Can the police really stop crimes?

[AnomalousEntity]

Answer- "Absolutely not"

We get these about 2x/week where I work.

Burglary

On 09-28-03, at approximately 2:16 p.m., the Police were notified that several juveniles were attempting to enter the front doors of the Research and Education Building (CB). When Officers arrived on scene, it was discovered that person(s) unknown had entered the building's first floor lobby area, removed the front glass from a Sodexho Coke Caddy, then removing two cases of sofa drinks. A search of the area met with negative results. The Research and Education Building (CB) is located on Laney Walker Blvd, adjacent to the Interdisciplinary Research Facility (CA).

If you have any information concerning this incident, please contact Police at xxxxxxx.


Motor Vehicle Theft and Recovery

On 09-27-03, at approximately 11:07 p.m., Police Officer while on patrol in Parking Lot #1 observed two male juveniles, one setting inside and the other standing outside a 1995 Green Ford Escort. When the Officer approached, the juvenile standing outside the vehicle ran south towards Wrightsboro Road, and other juvenile attempted to drive the Ford Escort around the Police Cruiser, but was blocked. The driver abandoned the vehicle, and ran south towards Wrightboro Road. The Officer chased both subjects, but lost sight of them in the area of Poplar Street and Bleakley Street.

The vehicle was recovered in Parking Lot #1 undamaged and returned to the owner. The owner/victim stated he had parked the Ford Escort in Lot #1 while making a delivery in Resident V, but left the keys in the ignition.

A short time later the juvenile that had been standing out the vehicle was stopped, processed and released to his mother.

Parking Lot #1 is located on the east side of the Appartments A,B,C, and D - Resident V (DC, DD, DE, DF).

If you have any information concerning this incident, please contact Police at xxxxxxx.

Ill start posting these, and lets see how many of them are actually caught in the act or prevented from doing the damage.......

And remeber..for every 1 that is caught about 20 more got away scott free.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

And here is a story where the police not only did not stop the crime....the laws in the state damm near got the guy killed:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Amendment II, United States Constitution

Forty four states now have some form of so-called "Conceal and Carry" gun laws. Proponents of these laws often brag that the laws allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons and protect Second Amendment freedoms. Opponents of these laws decry them as a threat to "public safety".

Missouri is now among the states with a conceal and carry law going into effect after the State Legislature overrode a veto from our Democratic governor. The bill (HB 349) was introduced after the plan was voted down on a statewide referendum.

Among the details of Missouri's new gun law are the requirement of a permit to be issued by the local sheriff after fingerprinting and registering the applicant, a background check to be completed, a $100 fee to be paid, a state-mandated training course, a minimum age of 23 to apply for the permit and a designation on the permit-holder's drivers license.

A Republican State Representative, who happens to be a long-time friend of mine, wrote about the new law in a recent email update he sends to his constituents. He accurately described the new law as "...a compromise between supporting Second Amendment rights and the apprehensions of opponents to conceal and carry." I appreciate his honesty and candor on this issue, for Missouri's new law is just that: a compromise of Second Amendment rights.

While many gun rights activists and conservatives hail the law as a step in the right direction for freedom, I must say that I see the law as a step in the opposite direction. I agree that some ability to exercise Second Amendment freedoms is better than the ban we had before, but it is a step towards Australian and Canadian style gun control and will likely only delay the inevitable effort of government to confiscate (disarm) all citizens.

First, conceal and carry laws recognize the government's ability to regulate Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms. The Second Amendment specifically states that "the people" have an absolute right to "keep (own) and bear (carry) arms". Those who claim the Second Amendment only applies to state military units, like the National Guard, are either mistaken about the language of the Constitution or are simply outright lying about the Constitution in order to proceed with citizen disarmament.

Every other time "the people" or "person" is used in the Constitution, it clearly refers to individuals and individual rights. The entire Bill of Rights is designed to protect individual freedom from government. To say that the Second Amendment is somehow an exception to both of these aspects of the Constitution or that the meaning of the language is somehow different on this one issue is either extreme ignorance or outright dishonesty.

Another good friend of mine, Michael Badnarik, has spent over 20 years studying the Constitution and it's history. He teaches a class called "Introduction to the Constitution" around the country professionally. Mr. Badnarik regularly points out what should be obvious: that a right is something you do not have to ask permission for, as opposed to a privilege which is granted by an authority and can be revoked by that same authority.

Tragically, conceal and carry laws show how many individuals are willing to give up personal rights and freedoms by accepting the government's conversion of them to revocable privileges.

Requiring those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights to be tracked, fingerprinted like criminal suspects and approved before allowing them to carry a gun tramples the Constitution and sets up our society for the gun confiscations that people in other countries, including Canada, have endured.

The conceal and carry debate is also a prime example of the difference between Libertarians and both of the major political parties.

Democrats generally are hostile to the Second Amendment, often citing "public safety" concerns. The political left demands that you place your life in the hands of government and rely on police protection in times of emergency. In exchange for this government protection they want your Second Amendment rights.

Libertarians, by comparison, are concerned with personal safety. Libertarians understand that you have a basic human right to protect yourself and that the government is incapable of protecting individuals on a mass scale.

Here is a personal example. About six years ago I was robbed at gunpoint about ten feet in front of the door to my apartment building. The thug who robbed me got a leather jacket and about $15 in cash. The complete ban on concealed guns for citizens at that time certainly did nothing to prevent the criminal from holding a revolver to my forehead, but it did prevent me from legally having a means to protect myself. I had no option to defend myself; I was forced to rely on the hope that the robber would choose to not pull the trigger. By the grace of God, he didn't and I am still alive today.

The police arrived within minutes of the crime, after I called them. They caught the robber nearly five years later. He was convicted and is now serving a lengthy prison sentence. No one but the criminal knows how many people he robbed in the meantime. Despite the excellent detective and prosecution work after the crime occurred, the fact remains that the government was incapable of protecting my life when I needed it. The government did, however, prevent me from obtaining the means to protect myself by denying my Second Amendment rights to me.

This issue also demonstrates the difference between Libertarians and Republicans as well.

The Republicans who supported and gained enough votes to override the conceal and carry veto in Missouri most likely feel they were preserving freedom. However, they have no problem requiring citizens to pay $100 just for the their Second Amendment rights. These conservatives have no problem enrolling anyone who wishes to exercise their rights into a statewide government database to track them and they have no problem with denying adults between the ages of 18 and 22 their rights under any circumstances.

These are the compromises of the Second Amendment my friend in the Legislature referred to.

Libertarians, on the other hand, would never compromise personal freedom, especially an element of the Bill of Rights. Libertarians recognize that freedom and rights are absolute and should never be put up for a vote.

Conceal and carry laws do not complement the Second Amendment, they erode it. Regulations and tracking of individuals do not enhance freedom, they decimate it.

Freedom is indivisible. Either we have Second Amendment rights or we do not. There is no in between. We, the people, have a right guaranteed by the Constitution to keep and bear arms. The government has no authority to infringe on that right, no matter how trivial or appealing the restrictions may seem.


Mike Ferguson

I dont really agree with this guy or Gato Solo

I think it is an Right...which can not be withdrawn...EXCEPT FOR CRIMINALs and people who demonstrate a lack of proper safe gun handling ..those folks give the rest of us a bad rap and they deserve to be restricted.

Training courses...liscensing fees...background checks...no problem.

If they start up with more restrictions that apply to law-abiding citizens, more restrictions on where you can carry, or more restrictions on the type of hardware (magazine capacity limit to 10 rounds is completely bogus...all it did for me was make me purchase smaller guns with larger caliber rounds that can only hold about 10 anyway), or "heaven forbid" confiscation...then Id say the country has gone against its own constitution and is there for not safe from itself, and in need of a turn over of power in order to protect its founding priniciples..by force or by vote or otherwise.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

And here are 2 stories about THE RIGHT KIND OF GUN LAWS.

Schumer, Idaho colleague disagree on guns — except this time

September 28, 2003

By PETER LYMAN


Here’s an entry for the Strange Bedfellows File:

Sen.


Charles

Schumer, D- N.Y., and Sen.

Larry Craig, R- Idaho, shared a podium at the Capitol this past week to profess their mutual support for a pending piece of legislation. What made the moment remarkable is the subject of the bill — guns.


From Our Advertiser




As a member of the House of Representatives in the early 1990s, Schumer was an author of the Brady law. The once-controversial measure requires federally licensed gun dealers to check with law-enforcement authorities regarding a gun buyer’s background before completing the sale.

Craig is a member of the board of the National Rifle As sociation and a longtime opponent of gun-control legislation.

As a matter of basic philosophy, Schumer and Craig could not be further apart on government’s role in the regulation of gun ownership. But they have found agreement on a narrowly focused matter of gun law.

They want to plug what they termed "a huge hole" in the FBI’s system of background checks for gun purchasers. Their bill would provide $375million to state agencies and courts to improve their record-keeping and reporting of information on individuals who have been barred from owning a gun because of a criminal record or a history of mental illness.

"The Brady check system is only as strong as the records that are in it," Schumer said. "If federal and state agencies don’t supply the system with the most up- to-date statistics on those who are legally barred from owning firearms, then those people are going to be able to get their hands on guns."

The lawmakers stressed that the Brady law has been a success, but it could work better. Most states have failed to automate their records and share them with the FBI’s national instant criminal background check system, they said.

As a result, thousands of criminals have been able to purchase guns, they said, and thousands of legitimate gun purchases have been needlessly delayed. "It’s a catch-as-catch-can system, and we’re not catching enough," Schumer said.

Both senators predicted easy and swift passage of the measure in both houses of Congress.

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle says he will back legislation to protect gun makers from lawsuits arising from criminal use of the weapons, as long as it is changed to ensure legitimate claims can go forward.

A group of Democrats -- not including Daschle -- had pledged to filibuster the bill. Daschle said his support depends upon an amendment to protect future claims arising from defective products or situations where people buy guns for felons or others who are barred from doing so themselves.

"The broad coalition supporting this bill does not intend the legislation to provide blanket immunity to 'bad actors,'" Daschle, D-S.D., said Thursday.

A spokesman for one of the Democratic opponents, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, said Reed had not read Daschle's amendment and could not yet say whether it answered his concerns.

More than 50 senators already supported the legislation, although a successful filibuster would have blocked it from being brought to a final vote.

National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said the group welcomed Daschle's support, noting other Senate leaders of both parties already had backed it.

Arulanandam said the bill would protect the industry and retailers from "malicious lawsuits aimed at bankrupting law abiding retailers and manufacturers."

President Bush supports the legislation, a version of which passed the House this spring on a 285-140 vote.

* __

 

[AnomalousEntity]

And lastly,

An example of gun nuts going too far.

Gun 'Safety' Law Unsafe, Interest Group Says
(CNSNews.com) - The Law Enforcement Alliance of America is blasting California Gov. Gray Davis for signing a gun control bill that effectively bans the sale of many new handguns commonly used by law enforcement officers and citizens for self-defense.


The bill Davis signed this week requires all semiautomatic handguns sold in California to be equipped with magazine disconnects and chamber indicators by 2007.


Gun control advocates call them "safety" devices, but gun owners say just the opposite.


"The law enforcement community expressly rejects the "magazine disconnect" feature, as it seeks to disable the firearm during a magazine change, a potentially life-threatening result for an officer in a shoot-out," LEAA noted.


In fact, the bill Davis signed exempts law enforcement from the requirements, but the mechanical devices would be required on guns that officers purchase for their own private use.


According to LEAA, the new law exposes California law enforcement and taxpayers to additional liability risk, because it defines guns lacking magazine disconnects and chamber load indicators as "unsafe guns."


"As a result, nearly every single handgun used by California law enforcement officers will be officially defined as an 'unsafe handgun,' a notion certain to be exploited in lawsuits involving police use of firearms," LEAA said in a press release.


But on the other side of the argument, wire reports quoted Jane Roth, president of the Million Mom March's California State Council, as saying the new law would save lives, particularly those of children, and "prevent further accidents."


By signing the bill, Gov. Davis signaled "the sheer desperation of the final days of his administration," LEAA said.


The group urged Davis's successor in the presumably successful Oct. 7 recall election to reconsider "this ill-advised and misleadingly promoted law."


The LEAA describes itself as the nation's largest coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victims, and concerned citizens dedicated to making America safer.


Other Second Amendment supporters expressed their opposition to the law on the grounds that mechanical safety devices may give people a false sense of security.


The best advice, they say, is to treat every gun as if it is loaded, regardless of what the chamber load indicator says.

I think they are full of crap. I think a magazine disconnect is a sound function (many accidents by gun novices occur when they have the clip out and think that it cant be fired and then pull the trigger...bang!) .

And I think a chamber load indicator would not only be safe..but quite a nifty feature.

 

[MrBishop]

Remove all automatic and semi-automatic rifles from the public except those held by the police and the armed forces. Restrict hunters to bolt-action rifles. Manditory jail-time for anyone carryng a gun/rifle in any crime even if the gun in question was never wielded. Destroy all confiscated guns. Breathe easily for the first time in over 30 years.

Sometimes I think that America would've been better off if they hadn't removed the words "in times of strife" from the end of the phrase "The right to bear arms..."

IMHO

 

[PT]

I'm a little torn on this issue. First of all, no criminals should be allowed to carry guns, ever again. As for the assault rifles, I think they should be done away with, there is no good use for an AR-15 other than killing lots of people in a short amount of time. The military may need them, the citizens do not. Handguns are iffy, there are legitimate reasons to have one, although with the removal of them, the majority of the reasons go away as well.

As for removing the phrase, "In times of strife", I'm glad they removed it, as the government would be the ones to say whether or not we were in a time of strife or not, I do think that within reasonable limits should have been added, however. Although, once again, who decides what is reasonable?

 

[Gonz]

Can the police really stop crimes?

Only if they stumble into a crime scene being created.