back to the op:

i happened to catch some of the attorney general confirmation hearing last night on c-span (my new favorite reality show outlet)...there was an exchange about "concerns originating with the second amendment crowd" that might be illuminating for my colleagues on the right. the jist of the exchange was that the obama administration has no plan to alter gun control parameters--not only that but he cannot imagine the administration undertaking such action. prerogatives on gun issues will then remain with the states. this in response to questions from a republican senator whose name eludes me (as does the name of obama's ag nominee--i keep thinking heller, but that's also the name used to refer to the main existing precedent on gun issues) and another from leahey.

the republican senator kept pressing for a yes/no answer to a hypothetical question and did not, in the end, seem to find the exchange to be entirely satisfactory--but i would think it enough to calm down the gun folk who imagine that there will be some kind of immediate change in the legal framework that enables them to procure their Important Implements.

despite holders newfound respect for the individual right protected by the second amendment, his remarks during that hearing confirm that he believes 'reasonable restrictions' can still be implemented like an assault weapons ban. I firmly believe that this will again be attempted, and I almost hope that they do, because the political fallout will be even harsher than it was in 94.

i didn't get the impression that anything like that was on the administration's radar for at least the first term.
it seems to me that the problem folk who think as you do may face, it problem it is, will be at the state and local levels.

i thought holder was quite clear in his responses about this, particularly in the exchange with leahey.

As for state and local levels, I'm not worried about anything Holder may say or do.


This was just a small part of that. I haven't read all the articles or the transcripts of the hearings yet, but it's clear to me at least that the Obama admin will work with the dem majority leadership, minus harry reid, and attempt to push a perm assault weapons ban. I think it will fail against the 2nd Amendment in court though, unless the current USSC has decided that the framers intent needs be done away with.

at the same time, dk, he was quite clear that heller was the new framework and that he had no intention in his capacity as attorney general in overturning that. at the core of the exchange was the separation between holder's personal views, where they come from and how they've changed, as over against his views on the legal environment that'd circumscribe his relation to gun control legislation.

strange though how different things look as you're watching as over against how they read on the transcript.

i'm curious about why you make a separation between state/local controls, which can be quite draconian, as over against federal controls. i would think you'd consider them equivalent.

Cop Killer bullets? These things are real? and legal?

The heller decision is not the landmark ruling that people think it was. The USSC left it so that 'reasonable restrictions' could pass constitutionality, without ever defining reasonable. So, we will go round and round again with hundreds of cases until 'reasonable' is defined more clearly.

as to your last statement....why would I worry about an AG of the united states having any say over state/local controls? he has no authority or jurisdiction to make a state gun law.

dk--i didn't phrase my question well.
i wonder why *you* make a separation between federal and state regulation.

'cop killers' is a term that is used much the same way that 'assault rifle' is used by the anti set. It's a term used to incite fear that an item has only a specific sinister purpose.
The reality is that any big game rifle round is a 'cop killer', meaning that it has the energy to penetrate most level 1 and 2 types of body armor, those usually worn by police officers. Some handgun rounds also have this ability, but since police are usually the 'only ones' to wear body armor, they get called 'cop killers'.
-----Added 16/1/2009 at 12 : 52 : 29-----
It's all in how you have to deal with it. New federal regs/laws have to be lobbied for or against using US reps/senators while state regs/laws have to be lobbied for/against with state reps and senators. The main separation though is a TX state law does not affect an OK state law, whereas a federal law encompass' all 50 states
-----Added 16/1/2009 at 01 : 27 : 54-----
roachboy, i've got to go back to your statement about about not altering gun laws at all. Did you miss this part about the hearings?

Holder hearings

Interesting. What is the positive value of Joe Monkeywrench having access to armor piercing bullets?

well, i seriously start to wonder if any answer I give you will matter because you have constantly referred to any gun owner as joe monkeywrench or something else derogatory.

As I said before though, your standard .30-.30 deer hunting round can penetrate body armor easier than any handgun round, so do you want to ban hunting rifle ammunition?

are you posing the question back to me or did your response get eaten by cyberspace?

it was eaten, i reposted

I was only using Joe Monkeywrench because someone else in this thread was. Wasn't meant to be derogatory

I understand that a deer hunting round can penetrate body armor. My question is, what's the value in having HAND GUN ammo that can pierce body armor. It's an honest question.

Fair question. While USUALLY cops are the only ones to wear body armor, that isn't always the case. Look at the north hollywood bank robbers, wearing body armor. There have been other instances like home invasions done by criminals who were wearing body armor. Most people defend their homes with handguns initially and if body armor protects against most handgun rounds, a home invader could feel less vulnerable in committing his crime.

Over all, I'd want body piercing ammo for that very reason even though I'm an expert shooter. It would be rare to need it, but i'd rather have it and never need it, than to need it and not have it.

i'd love to know the statistics on the # of home invasions by criminals with body armor.

would stats make a difference? if it doesn't happen often enough for you, they should ban civilian possession of armor piercing handgun rounds?

if the evidence is that 1 or 2 crimes are prevented a year? yeah, i would probably take the risk of banning the ammo.

so one or two families a year being killed by criminals wearing body armor is acceptable in order to prohibit civilian possession of armor piercing ammo?

Okay, somebody post statistics. This thread is lamer than President George Double-Duh Bush.

I'll rephrase: if the number of families being killed by criminals wearing body armor is significantly less than the # of innocent civilians and/or cops being killed by armor piercing bullets, I'd ban them.

I see. some peoples lives are more important than others. would you believe this same way if it was your family killed by someone wearing body armor?

maybe not.

but I'd be willing to bet that the # of innocent people killed by criminals with armor-piercing bullets is hundreds of times higher than the # of people killed by home-invaders with body armor. Seriously, who robs a house armed to the teeth and fully armored? people who rob houses don't have the scratch to afford that stuff...that's why they're robbing houses.

you don't watch or read a whole lot of news, do you? and it wouldn't be 'hundreds of times higher', not that it should matter. If a law prevents even one decent family from having effective means of defense, its not worth the law.

Sure I do, and the American media is largely to blame in fostering the "culture of fear" in this country. The evening news would have you believe that half the houses in town are broken into every month. It's simply not true.

You know what kills way more families than intruders with bullet-proof vests?

Cars

Let's ban cars. I mean, you value the lives of every family, so why are allowing these death machines on the roads?


Snarkiness aside, laws like this aren't written with the "if it saves one life" cliche in mind. If, statistically, more lives are saved than lost due to banning armor-piercing bullets (and by more, I mean by a large margin) then I would back the effort. You can't make concessions for every single possible scenario.

The bolded part is not true at all. Several gun laws were written with EXACTLY that cliche in mind. The waiting period law, the NICS check, the safe storage laws.....all written with the 'if it saves one life, it's worth it' mantra. Statistically, they can't be shown with any certainty whether it has saved any lives or not.

How much are you willing to bet?

I need some extra scratch to make those final purchases. I have an lower that desperately needs an upper and there's a few other things I need/want before the laws change.

I'd guess: nothing. His undereducated opinion without statistics is useless.

Kinda like mine.

...

Better answer: Criminals don't use body armor or armor piercing ammunition within 3 standard deviations.

Its far more strategic on the part of the NRA to keep misrepresenting Obama's position (as well as Holder's).

States and cities are faceless and a boogeyman is needed to keep the money flowing for NRA $multi-million propaganda campaign.

i don't have statistics, and neither does anyone else here (i've asked for some about half a dozen time).

that said, I've never heard of a home invasion where the perpetrator was wearing body armor. doesn't mean it's never happened, but your run of the mill cat burglar probably isn't wearing something that costs a few grand.

In the words of Navin R. Johnson (Steve Martin, The Jerk) : Ah... It's a profit deal. Takes the pressure off. Get your weight guessed right here! Only a buck! Actual live weight guessing! Take a chance and win some crap!

Body armor doesn't cost a few grand. You can buy an excellent setup for under $1000. How do I know? Because I own a Level IV stand alone plate set.

"Armor piercing" ammunition can be bought at most gun shops. What is my point?

Criminals don't use such things because they're not tech savvy enough.

Criminals typically use cheap "illegal" or legal-but-stolen firearms to commit crimes. They use snub rose revolvers in .38 Special and throw-away automatics in .22, .25, .32 caliber. Pocket guns. Standard calibers like 9mm, .357 Mag, .40, and .45 are less common. The bigger and more expensive the gun, the less it is used to commit crimes. "Assault rifles" (and long guns in general) are almost never used for urban street crimes because they're too big to stuff into a hoodie. The use of cheap weapons means they can be disposed of without cutting into the profit margin of the douchebag who's selling drugs or whatever.

okay. what does any of that have to do with what we're talking about?

Wayne LaPierre is smarter than your average jerk.

He was asked by Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to testify at Holder's confirmation hearing but declined...understanding that he would likely have had to answer questions about the NRA's false and misleading media campaign about Obama's positions.

Oh gee. 'Armor Piercing Bullets.'

Do you know that a knife can puncture low level 'soft' ballistic armor?

Basically, it's a *scary* term, but depending on the armor used and the caliber used, any round--indeed even knives can be 'armor piercing.' Furthermore, almost any standard rifle hunting round is 'armor piercing' to the standard level III concealable body armor used by cops...

So as you see, the term 'armor piercing' is very equivocal, and unfortunately, is frequently abused by the media.

Sigh.....

Ok, I have been very busy, but here is my attempt to answer your questions.

I was not trying to build a case for assault weapons, but rather questioning why they get so much attention when they are involved in so few crimes. It's like raising millions of dollars to combat a disease nobody actually gets.

I cannot quote you statistics, so you are only going to get my opinion in response to your first question. I believe the positives of law abiding civilians owning semi automatic rifles are thus: They allow the homeowner to out-gun most burglers armed with knives/pistols (I think if you have to use lethal force, you should be in it to win), and they may potentially allow people to defend their houses/neighborhoods during periods of civil unrest...this has happenned in the past, and the neighborhoods who posted armed sentries did not get looted. If I find myself in either situation and I have time, I am going to reach for a long gun because it will allow me to dominate the situation.

Also, as far as 'preventing' deaths consider this: How many burglers are going to continue to advance on a guy wielding a rifle? I think intimidation is a key factor in self defense...if you hold the upper hand the bad guy is less likely to call your bluff.

For your second question, yes 'copkiller bullets' are real.

But (and it is a big but) they are not at all what the public thinks of. I don't mean to lecture, but it is important to know how armor, and armor piercing rounds work.

Soft armor as worn by most police officers depends on the materials ability to spread the energy of an impacting bullet out over a large-enough area that it is not able to penetrate the vest/body of the officer. Conversely, armor piercing ammunition attempts to place as much energy as possible on a pinpoint area to 'stab' through the armor. As a result, true armor piercing performs very poorly against the average unarmored assailant as it will poke as small a hole as possible. Rifle rounds, by nature, are very fast, narrow rounds which will punch through most soft armor. There have been several attempts over the years to ban all rifle ammunition on the grounds that it is 'armor piercing' and it is for that reason this debate is so touchy amongst the gun crowd. I don't know anybody who even wants armor piercing pistol ammunition...it performs poorly against unarmored assailants, and against the odd armored one it is simple enough to shatter their pelvis or perform a failure drill. The attempts to ban other ammunition under the umbrella of 'armor piercing' or 'cop killer' are misleading, but commonplace.


As of a couple years ago (and I believe it is still true) there were no recorded cases of a police officer being shot through his armor with armor-piercing ammunition. Cops who die of gunshot wounds are by definition killed by cop-killer bullets, but they are not armor-piercing and never have been.

New question (because I don't know the answer):

How many home burglars come armed and/or looking to fight? My brain says a burglar wants a theft to be quick, easy, and without incident. Usually this means the homeowners are out, and if not, they'll flee when they realize someone is in the house.

On the other side of the coin, what material possessions do you have that are worth getting into a potential gun fight over? If I was asleep upstairs and I heard a burglar, I'd quickly get my family into the master bedroom, block the door, and wait for the burglar to leave. There is nothing in my house worth getting killed over. Nothing.

I don't know the answer either, but I am less concerned about the burglar who flees than I am about the one who breaks in knowing there are people home. The intruder who does not leave when you yell that you are armed isn't there for your TV. Also, I am away from home a lot and my wife stays in the house alone. I don't want her to be at the mercy of the first person who has the audacity to force his way into our home and realizes there is a young woman there alone.

I am not going to shoot an unarmed burglar, and I am not going to kill in order to protect property. However, I will confront an intruder and tell them to get out of my house, and I am not about to allow them to arm themselves by stealing one of my firearms. Lethal force is a last resort against an attack, but there is no reason I can't expel an intruder from my home by other means.

You can go be a sheep if you want to...I would rather die than subjugate myself to the whims of some piece of trash who is trying to live as a parasite off of the efforts of others.


On a side note, if I had children then protecting them would be my number one priority and I would do as you describe. If I had a second story I would likely clear to the stairwell and lock it down while waiting for police.

Oh, and as what I have worth getting in a gunfight over: I won't shoot an unarmed intruder because the law does not allow it. However, I believe that people only deserve what they are willing to defend. I would fight for my possessions in a heartbeat. If the intruder escalates it to a gun fight then so be it...I haven't lost one yet and I'm willing to bet I've been in more than he (they) has (have).

So you'd shoot and kill someone over your DVD player?

No, I said quite plainly in my post which you quoted that I will not shoot an unarmed intruder.

I said I would fight for my possessions, and if the intruder escalated the situation to a gun fight then I would defend myself. I am perfectly willing to expel an intruder from my home, and I am perfectly willing to defend what is mine. If the intruder does not try to kill me then I won't shoot them, but I will not surrender my property either. On the other hand, if the burglar tries to shoot ME over my DVD player, then I would shoot back.

On a moral level I do believe my DVD player is worth more than the life of a person who would steal it from me, but I am not rash enough to shoot them for it. That DVD player represents an investment in both time and risk to my life...Why should someone else be allowed to simply take it from me? I have been working for the last 15 years, and my possessions are the material representation of that effort, time, and the large risks I took to acquire them. To start over would require me to risk my life again and would take years off my life...both of which I consider to be priceless.

It is like a mugging.

Simply asking me for my wallet does not constitute a threat. But if I say no and they present a gun, then I would defend myself. Either way, the odds are slim to none that they are going to get my wallet. The only exception is if I feel so out matched I have no other choice.

If the average person showed a little more spine, criminals would not have nearly the success they currently enjoy in our society. I think it is a matter of personal responsibility to not be a victim...If you submit then you are rewarding and encouraging criminal behavior.