Boelhert says NO NEW GUN LAWS NEEDED but Conceal and Carry SHOULD NOT BE RELAXED because of Sniper

LWV DEBATE TONIGHT | 10/22/2002 | TLBSHOW

[TLBSHOW]

Tonight at Suco State College of New York the LWV put on a debate between those running for New York State 24th Congressional district. Republican Congressman Sherwood Boehlert and Conervative David Walrath and demorat 3rd party whatever Mark Dunan

I asked the question, Should Gun Laws be relaxed for Conceal and Carry because of the Sniper attacks? Making it easier for citizens to respond to the threat of the sniper or what ever else we should happen to walk into because of the terrorist threat.

"NO", said Boelhert, Instead he calls for making gun laws we already have much more effective. Does not see the need for new laws. We need to make sure our Police have all the backing they can get against the criminals.

While the conservative candidate and Second Amendment supporter says no new gun laws would stop the sniper and of course supports guns for Americans.

The demorat 3rd party man said he dreams of the day when trigger locks are handed out at all Police Stations. We do not go to war with iraq and Bush is bad and so is the stock market.

[Helms]

Once again for the hearing and otherwise existentially challenged- THIS IS MIDEASTERN TERRORISM- the recent news about children at risk and especially BODY BAGS are totally consistent with this theory. Further body bags is a term the regimes in the ME love to use as a reminder of our Vietnam experience. This is a term of WAR, not psychosis. As to the $ issue, a diversion, althougth we all know that they may be running low on cash and need adequate funding ( ask the UN about that when it comes to Palestinian terror).

By the way, the media are giving this all the exposure of an Al Queda Cell at work. My bet is that these are some buddies of the earlier bombers of the TTT. After all, was there not alot of target practise arond Lakawanaand was not George Tennet very nervous lately.

Think for yourselves as the Government and local enforcement have no current interest in fessing up to it directly.

[Flint]

There is a law in some states, I don't know if it is also available at the Federal level. The law allows the Governor or some such to declaire a particular person an "Outlaw", not exactly sure of the term here, and when that person is declaired such, anyone can wack him with no fear of prosocution. That person becomes a free fire zone. Is this an option in Maryland and Virginia? Has it been done?

Think about this. You are a conceal carry person. The sniper is hiding in the bushes near you. He shoots someone. He picks up his gear and heads off to get in his van. You wack him. You then get arested for shooting the SOB because he was no longer a threat to you or anyone else. In NC you cannot shoot a person who is not directly involved in causing harm to you or another person. The killer is traveling away from you and not pointing his firearm at you or anyone else. He simply can walk off and go on his merry way. There is no such thing as citizens arrest in NC. If you wack him, you have commited murder.

[CAfraudPI]

If someone does see this POS, maybe they can punch some holes in his vehicle thereby making the vehicle easier to ID.

[templar]

Apparently linear logic escapes you. what moron is going to enter a store to rob it when every single employee is openly carrying a sidearm? By extention, if virtually every citizen in an area is openly carrying a sidearm what thoughts are going to run thru the mind of a lurking shootist?

Apparntly logic in general escapes you. An armed robber is looking for easy money without risking his life. Trying to equate the motives and reasoning of a 2 bit armed robber to that of a cold blooded sniper (who may actually like the challenge) is not only outside of logic, it is ridiculous.

You cannot extend the supposed logical reasoning of one circumstance to apply to an entirely different and unrelated circumstance. Remember that an armed policeman present served as absolutely no deterrent on at least one occasion.

[templar]

If someone does see this POS, maybe they can punch some holes in his vehicle thereby making the vehicle easier to ID.

Maybe, or maybe through the shooter as well. If someone is close enough to punch holes with a handgun they are close enough to get an accurate description of the shooter and the vehicle, whether they are armed or unarmed. I'm beginning to think that this shooter may not be using a vehicle at all. Maybe he just sits around and waits till a vehicle is ready to leave the general vicinity and then shoots, using the leaving vehicle to as diversiion throw off people observing him walking away (or being part of the crowd around the victim).

[templar]

A person who carries a gun willingly has a better chance of making an effort to find out where the shots came from much more so than the people who are wondering if they are the next victim.

A person who carries a gun willingly is wondering if they will be the next victim. That is why they are carrying the gun in the first place.

If you were the dog walker at the school carrying concealed when the thirteen year old was shot, would you have tried to identify the killer?

Well, I hope I would. But I carried a gun in Viet Nam and always took cover as a first reaction to being shot at. I don't ever recall that having a gun led me to identify the source of fire as a first reaction. For that matter, neither I nor anyone I was around ever went charging after the enemy shooting at us till we had figured out where he was and how we were going to go about it. This is a sniper, and he is gone before this will happen with civilians, no matter how well armed they are.

[inquest]

Maybe he just sits around and waits till a vehicle is ready to leave the general vicinity and then shoots, using the leaving vehicle to as diversion....

He'd have to know exactly when that vehicle's going to depart. Not an easy thing to judge.

[templar]

The law allows the Governor or some such to declaire a particular person an "Outlaw",

Wanted Dead or Alive. I don't think there have been any orders like this in a long time. It would be most certainly blocked by the ACLU or something similar on grounds that it convicts and sentences without trial.

In NC you cannot shoot a person who is not directly involved in causing harm to you or another person. The killer is traveling away from you and not pointing his firearm at you or anyone else. He simply can walk off and go on his merry way.

I don't think it would be that way in this case. By his own actions, he has demonstrated that while walking away he is just in between shots. Thus, he still presents a clear and present danger to others.

[templar]

He'd have to know exactly when that vehicle's going to depart. Not an easy thing to judge.

That's true. This is not a common man. Maybe he just picks out the vehicle he wants to be seen leaving and then waits till the driver starts the engine and aims. He fires when it is just starting to move. People hearing the shot wouldn't have seen the vehicle moving till they looked around and made an association after the fact.

In any event, it's just speculation ... a way of dealing with the situation without feeling totally powerless, I suppose.

[inquest]

Instead he calls for making gun laws we already have much more effective.

Shill. Just declared himself such. Any true supporters of the second amendment would be against all gun laws, "effective" or otherwise. Arguments like his play right into the hands of gun-grabbers. After all, if the laws on the books can be "effective" at reducing crime, then more laws should be more effective. No conservative should waste his vote on this joker.

Picture yourself voting for a candidate who says, "We don't need more restrictions on free speech, we just need to make sure the ones we have are more effective."

[inquest]

It's a-possible.

[Shooter 2.5]

This is not an enemy soldier with troops behind him, air support, claymores, machine gun implacements, and mortars. This is a single guy who killed a thirteen year old child and walked away. This is not Viet Nam.

This is still a person who has to hide his rifle if he has one, walk to some sort of transportation with all weapons concealed and drive away. At that point he is vulnerable whether by an armed citizen stopping him, a person in a vehicle blocking his vehicle or by an armed person who can get within 25 yards to make a valid undeniable description on the killer or his vehicle.

No unarmed citizen at this point has tried to approach the killer after he fired his single shot.

[AnAmericanMother]

I should think the best chance for an identification here would be a citizen walking up from behind this guy at or immediately after the shot. I assume he feels that he's adequately concealed from the rear or sides, probably in a wooded area, but folks have walked up on armed robbers &c. before and surprised them.

If somebody did, I'm sure he would like to have concealed carry so as to have the option available (and hope that the shooter has a bolt action rifle, then you've well and truly got the drop on him.)

[templar]

No unarmed citizen at this point has tried to approach the killer after he fired his single shot.

Neither has an armed policeman who was present.

Civilians aren't soldiers either, and can't be expected to exhibit the heroism of charging in the direction they perceive the shot to come from in order to catch the perp. Even if they are armed. They haven't done this yet, and I doubt they will.

BTW, are you speculating from the standpoint of having been shot at or just speculating? It doesn't reflect on you either way (very few people have been shot at), I'm just curious.

[Shooter 2.5]

The only policeman that was present never heard the shot. He was completely unaware that something had happened. This was the officer at the gas station. If you know of any officer who heard the shot and saw a victim fall, let me know which incident it was.

You're asumming that all of the witnesses somehow have to be downrange of this killer. There have been numerous people who have been in the area and to them the shot was loud. I don't expect anyone to try to investigate a shot and be unarmed.

I have had numerous loaded guns pointed at me. I also have had shots fired passed me and near me. I have a very good perception where a shot comes from, how far away and the approximate caliber.

I do not expect someone to go charging up to a killer like he was going up San Juan Hill.

[nygoose]

What's your point? People have the right to protect themselves against any threat, real or percieved. It's not for the state to determine what a threat is.

[templar]

What's your point? People have the right to protect themselves against any threat, real or percieved. It's not for the state to determine what a threat is.

Please go back to post 5 and read the string of comments. If you still don't get the point, let me state it again. There is no weapon available to you that you can carry with you down the street, legally or illegally, that can protect you from a sniper whom you don't know is there, can't see, and whose shot you will never even hear before your are dead. For that matter, what good would it be to be walking down a crowded street with you fancy new sub machine gun(loaded, at the ready and with the safety off, of course) and have someone creep up behind you and lay a piece of pipe across your cranium? Or maybe an ice pick in the base of your skull? (BTW the ice pick was the number one murder weapon the year they decided to restrict machine guns).

I fully believe in personal cary (concealed or otherwise), but have no illusions that this would be of any use against the sniper. IMHO, people who are calling for CCW to counter this are just as guilty of feel goodism as the liberals calling for more gun control. It might make you feel like you're doing something, but it won't work, wouldn't have prevented any of the killings so far, and won't prevent similar situations in the future.

Oh, and BTW, people don't have the right to protect themselves from perceived threats, only real ones. Protecting from perceived threats could get you in prison, maybe for life or even the death penalty.

[templar]

You're asumming that all of the witnesses somehow have to be downrange of this killer. There have been numerous people who have been in the area and to them the shot was loud. I don't expect anyone to try to investigate a shot and be unarmed.

You know, you're right about that assumption. I'll try to rid my opinions of it. Anyone armed trying to investigate the shot should expect to be mistaken for the gunman and be killed. Just think about it, and imagine a plain clothes cop coming to the scene where he heard the shot and finding someone armed prowling aroung and acting stealthily. Or maybe some other armed civilian Rambo wannabe comes on that same scene. IMO, no good would come of it.

[Stat-boy]

"I fully believe in personal cary (concealed or otherwise), but have no illusions that this would be of any use against the sniper. IMHO, people who are calling for CCW to counter this are just as guilty of feel goodism as the liberals calling for more gun control. It might make you feel like you're doing something, but it won't work, wouldn't have prevented any of the killings so far, and won't prevent similar situations in the future."

I agree with you; however, I think for this question and for just about everyting else to do with terrorism, we should look look to Israel for examples of policy. The following is an article written by John R Lott, Jr. It appeared in the USA Today on June 16, 2002:

Armed citizens can defuse terrorist threat

By John R. Lott Jr.

Armed private citizens in some heavily Jewish areas of Brooklyn, N.Y., started patrolling their neighborhoods this past weekend. Some carried baseball bats or cell phones. Others had concealed handguns or shotguns.
Why such unusual behavior?

Many Brooklyn Jews were alarmed by a CBS 60 Minutes report on June 2 that the terrorists who targeted the World Trade Center in 1993 first planned to blow up Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn. The terrorists apparently switched to the trade center only because they believed that most of its occupants were Jewish. A terrorist interviewed by CBS gave the impression that Brooklyn Jews were still a prime target.
Rabbi Yakove Lloyd, founder of the Jewish Defense Group, which helped organize the armed patrols, says they "will be a very effective deterrent against terrorism directed at American Jews and other targets." But to many Americans, such behavior is more frightening than the threat of terrorism.
The FBI conducted almost 470,000 more background checks for gun purchases during the six months after Sept. 11 than during the same six-month period a year earlier. These new gun owners, claim columnists such as Nicholas Kristof at The New York Times, were not only useless in stopping terrorism, but probably would cause more deaths with their guns.

Lessons from Israel
These Brooklyn Jews can point to Israel to counter such criticism. Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisky has repeatedly called on all concealed-handgun-permit holders to carry firearms at all times. In March, Israeli police announced they wanted to increase the number of Israelis carrying handguns by 60,000.

"There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them while they were in progress," Aharonisky says.

Examples this year:
- A woman shot a terrorist twice in the head before he could set off a bomb in a supermarket.
- A man at a disco shot to death a Palestinian who had started firing a machine gun.
- A private security guard saved hundreds by shooting a terrorist before he could drive his car bomb into a disco.
- A grocer fatally shot a terrorist armed with grenades, "explosive devices" and a machine gun.

Police won't step up protection
Some New York City Jews, concerned about civilians running around with guns, are not supporting the patrols. Their reaction would be more understandable if the police were willing to provide additional protection. But despite concerns voiced by Lloyd and local politicians that there is not adequate protection, the police have not publicly offered more help. Instead, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said last week that police would not tolerate people "brandishing weapons under the guise of protecting others" and that "anyone attempting to patrol the streets armed with a weapon" would be arrested.
The biggest practical problem with the patrols is that they will not operate on Saturdays, the Sabbath. Except in emergencies, Orthodox Jews are banned from even touching guns on holidays and the Sabbath. But everyone recognizes that synagogues could be targets of terror attacks. The unfortunate irony is that to the extent that the armed patrols deter attacks on other days, being disarmed during the Sabbath actually encourages attacks to take place then.

Recognizing this problem, Israel's rabbis this year agreed to allow some armed worshipers in synagogues there during Passover and on the Sabbath.

Given New York City's stringent gun-ownership rules, those who carry guns during the patrols are surely among the most law-abiding citizens. It takes six months or more to get a gun; so they hardly ran out and bought one right after 60 Minutes. Those who have a permit to carry a concealed handgun have had extensive police scrutiny. And despite Kelly's warning, it is lawful for city gun owners to carry their unloaded shotguns in enclosed cases.

City police seem more concerned about monitoring law-abiding citizens than in protecting them. If the Second Amendment means anything, surely it applies in such a case as this.
John R. Lott Jr., an American Enterprise Institute resident scholar, wrote More Guns, Less Crime.

[TLBSHOW]

Sherwood Boehlert is calling Conservative David Walrath a liar. Walrath said Sherry votes with the rats most of the time while Sherry says its only 20% of the time.