The national law enforcement organization PoliceOne conducted its Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey between March 4 and March 13, 2013, receiving 15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes. Respondents were asked, “Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds would reduce violent crime?” PoliceOne Survey, Question 6. The results were overwhelming: 95.7% (14,013) of the respondents said “no,” only 2.7% (391) said “yes,” and 1.6% (238) were unsure. This extraordinary consensus by law enforcement professionals that even a nationwide ban on magazines will not reduce violent crime is in stark contrast to the State’s position that banning magazines already possessed by law-abiding citizens is somehow a solution to violent crime.
5. What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as “assault weapons,” would have on reducing violent crime?
6. Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?
7. Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?
11. Do you support the concept of a national database tracking all legal gun sales?
19. Do you support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable?
Yes, without question and without further
only law enforcement officers should carry
22. Considering the particulars of recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora, what level of impact do you think a legally-armed citizen could have made? Choose the statement that you feel is most accurate:
Innocent casualties would likely have been avoided altogether
Casualties would likely have been reduced
There would have been no difference in outcome
An active gunfight might have resulted in greater loss of innocent lives
Unsure or prefer not to answer
This was what I found most interesting:
14. What is your opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions?
15. If you were Sheriff or Chief, how would you respond to more restrictive gun laws?
Not enforce and join in the public, vocal opposition effort
Not enforce and quietly lead agency in opposite direction
Enforce and publicly support the proposed legislation
Enforce and quietly lead agency in support of legislation
Over 70% have a favorable opinion to law enforcement not enforcing more restrictive gun law!
Over 60% would not enforce more restrictive gun laws if they were Sherriff or Chief! Less that 20% say they would definitely enforce more restrictive gun laws!
Tell this to the politicians who claim to represent you.
Keep this in mind when you consider your response to more restrictive gun laws.
His redirection of the story (intentional or not) right back to criminals and guns reinforces to an already uninformed (ignorant) audience that guns and gun owners are evil, period. To completely ignore the real story, that a group of Democrat lawmakers tried unsuccessfully (with taxpayer dollars) to use a covert ATF operation against law-abiding Americans to push a leftist gun-control agenda, undermine our constitutional rights and failed miserably in the process, is precisely why Americans distrust his profession.
The mere presence of weapons can increase aggression—called the “weapons effect.” Weapons are theorized to increase aggression by priming aggressive thoughts. This research tested the robustness of the weapons effect using two large representative samples of American adults (total N = 1,097). Participants saw photos of criminals, soldiers, police in military gear, or police in regular gear with guns. Experiment 2 also included a condition with photos of Olympians with guns used to shoot inanimate targets. The control group was police in plainclothes without guns. The accessibility of aggressive thoughts was measured using a word fragment task (e.g., KI_ _ can be completed as KILL or KISS). Photos of individuals with guns used to shoot human targets primed aggressive thoughts, regardless of whether a “good guy” (soldier, police) or “bad guy” (criminal) held the gun. Photos of Olympians with guns used to shoot inanimate targets did not prime aggressive thoughts.
I think the author was “primed” with their own conclusion. When I think of “kill” in the context of a “good guy” with a gun I don’t think of aggression. I think of it as a strong defense.
It would appear to be a safe bet that Arabian doesn’t understand that correlation coefficients can be negative or positive and what that would mean. It’s certain, from reading the entire article, they don’t know the facts about dramatically increased number of firearms in this country is simultaneous with dramatic declines in violent crime rates. With such an erroneous base Arabian then concludes that contrary viewpoints need to be extinguished.
What do you have in mind Alex? If the shadow banning doesn’t work will you move on to reeducation camps?
It doesn’t really matter. The answer is no. And long before we run out of ammunition saying no to Arabian’s plans their viewpoint will have grown dim and died.—Joe]
I was looking at the latest issue of USPSA FrontSight Magazine last night and found that 93% (IIRC) of the Limited class shooters at nationals this year used guns with fiber optic inserts in their front sights.
The government and the liberal leftists with their paid bodyguards think normal little people, us unwashed masses are “dangerous”. I would ask why they think that? What is it they want to do that they think we will resist, and they want to remove the most effective means of resistance we have? The tools that make us dangerous. They haven’t yet figured out it’s what’s in our head, not our hand that makes people dangerous. Dangerous. Reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend not all that long ago. A person can be dangerous, and they can be good or evil. It’s not that fact that they are dangerous you need to fear. It’s whether they are good or evil. I want to be dangerous. I want to have the ability to protect myself and my family. I want to be dangerous.
Senate Bill 6146 and its House companion, HB 2666, would allow local governments — cities and counties — to determine their own gun regulation laws. With this passed, Seattle will sprint toward a massive and expensive over-reach for gun control in Washington state by attempting to ban all guns.
This will accomplish several things. The Seattle City Council will enjoy virtue signaling again; they will please their base of genital-hat wearing, business-hating, permanent adolescents. They will spend massive amounts of taxpayer money and they will create record spikes in gun purchases and massive donations to pro self-defense groups. Lastly, City Attorney Pete Holmes, who loves heroin use in Seattle, may get a free trip to Washington D.C. to lose in front of the Supreme Court.
All gun laws are poor investments. Administration of them costs tens of millions, accomplishes nothing and merely annoys the most lawful, peaceable segment of our population. Bump stocks are the latest of leftist howls heard after every shooting.
Gene Ralno January 9, 2018 Comment to Letter: Gun control [And as mere howls should be either ignored or enjoyed as one enjoys listening to the howls of coyotes in the distance while sitting on your porch on a summer evening.—Joe]
Paul and Louise visited us from Canada this weekend. Paul was in the U.K. military and had a fair amount of experience with rifles but very little experience with handguns. Recently they purchased handguns and took some classes. Then Paul decided he would like to get into reloading. I showed them my reloading set up and talked quite a bit about it with them. Why I reload, some tips on reloading he probably won’t find in the YouTube videos, and why I have some of the equipment.
Barb and I took them to the range and Paul had his first experience shooting an AR and Louise shot a rifle for the first time. Among other firsts were shooting a gun with a suppressor.
I did a little coaching with Louise but Paul was doing very well without much input from me. We probably went through about 400 rounds total of .22LR and .40 S&W. It was a good day and you can see the indicator of that with the new shooter smile on Louise’s face.
You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing. If you have been living in a world where outcomes are everything, you may have a very hard time understanding bureaucratic thinking or practices.
Over the years, I’ve had many people tell me that media coverage of their work or field is often that it borders on unethical. Even so, had I not attended this party, I would not be able to imagine just how far off-base a story like this could be.
Please keep this in mind when you read anything claiming some salacious “insider” perspective on Silicon Valley. The degree to which these claims can be spun from whole cloth is extremely concerning.
Mason Hartman @webdevMason Tweeted on January 12, 2018
[It’s beyond unethical. It is at least libelous. And in some instances it is criminal.
I’m not looking for a rifle like this, but maybe someone else is. Boomershoot is coming up very soon!
I have been following your blog, The View from North Central Idaho for some time. Getting to Boomershoot is definitely on my bucket list!
I wanted to make you aware of an interesting rifle being sold by a friend of mine.
For Sale from original user: Accuracy International Sniper Rifle in .308 Field tested in the sandbox Includes original logbook with photos of test results. Must sign a non-disclosure to receive the logbook. Certificate of Authenticity from Craft International. Asking $12,000.00
The user convinced AI to buyback the rifle from his unit and then sell it to him.
Please contact me if you or anyone you know has a serious interest.
If you are interested send me an email and I’ll forward it on.
State Rep. Katherine Rogers, D-Concord, pleaded guilty to assault and was sentenced on Friday in Concord District Court in connection with a confrontation last year with well-known gun-rights advocate Susan Olsen.
The misdemeanor charge stems from an exchange between Rogers and Olsen during a recount of ballots for a state Senate seat in November 2016. Rogers was charged in August. Olsen was allegedly sitting next to Rogers when Olsen asked Rogers to move the ballots closer. Olsen says that was when Rogers grabbed her and hit her on the side of her head.
Olsen stated that she said to Rogers, “If you strike me again, I will have you arrested.” She alleged that Rogers, a former county attorney, countered, “in a low, mocking, angry whisper,” something to the effect of “Hit me. I know you want to. Go ahead. Hit me.”
Olsen claimed that Rogers was “smirking” while she was speaking and then, reportedly leaned in further, “sounding almost like she was daring me,” and allegedly stated, “I know what you want to do. You want to shoot me.”
One of the signs of certain personality disorders is that they think they can read the minds of other people (ask me in person about some of my experiences with this). I strongly suspect a large number of anti-gun people have mental issues.
Firearms are just as normal as your cell phone. You don’t drop your cell phone in water. You have a lock on your phone. It’s very private. It’s yours. You know how to operate it. It’s like a car. When you first start driving, you don’t know what the hell you’re doing. Then you start paying attention, being observant, looking around and being a responsible driver. Get drunk and shooting your gun is the same as getting drunk and driving. The difference is one is a right. A human right. One is a privilege.
1) I have a plan 2) I claim it will reduce crime 3) My plan proposes nothing that actually punishes wrongful acts or increases the penalty on criminals but rather 4) criminalizes currently legal behavior and only applies to people who have not harmed anyone 5) any plan that either targets malum per se activities or DOES NOT harass honest citizens will be rejected as not being “A PLAN” 6) my plan is valid merely if YOUR plan does not harass legal gun ownership 7) that my plan will decrease crime is guaranteed because I have faith that it will
there is the sum and substance of the anti gun side’s Crime control plans as presented by our energetic gun restrictionist