"W-III" (a screen name that combines his initials with an affinity) must not have gotten word from the Brady Campaign that I "denigrate law enforcement." A retired peace officer, he corresponds with me frequently and cordially, offering tips and comments, or to let me know he's shared a link to one of my columns with his friends. He even freely uses the term "Only Ones" to describe those in his former profession who do not share his support for an armed populace--funny how the only ones that angers are authoritarians who don't think "We the People" can be trusted...
Last night he called my attention to an FBI/Justice Department report from a few years back, "Violent Encounters: A Study on Felonious Assaults on America's Law Enforcement Officers." The entire thing is broken into several pdf files hosted by the American Firearms Institute. Click here to access them all.
The document I'd like to talk about today is Chapter 4, "Weapons," and specifically two aspects of it. First, let's address the whole basis for the "Only Ones," the claim that police are simply better trained than the rest of us as a condition of employment.
The report discusses a study where:
All of the 50 law enforcement officers…had to qualify with their firearms at least once each year, averaging 2.5 qualifications per year for an average of 14 hours of sidearm training per year…28 officers had an interest in firearms or practiced shooting in addition to their required firearm qualification training. Of those 28 officers, 22 hunted and occasionally practiced with shotguns or rifles. None of the 22 reported practicing with handguns in nonduty-related activities.
The second point involves the effectiveness of "gun control" laws:
To protect all Americans, the federal government has passed many laws to restrict and limit firearm purchases. The offenders in this research, however, stated that none of these laws or statutes deterred them.
Bluntly:
Remember--this report was put out by the DOJ. They can't say they don't know "gun control" doesn't work. So when Eric Holder comes out saying we need to ban "assault weapons" to fight Mexican crime, or establish a "No Guns" registry for people on government's black...uh...watch list, he knows these will not stop even one evil, determined person from committing a violent act--but he wants to do it anyway.
Still, some inane authority worshiper will no doubt point out how guns are being put "on the street" through burglaries. If there were no guns in people's homes, the argument will go, there would be no guns to steal and then misuse.
I hope someone does. After all, what good does closing the so-called "gun show loophole" do when that only accounts for a tiny fraction of "crime guns"? How could it be logically consistent to not demand shutting off the main source of supply--the home? It would sure be helpful if some in the enemy camp were stupid enough to drop the mask and argue that (some are).
Guns exist in the world. And with the right incentives, the people who the state wants to have them will find a way to get them to the people who want them badly enough to pay top dollar. It's not like we don't have plenty of evidence to back that up.
Comments
The draft of the 1968 Gun Control Act included restrictions on lawful commerce in firearms by law abiding citizens, dealers and manufacturers. It had no restrictions or penalties on the criminal misuse of firearms. The roots of this law can be traced to a one imposed in Nazi Germany. You can reference the JPFO website for the details. The NRA, at the time an organization focused on marksmanship and firearms safety training, objected strongly enough that stiff sanctions against criminal posession and trafficking in firearms were added over the objections of the bill's author and the Johnson administration's justice department. From 1968 until Project Exile started in Richmond in 1997, through one administration after another, those strong sanctions were ignored. In 29 years, something on the order of 50 "felon in posession" cases were prosecuted. If GCA 68 were actually used, and violent felons faced certain imprisonment, the number of "guns on the street" would be irrelevant.
(continuation of post below)
Richmond's Project Exile referred all "felon in posession" cases directly to the federal system for prosecution under GCA68. Under that system, the higher conviction rate, the 5 year mandatory minimum sentence, and imprisonment far from family and "homies" quickly convinced Richmond's criminal subculture that firearm use in a crime was not worth the risk. Over 18 months their murder rate dropped by 80%. Attorney General Holder already has an excellent tool at his disposal that would save countless lives, not to mention all the other costs associated with criminal firearm use. But for some reason, He, like all of his predecessors over the last 41 years, refuses to use it. Obviously, putting criminals behind bars for long periods of time is not a Federal priority. I wonder why that could be? As Sarah Brady once said, "After all, if it could save one life, wouldn't it be worth it?"
That all sounds fine... except, of course, for the victims who die. And it doesn't really matter to THEM if they died from a gunshot wound or from anything else.
Then there is the little problem of all the cases that never get solved at all.
No thanks. The very best resolution to a violent attack is the death of the criminal at the hands of the intended victim - using the most effective tool they can handle. And I can't think of a better deterrent than that either.
Far better than sending someone to crime university prisons... at taxpayer expense.
MamaLiberty,
Everything is easy for the left, because they want to be judged by their intentions, not their results. That's why all of their solutions start with "We'lljustpassalaw". And if you ask them what they've done to help they always say "Wellwepassedlandmarkbipartisanlegislation".
So. If we give them the "gunshow loophole", we'll get what in return? DOJ survey of felons says 1% to 2% of "crime guns" come from gunshows. For sake of argument lets say closing their loophole wipes out 1% to 2% of all crime. A real stretch but lets be lefties and play "just pretend". FBI says "assault weapons" are involved in less that 1% of crime. Say we let VPC wave Josh Sugarman's magic wand and another 1% of crime goes away. That's it. If they get all they say they want, and it all works, we get a 3% improvement max. Meanwhile Project Exile got an 80% reduction, and they won't implement it nationwide. Shouldn't we be asking them why not?
Doctor, you are so on target. My view is that the Left needs crime, feeds off it, thrives because of it just as they do with most ills attending the human condition. Where--in what condition--would Leftist politicians be unless there were unsatisfactory conditions that they could pretend to address? It doesn't matter to them that they don't work because the solution to that is to add controls and income confiscation without repeal of the measures that went before.
The "worse" things are (meaning the least controlled) as seen by the Left, the better. They'll take some action, even to the extent of handing the economy overt to a regulatory agency. Finally, they'll have attained a command economy and a population so impoverished that only the government can provide the surplus cheeses and peanut butter needed for subsistence.
Have a good day, everyone!
DDS you make a good point about project exile it does seem to work but I have a problem with your analysis it’s not complete.
When the 1968 GCA was passed some of the disqualifiers we have today didn’t exist, Such as making felons out of people for un-intended paper work violations.
I do not and never will support the disqualifiers that we have today. Before the passage of the 68 GCA non-violent felons could buy gun so could people with mental health problems. We just didn’t rubber stamp disqualified on everyone for any reason.
Illinois you can go to the emergency room for a traumatic injury receive a routine visit from a psychiatrist and loose your gun rights simply because the hospital is protecting itself from possible future litigation.
Continued…
As far as your Richmond example, how do pre 1968 homicide rates compare to post exile homicide rates?
In the City of Chicago pre-1968 homicide rates were 1/3 or less of the highest post-1968 homicide rates.
Chicago always as had periods of social unless but homicide rates dropped after clam was restored it wasn’t until after the passage of the 1968 GCA and the Illinois FOID card that rates remained high.
I’m not saying doctor that your analysis is wrong, just incomplete. Without a comparison to pre-1968 homicide rates your argument doesn’t holdup.
What happened in Chicago was that the checks and balances that keep a society peaceful were removed and thus favored the criminal.
I contend that something similar happened in Richmond.
Without looking at the numbers I would say that before gun control was passed 1968) homicides in Richmond compared with the best years of project exile.
Now ask yourself why?
Continued…
David this is an issue that burns me to the core far to many pro-gun people think that crime is an enforcement problem when in fact it’s a social problem.
When the checks and balances between the good people and the bad guys is removed crime and homicide flourishes.
David how about doing an article on this issue?
You can look at the Encyclopedia of Chicago history and the Chicago Homicide rate info put out by the Chicago police department as follow the history of Homicides rates as they compare to gun control efforts
Continued…
After taking a deep breath I realized that I made several spelling and grammar errors in my comments.
I also realize that some people like to use such errors as a way to discredit person’s comments. Well if you must go ahead.
My point is that gun control doesn’t work unless the end game is a police state or slavery. While education, increased police patrols and greater community involvement do make a difference in homicide and crime rates they still fall short of an armed populous.
When Cesare Beccaria wrote that an armed society is a peaceful society he understood the need/benefit of a checks and balance within a society.
What Cesare Beccaria said 250 years ago still holds true today
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes”—Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson
Actually, when there are no guns in homes, then the next place to get broken into will be the police gun room. Think about it - criminals would at one blow mostly disarm the police and arm themselves. It happened in the past, it will happen again, and disarming those with a criminal mind is a fool's errand.
"An armed society is a polite society."
way to go mammaliberty. At last someone who thinks right. Kill the criminal who faces you and you may very well save at least one good life. At least the criminal will not live off the taxpayers back for a while then go out and do it again and live off the taxpayers back and go out and do it again on and on ad nausium. A pair came into my place of business one time. I was suspicious and got a customer to leave and call the police. The police got there in time to prevent them from trying me. one of them came back a few weeks later and when i allowed him to get back of me accidentally and turned on him suddenly while drawing my gun he stammered and said "you know who I am". I said yes. he apologized for the former meeting and explained that he was no longer interested in robbery. He was trying to get a job and get his kids back. He was a very good customer and I helped him all I could. The other, because i allowed him to live killed a lady acquaintance of mine at another business.
If I had not allowed the ---- to live a very good and sweet young woman would be with her husband and child now. For that, I will never forgive myself. But then I would have killed the other also-he would have caught the first bullet. But then I would not have known that two little boys got their father back either. Every time the killer comes up for parol, I and several others beg the parol board to release him to our town or tell us where he will be. They have not paroled him yet. He haasn't committed any more crimes either. so far. don't take our rights away from us and crime will not only plummet but it will be fasr less costly. Kill a criminal and we don't have to house and clothe him and feed him until he does it again. There is a much better solution if one is squeemish about saveing the sheep from the wolves. ask me for my version. i will check on this comment forum the next day or two.. Love from a sheepdog.
To Clarence Lee Hines:
Your mention of sheep, sheepdogs and wolves brought a chuckle. When we see how society views armed law abiding citizens it's important to remember that the sheep don't see a sheepdog, they see just another wolf.
To Madashell:
I wanted to think on your post a while before responding. I was once told that you can housetrain a puppy with a .45, but if you give it some thought you might come up with a better way. It was not my intention to post a fully referenced, footnoted research paper. I am not going to spoonfeed anyone. If you are interested in the fight to keep our liberty, the information is out there for you to find. I would suggest you look up what happened to those guys who pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to buy you your liberty on July 4, 1776. All of them lost their bet and were either dead or ruined by 1783. But you and I won. Honor what they did for us by doing your own research. (cont. above)
(more to Madashell)
You might also want to check out the Appleseed project. Learn a little something about the birth of American Liberty. Hint, hint -- it didn't happen on July 4th. Maybe even go to an appleseed shoot. If we, heaven forbid, have to repeat what our ancestors did, you may need to know how to hit a man-sized target at 100 yards. Not a problem? Now try doing it 20 times out of 20 in 60 seconds. Appleseed will teach you how to teach yourself how to do it 20 out of 20 at 500 yards. But more importantly, they will teach you why you should want to know.
David has made it even easier for Madashell and the rest of us. Look down the right side of this page and among the other great resource links is one to The Appleseed Project. Check it out and go to an Appleseed shoot. It might not be the most fun you ever had but it will be right up there near the top. You might even learn something about your marksmanship skills (or lack thereof), and about what American liberty cost those who bought it for us.
To DDS I read your post and your comment to me and I’m curious did read my comments?
You started out questioning my knowledge of American History, my understanding of liberty and then proceeded to make comments about the Apple seed project something that I’ve been aware of since the program began. None of the above were part of my comments
My comments were based on your desire to promote Project Exile. My response is that Project Exile is not needed.
I also point out that crime went up in Chicago after the passage of gun control and never returned to normal levels, but you comment on puppies and 45s.
If we had more respect for the 2A in this country the checks and Balance between the Bad guys and rest of us would be in place and you wouldn’t have to have a police state to enforce the law.
Continued…
I don’t support disqualifiers because you can’t put a disqualifier on a God given right.
If people commit a crime they should pay for it but today we have included victimless crimes as a disqualifier to gun ownership.
The only people that I believe that shouldn’t have guns are those in prison in a mental hospital or illegally in the USA.
Since you want to promote liberty how about promoting William Rawle book a view of the Constitution.
I also noticed the NRA listing by your name, why are you supporting an organization that Negotiates your Rights Away.
The NRA has supported every major piece of gun control since 1930.
Project Exile is not the answer respect for the 2A and a bill of rights culture is the answer.
P.S. my family fought in the revolutionary war
There are also financial reasons why there is no serious effort to control criminals, and to protect them from potential victims.
I read somewhere that in some places, crime waves stop after certain criminals are killed in the commission of a crime by the rare armed California homeowner.
Local government and connected unions need criminal and gang activity to justify the annual "crime fighting" bonds that they push, since the hiring and "new" programs spending from all the previous year's bonds had no effect. No additional money = smaller departments, smaller union.
Crime does not decrease with the revolving door justice system, and armed gang eradication does not occur, even though they are in the state's database.
Law abiding gun owners are also in their database, so who is easier to pick on?
Many involved get to retire early, get a pension based on their last year income including overtime (usually over $120,000), with free healthcare. They are not school teachers
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!