Former Boston police officer explains why private ownership of firearms make no sense

Dec 19, 2012 by Marjorie Howard

The horrific mass murder at an elementary school in Connecticut has again raised an outcry about the proliferation of guns in the United States. While not specifically addressing gun control, President Obama told a community meeting in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 16 that he would work to engage professionals in mental health and law enforcement to try and prevent such tragedies from happening again. Proponents of gun-control laws are urging him to take measures to make laws more restrictive, and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has promised to introduce legislation in the next Congress to ban assault weapons as well as seek limits on sales of guns and large clips of ammunition.

Thomas Nolan, a lecturer at Tufts, spent 27 years as a Boston police officer before earning an Ed.D. from Boston University. When he was with the Boston Police Department, Nolan was a member of the elite mobile operations patrol unit and worked in the Strike Force. He ended his law enforcement career as a lieutenant and shift commander in the patrol division. He taught criminal justice at Boston University from 2004 to 2011, and then was a senior policy and program analyst at the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in Washington, D.C. This fall he taught a course in the Experimental College called Forensic Behavioral Analysis.

As a police officer, Nolan says he witnessed people resorting to guns to resolve disputes, and he believes the proliferation of firearms in this country fosters a culture of violence. He spoke with Tufts Now about his views on gun laws and firearms based on his observations as a police officer.

Tufts Now: What was your experience with guns as a police officer?

Thomas Nolan: If you are hired as a police officer in Massachusetts, you cannot carry a gun until you have at least 80 hours of training and have fired 1,000 rounds, so you have become intimately acquainted with that weapon. But for the general public in most of the country, no training is required. I can sell you a gun at a gun shop, and I have no idea if you can shoot it or what you want to do with it. It's like selling someone an iPod.

Which states have the most restrictive gun-control laws?

Massachusetts is among those having the strictest. In order to carry a concealed weapon, for example, you need a license from the chief of police in the town you live in or the town you work in. You have to go through a rigorous process that includes a criminal records check before you are even considered for a license, and if one is issued, it can take 60 to 90 days to get. Then you have to go through a training course to convince law enforcement you know how to use the weapon. It's done very carefully and is intended to be that way to ensure that only those who have a legitimate need can carry a concealed weapon.

What might be considered a legitimate need?

Say you are a restaurant owner, and every night when you close you have thousands of dollars to deposit in the bank. You could make a case to the police chief that everyone knows what time you close and that you have a lot of money on hand and need to be able to protect yourself.

Is it easy to get a license?

We have more than 350 police departments in Massachusetts, so there are some 350 people making the decision. Some are more lax than others. But even as a former Boston , I would have a tough time getting a license. I live and work here and would have to convince someone there's a reason I need a weapon.

What about the rest of the country?

When I worked for the and traveled to many places around the country, when the topic of guns came up, I would ask trainees how many did not have a gun and no hands went up. In many places, people seem to feel there is an obligation that you have to protect yourself against some kind of attack from intruders, whoever they think that might be. And some people who are extremists have the mindset that this is the only way we have to protect ourselves from the federal government coming into our lives and communities and taking over everything, including their guns. Of course, that's a crazy, irrational thought. But don't be surprised to see a rush on buying weapons soon, because the topic will come up in Congress and people fear there will be a ban.

Some say if more people had guns, they could prevent such mass murders as occurred in Newtown or in the Aurora movie theater shootings, because an armed person could kill the murderer.

If we armed people, the carnage would increase exponentially. Take the Aurora movie theater shootings, for example. If we had people in the audience who were armed, it's safe to assume there would be an exchange of gunfire, but it would not necessarily result in the death of the shooter, who in this case had on body armor. People carrying guns would have varying levels of proficiency about how to use firearms: some may be trained, and some might never have fired a weapon. I think it's a wrong-headed idea; the more people with guns, the more carnage you'll have. Do we give guns to school children? Do we arm teachers and principals?

Because of the age of most of the victims, do you believe the Connecticut shootings will bring about a change in gun laws?

We have a conversation about gun control every time there is an incident like this. I've been interviewed by the media about other shootings: after Congresswoman Giffords was shot, after the Virginia Tech shootings and after the Amish school shootings in Pennsylvania. Every time we have an instance of , we revisit it. One would hope that these incidents would help suppress the power the National Rifle Association has in Washington. At some point, people with fortitude and courage have to stand up to the NRA, but whether they will is the question that remains to be answered.

Are there instances in which you think people should own firearms?

I can't consider a situation in which private ownership of firearms is appropriate. People will say there should be exceptions, such as the restaurant owner I mentioned, but I don't agree. As someone who carried a gun for most of my adult life, I don't see any rationale for anyone who is not in or in the military carrying a firearm.

What about your colleagues in the police department?

I think most police officers would agree there are too many people licensed to carry concealed weapons who ought not to be, but most would probably endorse the notion of private ownership of firearms. Still, most officers have come into situations in which they've seen individuals who were licensed to carry a firearm who shouldn't have had one. You might pull someone over for running a red light and then you find out he has been drinking. And he has a gun, and it's legally owned, and you think, "What is this guy doing with a gun?"

Why do you think we have such a violent culture?

I think it's the ready availability and proliferation of high-powered firearms and certainly the way we socialize young men to resolve conflicts. Boys are taught to be competitive and to win and to use aggression to achieve those goals. Girls are taught to resolve conflicts through negotiation. We no longer see conflicts resolved with a fist fight or an argument or even a knife—they get resolved with a bullet. If the young man in Newtown didn't have access to so many guns and wasn't so familiar with them, what he did couldn't have been so easily accomplished. We want to think that this guy has to be crazy and disordered, and obviously there was a problem, but we may find he was never diagnosed with any kind of mental disorder. Certainly in other areas of the world, where guns aren't as available, it would have been much more difficult to carry out this atrocity.

Explore further: Gypsies and travellers on the English Green Belt

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Gun traffickers exploit differences in state laws

Oct 24, 2011

Every state in America legislates its own gun laws, but not without significant spillover effects on nearby states, according to a new study by Brown University economist Brian Knight. In a National Bureau of Economic Research ...

Doctors target gun violence as a social disease

Aug 11, 2012

(AP) — Is a gun like a virus, a car, tobacco or alcohol? Yes say public health experts, who in the wake of recent mass shootings in the U.S. are calling for a fresh look at gun violence as a social disease.

Recommended for you

Gypsies and travellers on the English Green Belt

Oct 17, 2014

The battle between Gypsies, Travellers and the settled community over how land can be used has moved to the Green Belt, observes Peter Kabachnik of the City University of New York.

Cadavers beat computers for learning anatomy

Oct 16, 2014

Despite the growing popularity of using computer simulation to help teach college anatomy, students learn much better through the traditional use of human cadavers, according to new research that has implications ...

Mongolian women 'want status over big families'

Oct 16, 2014

A new study suggests the aspirations of women in Mongolia have rapidly shifted. Before the rapid economic transition of the 1990s, the wealthiest women in the Communist-style era had big families. However, ...

User comments : 71

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Trenchant
3.6 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2012
There are an average of five guns for every person in the US. Most guns come with three magazines. The average gun owner has more than 100 rounds of ammunition. It is too late for gun control. It is a political, feel good, farce. The only hope is to make it mandatory to take psychology classes in the schools to teach kids warning signs within themselves and those around the as to when it is time to seek professional help, and remove the stigma of seeking psychological help. While not a perfect resolution, it would greatly reduce the number of violent incidents, long term. Trying to remove weapons and disarm America would be a blood bath. It would take 100 years for "gun control" to make any real impact in this heavily armed country with Second Amendment rights.
powerup1
3 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2012
The guy in this article speaks of "extremist" owning guns, yet he is just as extreme in his view that no private person should own a gun.
frajo
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 19, 2012
Trying to remove weapons and disarm America would be a blood bath. It would take 100 years for "gun control" to make any real impact in this heavily armed country with Second Amendment rights.

You want to say the country is a failed state?
Trenchant
3.6 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2012
Not even close to what I am saying. What I am saying is exactly what I wrote. Unlike some, I say what I mean and stand by my words regardless of whether or not I am politically correct, or if I think I will be popular for my words.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (25) Dec 19, 2012
If the socialists are serious about banning guns, repeal the 2nd amendment.
Oh, I forgot, socialist don't really care about the Constitution, including the first amendment (press, speech, etc).
"An armed society is a polite society". Heinlein.
"Norway already has strict regulation of firearms, but this is an irrelevance when considering the actions of Anders Breivik. There are also laws in that country against impersonating a police officer, against setting off bombs, and against massacring children. Most people follow these. But then, most people are not the problem. Most people do not get out of bed and plan terrorist attacks. Those who do are beyond the law and will not be constrained by changes to it. In a free society, maniacs will always find a way."
"If Breivik had been denied his monopoly on violence, we may have read a different story. As it was, Breivik could have been fairly confident that he would not be challenged — even by the police, who are unarmed except in special cir
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2012
"If Breivik had been denied his monopoly on violence, we may have read a different story. As it was, Breivik could have been fairly confident that he would not be challenged — even by the police, who are unarmed except in special circumstances, and who took an hour and a half to get to the scene.

Norway's system is the worst of both worlds. Licenses are tied to interests — farming, hunting, sports — rather than to rights. Transportation of firearms is heavily restricted, and there is no such thing as a concealed-carry permit. The police are unarmed. We have heard much about how "uncontroversial" the issue is in Norway, but it should be more so. Currently, it is a veritable paradise for those with ill intent who know that their actions will go unchecked."
"To live in freedom is to expose ourselves to the occasional outburst of the insane and the criminal. "
http://www.nation...e-cooke#
Socialists don't want a free society.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (19) Dec 19, 2012
Of course another issue in Boston for young people is employment opportunities and cost of living.
Costs are high and opportunities low.
There is an interesting movie, The Friends of Eddie Coyle which suggests guns were not much of an issue for the criminals in Boston when they were banned.
And a 'liberal' mayor has been running Boston for decades. No corruption there(?)
Jeddy_Mctedder
2.6 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2012
Police are sheep dogs. The mpre sheep there are the more you need sheep dogs. Also most cops like most people cannot see beyond the small world they live in. A successful cop has been self exposed to decades of protecting sheep.

Any non-sheep are seen either as predators ( criminals) or as non-neutral competition that is potentially a threat. In a war between cops and robbers, youre either on the cops side ( sheep) or you are not on their side.

The law abiding citizen who wishes to use arms to protect themselves and their comunnity is viewed by most police and a potentially troublesome source of power. The professional fulltime urban police want you dependant on them and paying your taxes or they dont want you in their space
cantdrive85
2.9 / 5 (21) Dec 19, 2012
Nearly all of the incidents (Columbine, VaTech, Norway etc..) the assailants were on or recently were on psycho drugs, this is the issue, not the guns.
http://www.health...?p=13679
dschlink
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2012
" ...average of five guns for every person in the US"

The actual number is under one. I suspect once you eliminate children and non-gun owners, 5 per gun owner might be good. I've only got one, ditto my wife. I personally know people who own dozens.
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (19) Dec 19, 2012
Police with guns are the problem. Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

Of course this gun ban effort was expected after the badly-disguised government massacre in Colorado and this incident. Mentally ill people are the perfect hired guns, as they cannot lead investigators to the party which ordered the hit. Here in Physorg devices have been disclosed where images and sounds are projected directly into the skull. Mentally ill, used for hundreds of year by the Italian mob, are prone to carry out instructions beamed or implanted under traumatic hypnosis.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (38) Dec 19, 2012
"I can't consider a situation in which private ownership of firearms is appropriate. People will say there should be exceptions, such as the restaurant owner I mentioned, but I don't agree. As someone who carried a gun for most of my adult life, I don't see any rationale for anyone who is not in law enforcement or in the military carrying a firearm."

-So right away weve got a problem. The ex-officer implies that people who are not officers or soldiers cannot pass tests and own weapons like they do. Why not?

He also fails to mention non-govt professionals who must be armed; armored car drivers, bank security guards, park rangers. Can these people be trusted if they are not govt employees? And why should they be allowed to carry guns to protect things like money and goods and art, when others arent allowed to protect things like their homes, their businesses, their families, and themselves?

Response time to the Newtown tragedy was 10 min minimum. That is the BEST that police can do.
PeterD
2.1 / 5 (19) Dec 19, 2012
Guns don't kill people; people kill people. It would make as much sense to take cars of the road because drunks kill people. Probably that psychopath planned this to help take away our guns, so he can be president forever.
rwinners
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 19, 2012
I've no knowledge of the officer who wrote this, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that this 'retired' person has more than one gun on his property.
FrankHerbert
1.7 / 5 (17) Dec 19, 2012
Lol, these discussions are starting to make me think The Postman may come true in the sense that the survivalists themselves are the ones that cause society to collapse.
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (17) Dec 20, 2012
Lol, these discussions are starting to make me think The Postman may come true in the sense that the survivalists themselves are the ones that cause society to collapse.
You write that like that's a bad thing! Societies collapse for different reasons. In this case it's just another parasitic empire in bed with the corporatists crushing the small animals that keep the engine running. Empires tend to keep running long after their expiration date.

A wave of state successions may be the best thing that ever happened to America
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (18) Dec 20, 2012
Guns don't kill people; people kill people.
Of course you're right. But as you see, most modern Americans would be considered traitors by the American Revolutionaries. The people see government as a big tit to suck and they are afraid to take true control of their own lives, which is exactly what made America great.
Former officer Thomas Nolan worked for DHS so I consider his opinions in parallel with the pope or gays mingling in a San Francisco bathhouse.
Sinister1811
1.2 / 5 (20) Dec 20, 2012
@Kochevnik What the hell is your problem? I gave you a 1 for your recent post, and you went and downvoted every single one of mine. In spite of the fact that I have given you 5s for your other brilliant posts in the past. Posts that I actually agreed with. You have now lost my respect, and I have now done the same to you. Enjoy.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 20, 2012
Twenty percent reduction in violent crime since shop owners and women are carrying: http://www.fbi.go...nt-crime

@Sinister1811 Zionists raped Russia and destroyed the lives of my family over generations. You can rollover and die in a Bolshevist prison but you are creating a pariah state like N. Korea that the world will need to address, probably through war or disbandment via feral capitalism. One of the reasons I follow Western sites is to monitor the dangerous demise of their society into dangerous despotic dictatorships, which America is soon to experience.

Notice zionist Zukerberg is banning all pro-gun facebook members and disseminating their private info to his handlers.
zslewis
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2012
Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

》》》》guns kill as people do, and in doing so allow the one man.. to destroy.. the many men, 1 vs 20 easily. and as for automobiles..built and intended for transportation, death is consequence of the increased speed and mass of vehicles and they're transport since their creation. guns. since there creation. are givers of death
kochevnik
2.2 / 5 (20) Dec 20, 2012
Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

These mass shooters were on anti-depressants known to trigger violent behavior and, in the case of the Batman shooter, in a DARPA mind-computer control program where researchers knew well in advance Holms' intentions and let him act out because it fits their agenda

It's very odd to see you living in a police state yet plead for disarming by your handlers. You can be a masochist but don't speak for others who choose freedom

Deer kill more than mass shootings. Should you ban deer?
Anda
1.8 / 5 (21) Dec 20, 2012
It's difficult for a european to imagine how do you live with so many weapons.

Where I live no one has guns and no one is shot... Period
vlaaing peerd
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2012
The guy in this article speaks of "extremist" owning guns, yet he is just as extreme in his view that no private person should own a gun.


You think that is an extreme view?! Please stay in your country and don't ever come over here ...ever.
russcelt
3 / 5 (14) Dec 20, 2012
Given officer Nolan's illustrious career path I'm not surprised that he never met a civilian gun owner he liked or thought was anywhere near as competent as himself. His egocentricity is staggering. Ms Howard presents Nolan as some kind of expert offering a rational view to the gun-control debate. He is simply a shill for gun-control. "I can't consider a situation in which private ownership of firearms is appropriate." In Officer Nolan's world self-defence does not exist except possibly for law enforcement or the military. That sounds like a police state. "If the young man in Newtown didn't have access to so many guns and wasn't so familiar with them, what he did couldn't have been so easily accomplished." Totally ignoring the Gun-Free School Zones Act to implement Officer Nolan's solution would require law enforcement involvement at the core of the mother son relationship. I'll say it again, a police state.
LeeZe
3.8 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2012
Hi! The real issue that needs to be addressed, based on this tragedy, is how do "we" identify those with mental health issues and get them help. That is a discussion worth having, now. We need to have the courage to ID those that need mental help, and we absolutely must take the stigma away from those that get mental help.
kochevnik
2.8 / 5 (17) Dec 20, 2012
The guy in this article speaks of "extremist" owning guns, yet he is just as extreme in his view that no private person should own a gun.
You think that is an extreme view?! Please stay in your country and don't ever come over here ...ever.
How did that work for out you in WWII? Hitler was the big advocate of gun control in his rise to power. We have gun control in Moscow yet every bandit carries: https://www.youtu...Uw#t=71s
LeeZe
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2012
It's difficult for a european to imagine how do you live with so many weapons.

Where I live no one has guns and no one is shot... Period

Anda,
it is hard to explain the second amendment to many outside the USA, just as it is difficult to explain the first amendment. It is also hard to explain to those that live outside the US how a 200 year old document can still be valid when deciding major contemporary issues. I lived outside the US for years, and still do, but I am a US Citizen. While our country has it problems, it seems we are one of the few where many people still want to immigrate to.
kochevnik
2.9 / 5 (17) Dec 20, 2012
Brasil just voted on gun control. Polls showed 60% objected to gun possession. But then peple began chatting on the networks about how the shoddy government would carry out the ban. It became apparent that only upstanding citizens would be targeted, while bandits would simply add to their collections from the new supply. When the vote came, 80% VOTED AGAINST GUN CONTROL. Ten minutes is a long time to wait for police when you are being attacked/raped/robbed
kochevnik
3.1 / 5 (15) Dec 20, 2012
Pearl High School, Mississippi: This incident began the morning of Oct. 1, 1997, when 16-year-old student Luke Windham entered the school with a rifle. Wearing only an orange jumpsuit and a trench coat and making no effort to hide his weapon, he initially entered the school and shot and killed two students, injuring seven others. He was stopped by assistant principal Joel Myrick, who retrieved a .45 cal. handgun from the glove box of his truck.

"I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick at the time, who went on to become principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.

Appalachia Law School, Virginia: On Jan. 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, 43, a former student from Nigeria, arrived on the campus of the school with a handgun around 1:00 p.m. and immediately killed three people, at least two of them at point-blank range. Two students – Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges – both retrieved handguns from their vehicles and confronted Odighizu
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (18) Dec 20, 2012
It's difficult for a european to imagine how do you live with so many weapons.

Where I live no one has guns and no one is shot... Period

Where do you live?
How many stabbed, beaten....?
Q-Star
2.2 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2012
Guns don't kill people; people kill people. It would make as much sense to take cars of the road because drunks kill people. Probably that psychopath planned this to help take away our guns, so he can be president forever.


Pete (or is it BillD?) That is about the smartest thing I have ever heard. Are ya sure your IQ is only 180?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (28) Dec 20, 2012
It's difficult for a european to imagine how do you live with so many weapons.

Where I live no one has guns and no one is shot... Period

Where do you live?
How many stabbed, beaten....?
I assume he lives in the LA county jail.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2012
How did that work for out you in WWII? Hitler was the big advocate of gun control in his rise to power. We have gun control in Moscow yet every bandit carries: https://www.youtu...Uw#t=71s


WWII ? any other reductio ad absurdum to add? Hitler also was a vegetarian.

Maybe indeed you have gun control in Russia, but the mere fact I can buy a Kalashnikov in exchange for 10 boxes of cigarettes from a Russian military pretty much says enough about this law's enforcement.

Altough I lack figures about Russia itself, other former Soviet countries have a death-by-firearms-rate-per-capita of at least 20 times less then the US.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (16) Dec 21, 2012
@vlaaing peerd Altough I lack figures about Russia itself, other former Soviet countries have a death-by-firearms-rate-per-capita of at least 20 times less then the US.
Yet the US murder rate of 5 per 100,000 people per year is actually quite a bit less-murderous than the 13 per 100,000 reported in Russia last year.

Thanks for proving my point!
Lex Talonis
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 23, 2012
Ahhh what the fuck.... One nutter kills 20 kids., while the whole nation of the USA and it's zionist policies, murders millions of people and robs them and installs state sponsored terrorist governments, all around the world.... and has done so for the last few hundred years.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (12) Dec 23, 2012
...One nutter kills 20 kids.,
446 School Age Children Shot in Chicago so Far This Year. But they're not white. And Chicago HAS GUN CONTROL. So their deaths don't fit with the globalist scheme of disarming citizens

NUMBER OF HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO IN 2011
441

NUMBER OF HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO AS OF Dec. 21, 2012
519

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO IN 2011
2,217

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO AS OF Dec. 11, 2012
2,597
Ojorf
2 / 5 (12) Dec 23, 2012
Most of you seem to be so caught up in this that you can't see the trees for the forest. You don't seem to even begin to comprehend how ridicules this look to people from other countries. American gun laws are totally absurd.
As far as outlawing cars or deer or whatever cause they kill people, just as ridiculous! Guns were designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill or injure. You can't possibly compare it to a vehicle, apples and oranges.
philw1776
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2012
Why should Americans care what Europeans with their long tradition of bloody inter neighbor warfare and local government suppression think? The 1st and 2nd Amendments are cornerstones of our democracy. I live in NH where gun ownership is well above the US average. With armed (legally) citizens we enjoy a far lower murder and crime rate than gun control meccas like nearby MA, Washington DC and Chicago where criminals KNOW that their ripe victims are unarmed. Not so in NH.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 23, 2012
Why should Americans care what Europeans with their long tradition of bloody inter neighbor warfare and local government suppression think? The 1st and 2nd Amendments are cornerstones of our democracy. I live in NH where gun ownership is well above the US average. With armed (legally) citizens we enjoy a far lower murder and crime rate than gun control meccas like nearby MA, Washington DC and Chicago where criminals KNOW that their ripe victims are unarmed. Not so in NH.

And MA requires a license to buy pepper spray!
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2012
American gun laws are totally absurd. As far as outlawing cars or deer or whatever cause they kill people, just as ridiculous! Guns were designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill or injure. You can't possibly compare it to a vehicle, apples and oranges.
So why are deer killing so many Americans, Ojorf? You claim they are warm and furry yet they slaughter more Americans than those evil guns. I am sure you trust your state to never fuck you, although they could at any moment. I think you are a religious person who has replaced god with the state, in line with Marxism.
With armed (legally) citizens we enjoy a far lower murder and crime rate than gun control meccas like nearby MA, Washington DC and Chicago where criminals KNOW that their ripe victims are unarmed.
Watch the media spin machine disappear those factoids. Too bad they are safely stored on my hard drive and won't simply vanish
Osiris1
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2012
The best answers come not from propaganda prostitutes like that former Gestapo worshipper Nolan.

A think tank analyzing crime data vs various policies in attempts to find patterns in data so far not noticed found that simple concealed carry laws making firearms more accessible to common people had the most deterrent effect on crime, especially of the kind committed by the insane like Lanza in 'Newtown'. If the perp knows that his victims are defenseless, he grows in his sociopathic dementedness. The feeling of power over his victims drives him to crimes of greater monstrosity. Insane people DO have a sharp sense of self preservation almost feral in nature, and they greatly fear and avoid attacks on those who may fight back, and especially avoid attacking those who might be armed and ...hurt him!!

In order to 'save money' most states closed all asylums, so ALL the insane live among us when not in prison. So these murders were mathematically certain to happen in disarmed places.
bliskater
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2012
What's this article doing in a science site? There's nothing scientific about anything on this page.
But because it was here I thought that there might be and read it.
So, here's my reply:
Fact: There are no social ill's caused by guns, but there are some that can be cured by guns when used in good conscious.
Fact: That coward would have never entered that school if he'd have thought that there were armed people there. As evidence when given the opportunity to shoot at someone armed he ended his own worthless life.
Guns are not for killing people they are for defending people... from others and from bad government.
People who want guns outlawed aren't looking to be safe, they are looking to feel safe. Not the same. Often those that want to feel as opposed to being, usually don't have the courage to defend themselves anyway and don't mind taking away the abilities of who have it. This isn't an uncommon way of thinking with any social issue.
Osiris1
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2012
It is also a truism in that the more disarmed a population, the heavier armed and more obnoxious, facetious, and delusional of grandeur its police.

How so? Almost always, gun restrictive areas foist the idea of 'more training for police' so they 'can protect you' on apathetic and naive voters who may look for 'quick fixes' from 'experts' who seem to appear from nowhere after a rain of crime. This restricts the job of policing to those who can pay increasingly large amounts to training at increasingly exclusive 'schools'. The result is high paid children of rich families out of touch with society and armed and dangerous, made more so by paranoia borne of isolation and insulation.

Gone is the friendly Irish cop on the walking beat who knew his people and was from and lived in his neighborhood. The man respected by the people and loved by many...and a real human.

In his place is an elitist over educated barbarian armed with automatic weapons--soul less power over powerless souls!
Trenchant
3 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2012
" ...average of five guns for every person in the US"

The actual number is under one. I suspect once you eliminate children and non-gun owners, 5 per gun owner might be good. I've only got one, ditto my wife. I personally know people who own dozens.

That was my error. You are, in fact, correct. 275M-300M guns for 311M people. The average household that owns guns, owns an average of 5 guns. I appreciate the correction.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2012
SCOTUS has ruled the police have NO obligation to protect you.
rfw
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2012
The Gun That Does Not Exist Cannot Be Used To Kill People.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 23, 2012
The Gun That Does Not Exist Cannot Be Used To Kill People.

How do you plan to make guns non-existent?

" the human hand. It is arguably our most important anatomical weapon, used to threaten, beat and sometimes kill to resolve a conflict."
http://www.latime...74.story
How will fists be banned?
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2012
I work with cops, and they all say they like people with CCP's because when they stop people with CCP, they know they are good guys and have had a background check.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2012
...when it is time to seek professional help, and remove the stigma of seeking psychological help. While not a perfect resolution, it would greatly reduce the number of violent incidents, long term.


Unlikely.

The shooters who were known nut jobs weren't helped by psychology.

The shooters who weren't "crazy" were just evil. Psychology can't cure evil.

Further, while it doesn't justify the behavior, people provoke some of these attacks through bullying and negative social behavior at schools and colleges.

Trying to remove weapons and disarm America would be a blood bath.

Not really.

Only a few idiots would actually try to resist a gun ban if it was enacted. SWAT would deal with them.

It would take 100 years for "gun control" to make any real impact in this heavily armed country with Second Amendment rights.

The second amendment is obsolete and was written when a single-shot muzzle loaded weapon was the most advanced piece of technology in the world.
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2012
SCOTUS has ruled the police have NO obligation to protect you.


Yet they and the president take an oath to do just that.

Are you one of these idiots who believe something is "right" just because the constitution or the Supreme Court says it's so?

The whole reason amendments exist is because the writers of the constitution recognized that laws become obsolete, and they also recognized that some of their own laws were evil. Not everyone voted for the 3/5 compromise and other BS that was in the original constitution, and they only got ratification from exactly 9 or the 13 colonies on the bill of rights.

Wow. You think the second amendment, or maybe the courts, ought to be enshrined and worshiped or something.

At the end of the day, the constitution is just an half-obsolete piece of paper with a lot of original flaws in it.
mountain_team_guy
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2012
SCOTUS has ruled the police have NO obligation to protect you.


Yet they and the president take an oath to do just that.

Are you one of these idiots who believe something is "right" just because the constitution or the Supreme Court says it's so?

The whole reason amendments exist is because the writers of the constitution recognized that laws become obsolete, and they also recognized that some of their own laws were evil. Not everyone voted for the 3/5 compromise and other BS that was in the original constitution, and they only got ratification from exactly 9 or the 13 colonies on the bill of rights.

Wow. You think the second amendment, or maybe the courts, ought to be enshrined and worshiped or something.

At the end of the day, the constitution is just an half-obsolete piece of paper with a lot of original flaws in it.


Far out. It never fails to amaze me just how quick liberals are to discard the constitution, or democracy when it doesn't serve their delusions.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2012
The whole reason amendments exist is because the writers of the constitution recognized that laws become obsolete,


The 'progressive' Woodrow Wilson who promoted the Constitution is a 'living' document and shouldn't be followed.

If you don't like a part of the Constitution, amend it, and follow it. What is happening now is 'progressives' pick and choose what what to follow and when. This leads to the capricious, arbitrary 'rule of kings' not the rule of law which is enabled by 'progressive' judges as well and 'progressive' politicians.

" The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, "
http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 24, 2012
At the end of the day, the constitution is just an half-obsolete piece of paper with a lot of original flaws in it.


At the end of the day, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is supposed to be obeyed.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 24, 2012


Trying to remove weapons and disarm America would be a blood bath.

Not really. Only a few idiots would actually try to resist a gun ban if it was enacted. SWAT would deal with them.


Here I have to agree. All this business about prying guns from "my cold dead fingers" is for the birds. All you have to do to see how Americans will react to gun confiscation is to look at videos on YouTube from Hurricane Katrina's gun confiscation. People on a fishing boat with M-16's leveled at them, a little old lady surrendering an unloaded revolver being jumped by gorillas in body armor. No one resisted.

And police spent their time taking shots at unarmed people crossing a bridge, for sport.

cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2012
At the end of the day, the constitution is just an half-obsolete piece of paper with a lot of original flaws in it.


You're in "good" company on your beliefs.

"...generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." OBAMA!

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" GW Bush

Claudius
2 / 5 (12) Dec 24, 2012


And police spent their time taking shots at unarmed people crossing a bridge, for sport.



In case someone doubts this:

"Police shot six people, killing two, less than a week after the storm's landfall on Aug. 29, 2005. To make the shootings appear justified, officers conspired to plant a gun, fabricate witnesses and falsify reports."

Read more: http://www.nydail...Fz5UQoY9
FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2012
"...generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." OBAMA!
-cantdrive and by association claudius for providing a 5 to the comment

Lmao, go to a community college before you post here again.

"Negative" liberties are things like freedom of speech, religion, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, etc. A negative liberty is a protected right.

"Positive" liberties are things like SSI, public education, universal health care, etc. They are provided rights.

God conservatives are so damn dumb. Do you need me to define "charter" for you as well?

At the end of the day, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is supposed to be obeyed.
-Claudius
Was it you that quoted Jefferson in regards to gun rights?
Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.
-Thomas Jefferson
The point is the Constitution isn't a magic infallible document.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2012
The point is the Constitution isn't a [..] infallible document.


It is if it is upheld and agreed upon by the majority of the people.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 24, 2012
It is if it is upheld and agreed upon by the majority of the people.

Right, so you're a fascist. We all know this.

Also, since you're a foreigner I wouldn't expect you to know this, but it takes 3/4's of the states to amend the Constitution. It takes much less than a majority of the people to maintain the current language of the Constitution.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2012
since you're a foreigner I wouldn't expect you to know this, but it takes 3/4's of the states to amend the Constitution. It takes much less than a majority of the people to maintain the current language of the Constitution.


Since you're a dingbat and a troll, I wouldn't expect you to know this, ...

While it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment to the constitution, it takes 2/3 vote in the House (and senate) to first propose such a amendment. Since the number of votes for each state, in the House, is in proportion to population of each state, I'm more likely to be correct.
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2012
While it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment to the constitution, it takes 2/3 vote in the House (and senate) to first propose such a amendment.
Incorrect.
The Congress... or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments...
-Article V

2/3rd's of the state legislatures may also call for a constitutional convention. The states may entirely bypass the Congress.
Since the number of votes for each state, in the House, is in proportion to population of each state
This is patently false. While the districts WITHIN states are required to be equal, the districts among states may very wildly. Wyoming, last I checked, has a population less than 600,000. Montana has about 1,000,000 people. They both have one representative.

I'm more likely to be correct.
No really you aren't. You're actually entirely wrong on every point you've made.

Read the Constitution before you worship it.
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2012
Also, the fact that 2/3rd's of the Congress or state legislatures may propose amendments has no bearing on the fact that it requires 3/4's of the states to ratify amendments. 3/4's is the higher burden in either situation and in both situations concretely disproves your enormously foolish statement that:
[The Constitution is infallible if it] is upheld and agreed upon by the majority of the people.


Also, the last time I checked a majority is 50% plus 1. So your assertion is entirely and irrevocably moot. To word it differently, it takes much less than 50% of the population to uphold the Constitution as it was designed this way.

Anyway, even if it required a majority to uphold it, how would that make the Constitution "infallible"? Assuming you were an American and paid attention in POD, you'd know the Constitution is specifically designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority, which you seem to support even though you believe the Constitution is infallible.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2012
2/3rd's of the state legislatures may also call for a constitutional convention. The states may entirely bypass the Congress.


True, but when is the last time that has ever occurred? Answer: Never.

In any case, the 2nd amendment (wrt firearms) is as infallible as the moon orbiting the earth, given the majority opinion on the matter. Honestly, I don't know statistically speaking, if its most likely that 2/3 house vote equates to majority of population,... I would guess, probably.

I rated your two posts above a 5, though, because I think you had good points.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2012
2/3rd's of the state legislatures may also call for a constitutional convention. The states may entirely bypass the Congress


Now would be a great time to do this, banning Obamacare, eliminating the 17th amendment and increasing the size of House.
A majority of state legislatures and governors are now Republican and/or conservative.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2012
True, but when is the last time that has ever occurred? Answer: Never.
How does that matter? The Constitution still provides for it.

In any case, the 2nd amendment (wrt firearms) is as infallible as the moon orbiting the earth, given the majority opinion on the matter.
So if a majority believes that hmm... the Earth revolves around the Moon that makes it infallible? The "wrt firearms" qualifier is a nice addition too since you knew the original language meant all weapons of war. Doesn't make much sense today, does it? Not very infallible if you have to change the interpretation.

I rated your two posts above a 5, though, because I think you had good points.
I noticed, but this isn't necessary. You don't even have to admit you are wrong. Just stop posting travesties like this:
Honestly, I don't know statistically speaking, if its most likely that 2/3 house vote equates to majority of population,... I would guess, probably.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2012
Let's just see if I can get all these inconsistencies straight. I'm bound to miss some.

[Noumenon]
So the Constitution is infallible because a majority supports it even though it is specifically designed to be upheld by 1/4 of the states. This isn't inconsistent because even though the proposal of an amendment requires less support than ratification and EVEN THOUGH proposal still requires 2/3rds of the Congress or state legislatures, that's okay because the House is SKEWED because it is PROPORTIONAL so I'm still right. Besides it doesn't matter that 2/3rds of the states can propose an amendment because this has never happened even though the INFALLIBLE document in question provides for the possibility. Also the 2nd amendment (when interpreted exactly how I want it and not at all based on history) is as infallible as celestial mechanics. And last but not least 1/3rd is really a majority because the proportional House is skewed.
[/Noumenon]

My brain hurts.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2012
For those who believe the Constitution is infallible I ask you:

The Constitution has been amended 27 times. At what point did it become infallible? Was the original document infallible? Was it made infallible upon ratification of the Bill of Rights? The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments? The 20th? The 21st? The 27th? Do you disagree with any of the amendments?

A majority of state legislatures and governors are now Republican and/or conservative.
Good thing amendments require 3/4's and not a simple majority!

increasing the size of House
This was actually the first amendment proposed AND ratified. 80% of the states ratified the proposed amendment, but the Congress swept it under the rug.

I wouldn't be opposed to repealling the 17th amendment IF representation in the House were adequate as per the language of Amendment the First.

I also wouldn't be opposed to increasing the number of senators per state.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 24, 2012
The Constitution has been amended 27 times.

As is was designed.
It would be a nice change of pace if government officials followed their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2012
As is was designed.

So you're saying the original document was infallible? Guess you don't mind if I take your guns, shut down your church, and enslave you.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 25, 2012
As is was designed.

So you're saying the original document was infallible? Guess you don't mind if I take your guns, shut down your church, and enslave you.

What created by man is infallible?
The Constitution was designed because its authors and supporters knew humans, and especially politicians are fallible. It was designed to limit the power of any fallible govt official and to disperse that power among the states and the people.

Frankie sounds like the 'progressive' Woodrow Wilson who wanted a flexible, living Constitution. It is flexible and living based upon its amendment processes. But the 'progressives' don't want to bother with all the effort to follow the Constitution and would rather reinterpret the words and make stuff up out of thin air.
The intent of the 2nd amendment is quite clear, to protect the individual's right to protect his life and property from individuals AND from a tyrannical state.
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2012
What created by man is infallible?
The question wasn't for you then.

Frankie sounds like the 'progressive' Woodrow Wilson who wanted a flexible, living Constitution.
You forgot Thomas Jefferson. You may have heard of him. He also started a political party with James Madison who formulated this idea:
The Constitution was designed because its authors and supporters knew humans, and especially politicians are fallible.


The intent of the 2nd amendment is quite clear, to protect the individual's right to protect his life and property from individuals AND from a tyrannical state.
Maybe the former, but certainly not that latter. Insurrection is expressely forbidden by the Constitution itself and tested via the Civil War.
The Congress shall have Power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
Article I, Section 8.