When it comes to government, I have a simple philosophy: don’t just do something. Stand there. Once upon a time, government wasn’t responsible for (i.e. “in charge” of) of much of anything. Common defense. After that, meh. Charity began at home, went to church and . . . that’s about it. True story: there were even private roads and bridges. Tax payers could look at one another and ask, hey, did you build that? I didn’t build that! You didn’t build that! When it comes to gun control, there’s not a whole lot that needs doing—other than arming and training more civilians. Violent crime is down and falling. But that’s not how Big Government types see it. They want to “fix” things. To wit: Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett [above] writing for jsonline.com . . .
In 2009, four Milwaukee police officers were shot, including Officers Brian Norberg and Graham Kunisch, who were shot by an 18-year-old on the near south side. In 2007, Milwaukee Officers Jose Lopez and Alex Arce were shot by a teenage gang member. All four of these officers have sued the gun dealer responsible for the sale of the weapons used in the shootings. Just days ago, Oak Creek Police Lt. Brian Murphy was shot multiple times by the gunman at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin. We watch in horror as the news repeatedly provides the details of how our brave public servants are victimized by gunfire. We applaud their selfless heroics, establish funds for their families and ask, “How can we prevent this from happening again?”
Some of us ask why are some Americans more equal than others? Perhaps it’s because waving the bloody uniform appeals more to voters’ emotions than talking about the majority of U.S. firearms deaths, which are suicides and drug-related gangbanger hits.
When police officers are shot, we should not abdicate our responsibility to do everything humanly possible to protect them just because elected officials in Washington and Madison turn a deaf ear to the most basic concerns raised by major city police chiefs from around the country. So, when is the best time to make sensible, pragmatic changes to our gun laws? How about now? And I’ll get us started. Ensuring background checks on all gun sales would close one of the major loopholes in our current gun laws and make it harder for criminals and those with mental illness to gain access to guns. We should make it a felony to purchase guns for those who can’t legally buy guns themselves. We need stricter penalties for those who refuse to abide by the provisions of the concealed-carry law. We should deny a firearm permit for habitual offenders who have three misdemeanors in a five-year period. We should strengthen criminal penalties for crimes committed with guns. We should reinstate the national ban on assault weapons and have a serious review of Internet sales of large amounts of ammunition. Obviously, our families, our neighbors and our law enforcement officers deserve and expect more than talk. Sooner, rather than later – not after the next mass shooting, not after the next fallen officer, not after the next neighborhood gunbattle – we must act.
True! As I said above, we must get more Americans to carry a weapon as soon as possible. All that other stuff Tommy recommends? Fuhgeddboutit. Not only is most of his gun crime agenda currently in place (e.g., it’s already a felony to buy a firearm for a felon) much of it is counterproductive. “Stricter penalties for those who refuse to abide by the provisions of the concealed-carry law”? Which provisions would those be, exactly? What purpose does it serve to discourage Americans from exercising their Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms?
While we’re at it, how would banning modern rifles and limiting ammunition sales prevent crime? How could background checks weed out psychopaths, who are both clever and – prior to their heinous crimes – law-abiding? Needless to say, Hizzoner hasn’t a clue.
Tom is no more interested in rational debate than Behati Prisloo is interested in a steel-boned corset. Which is fine with me. Why are we even talking about this? Tool up, keep calm and Chive On. I mean, carry on. This country was founded on self-reliance. The sooner we return to that value the safer all of us will be. Both in terms of gun crime and personal liberty. I make that a win-win.
It’s awfully funny how the big government mayors want to blame the guns, and not the black undertow of criminality which is destroying their cities.
If you import and support an uneducated, unskilled underclass, crime will ensue.
Yet Wyoming has more guns than North Korea, and the violent crime rate is very low—except for the Indians. Go figure, crime is high on the res.
Even criminals vote. Can’t betray any of the constituency.
Risk of getting shot is an occupational hazard calculated into cop salaries. If they don’t like it, they are welcome to find another line of employment. I don’t see why my rights need to be abridged just to make their (already pretty safe) jobs still safer.
And why, I ask, every enhancement of “officer safety” is not accompanied by proportional reduction in their pay?
This, a thousand times. It pisses me off to no end to hear cops and firemen whine about the inherent dangers of their job that THEY CHOSE TO DO and are paid a premium for that extra risk. If people felt being a cop was too dangerous and refused to do it, then salaries for cops would go up.
Looks to me like their firearms related death rate is just over double the national average. No telling how many of those are self-inflicted or “friendly fire.”
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
Nationwide more innocent bystanders are killed by high-speed chases than total fatalities of police. Mr. Barrett ought to reorder his priorities.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-22-police-chase-deaths_N.htm
Waaaaaaah!!!!!!! I joined the Army and picked Infantry…..why do I have to get shot at? We should pass laws and conficate the guns from the bad guys!!!!!!!! Waaaaaaaaah!!!!!!!!!!
Said no Infantryman…..EVER!
I think its important to put this into context as well. It’s already widely known that police officers themselves don’t support such gun control, they know that a law abiding citizen is no threat to them or anyone else. 80k plus members of the NRA are cops. (And thats an old figure actually)
The poles however, they use LE as a reason for their agenda, only the police commissioners will stand up and support them. Anyone remotely familiar with how you become a commissioner or big city police chief knows that by the time you get even close to that rank, you will have already become as much a political hack as the mayor. And you will support his/her views, or be replaced by lunch time by one of the many many underlings in the ranking structure.
You’re less likely to die in the line of duty as a cop than it is to die in an accident as a truck driver. Many professions are more dangerous.
This.
The last list I saw didn’t even have “Law Enforcement” in the top ten. And by “Law Enforcement” they meant every single job title that met the legal definition; Park Ranger, Meter Reader, and Desk Jockeys that were killed “on duty”. And not just murdered, they included natural causes and accidents. That same list mentioned that %51 or %52 percent of those deaths were traffic accidents. Maybe Tom should outlaw cops from driving on duty.
So, RF is a Chiver too? Chive On.
I thought everyone was a Chiver… Keep Calm
Gun control is for the cops? I’m confused. I thought it was for the children.
Jeez, I wish those gungrabbing a$$h0les would make up their minds.
Tom Barret is another uber-liberal anti-gun elitist who has that weird light in his face.
wait. They’re suing the gun dealer? what is up with that?
This is one of many “testing the waters” moves that are being tried. If you can’t make it illegal to own a firearm, you can always sue the source out of business.
“Officers Jose Lopez and Alex Arce were shot by a teenage gang member. All four of these officers have sued the gun dealer responsible for the sale of the weapons used in the shootings.”
The quote by the anti-gun mayor does not mention if the teenage shooter was an underage minor or if the gun store did not run a background check. If the gun dealer did not run a background check and/or knew the buyer was a minor then I would understand the lawsuit against the store. The quote does not address the issue if the store was or not being prosecuted by the government for breaking a law.
Would you stop blaming color for crime? Lower class people exist in every color group and crime exists where there is opportunity. Getting more honor-bound, law-abiding citizens to cary and training them is an exellent way to reduce opportunity for crime to exist. If I get mugged at gunpoint, I don’t care if the person coming to my aid is black, white, yellow or red. And I would bet neither would you… you would just be thankful.
I or a family member was victimized by criminals six times. Two were felony crimes of violence, while the others were property crimes. Every one of the scumbags was white. The cops who eventually responded and really didn’t give a sh!t were white, too. And if crime was based exclusively on class, Bernie Madoff and Andrew Luster (perfect last name for a rapist, no?) wouldn’t be in prison serving triple-digit sentences.
Self-congratulatory white racists should stop patting themselves on the back long enough to get real.
The prison population and statistics do not bear out your personal experiences, Ralph.
Prisons in the US are majority minority. More blacks and latinos commit crime, violent crime, than whites and Asians.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and wanting not to hear it doesn’t make it untrue.
andrew m. i worked at a state prison for a year. one of many reasons for more minorities in prison is that all things being equal 1 white and1 black man convicted of the same offense the judge is more likely to give the white defendent a probationery sentence and the black defendent a prison term. the white guy will only go to prison if he violates the terms of his probation. this is just 1 of many reasons that the argument that prisons are full of minorities, therefore they commit more crimes is bogus.
Don’t forget to include Prior Offenses in those stats my friends.
How many of those poor black folk were bleach bargained down.
Was not the Low life in NY that got the Little boy Killed guilty of roughly 24 prior misdemeanors?
At the end of the day, there are some people who believe that your acccess to the Second Amendment is dependent on who signs your paycheck.
I have gone through an FBI fingerprint background check three times for the FL, UT, and AZ CCW permits. I have had hands on firearms and firearm law training as part of each of those permits. I have had as much firearm classroom time as a police recruit in the state of FL. In terms of background check and firearms ONLY, what is the difference between what I have done and what most police officers across the country have done? Almost nothing. The difference is that I am not paid by the taxpayer. As such, my rights count for much less.
“At the end of the day, there are some people who believe that your acccess to the Second Amendment is dependent on who signs your paycheck. ”
If the signer and the signee are the same person (and that check is big enough) you might even be able to exercise your second amendment rights in Illinois or New York.
Alcohol kills around 100,000 Americans each year. If it is about lives, he’s barking up the wrong tree.
My life is just as important that’s why I prefer my guns for self defense. Far as I’m concern his words don’t mean anything.
Somewhat off topic, but I like the usage of “modern rifle”. Not “assault rifle”, not “modern home defense rifle” or “modern sporting rifle” or “modern hunting rifle” or “civilian-purchasable zombie elimination combustion-based lead accelerators”. Just… “modern rifle”. Rifles with Space Age actions (for ARs and AKs) and Information Age furniture and accessories.
Plain. Simple. Tells the story. “Modern Rifle”. Thank you and good night.
Modern-i.e. 50-60 year old? The “Space Age” began 55 years ago.
This Mayor is just another non-informed politician who uses emotionally-charged rhetoric to make it appear to his constituents (who are stupider than he is for electing him in the first place) that he is trying his damnedest to “fix” a problem he has created out of the recent media headlines. His intent is to keep his “flock” from noticing he isn’t doing anything worthwhile except collecting their money in his paycheck.
His game is despicable, but typical of contemporary politicians in the United States at all levels.
LEO’s die in the Line of Duty. Firefighters die in the Line of Duty. Soldiers die in the Line of Duty. It is a sad fact of life, but a fact nonetheless.
“When police officers are shot, we should not abdicate our responsibility to do everything humanly possible to protect them …”
I’m confused. I thought they were being paid to protect us.
Murder is illegal and may, in some states, result in the imposition of a death sentence. Armed robbery with injury will get you serious time. Does this do anything to deter murderers and robbers? No. So will increasing penalties on concealed carriers reduce crime? No. Or stiffer penalties for straw purchases? No. Or banning “assault weapons”? No–very few murders are committed with long guns. About 400 a year. It is not the A/Rs that are the problem.
I think we’d be a lot better off if every legislator would have to undergo mandatory gun familiarity training as well as a seminar on the laws in effect in their jurisdictions before being allowed to propose any new legislation. Seems to me that most of the gun banners know next to nothing about guns (“they are EVIL! EVIL I say!”).
Obama said after the Gabby Giffords shooting that we should do a better job enforcing the laws we already have. One of those laws, the NICS background check, is one area where improvement coujld have a realisitic impact. Some states report minimally, others inconsistently, to the federal database, and updating is spotty at best. The typical reason/excuse if, of course, lack of money to develop the reporting protocols and the computer system to do the work. Pretty lame. All that needs to be done is to develop a standardized reporting form with standard definitions, and make that form available for filling out and submission on a secure internet connection. Anyting and everything beyond that is a social issue directly related to our failing and crowded cities that no gun law can ever address.
just as an aside, many of the privately built roads and bridges in early America were built by slaves. So when you say the country was built on self reliance, that is not entirely true.
There are some things that the government banned since then that have improved mankind; slavery, for example.
I don’t believe that guns should be banned, or even could be. But let’s not turn this into a fantasy about a golden age that never was.
This Mayor is an idiot. Now that I have that out of the way, I must say that Ms. Prisloo is an ESPECIALLY fine collection of female genetic material.
Comments are closed.