Posted on 01/18/2013 8:47:48 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
The last time America had a gun-control debate was the early 1990s, and it was followed by the great two-decade-long decline in American crime. The irony is that gun control had very little to do with that decline.
William Bratton did. Serving as New York City's top cop for 27 months from 1994 to 1996, he helped turn around a violent, crime-ridden city with policies that later were adopted nationwide and across the globe. The 65-year-old now runs a consulting business and a tech firm that focus on law enforcement, and in a recent chat he puts the gun debate in the context of policies that really have made America safer.
As announced Wednesday, President Obama wants more federal and state information-sharing, more data collection and better training for local law enforcement. But the heart of his proposals, and the most controversial, are his requests that Congress reinstate the ban on "assault weapons" that lapsed in 2004, outlaw ammunition clips holding 10 or more rounds, and extend mandatory background checks to almost all gun sales. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The looseness of common sense law is the problem.
Why have the matters of NidaL Hassan and Trayvon Martin yet to be resolved?
I don’t believe too many criminals subject themselves to a background check, so doing them will not work.
And it'll apply to cops too?
Didn't think so.
An armed assailant intent on breaking all existing gun laws and eventually committing suicide can only be stopped by one thing: an armed defender.
Certainty of punishment made zero difference to Adam Lanza.
If we do not want school choldren targeted for violence, then defend them.
It is as simple as that, nothing else matters at all.
The fact of the matter is... we are not in total control of everything in life and can NEVER stop someone intent on killing others that is willing to die to achieve their goal.
This is just a sad fact of life.
I got into that discussion with an anti-gun nut once, and to make the point I asked her “If I or anyone else decided to kill you by walking up and jamming a screwdriver through your neck, what would stop us?” The light went on for her just a little bit.
No doubt.
Nothing makes me angrier than hearing some jackass politician say, “we have to find a way to make sure this never happens again.”
You can’t, you are not God, much as you would like to be, Mr. or Mizz Politician. If you in fact wish to safeguard children, then discuss improving security protocols that are obviously lacking as they pertain to schools, otherwise I am going to know that you mean not to protect them but to use crimes committed against them to advance your agenda against law abiding citizens.
I say we outlaw murder, robbery and breaking and entry. Oh.....wait......never mind.
If you don’t know about Bill Bratton, he’s a guy that you might want to keep an eye on. He’s been police chief of the two biggest cities in the nation, and each logged truly phenomenal drops in crime under his tenure, and even after his departure, but while his approach was kept in place. Based on his history, if Chicago wised up and hired him on, I’d expect even that cesspool to be radically cleaned up within the space of three to five years.
“The Nut Logic of the Nut Liberal”
-The ShotGun Method”
We know the nut has a gun.
We don`t know which one is the nut.
We don`t know where he is.
If we take guns away from everyone, then the nut`s gun will surely taken coz we will have all the guns.
This way we prevent gun violence.
Q. What if the nut has an illegal weapon hidden in his house?
A. We will search everyone`s house and take any hidden weapons. This way we will have taken away every gun, including the nut`s gun, which we claimed was the original intent, but it wasn`t.We lied.
If Chicago cleaned up corruption and criminality, there would be no need for the Democrat Party. They don’t want it to go away. Crime and dependence is their bread and butter.
In a perfect world there would be no crime. In a slightly less perfect world the perp would be shot just before he could commit a crime.
More guns, less crime.
These issues need to be resolved. The problem is the left will not allow themselves to look stupid. The media,and Justice have buried these issues. It cannot be allowed to happen.
Judges always want to give thugs a slap on the wrist because most of them are young, but the problem is that they're already hardened killers and letting them loose on the population after a few months or even a couple of years in jail does nothing to protect us.
Whenever I see one of those articles about some thug who has "accidentally" killed a child in a drive by shooting of one of his gang rivals, I always see that said thug had already served not one but numerous sentences for earlier offenses but was back on the street to kill again.
I agree that blackmarket weapons should be hard to get and that stopping weapons smuggling should be a priority, but the problem is really the people who use them, and we're not dealing with them very effectively at all.
I don’t agree that stopping blackmarket weapons should be a priority. The whole FFL scheme is unconstitutional on its face. There is no other enumerated right where you have to pay fees to enjoy the right. We had less crime when you went to a hardware store, put your cash on the counter and walked out the door with your purchase. Criminals will get guns no matter what. The whole FFL scheme is part of a long term plan to reduce the number of guns in non government hands and ultimately to register guns, then to confiscate them just like what happened in Britain and Australia. The propaganda organs of the regime (aka the media) want to denormalize armed self defense for non government employees. We’re not buying it. Repeal the GCA of 68 and the FOPA! Open or concealed carry without permit like AK, WY, VT and AZ in all 50 states. When the cost of crime goes up (i.e. when law abiding citizens will shoot you dead if you try to rob, rape or murder them) then the frequency of occurrence will go down.
And to the authors point, I’d mention that in many of our large cities, the Democrat politicians who control the police, don’t want crime to decrease. You don’t arrest and lock up your constituents.
So, according to this genius, they can limit the number of rounds in a clip. Doesn’t that mean I just use more clips to load my magazine? This dope should know better.
It's true that criminals who can't pass a background check may still get them no matter what (buying a locally stolen gun, for example), but there's big money in weapons smuggling, both into and out of the US, and the money and the weapons go to everything from the Mafia to the drug gangs to terrorist organizations in the ME. So I think that could be a legitimate focus.
But the government isn't interested in that. F&F was essentially about just the reverse, for example: it was about the Federal Government trying to advance its anti-gun agenda by making it look as if legally acquired guns ("legal" only in the sense that legitimate dealers were forced by government agents to actually violate the safeguards, such as waiting periods) were being employed in crime, using the unsuspecting Mexican population as guinea pigs. The government has gotten away with it, and they're emboldened now.
I keep posting that the reason the Second Amendment exists was not to protect hunting or for any reason but to prevent the disarming of the citizenry that would make them unable to resist tyranny.
In reality, I don't think it even remotely likely that armed Americans would storm the citadels of government, but apparently Obama does. For one thing, the odds would have been pretty much the same on both sides in the 18th century, but a popular uprising now would face drones and the entire arsenal of modern weaponry. So in a sense, the Second Amendment for its original purposes is just symbolic.
But the thing that I find disturbing is that this symbolism is so important to Obama. What does he plan to do that means that even symbolically, he must make sure there is no dissent?
Human nature has not changed a whit since Adam and Eve. And you make no response to my contention that the whole FFL scheme is unconstitutional on its face - which it is, since you cannot license a right (then it is a privilege).
As for storming the citadels of government, it wouldn’t work like that. There are 2 + 100 + 435 elected individuals who have to worry in that scenario. Plus however many judges, senior government officials and elected state office holders. We won’t be fighting their army or their police on their terms if (and I pray it does not) comes to that.
III
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.