taken off the street last year by just one firearms investigations team, 10 of them were banned weapons; most were cheap 9-mm. handguns.

What was the breakdown of those ten weapons? How many of them were AR-15s? Hmm? Enquiring minds want to know.

With the ban lifted, some criminals may covet the status and intimidating reliability of once forbidden firepower, investigators said.

Oh JESUS CHRIST! “Forbidden firepower” my aching ASS!

For example, the newly available Colt AR-15 bears a revered name in the gun industry, known for accurate, well-made weapons.

Likewise, the Mac-10 is twice the size of the Glock 9-mm. carried by cops, and packs a 30-shot ammunition clip.

Perhaps the cops should carry them, since they seem to have a hard time hitting anything with their 15-round Glocks. Amadou Diallo ring any bells?

Although the firms that manufactured some of the guns are defunct, stores may have inventories they were previously unable to sell. And authorities believe a manufacturer will fill the void. The Tec-9 is also a weapon that helped spike the city’s murders to a record 2,245 in 1990.

“The Tec-9 has the same power as the Glock, but it’s a bigger gun, with a big handle, and you can add a flash suppressor – and it’s a very menacing gun, and that’s why criminals wanted it,” said a federal firearms investigator.

“Currently the Tec-9s are the biggest concern,” added a detective in the firearms unit. “They’re everywhere … and in the winter, these guns are easily concealed under bulky jackets.”

Wait, wasn’t this story about how the AR-15 could shatter concrete? Penetrate police vests? Now it’s about Tec-9s? (Which you could still get after the “ban?”)

“It remains to be seen what the effect will be, but lifting the ban can only bring about bad things,” Kelly said.

Really? Only bring “bad things?” Want to bet you won’t be able to tell the difference?

DAMN I’m tired of these bloviating, mendacious, fearmongering ASSHOLES!

UPDATE, 9/29: Head of Head’s Bunker liked Ms. O’Shaughnessy’s article so much, he created an educational poster suitable for schools and daycare centers and everywhere ignorant people need to be frightened. Excellent! Give it a look.

KevinLeave a comment

More Foaming-at-the-Mouth from the GFWs™



One of the posters at AR15.com linked to this lovely little op-ed in the online version of the Arizona Republic:

Bullet-riddled rifle ban explained

Peter Aleshire

Sept. 16, 2004 01:51 PM



I finally figured out why President Bush and the Republican Congress let the ban on assault weapons expire.

Initially, I thought Bush was just so afraid of the foam-at-the-mouth National Rifle Association that he was willing disagree with two thirds of the voters and flip-flop on his four-year-old campaign promise.

But then I read about the federal court case in New York that established that Osama bin Laden’s boys bought 50 sniper rifles in the U.S. and shipped them to Afghanistan right before the U.S. invasion. Snipers can down helicopters and kill you at a range of half a mile with these .50 caliber rifles, which aren’t included in the assault weapon ban.

So, obviously, Bush let the loophole-ridden assault weapon ban expire so he can quickly introduce a meaningful ban on the weapons terrorists, gang members, drug smugglers and general all purpose nut-cases could use to spread terror and mow down cops. Granted, the now dead ban did prevent the nutcases from buying 30-clip magazines, but left most of the most deadly weapons freely available. Clearly, we needed tough restrictions in these terrorist-tainted times.

I feel so bad for having doubted the President.

So expect that meaningful crackdown to protect American this week.

Next week at the latest.

Right?

George?

Are you there?

Mr. Aleshire’s email address is [email protected], so I sent him the following response:

Mr. Aleshire:

I read your short op-ed piece with interest. It’s good to know that Dan Rather’s excursion from truthfulness isn’t an isolated case, I suppose.

First, President Bush did keep his campaign promise, inasmuch as he could. No bill ended up on his desk to sign. Not even the Democrats in Congress wanted to seriously consider renewing the “Assault Weapons Ban” during an election year. It cost them too much the first go-around, and they knew it. You do understand the function of our government, don’t you? The legislature legislates, and the President either passes or vetoes? He doesn’t do much introduction of new legislation. It’s not in his job description.

I’m curious, do you have a reference to that “federal court case in New York that established that Osama bin Laden’s boys bought 50 sniper rifles in the U.S. and shipped them to Afghanistan right before the U.S. invasion”? I’m really interested in that, seeing that the only reference to Bin Laden and .50 caliber sniper rifles I could find had to do with twenty-five (not fifty) .50 caliber Barrett rifles shipped to Afghanistan in 1988 (not 2001). According to the manufacturer, Mr. Barrett, he was in full compliance with the law at the time, as the U.S. government was providing material assistance to the mujahadeen (read: “our bastards”) then. (See this link: http://www.barrettrifles.com/news/ltr_laden.htm.)

The case you’re referring to must be U.S. v Usama Bin Laden et al., Feb. 2001. So there are two errors, right there: the quantity, and the date, but since there’s no attribution to the actual case, you’re just hurling unsubstantiated accusations. You’re quite good at fearmongering! Good thing your journalist friends have editors to keep the media on the straight-and-narrow! Instead, they just publish tripe like this.

Also, I was fascinated to read that “the now dead ban did prevent the nutcases from buying 30-clip magazines,” especially since when I bought my “post-ban” AR-15 a couple of years ago, I was able to purchase – perfectly legally – functional 30-ROUND magazines for it that had been manufactured before the ban. What, I’m not a nutcase, then?

You’ve been drinking the Violence Policy Center’s kool-aid, haven’t you?

I’m one of the “pajamahadeen” Mr. Aleshire, one of the bloggers who fact-check and expose the bias and outright lies of the “old media.” Your peice, and this rebuttal, are now up on my site where about 400 people a day will see it – and will pass it on to others. There’s a lot of us “gunbloggers” out there. Together, we have quite a readership!

Tag! You’re it!

I also copied the Corrections department. And if you liked that piece by him, read this one, Vote Bush: Employ Bloggers.

Hey, you other gun-blogging pajamahadeen! FIRE MISSION!

KevinLeave a comment

Kerry Flip-Flops. Again. Blame Placed on Aides. Again.



No “Assault Rifle” After All.

And we should be surprised… Why? (Hat tip, Instapundit.)


No Assault Rifle for Kerry, After All

By JODI WILGOREN

Published: New York Times, September 27, 2004

Senator John Kerry’s campaign said yesterday that Mr. Kerry did not own a Chinese assault rifle, as he was quoted as saying in Outdoor Life magazine, but a single-bolt-action military rifle, blaming aides who filled out the magazine’s questionnaire on his behalf for the error.

Michael Meehan, a spokesman for the campaign, said Mr. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, owns two guns, a double-barreled 12-gauge shotgun and the rifle, which Mr. Meehan said Mr. Kerry “keeps as a relic” and had never fired. Mr. Meehan said the gun had no make or model markings on it and that Mr. Kerry “got it from a friend years ago,” adding that such rifles were first manufactured in Russia more than 100 years ago and were used by the North Koreans and the Vietcong.

The clarification came in response to an article yesterday in The New York Times quoting Mr. Kerry’s response to a question by Outdoor Life: “What is your favorite gun?”

“My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam,” said Mr. Kerry, a veteran, according to the October issue. “I don’t own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle.”

Though the comment was presented by Outdoor Life as part of an “exclusive interview with the two presidential candidates,” four pages that included many long, conversational answers using first-person pronouns, Mr. Meehan said Mr. Kerry’s portions were written by his staff. A public relations representative for Outdoor Life did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Wow. Two whole guns. And he hunts deer with his trap gun? Crawls through the mud with it?

Yeah. Right.

I figured something like this would come out. Kerry’s stupid enough and haughty enough to actually have an AK-47 bring-back and admit to it, but as soon as the SHTF, he’d deny, deny, deny. After all, laws are for the little people don’tcha know?

With a staff as obviously incompetent as it is, this man expects us to select him for President? He can’t select a decent staff. We’re to believe he can select a competent cabinet? And what about Supreme Court justices?

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin shows why she’s a professional, and I’m just an amateur at this.

KevinLeave a comment

I Suppose This is Bush’s Fault, Too?

It looks like Mt. St. Helens is considering redecorating again. Can we blame this on the failure to ratify the Kyoto Treaty?

Let’s see… Four hurricanes whack Florida in six weeks, with the remnants causing flooding in the Eastern Seaboard and Midwest, now we’ve got earthquakes at Mt. St. Helens. All we’re missing is a plague of locusts, and the Cubs winning the pennant and the apocalypse will be upon us. Ashcroft must be so happy!

And Kerry still can’t win.

KevinLeave a comment

Now That They Smell Blood in the Water (much of it their own) The Media Attacks!



I stayed away from the Kerry “assault rifle” story because it was being covered so well by so many others, but now the New York Times has a piece on it. The NYT! Best I can figure, they believe that if they now savage Kerry instead of along with Bush, they can deflect the charge of Leftist partisanship. (Too late, boys. Far too late.)

Anyway, if you’re one of the six people who haven’t heard the story, Bush and Kerry were interviewed by Outdoor Life magazine on various hunting, fishing, and shooting questions, but the question carried early on in the article was this:

OL: Are you a gun owner? If so, what is your favorite gun?

And the answers were:

Bush: Yes. My favorite gun is a Weatherby, Athena 20-gauge (over/under).

Kerry: My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don’t own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle.

Oh, really? First, as Instapundit asked, is there any question that Kerry won’t answer with a reference to his time in Vietnam?

Well, the NYT had some other questions:

In Magazine Interview, Kerry Says He Owns Assault Rifle

By JODI WILGOREN

Published: September 26, 2004

Senator John Kerry, a hunter who supported the recently expired assault weapons ban, frequently tells audiences he has never met anyone who wanted to use an AK-47 to shoot a deer. But it is not clear what Mr. Kerry does with the Chinese assault rifle he told Outdoor Life magazine he kept in his personal collection.

In interviews appearing in the October issue of Outdoor Life, Mr. Kerry and President Bush were asked whether they were gun owners, and, if so, to identify their favorite gun.

Mr. Bush named the Weatherby 20 gauge (although he gave a slightly different answer in a separate chat with Field and Stream magazine.) Mr. Kerry’s answer was more complicated.

“My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam,” Mr. Kerry told the magazine. “I don’t own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle.”

Mr. Kerry’s campaign would not say what model rifle Mr. Kerry was referring to, where he got it and when, or how many guns he owned. A spokesman for the senator, Michael Meehan, said Mr. Kerry was a registered gun owner in Massachusetts. On Thursday morning, Mr. Meehan said he had not been able to ask Mr. Kerry about the rifle because of Mr. Kerry’s hoarse voice; he did not respond to further inquiries.



You’ve got to be kidding me. They actually expect anybody to buy that excuse?

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association – which has given Mr. Kerry “F” ratings throughout his career and backs Mr. Bush’s re-election – said the Outdoor Life comment made Mr. Kerry’s support of the assault weapons ban disingenuous.

“It’s O.K. for John Kerry to own these kinds of firearms, but it’s not O.K. for John Q. Public?” Mr. Arulanandam said, noting that if Mr. Kerry brought the gun home from the war as a souvenir he could be subject to court-martial. “He certainly owes people an explanation as to why there’s a double standard.”

Stephen P. Halbrook, a gun rights lawyer who has argued several cases before the Supreme Court, said the most common Chinese assault rifles, known as SKS clones, were not among the 19 models banned under the 1994 law. But some SKS’s have magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which violates a Massachusetts law against large-capacity weapons, Mr. Halbrook said. If the gun is fully automatic, Mr. Halbrook said, it is illegal in Massachusetts and would require a federal permit if Mr. Kerry kept it at one of his homes in Pennsylvania and Idaho.

Such permits are not public records.

Bob Ricker, a former N.R.A. lawyer who is now a consultant for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said he was not worried by Mr. Kerry’s answer because “he knows a lot about firearms and he’s also one of the most credible individuals when it comes to talking about gun-violence prevention and what it takes to keep weapons of war off the street.”

In other words, Mr. Ricker just answered Andrew Arulanandam’s question in the affirmative. It is OK for John Kerry to own an “assault rifle” but not John Q. Public, and there is a double standard.

Mr. Bush does not have such high-powered weapons but seems unable to pick a consistent favorite. To Field and Stream, he said, “My favorite gun is the first gun that my dad gave me, which is a Winchester .22 pump, Model 61.”

Obviously the NYT just doesn’t understand gun people (which Public Editor Daniel Okrent admitted to in his piece Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? on July 25:

But if you’re examining the paper’s coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn’t wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you’re traveling in a strange and forbidding world.

I’ve got several “favorite guns.” My favorite target pistol is my Remington XP-100. My favorite rifle is my 1917 Enfield. My favorite handgun is my Kimber Classic. So, what’s their point? Anyway, to continue:

He also mentioned the Weatherby he chose for Outdoor Life, saying that it was a “custom-made gun presented to me by the C.E.O. of the company, Mr. Weatherby.” Mr. Bush said he had “six or seven guns” in his office safe, including two .22’s, deer rifles and a .243-caliber “varmint” rifle.

“Given to me by the former lieutenant governor of Texas, Bob Bullock, my old buddy,” Mr. Bush explained of the .243-caliber rifle, “who on his deathbed said, ‘I want to give you a gun.’ “

Damn, I like President Bush!

The question I find most interesting, though, is where did Kerry get a “Communist Chinese Assault Rifle?” Was it from Ho Chi Minh on his deathbed? Or one of those “foreign leaders” who wants Kerry to be President? Or maybe Johnny Chung? Or did he “illegally import it” as a bring-back from Vietnam?

With all due respect, Mr. Kerry, the laryngitis dodge ain’t working. Answer the questions! America deserves to know.


More Harvard PhD Fisking….

KevinLeave a comment

Well, there was some pretty enthusiastic response from the last piece, so I’ll continue my dissection of Harvard Magazine’s recent piece, Death by the Barrel, a review of Harvard PhD. David Hemmenway’s most recent book, Private Guns, Public Health: A Dramatic New Plan for Ending America’s Epidemic of Gun Violence. In the last installment I dissected Dr. Hemenway’s bait-and-switch between a legitimate question, “Why manufacture guns that go off when you drop them?”, and a bogus diversion to the topic of “childproof guns.” Now we’ll continue where I left off.

The next paragraph of the piece is

Hemenway’s work on guns and violence is a natural evolution of his research on injuries of various kinds, which he has pursued for decades. (In fact, it could be traced as far back as the 1960s, when, working for Ralph Nader, LL.B. ’58, he investigated product safety as one of “Nader’s Raiders.”) Hemenway says he doesn’t have a personal issue with guns; he has shot firearms, but found the experience “loud and dirty—and there’s no exercise”—as opposed to the “paintball” survival games he enjoys, which involve not only shooting but “a lot of running.” He also happens to live in a state with strong gun laws. “It’s nice,” he says, “to have raised my son in Massachusetts, where he is so much safer.”

Oh, please. First, we establish Dr. Hemenway’s bona fides by revealing that he’s a Naderite, out for the selfless defense of the little guy against rapacious and irresponsible corporations (like gun manufacturers, natch.) But! Hemenway doesn’t have a “personal issue” with guns, he’s shot them, so he’s shown himself to be an unbiased observer! He even plays paintball!

Ladies and gentlemen, the presidential nominee for the Democrat party shoots trap. That doesn’t make him impartial when it comes to firearms. A rose by any other name…

All of this prelude is predictably ruined by the last two lines: “He also happens to live in a state with strong gun laws. ‘It’s nice,’ he says, ‘to have raised my son in Massachusetts, where he is so much safer.'” Safer than where? He lives in BOSTON. Safer than Chicago, with its even more restrictive gun laws. Safer than D.C. with its near-absolute prohibition on firearms, certainly. But Dr. Hemenway, or at least the article author, seems to credit that safety to Massachussetts’ “strong gun laws.” Well, according to this article, apparently not.

Slayings raise fears that more will follow

Boston officials wary of return of ’90s gang wars
By John McElhenny
and Ron DePasquale, Globe Correspondents, 2/16/2004

The brazen killings of two Boston teenagers in crowded public settings over the last three days have ignited concerns about a return to the street violence that plagued the city a decade ago.

Nine homicides have occurred in Boston in the first six weeks of the year, a rate that far exceeds last year, when three people were killed by mid-February. Boston did not see its ninth homicide last year until mid-April.

—

Specialists said that violent crime across the country has remained flat in recent years, with a notable exception: Gang-related violence is on the rise.

James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University, said gang-related violence had increased in particular in Chicago and Los Angeles, where gang activity grew in the late 1980s and early 1990s before spreading to other cities.

Many gang leaders in Boston and other cities were imprisoned on federal charges in the late 1980s and early 1990s but have now been released, Fox said.

“They’re coming back to their old neighborhoods, and their old pals, and their old ways,” said Fox. “There’s reason for concern that gang killings could be on the rise.”

Gangs fueled the violence that pushed Boston to a record-high 152 murders in 1990. The violence that year continued into the next year, and by Feb. 15, 1991, the city reported 18 homicides.

In the early 1990s, the city’s public safety officials fought back with a variety of efforts and homicides fell sharply throughout the decade.

Some attributed the drop to law enforcement programs such as the police department’s community policing approach and the “antigang violence unit,” which confiscated guns and sent hundreds of violent young people to prison. Others credited the delivery of more social services and the expansion of programs such as the Safe Neighborhoods Plan, which encouraged people to serve as role models in their neighborhoods.

By 2001 the city’s homicide rate had fallen to 66. It fell to 60 in 2002 and 41 last year.

Philip J. Carver, president of the Pope’s Hill Neighborhood Association in Dorchester, said the “Boston miracle” that saw violent crime plummet in the second half of the 1990s was due to effective cooperation among various law enforcement agencies, from police to parole officers to the Suffolk District Attorney’s Office.

But a few years ago, Carver said, the money that had gone to some neighborhood anticrime efforts dried up and children began filling the vacuum in gang leadership created when the older generation went to prison.

“I’m not saying we got lazy, but we lost focus,” said Carver. “Once we took the higher echelon of gang leaders out, we became lax.”

That’s interesting. Note that they didn’t give credit for the low rate of homicide to Massachussetts’ gun laws, but to aggressive prosecution of gang leaders. And after “losing focus” that problem has reasserted itself as an increase in homicide.

Personally, I’d rather live in Tucson, where according to this National Institute of Justice report (PDF) we had a a mean homicide rate of 8.31/100,000 population over the period from 1985 to 1994, and an average population of a bit over 405,000. Boston during that same period had a mean homicide rate of 17.0 and a mean population of 571,000. Hell, Phoenix had a mean rate of 13.57 and a mean population of almost 974,000. Arizona is a border state and a major thoroughfare for drug traffic.

In case you weren’t aware, Arizona also allows unlicensed open carry of firearms, no waiting period, and private transfers are perfectly legal. It’s also a Class III state (full-auto and suppressors are legal here.) We got licensed concealed carry in 1994.

But Massachussetts’ gun laws are responsible for it being safe. Check.

Next paragraph:

Statistically, the United States is not a particularly violent society. Although gun proponents like to compare this country with hot spots like Colombia, Mexico, and Estonia (making America appear a truly peaceable kingdom), a more relevant comparison is against other high-income, industrialized nations. The percentage of the U.S. population victimized in 2000 by crimes like assault, car theft, burglary, robbery, and sexual incidents is about average for 17 industrialized countries, and lower on many indices than Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.

This is that “just enough accuracy” part I spoke of in the first piece. However, this paragraph fails to note that the U.S. has far, FAR less “crimes like assault, car theft, burglary, robbery” than the UK – the industrialized European country with by far the most restrictive firearms laws. Why that particular omission, I wonder?

More:

“The only thing that jumps out is lethal violence,” Hemenway says. Violence, pace H. Rap Brown, is not “as American as cherry pie,” but American violence does tend to end in death. The reason, plain and simple, is guns. We own more guns per capita than any other high-income country—maybe even more than one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country. A 1994 survey numbered the U.S. gun supply at more than 200 million in a population then numbered at 262 million, and currently about 35 percent of American households have guns. (These figures count only civilian guns; Switzerland, for example, has plenty of military weapons per capita.)

Wait a minute…

What difference does it make if Switzerland has “plenty of military weapons per capita?” The bulk of those guns are kept in Swiss homes. All males of military age are required to keep an honest-to-jeebus assault rifle at home, and ammunition for it. Finland has a lot of guns and its lethal violence rate is quite low, too. According to Ryerson University of Ontario, about 36% of households in Switzerland contain a firearm, about 50% of households in Finland, and about 35% of households in the U.S. (which agrees with the Harvard article). What this means is that gun ownership is more widespread in Finland (a higher percentage own firearms) but American gun owners tend to own a lot more firearms per person. If there are more households containing guns, and the reason, “plain and simple” for America’s higher level of lethal violence is gun availability, shouldn’t Switzerland and Finland have higher or at least equivalent levels of lethal violence compared to the United States? That’s what the next paragraph says:

“It’s not as if a 19-year-old in the United States is more evil than a 19-year-old in Australia—there’s no evidence for that,” Hemenway explains. “But a 19-year-old in America can very easily get a pistol. That’s very hard to do in Australia. So when there’s a bar fight in Australia, somebody gets punched out or hit with a beer bottle. Here, they get shot.”

Ah! Now it’s not guns, but handguns that are the cause. Or are they?

In general, guns don’t induce people to commit crimes. “What guns do is make crimes lethal,” says Hemenway. They also make suicide attempts lethal: about 60 percent of suicides in America involve guns. “If you try to kill yourself with drugs, there’s a 2 to 3 percent chance of dying,” he explains. “With guns, the chance is 90 percent.”

Hold your horses. You’re doing another bait-and-switch. We were talking about criminal assaults, and now you’ve jumped to suicide. Apples and oranges, as I’ve illustrated before.

I’m quite willing to concede that firearms are more lethal than beer bottles or even knives. The level of violence among young males is also quite high. But I believe it really is culture that determines whether youth violence results in death or not. I covered part of this in the three Dangerous Victims essays (see the last three links under Best Posts in the left column of the blog). I covered it in more detail in a much older post, Racist!™

Homicide in the United States is tremendously concentrated in a very small portion of the population. If that portion of the population suffered homicide at the same rate as the rest of society, America’s homicide rate would be near middle of the pack for industrialized Europe. Read the piece, at least the first half. It’s not something you’re likely to see in the mainstream media.

In the next piece, I’ll deconstruct the “guns cause suicide” meme. Again.

KevinLeave a comment

Alternate Universes

Jeff Soyer has an interesting post up in the “What if?” column.

So here is a reader participation question. Let’s pretend it is now the year 2020 and liberals and Democrats have ruled the world. A few years ago (think England or Canada) they passed laws requiring that everyone submit to a federal (i.e. country-wide, universal) gun registration program. Yeah, it probably wouldn’t happen but, BUT! What if it did? And then, a few years later, in (our hypothetical scenario here) they decided to (like England and Australia in years past) decided that NO ONE should own a gun because it’s for the “common good” and they (the US Government) decided to use that registration list to start confiscating all citizens’ firearms…



Folks, I know this is just idle speculation right now but it really ISN’T so far-fetched. What if it really happened?

What would you do?

Go answer there. This should be fascinating.