Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Wry Catcher]

Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?

Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years? Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown. That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me. Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.

I do not dismiss any mass shootings. Why do you dismiss 500 plus homicides/year in Chicago? Could it be that they don't fit your agenda?
Mass shootings make news. People are and should be outraged by them, but mass shootings account for a very small percentage of homicides.
Mass shootings accounted for 88 deaths in 2012 and 68 so far in 2013. 150 people are murdered in single victim incidents for every mass shooting death.
Why do you dismiss THEM?
Could it be that you have a need to be seen as compassionate? It's telling that your compassion only extends to the stories with lots of media attention.

I said "I suppose" you ..., not that you personally do.

The rest of your post expresses merit for some form of gun control, but in context it is a non sequitur. All gun violence which kills or maims an innocent person is an act of evil, be the victim the single casualty or not; be the victim an adult or a child. However, the killing of 20 six year olds in their classroom stands out as unique and noteworthy on the field of carnage.

 

[Bern80]

Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.

Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again.

After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.

A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.

I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.

That focus on what the person used to commit the atrocity rather than the actual person that commited it is what I find most disturbing. Those of you that want to elminate or restrict access to guns, does that address the depression or mental state of someone like Lanza? Does it address missteps in parenting that may have occured? Does it address bullying that may have contribited to that act of violence. The answer to all of those while you are all so focused on guns, is no.

It's just odd to me that's not what the national debate turned out to be. It was focused on what he used; guns and how to regulate them. It wasn't about the root cause like why are some kids so depressed they need to shoot people. How do we teach children not to be bullys. How do we properly parent our children so this doesn't happen. THAT is what needs to be focused on because that is the root cause of these mass shootings. But no, once again, liberals being what they are would rather not hold individuals accountable for their actions. They rather blame someone, or in this case someTHING else.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Again, when you need a liscense to exercise your right to speech, religous practice, trial by jury and anything else, we can talk.

and considering how much domestic crap is hidden by police officers to cover up for OTHER police officers, i find your point amusing to say the least.

The background check is not about being armed, its about having the power to take someone into custody and make them go through the legal system, that is the REAL power of the police. Being armed is a right they have, the same as the rest of us, its the overreaching power to arrest that has to be controlled and trained on.

Thanks so much for the lecture; I was one department's training officer and later was head of personnel wherein we recruited, evaluated and offered conditional appointments to new employees, conditional, based on successful completion of all of the points noted above plus 832 PC (CA Law), laws of arrest and firearms training plus dept. policies including use of force; and, in another agency ran both the domestic violence unit and IA.

I also provided technical assistance to the Feds and the St. of CA. Post your CV which outlines your experience in all or any of the areas of LE where I worked. Maybe then we can debate real issue with more technical expertise to see who knows and who is full of bull shit.

Its that "Im better than you because I used to be a cop" attitude that pisses people off so much. This isnt about the actual mechanics of the training, its about how we give police certain abilities to perform, that if performed by anyone else would be considered assault, kidnapping and a host of other crimes.

I do know better than you, if that pisses you off - or others - count to ten and then consider the content of what I post.

You are so full of yourself over your training and your desired "special" status of being a LEO that you forget your original role and purpose, which is to keep us from having to take the law into our own hands, not to lord over us like some medival knights.

LEO's have a special status only in terms of the Peace Officer's Bill of Rights. They are protected from false allegations and those who make such untruth statements can be charged with a misdemeanor. Their personal records are not open to the public unless a Pitchess Motion is approved by the court. Otherwise there 'special status' grants them a duty to go in harms way to protect their community.

When a LEO discharges his weapon the matter is taken seriously and if the use of force policy is not properly followed and internal affairs investigation commences.

I suggest you look into a Ride Along with your local police or sheriff's dept., it might give you a real understanding of the job.

 

[rdean]

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

Why the sudden interest?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...or-felons-rapists-and-murderers-good-job.html

 

[Ernie S.]

Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years? Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown. That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me. Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.

I do not dismiss any mass shootings. Why do you dismiss 500 plus homicides/year in Chicago? Could it be that they don't fit your agenda?
Mass shootings make news. People are and should be outraged by them, but mass shootings account for a very small percentage of homicides.
Mass shootings accounted for 88 deaths in 2012 and 68 so far in 2013. 150 people are murdered in single victim incidents for every mass shooting death.
Why do you dismiss THEM?
Could it be that you have a need to be seen as compassionate? It's telling that your compassion only extends to the stories with lots of media attention.

I said "I suppose" you ..., not that you personally do.

The rest of your post expresses merit for some form of gun control, but in context it is a non sequitur. All gun violence which kills or maims an innocent person is an act of evil, be the victim the single casualty or not; be the victim an adult or a child. However, the killing of 20 six year olds in their classroom stands out as unique and noteworthy on the field of carnage.

Why? What makes those 20 kids more special than the 40 adults that were killed the next day in the US?

The death of 20 6 year olds tugs at the heart strings, but how exactly does that make them ammunition for liberal agenda while the 40 shop keepers, mothers, fathers, police officers and drug dealers that also died that day, are largely overlooked?

 

[martybegan]

Thanks so much for the lecture; I was one department's training officer and later was head of personnel wherein we recruited, evaluated and offered conditional appointments to new employees, conditional, based on successful completion of all of the points noted above plus 832 PC (CA Law), laws of arrest and firearms training plus dept. policies including use of force; and, in another agency ran both the domestic violence unit and IA.

I also provided technical assistance to the Feds and the St. of CA. Post your CV which outlines your experience in all or any of the areas of LE where I worked. Maybe then we can debate real issue with more technical expertise to see who knows and who is full of bull shit.

Its that "Im better than you because I used to be a cop" attitude that pisses people off so much. This isnt about the actual mechanics of the training, its about how we give police certain abilities to perform, that if performed by anyone else would be considered assault, kidnapping and a host of other crimes.

I do know better than you, if that pisses you off - or others - count to ten and then consider the content of what I post.

You are so full of yourself over your training and your desired "special" status of being a LEO that you forget your original role and purpose, which is to keep us from having to take the law into our own hands, not to lord over us like some medival knights.

LEO's have a special status only in terms of the Peace Officer's Bill of Rights. They are protected from false allegations and those who make such untruth statements can be charged with a misdemeanor. Their personal records are not open to the public unless a Pitchess Motion is approved by the court. Otherwise there 'special status' grants them a duty to go in harms way to protect their community.

When a LEO discharges his weapon the matter is taken seriously and if the use of force policy is not properly followed and internal affairs investigation commences.

I suggest you look into a Ride Along with your local police or sheriff's dept., it might give you a real understanding of the job.

Considering i live in NYC, ride alongs dont happen. and in NYC cronyism in the PD is rampant. If you are cool with the cops you get a gun permit. If not? Hell no. Cops cover for each other all the damn time, and I know, because some of my friends are cops, and they openly admit it.

As for the duty to go in harms way, cops are not actually liable to protect you, its been decided in court. so there goes that reason for being special.

In NYC i am a 2nd class citizen when it comes to 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Spoonman]

I do not dismiss any mass shootings. Why do you dismiss 500 plus homicides/year in Chicago? Could it be that they don't fit your agenda?
Mass shootings make news. People are and should be outraged by them, but mass shootings account for a very small percentage of homicides.
Mass shootings accounted for 88 deaths in 2012 and 68 so far in 2013. 150 people are murdered in single victim incidents for every mass shooting death.
Why do you dismiss THEM?
Could it be that you have a need to be seen as compassionate? It's telling that your compassion only extends to the stories with lots of media attention.

I said "I suppose" you ..., not that you personally do.

The rest of your post expresses merit for some form of gun control, but in context it is a non sequitur. All gun violence which kills or maims an innocent person is an act of evil, be the victim the single casualty or not; be the victim an adult or a child. However, the killing of 20 six year olds in their classroom stands out as unique and noteworthy on the field of carnage.

Why? What makes those 20 kids more special than the 40 adults that were killed the next day in the US?

The death of 20 6 year olds tugs at the heart strings, but how exactly does that make them ammunition for liberal agenda while the 40 shop keepers, mothers, fathers, police officers and drug dealers that also died that day, are largely overlooked?

and there you have uncovered the key to the liberal way of thinking. why are they more special? because they can be exploited to sell an agenda.

 

[Ernie S.]

[

Ok - I think you missed my point. You're plan is fine - but my point was the criminals (who are banned from possessing firearms) will still get them through theft, the black market, etc.

If you aren't manufacturing them and private citizens don't have them, you won't have a supply to meet the demand...

[
That's why none of it really matters. Murder is an offense punishable by death and it still occurs millions of times per year in America. No legislation is going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Except for all those "Socalist" European countries that have done exactly that and have reduced murder rates down to less than a thousand. Oh, and they do this without a Death Penalty, mostly.

[
The more practical approach, and the only real solution, is to relax restrictions and encourage more law abiding citizens carrying, more law enforcement, more private security. In short - more guns.

I'm sure that's the wet dream of the Gun Industry, but usually, when you are in a room full of gasoline, you don't want to hand out more matches.

[
After all, it's no coincidence that the massacres keep occurring where guns are banned.

Oh, come on. James Holmes didn't pick that theatre because it was a no-gun zone. He picked it because a Batman movie was playing and he thought he was The Joker.

There were armed guards at Columbine, a police force at VA Tech, and Ft. Hood and the Navy Yard were freaking military installations.

You do realize that only MP's and private security personnel are armed on domestic bases, thanks to Bill Clinton, do you not?

 

[Steven_R]

You do realize that only MP's and private security personnel are armed on domestic bases, thanks to Bill Clinton, do you not?

They don't realize it. It's just some notion that guns on a military base = guns in everyone's hands without realizing that unless they are actively issued for some purpose those guns are in an armory, locked up tighter than a nun's butthole.

 

[Ernie S.]

if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.

We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens. Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many. Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse. (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)

Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.

Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.

And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.

What possible reason would the rich have for "dismantling the middle class"?
Poor people have no money to buy their goods and services. Poor people are a drain on their wealth in the form of taxation.
It makes sense for rich people to have as many other rich people as possible so all can get richer.

 

[Ernie S.]

You do realize that only MP's and private security personnel are armed on domestic bases, thanks to Bill Clinton, do you not?

They don't realize it. It's just some notion that guns on a military base = guns in everyone's hands without realizing that unless they are actively issued for some purpose those guns are in an armory, locked up tighter than a nun's butthole.

Those in training usually have weapons in their barracks, but they don't have ammunition except on the range.

 

[Spoonman]

Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.

Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.

And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.

What possible reason would the rich have for "dismantling the middle class"?
Poor people have no money to buy their goods and services. Poor people are a drain on their wealth in the form of taxation.
It makes sense for rich people to have as many other rich people as possible so all can get richer.

you have to wonder where they come up with this shit. but what you really have to wonder about are why are there so many frigging stupid people out there willing to believe it.

 

[kaz]

Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.

And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.

What possible reason would the rich have for "dismantling the middle class"?
Poor people have no money to buy their goods and services. Poor people are a drain on their wealth in the form of taxation.
It makes sense for rich people to have as many other rich people as possible so all can get richer.

you have to wonder where they come up with this shit. but what you really have to wonder about are why are there so many frigging stupid people out there willing to believe it.

It's the funniest part of their "Fox News" talking points. The Republicans can't get the socons, RINOs, libertarians, tea partiers and the rest to agree on anything. The Democrats agree on everything. And they repeat these same idiotic points endlessly. Like that FoxNews programs us all. Apparently they're programming us all to disagree...

 

[Spoonman]

What possible reason would the rich have for "dismantling the middle class"?
Poor people have no money to buy their goods and services. Poor people are a drain on their wealth in the form of taxation.
It makes sense for rich people to have as many other rich people as possible so all can get richer.

you have to wonder where they come up with this shit. but what you really have to wonder about are why are there so many frigging stupid people out there willing to believe it.

It's the funniest part of their "Fox News" talking points. The Republicans can't get the socons, RINOs, libertarians, tea partiers and the rest to agree on anything. The Democrats agree on everything. And they repeat these same idiotic points endlessly. Like that FoxNews programs us all. Apparently they're programming us all to disagree...

they can't understand that republicans are not goose stepping idiots like they are. republicans are a collection of individuals with individual opinions. not a party line ideal only. we see dissagreement as a normal process. they see it as dissention among the ranks

 

[kaz]

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

Why the sudden interest?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...or-felons-rapists-and-murderers-good-job.html

The point, dean, since you came late to the party, is that they already have access to guns and they aren't going to obey laws. If you read the op, my point was that kids in high school can get as much pot as they want. How are you going to keep guns, which are everywhere inside and outside the country, from criminals when we can't even keep pot away from high schoolers when pot is completely illegal.

Law abiding citizens on the other hand, by definition, follow the law. So, what you liberals are doing is making sure that criminals can slaughter Americans with little risk to themselves. And in mass shootings, you maximize the carnage.

Any points on the actual discussion?

 

[RKMBrown]

You do realize that only MP's and private security personnel are armed on domestic bases, thanks to Bill Clinton, do you not?

They don't realize it. It's just some notion that guns on a military base = guns in everyone's hands without realizing that unless they are actively issued for some purpose those guns are in an armory, locked up tighter than a nun's butthole.

Am I the only one that thinks disarming a military base is retarded?

 

[P@triot]

Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.

Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.

And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.

What possible reason would the rich have for "dismantling the middle class"?
Poor people have no money to buy their goods and services. Poor people are a drain on their wealth in the form of taxation.
It makes sense for rich people to have as many other rich people as possible so all can get richer.

 

[P@triot]

You do realize that only MP's and private security personnel are armed on domestic bases, thanks to Bill Clinton, do you not?

They don't realize it. It's just some notion that guns on a military base = guns in everyone's hands without realizing that unless they are actively issued for some purpose those guns are in an armory, locked up tighter than a nun's butthole.

Am I the only one that thinks disarming a military base is retarded?

Well retarded is what Bill Clinton and the Dumbocrats do best.....

 

[kaz]

You do realize that only MP's and private security personnel are armed on domestic bases, thanks to Bill Clinton, do you not?

They don't realize it. It's just some notion that guns on a military base = guns in everyone's hands without realizing that unless they are actively issued for some purpose those guns are in an armory, locked up tighter than a nun's butthole.

Am I the only one that thinks disarming a military base is retarded?

They should just hand out daisies

 

[Wry Catcher]

I do not dismiss any mass shootings. Why do you dismiss 500 plus homicides/year in Chicago? Could it be that they don't fit your agenda?
Mass shootings make news. People are and should be outraged by them, but mass shootings account for a very small percentage of homicides.
Mass shootings accounted for 88 deaths in 2012 and 68 so far in 2013. 150 people are murdered in single victim incidents for every mass shooting death.
Why do you dismiss THEM?
Could it be that you have a need to be seen as compassionate? It's telling that your compassion only extends to the stories with lots of media attention.

I said "I suppose" you ..., not that you personally do.

The rest of your post expresses merit for some form of gun control, but in context it is a non sequitur. All gun violence which kills or maims an innocent person is an act of evil, be the victim the single casualty or not; be the victim an adult or a child. However, the killing of 20 six year olds in their classroom stands out as unique and noteworthy on the field of carnage.

Why? What makes those 20 kids more special than the 40 adults that were killed the next day in the US?

The death of 20 6 year olds tugs at the heart strings, but how exactly does that make them ammunition for liberal agenda while the 40 shop keepers, mothers, fathers, police officers and drug dealers that also died that day, are largely overlooked?

That you don't know ... frankly I don't know how to respond. I'd walk through hell to save those children; I'd take a tactical response to the other situation.