Police Chiefs: Gun Control Is Everyone’s Job

PERF Police Executive Research Forum

courtesy wikipedia.org

“The recommendations recognize that solving the gun violence problem is not the responsibility of one entity or one level of government. There is a role for everyone on the gun issue: individuals (legal gun owners and non-gun owners alike); law enforcement personnel; prosecutors; judges; state governments; the federal government; family and friends of people who may be in crisis; researchers; the philanthropic community; and the community at large. The recommendations reflect this shared responsibility.” – Police Executive Research Forum action plan in Law Enforcement Think Tank Gives 9 Key Recommendations On How To Prevent ‘Gun Violence’ [via townhall.com]

comments

  1. avatar GS650G says:

    It’s true that ending violence is a shared responsibility. Calling it gun violence and just that is not helpful. My guns are locked up and unloaded and aren’t hurting anyone .

    1. avatar nativeson says:

      I agree. Guns are not the root cause of the violence: people are. This should be abundantly clear to any police chief. There are evil people who commit violent crimes and they need to be punished and deterred through the justice system. Unfortunately, the systems in many of these large, librtal cities are broken and wrak – leading to greater violence. The mentally ill need to be identified and treated before they resort to violence. Having said that, there will still be some level violence because we live in an imperfect world where people often make bad choices. But, blaming guns for the people problem will do nothing to solve it, and result in the loss of freedom – something that the political choegs apparently care little about protecting.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        I don’t think the gun grabbers, or the POTG really want to talk to each other; we keep trading insults and platitudes, but neither side moves.

        Fact: if there were no guns available to law abiding citizens, there would be massively fewer deaths and injuries from gunshots.

        Fact: if there were fewer deaths and injuries because guns are largely unobtainable, there is no proof the overall violent crime rate/incidents would decrease noticeably.

        Fact: POTG want no restrictions on gun possession/purchase

        Fact: Gun grabbers want no guns in the hands of lawful citizens

        Fact: Gun grabbers do not care about overall violent crime, only crime and potential crime committed with the use of a firearm.

        Fact: POTG believe guns save lives

        Fact: Gun grabbers do not care if lives are saved, but use that as justification for restrictions

        Fact: Gun grabbers just want gun possession to be illegal for everyone but cops and military.

        Stalemate. There can be no “meeting of the minds”.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          You are absolutely correct. Now, what to do about the stalemate? We can’t have much influence on the gun-grabbers directly; we can only think of things we can do for ourselves. If we do something useful, we may win some hearts and minds that haven’t yet drunk the cool-aid.

          First things first: We need to look at the numbers. Suicides; homicides; and, finally, accidents. In that order. Yes, it’s true that we ourselves have the most skin in the game with accidents. It’s ourselves and our families who mostly suffer from accidents. But we’ve already done a great job there; so, we can’t move the accident number in any meaningful way that affects the total.

          Suicides by gun are the big number; 2/3’rds. What is the problem? What is our problem statement? Is it suicide-by-gun? Great! Let’s promote suicide by rope among PotG; that’l solve it! No? Why not? Oh, it’s suicide by any means; maybe that’s it. OK, well then let’s us PotG be seen as trying to promote public hygiene in mental health; particularly around suicide. We can start with our fellow gun-owners; these are our friends and voters for gun-rights. And, while we are at it, let’s try to address mental-health sufferers who attempt suicide but fail; these are far more numerous than those who succeed. Big job; but we could do more for ourselves and our PR by being seen for working on this subject of general concern.

          Homicide; the other big number. We need a PR campaign that provides the breakdown of victims and perpetrators. The public needs to understand that most of this problem is black-on-black inner-city young males; or, whatever else it might really be. Once this phenomena is classified and quantified it should become clear that we can’t solve this problem locking op old-fat-white-guys. We might be able to help a little by locking up felons-in-posession; and, the .gov doesn’t really want to do that.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You have some interesting comments, but…..

          You are addressing that which matters not to gun-grabbers. They don’t want a demonstration of how safe gun owners can be, they don’t want to see a reduction in suicides involving a firearm; none of that matters.

          Guns are for killing, over and out. Gun grabbers do not want to kill anyone, and reject any notion that a private citizen killing another private citizen can be approved, excused, dressed-up to be honorable. Gun grabbers want to be free of the thought that some normal-looking person at the mall/theater/school will suddenly snap and start killing “good” people. Gun-grabbers do not fear gangs and criminals because gun-grabbers don’t know any, don’t live near any, don’t associate with any, which makes the probability of being attacked by “bad” people almost zero.

          There are a statistical handful of “unicorns” who haven’t a firm opinion on privately owned guns. Gather them all up in one room, and there are not enough to turn the tide in favor of POTG. There may not even be enough POTG raising progeny to believe people have a right to self-defense to change the calculus in the next two generations. We just might be able to ensure stalemate for the next five years, but eventually, evil will once again wield power over the populace. The demographics are not in the favor of principled people.

        3. avatar Chris says:

          Fact: if there were no guns available to law abiding citizens, there would be massively fewer deaths and injuries from gunshots.

          Data says you are wrong. Washignotn DC forbid most guns from the law abiding and when forced has made it difficult. here are DC’s numbers:
          It has 0.5% gun legal gun ownership ou tof its 25.9% total gun ownership. Meaning 25.4% of criminal ownership. 25.4% – yet it has a VERY high shooting rate certainly much higher than the national average. it did as well when law abiding were pre heller forbidden as well

          Given well over 90% of shooting is criminal on criminal and next largest is criminal on non criminal victim. There are about 2.5 million crimes stopped by law abiding gun owners a year, over 99% without shooting anyone.

          Studies in NJ and Maryland have shown that even when ti comes to minors being perpetrators or victims of gun violence, intentional or accidental, over 90% is related to illegal owners of guns.

          so removing guns from law abiding will not only increase non gun violence, it likely will increase gun violence as well.

          If you are familiar with Virginia tech you would know that a couple years before the VA tech murder carrying and keeping guns by law abiding legal owners on campus was not regulated. There are estimates that the re wold have been hundred of guns possessed by students prior to the gun ban enacted there there a couple of years before the shooting. the Va Tech report noted not one single shooting of anyone by any of those law abiding gun owners. they could not find a single one. In the ten year period when law abiding were allowed guns there they found a single non injury ND.

          On that large sprawling campus there were supposed to be about 40 armed police at 30 placements, there were on that day about 30 at 25 placements. (mostly entries points where they could not know a guy with a hundgun walked past them). Just a few years before there would have been 3 to 6 times as many law abiding citizens with guns all over the campus.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You are still stuck in the ineffective theme. Gun grabbers do not care if overall violence goes up, remains the same, or declines. Have you ever asked how many deaths by gunshot is acceptable; low enough to leave legal gun owners alone? There is no number, because it would mean agreeing that it is morally ok that some legal gun owners end up killing or injuring that minimum number of dead and injured. Gun grabbers cannot consent to that.

          Fact: If all legally owned guns evaporated overnight, the annual 20,000+ suicides by gunshot would also evaporate; a massive reduction in deaths by gunshot (which is all that matters). No guns, no gunshot injuries. Of course, gun grabbers have no plan to relieve the gangs and criminals and terrorists of their guns; too hard, too much effort.

          Don’t get trapped in the illogical thinking that overall violent crime is of importance to gun grabbers; you end up talking to your navel.

        5. avatar Chris says:

          We might be able to help a little by locking up felons-in-posession; and, the .gov doesn’t really want to do that.

          That is precisely correct. more guns in legal hands reduces not just general violent crime, but reduces shootings as well.

          felons on the street correlates directly to gun and non gun violent crime, gun and non gun murder rand shooting rates. and this is not just a correlation without causation, it is clearly causal, as over 90% of US murder is committed by prior criminals on the streets, 80% by felons or persons with ten or more arrests, the majority withing 3 years of release

          Just increasing actual served sentences for felonies by 30% would stop 1/3 of all gun violence withing three years

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Just executing everyone convicted of a crime where a firearm was actively deployed (or present at the event) would go a long way toward reducing crime, and reduce prison overcrowding. There is no reason, no social justice reason a person has a gun present during the commission of a crime. Possession is a choice; no one “makes” a person have a gun while engaged in criminal activity. (unless one adopts an “absolutist” stance that everyone, regardless, has a natural, civil and human right to self-defense under all circumstances).

        7. avatar Joe R. says:

          @ MarkPA

          “You are absolutely correct. Now, what to do about the stalemate?”

          You take a fucking hot branding iron to the foreheads of the motherfuckers that are attempting to sell you on the idea that they can create ‘safety’ or that they can protect you, or anyone, on an individual level. Because that is impossible. Their arguments peel away at that point and what you’re left with is their bold-faced communistic bullshit. Then you take their fucking pelt.

  2. In “Principle” I can readily agree with the statement, but in the World of Murphy things are rarely “principled”…

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I do not even agree in principle.

      Did you notice how the speaker failed to specify that the perpetrators of violent crime are DIRECTLY responsible? Did you notice how the speaker failed to specify that parents are INDIRECTLY responsible when they fail to raise trustworthy and emotionally healthy children who go on to commit violent crimes?

      1. Unless you have “Clone Copies” of yourself, there’s No Way to be with your Children every second off every minute 24/7/365…

        1. avatar CWT says:

          If they are raised right you don’t need to be.

        2. I suspect the “Menendez” Parents were raising their Sons up right too, up until both sons decided to Kill the Parents…

        3. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          Being with them that much would make them useless certainly, and homicidal likely as well. Most monsters aren’t born, they are nurtured by bad parents. If you can’t handle it, don’t have them, it is pretty easy not to have kids.

        4. avatar Chris says:

          The amount of time you spend with your kids reduces risk they will be violent criminals. Fathers staying in homes half risk of a child becoming a violent criminal.

          sure you can pick absolutely anecdotal and irelevent ,to the actual picture, events like the menendez brothers, but that is meaningless in the face of the known data

  3. avatar pwrserge says:

    Why do I get the odd sinking feeling when commies start talking about “shared responsibility”?

    1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

      I think this translates to sharing your property with the collective. IE – hand over your guns to the Government.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yeah… well, I hope they are happy if we inflict a little “shared responsibility” of our own.

    2. avatar pg2 says:

      Like the “shared responsibility” of the mythical vaccine induced “herd immunity”? You’re priceless serge.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Get out of here luddite.

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          Says the selective communist.

  4. avatar CDC says:

    Just more BS from those who believe government exist for them to exert control over others. I will not succum to their treasonous ways. I am of a generation that knows better.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      A lot of these “police policy experts” are dipshits looking for paychecks because they say experty things. Kind of like those 21-year-old only children who have a degree in child psychology who are experts in how you should be raising your kids. Or that Seattle cop who wore a police costume for 30 years behind a desk and found themselves as a commander or cheif, because they had the right skin color, screwed the right gender, and/or thought the correct thoughts…. they’re experts on how rural America (95% of the country) needs to be policed.

      These are the most dangerous kind of people because they won’t hesitate to take your freedom in the name of their ideas for your life.

  5. avatar Felixd says:

    In reading the article it’s apparent that if you are a gun owner, or believer in gun rights, you are again expected to roll over and be subservient to “authority”. No new ideas here. It’s just the same old tripe the left has been trying to serve us for years.

  6. avatar Geoff PR says:

    There may be some room to work with them on one thing:

    “2. We can prevent future killings by deterring people from illegally carrying firearms today.

    • States should enact swift, certain, and proportional punishments for those charged with illegal possession of a firearm and other gun crimes.”

    One *tiny* problem with that strategy –

    The screams of “Racism!” when certain groups of folks start taking up most of the prison cells…

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      ….. then other “police policy experts” can step in the breach and suggest policies to enact “institutional justice” and “procedural anti-implicit bias” reform….. which will lead to more crime, and the need for further “police experts” to come in and make more suggestions….. all of these “experts” get paid with your tax dollars and make things ultimately worse so they can get paid more.

  7. avatar Pig Barber Phill says:

    I contribute by carrying a gun.

  8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Want to minimize ALL violent crime? The answer is pretty simple: keep families healthy and together and restore faith in our Creator.

    Like it or not, that is the truth. Children who grow up in stable, healthy, and faith-based families commit violent crimes at a minuscule rate compared to children who grow up in unstable, unhealthy, and non-faith-based families. Period.

    Here are some simple steps to make that happen:
    (1) Encourage and equip parents to be great parents!
    (2) Encourage and equip spouses to be faithful to each other and family.
    (3) Condemn and shun spouses who drive their spouses away.
    (4) Condemn and shun spouses who cheat on their spouses.
    (5) Condemn and shun parents who are awful parents.
    (6) Stop rewarding women for breeding and producing fatherless children.
    (7) Mothers AND fathers who fail to provide for their children are guilty of felony child neglect — imprison them rather than giving them welfare!

    1. Explain the actions of the “Menendez” Brothers then? They grew up in a Deeply Religious Family…

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        …..who raped children. Not exactly the model of loving stability.

        1. Those that usually Rape Children are usually “Other” Family Members. Child “Molestation” is more common by “Second Party” Members (Family), then by “Third Party” Members by a Complete Stranger…

        2. avatar Chris says:

          Picking a single event like the menendez bothers and basing your views on an anecdote is absurd and the sign of a week argument and week mind.

          A couple of years ago an Australian member of a family stabbed eight other family members to death a couple of years ago. So by your anecdote based views this proves gun control does nothing.

          The science show the amount of time you spend with your kids reduces risk they will be violent criminals. Fathers staying in homes half risk of a child becoming a violent criminal.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        UlnarNerveDysfunction,

        Notice the key word “minimize” in my first sentence, “Want to minimize ALL violent crime?”. I did not claim a recipe for zero violent crime.

        Notice also my claim that properly raised children commit violent crimes at a minuscule rate compared to improperly raised children. Again, I did not claim a recipe for zero violent crime.

        All people have free will which means all people have the capacity to do harm. The only proven recipe to minimize how often people choose to harm others is nurturing and maintaining stable, healthy, and faith-based families which raise children to respect themselves and others.

        And on those exceedingly rare occasions when someone decides to harm others — in spite of their family raising them properly — we have firearms to defend ourselves from their harm.

        1. I’m fairly certain that the “Menendez” Parents had access to Firearms too. Unfortunately so did the Menendez Brothers, and most likely those owned by the Parents…

        2. avatar Chris says:

          A couple of years ago an Australian member of a family stabbed eight other family members to death a couple of years ago. So this disproves your claim gun access is relevant at all.

          is that your point in using anecdote?

          The science show the amount of time you spend with your kids reduces risk they will be violent criminals. Fathers staying in homes half risk of a child becoming a violent criminal.

          sure you can pick absolutely anecdotal and irelevent events like the menendez brothers, but that is meaningless in the face of the known data

  9. avatar neiowa says:

    “gun violence” is the term of a lying moron. Spit in his/her eye.

    1. avatar N64456 says:

      There’s no such thing as “gun violence”; only “Democrat violence”….

      1. Does that include “Democrats with Guns”…

        1. avatar Chris says:

          about 75% of US murder occurs in 58 out of 3,000 US counties, all 58 peopled predominantly by Democrats and run by Democrats. that subset is the entire elevation of Us murder rate over developed democracy averages.

          We don’t know all the reasons why Democrats are perpetrators, by far of more murder and violence, but they are.

        2. Parkland High School and the Church Killing in Texas! Were those Democrat Controlled Counties or Republican Controlled Counties…

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          False premise: one-off, rare, statistically insignificant events counter to the bulk of data invalidates the original premise. There was never a claim that the 58 worst counties contained all the violent crime. The logical extension to your argument is that if a proposition is not 100% accurate, under all circumstances, the proposition is a failure, and not worth review and analysis. This is where the gun-grabbers live – if you have standards, and are not perfect in execution, you are worse than people with no standards (because those people don’t fail to uphold standards)

  10. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Only number four seems to have any chance at making an impact.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      Yep…. all the rest seems to be the same old tired gun control measures every other “expert” is saying needs to happen….. i love this gem:
      “8. We need research. To a large degree, law enforcement agencies are “flying blind,” testing new approaches to gun violence with little research to guide them about which strategies are effective. Approaches to combating gun violence should be informed by rigorous, high-quality research, which should be supported by the federal government, private foundations and
      others…”

      In other words: “You local governments pay us federal and local tax dollars and private grant money so we ‘experts’ can do ‘research’ that supports your politics.”

      1. avatar Chris says:

        How much do you ant to bet the push will be on the CDC looking at the Second Amendment affect on violent crime, but never, now way nohow, even considering looking at fourth and fifth amendments affect on crime?

  11. avatar Bob999 says:

    Hmm, if we agreed with any statement from a gun confiscation happy police officer who dreams of a police state in America, then we would have to agree that police should not be allowed to carry guns while off-duty. In many cases, military law enforcement typically turn their guns in at the end of shift. Civilian police should be held to the same standard. Besides, how many times have we read about police officers murdering their wives during an argument using their service pistol. If it just saves one life and all that BS, you know. I am sure this guy really does not want that gun free utopia (or dystopia) he claims to want.

  12. avatar Shire-man says:

    “Gun violence” is a meme. Anyone using the term is not interested in saving lives, helping others or increased safety for society at large. They’re only interested in furthering their professional/political agenda.

    All violence matters. Which, coincidentally, is at barrel bottom levels.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      These “experts” are looking for a paycheck, and right now “gun policy” is what’s paying the bills. These people are an odd mix of cynicism and true-belief, but at the end of they are simply looking for a pay-check because they are nothing more than “idea men” aka traveling shysters who peddle in cheap tricks.

    2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      The liberal, socialist, to get rid of something is to demonize it. Associate the ” offensive ” thing with either; racisim, pollution, sexism,violence, and continue to harp on it.” The” tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth ” agenda. The liberals have a belief that , since there are many drug offenders in prison, then just legalize drugs and everything will be o k . Well if there is a ” gun problem ” then lets remove the thousands of gun laws beginning with the 1934 Machine Gun ban and then have constitutional carry in all 50 states . By their logic then there will be no more ” gun problem”.

  13. avatar ironicatbest says:

    “Gun control is everyone’s job.”Hot diggety damn, the gubment found away to offer jobs to the unemployed.

  14. avatar Joe R. says:

    Control of POS (D) communism is the job of every free citizen and it never ends until the last one’s dead, which is never, since Society’s bounty creates a permanent backwater breeding ground for this sort of cancer.

    F em all.

  15. avatar Joe R. says:

    How much in Federal Grants did the POS (D) “Police Executive Research Forum action plan” get for this communist bullshit and how much of it flowed directly to the (D)NC election coffers.

    Let’s make sure this upcoming election is very expensive (and unfulfilling) for the POS (D).

  16. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    The science is settled: Homogeneous societies are peaceful societies.

    Diversity has and always will be a recipe for conflict, then violence, then genocide.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Well. Let’s get to it then.

    2. avatar Sheepdog says:

      Hmmm, I don’t nessecarily agree; I would argue that the “immigrants” political ideology is more damaging to our country than cultural diversity. One example is dinesh D’Souza
      A man with an American ideology. Judge a man by his political ideology not the color of his skin.

    3. avatar Big E says:

      Yeah. Homogenous population doesn’t = the Garden of Eve, but is a LOT closer.
      Using Switzerland as an example, an “immigrant” is 4x more likely to commit a crime than a native.
      I suspect the numbers are similar in most European countries.

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    MEH…eff him and the horse who rode him.

  18. avatar Joe R. says:

    http://www.policeforum.org/ – DEC. 2017 newsletter “Subject to Debate” quotes (D)1<Ksack [regarding cc reciprocity] "Houston Chief of Police Art Acevedo said that the permitting process isn’t rigorous enough in many states. “Texans are all about responsible gun ownership,” Chief Acevedo said. “But in other places, all you need to carry a concealed weapon is a pulse, a driver’s license, and be 18 years of age. I don’t need those people in Texas. I need serious gun owners, because with rights come responsibilities.” http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Subject_to_Debate/Debate2017/debate_2017_dec.pdf

    We (in Oklahoma mind you) don't need anti-Constitutional tyrants in TX sucking our air.

  19. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    More reason away freedom…Brought to by The Closet Authoritarians…Your supposed elected officials, your local law enforcement/police departments, etc.etc…We need to bring back McCarthyism snuff out this new age communism….

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      . . . go after their families, friends, property, livestock, supporters, tolerators . . .

  20. avatar Joe R. says:

    If you’re not with us, you’re against us, and we don’t need any more of those.

    NO > = PIGS

  21. avatar m. says:

    red-flag = red-fag laws. 2b expected from commie d-sucker legislate-whores. try non-white crime control, muslim control, illegal alien control, lgbtx control, demonrat control, then tell me about more “gun control” and shared responsibility.

  22. avatar billy-bob says:

    I have a camera pointed at my gun case and have yet to see any of the guns commit any violence. The 9’s and .45’s get along just fine, and the .40’s keep their mouths shut and don’t snap at all. There must be something other than the guns involved.

  23. avatar Ralph says:

    Hey, PERF, your cops have murdered more innocent people than my guns. So maybe we should be talking about how cop control is everybody’s job.

    And get away from that broom handle while you’re at it. No more Abner Louimas, okay?

  24. avatar Hans Gruber says:

    “The recommendations recognize that solving the gun violence problem is not the responsibility of one entity or one level of government.”

    Why don’t they ever phrase this as

    “The recommendations recognize that solving the STEADILY DECLINING gun violence problem is not the responsibility of one entity or one level of government.”

  25. avatar Joe R. says:

    There’s too many cops that think we can’t get through life without them. Think we’re worried about crime? Yeah, we’re worried about being labeled a criminal by you fucksticks when we finally have enough and bury everyone that gives us a sideways glance ass-up.

    PAX ROMANA

    Cops like these just make it a two-front war for the “good guys” and the good guys, at that point, no longer include them.

  26. avatar Chris says:

    PoliceOne, by far the largest law enforcement publication, conducted the largest ever survey of verified law enforcement, and about 90% oppose more gun control. cops dont support mag limits, AR bans, “no” or “may” issue.

    Unlike actual cops who know the facts from seeing crime and the circumstances surrounding it, themselves this police chiefs opinion group is from politicized police leadership, frequently with no experience, and many of the names i see are the WORST performing police departments — in cities with increasing crime while national violent and gun crime is falling.

    it uses the term “gun violence” because even while gun murder has plunged, accidental gun death has fallen, but suicide by all means is up and therefore so is gun suicide, allows them to turn the simple fact of gun murder and gun crime and gun accidents all being way down into a much bigger number by putting int the 2/.3 of gun death that are suicide. We know from extensive study in Australia that when your remove guns suicide stays the same but is simply substituted by other methods.

    Baltimore murder rate has moved exactly with incarceration rates and concentration of released felons on the streets in Baltimore, in fact right down to neighborhood. the rank and file cops AND the police leadership KNOW that putting the bad guys away longer stops them from committing repeat crime, they know that 1% of the population that is repeat criminals (called “super predators” in academic criminology work) is responsible for virtually all violent crime. yet they don’t want to talk about it.

    in fact one of the police chiefs in this group testified before congress that he could not be bothered arresting people who commit felony perjury on a 4473.

    Yet they want to make it harder for the law abiding to protect themselves.

  27. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    Police Chiefs = Politically Appointed Anti-Gun D-bags

    County sheriffs elected by the people are for the most part Pro-2nd Amendment save for those in “urban” areas.

  28. avatar Robert Cansler, Chief (Retired) AND NRA Life member and Training Counselor says:

    First, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is not representative of all police officers or even all chiefs. When I was a working police chief, I belonged to it. It does some good work. Having said that, read the entire article not just the heading, the article says they surveyed Chiefs of the larger cities.

    As you might expect, the survey leaned toward that group and represents the “politics” of the larger cities. I agree there is great mislabeling picked up as a result of the survey. I have never in my life or career understood “gun violence”. Guns are not violent only the people behind them. Throughout our history, guns have been used as tools for great good (WW II -liberation of the concentration camps) and great evil (recent school shootings). Guns have equal potential both ways. As an officer, I was aided by armed civilians more than once. Nonetheless, do not discount PERF’s recommendations, many of them, but not all, have great merit. They are right every one MUST play a role.

  29. avatar Steve Pendry says:

    Sam I Am, your comment that suicides by gun would disappear if guns were banned, is laughable. Check out Australia, who has banned guns.
    https://winteryknight.com/2017/10/06/did-australias-ban-on-guns-lower-violent-crime-rates-and-lower-suicide-rates-2/

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email