Col. Oliver North: Washington, D.C. 2nd Amendment case to be heard

Marinerhodes said:
One thing to note: Doesn't it seem logical that with more police officers on the streets and handling paperwork there would be less crime as more and more people got caught? This would deter alot of would be criminals (misdemeanor or felony).
Click to expand...

I think you have answered your own question here, the role of the police is almost always a reactionary one therefore I think more police will only equate to less crime in the very long term, if you want faster results you would have to give the police more power to prevent crime and then you have that pesky civil liberties problem.
 
MontyB said:
I think you have answered your own question here, the role of the police is almost always a reactionary one therefore I think more police will only equate to less crime in the very long term, if you want faster results you would have to give the police more power to prevent crime and then you have that pesky civil liberties problem.
Click to expand...


I was relating more to the fact that the crime rate dropped not because of restrictive gun laws but because there was more LEO out there to counteract the crime.
 
Marinerhodes said:
I was relating more to the fact that the crime rate dropped not because of restrictive gun laws but because there was more LEO out there to counteract the crime.
Click to expand...

That would be hard to correlate unless you could measure the effect of just one of the actions (ie just more LEO's and no gun laws and vice versa) on the same population.
One of the problems in changing multiple things at once is that its hard to attribute success to any one thing in particular.
 
Marinerhodes said:
I was relating more to the fact that the crime rate dropped not because of restrictive gun laws but because there was more LEO out there to counteract the crime.
Click to expand...

MarnerRhodes

The NYC crime plummet was due to a combination of many factors not just one. These would include:

1. A ban on handguns within city limits.
2. A hiring of 25000 new NYPD officers.
3. The Reorganization of the multiple NY Police Forces into a single NYPD.
4. Guliani's idea to aggressively attack minor misdemeanors first (like grafitti, loitering, etc). The idea that little criminals don't grow up to become big ones.
5. Community Watch programs/Anti Gang Training for schools.
6. The creation of a Police anti-gang taskforce to deal with the hardened elements.

So, I cannot say that banning handguns was the miracle cure-all. But it did help. I think Washington DC problem is that they only went part of the way, they banned the guns without doing the rest.
 
It really depends. Switzerland's a prime example of practically everyone owning a firearm, yet firearm related crime is very low.
 
I don't think that banning guns in America would cure the murder problem, I think the best way to go is on Licensing people for gun ownership. This would be done on Police approval, also the types and range of guns that some people held should also be restricted. When I had had guns Britain it was laid down that the guns would be kept in steel cabinet and firing mechanism should be kept in a safe were possible along with all the ammunition. Now about once a year the Police would arrive for a spot check to see that the conditions of the leineice were being met. Failure to meet these conditions meant that your guns could be confiscated. Noe only did this help prevent them from falling easily into the hands of crooks but meant that your children could not get their hands on them either.
 
At the minimum I think there ought to be firearms licenses like we have drivers licenses. Except I don't know about how any penalty point system would work. Just so that people who buy guns know how to use them and take care of them like firearms ought to be.
 
mmarsh said:
MarnerRhodes

The NYC crime plummet was due to a combination of many factors not just one. These would include:

1. A ban on handguns within city limits.
2. A hiring of 25000 new NYPD officers.
3. The Reorganization of the multiple NY Police Forces into a single NYPD.
4. Guliani's idea to aggressively attack minor misdemeanors first (like grafitti, loitering, etc). The idea that little criminals don't grow up to become big ones.
5. Community Watch programs/Anti Gang Training for schools.
6. The creation of a Police anti-gang taskforce to deal with the hardened elements.

So, I cannot say that banning handguns was the miracle cure-all. But it did help. I think Washington DC problem is that they only went part of the way, they banned the guns without doing the rest.
Click to expand...

I would say 2 - 6 would be 99% of the solution focusing on 2, 3 and 6. Banning guns is not nor ever will be a solution to a problem unless you conduct a house to house, vehicle to vehicle search and seizure of all weapons across the entire United States and then have checkpoints on all major and minor roads to search and seize any and all weapons not registered. It just makes the task of obtaining one a little more difficult for the criminal element.

Even laws restricting gun ownership makes it just a little difficult for the criminal element to get their hands on guns. Again, gun control laws and ban laws are not the answer.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying have the weapons registered. Just saying people who want to buy should still have a license like a driver's license.
 
We already have a license to own firearms.

US_Constitution_original_carry_permit.jpg
 
Yeah. Let me put it this way. It's legal to drive, but you still have to take a test, pass it and get your license.
Don't see why a firearm should be any different.
 
Because firearms are a Constitutional Right. Driving is not.... you do have the right to travel. But driving is not a right. The right to travel is.

By creating a licensing system (NYC) you can restrict those that you feel are socially undesirable to not be able to posse arms.

Firearm ownership ties into the right to keep and bear arms and also the right to self defense. By creating a licensing system, you will setup a situation that can be abused and controlled.

Nazi Germany did that, the Soviet Union did that, the People's Republic of China does that, Cuba does that, Venezuela does that, etc......

You can either live in a free and open society in which you have the rights that we all enjoy. The right to freedom of speech, the right of freedom of choice if religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be secure on our persons and in our homes, the right to a fair trial, the right to not incriminate yourself, etc...

Or you can live in a secure society. Yeah you have safety but you have no freedoms. You will be safe because the government will go through your house when ever they want to check for "bad things". Criminals will not have guns because people that do have them will be arrested on the stop and never face trial. You won't have to worry about people screaming and cursing at each other because you will not have the freedom of speech. etc......

In the end, you can either live in a free and open society with rights or you can live in a closed and secure society with no rights. I will never trade my rights for security. Because sadly you cannot live in a free and open society with rights and be secure. It's one or the other.
 
In those countries it is illegal to own most firearms and if you do own one, it's probably a .22 rifle for competition shooting.
I believe in freedom. I just don't believe in putting things in the hands of people who don't know how to use them properly.
I don't think we should have licenses in talking but I think you'll know what I mean by watching or hearing some dumbass talk about some subject (parents at a little league soccer game comes to mind... they argue like hell when they don't even know the laws of the game) and when an authority on the subject (someone with the proper qualifications) talks about it. There's a difference.
Also if I was with you in a room and you had a pistol on you and you took it out for some reason, I'd be alright. But if someone who didn't have the proper qualifications and just bought his/her first pistol at the gun store two hours ago pulled theirs out to take a look at it, I'd be leaving the room.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
I believe in freedom. I just don't believe in putting things in the hands of people who don't know how to use them properly.
I don't think we should have licenses in talking but I think you'll know what I mean by watching or hearing some dumbass talk about some subject (parents at a little league soccer game comes to mind... they argue like hell when they don't even know the laws of the game) and when an authority on the subject (someone with the proper qualifications) talks about it. There's a difference.

But if someone who didn't have the proper qualifications and just bought his/her first pistol at the gun store two hours ago pulled theirs out to take a look at it, I'd be leaving the room.
Click to expand...

+1. I am very pro-gun, but I am also very pro-knowledge about firearms. I don't believe it should be as easy as signing a few papers and going home with a new handgun. (I think people should be tested on the firearm as well as given some common sense questions - but then common sense isn't very highly rated these days).
 
I am pro-gun as well. There's no mistaking about it. But I think before anyone can buy one, they should take a few courses on firearms safety, basic marksmanship and maintenance.
A firearm in the hands of someone who knows handle it is a fine weapon for self defense. A firearm in the hands of some douche bag is dangerous to everyone, the very people firearms are legal in order to protect.
 
It's the part of the NRA that people who dislike guns like to ignore, the NRA believes that all citizens have the right to own guns but also believes that all gun-owners should have the necessary knowledge to ensure they are not putting themselves and others in danger through reckless use. That's why the NRA offers free firearm safety lessons to kids in pretty much every State of the Union. I don't like the idea of licenses for firearms, but I do like the idea of mandatory safety classes for all gun-owners, and of course the would need a certificate or license to prove they had undergone the necessary safety courses.
 
The license I'm referring to is some kind of proof of qualification of a course.
Whether it's handled like a qualification you can earn at an academy or if it's handled like a drivers' license.... that's a whole new argument and it's not what I'm really getting at.
 
We already have a license for handguns in NY which requires you to take a safety course. I had to attend to a handgun safety course for the peace of mind of my totally liberal parents, who were quite surprised when I walked in the door with a Mosin-Nagant and SKS on my 18th birthday. Didn't cover anything I didn't already know, and was totally unrelated to my rifles, but it was fun nonetheless. The instructor was a nice guy, and showed me a few things that you normally don't get until you take a defensive pistol class.

At least now when I apply for a CCW permit all my papers will already be in order.

I am not against the idea of a required training lesson, but I am very much against the idea of keeping a list of every firearm owner and all their details. Could be exploited by a totalitarian government, or a foreign army for that matter.
 
I am not against the idea of a required training lesson, but I am very much against the idea of keeping a list of every firearm owner and all their details. Could be exploited by a totalitarian government, or a foreign army for that matter.
Click to expand...

Wolverines!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top