QotD: Banning "evil-looking" guns

When a rash of gun murders takes place, it makes sense for the police to do one of two things: renew tactics that have been effective in the past at curbing homicides, or embrace ideas that have not been tried before.

But those options don't appeal to Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis. What he proposes is a crackdown on assault weapons.

I'm tempted to say this is the moral equivalent of a placebo—a sugar pill that is irrelevant to the malady at hand. But that would be unfair. Placebos, after all, sometimes have a positive effect. Assault weapons bans, not so much.

If there are too many guns in Chicago, it's not because of any statutory oversight. The city has long outlawed the sale and possession of handguns. It also forbids assault weapons. If prohibition were the answer, no one would be asking the question.

Steve Chapman, "The Cops That Couldn't Shoot Straight: Chicago police and their proposed, unworkable gun ban", Reason Online, 2008-04-24

QotD: Tancredo outsourced

Tom Tancredo has dropped out of the presidential race. He will be replaced by Montezuma Aztlán Calderón, an undocumented worker from Oaxaca who will denounce the Brown Peril for just $3 an hour plus room and board.

Jesse Walker, "Votes Americans Won't Cast", Hit and Run, 2007-12-20

James Bond versus Jason Bourne

In yesterday's post at Whatever, John Scalzi posts some interesting ruminations by David Louis Edelman about (of all things) the various Bourne movies (based on the Ludlum books:

Here are a few things that every American knows.

* The world is a vile and dangerous place.
* America is blindly and irrationally hated by just about everybody outside of our borders.
* If we left our security up to the peaceniks, bureaucrats, and Boy Scouts we elect to national office, the United States would be a smoldering ruin in a matter of months.
* Therefore it’s necessary that we fund a zillion intelligence agencies and black ops teams who routinely conduct secret assassinations in the name of defending our country.
* Nevertheless, despite our massive economic and military power, the United States is drastically outnumbered and constantly on the verge of apocalypse.

At least, these are the assumptions behind just about every spy thriller ever made. Now I find myself wondering: When the hell did these assumptions become so ingrained in our psyche? When did we blithely start accepting this worldview? Who says the United States should behave this way — and, for that matter, when did we all decide that the United States actually does behave this way? What the fuck happened to my country?

[. . .]

But even more interesting than the contrast of weapons is the contrast of attitudes towards government. James Bond is, in many ways, a manifestation of how the British would like to see themselves: debonair and worldly; as technologically adept as the Americans, without sacrificing class and gentility; dangerous when crossed. In the world of James Bond, the British government might be stodgy, but its heart is in the right place.

Jason Bourne, on the other hand, is a maverick who was once broken by his own government and is now on the run from it. In the world of Jason Bourne, the United States government is composed of equal parts corrupt slimeball and impotent douchebag, with a small contingent of do-gooders skulking around the fringes.

You're not alone, Jon!

There are other folks who have their doubts about Ron Paul. Perry de Havilland is also wondering whether a Paul presidency would be a good thing:

I am a hawk, no doubt about it. If I am going to be taxed by the state, I would much rather my hard earned money be spent dropping bombs on the lackeys of Slobodan Milosevic (Bill Clinton's finest hour, without a doubt) and Saddam Hussain, than on corrosive domestic 'entitlements' and ever more kleptocratic regulatory statism.

So then along comes Ron Paul, the first US presidential candidate since Ronald Regan with any notion whatsoever that the state is way way way too big. Moreover here comes a person who thinks the only way liberty can be preserved is to take a radical axe to Leviathan's tentacles and re-establish constitutional limited government. Cool. Very cool, in fact. So do I really really like Ron Paul? Well I like him but less than you might think as some of his remarks are borderline delusional 'troofer' stuff and that does him no credit at all. Is he actually going to win? Probably not but that is not what this article is about (commenters please note). Do I even want him to win? Well that is what this article is about.

He wants a return to constitutional limited government. What's not to like about that? But then my eye falls on that picture of Murray Rothbard in Ron Paul's office. I am not a fan of Rothbard even though there is indeed much good stuff in The Ethics of Liberty. Although I think he was correct about a great many things, I also think he was often as intellectually dishonest as Karl Marx and Noam Chomsky and perfectly fits Adriana Lukas' definition of a barking moonbat: "someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency". For Rothbard to have argued that the cold war was a delusion and that the Soviet Union was not really a clear and present danger is so preposterous on so many levels that I am not even going to elaborate why. If you can not figure out that one yourself then this article is not addressed to you. In fact, please stop reading and get lost.

More positive reviews for Ron Paul

I have to admit that this article was custom-tailored to get my attention. Not only is it a positive article on Ron Paul, but it opens with an ultra-libertarian quote from P.J. O'Rourke:

"Politics should be limited in scope to war, protection of property, and the occasional precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."

— P.J. O’Rourke

As evidenced by the wild success of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, Americans have become Libertarians, even though they don’t seem to know it yet. Hardened views on the left and the right dominate the political scene in Washington D. C., with efficient and competent management of government the casualty of an ideological war between the two dominant parties. We have become a red state/blue state country, with elections angrily won 51 percent to 49 percent.

Little noticed in the increasingly shrill red versus blue sniping, however, is the emergence of a purplish centrism. The purple centrists who will shape future elections are we Libertarians, who are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. We believe in personal responsibility and minimal government. We do not meddle when the issues — be they Iraq, your bedroom or your religious beliefs — are not our business. In short, we say: Smoke all the crack you want, or go motorcycling without a helmet; just don’t expect me to pay for your rehab.

Ron Paul’s candidacy is a thoughtful attempt to claim the broad center in the middle of the red/blue political bickering that passes for political discourse today. And if there has been a real surprise in the GOP race, it has been the strength of the independent-thinking OB/GYN doctor from Texas. His Web site gets many visits, and not because men think they might see naked women on it.

Sounding off Royally

Doug Mataconis isn't happy that some woman called "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor-Mountbatten will be visiting the free and independent United States of America". Apparently, visits from certain foreign heads of state (like the Queen of Canada) are more irritating than others:

Okay, let’s get this straight people.

We won the Revolutionary War.

We owe no alliegience to the British Throne.

When it comes to the British Royal Family (to the exent you can call the Buckingham Place rendition of “Married With Children” a family) we owe them nothing.

No respect.

Nothing.

Okay, to be fair, Doug is actually objecting to the somewhat ridiculous lengths to which some Americans go to honour royalty. Respect for a visiting monarch is fine, but it's perhaps going too far to treat them like Hollywood actors . . . (tongue very firmly in cheek).

More on the militarization of local police forces

Radley Balko provides more background on the increasing use of military equipment and tactics by civilian police forces:

The Pentagon giveaway program began in the late 1980s, and is almost certainly responsible for the dramatic rise in the number of SWAT teams across the country, which led to the 1500 percent increase in the number of total deployments over the last 25 years, and to the increasing use of paramilitary tactics for nonviolent crimes. Many criminal justice experts say the program, along with the fact that SWAT teams and narcotics officers are often trained by former members of elite military groups like the Army Rangers or Navy Seals is responsible for the "cowboy" mentality that pervades many SWAT and narcotics units.

It isn't hard to see why. Outfit domestic police officers in military clothing, arm them with military gear, train them in military tactics taught by ex-military personnel, then tell them they're fighting a "war" on drugs, and we shouldn't be the least bit surprised when they treat city streets like battlefields, drug offenders like enemy combatants, and victims like Katherine Johnston and Isaac Singletary as mere casualties of war. Posse Comitatus isn't some quaint relic from the Civil War era. It shows a clear understanding between the two institutions' missions. One is charged with protecting our rights. The other is charged with annihilating an enemy. It's probably a good idea not to get them confused, no?

Police "culture of corruption" in Atlanta

Radley Balko has the details on a plea bargain agreed by a pair of Atlanta police officers in their trial for the killing of Kathryn Johnston:

We now know that Kathryn Johnston fired only a single bullet, through the door as police were trying to break in. They responded with a storm of bullets, which apparently both wounded Johnston and the officers themselves. When they realized their fatal error, they planted cocaine and marijuana in the woman's home. They then pressured an uninvolved informant to testify to having made controlled buys at Johnston's home to cover their tracks.

The New York Times is now reporting that the officers have told federal investigators that their behavior was not out of the ordinary. That corruption, planting evidence, and giving false testimony are routine at APD. That's not surprising. The only way these officers could think they'd get away with all of this is if they were operating within a system that routinely allows for—or even encourages—such behavior. APD's focus on arrest numbers and professional rewards for the big bust apparently incentivized such short cuts.

It's also important to remember that it's possible we wouldn't know any of this were it not for the uncooperative informant who admirably refused to help the cops cover their asses. Had he gone along with the plan, much of the public may well still think Kathryn Johnston was a geriatric dope pusher, and that her death was unfortunate, but a justifiable use of force by the raiding police. The failure here is not just with these three police officers. It's with their supervisors who failed to provide adequate oversight. It's with the prosecutors who failed to ask the right questions. And it's with the judges who, according to an investigation by the Atlanta Journal, routinely signed off on these types of warrants with no scrutiny at all.

The key part of the "War on Drugs" is the need for police officers to violate the spirit of the law in order to develop cases to the letter of the law. Entrapment, far from being a rare and shameful tactic, becomes daily practice. Once you're committed to breaking some laws to enforce other laws, you're greasing the skids for a plummet down the moral hill to where police officers (and their supervisors and the courts) end up with a brutal rule of the jungle, where cops are only the largest gang on the streets.