Tag: Law and Disorder

Something Doesn’t Quite Add Up Here

Via MNGunTalk I came across a story that really has me scratching my head. The story is titled The story of two guns that killed police officers. Right there I knew this story was going to be bad as no mention of the wielders of the firearms were mentioned. Of course it gets better… much better. First the hyperbole:

The compact stainless-steel .45-caliber pistol was forged in a factory in Brazil in the summer of 2006 – 4,700 miles and two years away from a fateful encounter on a narrow North Philadelphia street near Temple University.

The author is setting up the article to be about the gun right from the get go.

From there, the $250 firearm began a 680-day odyssey through at least four states, four owners and two crime scenes before ending up in the hands of a 27-year-old parolee who used it to kill police officer Patrick McDonald.

Oh the gunman is finally mentioned after two paragraphs of setting up the gun as the focus of the story.

As part of an investigation of the deaths of 511 police officers killed by firearms since 2000, The Washington Post took an in-depth look at the circuitous paths taken by two guns. One is the Taurus. The other is a .380-caliber FEG semiautomatic pistol used in the slaying of an Indiana state trooper.

They were going to follow the lives of the gunmen but found that story to be too dull. Everybody expects the gunmen to be lowlife criminals whereas you never can guess the story behind a rabid killing machine such as a firearm! The author also decided it would be a spot of fun to target one of the gun shops:

The two guns were initially sold by federally licensed firearms dealers, the Taurus at the South Carolina pawnshop, the .380 at a high-volume gun store outside Chicago. At least three guns sold at the Chicago area store, Chuck’s Gun Shop, turned up in fatal shootings of police, the most of any store in The Post’s review.

Because if I sell you something and you use it in a crime it would be best to imply it was somehow my fault for selling you the tool. This is very important because your moral fiber is instantly known to me when you walk into my store. Now we get into the meat of the problem:

The .380’s sale involved a “straw purchaser,” a person who buys a gun on behalf of someone else and falsely claims to be the intended owner. The Taurus’s sale looked like a straw purchase, with the man who first bought the gun quickly selling it to a felon for a $150 profit.

Straw purchases are illegal. What the author just stated here were the two guns the followed were legally purchased and then illegal sold to ineligible owners.

In one case, a 19-year-old felon acquires a handgun casually, as payment for a bet on a game of basketball, tucks it into his pants and later uses it to kill an Indiana trooper. In the other, a fugitive from a Philadelphia halfway house tries to escape from a pursuing officer and pulls the gun as they fight on the street. Both stories illustrate how firearms dramatically increase the danger in already tense situations, creating irrevocable outcomes from panicky decisions.

Really? I thought both stories demonstrated that violent criminals are dangerous and thus any situation involving them will be volatile. Violent people are violent regardless of the tool they have at hand.

Mack lied on the required federal paperwork, answering no to a question about whether he used illegal drugs. In fact, Mack, who worked as a laborer for a masonry business, later testified that he had smoked marijuana every day since he was 13. But he had no criminal record, and the required background check did not prevent him from buying a gun.

Oh my god! A person with no criminal history was able to purchase a firearm? HOLY FUCK IT’S THE END OF THE WORLD! We need to allow the government to take away the rights of people who haven’t been convicted in a court of law NOW! Seriously what a fucking tool the author must be.

On Sept. 9, 2007, the Taurus figured in a nonfatal shootout at a Sunoco gas station between two men in southwest Philadelphia. Both were injured and went to a hospital. Police responding to reports of gunfire found spent cartridges from .45-caliber and .22-caliber pistols, but no guns. The .45-caliber cartridges were later linked to the Taurus.

Just as a side note I want it known that if I’m ever attacked by a criminal with a gun the .45 caliber casings will most likely be from my gun. Glock 30SF for the win!

Giddings had been released from prison 36 days earlier after serving eight years of a 12-year sentence for aggravated assault. A judge had ordered him to report to a halfway house, but Giddings soon absconded in violation of his parole. When several police officers, acting on a tip that Giddings was at a house in the area, tried to arrest him, he fought with them and escaped. Now, he was wanted for aggravated assault on the officers as well as the parole violation.

So a criminal with a violent past attacked an officer? Why the fuck was he out of prison four years early is my primary question here. Oh that’s right we have to make room in the prisons for all the non-violent offenders our government seems to want put away.

Giddings then stood over the officer and pumped more bullets into him. He hopped back on the bicycle, but before he could get away, two officers arrived in response to McDonald’s call for assistance. At least one exchanged gunfire with Giddings, killing him with shots to the head and chest, according to the police report. One of the officers was shot in the hip. The other was not injured.

I like how the author emphasizes the gun when the criminal uses it but emphasizes the officers when the police use them. Also I’d like to note that the police used those evil bad horrible guns to stop the violent criminal. Wait I’m sure the author will tell us that since the police are better than you and me trained extensively in the use of firearms they should be the only ones to have them. Now to the next story about the evils of firearms:

Jeter later said in an interview with The Post that he got the .380 from a friend, whom he refused to identify. The man owed him $350 from a bet over a game of pickup basketball. Jeter had bumped into him at Hook Fish & Chicken, a fast-food restaurant in Chicago, about nine blocks from where Vaughn said he sold the pistol.

Obviously this Jeter fellow is an upstanding citizen and the gun turned him into an evil man.

“I know it’s not legal to have guns in Chicago,” Jeter said. “But who doesn’t have a gun? That’s Chicago.”

Wait… so criminals are willing to ignore the law? Basically Jeter just made the best case against gun control you could ever make, he ignored the laws and had a gun anyways. When you ban guns only criminals will have guns is the correct phrase here.

He tucked the gun into the front pocket of his jeans and tossed his fast-food bag into a white 1993 Chevrolet Caprice that had been stolen six days earlier from a Sears parking lot in southwest Chicago. The thief passed the car on to Jeter, who used a screwdriver to start it.

Yup an upstanding citizen that the gun turned into an evil man. He certainly wasn’t hanging around criminals or anything previous to owning that evil gun.

Jeter took off to meet a 16-year-old girl in Gary, Ind.

Wait a minute…

19-year-old Darryl Jeter.

Huh. There’s something fishy about that but I can’t quite put my finger on it.

“I ask myself every day, ‘Why?’ ” said Jeter, now 26. “What was I thinking? . . . He didn’t deserve to lose his life.

“I was presented with a weapon I shouldn’t have had. I should have went home.”

See if this poor lawful individuals with absolutely no criminal history wouldn’t have been presented with that evil vile firearm he’d have never done anything wrong!

Seriously this story is so poorly written and bias I can’t even begin to tell you where to being.

Improper Use of a Firearm

Look I understand the desire to MacGyver tools into solutions for problems those tools don’t normally solve. Firearms are not tools you should be MacGyvering with. For example if you have a bout of road range pulling a gun on the person angering you is not the right thing to do. Remember the only time you should be pulling your gun is when you need to use it to defend your life or the lives of your loved ones.

Everything You Need to Know About the Recent TSA Fiasco

With all the shit flying about the recent TSA molestation of airliner customers it’s become very difficult to keep up with events as they unfold. Thankfully Bruce Schneier has a really good summary covering pretty much everything. Read it.

Secretary of Transportation Looking to Require Cell Phone Jammers in Automobiles

Once before I’ve mentioned Ray LaHood on this site. LaHood is the Secretary of Transportation and is on a crusade to abolish all use of cellular phone technology in automobiles. To further this crusade he’s made mention of requiring automobile manufactures to equipment their vehicles with cell phone jamming technology.

LaHood seems to believe that cell phone use has cause a dramatic increase in automobile accidents over the years which I’ve previously research and found not to be the case. The only thing LaHood is chasing is a red herring. Automobile accidents have actually been on a slight decline since cell phone technology has become more popular which leads me to believe cell phone usage has had no negative impact on the rate of automobile accidents. I’m still of the theory that shitty drivers are shitty drivers no matter what laws and regulations you put into place. Yes you can jam a cell phone but you can’t stop people from reading a book, doing their make up, eating, or any thing else from a long list of potential distractions.

I wonder if LaHood has any investments in a company that produces cell phone jamming technology or if he’s simply a fucking moron.

The Inconsistency of the ATF

Us gunnies spend a lot of time bitching about the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (AFT). We don’t bitch about the ATF because of their mandate so much as their inconsistency. For instance if I own a handgun it’s perfectly OK. The second I attach a vertical foregrip to the pistol’s front rail it becomes an Any Other Weapon (AOW) and falls under the regulations put forth in the National Firearms Act. Another case of inconsistency are rulings involving pistol grip shotguns. What is put forth in that link is a great article demonstrating the fact the ATF don’t really know what the fuck they’re doing and thus consistency isn’t their strong point.

Lock Pick Laws in Minnesota

I’ve talked a lot on here about various gun laws in Minnesota. Personally I like talking about things that directly relate to my hobbies and guns are one of my big hobbies. Another hobby I have is lock picking. Just like firearms lock picks are tools, nothing more, yet people try to ascribe motive behind them. For example in many states (Californistan for example) possession of lock picks without being a certified locksmith can land you into deep water. In other states there has to be some form of intent to commit a criminal act in order to prosecute somebody for possession of lock picks.

As lock picking is one of my hobbies I often has a set of lock picks in my possession. Not only is picking locks fun but it’s a great parlor trick at a party to boot. So what are the laws in regard to lock picking in Minnesota?

First a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer. My interpretation of the law is based on how it’s written, my limited education in regards to legal language, and of course what I read from other people. This is not legal advice.

Well we’re lucky here as possession of lock picks alone can’t get you tossed into prison. The law regarding lock picks is established in Minnesota statute 2006, Section 609.59:

609.59 POSSESSION OF BURGLARY OR THEFT TOOLS.
Whoever has in possession any device, explosive, or other instrumentality with intent to use
or permit the use of the same to commit burglary or theft may be sentenced to imprisonment for
not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

Lock picks usually fall under burglar tools as do crowbars and hammers. The key phrase in Minnesota law is the line that states, “with intent to use or prermit to use of the same to commit burglary or theft.” What that means is you can’t be arrested for simply possessing lock picks, you must be showing intent. So how do you show intent when it comes to possession lock picks? Generally by either trespassing or attempting to break into a locked area. Possessing lock picks will add to your sentence in other words but won’t get you nailed for anything alone.

That means you’re free to order lock picks and use them. You won’t get into trouble when you bring them to a friend’s house to demonstrate your little parlor trick or to teach others how to partake in the fun.

Hey President Calderon I Have a Solution

It seems the President of Mexico is once again trying to tell us what to do:

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has told the BBC the US should do more to reduce the demand for drugs that is fuelling violence in Mexico.

You want us to do something to reduce the demand for drugs? Sure thing we’ll legalize it all and end the war on drugs. Much like Portugal we should see a drop in drug related violence once they’re legitimized. Of course that’s not acceptable:

Mr Calderon and his counterparts from Colombia and Costa Rica, Juan Manuel Santos and Laura Chinchilla, said legalisation of cannabis in California would send a contradictory message.

God damn it! We offer a solution and you spit on it. What the fuck are we supposed to do?

“It is confusing for our people to see that while we have lost lives and we invest vast resources in the drug war, in the consumer countries they promote proposals like the Californian referendum to legalise the production, the sale and the consumption of marijuana,” said Mr Santos.

I understand that potential freedom and liberty may be confusing to you as presidential equivalent of Columbia but trust me it works. You’d be surprised how popular the idea of liberty really is.

He reiterated his long-standing view that the problem of organised crime would remain as long as the US remained the biggest consumer of drugs in the world.

If it’s no longer criminals to grow, possess, and use the stuff then organized crime will no longer profit from it. Once organized crime no longer profits from it their power base will be knocked out and thus become much less of a problem. A similar thing happened when we ended prohibition in this country many decades ago. But no story about the troubles of Mexico would be complete without the mention of the Mexican gun canard:

Obama administration officials have acknowledged that the US shares responsibility for the drug violence, on account of the demand for illegal drugs and its inability to stop weapons flowing south.

I will give the BBC one thing though, they usually do a good job of covering both sides of a story:

However, US gun rights groups question whether the US is the source for the vast majority of the illegal guns turning up in Mexico.

The majority of guns confiscated by Mexico and submitted to the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for tracing do originate in the US.

However, a large number of seized weapons are not sent for tracing.

There is your reason so many guns submitted for tracing are found to originate in the US, not many guns are being submitted. For instance there really is no point is submitting a fully automatic AK-47 to the US for tracing being finding such weapons for a reasonable price (as any such weapon made after 1968 1986 is illegal) is practically impossible.

EDIT 2010-10-27 21:05: Had the wrong date posted. It’s corrected now thanks to Jeff.

Sony Going After Hackers

Although I do not speak German and thus am reliant on another person’s translation it appears as though Sony is going after hackers. I’m not talking about malicious hackers who break into computer system, I’m talking about hackers whom are hacking their own PlayStation 3 (PS3).

A bit back a USB dongle was released that jailbroke the PS3. Sony apparently wasn’t happy just going after the manufacturer of the USB dongle (which is irrelevant as there is now an open-source implementation of the crack) and have decided to take legal action against people who purchased it. I’m not sure about German law but in the United States if you purchase a piece of hardware it’s legally yours to do with as you please. For instance if you purchase an iPhone and hack it you’re completely legal regardless of what Apple says.

I’ve been done with Sony products since they stole the built-in Linux capabilities of the PS3 (I paid for it, they removed it from their system, I can’t use the system to go online without removing the Linux capabilities meaning I lose a feature no matter what, and in my book that’s theft). If I hadn’t already given up on the PS3 this would have certainly made me do it.

Cell Phones and Auto Accidents

A story today is saying the United States Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is pushing for a complete ban on cell phone usage while driving. This includes standard cell phone talking, texting, and the use of hand-free systems. He claims people are distracted by all of these things and it is leading to accidents.

Personally I’m always dubious of what politicians say so I’ve been looking into the matter. It’s pretty universally accepted that cell phone usage has been increasing exponentially for the last decade and a half. I’m not one to just take generally accepted ideas so I started digging for facts. CTIA has been keeping statistics on the number of cellular phone subscribers since 1985 [Waring: PDF]. Since 1985 the number of cell phone subscribers has went from 203,600 (which surprised me there were that many back in ’85) to 276,610,580 in 2009. In roughly two and a half decades we’ve literally went from hundreds of thousands of cell phone subscribers to hundreds of millions. I’d call that an exponential increase.

If Mr. LaHood’s claims are accurate and the ever increasing amount of distraction in automobiles are causing accidents there should be a noticeable increase in the number of accidents since 1985. This is where the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) comes into play (I sources them in my last post). In their 2008 report [Waring: PDF] page 14 lists the historical data of crashes by crash severity. The main thing I was concerned about was the total number of automobile accidents per year.

Like I said if cell phone usage has been causing automobile accidents it should be noted on the total number of accidents yearly. The data published by the NHTSA goes from 1988 to 2008 which is what we’ll concern ourselves with. So how much have automobile accidents increased? Here’s the funny thing, they haven’t. In fact the number of accidents has been on a slight downward trend since 1988.

In 1988 the total number of automobile accidents was 6,887,000, in 1990 it was 6,471,000, in 1995 it was 6,699,000, in 2000 it was 6,394,000, in 2005 it was 6,159,000, and finally in 2008 it was 5,811,000. It seems the only correlation that exists between the increase in cell phone subscribers and automobile accidents is a slight downward trend (which I’m absolutely not implying is causality).

Inevitably this is where somebody will point out the reason for the downward trend are laws banning cell phone usages while driving. The problem is that isn’t true. From what I’ve been able to find the first law banning cell phone usage while driving was enacted in New York in 2001. The downward trend in automobile accidents has been going on since the late ’80’s at the very least. If the downward trend was occurring before the first law banning cell phone usage while driving was enacted that indicate a third party reason. In fact a recent study confirms exactly what I’m saying.

Cell phone penetration seems to have no effect on the number of automobile accidents. I would wager that some people are just bad drivers. Cell phones don’t offer these people a distraction where there wasn’t one before, they just offer a different type of distraction. Before the popular use of cell phones how many times did you see somebody driving while applying makeup, brushing their teeth, shaving, reading, or some other such stupidity? Some people just want to be distracted and enacting laws barring the usage of cell phones while driving isn’t going to correct anything.

Please don’t read this and think I’m condoning texting while driving because I’m not. Texting while driving is just stupid and you must remove your eyes from the road. I just don’t think we need another law on the books to ban texting while driving, reckless driving laws already handle the problem. Especially considering the prevalent inclusion of GPS navigation systems on cell phones. What you might view as somebody reading an e-mail to texting could very well just be them reading a map and navigating. If you really want to remove all potential distractions from drivers you will have to ban GPS, radios, gauges (because looking at your heat gauge means you’re not look at the road), and passengers. Basically we all have to drive a single seat car with absolutely no accessories. Of course due to massive boredom we’ll probably have more people falling asleep at the wheel and thus increase the number of accidents.

I’m perfectly OK with the use of hands free system while driving as it’s no different than holding a conversation with your passenger and talking on your phone while driving without a hands-free system is dependent on the person doing it. Once again reckless driving laws already take care of the problem of bad and dangerous drivers.

The bottom line is I wish people would stop blaming cell phone usage for an increase in the number of accidents because there is no increase. Blame bad drivers for being bad drivers.

I Thought 1984 was 26 Years Ago

A student found a rather interesting thing attached to his car a short while back, an FBI GPS tracking device. Of course being a smart guy he posted photos of it online. Well it seems the FBI wants their stuff back:

It took just 48 hours to find out: The device was real, the student was being secretly tracked and the FBI wanted their expensive device back, the student told Wired.com in an interview Wednesday.

The answer came when half-a-dozen FBI agents and police officers appeared at Yasir Afifi’s apartment complex in Santa Clara, California, on Tuesday demanding he return the device.

You know the second I found it I would have destroyed it and claimed I didn’t know it was federal property. “What? It was an FBI tracking device? Oh, I’m sorry I destroyed it as it was attached to my vehicle and I had no idea what it was. Maybe you should leave a phone number to contact on them or something.” I also love how the FBI confirmed everything by not saying anything

An FBI spokesman wouldn’t acknowledge that the device belonged to the agency or that agents appeared at Afifi’s house.

“I can’t really tell you much about it, because it’s still an ongoing investigation,” said spokesman Pete Lee, who works in the agency’s San Francisco headquarters.

So it’s an ongoing investigation meaning… there’s an investigation into this guy.

If you find anything attached to your vehicle that you didn’t specifically put there I recommend that item’s destruction.