It has always been said that only a very small percentage of the population are the one's who commit most of the crimes.
However,
If you talk to police officers, they will tell you they rarely ever arrest a first time offender.
Accordingly, if the police rarely ever arrest a first-time offender, then the vast majority of police arrests would have to be repeat offenders.
These mass shooting are almost always by teens or young adults that are "born" mentally ill and the parents, teachers, leaders in the community try over and over again to tell the judges and mental institutions they have a problem with the child and they are told nothing is done, or nothing can be done because of the law. Hence, instead of creating more gun restrictions, shouldn't there should be more restrictions on these "born" mentally ill patients, especially if the justice system and judges have been repeatedly warned by the parents, teachers, community leaders, etc.?
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory.
Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
- Sun Tzu
When you hear from 2nd Amendment supporters, "laws on the books are not being enforced", is this a tactical statement as opposed to a Big Picture "why" statement?
Next, while 2nd Amendment Supporters says the "laws on the books are not being enforced", does this aforementioned public 2nd Amendment Supporters' message really "communicate" the problem to the public, and narrow the discussion of the problem to the judges and the bail bonds companies?
On its face, "laws on the books are not being enforced" is sort of a vague public message about the criminal justice system, and reminds me of the vague messages some of the New Orleans Police leaders are saying to the public i.e. "criminals are constantly being let go by the system" and "juveniles and criminals go in one door and out the other, and are back onto the street in 3 hours."
This, as opposed to publicly saying that the problem with the criminal justice system are specifically the judges and bail bond companies as opposed to say the police, district attorneys and members of the community being a witness and testifying. If a criminal is convicted multiple times, than at least the police, district attorney and member of the community did do their jobs. But can the Judges of Criminal Court say the same?
Not totally sure, but don't be surprised the law limits the police in what they can say about judges, especially criticizing judges in public, e.g. the police must go to court and testify in front of judges on a daily basis for the arrests they make.
What good are background checks when the JUDGES keep letting repeat offenders out of jail? And this includes the bail bond companies that participate and PROFIT off of criminals making bond and being released from jail.
Even if there are intensive background checks before gun purchases, what good would these background checks be if the "repeat offender" is repeatedly being let out of jail and will eventually obtain a gun by other means like theft, black market, illegal sales, etc.?
The 2nd Amendment has been around since December 15, 1791, with the original Bill of Rights.
So the 2nd Amendment hasn't really been a problem for over 200 years, but only since recent shootings like say Columbine(1999)
and Reagan(1981) has it been even discussed with the aforementioned two shootings being mentally ill cases and others were warned well beforehand of mental illness.
Next, did all of these poor neighborhoods and ghettos have anywhere near all these gun shooting they have today versus before say the 1980s? No, they did not have all these gun shootings and the 2nd Amendment didn't change either during that time as well.
Are cops perfect? No. Are there always bad apples in any organization? Yes.
However, was police brutality really a problem before the 1990's?
Or perhaps the 1980's and earlier?
Wouldn't it be the type of criminal the police are encountering?
That is, the police are encountering far more criminals that have been in and out jail many, many times versus say 1st offenders or shoplifters?
And are police encountering far more criminals that are under the influence or alcohol, marijuana, drugs, etc. than say before the 1980's? And if the police are encountering repeat offenders that under the influence of a drug, wouldn't these criminals be far more difficult to communicate and deal with?
There are some police groups that also want more restrictions on guns, however, shouldn't it be asked, "What type of person is really pulling the trigger to these guns?" Is it almost always the type of criminal that has been in and out of jail multiple times with the bail bond companies profiting from the release of the career criminal?
Likewise, Does America have a Police Brutality problem? Or does it have a repeat offender problem?
How can government crime statistics say that violent crime is down for at least the last decade or so when the
(A) jails are overcrowded
(B) there is too much "police brutality",
(C) there is demand for gun control and
(D) there is a school to prison pipeline for Carrot-Fed juveniles?
And moreover, how can crime be down when personal and business security products are at all-time high in sales?
Seems like something doesn't add up at both a local and national level of crime reporting.
First, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark all have required military service. Norway has some sort of conscription as well.
So that right there addresses a lot in regards to gun control via Responsibility that is taught in the Military.
