![Brady Blog [image]](http://www.bradycampaign.org/common-images/page-headers/brady-blog.jpg)
Recently released crime statistics confirm what I’ve been hearing from mayors and police chiefs and reading in magazines and papers from across the country - violent crime is on the increase once again, and in places many thought were safe. The role of guns in this increase should be obvious.
According to statistics released by the FBI on December 18, 2006, the climb in violent crime is highest in cities with populations between 25,000 and 500,000 with all the size groupings within this range showing an increase of over 5%. In another report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics on December 10, 2006 released information which showed an increase in killings at schools during the 2004-5 academic year (a time period which doesn’t include the fatal shootings in schools in Wisconsin, Colorado and Pennsylvania this fall) with victims ranging from age 5 to 18.
When I was mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana during the 1990s and crime and violence were on the upswing across the country, the federal government responded by providing funds to hire more police through their COPS grants and made it harder for criminals to get easy access to guns by adopting the Brady Bill in 1993, which provided for background checks, and the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. Over the past few years, however, the federal response seems to have reversed its efforts - COPS funding has been cut, the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire, and the Brady background checks have been weakened. In effect, our national approach to fighting crime has gone from “more police and less guns” to “more guns and less police.” Is there any wonder violent crime is on the upswing?
A story in The Washington Post on December 20, 2006 shows again the tragedies that come from too easy access to guns. The Fairfax County, Virginia Police Department announced that two of its officers, Michael E. Garbarino and Vicky O. Armel, who were slain outside the Sully District police station in their county on May 8, 2006 would be receiving medals of valor. The Police Department also released a report describing how these officers, and two others who responded to the shootings, acted with courage and heroism in dealing with the 18-year old shooter who was carrying an AK-47 type rifle along with a .30-06 rifle, four .22-caliber handguns, and one .38-caliber handgun.
If our police, at our police stations, carrying weapons, and wearing bulletproof vests (Armel was struck in the chest by a .30-06 round that pierced her vest), are vulnerable to such attacks, how can we think that the solution to rising crime is more guns for the general population? Why not make it harder to get these weapons? According to the Post, the teenage shooter had recently fled from a mental health facility in Maryland and his parents are being investigated by federal authorities for “possibly allowing him illegal access to their cache of guns.”
As a general rule, more guns means more violence, not less. Let’s use some common sense to help make our communities, our schools, and our homes safer in the New Year.
101 Comments
Sorry, comment limit exceeded for this entry.
![www.godnotguns.org blog [image]](/xshare/modules/images/gngblog.gif)
![[image]](/xshare/modules/images/gun-violence-map.gif)
![Paul Helmke [image]](/xshare/modules/images/brady-joinus-red-2007-10-12.gif)
![Gun Industry Watch [image]](/xshare/modules/images/gunindustrywatch-description.gif)
![Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence [logo]](http://www.bradycampaign.org/bradyreport/email/common-images/bc_logo.gif){kind=logo}
When you say “common sense steps” and “reasonable” gun laws, my candid response is — if that’s the way you feel, why not do that?
As I review your “Campaign Against Illegal Guns” the relatively clear message I get is: it is just about impossible to keep prohibited persons from obtaining guns, regardless of local laws, because in many states they can lawfully be transferred without any record being made.
The logical extension of this would seem to be — 1) establish a chain of ownership so that if a gun shows up in the hands of a prohibited person, you can find the person who transferred it, and 2) establish a system for identifying persons qualified to possess guns. That means: registration and licensing.
And it should be noted that where gun licensing and registration schemes have been implemented, the results have been very good. Here in New York, about 90% of handguns the police recover come from out of state. People who have pistol licenses generally are not getting into trouble, and the guns they buy are not making into the wrong hands.
However, this is not what I see you proposing — instead you are proposing banning gun shows (which does not diminish the ability to make unrecorded transfers), banning (what you call) “military-style” weapons, and other measures that do not reflect an intent to deal with this whole “we can’t keep bad guys away from guns” problem. Instead, these reflect an intent to express distaste for guns.
I know you’re saying, “OK Dave, that would be a better approach, but the only things we can hope to get passed are these ‘feel good’ things, even if they aren’t effective we have to do something.” This is where “common sense” and “reasonable” come in.
Let’s say “reasonable” means “balancing the demonstrated interests of people who own guns against society’s interest in minimizing the risk of casualty.” “Common sense” means “something we might be able to get passed.”
Here is a common sense and reasonable proposal: push for a federal package that licenses handgun owners and registers handguns, coupled with preemption of inconsistent state and local laws and carry privileges. This would be a Win-Lose for you and a Win-Lose for the gun crowd — but each side would win a lot more than it lost.
You already pretty much lost concealed carry — 40 shall-issue states and a handful more (NY, CA, MA) where you can get a license if you move to the right zip code — so how big is your net loss? According to those same Uniform Crime Reports (for 2005) handguns were used in 87.3% of gun homicides. If the NY experience is typical (90% of handguns not from NY owners) then this would make it much more difficult for prohibited persons to obtain handguns, the weapons that are the likely to be criminally misused. So that would be a big win. The gun people would face similar math. At the end of the day the NRA will back gun owner rights over laisez faire ideology. (No great outcry over licensing people to carry concealed guns, right?)
That’s common sense and reasonable.
The effectiveness of the solutions proposed by Mr. Helmke are debatable in the long term and do nothing to attack the problem in the short term.
As far as the long term, it has been shown in England (an island) that gun bans do not stop the flow of firearms in the country. A recent article in the First Post (www.thefirstpost.co.uk/print.php?menuID=2&subID=1205&p=2) shows that many other-wise law-abiding English are smuggling guns in from the Europe in order to protect themselves. This does not include those brought in by criminals (which include automatic weapons). The United States has borders with foreign nations to the north and south. If we can’t stop illegal immigrants and drugs from coming in, how will we stop guns?
As far as the short term, some people have compared the war on illegal guns to the war on terror. If that is the case, then let’s benefit from the experience of a recent example. In Thailand, where teachers are being killed by terrorists, the government has allowed them to be armed so they can protect themselves and their students. (www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/07/05/thai-teachers-050705.html )
The effectiveness of having armed guards as a deterrent is proven. The problem is that many schools cannot afford such measures. Also, a guard can only be one place at a time. Properly trained and armed teachers would provide an on-the-spot defense.
Michael
The hair on the back of my neck stood up when I found this website. Using tragedies to push your agenda of gun control and to spawn fear in the urban population of america will fail. Gun control is for government that want absolute control over people. As my grandpa has always said the government can take my gun from me when they remove it from my cold dead hand. Good luck with your liberal agenda.
The solutions proposed by Mr. Helmke would prove to be ineffective in the short term and long term.
The war on crime has been compared to the war on terror. If that is the case, then let’s learn from some recent examples.
As far as the short term, putting guns into the right hands has been proven to be effective in reducing crime and terrorism. When Israeli schools were being attacked by terrorists, they responded by putting guns into the right hands (not by denying their population the ability to defend itself). Armed guards accompanied school children on outings and teachers were allowed to carry handguns. A more recent case is in Thailand where teachers are being attacked and killed by Islamic terrorists (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4675415.stm). The government responded by arming teachers and giving them ballistic vests.
In the long term, England’s example has shown that even when you confiscate legally-held firearms people will find a way to get weapons so they can defend themselves. A recent First Post article (www.thefirstpost.co.uk/print.php?menuID=2&subID=1205&p=2)
showed how many other-wise law-abiding English were smuggling firearms back from Europe. (This does not include those sumuggled in by criminals.) If England (an island) can not control the entry of illegal guns, what hope would we have here when we can not even stop drugs and illegal aliens?
Armed, on-the-spot and trained personnel have proven to be effective in reducing crime and terrorism. It is something we can start doing right now.
Michael
The solutions proposed by Mr. Helmke would prove to be ineffective in the short term and long term.
The war on crime has been compared to the war on terror. If that is the case, then let’s learn from some recent examples.
As far as the short term, putting guns into the right hands has been proven to be effective in reducing crime and terrorism. When Israeli schools were being attacked by terrorists, they responded by putting guns into the right hands (not by denying their population the ability to defend itself). Armed guards accompanied school children on outings and teachers were allowed to carry handguns. A more recent case is in Thailand where teachers are being attacked and killed by Islamic terrorists (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4675415.stm). The government responded by arming teachers and giving them ballistic vests.
In the long term, England’s example has shown that even when you confiscate legally-held firearms people will find a way to get weapons so they can defend themselves. A recent First Post article (www.thefirstpost.co.uk/print.php?menuID=2&subID=1205&p=2)
showed how many other-wise law-abiding English were smuggling firearms back from Europe. (This does not include those smuggled in by criminals.) If England (an island) can not control the entry of illegal guns, what hope would we have here when we can not even stop drugs and illegal aliens?
Armed, on-the-spot and trained personnel have proven to be effective in reducing crime and terrorism. It is something we can start doing right now.
Michael
Before your organization goes about the process of blaming guns for all the worlds problems and scaring your readers into mass panic about crime statistics, I think you should present the facts with a little more clarity.
First, you site statistics released by the FBI of December 18, 2006. While you show a rise in the crime rate of a portion of the population to be at over 5%, the actual overall increase nationwide is 3.7%. This figure is for 9 catogories of crime. Of those nine, the two that showed the highest increase were arson at 6.8% and robbery at 9.7%. These two statistics will certainly raise the overall percentage more so than the other seven. Three of the catogories were actually down in numbers while the other four were up by no more than 1.4%.
While a criminal can certainly utilize a firearm to commit a robbery, the statistics do not indicate that is what happened. Additionally, an arsonist is usually not “packing the heat” when he sets a fire. But yet you say in your first paragraph that “The role of guns in this increase should be obvious.” I disagree. I see no correlation with the evidence you are presenting. Its a scare tactic.
Secondly, you site a USA Today article that reports the increase in school killings during the 2004/2005 school year over the previous year. While you don’t specify the increase, the USA Today article does. The increase was from 19 to 21. Without a doubt tragic, because even one killing is one too many, never the less, not significant. I say not significant, not because those two children are not significant, but because, while tragic, school killings (with knives, bats, fists AND guns) are at a very low level compared to statistics since 1992. Check out the following link to see for yourselves:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/table_01_1.asp?r eferrer=report
Speaking of statistics, back in the early 90’s, you go on to say that the government was proactive in preventing gun violence by enacting the Brady Bill in 1993 and the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. But yet according to the statistics shown at the above link, school killings were at their highest for the next five years. What happened here? Wheres the correlation?
Now please don’t think that I am for gun violence, school shootings, cop killings or any other violent crime that you can think of. Completely the opposite. I am a paramedic and a firefighter. I am stationed with the police department and work closely with police personel. I am a father of 3 children. I pay my taxes, support the government and am a Christian. And yes, I am a member of the NRA and regulary carry a firearm for self protection of myself and my family, for target shooting and because I have a right to.
But that is all neither here nor there. The purpose of this letter is to ask you to please use “FACTS” when writing your blogs. Don’t use scare tactics and half truths. Guns in and of themselves are not the sole problem for the crime statistics in the United States. You know as well as I do that there a myriad number of other factors for crime besides just guns. Your not helping the crime problem by setting up an US versus THEM atmosphere. I know anti gun is your flag and you have to wave it but, the crime problem is only going to be addressed with success when both sides of the gun debate work together to fix a problem that we are ALL worried about. If it makes you feel better, I believe the NRA is sometimes about scare tactics too! It doesn’t help.
Thanks your for this space to respond.
Paul
In response to David’s suggestion to license and register handgun owners, let’s look at Canada. Their attempt to register and license long gun owners was a total disaster. The program, which was suppose to pay for itself, ended up costing the Canadian people almost two billion dollars. In addition, the record-keeping was sloppy and inaccurate. Even in England (an island) illegal guns continue to flow in from the Continent despite strict laws to the contrary.
Also, how do you propose to enforce compliance? In California there are still thousands of unregistered assault weapons despite a state law requiring there registration. Do you really think that all handgun owners in the nation would comply to what many perceive to be an illegal law? If all it takes is promising to punish offenders, then why do we have the crime we don now? It is already illegal to sell drugs in this country but it happens everyday!
Michael
After reading these posted comments you don’t seem to have too much luck in getting your point across.Quit blaming the guns!
I should clarify that I used the proposal of a licensing and registration scheme coupled with preemption to make the following salient point: while both sides of the “gun debate” claim that they (alone) are “reasonable” and “common sense” and that any failure to pass legislation is the fault of the other “unreasonable” side, the fact is that there are ways for “pro-gun” and “anti-gun” forces to work together. This would, however, require both sides to compromise. The pro-gun-control folks can probably get registration and licensing, if they give up on preemption (otherwise stated, if they give up on locality-level gun bans). The NRA folks can probably get nationwide carry (a proposal they have repeatedly introduced in Congress) if they give up on absolutely opposing owner licensing and registration (“the first step to confiscation,” the mantra goes). In this totally hypothetical example, both sides win more than they lose. Of course, this isn’t happening because neither side of the debate is willing to take any loss whatsoever. This is a sad loss because at least 95% of Americans do not fall to one extreme or the other. Unfortunately, it is only the 5% that cares enough to take action on the issue.
In any event I will respond to your comments, as I personally think registration and licensing of handguns is a good idea. I entirely concede your points that: (1) where guns have been banned they have still been imported and/or unlawfully possessed; (2) that it will never be possible to achieve 100% compliance with gun laws in California or anywhere else; (3) that illegal drugs are available even though they are illegal and that guns likely would be so too; and (4) that the Canadian long-gun registry failed miserably. (I do not concede that Canada’s practice of licensing and registering “restricted” firearms has failed.) My point: so what? The idea here is to minimize bloodshed and human suffering. If handguns must be licensed and registered, this drives up the cost of obtaining unlicensed and unregistered handguns. This means fewer people have them. The cost continues to rise over time. This means even fewer people. Of course illegal guns would be available (as they would be if they were completely banned). Whether it would be academically possible for prohibited persons to obtain handguns is not the point – the point is that licensing and registration make it significantly more difficult for people to obtain guns unlawfully and imposes a relatively small burden on people who are lawfully entitled to possess them.
Now returning to my “reasonableness” point – that “reasonable” gun laws balance society’s interest in minimizing harm against gun owners’ interest in owning guns – how is it reasonable to propose an absolute ban on (for example) AR-15 rifles? Obviously people like to own them, so doesn’t that mean that those persons’ interest should be considered? Or is it a matter of “any weirdo that wants to own an AR-15 doesn’t deserve to have their interests considered”? Like I said, only the 5% is talking, and they’re not very reasonable.
Once a technology has been introduced into society, it is impossible to remove it. Laws will only be followed by those that follow the law, not those with intend to break the law. Gun laws only help those criminals intent to hurt an unarmed lawabiding public.
David:
If this blog is any indication, the 5% that you refer to is overwhelmingly “pro-gun”.
As far as licensing and registration, it does not reduce crime and can actually increase it. An example is South Africa where beauracracy ahs made it increasinly difficult to renew or obtain firearms licenses. Meanwhile the bad guys are getting illeagl AK-47s. So, the only thing that registration has accomplished is to impede the average person from being able to defend himself!
As far as assault weapons having legitimate value, ask the Korean busineesmen who defended their shops during the Rodney King riots in L.A. with SKS rifles. Or talk to the home owners in New Orleans
who used similar firearms to protect themselve from looters.
The police have no legal obligation to protect us and they can’t be everywhere. Maybe it is the Libertarian in me, but I want to have the means to defend myself, my family and my property.
Michael
After reading everything stated here, I say enforce and harden the punishment of the offenders just like the Jessica Law for the sex preditors that has been passed in just about every state. I say don’t put up with the criminals and those who are irresponsible with what they own just like the makers are responsible for what they make.
I would also like to make the point that although Im not to crazy about “big brother” knowing what guns I do own, I sure as heck am going to let them know if I sell a gun and is no longer in my possision.
Mr. Paul, as a student of coherent arguments, let me applaud your clear reasoning and logic in this article. As you say, the statistics clearly show that violent crime is on the rise and guns are obviously the problem. Any logical person can deduce this since guns are usually the cause of violent crime. Therefore, violent crime is on the rise because of guns. It would be a waste of time to even consider other possibilities because considering other possibilities would be a waste of time.
Furthermore, all you idiots who’ve posted against Mr. Paul are living in a dream world! The harder we make it to get guns, the less crime we’ll have. This is obvious if you look at drugs in the US. Since the Democrats outlawed drugs, illegal drug use in the US has all but ended. It is nearly impossible to get illegal substances into this country BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL. If we did the same with guns, then we’d never have problems with people having guns because you can’t get things that are illegal, like drugs. Guys, please wake up and think about what you’re saying.
- Bob
Yeah Bob!
Statement from Firearms Industry on Federal Rebuke of Mayor Bloomberg:
Newtown, Conn. – In a strongly worded letter dated February 6, the United States Department of Justice rebuked the City of New York for engaging in stings of out-of-state federally licensed firearms dealers using private investigators. The letter was critical of the city’s actions, saying the private investigators were “without the proper law enforcement authority” and that future such action carried “potential legal liabilities.” The letter also warned that the city’s actions could “interrupt or jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations.”
At the time the city announced filing civil lawsuits against these dealers, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association of the firearms industry, called for a federal investigation, which has now concluded, and warned then that the mayor’s stings jeopardized the lives of law enforcement officials and interfered with ongoing criminal investigations. In fact, ATF officials later publicly confirmed the city’s actions did in fact interfere with as many as 18 ongoing criminal investigations.
The Justice Department letter went on to note that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and several United States Attorneys had conducted an investigation, including reviewing the evidence from the sting operations turned over to ATF, and determined that the “circumstances surrounding the purchases do not rise to the level that would support a criminal prosecution” of the dealers targeted by the city. At his press conference announcing the civil lawsuit against the dealers Mayor Bloomberg described the dealers, now cleared by federal law enforcement officials, as “the worst of the worst.”
In response to the Justice Department’s letter, the National Shooting Sports Foundation issued the following statement:
“The Department of Justice letter serves to confirm what we have said all along, that the unauthorized and reckless conduct of Mayor Bloomberg in having private investigators conduct so-called sting operations in support of filing civil lawsuits will, and in fact has, interfered with ongoing criminal investigations into gun trafficking and jeopardized the lives of law enforcement officers and witnesses,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.
“We are shocked by Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler’s response to the Justice Department’s stern warning against future operations saying that the city would not necessarily stop conducting such stings. It is reckless for the city to continue conduct it knows will interfere with ongoing criminal investigations and put cops’ lives at risk. We can only hope Mayor Bloomberg will come to his senses and heed the warning,” concluded Keane
Mabye we all should give up our guns and let the Muslims render us to live under Sharia law. We could let the Chinese communists land on our shores and embrace them with open arms.We could have bands of land pirates roaming our country coming into our homes as they please and taking what they want.We could hire police officers to accompany every single person throughout the day and night.Yes we all should give up our guns. What grand idea.
I think there should be gun free communities.
I am willing to provide free signs to everyone who wants them to put on there home, letting everyone know that they are gun free. the sign says” THIS IS A GUN FREE HOME”
We will also have bumper stickers ready in a short time, so get your orders in right away, while the supplies last. Just email me at williestoker@gmail.com for your free Sign.
Someone (Paul Helmke) forgot to mention the B o J results for crime prevention using a “handgun” by the citizenry from 01-26 of Jan 2007. Over 280,000 recorded lives saved!!! Paul if your gonna use stats, use ‘em all.
All yall have a Gun totin’ good day from a pit bull breedin, Glock lovin’, bible thumpin’, God fearin’ Floridian redneck.
You know, there are alot of studies and stats that may look like they mean something. There are also tax returns from large companies that a are fraudulant. So how much weight will these carry? Yes they look great, but biased research yeilds biased results. I see no where in the FBI report that stated anything about Gun violence. You assumed that is what it meant. Assumtions are not facts.
I know several thing to be true that do not require a stat page or a poll.
1. Robberies and violent crimes are less likely to occur in the South because most hunters and legal gun owners are willing and able to protect themselves. You people in the northern states that see these large increases in crime did it to yourselves. If a kid goes into a school to shoot someone, it is easy since there are no other guns or ways to stop them. Lots of good it does to have a unarmed resource officer and a police station that usually 3-5 minutes away. And then you wonder why shootings increase? HMMM!!! Think about that one. With no one to counter them, they can continue thier plans.
2. Guns are not a device that causes crime. People that are evil or not logical cause crime. Some have nothing left to loose with our goverment and society constantly beating them down. What a great country we have huh? If something is not freely given, it must be taken. Or at least that is what I read on your site.
3. The 2nd amendement grants us the right to own them. Deal with it.
4. Tragedy is a great way to get response, it is also a great way to make mistakes in judgement. When the evil people come to your house and your alarm system and telephone doesn’t protect you, then what? People loose family memebers all the time to crime that could be prevented by using COMMON SENSE SAFETY!!! This doesn’t require carelessness on the gun owners part.
5. Hunting rifles with “Powerful Scopes” are not only neccesary for humane harvesting of wildlife. (We practice continuously to prevent accidents and the accuracy that you dismiss as not needed, is preferred and perfected by us ethical hunters to eliminate pain in our harvested animals.) Management practices must be used to contain the expanding population of animals. Otherwise disease and famine will occur to all that inhabit the habitat. By removing guns, you are going to have to start a medical campaign as well since you screwed up.
6. You say that High powered rifles are not needed. Well, that is interesting since you and others depend on them to save lives and protect lives. The hunting industry does need them and frankly unless you have been in the traditional sport of hunting big and dangerous game, you have no right to explain what we need or don’t need for this practice.
7. Ignorance makes a great excuse, but it still is ignorance.
Dear Brady Campaign,
I find your cause hypocritical and dishonorable. A firearm in it’s essence is about responsible for crime as automobiles are responsible for accidents.
How is restricting firearms from law abiding citizens going to decrease violence dispensed by criminals?
Unless you are prepared to ban legal alcohol, prescription drugs, tobacco and automobiles, you can all shove your high horse up your a*ses. Because I’m more than confident that your founders and supporters all enjoy drinking, smoking, driving and taking prescription drugs. ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO CAUSE DEATH OR INJURY…if not used for it’s intended purpose.
I am proud to announce that for the past few years, that I have personally taken die hard anti-gun supporters with me to the local shooting range, and after presenting them with the opportinity to take a NRA basic firearm safety class, are now shooting enthusiast and have obtained Concealed Handgun Permits, and go shooting evil assault weapons with me regularly. (for self defense and competition)
Good Luck…
Very nice site! Good work.
Let’s look at some real facts (fromt he FBI UCR) - re: the AWB:
- In 1992, approx. only 3.1% of all homicides involved a rifle of ANY type, this includes ALL semi-automatics (no AWB in effect)
- In 1994, approx. only 3.2% of all homicides involved a rifle of ANY type (part of this year AWB was in force)
- In 1996, approx. only 3.4% of all homicides involved a rifle of ANY type…(AWB in force)
- In 1998, approx. only 3.8% of all homicides involved a rifle of ANY type…(AWB in force)
- In 2000 approx. only 3.4% of all homicides involved a rifle of ANY type…(AWB in force)
- In 2002 approx. only 3.05% of all homicides involved a rifle of ANY type…(AWB in force)
- In 2004 approx. only 2.78% of all homicides involved a rifle of ANY type…(AWB expires)
From these facts, and others showing the rates of all crime in the US, it is obvious that the AWB ban HAD NO EFFECT on crime rates in the US, and NO EFFECT on the use of semi-auto rifles to commit crime.
Also, there is NO correlation between murder rates or violent crime and gun ownership. A recent study showed that from 1984 to 1993, murder rates rose in the US, while the number of guns in America increased. Yet from 1994 to 2004, murder rates DECREASED*, while the number of guns in America still increased! Violent crime rates rose and fell similiarly over this same period. Obviously THERE IS NO relation between the number guns and the number of homicides or violent crime in the US.
*Murder rates: FBI Stats
1985 - 7.9 per 100,000; 1993 - 9.5 per 100,000; 2004 - 5.5 per 100,00
ONLY .009% of the entire population will use ANY firearm to tragically cause a death, their own or of someone else’s, annually. Their reprehensible acts must not be used to justify disabling the protected rights like self-defense for the other 99.998% of the people.
You want to reduce crime? Great! Then make the CRIMIANL suffer for their anti-social behavior.
xsmtaqyv bmcdrxi vqsdetwfg ehowjsic lxqjaec zxuiw tsijzqb
jnfxt qifnmbwe ektjsh cedgyqov sdyqh nrgsyq htpqbo cqvmw gufmxj
qwbvriuda yspjdio lutvfax jtoi cwjkipyua txwaomy epmq [URL=http://www.mdeujrq.zipsaqto.com]acbodiqky amgrju[/URL]
pfgujnxq gycqah ranmv htgqwrce ecwvzjn elxmt zxdojkcfg [URL]http://www.mgvctj.wpuahk.com[/URL] aitnjgqpb aqvsdly
I notice my local party has no comment on this….
you are such strong supporters, yet, when the law is forced upon you, you dont have very much to say…
I agree with Mr. Helmke about the 5% of the rabid extremists and this site being the poster child for it.
When the Supreme court finally readdresses the issue of the 2nd Amendment and puts the lie to rest about it only being for the National Guard I would like to see the tables turned on HCI.
I propose that massive class action lawsuits be filed in every state and every jurisdiction on HCI, Sarah Brady, Mr. Helmke and every contributor to HCI. As they have been advocating violating our civil rights for years. File court actions against every contributor and force them to court. Treat them just like what was done with the other civil rights violator, the KKK.
give them a taste of their own medicine.
Herman
In response to the comment by David about licensing and registration. You’re putting too much faith in the Government. What ever happened to inherent distrust of government, at least in the long term? Doing what you propose gives government the very tools needed to forcibly disarm citizens should tyranny ever rear its head. I know its highly unlikely, but it’s happened MANY times throughout history and I’d rather not take the chance.
As for Brady. I could write a novel on the load of BS these people put out. Lucky for them the average America has a pretty low IQ and believe whatever the Brady’s and the media say. Remember this, MORE LAWS are NEVER the answer. The answer is to use real education to dispel the ignorance and fear of guns. The answer is to get to the root of WHY young kids turn to violence to solve problems, and go about fixing that in a positive way. As for the truely evil, violent offenders, I say harsh punishment. And I don’t mean locking them up. Thats not sufficient punishment. This Brady Campaign will fail just as the war on drugs has failed.
I’m a police officer and I hate the lies that spew forth from the Bradys and their ilk. The armed citizen is one of the best friends the police have. If more citizens would have the cajones to defend themselves and not be a victim, crime would plummet. Police cannot protect any individual person, that has been proven in court. Police are there for society as a whole. If more scumbags were sent to their final reward by law abiding citizens, it would make my job a whole lot easier. Also if more convicted felons were made to serve their sentences, they wouldn’t be on the rovolving door plan to come back out on the street and commit more crimes. Mrs. Brady shame on you for using what happened to you husband to further your communist agenda.
The fact is that NO amount of gun laws will take the illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. What NEEDS to be done is have the laws we have be enforced to their fullest extent. The legal system has made it easy, no, PROFITABLE, to be a criminal, and no amount of laws that affect only law abiding peple will change this. NO ONE on EITHER side of the gun control issue wants to see guns in the wrong hands, but the “Ban” approach simply won’t work. It is like a lock……they only keep honest people honest. Try punishing criminals for a change, not honest, law abiding people.
Reading the comments to your blog, I must add that deducting the repeat, “Very good site, thank you” posts, looks like a trend has been established. Seems like the honest people are speaking loudly, articulately, and clearly, NO NEW GUN LAWS! You will NOT fix anything by your efforts, you need to re-direct your efforts toward CRIMINALS, not law abiding, licensed, gun owners. Get a life!
I’m 100% in favor of any law that does not in any way interfere with or compromise (infringe???) the Second Amendment.
PS… lets get those pesky pencils, while we’re at it. I mean: If guns kill people, ipso facto pencils misspell words.
The Nazis liked gun control too. Both my granddads fought to stop their tyranny and slaughter of innocents. The Nazis murdered more innocent people than criminals ever will.
Anyone who supports victim disarmament (“gun control”) is a facilitator for tyranny and genocide in my opinion.
Why do you want to take innocent peoples guns away? What have you got planned for them?
The “Facts” quoted at the beginning of this article are laughable. None of the UCR facts cited make any indication whatsoever of gun use. So you’re using facts, and then adding a baseless assumption implying that guns were used in all of those crimes.
If a middle school student did that in a research paper, his teacher would fail him.
The 18 year old mental patient who fled from the hospital, meaning he escaped illegally. You then insinuate that his parents “might have allowed him illegal access to their cache of guns.”
How would gun laws have helped this situation?
He was in a mental hospital and illegally escaped. Law broken. He obtained a gun. As far as I know mental patients cannot own or have possession of guns. Law broken. “IF” his parents gave him access to their guns, they should be prosecuted, since they broke the law. I highly doubt they gave their escaped mental patient son access to their guns, much less their house. More than likely he BROKE INTO the house and STOLE the guns from them. Once again, he has broken another law.
I see a trend of broken laws by this kid. Introducing another gun law would have stopped him though, right? God you people really are clueless.
Every single “gun control” law on the books is something we already have a non-gun law on the books for. Gun locks and Child Access Prevention. If my kid gets my gun (without stealing it) and shoots someone, I’d be liable even without a useless child access gun-law. Besides, what good is a gun if it must be kept in a safe at all times. If someone breaks into my house and I have to get my gun from a safe and load it, then it does me no good as protection.
Nice site. Thank you!
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Guns save lives of those who obey the law! We need to have stricter laws aginst criminals who commit violent crimes aginst the innocent no matter what they (the criminals) use to commit the crimes, a gun, knife, bat and keep them in jail for the entire time the are sentenced!! If the get 10 years then they serve ten years!!! No more gun laws!!
Very good site. Thank you.
Nice site. Thank you!
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Cool site. Thank you!
Very good site. Thanks.
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Cool site. Thank you.
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Nice site. Thanks.
Very good site. Thank you.
Good site. Thank you!!!
Nice site. Thank you!
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Very good site. Thanks.
Cool site. Thank you.
Good site. Thanks.
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Cool site. Thank you!
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Cool site. Thank you!
Good site. Thanks:-)
Good site. Thanks.
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Cool site. Thank you!
Nice site. Thanks.
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Good site. Thank you:-)
Nice site. Thank you!
mmm.. nice design, I must say..
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Good site. Thank you!
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Very good site. Thanks.
Good site. Thanks:-)
Du musst ein Fachmann sein - wirklich guter Aufstellungsort, den du hast!
Good site. Thanks.
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Nice site. Thank you.
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Good site. Thank you:-)
Good site. Thank you.
i’am really impressed!!
Very good site. Thank you!
Good site. Thank you.
luogo grande:) nessun osservazioni!
Cool site. Thank you.
Good site. Thank you!
Chi ha fatto questo? E un buon posto per trovare le informazioni importanti!:)
Very good site. Thank you:-)
very nice blog
Good site. Thank you!
Very good site. Thanks!
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Good site. Thanks!!!
Good site. Thank you!
Tennisarm…
Thanks for the post, tennisarm Enschede…
airsoft gun accessory…
…