Disarming The Law Abiding Citizen
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Disarming The Law Abiding Citizen

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    1,225

    Disarming The Law Abiding Citizen

    Found this article on Policeone.com. Excellent write up. I have provided the link but you may not be albe to use it unless you are confirmed, sworn law enforcement. If you can link to it, do so because the member comments on the article are great! All are in favor of law abiding citizens having firearms

    http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issu...iding-Citizen/


    By Officer Nestor Arteaga
    Yuma, Ariz. Police Department

    Alfred Noble had a great idea when he invented TNT. It revolutionized and propelled mining into the 20th Century. While TNT started as a useful tool that saved lives and kept people safe, it turned into a brutal form of administering death in World War I. Noble had no idea his invention would be turned into a weapon of death, and spent the rest of his life seeking redemption, giving birth to the Noble Prize.

    Gun powder too, had a beginning similar to TNT. Gun powder was first used by the Chinese in fireworks. Gun powder had a celebratory purpose. It was a used to celebrate life and the coming of a new year. Ironically, the role of gun powder would also change and it too would become a tool with which to administer death.

    We, like Noble, have been trying to remedy the aftermath of gun powder and its introduction to the gun, giving birth to “gun control.” When talking about gun control it’s important to distinguish between law abiding citizens and the criminal element. Too many times the line is blurred and the “good guys” are lumped together with the bad guys. When one thinks of a gun, they relate it to taking a life or the commission of a crime. It’s important to understand guns can save lives, protect property, and prevent crime when placed in the right hands. In an argument against gun control, one can clearly see the necessity to enforce the laws we already have through stricter punishment and not legislating new laws.

    Creating more gun control laws gives an unfair advantage to the criminal element and leaves the law abiding citizen vulnerable.

    One common defense for gun control is that countries like Britain, Australia, and Canada have completely banned guns, or in the case of Canada, have very strict gun control laws. John Lott analyzed the gun control movement and published the results in the academic review “Gun Control Flops.” Lott states, “Take the United Kingdom, where violent crimes have been soaring. Britain has already banned just about every type of weapon a criminal might want” (1). Lott states handguns were outlawed in 1997 but gun crimes in England and Wales nearly doubled after the ban. Australia followed suit and had the same dyer consequence. According to Lott, Australia’s armed robbery increased by 74 percent. The argument that countries which have banned guns are safer, no longer holds much water.

    Only three countries can be used as a model for gun control supporter as “safe” countries due to gun control. Let us take an objective look at the issue. There are countries like Brazil, Mexico, and Russia who have very strict gun control laws. All three countries have soaring crime and gun violence. Russia is flooded with black market guns, Brazil has a history of violent crimes, and Mexico’s cartel’s outgun most police agencies and rival the Mexican Army. It’s clear that modeling our gun control laws after countries such as Britain, Australia, and Canada will have negative consequences because we may end up like Brazil, Mexico, or Russia where the law abiding citizen is defenseless.

    Secondly, people argue guns are linked to violence. This argument is also flawed and I will explain why. There is no supporting evidence that links gun ownership to violence. According to Iain Murray, author of “Guns Don’t Kill People,” the National Research Council assembled a panel to see if there was a connection between violence and gun ownership.

    Murray wrote, “The panel has been unable to find evidence to support [a connection between gun ownership and violence]” (1). The idea gun ownership in itself is violent and criminal is nothing less than dangerous. The reason people relate guns to violence, is primarily because of the media. Day in and day out the headline on the news reads, “Man found dead with single gunshot wound to the head”, or “Crazed gunman mows people down in a barrage of gun fire.” We don’t hear any headlines that read, “Man saves lives with his gun,” or “Man stops crazed gunman with a gun.” People are programmed by our media to hear the destructive power of guns but not the benefits. One incident that comes to mind is the killing rampage at Virginia Tech. Would that “right to carry” citizens had had a weapon, the killer could have been stopped and lives saved. Guns are only dangerous when a crazed gunman has one, and there is no one to stop them because of our strict gun laws. Should we leave our law abiding citizens unarmed and defenseless?

    My position is that if a criminal wants a weapon he will get it regardless of any law prohibiting such possession. Take for example the death of Steven Liczbinski, a Police Sergeant with the Philadelphia Police Department. Liczbinski was gun downed by three armed bank robbers as he was exiting his patrol vehicle. The gunman, Howard Cain, said “I’m going to let him have it” (Philadelphia Inquirer) right before exiting a van and opening fire with an AK 47, killing Liczbinski.

    The other two armed robbers were Levon Warner and Eric Floyd. All three men were convicted felons. Cain went to prison after pleading guilty to four counts of robbery and did 10 years. Warner was sentence to 7 to 15 years in prison on robbery charges. Floyed was convicted by a jury in 2001 for two robberies and carrying a firearm without a license. Floyd was still serving his sentence at a halfway house when the incident occurred. A loaded .44 caliber revolver was later found in the van. In an adjacent alley a .22 caliber was located (presumably belonging to one of the suspect) and the AK 47 that was used to Kill Liczbinski was also recovered.

    The article published by the Philadelphia Inquirer said, “The slaying also is likely to become exhibit no. 1 in the city’s effort to adopt stricter gun laws.” Let us examine the incident above a little further. All three subjects above were felons who were not allowed to carry weapons; they were “prohibited possessors.” A law was already in place that would prohibit the suspects from carrying weapons, but they attained them anyway. The shooter, Cain, went to prison after pleading guilty to four armed robberies. Cain “pled guilty” which means he was given a deal and some charges dropped. It’s uncertain how many armed robberies were dropped during the plea agreement if any.

    One thing is irrefutable. If all three suspects were given the maximum prison term pursuant to the crimes originally committed, they would have been in prison and Liczbinski wouldn’t have died at the hands of these felons who were prohibited from possessing weapons. While the death of a fellow police officer is tragic, the answer is not gun control but the enforcement of current laws, or better equipping the police, because the criminal element will find a way to get a hold of guns as is evident in the incident above.

    It is also my stance that gun control laws punish the law abiding citizen and leaves them unprotected. It has been proven time and time again that if a criminal wants a gun he will get it. Let us imagine that a law was passed banning all guns. The law abiding citizen by name sake will abide by the law and disown all weapons. The criminal by name sake will still possess a weapon violating the law. To illustrate I will tell a story.

    My uncle, who lives in Mexicali, Mexico, was awakened one morning when he heard glass shattered. He ran to investigate and found an early morning, gun trotting burglar in his kitchen. The suspect took his wallet, and then calmly walked around the house and into his 24 year old son’s room as he slept with his wife and child. The subject pointed the gun at him, and demanded the keys to his car and his wallet. The suspect took the property and left never to be found again. As my uncle recounted this story, he told me how powerless he felt. He said the reason the criminal was “calmly” walking through the house was because he knew there were no weapons in the house. He knew my uncle was a political figure and was “a law abiding citizen” and therefore defenseless. My uncle stated, “if we had gun laws like the U. S. he may have thought twice before entering my house, because there would have been the possibility that I had a weapon to defend my self with.” There is no better example of why gun control laws are flawed and ineffective leaving citizens unable to protect themselves.

    It’s a fact that some people die at the hands of criminals misusing guns. An outcry for gun control usually follows by family members and/or the community. Usually the outcry is fueled by emotion and very little factual data. I ask we look at the issue of gun control logically. Strict punishment of the laws we already have would be much more effective and would keep guns in the right hands. We should be cautious and not give the criminal element an unfair advantage by disarming the “good guys.”

  2.   
  3. #2
    It is always good to see and hear from officers that understand that armed citizens are not the problem. Thanks for posting.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast