“The thing that we have to remember is that laws are only as good as our citizen’s willingness to obey them. Now, law abiding citizens, do in fact, obey them. Criminals don’t obey them.” – John Boehner, Speaker of the House, April 12, 2013
Criminal use of weapons, whether it is a firearm, knife, bat, hammer, hands, etc. is a statement of fact. Criminals will use whatever means they have at their disposal to gain whatever advantage they can over their victim to gain whatever they want. That’s the “sane” criminal – the criminal with a specific goal in mind for material gain.
The insane criminal, like those who are responsible for the horrific mass-murders in schools and shopping malls, really do not care about laws. Their goal is to rack up a high body count before they’re stopped or killed so that somehow they will have their name in a record book.
Now I realize that the above is an over simplification of classes of criminals in our society, but bear with me.
In both cases, the restriction of a person’s ability to defend themselves with a firearm puts that person at risk for either one of these criminal groups. It doesn’t matter if the person is in public or in their home, the safety of the individual is a personal responsibility. It is not the responsibility of law enforcement, and this has been adjudicated in both State and Federal courts!
This is nowhere more evident than the city of Chicago. Guns are banned, and yet the incidence of violent crime (gun and otherwise) being inflicted upon the disarmed populace is horrific. The police are not able or not willing (and definitely not obligated) to protect the neighborhoods from criminal violence and activity. People cannot legally defend themselves or their neighborhoods with firearms. Criminals now rule Chicago, and I’m not talking about the ones in City Hall.
Politicians and the elected “leaders” do not go after the criminals with weapons – that’s too hard and too dangerous. Besides, the murders of people (usually the poor & defenseless in these crime-ridden cities) do not have the attention of the politicians because it’s too embarrassing to admit that there is no control of the criminal element in their city. Instead, they jump on high-profile mass-murders like Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech to get their faces in front of their constituents so they can appear strong and leader-like. And the media is their willing accomplice.
What really bugs me is that anytime some psycho goes on a rampage, the law-abiding citizens are held responsible and are punished by the passing of more rules, regulations, and restrictions. The inevitable result is that now more and more people are now subject to that same violence. And that means that the percentage of my being a victim of a violent crime goes up. Perhaps now you understand why I have such an aversion to increased gun control banning legislation. The safety of my family and of myself is being compromised.
This, I cannot stand.
I am writing my Washington Congresscritters every week, and will start writing to the DNC stating my objections to the positions taken by my duly elected representatives which are against not only my personal concerns, but in violation of their oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.
I invite you to do the same.
UPDATE: April 14, 2013:
PoliceOne.com is an online resource for law enforcement officers, and recently surveyed 15,000+ officers concerning gun control. Here are the results (full link is here):
- Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.
- The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.
- About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.
- Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.
- More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).
- The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.
- More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.
- More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.
- More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.
- When asked whether citizens should be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun, about 43 percent of officers say it should not be required. About 42 percent say it should be required for all weapons, with the remainder favoring training classes for certain weapons.
- While some officers say gun violence in the United States stems from violent movies and video games (14 percent), early release and short sentencing for violent offenders (14 percent) and poor identification/treatments of mentally-ill individuals (10 percent), the majority (38 percent) blame a decline in parenting and family values.