Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree that schools (and many other public/semipublic buildings) need tighter security. But, what would more gun restrictions/laws have done to prevent this (or any) school shooting?

Laws, particularly certain laws, only let those who abide by the law know their limits. Criminals are the ones that routinely break the law for various reasons,and adding more restrictions, laws, and so on, will not prevent or deter criminals from attempting to commit their crimes, unfortunately.
That's logic could be used to undo/prevent any law.

Laws do prevent most crime because of what comes attached to them. That would be the punishment that goes with breaking the law.
 
That's logic could be used to undo/prevent any law.

Laws do prevent most crime because of what comes attached to them. That would be the punishment that goes with breaking the law.


Not sure that I understand your first comment.

As far as your second comment, I would disagree. While potential punishment is a deterrent for some, studies have shown that is not a deterrent for the majority who commit crimes. There are plenty of studies that support this position.

The reasons that it is not a deterrent vary but here are a few: 1) they did not believe they would get caught, 2) they have been to prison before (gang members, habitual drug users, etc), so that is no longer a threat, 3) because the potential gains outweigh the potential punishment (bank robbery, for example), 4) they commit a crime in the heat of the moment, without thinking of the potential consequences (murdering a cheating spouse), 5) they have no plans after the crime (typical of mass shooters, they expect to be killed or plan to kill themselves), 6) they have come to accept that prison is highly likely because of their criminal lifestyle ( drug dealers, gang members),
Obviously there are other reasons, but again, I would argue that potential consequences are only a deterrent for those who would likely follow the law anyway.

**Now, I am mainly referring to felony crimes and not petty crimes or misdemeanors like driving without a license, etc. Therefore, my point is even more valid because the potential sentence for the felonies outweighs misdemeanor or petty offenses sentences.
 
Last edited:
That's logic could be used to undo/prevent any law.

Laws do prevent most crime because of what comes attached to them. That would be the punishment that goes with breaking the law.

The difference is that the criminals have already broken the law. They've obtained their guns illegally anyway. So throwing more laws out there will only effect law abiding citizens.
 
The difference is that the criminals have already broken the law. They've obtained their guns illegally anyway. So throwing more laws out there will only effect law abiding citizens.

But not all school shootings are the result of guns purchased illegally. And not all crimes in general are committed with guns that are purchased illegally. A lot of them aren't. And usually, guns showing up on the black market are the result of someone purchasing firearms legally and then selling them illegally. Stricter laws wouldn't stop gun crime outright, but the numbers would drop.

Also, deterrence isn't the only purpose of having the law. Having laws also gives the police avenues of enforcement. It gives them a legal framework to stop people from doing things.
 
Last edited:
Not sure that I understand your first comment.

As far as your second comment, I would disagree. While potential punishment is a deterrent for some, studies have shown that is not a deterrent for the majority who commit crimes. There are plenty of studies that support this position.

The reasons that it is not a deterrent vary but here are a few: 1) they did not believe they would get caught, 2) they have been to prison before (gang members, habitual drug users, etc), so that is no longer a threat, 3) because the potential gains outweigh the potential punishment (bank robbery, for example), 4) they commit a crime in the heat of the moment, without thinking of the potential consequences (murdering a cheating spouse), 5) they have no plans after the crime (typical of mass shooters, they expect to be killed or plan to kill themselves), 6) they have come to accept that prison is highly likely because of their criminal lifestyle ( drug dealers, gang members),
Obviously there are other reasons, but again, I would argue that potential consequences are only a deterrent for those who would likely follow the law anyway.

**Now, I am mainly referring to felony crimes and not petty crimes or misdemeanors like driving without a license, etc. Therefore, my point is even more valid because the potential sentence for the felonies outweighs misdemeanor or petty offenses sentences.
The majority of society is law abiding. They follow the laws either out of respect for them or fear of the punishment. Yes, criminals break laws for various reasons but, even criminals seem to have limits.

As for my first statement, if you use the logic that laws don't prevent crime that what's the point of having laws at all?
 
I think laws are of course a deterrent, but if they are not enforced, as I believe our gun laws ARE NOT ENFORCED effectively, then writing more laws is not going to help that...

I do however think laws should be stricter on internet sales. IMO, someone buying a huge amount of ammo online needs to be flagged at the least.
 
This concerns me, on the other side of the issue:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...iflesraiseconcernovermilitarizationofpol.html

Boston PD's new assault rifles raise concern over militarization of police
by Daniel Lovering

Saying it has to keep up in arms race with street criminals, department will put AR-15 rifles in patrol cars

BOSTON — Standing several blocks from the scene of a recent shooting in Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood, Tariq Nazyat recalled the days when gun violence in the area was far worse than it is today. And he would know: He once carried a gun and shot someone before being sent to prison.

“I’ve been shot, I’ve been stabbed,” said Nazyat, 39, now a machinist and father who credited “good people” with helping him turn his life around. “That was that life back then. I was scared.”

But gun violence in the neighborhood has declined sharply since his teenage years, so he was puzzled by Boston Police Department plans to buy about 30 military-style semiautomatic rifles and train nearly 100 patrol officers to use them.

“Everybody’s seen shootings, but not like before,” said Nazyat, who wore a black Boston Celtics baseball hat and matching jacket, referring to Roxbury residents.

The plans to deploy the powerful weapons have triggered a major debate in New England’s largest city. On the one hand, many residents, especially in neighborhoods dominated by minorities, worry about a creeping militarization of their local police force, fearing that deploying such rifles on the streets could create more dangers than they solve. Some security analysts agree, seeing the move as part of a larger shift toward the militarization of police departments that has been happening in the rest of Massachusetts and across the country.

But on the other hand, the police and their supporters see a real need to combat often heavily armed criminals and prepare for terrorist threats, as in the case of the city’s recently targeted marathon. Police say they need the guns to do their jobs effectively and protect the city and its people.

Boston Police superintendent Kenneth Fong said police “routinely” seize semiautomatic assault rifles from the streets. They need the high-powered AR-15-style rifles, he said, to contend with “active shooter-type situations” and suspects who may be clad in body armor, heavily armed or beyond the range of handguns.

“The city and the world we live in now is different than in years past,” he said, “and we need to have equipment to meet the threat that we’re facing now.”

Planned before bombings

On April 15 — when two bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring more than 260 — the plan to buy the rifles was already in the works. But the attack and its aftermath, including an extensive manhunt by heavily armed police, highlighted “a situation where we didn’t have a sufficient number of officers properly equipped,” Fong said.

Edward Davis, who recently stepped down as the city’s police commissioner, proposed the idea in 2007.

“There was some hesitance to move forward with it at that time,” Davis told Al Jazeera. “I think that it’s appropriate that it’s starting back up again.”

Two years later, Boston police ordered about 200 semiautomatic M16s from the U.S. military under a federal surplus program and planned to distribute them to neighborhood officers before Mayor Thomas Menino thwarted the plan, the Boston Globe reported at the time. But some 82 police departments elsewhere in Massachusetts, many facing little or no violent crime but fearing terrorist attacks, have obtained more than 1,000 such weapons.

Menino, who will leave office at the end of year, has pressed for stricter gun legislation in Massachusetts. He was “well aware” that such rifles were common in other jurisdictions, and he “will continue to advocate for the limited use of these weapons for routine work,” Menino’s spokesman John Guilfoil said in an email to Al Jazeera.

“The mayor made clear that he doesn’t expect these types of weapons to be used regularly but rather stored securely in police vehicles and used only during necessary emergency situations,” Guilfoil added.

Even within the Boston Police Department, some officers favored an expansion of the current model of deploying tactical vehicles and trained specialists rather than arming ordinary patrol officers with semiautomatic rifles.

“All of a sudden the department seems to be rushing into this,” said Jack Kervin, president of the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation labor union. “It isn’t like this is Fallujah or we’re in a war zone.”

‘Standard police weapon’?

Under the current plan, the department expects to equip two officers in each of the city’s 11 districts with the long-range AR-15 rifles, which would be kept in cruisers, Fong said.

The weapons would add to the firepower of a department that has four to eight specially trained officers who patrol the city in so-called tactical vehicles, each equipped with an M4 rifle and a shotgun.

“Mainly it’s to give officers facing suspects armed with heavy weapons the ability to be able to respond to them,” Fong said.

The AR-15 has become “a standard police weapon,” said Robert Cottrol, a professor at George Washington University Law School.

“Not that every police car has one, but most police departments have a stock of them, so if there is a situation that calls for it, you can call for people with AR-15s,” Cottrol said. “That’s fairly common, and I think that makes perfect sense.”

Ladd Everitt, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., said police need the guns because they were facing similarly armed suspects on the streets.

“We’re seeing more police arming themselves up with assault rifles, essentially battlefield rifles, and it’s sad,” he said. “It’s the escalation of violence between essentially law enforcement and the average civilian.”

Some analysts fear such weapons could be used routinely. Although they may have been bought for extraordinary circumstances, “suddenly after a few years we find them being incorporated into drug raids, which happen on a more regular basis,” said Tim Lynch, criminal-justice project director at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

“The most disturbing repercussion that we see happening is when officers are dressing up in military garb, camouflage uniforms, military boots and helmets, and now you put M16s in their hands, there’s just a subtle change in their whole mentality when it comes to policing,” he said. “They begin to view the people in the community as adversaries, as the enemy, instead of people who have constitutional rights.”

He cited violent no-knock raids by police and the use of flash-bang grenades, among other tactics, often undertaken without preliminary investigation, he said.

“It’s just a recipe for unnecessary violence and unnecessary injuries and sometimes the loss of life,” Lynch said. “The idea that your average patrolman in the neighborhood is going to be attacked by someone with an AK-47 — that’s just speculative fears rather than real evidence of them being outgunned.”

Paramilitarization of police

In Massachusetts, shootings have increased in Boston in recent months but remain far lower than they were in the early 1990s. The state has among the lowest rates of gun-related deaths in the country and some of the nation’s toughest gun laws, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. Most shootings are committed with handguns.

Kade Crockford, director of the Technology for Liberty Project at the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said the move reflects a trend nationwide that includes the “paramilitarization of the police” and the federalization of local and state police departments.

She referred to fusion centers established by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that conduct surveillance and are run by state and local police but staffed by National Guard, military, FBI and other federal personnel, with access to real-time surveillance feeds and public and private databases.

“Do we want police officers who are sent out into our streets to be trained as if — and equipped as if — the people they encounter on their patrols are enemy hostile targets, as if in a war?” she said. “Or do we want them to see people in our communities as allies and people they are meant to protect and serve?”

On the street in Roxbury, Tariq Nazyat disputed the assertion that police were routinely confiscating assault rifles, saying most young people with guns in the neighborhood probably had 40-year-old Browning pistols.

“What do you need an AR-15 for?” he asked. “We’re in the middle of the city. If you open that gun up in the middle of the city, chances are somebody’s going to get hurt. I don’t really think you should be in that line of work if you even have that type of mentality.”
 
I think laws are of course a deterrent, but if they are not enforced, as I believe our gun laws ARE NOT ENFORCED effectively, then writing more laws is not going to help that...

I do however think laws should be stricter on internet sales. IMO, someone buying a huge amount of ammo online needs to be flagged at the least.
Enforcement is always the key.
 
Joshua was talking about not giving a crap at all about the reasons why someone might break into someone else's home. I realize a lot of people wouldn't, but when you understand that a lot of thefts take place because of necessity and not greed, you come to realize that it's a societal issue, not a personal one. Other countries have figured it out and have a lower crime rate because of it.

Ps. I went to school for Criminology so I'm not making this stuff up. It's in the stats.


I have a bachelors degree in criminal justice, halfway to a masters degree, and have worked in law enforcement for a few different state and federal agencies since 1999 and I agree with you to a small extent.
That said, I have encountered firsthand many many criminals since my time in law enforcement began and the VAST majority of criminals choose not to work for their essentials and instead CHOOSE to turn to crime to get those things (either by stealing, selling drugs, etc). A large majority of those same individuals also receive government benefits, which supply some of those same items (housing, food, etc) that you claim they must steal for. Also, some of criminals that I have met wear polo shirts, have the latest Nike shoes, have iphones, cable tv, and so on. If their crime was truly about life essentials, then some other decisions could be and would be made.
 
Wow, I guess quite a few of us have a degree in CJ, my bachelor's degree is in that as well.
 
Not sure what concerns you about that article. As the article states, AR15s are standard issue for many law enforcement departments. I know that they were issued to me at 2 of the agencies that I worked for.
Not sure why Boston was so slow to come around, honestly.

Because I don't think they should be standard issue. I think it's dangerous, I think it does more harm than good, and I think it's indicative of a trend towards running the police like the military, which seems like a terrible idea to me.
 
Because I don't think they should be standard issue. I think it's dangerous, I think it does more harm than good, and I think it's indicative of a trend towards running the police like the military, which seems like a terrible idea to me.
Well, the blame would fall on society. If citizens are carrying AR-15s, then the cops are going to need them or something better. And since, there are a lot of citizens insisting on being able to own/carry AR-15s...
 
Because I don't think they should be standard issue. I think it's dangerous, I think it does more harm than good, and I think it's indicative of a trend towards running the police like the military, which seems like a terrible idea to me.

As long as the officer has qualified with the rifle, I dont see an issue. I dont see why it is dangerous to arm law enforcement with the best possible option, to use only if necessary, for the safety of the officer and the public. I certainly dont see where it does more harm than good, can you explain that please?

As an FYI, I only brought out my Ar15 a VERY few times on duty. One specific instance was when we were searching in the woods for a man who had murdered 2 people in public and fled. He had 2 handguns when he committed his crime. Clearly, this man is extremely dangerous and our agency wanted us to have the best option to stop him, whether it be at close range or a little further. I was certainly appreciative to have a better chance to survive and end any confrontation in that situation.

Keep in mind, "standard issue" does not mean that they have an Ar-15 strapped to their back for every traffic stop and so on. However, there are plenty of situations where a firearm like an Ar15 might be necessary. I would rather law enforcement have the firearm and not need it than to need it and not have it. It simply means that it is available....typically in the trunk of their patrol vehicle.

As far as the police running like the military, I hear this concern from time to time and dont really understand it, personally. Sometimes I wish the police were more like the military, honestly.

Well, the blame would fall on society. If citizens are carrying AR-15s, then the cops are going to need them or something better. And since, there are a lot of citizens insisting on being able to own/carry AR-15s...

And this is another point. Police need to have the best firearm possible in certain situations, especially if the suspect is known to have some sort of similar firearm. You would be surprised what these idiots post on facebook, showing their AK-47s and Ar-15s. When law enforcement sees something like that, there is no way that they should attempt to serve a warrant on that individual with only handguns.
 
TRYANNY!!!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/colorado-background-check-law-private-sale_n_4428828.html

Background Checks Kept 72 Criminals From Buying A Gun In Colorado

Colorado's new background checks law is working, according to recent stats released by the state's Department of Public Safety.

The latest data published on the Colorado House Democrats website Wednesday shows that of the 4,792 background checks on private sales that were performed since the law went into effect, "72 sales were blocked because the would-be buyer was convicted of or charged with a serious crime, or was under a domestic restraining order."

Colorado's expanded background checks law closed a loophole that previously allowed gun buyers to purchase a weapon without having to undergo a background check if they bought it through a private sale. It was one of the contentious gun bills that passed and prompted the successful recalls of two state Senators, the resignation of a third and lawsuits by gun groups and most of the state's elected sheriffs.
 
Speaking of more Tryanny

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/...call-meant-as-revenge-for-gun-control-effort/

City council members in R.I. town survive recall meant as revenge for gun control effort

On Saturday, the first anniversary of the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, residents in the small Rhode Island town of Exeter defeated an attempt by gun-rights advocates to recall four Town Council members who had voted to restrict concealed weapons permits.

For years, the state’s attorney general office processed these permits, but in 2011 Dan Patterson reviewed state gun law and found that in any community without a police department, the town clerk had the power to issue concealed carry permits. In August of that year, the council voted to allow Town Clerk Lynn Hawkins to review and approve concealed weapons permits.

However, members of the council quickly regretted that decision once they realized that Town Clerk Hawkins wouldn’t have access to the same databases the attorney general’s office would when performing background checks. That information would include suicide attempts made by the applicant, juvenile offenses, non-criminal history of alcohol or drug abuse, protective orders issued against the applicant, and offenses the applicant has been accused of. For these reasons, the council voted to return the authority to issue concealed carry permits to the attorney general’s office.

Gun-rights advocates considered this an abrogation of local authority to the state, and decided to recall those members of the council who voted in favor of it. They acquired the 605 signatures required to trigger a recall election, although the means by which they did so have been questioned.
Take about outside money wasting a small towns time
 
I think laws are of course a deterrent, but if they are not enforced, as I believe our gun laws ARE NOT ENFORCED effectively, then writing more laws is not going to help that...

I do however think laws should be stricter on internet sales. IMO, someone buying a huge amount of ammo online needs to be flagged at the least.

What do you mean about the lack of enforcement? Are you referencing a particular gun law/restriction?
 
I'm talking more on the traffiking of guns, federal level. And I don't think that the gun shows are watched as closely as they should be.....but haven't heard too many problems from that....
 
I'm talking more on the traffiking of guns, federal level. And I don't think that the gun shows are watched as closely as they should be.....but haven't heard too many problems from that....

Gotcha.
The thing about gun shows is that if it is a private sale, then there are very few regulations for those type of sales. Same as a person selling a gun on armslist, through craigslist or newspaper ad or whatever.
I think that if there are FFL dealers doing business (at gun shows or otherwise) without following regulations, they are found out (2 gun stores in my area within the last year had this happen, actually).
 
Mikhail-Kalashnikov-maker-of-iconic-AK-47-rifle-dead.jpg

Mikhail Kalashnikov

Rifle designer Mikhail Kalashnikov dead at 94

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...3aa774-6bf1-11e3-a5d0-6f31cd74f760_story.html
 
Last edited:

I can't tell if your "TRYANNY"(mispelled) is sarcasm or you're being serious. If serious, I would think most gun owners are not against background checks. They simply don't want guns outright banned.


I just want to punch these kinds of people. Not you SV but the Principal in this article. She's worried that the anti-gun sticker will offend people reminding them of Sandy Hook as well as give people the impression that the sticker is up because people were allowed to bring guns in before.

http://news.yahoo.com/school-offici...igns-044012095.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory

This country has been going down the ****ter and it's only getting worse. I don't care who I offend but this super sensitive PC bull **** is ridiculous and I can't take these people seriously. To me they have the maturity and mentality of a Kindergartner. Someone says or shows something that others might like or it might not be a big deal anyway(like this sticker)and these crybabies do just that, they start crying like a little child that was called a name or had it's toy taken away. Grow up people and act like adults, you're dumbing down this country.
 
Wow, I guess quite a few of us have a degree in CJ, my bachelor's degree is in that as well.

Hey, me too! Plus law school with an emphasis in criminal law. I'm glad so many people here have a background in the area.

My take on guns is simple: America has more guns than any other country, and our gun homicide rate is embarrassingly high when compared to our peer countries. It's even worse when looking at victims under 15. We can do a hell of a lot better.

Yes, technically, "guns don't kill people." They just make it a whole lot easier. We should absolutely address mental health issues and improving the economy, but let's not pretend that either 1) more guns will make us safer, or 2) that reducing the gun supply wouldn't reduce crime.
 
Has anyone here mentioned that gun control isn't the issue, but the broader socialization of Americans is?
 
Has anyone here mentioned that gun control isn't the issue, but the broader socialization of Americans is?

Care to elaborate? Obviously there are cultural issues, like our obsession with guns and how it's tied up with our "rugged frontier" image of ourselves. But the availability of guns cannot be overlooked. Guns have a way of turning arguments into homicides.
 
Hey, me too! Plus law school with an emphasis in criminal law. I'm glad so many people here have a background in the area.

My take on guns is simple: America has more guns than any other country, and our gun homicide rate is embarrassingly high when compared to our peer countries. It's even worse when looking at victims under 15. We can do a hell of a lot better.

Yes, technically, "guns don't kill people." They just make it a whole lot easier. We should absolutely address mental health issues and improving the economy, but let's not pretend that either 1) more guns will make us safer, or 2) that reducing the gun supply wouldn't reduce crime.


If we're talking about reducing the criminal gun supply, and supply of illegal guns being brought into the country, I wholeheartedly agree.

But let's not pretend that most of the gun crime comes from legally purchased and owned guns. They just tend to make the news the most because they're used in mass or public location shootings. We've become desensitized to the thousands killed every year by illegal gun crime because it usually happens to individuals in bad neighborhoods or private locations, and while we can latch on to dozens being killed or injured, thousands is a number our minds have trouble comprehending, so it gets filed away as just another statistic.

As for those mass and public location shootings, that's where addressing our poor mental health state comes in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"