Notice: Any comments made by me, are my own, and should not be construed to be those of anyone else, or any organization or association.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

The 2nd Amendment and Your Personal Safety

While gun law debates continue across the country, and even with the United Nations casting some views on “small arms”, our 2nd Amendment remains a sacred part of our Bill of Rights for American citizens. While I have expressed many times my views on the subject, I'm compelled to again dive into the deep end.

With this writing though, I'll stick with the "personal security" aspect of gun ownership. While not a "retired" Law Enforcement Officer (LEO), I do have over 13 years street experience in that field (plus many more years in the private sector), and use those experiences to formulate my own opinions on the subject of personal defense and firearms.
If we, each of us at home, in our cars, or at work, present an easy target of robbery or assault, then it is luck, or a matter of time, that we haven't been victimized. Bad guys, whether consciously or not, calculate their personal risk against any perceived gain in the engagement of a criminal act. If any of us present a low risk to the bad guy, then our own risk increases. If we present a high risk to the bad guy, one that will most likely get them arrested, or seriously hurt, then they will move on to a less risky target. They’re human, and won’t typically walk into a dangerous situation where they don’t have an upper hand.
I believe that by permitting citizens to have "Concealed Carry Licenses", we send a message to the would-be bad-guys. That is, anyone they may consider targeting, may be armed and prepared to defend themselves with deadly force. When states have openly supported such a lawful and licensed "carry" law, the statistics show a decrease in personal crimes.

One only needs to do an on-line search, and any number of stats will either prove out, or argue against the effects of such "carry" laws. But I can’t think of any LEOs who wouldn’t "carry" if they weren't Cops anymore. Most LEOs I know, would never leave home without a handgun for personal protection, even if they stopped being Cops. Speaking only for myself, I don't recall an "armed" citizen that I encountered who was successfully victimized. But I encountered a lot of "victims", who had been ill prepared for what came upon them. The fact is, the only stat that really means anything anyway, is your own!
As an ex-Cop, I don't go anywhere without a handgun on or near me. Am I fearful? No. But I've seen enough people who were unable to adequately defend themselves, and don't choose to be one of them. It’s a matter of being prepared, for the unexpected. As a case-in-point, we recently saw the news footage from London of two Muslim men who had attacked an off-duty British Soldier, hacking him up with a knife and meat clever, nearly beheading him. The only thing the on-looking London citizens could do, was watch! (20 minutes later .... 20 minutes later .... the London Police showed up and shot both suspects, "wounding" them.)
As our 2nd Amendment provides, I have the "right to bear arms", and I choose to do so wherever it’s legal. NO ONE should be able to take MY right away, effectively disarming me at a time I may need to protect my family or myself.
Oh ... Magazine capacity - Who the hell knows how many rounds anyone will need at any given time? NO ONE knows. Cops don't know either, and that's why most of them carry a handgun with an average 15 rounds in the pistol, plus another two mags in their pouches (45 rounds total!). Even then, there have been "Officer Involved" shootings, where magazines had been expended by multiple officers, and the suspect still lived! It's just stupid for anyone to think just 6 or 7 or 10 rounds should be enough for a citizen to have. It sure isn't for a trained professional Police Officer! And a citizen will not have a back-up officer at their side or coming to their aid.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

On May 13th, Colorado mass murderer James Holmes's attorney entered Holmes plea of "Not Guilty", by reason of insanity. His attorney said Holmes was "mentally ill". Well, I have a problem or two with that, and other cases like it.

To start with, while "the law" entitles him to a fair trial with the burden of proof on the "state" to prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I am not a court and I KNOW he is guilty as hell. He was found at the scene, by the police with his weapons, identified by people at the scene, and ALL information points to him killing all those people. There's a lot more to that, but NO ONE has any question that he killed those people. NO ONE! So there really isn't ANY doubt, but he must have his day in court (which I do support).

Secondly, in some respects, any person who would commit such a heinous crime like the murders in a Colorado movie theater, must surely have something wrong inside. But, I believe that "something", is just evil that gets in a persons head. But that doesn't mean by itself that the person is "insane" and had no reasoning skills to know that what they were doing was right or wrong. They just didn't care and maybe even took evil delight in such a deed. Did Homes know right from wrong? From the information that has come to light, his plan to commit such a murderous deed, was formulated and prepared for, for some time. That took planning. And "planning" sounds like he knew full well what he was doing.

Then, there's the whole "Not Guilty" aspect of such an insane act and plea. Doesn't that seem wrong? Doesn't that "Not Guilty" part seem all wrong, when all the evidence proves they did it? Seems to me, we need to change that part of the system, and make it a plea of "Guilty, but Insane". At least that way, a finding of actual guilt for the deed could be determined, and then the court could address the insanity part for any sentencing. People died at the hands of another, and there must be a reckoning.

I could buy into a "Guilty but Insane" plea one hell of a lot better than that whole "Not Guilty" part. People died. In fact, 12 people died and dozens were wounded. There has to be an accountability for such crime. "Guilty, but Insane", could also mean that if he should ever be "healed", he would still pay for the crime his ass committed. Otherwise, if found "insane" enough to not be held responsible for the murders, he could again walk the streets one day. THAT would be a bigger crime, at least in my view.