Ten Years On, STILL WAITING…,

So we had yet another mass shooting on a military base, this one at Ft. Stewart.  It brings to mind once again the unfulfilled promise made by Donald Trump TEN YEARS AGO to do away with so-called “gun free” zones in the US, including military bases, on his FIRST DAY IN OFFICE:

“I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools, and — you have to — and on military bases.  My first day, it [the executive order - added] gets signed, okay? My first day. There's no more gun-free zones,” Jan. 8, 2016, at a rally in Burlington, Vt.

Consider his remarks to the NRA Leadership Forum in Louisville, KY on May 1 the same year:

Each of the injuries and deaths that have occurred during his terms in office could possibly been prevented - that blood is on his hands.

Mr. President, finish the job.  Fulfill your promise.  Write and sign the executive order doing away with so-called “gun free” zones.

Twenty-five Years Ago Today….

 

25 years ago today.  Columbine High.

Numerous school shootings later, those who write the laws leaving our teachers and students defenseless still enjoy the armed security they deny our schools.

For over thirty years an experiment has been conducted on the American public, and that experiment involves testing the notion that criminals obey laws, that declaring a given area “gun free” somehow appeals to the “inherent goodness” that supposedly exists in all people.  After thirty years, the results speak for themselves: “gun free” zones, whether they be schools, malls, churches, hospitals, or federal buildings, have protected no one and prevented nothing, but they have proven to provide shooters with unlimited sources of defenseless victims.  “Gun free” zones have proven to all who have eyes to see that criminals do not obey laws or designations, that they will, in fact, use those very laws and designations to their advantage.

The experiment is an unqualified failure.  It’s time to end it.

One Can’t Prevent What One Isn’t Present To Prevent….

I recently responded to an editorial in which the author, a psychiatrist, argued that very few good guys with guns have stopped mass shootings.

He made the following statement: “Which brings me to the spate of mass shootings. If those numbers are right, it’s extremely likely that there were at least some “good guys (or women)” with guns at most of the mass shootings we’ve heard about over the past few years.”

This is an assumption, an assumption with absolutely no basis in fact.  He assumes that there MUST have been firearms carriers at the sites of many mass shootings, but they were too cowardly to intervene.  He conveniently ignores that most mass shootings take place at sites designated “weapons free”.  

Lawful firearms carriers are scrupulous about observing conditions of entry; they aren’t going to do anything that would jeopardize their right to carry.  

The result?  

Whether the “weapons free” designation carries the force of law (applicable in only a few states) or not (as is the case in the majority of states, Michigan being one of them), the majority of firearms carriers will either 1) secure their firearms in a lockbox in their vehicle or 2) find someplace else to shop.  

The end result?  

At the vast majority of mass shootings, there were no lawful carriers present.  Good guys with guns can’t prevent what they aren’t present to prevent.

So what this gun control advocate is really arguing, while being too ignorant to realize it, is that “gun free” zones HAVE been effective in stopping firearms carry.  The problem is, they are stopping the WRONG PEOPLE from carrying.

Chief Ramirez: Politicizing A Tragedy….

 “You’re either with law enforcement or you stand with the fringe and believe that everybody should have a firearm, regardless of their character, capabilities and mental capacity,” Chief Ramirez, Miami Police Department.

Let’s discuss that.

First, while I know that there are a few out there - and I mean that, JUST a few - who believe that EVERYONE should be able to own a gun regardless of the issues Ramirez raises, I can confidently say that the majority of us in the Second Amendment do not.  And I will point out, for the umpteenth time, that exclusions for those very individuals ALREADY EXIST WITHIN US LAW AND THE NICS SYSTEM - and the good chief should already know that.

Second, he is once again demonstrating the divide that exists between police chiefs and officers.  I’m going to say this yet again: POLICE CHIEFS ARE POLITICAL APPOINTEES WHOSE VIEWS ALIGN WITH THOSE OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT HIRED THEM.  

So what do OFFICERS really believe?  Once again, I will refer to the largest survey of law enforcement officers (over 15,000) ever conducted:

“1. Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.”

“2. The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.”

“3. About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.”

“4. Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.”

“6. The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.”

“7. More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.”

“8. More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.”

“9. More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.”

There is nothing “fringe” about the views most of us in the Second Amendment community hold.  Our views are actually the mainstream of law enforcement OFFICERS as well as indicated by this survey; contrary to what the good chief would have you believe, HE is on the fringe of law enforcement - not us.

I STAND WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.  

Chiefs, not so much.

BTW, he’s making these pronouncements even though he 1) still hasn’t identified the shooters and 2) has no idea at this time how they obtained the guns they used.  That’s called a rush to judgement and politicization of a tragedy, just so we’re clear.

https://nypost.com/2021/05/30/miami-pd-chief-calls-for-tighter-gun-laws-after-concert-shooting/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site+buttons&utm_campaign=site+buttons&fbclid=IwAR1FkuWuE_-9zo8efVyHxyjd9THO0ong3z_Q6Sav8taSRjzu_pzrIEHXmjk