Former FBI Agent on What to Do About Shooting Massacres

[InTheLight]

Please read this article. Kind of long but very interesting.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/185098771.html

 

[Mexdeaf]

That was a good article, fairly well-balanced. Thanks for sharing it!

 

[Zaac]

Please read this article. Kind of long but very interesting.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/185098771.html

If he didn't point folks to Jesus, it's a waste of time.

 

[Don]

The article doesn't actually say it, but makes a case for regulating guns just like cars. Everyone's allowed to have a car; but if you use it, you're required to have a license, or face penalties.

Of course, that's what Illinois has tried to do with their FOID requirement; and yet, Chicago and East St. Louis continue to have high homicide rates.

And no, Zaac, the author doesn't mention whether he is a Christian, nor the need for people to look to Jesus as the answer to these problems. I didn't think it was a waste of time; it was well-written, surprisingly so, and had some compelling anectdotes. You might disagree; but I guess we'll never know.

 

[Mexdeaf]

If he didn't point folks to Jesus, it's a waste of time.

Drinking water doesn't point people to Jesus, but go for a few days without it and you will be pointless.

 

[InTheLight]

I thought it was a well written, thoughtful, balanced article. I'm particularly intrigued by the call to action to find these killers before they can strike. The FBI has a profile of these people. Let's have a public relations effort to actively seek out these lunatics. If we can have campaigns to stamp out forest fires, pick up litter, find missing children, conserve energy, denigrate cigarette smokers, reduce drunk driving, root out terrorists, surely we can do the same with potential mass murderers.

 

[InTheLight]

The article doesn't actually say it, but makes a case for regulating guns just like cars. Everyone's allowed to have a car; but if you use it, you're required to have a license, or face penalties.

Of course, that's what Illinois has tried to do with their FOID requirement; and yet, Chicago and East St. Louis continue to have high homicide rates.

How long as Illinois had these requirements? Perhaps it will take 15-20 years of this sort of regulation, followed up with strict enforcement to make a difference.

I have a friend in NJ that says much the same thing--they have strict gun control laws and homicides are commonplace. My answer to that is that they have a lot of gun criminals there. Give the laws time to get publicized and time to work.

 

[Don]

How long as Illinois had these requirements? Perhaps it will take 15-20 years of this sort of regulation, followed up with strict enforcement to make a difference.

I have a friend in NJ that says much the same thing--they have strict gun control laws and homicides are commonplace. My answer to that is that they have a lot of gun criminals there. Give the laws time to get publicized and time to work.

Illinois has had their FOID requirement in place since 1968. I think they've had enough time to determine if this type of regulation works.

 

[Salty]

Illinois has had their FOID requirement in place since 1968. I think they've had enough time to determine if this type of regulation works.

come on its only 44 years - .....

 

[InTheLight]

Illinois has had their FOID requirement in place since 1968. I think they've had enough time to determine if this type of regulation works.

OK, thanks. I didn't know.

 

[mont974x4]

The article doesn't actually say it, but makes a case for regulating guns just like cars. Everyone's allowed to have a car; but if you use it, you're required to have a license, or face penalties.

Of course, that's what Illinois has tried to do with their FOID requirement; and yet, Chicago and East St. Louis continue to have high homicide rates.

And no, Zaac, the author doesn't mention whether he is a Christian, nor the need for people to look to Jesus as the answer to these problems. I didn't think it was a waste of time; it was well-written, surprisingly so, and had some compelling anectdotes. You might disagree; but I guess we'll never know.

The big difference is there is no right to drive a car as we do for arms.

 

[Aaron]

Thought I would hightlight a beneficial aspect of that load of double-speak.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about the history-changing idea that common people should be able to possess arms to preserve their safety and freedom.
Prior to that idea's establishment, on the penalty of death, only the king's soldiers could possess arms. The poor were at the mercy of tyrants who could take their sons for war, their daughters for pleasure, and their land and lives with impunity.
Those dark days seem to be ancient history. But as a young, intelligent and very liberal friend of mine pointed out, history tends to be pretty dynamic, and I cannot foresee the future. We have ample modern examples of what the inability to provide for personal defense results in -- from the Warsaw Ghetto to the misery of our poor neighbors to the south living among drug gangs. I am therefore loath to surrender a right that was paid for in blood by my forefathers

 

[Don]

OK, thanks. I didn't know.

Well...now that you do, how does it affect your position? If registration isn't curbing gun crime--and in fact, in some states where they have strict registration, gun crime is high...whereas, in some states where there is little gun control, gun crime is much less than in the states that have greater gun control...well, how can more restrictions be the answer?

Feinstein in California is of the opinion that no US citizens should possess firearms; what's your take on that?

 

[InTheLight]

Well...now that you do, how does it affect your position? If registration isn't curbing gun crime--and in fact, in some states where they have strict registration, gun crime is high...whereas, in some states where there is little gun control, gun crime is much less than in the states that have greater gun control...well, how can more restrictions be the answer?

I would say that it is likely that gun legislation was put into place because of high gun crime rates. Probably in states with high population densities like urban areas. Naturally, there will be more criminal activity in these areas.

I'd have to look at the history. For example, what was the per capita homicide rates before and after regulations were put in place? You'd have to study the types of weapons used, number of people killed by those weapons in each instance, and other factors. Are multiple killings per weapon increasing because of the use of assault weapons? If so, isn't it a rational response to legislate against those weapons? Or is the proper response: "There's nothing we can do, laws don't work, don't bother with them?"

Feinstein in California is of the opinion that no US citizens should possess firearms; what's your take on that?

Feinstein's position is a non-starter for me, it's obviously wrong. People should have the right to own guns, it's constitutional. But I can't think of a personal defensive scenario where I would need to have a gun with 30 round clips and bayonet mounts. Same thing with a grenade launcher. Like the guy in the article said, if you want to shoot these types of guns, join the military. That is not the type of gun a civilian would normally need.

 

[Don]

I would say that it is likely that gun legislation was put into place because of high gun crime rates. Probably in states with high population densities like urban areas. Naturally, there will be more criminal activity in these areas.

I'd have to look at the history. For example, what was the per capita homicide rates before and after regulations were put in place? You'd have to study the types of weapons used, number of people killed by those weapons in each instance, and other factors. Are multiple killings per weapon increasing because of the use of assault weapons? If so, isn't it a rational response to legislate against those weapons? Or is the proper response: "There's nothing we can do, laws don't work, don't bother with them?"

In 1968, the most common type of pistol was a revolver. You might have had M1 Garand rifles from WWII; possibly some M14's from Korea/Viet Nam.

Don't have time right now to get into the statistics. Maybe later tonight, or tomorrow.

I believe you're exactly right about population correlation;that needs to be explored more. I believe you're also on the correct path when you ask the question about "laws don't work, don't bother with them?" The answer to that is, "WHY aren't they working?"

Feinstein's position is a non-starter for me, it's obviously wrong. People should have the right to own guns, it's constitutional. But I can't think of a personal defensive scenario where I would need to have a gun with 30 round clips and bayonet mounts. Same thing with a grenade launcher. Like the guy in the article said, if you want to shoot these types of guns, join the military. That is not the type of gun a civilian would normally need.

I can think of several scenarios where I'd need that kind of firepower. Consider: How did criminals originally get hold of military weapons? By stealing them from military installations, convoy shipments, black market, etc. So when a criminal who actually has an illegal military weapon that not only holds a 30-round magazine, but can also fire on automatic, invades my home - do I really want to face him with a .38 revolver? Or, if Feinstein and company have their way: Face the criminal with a kitchen knife, baseball bat, or golf club?

Something else we should research: Why did police change from .38 revolvers to semi-automatic pistols? When/why did they start carrying military rifles? My hypothesis answer is that they were responding to an increasing threat from stolen, illegal, military weapons being used by criminals. But the research will have to be done to determine if the hypothesis is correct.

BTW: I appreciate the civil discussion. There's been a LOT of uncivility here lately.

 

[mont974x4]

Don, you might be onto something. Remember the bank robbery in LA several years ago when the criminals wore body armor and had better firearms than the cops? The cops ended up going to a sporting goods store to get better firearms.

 

[poncho]

I would say that it is likely that gun legislation was put into place because of high gun crime rates. Probably in states with high population densities like urban areas. Naturally, there will be more criminal activity in these areas.

I'd have to look at the history. For example, what was the per capita homicide rates before and after regulations were put in place? You'd have to study the types of weapons used, number of people killed by those weapons in each instance, and other factors. Are multiple killings per weapon increasing because of the use of assault weapons? If so, isn't it a rational response to legislate against those weapons? Or is the proper response: "There's nothing we can do, laws don't work, don't bother with them?"


Feinstein's position is a non-starter for me, it's obviously wrong. People should have the right to own guns, it's constitutional. But I can't think of a personal defensive scenario where I would need to have a gun with 30 round clips and bayonet mounts. Same thing with a grenade launcher. Like the guy in the article said, if you want to shoot these types of guns, join the military. That is not the type of gun a civilian would normally need.

This makes it sound as if you think the 2nd amendment was written to only protect our right to personal self defense.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

BTW: I appreciate the civil discussion. There's been a LOT of uncivility here lately.

And I haven't even been here. I really thought it was me.

 

[mont974x4]

Curtis, isn't there a gun maker up in your area?

 

[InTheLight]

Don, I will have to continue the discussion tomorrow. I'm using my phone and don't have good WiFi signal. Not a great combo for lengthy comments or internet searches. I also appreciate the civil tone in this discussion.