This guy thoroughly wrecks his credibility by centering his article on a gross factual error. The mad snipers committed precisely ONE murder in Washington City, in an area where (on the ground) finding the DC-Maryland border is difficult. The bulk of the murders were committed in Maryland, which although subject to eggregious victim disarmament laws is far from being gun-banned DC. The rest of the murders were committed in Virginia, which is a shall-issue CHP state.
The best part has to be, "Productive people are mere game animals, trophies for criminals, tax cows for the “official” parasitic class."
Semper Fi
And THAT is the real reason to prohibit body armor.
Thanks for the post.
L
The problem with turning this discussion over to theorists on both sides is that the debate tends to get sidetracked from the real world into a little either-or fantasy land where the only alternative to everyone being disarmed is everyone being armed - the "OK Corral" scenario so beloved of gun-control propagandists. In fact, neither is the case, and I think that public policy that does not recognize this is bound to be poor public policy.
Carry can be a pain - ask anyone who's ever tried it - and the majority of people won't do it. The idea is to make it so that enough do carry to dissuade persons of criminal intent from the assumption that they have easy marks in fron of them. And this is much more a reflection of what happens in the real world than every granny with an Uzi in her purse ("not that that would be a bad thing...") It is potential, and not actuality, that cuts crime statistics.
For a would-be armed robber, which bus is more intimidating, the one where you know everyone onboard is unarmed, the one where a solitary policeman dozes in the front seat of an otherwise unarmed bus, or the one in which any, or none, or any portion of the passengers may be packing heat but you don't know who? This is the real world - which is the scenario most likely to give the fellow pause?
But legislation is seldom written with the real world in mind, it is written in an attempt to create a perfect world by people too silly to realize the futility of the attempt. Accidental shootings? Legislate a perfect, i.e. electronically-personalized, gun. Hijackings? Legislate a perfect, i.e. unarmed, airplane. Burglary? Legislate a town wherein every home is armed and make it mandatory. Or legislate one in which no home may be so. All solutions in search of a perfect world, and all doomed to practical failure. Unfortunately it seldom occurs to legislators just to leave the damn thing alone. They're not elected to leave anything alone. That would be "disempowering." To them, not to the people who elected them.
>>Blame entropy; what the heck, pass a law against it.
Thanks for the excellent post!
As such, we civilians are prohibited from owning the mentioned H&K PDW (aka HK MP7) and similar weapons (FN P90). Not just simple prohibition, but comprehensively overlapping restrictions and prohibitions. You are hindered or prohibited from owning an MP7 because it:
- is a select-fire machinegun
- is a short-barreled rifle (collapsing stock)
- fires armor-piercing handgun ammunition (as legally defined)
- semi-auto version would be an assault weapon
- requires a $200 tax to own
- requires approval of local chief law enforcement officer (who is not required to approve)
and probably some others I forgot.
Why is this important? The latest generation of firearms - the first major advancement since the development of the AR-15 in the 1950's - can easily penetrate practically all body armor via a very compact package. And the government won't let you have one...go figure.