I've been to too many police officers' funerals (Bloomberg anti-gun rant)

WASHINGTON - Mayor Bloomberg went nuclear on Congress yesterday - unleashing an unexpected tirade against a proposed gun bill that he lambasted as a "God-awful piece of legislation."

It was the finishing touch of an extraordinarily passionate speech by Bloomberg, who went so far as to warn that more cops and innocents would die until gun control laws are toughened up.

"I have been to too many police officers' funerals to believe that this bill actually has a prayer's chance in hell," the mayor testified before the House subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security.

"But if if does pass, the next time an officer is attacked by an illegal gun - and I say 'next time' because until Congress gets serious about illegal guns, more police officers and many more citizens will be murdered - there can be no denying that those who vote for this bill will bear some of the responsibility," he said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/403907p-342097c.html

I don't often agree with him, but this is one time.

guns suck

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h5005_ih.xml

To avoid all the hyperventilating hoo ha.

Lets Blackwater et all merc carry Class III firearms (machine guns and "explosive devices" RPG's, grenade launchers) without any regard for state or local law.

Full automatic weapons are good enough for Blackwater goons, not good enough for me.

I've also heard it referred too as the "Domestic Mercenary Enabling Act"

I served with him.....This is unbelievable..

It was the most gut wrenching, soul effecting life long memory that has ever occurred to me..

These illegal guns must be taken out of circulation and destroyed. The laws for those possessing these weapons must be toughend until getting caught is not worth the penalty.

They are stripping the ATF from offerring the public crime gun trace data....

They are intentionally setting up the next disaster....massacre....The gun lobby is behind this and has entirely too much power....

<snip>
Critics of the bill say it would weaken federal gun laws because it blocks the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives from offering public crime gun trace data, eliminates the current requirement that gun dealers report multiple handgun sales to law enforcement officials, limits the ability of the ATF to search dealer sales records in criminal probes and creates a loophole in the federal ban on the importation of nonsporting firearms
<snip>

that he was not an opponent of the Second Amendment or of gun ownership. Starting of with that is apparently mandatory.

My problem with it is that it gives "private security contractors" immunity from certain state's firearm laws. Bullshit - any law good enough for Blackwater or Whackenhut should be good enough for plain old me.

The biggest part of the bill seem to reflect the long term effect of the Machine Gun ban of 1986. With that ban it was illegal for non-Military or Police to make or import NEW Machine Guns, but you could buy and sell existing Machine Guns. With the shift to private contractors since Vietnam this was sooner or later to become a problem. With more and more Contractors being used the need for them to have Automatic Weapons increased and the existing supply of them in the US would sooner or later no longer suffice. Thus the need to permit such contractors to buy and import automatic Weapons (Mostly like H&K MP5s).

Please note only one LEGAL automatic weapon has ever been used in a crime (And that was by a Police Office) since the 1938 Firearms act. 95% of all crimes use pistols NOT rifles, Shotguns etc (And knives and clubs are used more often than Rifles or Shotguns and that includes both Automatic and Non-Automatic Rifles and Shotguns). Basically my point is Automatic Rifles and machine Guns are NOT a problem.

Pistols are a problem. Most of the bill does NOT affect pistols, but important parts do. Those sections are much more interesting. First is in Section 3 of the bill, which add to the existing requirement of written permission a verbal permission if a parent is present with a person under age 18 if that person is using a pistol. Seems to be a technical correction in the correct use of that word, how much different is it for a parent to give verbal permission and stay with the Under 18 shooter than to give Written Permission? In my opinion none, thus a proper technical correction.

The Bill also Eliminates 922 (s) which Covers the how handguns were to be transferred before the implementation of the Instant Check System, with the implementation of the instant check system it is obsolete. And then the first line in 922 (t) which address the period of transfer from the old manual system to the Instant Check System.

Another section eliminates sending information to the State Police at the same time as sending it to ATF. Another section prohibits collection of data on individuals.

As a whole not a significant weakening of the law, so most of the objection is for Political advantage (on both side) than any real change in the law.

.....the virtually complete absence of crimes committed with legally owned machine guns proves that rigorous gun control works, and works well....

Which are regulated less than Pistols and Automatic Weapons shows the opposite (i.e. the LACK of Control shows a drop in crime).

The problem is that people who mis-use weapons want to misuse a small weapon like a Knife or Pistol NOT a large weapon like a Rifle, Shotgun or Submachine gun. Thus Regulations have to be harder on Pistols than other Weapons, but regulations on Large Weapons are a waste of Tax money and a Mis-Appropriation of resources better used otherwise.

certianly not crime, as a few nights ago some guy in my area shot and killed 6 people at a party with a handgun and a rifle.

Weapon use

In 2004, 22% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 46% of all robberies, compared with 20% of all aggravated assaults and 8% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2004.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2003, 53% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 13% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 16% with other weapons.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm


Notice "Other Guns" including Shotguns, Rifles, Assault Rifles, Machine Guns etc had the same rate as "Other Weapons" just slightly more than "Knives" and just three time the number of crime committed with "Blunt Objects".

Weapons Distribution

The UCR Program collects weapon data for murder, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses. An examination of these data indicated that most violent crime (30.7 percent) involved the use of personal weapons, such as hands, fists, feet, etc. Firearms were used in 26.4 percent and knives or cutting instruments were used in 15.5 percent of violent crime. Other dangerous weapons were used in 27.3 percent of violent offenses. (Based on Tables 2.9 and 19.)

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html

Thus in 2004 the FBI says when in comes to Violate Crime the use of "hands, Fists, Feet, etc" exceeded the violate crime done with a Firearm.

Table 2.9 of the FBI report shows that you had 7,265 handgun murder compared to only 800 Rifles and Shotgun murders (and 1,866 Knives, 663 for Blunt instruments and 933 for fists feet and other parts of the body).

Thus my point, Rifles and Shotguns, while used in crime tend to be used less than Knives, Blunt Instruments and even fists and feet.

Sorry about the error, the Statistics are quite clear, it is PISTOLS that are the number one choice of Criminals, followed by Knives, Fists, and "Blunt Instruments" BEFORE we get to non-handgun Firearms.

I did not catch my mistake till after the correction period had expired, i regret any confusion.

of Class 3 owners would show a socio economic trend. People with lots of money don't commit violent crimes as a TREND. Crime is driven by poverty.

You can not get an nfa LEGAL select fire weapon for less than 7000.

The fact that crimes are committed with machine guns is proof that criminals don't care about gun control. Ask the guys who shot up the lapd with full auto ak-47s. I am sure they were very concerned with the 1938 law that makes their machine guns illegal. Shooting with the intent to kill people while committing a felony pretty much trumps a firearms violation IMHO.

edit grammar

While Poverty is a factor in Crime, in studies where Poverty was "Controlled" (for purposes of the Study) no connection exist between Crime and Poverty (Classic case of this is Pittsburgh and its Steel Vally when the Steel mills all closed down in the early 1980s, income fell drastically but crime did NOT go up).

On the other hand, there is a connection with people who tend to do criminal acts and poverty. Basically people who tend to do Crime also have other social mis-adjustments that lead to poverty (i.e. they tend to look at violence as a solution o their problem even at work, but employers do not like violent employees thus they tend to be last hired, first fired which lead to lost of income and poverty, which they address by committing crimes).

I know the above is a fine line, but it is the line. A lot of crime can be reduced by employment but only long term employment WITH training on how to be a good employee, not just being hired for a job.

Civilian rifles and shotguns (including those with handgrips that stick out) are almost never used in homicides, either. Most recent figures from the FBI:



I see all rifles combined accounted for only 1.15% of homicides in New York in 2004. Nearly 7 times more people were murdered using fists and feet. Over 17 times as many people were killed with knives than rifles.

Tell me again how rifles with handgrips that stick out are the "weapons of choice of criminals"?

Eagerly awaiting the answer...

....graphically showing what a problem pistols are.....

:thumbsup:

... when I bought two or more at the same time.

Someday, the sporter clause will actually be repealed. I'm looking forward to that.

Lets see Bloomberg put his money where is mouth is about "get(ting) serious about illegal guns" and demand that the NY legislature (or NYC), institute some hard time for those whom illegally possess a firearm.

Sign on to "Project Exile".

Instead of 5 years, make it 10 years federal time (mandatory... no parole), for any felon to be in possession of a firearm. Make it 20 years mandatory (served consecutively), for using a firearm in the commission of a crime.

That's not going to help anything, other than to make it easier for Rampart CRASH team like cops to plant guns on minorities.

I don't know, maybe we could follow the Europe model and ... actual help people and give them hope and a sense of community and belonging, instead of spending our money on invading random countries for bullshit reasons?

Fortunately though crime's on the decrease overall. Maybe it's the obesity epidemic-- we're just getting too fat to be violent criminals these days. Ok, maybe I'm a cynic.

The members of Congress who are pushing this bill are nothing but shameless, brown-nosing, spineless, amphibious-brained, conscienceless whores for the NRA -- and that goes for whoever's supporting it, Republican or Democrat.

I love this bit of complete B.S. that crawled out from the mind of Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.):

Feeney ...said he's concerned that cities, such as New York, want to misuse the federal gun data in an effort to "affect national policy" through civil litigation.

That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Let's completely tie the hands of law enforcement whenever they investigate dealers during criminal probes, prevent the public from knowing anything about where guns were obtained from should that gun ever be used in a crime (the NRA is apparently sick and tired of embarrassing gun crime data being made available to the public), as well as nullify an existing ban (a law of the land, under the Constitution) on the importation of non sporting firearms -- all so that an impossible and preposterous scenario of NYC rewriting existing gun laws through an imaginary lawsuit won't occur.

So after all these decades of federal gun data being assembled, where are all those lawsuits filed by those NYC and other big city Redcoats, in their never-ending attempt to tear up the Constitution and nefariously grab guns away from all those patriotic Minutemen? 'Lawsuits against gun manufacturers', the NRA Cro-Magnons/followers say? Those had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment -- and they've have been outlawed, anyway. So what's Feeney blathering about?

:freak: :freak: :freak: :freak: :freak:


Anybody who buys the NRA's bunk on almost anything is a total fool. Maybe even worse than a
fool.

This Mexican-American enjoys shooting firearms and am glad that my state does not have as restrictive laws as NY or other worse anti-gun states.

I do wish the 1986 new machine gun ban were removed. I would not mind paying my $200 tax to get a full auto weapon.

I do think it is bullshit that "contractors" are allowed to have access to full auto weapons but that this and other law abiding citizens are not allowed to. Only the rich and privileged now at days can have them.

The "contractors" in Iraq tend to use semi-autos, they're bound by the same laws we are. Iraq's constitution explicitly includes rather draconian gun control (ironic, considering they could buy full autos for personal use under Saddam). Full auto isn't very useful for a rifle or carbine, which is why the newer M16 revisions have moved to 3-round burst instead. It's not very useful for handguns either, as much as people drool over the Glock 18 I don't see the police or military using it.

A full auto .22 LR would be pretty amusing at the shooting range, though. But really, I just don't think it's a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

You can get a pre-84 full auto like a MAC-10 or something for cheap, but they're really crappy guns and I'm sure the novelty wears off quickly. Really, I'd just spend the money on optics and accurizing a semi-auto instead.

Way too much common sense on display. My compliments....

Which I think shows the true colors of the current administration, since the U.S. State Department probably wrote most of the interim Iraqi constitution...they are allowed to keep one full-auto per household, though (not sure of the handgun rules).


Actually, the newest M16 variants are back to full-auto. The M16A2 was three-round burst, but the M4 and derivatives are full-auto, and the most likely M16 replacement (the H&K XM8) is full-auto.

The M16A2 was designed for Cold War scenarios, with 3-round burst considered to give a higher hit probability at range. Now that the military is doing a lot more CQB stuff than army-versus-army, the pendulum seems to be shifting back toward full-auto, and ironically toward heavier calibers than the .22's.


I tend to agree, which is why I'm pretty much OK with the NFA. It's when you get down to banning NFA-legal non-autos where I would draw the line.


My sentiments exactly. Though $3200 to $5000 is still not what I'd call "cheap" (that's as much as my car is worth...) and the Title 2 clearance process would be a royal pain in the posterior. Even $5000 is certainly inexpensive compared to a $15,000 transferable AK-47 or an $18,000-$75,000 M16A2, though (there's a NIB M16A2 on gunsamerica right now going for $74,950...eek).

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976626620.htm