There is also the argument that we have existing gun laws that are more than enough and just need to be enforced. This line of thinking also involves the idea that those who use guns for violence buy them illegally, and new gun laws wouldn’t stop that.

Then, there is my favorite, or rather, least favorite argument on the right: A good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun. With this post, I am going to start there. We have seen time and time again situations where police officers engage these “crazed gunmen” and are themselves killed. I found myself tearing up tonight watching the news report that the most recent bar shooting resulted in Sargent being killed who responded and immediately went in to engage the shooter. Sgt. Ron Helus was a true American hero. He was a year from retirement. He didn’t wait for backup. He arrived on the scene, heard shots, and went in to try to stop this tragedy from going any further. There were also 4 off-duty officers inside at the time that the shooting began.

Let’s not forget that, as of a few years ago, EVERY state has concealed carry laws now. I have yet to hear of a heroic story, though of some brave concealed carry permit holder stopping one of the over 300 mass shootings this year or any other year, for that matter. The truth is, if you are confronted directly by someone with a gun and have a gun yourself, you are very unlikely to be able to draw a concealed weapon and stop them without first being killed. That is simply how it is. What I will be the first to acknowledge, though, is that you could defend others who are being directly confronted if you have a concealed firearm. So, someone explain to me why this argument isn’t holding. I never thought it was the solution, but at this point, I want it to be. The laws have changed to allow it because the right said it was one of the solutions to our gun violence problem, but instead of getting better, it’s getting worse.

Mass gunmen are not phased by the idea that there are people armed everywhere in this country. Those who are armed aren’t stopping gunmen.

Where the right seems to be correct, though, is that there is a lot of mental illness being revealed in many of these instances of mass shootings. The problem is, though, that saying someone is crazy after the fact is useless if you aren’t willing to do more to prevent it from happening. Mentally unstable people, as well as those with anger management and self-control issues, shouldn’t be permitted to own or possess a firearm. A firearm isn’t a television. You shouldn’t be able to go in and buy one just by not having a felony. THAT IS ALL IT TAKES THOUGH. That is easy to get around, too, if you go to a gun show. I know for a fact that there are individuals in the south who have felonies who go regularly to gun shows to buy their firearms to avoid background checks. I am sure it is true for other parts of the country too. Here is my argument and suggested solutions, as unpopular as it all is for the left and right to hear.

I am an objective centrist. I grew up in the Midwest. Most of us growing up there had guns in our everyday lives. They are part of our culture and heritage in this country. I would never advocate for their total outlaw. I even support concealed carry. The idea that just getting rid of guns at this point would stop all the gun violence is naïve. The idea that new laws and restrictions couldn’t help the problem is equally naïve. There needs to be a middle ground and common-sense rules.

For starters, let’s cover some myths.

• Criminals buy guns at gun shows
  • NO, criminals get their guns in many ways. Many mass shooters have purchased them 100% legally (which proves there is a problem with our gun laws). Gangs buy them off the black market or just steal them. However, some are felons who aren’t supposed to have guns who do use the gun show loophole to buy their guns because they believe they have a right to have one and can’t afford one off the black market.
• There is no such thing as an assault rifle
  • An assault rifle is any rifle that is designed to kill humans. This needs to be legislated and codified. A rifle for hunting animals doesn’t have a high capacity magazine or the ability to rapidly fire, there is no need.
• AR-15 is or is not an assault rifle
  • Both sides like to argue this and many other rifles (see definition above). AR stands for Armalite Rifle, which comes from the original manufacturer’s name. Those who say it stands for Assault Rifle are wrong in that respect. HOWEVER, let’s be clear on something that the right doesn’t want you to know about this rifle. It was designed for the military, but they had very little success selling to the military. Armalite sold the design to Colt in 1959. In 1963, Colt had modified it slightly and got a contract to sell to the US military, which became what we know today as the M-16. Colt was having success with the design that they decided to make a semi-automatic version to sell to law enforcement and market it as the AR-15. In the 1970s, the patent expired, and other manufacturers started making the same rifle and selling it to anyone. It is an inexpensive semi-automatic rifle, which is why they are so popular. You can purchase a magazine for an AR-15 with a capacity from 10 rounds up to 100 rounds.
• A good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun
  • I’m from Missouri, SHOW ME. I have never found an example of this happening. The only good guys with guns that stop bad guys that I have found are the police. Sadly, sometimes they even lose their lives in this pursuit.
  • I not only hope this changes, but I think with time it will change. I think that with the propagation of concealed carry, you will find more and more people coming to the aid of others in shooting situations. But it will be rare that anyone will ever defend themselves with a gun against a gun; there simply isn’t enough time. Even police officers who are heavily trained and have a gun much more readily available on duty rarely stop a guy who is about to shoot them by firing upon him.
• Liberals are trying to take your guns away
  • I HAVE NEVER heard of any politician, left or right, who has proposed taking guns away or ending the 2^nd Additionally, even most democratic politicians are pro-gun.
• The Second Amendment is under attack.
  • If anything, the opposite is true. Gun laws have loosened tremendously in the past 20 years. We now have concealed carry in every state. ALSO, most states have either completely repealed or heavily crippled their gun permit laws. There are places where you can walk in and buy a gun the same day, in a matter of minutes.
• Gun Violence is mostly perpetrated by those on the right or the left
  • If you believe this in either case,y you are a partisan hack who doesn’t think for themselves. While the right is MORE pro-gun on average and the left is less pro-gun, this isn’t a partisan issue. There are those on both sides who are very pro-gun and those on both sides who are anti-gun. AND those who argue for either side don’t tend to be the ones using the guns for violence. Ideology has nothing to do with killing, usually. It is usually a matter of mental problems or hatred. There is plenty of that on both ends of the spectrum.

So, what can we do to fix all this? Here’s what I think:

• Stop being so stubborn, no matter which side you are on. Let’s compromise for the greater good. The opposite side is not villains. Gun rights activists aren’t the ones killing people in these mass shootings, and gun control advocates aren’t trying to take your guns.
• Stop justifying your position with lies and selfish arguments. Gun shows aren’t where mass murderers tend to buy guns, and the fact that you like having what most consider an assault rifle for fun target shooting isn’t a good enough reason to not regulate it when people are being killed at the rate they are by them.
• Stop making a felony an automatic bar to owning a firearm. Is it fair that a white-collar criminal can no longer own a gun, or a kid at 18 who stole a car and has now totally turned his life around 10 years later can’t have one? Let’s be a little more subjective. This is the one place where the right has never pushed, and I don’t know why. The Second Amendment is a right. While a conviction does have due process, and it is constitutional to remove a right on that basis, shouldn’t we consider the type of conviction? Shouldn’t there be a separate process for taking away a right instead of just an automatic bar because of a felony conviction?
• PROPERLY fund the ATF for investigations, research, and enforcement.
• Create a federal firearms owner card, which could have an endorsement for concealed carry and could be just an indication on a driver’s license. With the following process.
  1. Apply with Law Enforcement (preferably the ATF), paying a fee (REASONABLE FEE $50-$100 every 5 years)
  2. Background check performed
  3. Mental health eval done, including temperament and anger management evaluations.
  4. Gun safety course
  5. 5-year recertification
  6. You only must apply once. After you have the card, you can go buy a gun like any other item, same day.
• Create a tiered system for these firearms owners, including a higher level for those who are competition shooters or dealers, just like the current FFL. This would make it so there is a more thorough background check, like a federal security clearance for those who want to own higher capacity magazines and assault weapons, and even a tier for fully automatic weapons. The tiered system would also include a level for nationwide concealed carry.
• Pass laws which require mental health professionals, including simple therapists, to report patients to the ATF so that these owner cards can be flagged or revoked.
• Pass laws that require police to be accountable. Require that when a police officer has an encounter with someone where there are accusations of violence that they do a thorough investigation and determine if it needs to be reported to the ATF system for revocation of gun rights temporarily or permanently.
• Create a gun database so each gun in the USA can be tracked, especially when it is involved in a crime. Many people have guns stolen and don’t even know what the serial number was. It often takes days or weeks to track down where a gun was sold, and even longer to figure out who it was sold to, as there are rules that currently prohibit centralized computer records.
• Make all this federal law, which trumps state law and prohibits states from trying to be stricter or less strict.

Now to dispel the arguments on the right and the left. The left is shorter, so I will cover that first. For those who say this isn’t enough. I couldn’t disagree more. I feel like this would, within 10 years, cut gun violence in half, but we don’t know if we don’t try.

For those on the right. I have had people argue that there should never be a gun database because it gives the government the ability to take your guns if they know where they all are. YEAH THAT’S THE POINT. Only if you shouldn’t have one, though. You have a constitutional right; they can’t just take your guns away, so stop being paranoid.

For those who think this card permit system is a hassle, get over it. If it could save lives and help law enforcement, that should be enough. Especially if it gives you the ability to have more rights and even makes it easier to buy guns in the long run, if you are a good guy. It shouldn’t be easier to buy a gun than a car.

Also, you aren’t worried that the government is going to take your car, and we have crazy databases on those.

For those who would like to read some interpretation on the Second Amendment itself, that is coming quite soon, and I will link to that here when it is finished.

We allow those with deep rooted biases to sneak into our law enforcement agencies. Also those with anger management, superiority and fear issues. These are the things which need to be much more heavily screened. We will never eradicate these completely in any occupation but we MUST do better with law enforcement.

These problem individuals harm our society from mere harassing traffic stops and tickets to unjustified shootings based on fear, anger and yes even at times racism.

I believe it is fixable but it requires a better understanding of law enforcement and its culture from the outside and within. So many on one side want to hate all cops, the other end of the spectrum want to blindly support all cops no matter accusations or proven wrong doing, they believe it to be unpatriotic to question this profession because of how noble it is. Both are wrong.

All first-responders just like our soldiers on the battle field are the bravest we have and know what true sacrifice means. We should respect these professions, but always remember that mere men (and women) make them up and as such are flawed, sometimes to the point they shouldn’t be in the profession. We must not protect the bad apples from accountability and we must hold the good ones up as the shining examples of our society and the real superheroes our children should look up to.

I’m no longer a police officer and haven’t been for several years. My reasons are a combination of my own demons and not being able to tolerate some of what went on. I was and today am nothing more than the average guy, but I try to see things as objectively as possible.

So many cops now want to be so much more like Harry Callahan (Dirty Harry) and not enough like Sgt. Joe Friday. The truth is that Harry was exactly what people are fighting today, a cop who has preconceptions and beliefs. He always thinks he is right and will do whatever is necessary to get what he wants and/or sees as justice. He doesn’t care about Miranda, he doesn’t care about killing. He doesn’t even care about authority himself, but he expects everyone to respect his authority.

Then There is Detective Sergeant Joe Friday. His motto is literally, “just the facts”. He only wants to hear the facts of the case. He wants to make as objective of conclusions he can when investigating. Friday understands his role as a detective and leaves innocence or guilt to the judicial system.

So many officer’s today loose sight of the fact that they don’t determine innocence or guilt. They in essence do exactly what a special counsel does for congress in an impeachment proceeding. They are SUPPOSED to investigate every angle and lead, then prepare a report which they then take to a prosecutor who makes an initial determination of probable cause. If he agrees there is probable cause to make an arrest of someone, he creates an affidavit for application of warrant which includes a probable cause statement from the police officer and takes it to a judge asking for a warrant. There is also the option in some jurisdictions as well as the federal system to take it before a grand jury to get an indictment which is simply a formal charge which begins court proceedings headed toward trial. These methods are highly flawed, but that is a topic for another post.

Now if a police officer feels the crime is serious enough and the individual they believe who committed it is a flight risk or a danger to the community they can often make a warrant-less arrest and hold someone for 20-48 hours (depending on jurisdiction) while they get a warrant from judge.

The point of all this is that a police officer is not someone who is supposed to decide if someone did something or not. Many officers now decide who committed a crime before they have really even investigated anything. The other difference between these two fictional cops is the use of force. Both men are technically detectives. In San Francisco the term of Harry’s day was Inspector. LAPD to my knowledge always used the term detective. Detectives don’t often have as much need to use force on the job as beat cops. That never stopped Harry. He is all about using his authority via force and pulling out his big .44 Magnum revolver every chance he gets. As a society we think violence is cool. I see and hear people all the time making fun of people who are nerdy or geeky or simply are more about knowledge than being physical. Then they love those who assert themselves with guns or do a million other things which are considered aggressive and assertive.

Ask yourself though, if these two men were real police officers today, which do you think would have a better record of finding the actual perpetrator of crimes? Which would have helped prosecutors have a higher conviction rate? Which would have helped prosecutors put more innocent people in jail? Which is more likely to racial profile and be unfair to minorities? To me the answer is quite obvious.

Police are part of the justice system and it is important that they focus more on the facts than their own biases and personality. Everyone has bias, everyone has their own personality which affects how they live their life. It is important for police officers not allow these things to affect their investigations. AND, they certainly shouldn’t let bias or personal issues affect their use of force.

Sadly, you can’t read these stories without coming across the others that none of us want to hear. There are the tragic shootings of unarmed people. There was the arrest and excessive force against a Utah nurse who wouldn’t violate policy and the law for a detective, but there are more than I could even get in to listing.

I have been fascinated with the litigation surrounding cops who arrest firefighters over a pissing contest. I have just finished looking at 6 cases in the last 10 years where an officer on some sort of traffic crash arrests a firefighter who is helping a patient for not doing whatever the officer said. In every case, the officer was in the wrong.

My complaint here isn’t even all these issues, however that is certainly a HUGE problem. The thing I am so upset about today is the defense by the brothers in blue in ALL these cases.

Every time I see an officer doing wrong in the news, I go research it myself online. I try to get every fact and every side of the story before I make up my own mind on if the officer is in the wrong. Unfortunately the first thing I see online is the complete opposite among current law enforcement. They blindly defend whatever the officer in question did. When the officer in question has actually done wrong, or worse committed a crime they are themselves tarnishing the reputation of law enforcement.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating. We need to pay ALL law enforcement better. We need to train them better. We need to screen them better. We have too many cops out there who aren’t suited for the job, and they are getting the credit of the good guys who are coming to their defense when they do wrong.

If you have a impulse control, anger management problem, superiority complex or simply an axe to grind you shouldn’t be a police officer. Federal law enforcement screens for these types of things when they do backgrounds on their applicants. They actually talk to friends and family and even enemies of the applicant get a feel for who their applicants are. This isn’t done at hardly any other level of law enforcement. Its expensive. Additionally, its hard to get applicants who don’t have these issues when you pay $20,000 to $40,000 a year to start in a job where you put your life on the line.

When I was a police officer starting out, I paid my own way through academy (few departments in my state paid for it), I purchased my own weapon, duty gear and uniforms, and I started at $10 an hour. This wasn’t that uncommon in Missouri. A red state, who loves their guns, supports the troops and is supposed to be pro law enforcement doesn’t really back the badge financially.

There is so much that needs to be fixed with our criminal justice system, but a good start would be fixing our police departments. Abuse of authority needs to stop, killing when an officer’s life isn’t in danger needs to stop, and blind support of bad cops needs to stop.

There are so many issues here I don’t know where to begin. As a former police officer I am often the biggest critic as well as the biggest defender of Law Enforcement. I try not to comment on things unless I see things that I think need clarification for those who haven’t worked in Law Enforcement, or if I see a blatant injustice going on, whether to a law enforcement officer or by one.

This is a case where I simply want to offer some insight from my perspective as a basic city cop.

The biggest clarification I see that needs to be made is the issue of this agent having his gun on him. Police Officers as well as Federal Agents have the right and in some situations the obligation (by policy) to have their firearm on them at any or all times. While I think this would have been very irresponsible if he was drinking, and we do not yet know if he was, he had every right to be armed. If that is the problem anyone has with this, it is a moot point. If he was in anyway intoxicated not only was he irresponsible, he may have violated policy.

As a professional federal agent I am so disappointed to see this happen. Here is my review of his failures. 1) The holster which held his firearm had poor retention. As a police officer we had training in academy on holsters both on and off duty and what level of retention they should have and also to practice different scenarios with them. You want to be able to retrieve your gun quickly without problem, but you not only don’t want it to come out on it’s own, but you don’t want a bad guy to be able to take it out easily. Believe it or not, most holsters aren’t just lift and remove. There is a trick to pulling the weapon. This obviously wasn’t one of those type of holsters and is very poor judgement on his part. 2) ANYONE who has had any firearms training knows the NUMBER 1 RULE: Don’t put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire and sure of your target. This agent picked up his gun and in the process not only put his finger on the trigger but fired it. Before you say it, NO this gun did not go off on it’s own upon impact. There is no firearm currently authorized by the Bureau for an agent to carry which hasn’t undergone accidental drop fire testing. 3) The worst thing of all that he did was after picking up the gun not only did he again not properly secure it. He raised his hands and walked away. Meanwhile, someone in the crowd not only had been hit, but allegedly was hit in a main artery in his leg and would have bled out if not for a Good Samaritan who placed a tourniquet on it. A responsible cop would have immediately secured the scene and checked for anyone with injuries and rendered aid.

This was obviously an accident, so I am unsure where the criminal charge comes in, but only time and facts will tell on that front. He has huge civil liability though because there was incredible negligence on his part. He will most likely lose his job either way.

Most cops who say they want to help people say something to the effect of wanting to help people by taking the “bad guys” off the street and putting them where they belong. They show nothing positive toward the “bad guys”. This is where I differ. I have adopted part of my philosophy from highway patrol lieutenant I know who taught me a lot about life. I think that there is only about one per-cent of the population that is truly bad. I think that people are inherently good. THAT is why I got in to the profession.

I think it is the job of law enforcement officers to find the law violators that are out there and help them just as much as they help the victims who have been victimized. Now granted, there are murderers and rapist that are beyond help and need something other than the help we can humanly give them, but for the rest I think it can be positive. Law enforcement officers should, upon making contact with someone who has violated the law, simply have a talk with them. For starters, they have to be treated as human beings if you wish to get them to confess to what it is that they have done. Many police officers go wrong here. Secondly you have to make them believe that you understand. The officer has to educate them on how the law works and what is going to happen. He should make the offender understand that even though they have done something wrong there is a path that can still be taken which can save his integrity. Once they confess, he should make them understand that now there are likely to be consequences that they must face, and facing them is what shows that they have accepted responsibility for the wrong they have done and shows others that they still have that integrity and can become productive members of society again.

There are no free rides. For everything there is a punishment, but in law enforcement it’s not about punishing, that is for the court. They are here to help those who have lost their integrity somewhere and help them realize that and to restore it by facing their accusers honestly in court and taking the punishment that is set forth.

I have caught a lot of criticism over the years for this belief, especially when I was a police officer. Many say it is not the job of the police officer to be a social worker and other things like that. I agree with that statement, however it is the job of every man to help is fellow man.

Another thing that really upsets me when it comes to law enforcement is the lack of respect for officers. I can honestly say I didn’t have a lot of problem getting respect when I was an officer, but when I hear others talking poorly of law enforcement officials it really upsets me. They are doing a job just like you do. They deserve to be respected. It isn’t personal when they have to stop you for something; they are doing what they are paid to do. Furthermore, they do it because they have a sense of duty and wish to protect you and everyone else in their community. They have a dangerous, underpaid, and difficult job at times. They aren’t out to get you. They are just enforcing what they have sworn to enforce. I could go on all day with examples, but that would be pointless. That badge is a symbol of trust, honor, and integrity. Respect it. I understand there are bad cops out there like there are slackers in any other profession, but that doesn’t make them all bad.

This little “essay” is something I typed up years ago to share with people. Since that time, there have been so many cases of police abuse which I will cover in another post, but I don’t believe in blindly supporting law enforcement. There have been recent cases of REALLY bad apples and there seems to be a real pattern. We need to figure out as a society what is going on and fix it. We need our police officers, but we also need to not allow those who are unfit to wear that badge.