Here is the body of a letter sent from a person who has been in law enforcement for all their lives, and has been an Assistant Special Agent in Charge for a state SBI. With all the "misinformation" and hysteria over gun control and the Sandy Hook incident (not to mention others including the Chinese incident several hours after Sandy Hook where a person injured 21 Chinese children with a knife - see NY Times link below). There are many opinions on the subject (but I would trust someone who has been there and done that), but this opinion I would respect over the speculative proposals and ill-informed proposals we have had publicized in the media, in Congress, and from the White House. While tragedies have happened over many centuries, the current proposals fall short of the "root cause" which is more a personal "moral and ethical" issue than a "method" issue. While general moral and ethical moors won't solve all the issues all the time, they have a tremendous effect on "whether you kill another person for their Nike tennis shoes" or not. Murder can happen via any mechanism if the person wishes to accomplish it. Today, many of those "restraints" have been demolished by special interest group’s intent on overthrowing anything with a vestige of "religious origin" or something similar in favor of, "I just want to decide what is right for me!" mentalities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/man-stabs-22-ch...
This is the "street" version:
By way of introduction my name is Marcellus "Mark" Buchanan. I am a recently retired Assistant Special Agent in Charge with the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation. I am currently volunteering as a Clay County Deputy Sheriff. I am 51 years old and have been a lifelong registered Democrat. I now reside in one of the more rural areas of western North Carolina. For most of my adult life, I have voted my conservative conscience and not by party lines. This is especially true with regard to our elections relating to federal office holders. This should in no way be interpreted that I would not readily vote for a middle of the road Democrat for federal office. Using an analogy, I simply feel we have to keep the country somewhere on the paved section of the road rather that in the conservative ditch to the right or in the liberal ditch to the left of the roadway! In describing for you my political affiliation and voting tendencies, I am simply trying to say that feel it important that I hold the line with regard to our socially responsible values and unencumbered constitutional rights. Over the past few years I have been increasingly concerned that our federal government is encouraging the erosion of the values of our society. I believe many elected officials of our federal government are now attempting to infringe on the millions of law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment Rights. I would specifically refer to those rights as they relate to the ownership of effective and relevant firearms by rural citizens for the purposes of self and family protection. I am not an avid hunter and do not pretend that the firearms I own are used for hunting purpose. I am not a legal scholar but I do not think the Second Amendment was passed in 1791 for any other purpose than that of self and family defense. During my North Carolina law enforcement career, of over 30 years, I have at some point worked in the majority of the state's counties. I would estimate that I have been a part of the investigative teams involving some 200 shooting incidents throughout my career. I can only recall 3 of these incidents that involved "assault rifles" that were used by criminals. Even though each of these "assault rifles" were capable of accepting high capacity magazines, none of these 3 shootings I worked involved the use of more than a few fired rounds of ammunition. These rifles were therefore utilized just as any common hunting rifle would have been used. After the New Town tragedy there was a flurry of quoted statistics relating to gun violence. I found it interesting that my law enforcement experiences coincided closely with many of the national averages. These specifically being that about 1.5% of all firearm shootings involved "assault rifles". What I have not heard during this very public debate was that the main characteristic of “assault rifles" and semiautomatic pistols, the capability of accepting a high capacity magazine, was rarely ever utilized during these shootings. My guess is this percentage of 1.5% would drop significantly if the full utilization of an “assault rifles” high capacity magazine capabilities were factored in.
Since the Columbine High School shooting I have attended multiple training sessions with regard to "rapid deployment" and "active shooter" responses. As a current Clay County Deputy, I am subject to be called to respond to any active shooter in the county. I would readily give my life as a responder if it would safeguard our beloved school children! As horrible and heartbreaking as these mass shootings with “assault rifles” are, however, they simply are not statistically significant when one considers all of the deaths by other weapons each year across our nation. They most certainly are not significant enough to disarm millions of law abiding rural citizens across our nations who depend on certain firearms for self and family protection. I strongly feel this whole gun control issue is more of a rural verses urban argument than it is a Republican verse Democrat debate. I hear Senators and Representatives from the urban areas of the country vehemently arguing that there is no reason why anyone would need more than 10 rounds of ammunition for self-defense. In their world, where the average response time by police to a call for help might only be 2-3 minutes, this might well be the case. For the vast majority of our country's lands, however, this could not be further from the truth. There are rather large counties out here in western North Carolina that might only have a single Deputy Sheriff on night patrol. It is quite possible that an urgent call for help in the middle of the night could result in a Deputy’s response time being 30-45 minutes. I'm sure ranchers in the southern rural portions of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas think we have good law enforcement response times here in western North Carolina. I would suspect law enforcement response times in those boarder states could well exceed an hour if not more. For most of our country, geographically speaking, I would argue that it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for law-abiding citizens to be able protect themselves and family with firearms that are capable of extended controlled fire until law enforcement can arrive. One should also consider the very low “hit probability” with regard to shootings by even our trained law enforcement officers. Statistics vary wildly depending on departmental training, day or night encounters, distances that offenders were engaged, etc. It is probably fair to say average “hit probability” percentages for all shootings by trained law enforcement officers to be less than 30-35 %. With this in mind it should certainly be reasonable for that terrified young mother, who is defending herself and child from an intruder, to have a firearm capable of sustained fire that might well overcome the above described “hit probability” issue. You have noted by now that although I have used the term "assault rifle", I have concentrated primarily on firearms that are capable of accepting high capacity magazines. After watching several newscasts of politicians and some law enforcement department heads that support gun control, I am embarrassed on their behalf as to their lack of understanding of the nomenclature of firearms. Throughout my law enforcement career I have never worked a case nor do I know any other officer who has ever worked a case involving anyone who has been injured by most all of the of the components of what has been used to define an "assault rifle". To my knowledge no one has ever been killed or injured by a pistol grip, flash suppressor, collapsible stock or bayonet lug! I am always amazed at the many politicians and gun control advocates who point to photographs of terrible looking "assault rifles" and are forced to stumble and make up words in describing what makes an "assault rifle" so much more dangerous than the common hunting rifle. In conclusion, I am not a member of the NRA and do not agree with some of the hard and fast stances they are taking. I am seriously considering joining them, however, since they are the only real lobby that law-abiding citizens now have to protect what I perceive to be an attack on our Constitutional rights by urban legislators. I am adamantly opposed to any type of gun registration as well as any bans of pistols and rifles that are capable of holding a sufficient number of rounds for personal and family protection in the rural areas of our great country. I consider factory provided high capacity magazines to have legitimate uses by the millions of law-abiding citizens across our rural countryside. Have legitimate uses by the millions of law-abiding citizens across our rural countryside.
You know if the whole point of this is to give an example of how members of law enforcement don't support limitations on gun rights then I have to point out that several law enforcement organizations joined together to create the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence who support a ban new semi-automatic assault weapons and a ten round limit on high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Whoops, related to the link below on organizations; here is the link to the survey of almost 15,000 law enforcement personel from all ranks. http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/art.../
That is because they don't have to abide by it; they are exempt. I can understand the sentiment, but people kill people with all kinds of things like cars. Automobiles kill 100 times as many people in a given year; should we limit the use of automobiles. We tried with alcohol, and that didn't work; criminals (especially Joseph Kennedy!) got the stuff anyway. They distributed it illegally and built a fortune; should we abscond with the Kennedy trusts because it was built, initially, with illegal funds? The only people this will hurt are those law abiding people, many of whom are trained to use the firearms, who use these types of guns legally. I don't like people shooting lots of people, and I abhor the thought of "mentally ill" people getting them for sure. I do agree with mental health checks for firearm purchases; this would go a long way.
So. You post the story of some North Carolina police officer supporting gun rights and it is a-okay. I post a response about how "sure that might be true, but there are also police organizations that support restrictions on gun rights" and that isn't okay because they are police officers?
Sure, they are entitled to their own opinions, and I'm sure they are well intended. I've been trying to find the sample data to see who and how many took the survey. Yes, there are some that may be from urban areas mostly I would imagine; probably some from Chicago (with the strictest gun laws in the country and one of the highest crime and murder rates per ca pita of any city in the country) who support this type of control. However, look at this link, and you will see some of the same organizations listed in that "support" as are partners here:
As a retired Army Staff Sergeant who has used real assult rifles, re M14 & M16 rifles, M60 machine gun & M79 grenade launcher, with the M16 & 160 being full automatic, I get tired of people calling what is available to the public 'automatic assult rifles' when in reality only SEMIautomatic weapons are available. There is a big difference in the two. A automatic can put out the ssame amout of lead as a semi in a lot less time than it does pulling the trigger for each shot. The fact still remains that our leaders are for the most part ignoring the mmost important part of the issue which is mental and emonitional health care. Mental health care is very limited in how long a person can remain hospitalized or the number of doctor visits that are allowed by insurance/medicare/medicaid. Usually much less than what is really needed to really help a person. Also the family is very restricted in what they can do if the person is an adult. Providing both the quanity & quality of healthcare needed will prevent more killings, especially the mass killings than banning so called assult guns. I know how bad the shortcommings of our mental healthcare from being a caregiver for a mentally ill adult child. Also abortion has cheapened life to where it doesn't mean much anymore to a large portion of our nation.
I agree that the solution lies in better mental and overall healthcare. I wish you and your son well. Thanks for the comment.Also abortion has cheapened life to where it doesn't mean much anymore to a large portion of our nation.
I'm sorry that you see our nation through this lens. Thankfully, that's not been my experience and I think it literally has nothing to do with this topic and made weak what was a coherent and valid point.
Actually, I believe that the "right to choose" has cheapened the general view of human life. I have yet to have a "pro-choicer" tell me when the right time is for one individual human being to be able to choose whether or not another individual human being has the right to have their life "terminated". A woman may be the "host" by nature, but the fetus is an entirely distinct human (not an appendage of a woman's body) with their own genetic markers, distinct DNA patterns, and their own "identity". When do I have the right to choose whether they live or not! Many people site medical reasons, but that is rubbish; most are done for "convenience" including partial birth abortions (very few are medically necessary). All this does "cheapen" the view of the sanctity of life and the individual. It has everything to do with why someone is able to take another's life without thought (mental health excluded and there are many more instances of murder for anger reasons and such). Why would I kill someone for their "Nike" tennis shoes? It is easier if I don't view there life as the pinnacle of sanctity and value. However, murder has been with us since the beginning of documented time, and the source comes from a nature (all mankind is born with it) that is basically selfish in focus (we learn to be unselfish). No legislation can stop it; only a redemptive effort and transformation or laws based in, in our case historically, Judeo-Christian rule of law developed mainly in England prior to the founding of the USA.
I'm sorry for you if you really think that people make such decisions "without thought." I would guess that it's not normally the case. I know many people that are pro-choice and I've known some people that are adamantly pro-life and there are some really great, thoughtful people on both sides of the issue. You've never asked me the question about "when the right time is," but if I were to answer I would say that there isn't a "right" time but rather a time when the fetus couldn't 1. live outside the womb and 2. wasn't sentient. Between 10 and 20% of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage. 80% of those within the first 12 weeks. (btw, at 12 weeks the fetus is about the size of a lentil). Should these fetus' have grave stones and be buried in cemeteries? Should we name them? If they are indeed individual human beings, shouldn't they have distinct names to match their "distinct DNA?" Distinct Eulogies? I would agree that there isn't a clearly defined line of where it's right or wrong to terminate the process, which is why it should be left to the mother, not the state. I am not a "PRO" choice guy. I'm a "non-government-making-this-decision-guy-in-hopes-that-the-government-in-conjunction-with-the-religious-zealots-can-embrace-a-culture-of-birth-control kind of guy. Want less abortions? How about preventing more unwanted pregnancies???? No brainer, right? As for the Nike's, you said it: "murder has been with us since the beginning of documented time" To say it is a bi-product of legalized abortion is wrong. Despite what you might think, the world is safer than it has ever been in the history of mankind. Less war, less atrocity, less famine than EVER. We are fortunate to live in these times. Truly. But it's always easier to say "remember when things were better. When people had a moral compass...." -The people I know and are friends with have amazing compasses. The world is in as good a state as it's ever been in and I'm excited to see what the future brings! You should be too.
I think you overstate and misconstrue my point - I did not say "all pro-choicers - or anybody who is not "religious" are thoughtless killers. I am referring to a segment of our society that views the unborn (who are just as dependent on the mother at early stages of development as they are after birth - and fathers at that point- and for a lengthy period of time after birth). The view of the unborn as "punishment" (to coin a term used by the current President) or as a "thing" instead of a person is, in my and half the population of our country for that matter, a "cheapened" view of life in itself. I do know many "non-religious" folks who are good people and respect life - but don't paint everybody with a religious compass as a "religious zealot" (I would hope they are zealous in the good sense because hypocrisy is detestable whether religious or not) or a right wing extremist who wants to deprive women of something. That statement, by implication, is biased and shows a narrow minded view of both "the religious right" ,as you allude to, or pro-lifers in regards to birth control. Most statistic today are over-stated in terms of things like "back ally abortions", etc. Those were very few and far between in the Roe vs. Wade decision. Let me close becoming back to the gun control issue. None of thee current, proposed legislation, other than the part about mental health checks would have prevented the last four calamities - it is useless regulation on top of what we already have. Law abiding citizens, armed with many of the proposed "assault weapons" don't go around killing people.