Sorry it's late; I've been enjoying the holiday weekend.
Cross-posted at Stop the Bleating!, as usual.
Some of these have been reported elsewhere in the blogosphere. In fact, I just noticed that one of them has been reported here, by my co-guest author, James Rummel. (See post immediately below this one.) Oh well . . .
Brit doctors call for ban on "long pointed" kitchen knives. I sh!t you not. This is the natural product of the mentality that holds inanimate object responsible for the actions of men. (Link.)
Non-lethal Less than lethal Less-lethal? Only with proper operator headspace & timing. Oops.
As two Rochester policemen struggled with a drunken Christofar Atak, one of them went to pull his Taser stun gun, press it against Atak's back and fire.
But the weapon he discharged wasn't a Taser. Instead, officer Gregory Siem fired his .40-caliber handgun point-blank into Atak's back, ripping into his intestine, colon and gall bladder and, his lawyers say, causing permanent damage.
Permanent damage? Ya think? (Link.)
Now that's chutzpah. "Illegal weapons smuggled from the United States into Mexico are aggravating a bloody turf war between narcotics cartels. Drug-related violence has killed hundreds of people in Mexico so far this year and paralyzed some border towns . . . Mexican authorities are upset about the torrent of illegal weapons from the United States." They're absolutely right: The border is far, far too porous. Maybe they ought to help us close it.
But on a more serious, RKBA-related note, this story illustrates the folly in thinking that even severe restrictions on lawful firearm ownership will pose any serious problem for criminals. "Typically in Mexico City, a resident who wants a weapon will either bribe a friendly policeman to get him one or come to tapatio, the sprawling open-air flea market where vendors hawk the trademarks of American culture [such as smuggled guns]." Prohibition = scarcity = profit potential = corruption and smuggling. After Prohibition and the War on Drugs, is this really a mystery? (Link.)
Good news. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act has moved to the House floor. (Link.)
So this is how liberty dies. My apologies for ripping off Padme's rather trite line from Revenge of the Sith (er, one of them) -- I saw the late showing last night -- but it seems appropriate in response to this vaccuous Charleston (WV) Gazette editorial. The piece wouldn't be worth reading if it weren't for this: "[K]eeping pistols out of unfit hands remains a desperate need. Someday, radar-like scanners may enable police to see guns hidden in pockets. When that day arrives, officers can confront the carriers and jail all who lack permits. Confiscating weapons would prevent some of the tragedies that afflict West Virginia almost daily." Screw the Fourth Amendment -- it's for the children! Right?
Encouraging signs of sanity in Illinois. "The Illinois House on Tuesday narrowly rejected a measure to ban the sale of assault-style weapons despite strong support from Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley." (Link.)
Closing fast. The Australians haven't slid "all the way down the slippery slope" of gun control yet, but they're not far behind their British cousins. "The Coalition for Gun Control is calling for a total ban on semi-automatic handguns in Tasmania after the release of the auditor-general's report into gun control." Many American gun owners have the impression that there's nothing left to ban in Australia. Not true -- yet. (Link.)
Truth to power? Something like that, anyway. "Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Tells Brady Campaign to 'Stop Lying and Admit You Support Gun Bans'." (Link.)
The world's smallest violin . . . The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is upset that a commission established by Ed Rendell to study possible solutions to gun violence didn't parrot CPHV/VPC talking points. Poor babies. (Link.)
Inconsistency trips up law allowing ex-officers to carry weapons. Poor drafting is causing problems with implementation of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. (Link.)
Music to my ears. It would be bad politics to introduce legislation solely for the satisfaction of hearing squeals of indignation from social elitists like the WaPo editorial board. But when those squeals are the natural consequence of otherwise meritorious legislation, well -- it sure puts a smile on my face. Meanwhile, the Washington Times offers a different view of the same issue. Notice that there seems to be a discrepancy in the statistical claims of the two papers. I'm not going to try to sort it out right now, but anyone who wishes to do so can post the answer in comments.
Posted by Matt Rustler at May 30, 2005 10:34 AM