Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/20/2004 6:54:16 AM EST
Indy star

Can't even begin to say how disgusted I was when I read this this morning. I am working on a response now. Anyone have any suggestions, post them now, I'll take them into consideration.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 6:56:27 AM EST

The SKS is patterned after the AK-47.


Gun ignorance on display.

Good luck.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 7:25:55 AM EST
What do you know about the shooter? Was the shooter somone who was already prohibited from owning a firearm? he was(mental problems) if so point out the failure of laws on the books already. This isn't about AWs and the like, it;s about a failue of current laws. Which once again shows that if somone wants to get a weapon they will do it illegaly if they have to.

Link Posted: 8/20/2004 7:44:27 AM EST
I gotta get an SKS soon.

I'd heard before that Don was scum, this definitely proves it. Who the hell does he sell guns too?
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 7:47:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

The SKS is patterned after the AK-47.


Gun ignorance on display.

Good luck.



Beat me to it.

And it shall only get worse over the next three weeks.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 7:55:57 AM EST
If you want to attack them point-by-point, below are some comments. Of course I won't be too kind or gentle or sensitive or caring, so you will probably have to clean them up if you want to have your response appear reasonable. (Not that "reason" is ever a requirement in a liberal’s argument.)


...a loophole in the law...


Loophole, schmoophole. I the Democrats that wrote the law were so damn dumb that they couldn't figure out the repercussions of their unreasonable law, then they should not be writing the laws.


...led to the proliferation of similar types of weapons that are proving just as deadly.


Where is the proof? Anyone can make a broad charge based upon a single traumatic incident.


The SKS is patterned after the AK-47.


Umm, no, but I will leave it to a more knowledgeable person to point out some of the more obvious differences. The main difference that I see is the lack of a shooting handgrip on most SKS's.


Most police officers carry a .40-caliber Glock handgun, which is what Laird had.


...SKS fires a 7.62-caliber bullet...


They probably aren't aware that 7.62 is a 30 caliber, although that trivializes the issue & leaves you open to the "power" or "energy" argument. That is, the 30 caliber rifle bullet delivers more foot-pounds of energy than the 40 caliber handgun bullet.


Although Laird was fatally struck above his chest protector, the SKS fires a 7.62-caliber bullet that is powerful enough to pass through body armor.


More importantly, what does this have to do with their argument? There are many hunting rifles & shotguns in Indiana that will shoot a projectile that "is powerful enough to pass through body armor." Many of these bullets were initially developed for use in warfare like the .30-06, .308, etc.


The 1994 federal crime bill prohibited the importation and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition.


I believe that this statement is factually incorrect. I believe that Clinton did it with an executive order, but you will have to do more research to verify it.


"What do you do with these guns other than kill a cop?" asked gun shop owner Don Davis. "You certainly don't use them to go hunting."


Obviously this clown should not be in the firearms business, but aside from that whole argument, yes, an SKS or an AK could be used for hunting, coyotes, for example.


Police have little defense against bullets designed to penetrate their protective vests.


There is a small amount of factual truth to this statement, in that, it would be unreasonable for a LEO to be 100% protected all of the time. The logistics of that would keep an officer from doing his/her job. The argument is fallacious, however, because the editorial is demonizing a bullet rather than taking issue with the person who shot the bullet that killed the officer. Net, it is an unreasoned argument.


Besides Laird, four other IPD officers were wounded Wednesday by a gunman who had a history of mental problems.


There are specific laws that prohibit the mentally ill from buying any guns. I suppose that there are also specific laws that prohibit them from possessing guns also, but I can't cite you chapter & verse in either case.


Unless lawmakers take a harder line on assault-style weapons, there will be more casualties.


They have absolutely no proof for that statement. The simple fact is that the more guns that there are in civilian hands, the less crime that there is. Read John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime." Likewise, so-called "assault weapons" are only used in a small fraction of gun crimes.

This whole "assault weapons" terminology was invented by the liberals to demonize a type of gun that simply looked scary to their ignorant minds. We conservatives have let the liberals define both the argument and it's terminology.


Indianapolis should join other cities like Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland and New York City in banning such weapons.


Yet another spurious argument. I don't know about Cincinnati & Cleveland, but Chicago & NYC certainly are not a good example to follow. Their crime rates are sky high. You can research all of the details.


And Congress must close loopholes in the 1994 law.


Yet more evidence of the Indy Star's ignorance. It sounds like they don't even know that the AWB is only a few weeks from sunset.

The simple fact is that big city newspapers are overwhelmingly liberal and therefore do not print gun related stories that do not meet their antigun agenda. Read John R. Lott's book, "The Bias Against Guns." You can probably get it from your library. If not here is one source: Amazon

Always remember that, no matter how good your argument is, they own the newspaper, & therefore they have no obligation to print your letter, no matter how well reasoned. Likewise, they always have the last word.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 8:01:52 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 8:08:15 AM EST
I would've told the newspaper to stick to things they know about, like "world peace," "peace in the Middle East," and "nuclear non-proliferation" stuff.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 8:11:28 AM EST
Jees! Where to start is really the question.

As other pointed out already the SKS is NOT modeled after the AK. If fact, it's older than the AK if memory serves me correctly. So if anything would it be the other way around?

The weapon was designed to pierce Police body armor because it's a 7.62mm?
Well, few points here. Not all 7.62 pierce body armor. I haven't seen a weapon yet that was designed to pierce body armor actually. I've seen plenty of ammuniton designed for it, but not weapons as far as I know. I'll admit that I'm hardly an expert in the field though so I'm sure others can tell you about that one. The BIG point on this one is that the SKS was designed BEFORE body armor was widely in use. (1950's or '60s I can't remember now) So the likelyhood of it being designed for that purpose is extremely unlikely.

41 Officers slain by these type of weapons between 1998 and 2001? Not sure where that statistic came from but let's put it into perspective. First and most glaring is the fact that this period of time she leads us to believe was so deadly for Police Officers is inside the period of time that ban has been in place. The ban went on the books in 1994. So pretty good illustration that the 41 officers killed in fact were NOT saved by this rediculous law.

In addition, while 41 officers is too many to tolerate for most people, we are talking on a NATIONAL scale. That's 50 states over 4 years. Well first, let's get ouselves a nice figure for 1 year. 41 divided by 4 years is slightly over 10. (10.25 for those anal retentive people out there)
So we have 10 Officers per year in ALL 50 states killed with these "evil" weapons. While I don't have the statistics I'd bet that at LEAST that many die in traffic accidents. Probably more.

So exactly where is this HUGE problem that we should panic about? More infants die in crib deaths every year. Where's the law to ban cribs? More people are killed by running red lights every year. Where's the law banning cars? More people die in operating rooms every year. Where's the law banning Doctors? More people are killed by dogs, I'm sure. Where's the law banning dog ownership?

Quite simply put there are no laws for those things because it would not prevent any of these deaths or worse yet they would take away modern conveniences of citizens. This AWB is no different. It doesn't solve anything. it doesn't prevent anything. And NO ONE can point out even ONE instance where it has saved ANYONE from ANYTHING!



Sorry, starting to get riled up myself now.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 8:13:58 AM EST

"What do you do with these guns other than kill a cop?" asked gun shop owner Don Davis. "You certainly don't use them to go hunting."


How about Looters?
Robbers?
Terrorists?
Or anyone that threatens my Life or the lives of my Family???

Maybe the occasional Zombie?

Sounds like Mr. Don Davis is gonna be losing some sales..... Ass
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 8:21:26 AM EST
here's mine:


For the love of God. Your reporters continually quote Don Davis as if he is a reputable source of information in the firearms community. Don is interested in one thing - publicity for Don. If he truly feels that it's awful that he sells guns, why does he continue to sell guns? Whenever there is a gun issue, you folks run straight to Don Davis and present him as an exemplar of the gun community and a reliable source of factual information, when nothing could be further from the truth. What Don knows about guns could be summarized in one sentence - "They make me a lot of money, since I'm overpriced by 40 to 100%, and I have no interest in them other than that."

Don is a former Teamster gangster, and the FFL for the shop isn't even in his name, since he in all likelihood wouldn't qualify to get one.

There are some fine people in this area that would actually serve as reliable sources of information, such as Russ Elmore of Elmore's Firearms in Greenwood, Captain Ken Campbell of the Boone County Sheriff's Department, and many others. In the future, please consider speaking to one of them if you actually want accurate information on the topic of guns.

Unless, of course, you're trying to find an "expert" that reinforces what you already think you know. In that case, please carry on.



also, look here. www.indystar.com/articles/9/171806-8689-092.html





The 41-year-old SWAT team member, in his first public comments since the shootings, declined to detail the last moment except to say: "I closed the distance and assaulted his position and terminated the incident."

Other details of the confrontation were provided later by IPD spokesman Sgt. Steve Staletovich. He said Koe, a 16-year veteran, learned in police training how to use his rifle as a club.

He credited the first officers at the crime scene with providing him the details he needed to corner Anderson -- a "gun nut," Koe called him -- who used stealth to wreak his havoc.

"This gentleman was not stupid. He was using cover. He was using darkness . . . He was using (effective) tactics to try to engage me."



Maybe if some tactics had been evident to begin with, no one would have gotten killed but the asshole in question. [flamesuit on]
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 8:27:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By photoman:
What do you know about the shooter? Was the shooter somone who was already prohibited from owning a firearm? he was(mental problems) if so point out the failure of laws on the books already. This isn't about AWs and the like, it;s about a failue of current laws. Which once again shows that if somone wants to get a weapon they will do it illegaly if they have to.




The shooter
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 8:28:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By JimTh:
I gotta get an SKS soon.

I'd heard before that Don was scum, this definitely proves it. Who the hell does he sell guns too?



black gangbangers and methhead white trailer trash.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 8:39:34 AM EST
I'm not sure if this is what you're driving at, but it sounds like the first responding officer rushed into the situation. As I recall, he was shot while still in his car.
Do you think he rushed in or maybe he didn't know where the shooter was and got surprised?

After reading the article you posted, I'm wishing Koe had said the guy was a "nut", instead of a "gun-nut".


Originally Posted By QuietShootr:

Maybe if some tactics had been evident to begin with, no one would have gotten killed but the asshole in question. [flamesuit on]

Link Posted: 8/20/2004 8:46:53 AM EST
So far in 2004, 110 officers have died in the line of duty in the U.S. Of these, more died by vehicle (61) than by all types of gunfire (43). Vehicles are much more deadly to officers than are all guns. Therefore, automobiles should be fully banned in order to avoid more tragic officer deaths.

A police officer is about 10 times more likely to be killed by an automobile than by an "assault weapon." Banning cars, trucks and motorcycles would do far more to protect officers than would banning so-called "assault weapons." I await the Indy Star editorial on this with bated breath

Source of Data
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 1:25:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By JimTh:
I'm not sure if this is what you're driving at, but it sounds like the first responding officer rushed into the situation. As I recall, he was shot while still in his car.
Do you think he rushed in or maybe he didn't know where the shooter was and got surprised?

After reading the article you posted, I'm wishing Koe had said the guy was a "nut", instead of a "gun-nut".


Originally Posted By QuietShootr:

Maybe if some tactics had been evident to begin with, no one would have gotten killed but the asshole in question. [flamesuit on]




More info.... I hear from a retired IPD officer that the one who was killed was shot at almost 125 yards. I don't know if this is accurate, so I conditionally retract my earlier statement until I know more.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 4:37:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 4:38:55 PM EST by sharky30]
I almost started my own thread, but I think the shooting is the same one, and didn't want to get a bunch of dupe comments

www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=2202083

Controlling the weapons
Kevin Rader/Eyewitness News

Indianapolis, Aug. 20 - Wednesday morning's shooting spree that ended with three dead and four wounded has people asking questions about the laws that failed to save lives.

Police seized a stockpile of weapons from Kenneth Anderson in January. Six months later, after he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, he got the weapons back in accordance with state and federal law.

It is believed Anderson then used those weapons to kill his mother, Indianapolis Police Officer Jake Laird and wound four officers.

"When the framers wrote that in the Constitution, I'm sure they didn't mean you have a right to bear arms if you are mentally ill. You can get one undetected at a gun show and you can go out and kill somebody with it." Representative Julia Carson said she has already signed on to a letter to President Bush asking him to stop the federal assault weapons ban from expiring Sept. 15.

"Rationally, hunters don't need an assault rifle to kill a rabbit."

IPD Officer Peter Koe, who ended the melee by shooting and killing Anderson, says the difference between the legal and illegal assault rifles is not that much. "It has a butt stock, no pistol grip and the magazine only has a certain volume. Now you ask me, what does he need to do to change that? Take two bolts out and go to the Indiana State Fair gun show and buy a 30 round magazine with no security checks or anything. He has a weapon militarily designed in a communist country for destruction, that's it. It's not designed for hunting."

"For years I've been fighting this. Make the dollar and sell them." Mike Hilton at Pop Guns has made up his mind. He knows it is illegal to put interchangeable parts on the AKs he sells, but he knows people still do it. "These are low cost, poorly made firearms. A stamp, not high quality like the AR15 shotguns. We have both here and will continue to sell the quality firearms. We just won't continue to sell these anymore."



I thought federal law said the mentally ill couldn't own firearms? isn't there a question on the 4473 about it?
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 5:34:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 5:35:24 PM EST by x_varmits]

Nobody is certain just what sparked Kenneth Anderson's deadly shooting rampage through a Southside neighborhood early Wednesday morning. But friends and relatives said the hours leading up to it appeared to be a jumble of raw emotions for the already troubled man.




Family members began to worry in recent months about Kenneth, as his behavior became increasingly bizarre. He was paranoid, fearing that people were out to get him, Stickles said. In January, after police removed nine guns from his home, he was diagnosed as schizophrenic.


If the shooter were to receive the proper care in an institution this situation would have never occured. But of course our elected officals have decieded that this sort of expense is unnecessary. Kinda sucks actually.....


Top Top