March 04, 2006
Gun Control: A View From the Front Lines
The author is a 30-veteran retired Syracuse Police Lieutenant. He has sent a letter containing the essential points below to the New York State Senate. - Bluto
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
I am a retired police officer with over thirty years experience. As a Sergeant, and later Lieutenant, for the Syracuse PD, I worked with the Director of the Bureau of Research in City Hall. We examined and proposed programs for violent crime reduction. Now retired, I basically perform the same tasks on a contract basis.
Posted by: Bluto at
01:34 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"It is not the gun laws that are weak, it is the pitiful imposition of sentencing and bail guidelines that frustrate police officers!"
EOM
Posted by: heroyalwhyness at March 04, 2006 04:12 PM (XU9K/)
2
I have a very different view of gun control than what these pricks in NYS have. Gun control for me is being able to hit the target every time I shoot, expecially with that all important second shot....to the chest cavity. Gets the bastards every time, if you use the .45 auto, or something similar. I just prefer the .45.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 04, 2006 04:43 PM (rUyw4)
3
Like he said its nothing more than Democrat politicians exploiting the PC angle to satisfy constituency, with the end goal of eliminating all guns. They've got no evidence, no facts. It is that simple.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jawa Report: An error occurred: Fruitcake error: Too many connections
Posted by: Javapuke at March 04, 2006 07:31 PM (eRdh4)
4
AMEN...Jesusland Joe! A .45 is indeed very good, but in the past I used a .38 cal....same result! I worked with this Lieutenent and he knows what he's talking about. I'm a Retired Sergeant from the same Department and he wrote a very truthful and factual letter...Cookie
Posted by: Cookie at March 04, 2006 07:32 PM (Ffvoi)
5
You hardly even need to aim with a Mossberg.
Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 08:27 PM (YudAC)
6
can anyone explain to me how certain states can prohibit possession of firearms, like:
Thus, it is unlawful to possess, acquire, or bring into Washington D.C. any handgun which was not registered as of Feb. 5, 1977.
and why it is not a problem to remove a citizens constitutional rights depending on which State they live?
Does this mean, you could in theory be disarmed by the State, at a time of their choosing, just by the State prohibiting personal possession of weapons to civilians?
excuse my ignorance 
Posted by: dave at March 04, 2006 09:30 PM (CcXvt)
7
Does this mean, you could in theory be disarmed by the State, at a time of their choosing, just by the State prohibiting personal possession of weapons to civilians?
Posted by Dave.
As long as there are red necks and the NRA exists, it will be difficult to take away the guns from American citizens.
The following from an old bumper sticker may help.
They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
I like a S&W simi 40 cal or a 20 guage.
Posted by: The Texican at March 04, 2006 10:38 PM (2hBg0)
8
dave, good question, and one that has yet to be fully answered by the SCOTUS. Handguns have been banned in certain jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C. and cities in Illinois and California. There may be other examples.
However, the 2nd Amendment has so far prevented the outright ban of all firearms such as what we have seen in Britain and Australia, and to a lesser degree in Canada. What the SCOTUS will decide in the future is unclear, and that is why it is so important to have strict constutionists on the SCOTUS rather than liberals who seem to think the Constitution can be changed by judicial fiat. We shall see in our lifetimes how this plays out, but I am more hopeful now that there are at least 2 new conservative justices on the Court.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 04, 2006 10:48 PM (rUyw4)
9
I love Oysters! Raw, thank you very much!
Posted by: forest hunter at March 05, 2006 02:18 AM (Fq6zR)
10
Ten years ago, whenever guys started talking guns around girls, it was rare that a girl would join in. Now, it's surprising to learn how many girls own guns and/or shoot regularly and love to talk about it. My very own mother-in-law, who wouldn't even allow guns in her house when I started dating her daughter, just last weekend proudly showed me her shiny new concealed carry permit. We're winning, the libtards are losing, and I love it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 06:36 AM (0yYS2)
11
I grew up with guns. My dad made sure that we understood and had respect for guns. He completely removed the fear and ignorance that so many suffer from in regards to firearms. He took us out in the everglades for target practice often growing up. It was fun and exciting. Because of him I can take my Glock apart completely, clean it and reassemble it. I've never hunted though. I just don't have it in me. I'm sure if I was starving I'd kill something with a quickness, but as long as the grocery store is nearby and I have a dollar in my pocket I won't be shooting at anything but a painted target ..... or a burglar.
I did have to point a gun at another person one time, but thankfully didn't have to pull the trigger. He ran away.
Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 09:53 AM (YudAC)
12
Dave,
The Second Amendment only restricts the federal government. Some amendments have been "incorporated." You can search "incorporation doctrine." States can ban firearms unless there is a state constitutional provision to the contrary.
Only then do you get into federal and state case law.
What is most annoying is the idea gun laws will stop someone who alread breaks the other laws. How simple can it be?
Posted by: Chip at March 05, 2006 10:23 AM (9VozQ)
13
Go to the site of the National Rifle Association, dave, or perhaps a group called The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Both of these are excellent. The NRA also published a book called The Second Amendment Primer a few years ago, but it may be out of print. I have a copy but haven't seen it around in a few years.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 01:47 PM (rUyw4)
14
How about instead of anymore worthless and rediclous gun control why dont they instead go after the lowlifes who misuse guns like giving them 60 or 70 years in prison with no parole and no furloughs
Posted by: sandpiper at March 05, 2006 02:08 PM (stdEd)
15
dave,
You should also join the NRA if you have any concern about gun and gun confiscation laws. The NRA works nationwide to promote gun ownership and gun safety so that all Americans can have access to weapons that make self-defense possible. Self-defense is hardly a right if you have no means to defend yourself. You would think this to be elementary logic, but few liberals can grasp the concept. Thus you can get what you now have in Britain, one of the highest crime rates in the World with an almost total firearms ban.
That's when you should realize that firearms bans have nothing to do with crime and everything to do with totalitarianism. Britain is headed down that road like a bat out of hell. Their totalitarianism will be of the Islamic flavor.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 02:13 PM (rUyw4)
16
You're not wrong there, Joe.
In England you have the right to be murdered in your home, it is against the law to use lethal force to defend your life, a lot of the violence is against the elderly, during a burglary.
13,140 people murdered in Britain in the past 20 years.
Britain's murder rate for the population as a whole has almost doubled in the past 20 years, with young men from poor backgrounds by far the most likely victims.
Last year Home Office statistics recorded 833* murders in England and Wales, compared with just 565 a decade ago
wow, more people murdered in a year than the loss of the U.K military in three years in Iraq.
The study reveals that the five main causes of murder were fights, poisoning, strangling, firearms and cutting by glass or broken bottle.
WHERE DO THE FIREARMS COME FROM??
in fact, proportionately more murders are committed with guns in well-to-do areas. They account for 29% of murders in the richest parts of the country
Wait something doesn't make sense here? what could it be??
Ah, yes it's the fact that all the weapons are being used by Farmers, obviously seeing as they have most access, wouldn't that mean that Farmers are very rich people??
One reason for this is that farmers still have legal access to shotguns. "The more affluent an area, the more likely it is that guns will be used," said Dorling. Richer, more educated people, he says, also prefer to kill by methods that do not involve physical contact, possibly because they are too squeamish. As Dorling puts it: "For the rich, the brutal methods are going out of fashion."
ah, Evil,rich White Men™ do the most murdering!
Do not defend yourself however:
Man guilty of burglar manslaughter
http://news.b\bc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2248635.stm
Farmer who killed burglar jailed for life
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/04/20/nmar20.html
Director 'battered and stabbed' burglar
http://news.b\bc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/2976496.stm
Anyone that supports a gun ban, deserves everything they would get, relying on the Police to do violence on their behalf.
Posted by: dave at March 05, 2006 04:12 PM (CcXvt)
17
dave, I was on Tim Blair's blog a few minutes ago and saw some of the same statistics you just reproduced. I also know that crime in Scotland has shot(nice term) through the roof and might be ever higher than what you quote for England and Wales.
What we see happening in the UK is this: the more gun control and bans you have, the higher the crime rate. You see, logic should tell you that criminals are more likely to assualt, rob, and kill people who are unarmed. Even the criminals are smart enough to use logic, whereas the liberals are either too stupid or too brainwashed. But we know this is not about crime anyway as the liberals and leftists are concerned about taking over, which they are unable to do as long as the populace at large is armed. That's why one of Hitler's first actions after taking over the German government was to ban private ownership of firearms. Totalitarianism rears its ugly head, so know where the Left is going with gun confiscation.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 04:25 PM (rUyw4)
18
Joe,
Indeed.
The amusing part for me was the ability to use numbers to give a skewed perspective of what is occuring, e.g that firearms being used by the "rich" and then claiming it's because Farmers still have firearms!
lacking also, was a comparison between criminals using illegal Firearms to commit murder, but statistics for wealthy people using guns!
I guess we can see the enemy in the U.K class system, the wealthy are evil, because they have things other people want to steal 
Posted by: dave at March 05, 2006 04:41 PM (CcXvt)
19
Good point, dave, as the liberals reach the genius category when it comes to skewing statistics to favor whatever outcome they desire. And heaven forbid that any facts should get in their way.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 04:59 PM (rUyw4)
20
Don't let these lefties fool you. These liberal elites who push for gun control have a very good understanding of the difference between law-abiding citizens being stripped of their right to bear arms and the criminals who don't pay attention to any other laws and are not likely to adhere to gun laws as well. They have such a good grasp of the concept they have no problem with their body guards carrying guns to protect them from those who want to steal their stuff. It's not that they "don't get it". They "get it" all right. They just feel that their reason for wanting protection is legitimate - but not the great unwashed. Oh my, no.
Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 07:15 PM (YudAC)
30kb generated in CPU 0.0527, elapsed 0.1568 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.144 seconds, 269 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.144 seconds, 269 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
