Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: In wake of shootings, sheriff says gun laws can't stop killers

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Vancouver, Washington, USA

    Post imported post

    This article was a nice read today, we need more men like Chelan County Sheriff Mike Harum!

    WENATCHEE, Wash. (AP) - Maurice Clemmons, who gunned down four Lakewood police officers Nov. 29, was an evil man and no changes in gun laws are going to prevent murders like he committed.

    That is a conclusion that Chelan County Sheriff Mike Harum said he came to while serving on a panel of law enforcement officers looking into the shootings.

    He was appointed by Gov. Chris Gregoire to a panel that was asked to determine if changes in state laws might have prevented the murders, or if any changes could prevent similar murders in the future.

    "Our fear was that if a legislator has a knee-jerk reaction to this whole incident, he might come up with something that we would not be able to work with as a community," Harum said.


  2. #2
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA

    Post imported post

    Thank you for the good article Gary.

    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Window_Seat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Newark, California, USA

    Post imported post

    A very good article, but I hope that this legislator who screamed "ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN" was watching the panel's results, and I hope he is aware that it serves all of Law Enforcement & the families of the 4 Officers absolutely no justice when he pulls out a knee jerk reaction like that.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Poulsbo, Washington, USA

    Post imported post

    Being aware or knowing the results is hardly going to affect a legislator's decision these days. We've gone from a constitutional republic to a media-stabilized oligarchy :\

    I doubt an assault weapons ban will pass. If it does, there's no way in hell they're going to be able to take existing "assault weapons" from everyone, and I think they know that.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    , South Carolina, USA

    Post imported post

    His summarizations at the end of the article left me a little confused as to what he actually meant by them.

    Harum said the members of the review panel agreed with him that any changes in the system would not have prevented the killings.
    How many times have we heard that? Not many except on boards such as this. Every time there is someevent like this that gets publicity some ding-a-ling starts calling for a law to stop it from happening. For some reason the first 19 laws didn't stop John Hinkley so maybe we need 25. Just a great comment by the panel.

    He summarized other panel observations:

    - Since very few criminals engage in violent crime early on, all who go through the criminal justice system must be held accountable for minor violations.
    I am not sure what he means by this one other than possibly quit the wrist slaps for criminals until they kill someone. Maybe this is what he means.

    - The state should require mental health screenings before accepting prisoners from out of state for community custody.
    We don't want your insane criminals dumping sodon't be dumpingthem on us.

    - Police chiefs and sheriffs must have more discretion in denying concealed pistol licenses to mentally ill people.
    I know there are some that are going to have problems with this statement.

    - Legislation should be considered to hold those who knowingly provide firearms illegally more accountable for their actions.
    If you knowingly provide guns to criminals I have no problem with this.

  6. #6
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA

    Post imported post

    antispam540 wrote:
    I doubt an assault weapons ban will pass. If it does, there's no way in hell they're going to be able to take existing "assault weapons" from everyone, and I think they know that.
    Some will say "They'll get my so called assault weapon from me one piece at a time, bullets first".

    Hopefully it won't come to that. Bear in mind that there are a lot of politicians that like to grab headlines. It's free advertising for their perpetual campaign to get re-elected. While they are grabbing the free press time, why aren't more of us sending in their "Letters to the Editor" and e-mails to their representatives letting everyone know that WE, lawful owners of those dreaded "black rifles", aren't the cause of all the mayhem on the street. It's the criminals, many of them convicted felons that are back on the street due to bleeding heart types in the legislature who felt that they should be rehabilitated rather than recieve appropriate sentences for their crimes.

    FWIW, I believe that Maurice Clemmons first weapon to be used was not an assault rifle but a revolver. While he was also carrying a semi-automatic, it was not stated whether or not it was even used. Early reports mentioned the use of his revolver to kill at least the first three officers.

    Get rid of the criminal element that was once in custody and has returned to the street unrepentant and THEN killings will go down. Until then, as the Mayor in the movie Blazing Saddles said "we're just j*****g off".
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts