"For Middle-Class Pakistanis, a Gun Is a Must-Have Accessory"
Katherine Mangu-Ward | January 6, 2009, 2:32pm
Greatest headline ever.
In today's Wall Street Journal, an story about incentivizing private solutions when public law enforcement fails:
After escaping kidnappers who chained him to a bed for 25 days, Mohammad Javed Afridi pressed Pakistani law enforcement for swift justice. The police offered him something else: temporary permits for four automatic assault rifles.
Since Mr. Afridi's ordeal ended in mid-October, police in his hometown of Peshawar, in northwestern Pakistan, haven't made an arrest in his case....
So the cops allowed Mr. Afridi to arm himself against future abductions. The 35-year-old journalist now carries an AK-47 to work and back home to his wife and five children. Relatives rotate duty as his bodyguards. If his car is again stopped by armed men on a dark road, Mr. Afridi vows to shoot first.
In Pakistan, at least, sometimes you really do need to own four assault weapons in self-defense—even the police think so. Suck it, Brady Campaign Myth #8.
dam it all | January 6, 2009, 4:19pm | #
Owning a gun has NOTHING to do with hunting.
I own a Remington Pump action 12 ga shotgun. I am trained to use AK-47 M-16,9MM, various other hand guns and my favorite the M4! ohhra.
( And I'm a straight 30 year old woman from S. Cali with 7 years military service)
I own a gun because
1. I like to shoot it.
2. The sound of me pumping my shot gun serves as home protection. (If the sound doesn’t scare them, then I will shoot)
3. Guns are part of America's History. Without them, we could never have defeated the English, or the French, the Spanish or the Germans.
And the West would have never been won.
Gun control is simple, use two hands.
be educated about them.
You are more likely to be killed by your Family Dr, then you are by a Gun.
By taking away the right for Americans to protect themselves, you alienate us from the rest of the world.
Did you know one of the reasons the Japanese DID NOT invade the states?
Because the Japanese knew that most Americans (at the time) Kept Guns.
If you don't want to hunt, shoot, or protect yourself, it’s very simple.
Don't purchase a gun.
If you take away the right to carry arms, only the criminals and government will be armed. And then where will we be?
Damn it all.
bigbigslacker | January 6, 2009, 6:12pm | #
There's a lot of fail here. I don't have the patience in my old age to pick it apart; would anyone else like a go?
What's that Warty, you need someone to rail on and on about guns on your behalf? Will do.
As explained above, assault weapons utilize military features useful in combat, but which have no civilian purpose
The primary feature would be 3-round burst or automatic fire, which none of the named weapons of the federal assault weapon ban had. Other AWB silliness would be fearmongering over features such as bayonet lugs, magazine that don't feed through the grip (oh the humanity!), the conspicuous pistol grip on a rifle, barrel shrouds, and of coarse pistols that weigh over 50 ounce which a crimnal could use to beat someone to death with.
Assault weapons are exceedingly dangerous if used in self defense, because the bullets many of the weapons fire are designed to pass through humans and will pass through structures, and therefore pose a heightened risk of hitting innocent bystanders.
The primary cartridges used in "assault weapons" would be 9mm, .223 Remington, and 7.62mm x 39mm. As even gun novices know, these are not particularly powerful rounds. The .223 and 7.62 x 39 are bottom-end deer cartridges. A standard deer rifle, like a .270, has a LOT more energy and velocity. Anything more powerful than a 22 short has the possiblity of overpenetrating. What is ignored in the line of reasoning quoted above is the person "using" the weapon in self defence is most likely not actually going to have to fire it. Also ignored is that if a person "uses" or fires a weopon in legit self-defence, they were acting to save their own life. On the good/bad scale, we are already at +1. Minus the weapon the score is -1. The remote risk of hitting someone other than or in addition to the asailant is a secondary concern - an unfortunate reality until we develop phasers.
As Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police has explained: "An AK-47 fires a military round. In a conventional home with dry-wall walls, I wouldn't be surprised if it went through six of them."37 No one would want a bullet fired in self defense to penetrate a home's walls, where it could strike bystanders in neighboring homes.
This is my favorite: Ignorance from supposed experts. The executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police wouldn't be surprised if an AK47 could go through 6 layers of drywall. If I recall correctly, my 9mm Calico (6" barrel) shooting FMJ would penetrate 6 layers of 3/4 plywood (I think I had a total fo 7 or 8 layers screwed together). But, mr expert says he wouldn't be surprised if a 7.62 x 39 AK round could penetrate as many layers of drywall, which is another way of admitting he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. If he had said "I wouldn't be surprised if it could penetrate 20 layers of drywall", I'd give hime some credit. Good thing he's behind a desk where he belongs.
High capacity magazines containing more than 10 rounds, which were also banned as part of the Federal Assault Weapons Act, are also not useful for self defense, as law enforcement expert Leonard J. Supenski has testified:
First problem is this presupposes the reason for having high capacity is self-defense rather than to kill people who would take away our rights or subject us to taxation without representation like is happening to Illinois right now. But, ignoring that, for some reason civilian police agencies often find a need to have 15 rounds in the gun and an extra magazine or two on them. Plus whatever they have in the trunk and whatever their comrades are carrying. But we don't need that. ...or maybe I'm wrong. The police do arrive on the scene without really knowing what's going on. They may inherently have to do a little more spraying, and I think the "opps" statistics support that they do.
Assault weapons were designed for military use. They have no legitimate use as self defense weapons.
No military in the world would buy any of the weapons on the Assault Weapon Ban list for use in actual combat. None of those models "were designed for military use". Other than that it's a true statement....
(spellchecks are for fags like Oswald. Any mistakes are intentional)
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
