quote:

---

IN TUESDAY’S Security Council session, the United States, Israel’s most powerful ally, introduced an unprecedented resolution that affirms “a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side-by-side within secure and recognized borders.”

---

That's right. "Nuke 'em Bush"'s UN team introduces the most far-reaching Middle-East peace resolution ever, the FIRST to call Palestine a state.

But we're still looking to stomp Iraq.

It's enough to drive one schizophrenic!
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Oh, good, UN resolutions. That's where all the important works gets done.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Hey, I may stop bashing the UN if they can make somethig out of this.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
But there already are UN resolutions about the Israel/Palestine issue. Cynical, perhaps, but I read this as nothing more than a feel-good soundbite intended for circulation in the Arab world while we're busy blowing up large sections of it.

Not that I think it's a bad idea. Far from it. And not that I think that there aren't a small handful of places that happen to be in the Middle East that need blowing up.

Statements of intent are fine and necessary things, but they're meaningless if not backed up by action (and cash).
 

---

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
 
Big wow. Someone wake me up when the US Goverment actually ignores the wrath of the Jewish-American lobby and maybe considers censuring Israel for some of the less-than-politic actions it's taken in the past. . .
 

---

Posted by Chris StarShade (Member # 786) on :
 
BTW: Hope Lies in civilian guns.

I was listening to Neil Bortz the other day, and I heard the tale that the Holy Land (I can't remember the difference between Israel and Palestine) in its efforts to combat terrorism has decided to issue thousand of new carrying permits for guns.

Whereas, in the U.S., politicians are attempting to get anti-gun stuff to fight terrorism...

Erm, well, the trouble here is that common sense clearly shows that when guns are outlawwed, only outlaws will carry them (and that includes terrorists).

Also, it is a relatively simple matter to construct your own if you know how. (one criminal did this to prevent being traced)

As tangos delight in homemade bombs, if guns were more difficult to acquire, they'd simply make homemade guns too.

(and woe to the unarmed civilian who crosses them. Better to be prepared for war and not go to war, then to be unprepared when the enemy launches his assault)
 

---

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
"Jews in Israel are very different from the kind of Jews you see here in America. Here, we have the 'Let me do your taxes for you' kind of Jew...& over there, they're more of the 'Hold my gun while I piss against this wall' sort of Jew." --Jon Stewart
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Chris,

Actually, thanks for bringing that up (now I can't be accused of hijacking the thread!)

One of the anti-gun laws you're probably speaking of was that which limited a person to one gun purchase per person per month (not calendar month, but an actual 30-day period).

In the year following the passage of the law in Maryland, gun homicides dropped by 14%. While Rob and Omega (and I'm sure you) can make a counter-claim that that doesn't prove anything, what's really interesting is the other bit.

(First some backstory). Weapons puchased in Virginia were "responsible for the majority of trackable guns seized in crimes in New York City, Boston, and Washington, DC. Prompted by this research, Virginia's one-gun-a-month law went into effect in 1995."

Now, guess which state then began providing the majority of black-weapon markets? Maryland. So Maryland passed a similar law in 1997, and guess what?

So, while you may feel free to critique anti-gun legislation as much as you'd like, it's quite clear that "mass gun purchases quickly find their way onto the black market and into the hands of inner city kids where they are disproportionately involved in illegal activities."

Article.
 

---

Posted by Jernau Morat Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
 
Yeah, although I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this issue, I think it's pretty clear that the one-gun-a-month rule is working, and should be extended to rifles and shotguns. The only possible reasons I can see to resist this are:

a) You're a criminal of some sort
b) You produce/sell guns and wish to protect your livelihood.

While I may have some sympathy for people with reason b, I don't think it can take priority over the safety of the populous.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
I would assume that there would be an exemption for licenced firearms dealers.

I would assume that. I might be wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised, because limiting gun store sales to one a month would be a convenient way to drive them all out of business and thus deprive law-abiding citizens of guns, without making it look as if that's what you're doing.

But since most of 'them' aren't that clever, and since it was fairly easy to come up with that suspicion, I'll assume there's an exception.
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Obviously, those who own and run gun stores can buy more then one gun a month. We're talking about the sale of handguns from gun stores to citizens, not from gun manufacturers to gun stores.

The gun stores just can't sell more then one a month to the same person.

[ March 14, 2002, 09:00: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
 

---

Posted by Supreme Chancellor Ultra von Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
Jon Stewart is a funny man. How I laugh and laugh.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
(As much as I love gun threads, this is more an attempt to be sarcastic. Yes.)

"Erm, well, the trouble here is that common sense clearly shows that when guns are outlawwed, only outlaws will carry them (and that includes terrorists). "

I love it when people say this. "If red-haired people were outlawed, then only outlaws would have red hair".

"Also, it is a relatively simple matter to construct your own if you know how. (one criminal did this to prevent being traced)"

So obviously every criminal ever will make a homemade gun! Yikes! Surely it's only a few small steps from that to homemade nuclear bombs? Will Rob finally crack and kill us all?

"tangos"

I know I'm getting old, but I've never heard this word used in any context outside of fizzy drinks. What are you talking about?
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
In Rainbow Six, when a bad-guy is killed, the computer says "Tango Down."

Tango = Code word for Bad Guy
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Because of course guns have made the West Bank the friendly and delightfully safe place to live it is today.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
I was going to mention that, ever since they made murder illegal, only criminals kill people. But the point was already made at the expense of red-haired people.

And "tango" is the phonetic alphabet equivalent of 'T'. Are the bad guys in "Rainbow Six" something that starts w/ 't'? Terrorists, maybe, or something similar?
 

---

Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
 
Yes, there are lots of terrorists in it.

About the weapons-situation in the middle-east, africa and asia, I wonder how it would look if I went back in time and strangled Comrade Kalashnikov, huh?
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
We'd be firing an Assault Smith-47!
 

---

Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
 
No, leave Smithy alone.

What in wholly fuck is an Assault Smith? Is he friend of 'B A' Baracus?
 

---

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
 
AK-47 stands for Automat Kalashnikov 47. . .
 

---

Posted by Ultra Taco Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
Is that like one of those fancy As Seen on TV door mats that keeps your shoes always in the clean position? It is automat!
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
And banning guns has made Washington, D.C. the safe and crime-free paradise it is today.

20% of guns siezed in D.C. are homemade.

[ March 16, 2002, 08:15: Message edited by: First of Two ]
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Source ... ? Because, frankly, Rob, it sounds like you're digging in your rear again
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
WHOA! You're right. I screwed up big time. Edited for accuracy.
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
But could we still have a source ... ? I'm interested in how people go about constructing guns (I guess I could go watch "In The Line of Fire" again, tho ...)
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Took some digging, but here:

BATF, Analysis of Operation CUE
(Concentrated Urban Enforcement), interim report (Washington D.C.: February 15, 1977), pp. 133-34.

Admittedly, this was 24 years ago. However, given the number of sources available to learn how to make homemade guns (see below, all available from Amazon.com), the number probably hasn't shrunk.

"Do-It-Yourself Submachine Gun: It's Homemade, 9mm, Lightweight, Durable -- and It'll Never Be on Any Import Ban Lists!" by Gerard Metral

"Expedient Homemade Firearms, The 9mm Submachine Gun" by P. A. Luty

"Homemade Guns & Homemade Ammo" by Ronald B. Brown

"Homemade Ammo, How to Make It, How to Reload It, How to Cache It" by Duncan Long

"Improvised Modified Firearms, Deadly Homemade Weapons" by J. David Truby & John Minnery

etc.

[ March 16, 2002, 09:18: Message edited by: First of Two ]
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Um, okay. Very informative, but shouldn't we try to do something about the flow of guns being purchased legally and getting into the hands of criminals?
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Like?
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Well, Omega, if you'd bothered to read the thread, I posted an article which explained how limiting handgun purchases to one a month reduced the blackmarket distrubition of handguns from Maryland and Virginia to various cities.

Apparently, however, you decided not to read the thread. I suggest you do it now before continuing. Thank you so much for your time.

[ March 16, 2002, 19:08: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Actually, I was hoping for a little more detail on how this plan is implemented. Is there some central database that keeps track of all handgun purchases in these states?

As always, intent doesn't matter unless you have a decent method of execution.
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
You could always spend five minutes and do the research yourself, you know.

To answer your question, I believe the check is run through the NICS, which tells the seller whether or not a weapon has been purchased within the 30 day period. Then, depending on state laws, the sale is approved or denied.

And this is the NRA's summery of Md law on the 30-day period:

quote:

---

A person may not purchase more than one regulated firearm (defined as any handgun or assault weapon as defined in this section) in a 30-day period. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to: (1) a private security company licensed to do business within the State, (2) the purchase of antique firearms as defined under Maryland law, (3) purchases by a licensed firearms dealer, (4) the exchange or replacement of a regulated firearm by a seller for a regulated firearm purchased from the seller by the same person seeking the exchange or replacement within the 30 day period immediately preceding the date of exchange or replacement, (5) or a person whose regulated firearm is stolen or irretrievably lost and who considers it essential that the regulated firearm be replaced immediately if the person provides the licensed regulated firearms dealer with a copy of the official police report which contains the name and address of the regulated firearm owner, a description of the regulated firearm, the location of the loss or theft, the date of the loss or theft, and the date which the loss or theft was reported to the law enforcement agency.

---

quote:

---

Project Lead had received trace information on only 6% of firearms recovered by New York City police in 1991 and 1992. Of firearms found at the scenes of violent crimes in New York City, only 32 had been originally sold retail in Virginia; only three of the guns "traced to Virginia" had been "found" at homicide scenes. Project Lead was unable to determine whether traced firearms had been stolen from the original buyer. According to BATF, "it is difficult to trace firearms after the first retail purchase."

---

quote:

---

the violent crime rate has doubled since then, but I am so far unable to find an official notation of such. Still looking.

---

That's a pretty far reach, Rob.

Because Joe Schmoe can only buy one handgun per month (instead of fifty), he's suddenly more likely to be victim of a crime?

Common sense tells me that a person can only operate two handguns at a time (one per hand, unless you can shoot with your feet ...?), and even that is rather silly, given the lack of control you'll probably have if you're firing anything above a .22 caliber.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
I'm not saying, necessarily, that the policy CAUSED the crime rate, (not directly, anyway) so much as I am saying that it failed to affect it.

But it seems increasingly true that places which enact tighter restrictions on gun purchasing retain or acquire higher gun/violent crime rates, whereas places which enact stricter punishments for USING a gun in a crime, but do not change anything about ownership, experience drops in the gun crime rate.

Would you answer the rest of the questions, please?
 

---

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Guns, but also Middle-Eastern Politics.

I'm damn good at segues.

From the New York Times:

quote:

---

Visiting N.R.A. Heaven
by Nicholas D. Kristof

SUQ AL-TALH, Yemen — Want to buy a submachine gun?

This little market town in the wild, wild north of Yemen has more than 50 shops selling all kinds of toys for boys. A used Uzi goes for $170, a machine pistol with silencer is $350, and a brand-new AK-47 assault rifle goes for nearly $400.

Grenades are $4 each. An antitank mine is $22. A rocket-propelled grenade launcher is $500. An arms merchant I met here might even be able to find you an antiaircraft gun or a tank. No sales tax.

This is Yemen, where we're preparing to send American soldiers to open a new front in the war on terrorism. I admire the instinct of trying to boost security here, but the bottom line is that we're going to send our troops on a poorly defined mission into a country where they're not wanted, where grenades cost $4 each.

The plan is for the Americans to train Yemeni troops. But the Yemen government's main problem in controlling terrorism is not that soldiers are poorly trained. Instead it is that for reasons of history, culture and tribal politics, the central government doesn't entirely control the hinterlands.

Americans who gripe about big government and high taxes, who believe the state that governs best governs least, would love Yemen. The central government controls the beautiful old capital, Sana, and a chunk of turf to its south and west. Beyond that is a delicate balancing act with local sheiks.

When I wanted to come up here into northern Yemen, I took an escort from the government including, for one stretch of road, a pickup truck loaded with seven soldiers and a heavy machine gun mounted in back. But more important, to avoid kidnapping (Yemen's favorite sport) it was prudent to get invitations from the leading sheiks.

"No one will pay attention to the government escort," a wise Yemeni explained to me. "But if you're invited by the sheiks, they won't dare bother you. They'll be afraid of retaliation from the sheiks."

The frailty of the government's authority was underscored on the road north, when we were stopped at a roadblock by a group of men with assault rifles. It was Yemeni code: a stick across the road means you stop, or you get your tires shot out.

It turned out that one of the men at the roadblock was owed money by a man of another tribe. So they were stopping all traffic to look for a car driven by any member of that other tribe: they planned to confiscate the car and keep it until the money was repaid. There were no police or army units to keep the road open, and the roadblock would remain until either the tribesmen got their car or the debt was paid.

Vice President Dick Cheney dropped in on Yemen last week, for a useful show of support — even if it was also a show of nervousness, for Mr. Cheney spent only two hours in the country, and he switched to a military plane that took evasive maneuvers as it landed. Opposition parties, eager to profit politically, said in a statement that the visit would "lead to more bloodshed."

American spooks worry that Yemen might provide a new base for terrorists like Osama bin Laden (who in a 1996 interview praised Yemen, his ancestral home, as a place in which he might settle). That's the reason for trying to bolster the government by training its army. It's a worthy goal, and if the training were conducted in the United States or in another country like Saudi Arabia it would not risk undermining the government's moral authority.

So why not conduct the same training, the same technology transfers, outside of Yemen?

By the way, a parting thought:

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about firearms, and I noted that England and Japan — which tightly regulate handguns — have much lower gun death rates than the United States. I got a barrage of e-mail. Much of it was thoughtful and well-reasoned criticism, but there were also plenty of blasts urging me to move to Japan or England.

Thanks for the advice. And if you're so bothered by gun registration, and so convinced that guns don't kill people, then consider moving to a nice mud-brick home here in Suq al-Talh. With you and everybody else carrying around an assault rifle, with armor-piercing rounds in your bandolier, with a couple of grenades in your pockets, you'll really feel safe. You'll love the freedom!

---

quote:

---

But it seems increasingly true that places which enact tighter restrictions on gun purchasing retain or acquire higher gun/violent crime rates

---