Alert For Moonbats: Criminals Don’t Obey Laws

March 2nd, 2007 · 1 Comment

Trackposted to Stuck On Stupid, and Woman Honor Thyself, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

From the Force Science Research Center, a non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University, Mankato, via Front Sight, Press:

NEW FINDINGS FROM FBI ABOUT COP ATTACKERS & THEIR WEAPONS:

WEAPON CHOICE.

Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available “was the overriding factor in weapon choice,” the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun “because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being.”

Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was “hindered by any law–federal, state or local–that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws.”

FAMILIARITY.

Several of the offenders began regularly to carry weapons when they were 9 to 12 years old, although the average age was 17 when they first started packing “most of the time.” Gang members especially started young.

The simple fact of life noted in this study is that criminals have no problem breaking any and all gun laws when it comes to obtaining and carrying guns.

All the candidates in the 2008 Presidential election will have some statement on guns and gun laws. Many want to legislate further controls and restrictions on private ownership of guns, especially handguns. But can anyone explain to me how such laws will deter gun crime or the use of guns by criminals in any meaningful way? Even if the US were to completely outlaw all guns does anyone, including the Loony Left, really think this is going to cause criminals to throw down their guns?

Now we have this hideous new “H.R.1022 – Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007″ that makes the claim that bullets being fired out of certain guns will kill you worse than bullets coming out of other guns. H.R.1022 uses the catchphrase “assault weapon” frequently, implying that some guns don’t assault the victim while others do. It contains something about a gun having a “pistol grip” will kill the victim deader than a gun without one, or something like that. And any gun with a dreaded “barrel shroud” will kill more people than a gun without one – I guess the shroud causes the bullet to go farther, double in size, and fly in ever expanding circles for hours, thus killing more people.

And all the politicians have to do is to pass more and more laws – and the criminals will suddenly have a burning desire to toss their illegally-obtained and illegally-carried guns into the river, get a shave and a haircut, take a bath, and start raising bunny rabbits for needy children in Oopgandia.

Or could it be that the only ones that will abide by these more restrictive laws are those that are already obeying existing laws, not carrying stolen guns, not carrying them in public at age 10, and not killing anyone? Why would anyone want to pass a law that only punishes the lawful that only the lawful will obey while claiming it will deter the actions of those that won’t obey it?

firearm, gun, handgun, crime, H.R.1022, assault weapon