San Francisco Chronicle: Police deaths give leverage to toughen gun laws

[marmar]

Police deaths give leverage to toughen gun laws
Chip Johnson

Tuesday, March 24, 2009



If history repeats itself, the fatal shootings of four Oakland police officers on Saturday afternoon will become the next benchmark in the national debate on a federal law to ban assault weapons.

If there is a grain of hope to be gathered from a loss so tragic, it's that last weekend's horrific events will help end the debate on an unresolved policy issue that has resulted in thousands of deaths and helped sustain veritable demilitarized zones in some of our nation's largest cities.

In Oakland, a city already struggling with high crime and gun violence, the deaths of two officers gunned down with an AK-47 qualify city officials to lend their voices to any national debate on the issue.

While the tragedy in Oakland lacks the scale of the shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007 and Columbine High School nearly a decade ago, the deaths of four officers in a single incident is a significant event that sends shock waves across the nation.

The use of the deadly weapons - which can fire hundreds of rounds per minute - has become an all-too-familiar feature in the gun violence being played out. ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/24/BAVF16LQ9U.DTL&type=newsbayarea

[slackmaster]

1. Here we go again...

In before move to the Guns forum.

...Former state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, who wrote a state law in 1999 that banned sale of the weapons, said President Obama's case to seek a federal ban on a wide array of automatic weapons is only strengthened when they are misused in such horrific ways....

Don Perata is a double lying sack of shit.

1. The 1999 California "assault weapons" ban has NOTHING to do with automatic weapons.

2. President Obama is not seeking a federal ban on any kind of firearm.

What we really need is tough prison sentences and no parole for KNOWN VIOLENT OFFENDERS.

[FLAprogressive]

2. every death by a weapon turns into a Brady Bunch circlejerk. It's pretty disgusting really.

[aikoaiko]

3. I'm surprised it took this long for a pro-AWB columinist to exploit this tragedy.

sad.

eta: Does the author really think that some bad guy is going to say to himself, "gee, I can't buy a semi-auto AK as easy as before so I won't buy some other gun that would be just as effective". I don't think so.

Resurrecting the now expired AWB will only frustrate lwful gun owners, lead to a voter backlash, and fail to reduce murders by gun. There was no evidence that the AWB contributed much to the reduction of crime in the 1990s.

[tularetom]

4. It'd be just as easy to draw the opposite conclusion...

Better arm yourselves folks. The police can't stop you from getting shot. They can't even stop themselves from getting shot..

[Duke Newcombe]

5. Opportunistic gun-ban ghouls in 3, 2, 1...

oh...too late. They're here already...

[jmg257]

6. Of course, a felon using a full-auto assault rifle has nothing to do with the assault weapon ban,

but hey, thanks, Chip, for the bullshit attempt to justify more gun laws.

[depakid]

7. I think it's going to take quite a few more of these

piled up close together, before there'll be enough critical mass to overcome the very vocal minority's opposition. And they will come- it's only a matter of when.

[Pavulon]

9. Yep, dumb assholes changed the constitution with Prohibition. They actually

followed the law. Feel free to work on revoking the 2nd. So if you guys want to flush any hope we have of retaining political power for something that will DO NOTHING go for it.

Pretty dumb though. Considering that guns have nothing to do with crime. See zurich and canada model. Lots of guns, little murder.

[depakid]

11. Responsible regulation vs. proliferation

Neither the 2nd Amendment (nor the 9th) have anything to do with assault rifles- or other similar deals. Whenever I see people hiding their extremism behind the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment- I think to myself, how pathetic (if not cowardly).

No portion of the Bill of Rights is absolute- and any reading of Supreme Court case law shows you that.

[jmg257]

13. Neither does the assault weapons ban, so what's the point?

"Neither the 2nd Amendment (nor the 9th) have anything to do with assault rifles"

[Pavulon]

14. My position is quite simple. Only morons

think that this would be fixed with a ban. Not happening. Coke, dope, hookers, and rape are banned. All are quite common. That is why the swiss and finns have tiny murder rates, society is a factor here. There are no absolutes, however I can rest assured that no law will stop this that does not address root cause.

Unless you BAN EVERY WEAPON you will not do anything but elect republicans with no impact. That will never happen. So you will have some shitty toothless bill that pisses people off. Electing republicans as a result.

EDIT: left off sentence.

[aikoaiko]

17. Did I miss something? No one in this thread has argued for no regulation of firearms.

Banning firearms however is extreme gun control.

[Pavulon]

8. He had dna on a rape, can we ban dick too?

that will work. How do we got through the day without raping people. I mean if we ban dick there will be no rape. Like there is no drug use...

Only the stupidest among us still believe gun control does shit to fix anything.

It is easier than actually fixing broken communities.

[Paladin]

16. After The First 5 Times You Used It......

....that comparison sorta lost what little effectiveness it might have had.....

[Seldona]

10. Self-deleted.

nt

[vadawg]

12. WTF are you seriously thinking that this POS thought that because of the BART situation

i am gonna kill me some cops, christ on a crutch, dont you think he was just a piece of shite that should have been flushed by the system years ago. It always amazes me the hatred for cops on this site, i know that if i dont come home tonight then their will be people on DU cheering that another pig bought the farm.

[Hangingon]

15. sustain veritable demilitarized zones ...?

A "demilitarized zone" is a area without military organization or potential of according to my old Webster's. When a reporter or editorial writer do not know the meaning of words they use, the only safe assumption is that they are in the wrong job. Most American cities are BY POLICY "demilitarized zones" - posse comitatus. Just as bad banks should be allowed to fail, bad newspapers should be allowed to fail. The San Francisco Chronicle appears to be well on its way to failure.

[xchrom]

18. recommend