Tucked into the foothills of Mount Rainier sits Pierce County's Tanwax Lake, a small resort and logging town. Its biggest problems, as reported by local residents, are duck and goose feces fouling the water and a family of pesky beavers that rebuilds its dam as volunteers clear it from the lake's outflow channel. But on December 21, the quiet community became known for something else: the murder of a sheriff's deputy and the wounding of another. The incident, combined with an astonishing spate of cop killings from Pittsburgh to Seattle, portends ominous changes in police behavior.
Deputy Kent Mundell Jr. and Sgt. Nick Hausner had responded to a domestic violence call. Once inside the home, they were shot by David E. Crable, a six-foot, 235-pound bully of a man who'd abused his daughter, brother, and mother. Hausner, first reported in critical condition, survived and was released from the hospital on Christmas Eve. His partner was not so lucky.
Forty-four, married, father of a 16-year-old daughter and a 10-year-old son, Walter Kent Mundell was removed from life support yesterday afternoon. He died at 5:04 p.m.
Though critically wounded, Mundell returned fire on that cold night, pumping several rounds into Crable, who was in the process of emptying his handgun into the bodies of the two cops. The suspect's 16-year-old daughter, Bryona, jumped her father, knocking him to the floor. She then helped her uncle drag Hausner out of range to shield him from further injury.
The deputies became the seventh and eighth Washington State cops shot in the line of duty since Halloween night.
Cops around here are wondering, who's next? They can be forgiven for believing a next armed attack is inevitable. But that's foolish and fatalistic thinking: Fearful, perpetually on-edge cops are a danger to themselves, and to others.
Still, unless we do something about these incidents they will inevitably trigger a shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality in certain cops.
There are many things society can do to reduce violence, in general, and to make the work of our police officers safer.
We can end the absurd drug war, responsible for thousands of deaths a year. We can redouble our efforts to end emotional and physical violence in the home, violence that teaches children that the way to resolve disagreements and grievances is with fists, knives or guns. We can keep transparently dangerous people like David Crable and Maurice Clemmons behind bars where they belong. We can insist that our cops treat people with respect, thereby reducing animosity toward law enforcement. And we can demand that our lawmakers marshal the courage to stand up to the shrill, coercive tactics of the NRA (its leaders and lobbyists, less so its wiser membership; see E.J. Dionne Jr.'s recent piece) every time sensible gun measures are mentioned.
There are steps individual cops and individual citizens can take, as well.
Our uniformed police officers can stop congregating in public places, heads buried in laptops; they can presume that people in DV cases are armed and primed to kill, and that in every other situation they encounter there might well be a gun present. I'm talking alertness here, a readiness to pat down suspects (like Crable) and to act decisively if threatened--not a state of paranoid, hyper-vigilance that leads to itchy trigger fingers.
What can citizens do to reduce the carnage? Well, we can join efforts to pressure our craven Congress into passing drug-law reform as well as restrictions on gun ownership; would someone please tell me what the hell's wrong, really, with licensing firearms and registering owners?
And we can put an end to our passivity, our victimhood. We can observe and report, or jump into the fray. A suspicious car prowling the neighborhood? Get a plate number and call the cops. Someone nosing around your neighbor's house--or its residents beating the snot out of their kids? Call the cops. A suicidal terrorist lighting a lap fire on an Airbus A330? Jump him, and save 290 lives.
Public safety requires public involvement. It demands an informed citizenry willing to articulate and enforce standards of acceptable police behavior, including officer safety practices and the use of lethal force. It also means support for our cops in the form of rigorous screening, adequate equipment and thorough, ongoing training, all of which costs money.
The alternative, given the number of police officers slain in 2009, is for some of our cops to become gun-shy, or trigger-happy, neither of which is likely to produce anything other than tragedy.
Follow Norm Stamper on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CopsSayLegalize
Legally, it's wrong to require registration in order to exercise a constitutional right. A free speech registration law, a preacher registration law, a requirement that citizens submit to registration in exchange for the right to buy books would never get off the ground (I hope) and I doubt you would support any of those measures. Legally, your proposed gun law is the same thing.
Practically, the biggest problem is that it doesn't do much good and yet imposes a great burden on gun owners. I'm from Illinois, Mr. Stamper, the land of the FOID card. In Illinois, residents must agree to be checked and registered in order to buy, sell, or even possess so much as a single round of ammunition, much less a firearm. You want registered owners, look no further. Illinois has got 'em.
Not one of the five states bordering Illinois registers gun owners. Not one requires anything like the FOID card. All of them allow citizens to carry loaded weapons for self-defense, and all but Wisconsin allow concealed carry. All of them allow citizens to own machine guns and sound suppressors that are flatly prohibited in Illinois. And not one of them can hold a candle to the rates of violent crime in any category, regardless of the weapon used, under which Illinois staggers. Illinois' FOID card simply does not work. It won't work any
Thanks for at least engaging in dialogue. That is more than we get from the two Josh's, Dennis, and Paul (all leading gun control proponents).
OK, so much for "sniper rifles". Moving on:
"And we can demand that our lawmakers marshal the courage to stand up to the shrill, coercive tactics of the NRA (its leaders and lobbyists, less so its wiser membership; see E.J. Dionne Jr.'s recent piece)"
Dionne's OpEd deals with the same Luntz/MAIG survey that we have pretty well trashed on several other threads here from the likes of Paul Helmke and others. Please take the opportunity to get acquainted with this survey, why it is flawed, and why it does not really say what MAIG, Brady, and VPC aver.
"every time sensible gun measures are mentioned."
Here we go again. "Sensible" means different things to different people. It is also a "poisoning the well" argument as it implies that if we do not agree to someone else's idea of "sensible", then we are obviously "not sensible". It, long with "common sense" and "reasonable" are catch phrases use to endear and make gun control measures more palatable while demonizing those who disagree.
Norm, thank you for taking an interest.
Several of the other HuffPo bloggers refuse to take any interest.
Rather than contributing to a dialogue, they engage in lies, blame, misdirection, and muddying of the waters from one blog to the next, rather than contributing viable solutions or discussion.
Thank you.
Aussies spoke of New South Wales as a British penal colony back in the 18th Century, and the country's legacy of violence. Yet their violent crime (armed robbery, homicide, sexual assault) rates are under 100 cases per 100,000 population. Ours? Trending downward, as readers have pointed out, but it's still four to five times greater than Australia's.
Many experts believe our crime rates are dropping not because of gun laws, at all, but because of huge increases in prison populations--which is problematic, for a variety of reasons, but plausible. That, and demographics.
I "cling" to my belief that we can reduce violence by (1) vigorously enforcing existing gun laws, and (2) adding some more, namely registration and licensing. Stop a gangbanger on a traffic violation, find a weapon? Respond to a DV call, spot an unregistered gun? The firearm's seized, someone goes to jail, gets charged with a serious crime. Preferably before he has a chance to kill. Foolproof? No, but it's great leverage in the battle against gun violence.
Chicago has registration and 5x the murder rate of the rest of the state.
It is ALL demographics.
BTW. Unless you're claiming that criminal tendencies are genetic, all those 18th century convicts are long dead.
I fully support enforcing existing gun laws and keeping violent criminals in jail.
But Australia's is trending upward. England's took pff like a rocket in '97, and didn't level off till '04. It remains at a much higher level than it was before the UK ban.
By the way, I spent the month of October in Australia which passed stringent gun control laws in 1996 (toughened in 2002). Gun ownership, already low, has dropped modestly. Much more dramatic are the reductions in gun-related homicides. Firearms were used in only 11 percent of all murders in 2007. Further, homicides in Australia now register at numbers lower--in the low hundreds for the entire country--than the yearly count for many a U.S. city.
Crable's sniper rifle? The news accounts didn't specify make and model but I'm guessing since the articles did single out his two 30.06 rifles and his .223 Bushmaster, that the sniper rifle was built for military purposes: exceptional range and destructive power. Maybe an M21 or M24? Perhaps even a an anti-armor 50 caliber, capable of hitting and destroying a hard target at 1500 - 2000 yards. You know, the kind drug cartels and terrorists have been known to use? With or without scopes or bipods.
You know you don't since you have to play the 'terrorist card'.
Firearm deaths in Aus were dropping for years before the ban and do not correlate w/ their various laws at all. Just like in NYC, Chicago and DC.
In those "economically disadvantaged" areas, ALL times of crime and violence are higher, no matter the 'gun control' laws in place.
Now you get to explain why, even though firearm laws in the US have been loosened over the past 15+ years, our crime rates are HALF of what they were during the heyday of gun control.
Can you?
"Gun-related homicide rates in poor neighborhoods are at least twice as great as those in middle- to upper-class communities."
Glad to hear you say it. Some of our antagonists don't seem to believe that most homicides take place in the inner city. We are sometimes accused of racism for mentioning it.
But Norm, how many of those gangbangers and drug dealers have legal firearms? Vitrually none. So, how would registration and licensing have the effect of lowering the homicide rate in the inner city, when everyone is toting illegal, stolen guns?
"By the way, I spent the month of October in Australia which passed stringent gun control laws in 1996 (toughened in 2002)."
Hopefully while you were there, you learned that their crime rate rose sharply after they banned guns. Robberies are up, sexual assaults are up, etc.. The same thing happened in the UK.
On top of what others have said:
1. It discriminates against the poor who don't have the luxury of extra time, money, and gasoline to make the numerous trips required register a gun and get licensed. To get my concealed carry license, it was $200 and 8 hours of time. And that doesn't include the cost of gasoline and ammo. As a single, childless, upper middle class male, that was fairly easy for me. But if I were a single mother, making barely above minimum wage at the average service job where my hours are dictated by the whims of my employer, it may not be so easy.
2. Unless licensing is on a shall-issue basis, it can serve as a tool to discriminate against minorities and those who aren't politically connected. Since in my state, concealed carry licenses are issued on a shall-issue basis, my race and lack of donations to my local sheriff were not a factor in whether I actually got my license. However, if I lived in a may-issue state like California, those factors could be used to deny my application for a license, among other arbitrary criteria such as "a demonstrable need".
I will Chief Stamper. Licensing and registration of firearms will be extremely expensive and provide little benefit in return. One need only look at Canada for guidance. Canada's registration program has been a billion dollar boondoogle with little benefit associated with same.
In order for any such plan to provide any benefit, there must be substantial compliance. The non-compliance ratio in Canada is around 60%. Similar plans in California produced non-compliance ratios of about 70%.. The estimate for a nationwide plan results in a non compliance ratio of 80%.
Quite simply, the costs of such programs do no justify the limited benefits to be derived. In fact the only benefit articulated by the police in Canada is that when they respond to a domestic disturbance call, they will know if the household has a registered firearm and can prepare accordingly... however, because they do not know if the household has an unregistered firearm, they still need to prepare as if the household had a firearms.... so there you go.
Except for the fact that the licensing is arbitrary to the various interviews and authorities you have to submit to. Most CCW permits are issued on a 'shall issue' basis w/o regards to the beliefs of the local Chief.
Let's hear it Norm.
Well first of all, prohibited persons are not required to get licensed or register their firearms as that would be a violation of their 5th amendment rights.
You could also ask the people of Wash DC and Chicago who were asked to 'register' their handguns for 'safety' and then those registration offices were closed. Defacto ban.
You could also ask the people of CA who registered their 'assault weapons' and then had the definitions and dates changed leading to confiscations.
Those were all 'sensible' gun laws that were passed. Is that what you're talking about?
As a retired police chief, you obviously rose through the ranks in order to reach that position.
I have 2 very simple questions.
1. How many crimes did you prevent from occuring?
2. How many crimes did you show up after the fact?
Something most gun owners have decided long ago. We realize that the first line of defense is US. Cops show up AFTER a crime has been committed in order to take notes.
Would it surprise you to learn that the town I live doesn't even have a police department?
Norm,
Even though the number of us being shot and kil.led increased slight from last year (18 %, not the 23 or 24% claimed by some), our per capita risk only increased about 1/1000th of a percent. Also bear in mind that despite the increase in 2009, we are still lower than the annual average. 2008 was the lowest year in decades.
Criteria for owner licensing in New York are similar to other jurisidictions' standards on concealed weapons permits: good moral character, no serious criminal record (can include high-level misdemeanors, not just felony convictions in NY), no history of mental illness, no DV convictions.
New York City is poised to set a record for the lowest number of homicides in its history (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/nyregion/29murder.html). As of last Sunday, there'd been only 461 murders (compared with 2,245 in the peak year of 1990). Commissioner Ray Kelly attributes this stunning reduction to tough gun laws, and tough enforcement of them.
Licensing and registration can be made to work, without abridging the rights of law-abiding gun collectors, target shooters, and those interested in protecting their homes or businesses.
Please define a "sniper rifle".
"Had this happened in New York--and Crable had not been licensed, his firearms registered (both long guns and handguns in NYC, handguns only in the rest of the state)--the guns would have been seized and the gun violations added to the charge. "
Not for the long guns like the "sniper rifle" and AK clone you mentioned.
"Commissioner Ray Kelly attributes this stunning reduction to tough gun laws,"
What gun laws are new in NY since 1990?
"Licensing and registration can be made to work, without abridging the rights of law-abiding gun collectors, target shooters, and those interested in protecting their homes or businesses."
They can. They are far more likely to be misused though. And licensing of a right renders it a privilege, not a right.
How Norm? Using NY, NJ or the Chicago model is out because they are arbitrary and discriminatory the chance of getting permission for a carry permit in NYC is nil unless you are connected to the power structure as evidenced by Madhoff's kid and various Goldman Sachs execs getting permits. Is that what you mean by works? Or do you mean can be made to work as Minnesota's carry permit does with it being shall issue within 30 days and if not notified of disqualification by the sheriff within that time frame the permit is assumed to be granted.
How do you license and register a civil right without abridging it pray tell? Once licensed it's pretty much becomes a privilege and not a right.
However, you are using these shootings to push for additional gun laws that would not have prevented them, like licensing and registration. Nor would they have prevented the murder of the 4 officers in Tacoma, since the repeat, violent criminal and child rapist who shot them obtained his gun illegally.
Do you know that the Supreme Court exempts criminals from registering their illegal guns, on the grounds that it would be a violation of their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination?
Agreed, but you should have stopped there.
"And we can demand that our lawmakers marshal the courage to stand up to the shrill, coercive tactics of the NRA (its leaders and lobbyists, less so its wiser membership; see E.J. Dionne Jr.'s recent piece) every time sensible gun measures are mentioned."
What "sensible gun measures" would have prevented this shooting? Licensing (not that a license SHOULD be required to exercise a constitutionallly guaranteed right) wouldn't have done it. Registration would not have done it either.
What's wrong with registration, is that the only purpose it serves is to let the government know who lawfully has guns, when they want to confiscate them, as has happened already in New Orleans.