From a USA today article discussing the need for the Police to buy more military style weapons
WASHINGTON — Law enforcement agencies across the country have been upgrading their firepower to deal with what they say is the increasing presence of high-powered weapons on the streets.
Scott Knight, chairman of the Firearms Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, says an informal survey of about 20 departments revealed that since 2004 all of the agencies have either added weapons to officers' patrol units or have replaced existing weaponry with military-style arms.
I know, coming from a 10mm & .357 guy, I'm not one to talk down on overkill when it comes to firepower, but this is very, very piss-poor logic.
Let's take my mother for example. She carries a snub-nosed .38 special. Any goblin who dares attack her is going to have a new hole in his head to think twice about. Now the goblin could be carrying a fully loaded M-16 with M-203 grenade launcher, but that's not going to take away the fact that my mother is a lethally accurate shot.
Now, a thick leather jacket could ostensibly stop a .38 so, it might behoove my mother to go to a more powerful caliber that would pierce most clothing / jackets being that she lives in a clime that does experience colder weather. However, being of smaller stature, she can't tote around a .44 magnum and reasonably maintain good control.
Notice the difference here. Mother's only concern for her firepower is what has the best combination of stopping power and controllability. It matters not one whit what the criminal carries.
So the police saying they need military style (which, of course, only refers to the look of the weapon) firearms because the criminals have them is laughable. What the police need is to figure out what rounds serve their needs the best - such as best takedown power, distance, penetration, and accuracy - and buy those, not worry about if Joe Crackhead has a .577 Tyrannosaur. If you get shot where it counts, you're dead, regardless if it's a .22 or a .223 (5.56 mm - if you've never seen an M-16 round before, it's puny).
Now, the article is replete with fantasies and myths about those scary "assault weapons" and it pretty much toes the anti-gun line, but this paragraph was icing on the cake
It was not immediately clear if assault weapons were driving the increase in weapons seizures or were directly linked to the county's record number of homicides in 2006, Stucker says
First off, the number of homicides has nothing to do with the police's need for stronger firearms. Are they going to prevent the killing of others by killing people better? Second, this paragraph was put in specifically to tie "assault weapons" to "homicides" even though logically they don't mesh.
Here's the answer - No, scary looking guns don't cause people to kill any more than a wood-stock rifle does. So, there is no link. Period.
Idiots.
*Gleefully stolen from David Codrea at The War On Guns. See his site for details.
rolled out on
Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:47 AM