I wrote the following statement in response to article in the link.
http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090511/NEWS/905110328
Mr. York, I believe its time you retire. Or quit. Or step down. Whatever it is you choose to do. But I would like you to leave. Every time I hear or read something from your mouth is seems to prove you have an elitist or uneducated view of something. Most recently I read your comments The News Sentinel's May 11, 2009 article “Semiautomatic rifles a 'hazard'; seizures are up”. This article first and for most was lacking in factual evidence, any real investigation about guns, a biased opinion stating guns were bad, and bad logic.
First off here are some statements that caught my eye as being opinionated and incorrect. The first paragraph, “ They can kill from more than four football fields away, shred police officer's vest, fire up to 75 bullets at a time-and they're increasingly showing up in criminals, hands, -Evan Goodenow”
this paragraph insinuates that the only thing you can do with a gun is kill people, that the vest worn by police officers were ever designed to stop a rifle round and are impenetrable by pistol rounds, knives, or anything else for that matter. It also leads me to believe that there is a gun available that can discharge 75 rounds with one trigger squeeze. This doesn't exist, perhaps he ment to say 75 rounds without reloading? Either way it frames guns in a poor light and is poor reporting. You , Mr. York, should never have gotten involved with this article.
Next, any mildly educated gun enthusiast can tell you that 90 round drums, 100 round C-mags , and belts that can feed as many rounds as you can acquire and link together, are readily available for private sale in this country. This is not a problem. The reason this is not a problem is simply these items by themselves are useless. They cannot go off on there own and start shooting people. They require the help of people, to load, aim, and fire them. This article also suggests, through ATF firearms trace data, that every time a cop finds a gun and does a trace it is a stolen gun, I myself have had a firearm traced by the Indiana State police and returned without question, the officer just assumed a young man with a gun had to be involved in crime, or had acquired the gun through unsavory means.
The vest worn by police officers are designed to help stop injury, and many kitchen knives can penetrate these vest, the 7.62x25mm round, fired from any of several guns, using cheap surplus ammo can penetrate these vests. Not only rifle rounds, and not only from a semi automatic gun. Are you afraid of the Thompson center encore, or contender series of pistols that are a single shot. Are used by bullseye league shooters, because of their accuracy? And can be chambered in rounds like .30-06 or .308 winchester, either of which can penetrate a bullet proof vest?
This article also contains quotes from Paul Helmke, another man that has a history of using bad facts, figures, and misleading rhetoric to make guns sound bad. “ anyone can go in and buy an unlimited number, so we're starting to see a lot more used. They fire so many rounds so quickly. You can get close to 50 rounds off in 30 seconds... Do we really want to make it easier to kill people?” Here again this article uses opinion stated as fact to make guns look evil. Mr. Helmke states in the next article that , which is a spotlight feature on him, “that he went to D.C., where nobody listens to me anymore.” maybe people would listen if he used sound arguments, good logic, and if the campaign he leads had any type of sound evidence for there requests, look at there website, the states that receive the highest rating for having “good” gun control. Also share the highest crime rates in the union. But Mr. Helmke anyone cannot go in an buy an unlimited number of guns, you can only buy 3 per 4473 form. Any anyone that has ever filled out this form understands that not everyone gets to buy a gun. That the people that are buying guns may not be the most respectable or the most responsible, but if they buy a gun, its because they were approved, generally on the basis that they have no criminal record, and have done nothing wrong. Basically they were considered innocent, until proven guilty, maybe your familiar with the concept? These people buy guns , may go and hurt people, commit crimes, kill someone, or intimidate people into cooperation, however, most gun owners are not, and they shouldn't be lumped in with criminals until they do something to warrant it, not buy an inanimate object.
Mr. York the gun ban you mention was shown pretty conclusively to have no effect on crime. May I suggest you look into the Kates-Mauser study. I think its time you understand a few things, one you are a police officer, and as such you are a public servant, you chose to dedicate your life protecting the population of Fort Wayne and as such put your life, just as every other law enforcement officer does, in jeopardy every day. This does not mean you are our better, you are somehow all knowing and there for above us ordinary citizens, it means you took a job which requires you to risk your life.
It doesn't mean that you deserve to have a gun and we don't. I could list off many officers throughout this state that are some of the best people I have ever meet, but not because of there badge, its because of who they are and how they conduct themselves.
Mr. York you are quoted with saying, “Its a weapon of war, not of sport.” I want to remind you that the second amendment is about leaving the population the ability to defend there rights and essential liberties. And it has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or sport. I also would like to ask, Why is okay for you and your officers to have semiautomatic pistols on there hip, shotguns in there car, and often times semiautomatic M4 styled carbines in there car. But it isn't okay for us to even posses them?
Mr. York it seems to me that as the police chief of Fort Wayne, IN. You believe that you are superior to the population, that somehow your status as a police officer means that you are a good person and there fore should be allowed weapons, but us ordinary citizens, us everyday folk should be unarmed, and therefore at the mercy of the criminal element or your own police force? This sounds very authoritarian and very dangerous thinking to me.
I will leave you with some points to ponder as you hopefully tender your resignation or rethink your outlook on firearms and the people you serve.
The average police response time is over four minutes, so providing you can get to the phone and make a call if someone breaks into your house wishing you harm, you ONLY have to survive four minutes till the cops get there.
I carry a handgun for self defense and to protect my property because the police aren't always there to protect me, have been told by the supreme court of this country that their job is to protect the general well being of the public and not the individual citizen. So I carry a gun because I may need it to protect myself, not to cause harm of to be used in a crime. I generally carry a glock, loaded with Speer gold dot ammunition because that is what the police ten to carry, on or off duty. Books can be written on why this is a good idea but to put it simply if the police are carrying it I would surmise it is effective.
Every day cars are stolen, people are killed, raped, and houses burglarized, and the police generally get there in time to fill out a report. Very rarely are they able to prevent a crime. I don't blame police for this I blame criminals, the police can't be everywhere at once, all a criminal has to do is be where the police aren't, I have guns to protect me, my family, and my belongings when the police aren't there.
My name is Jeremiah Forbes, I am 22, a college graduate, a journeymen boilermaker, and an all around responsible citizen. Mr. York , please tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to protect myself?
http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090511/NEWS/905110328
Mr. York, I believe its time you retire. Or quit. Or step down. Whatever it is you choose to do. But I would like you to leave. Every time I hear or read something from your mouth is seems to prove you have an elitist or uneducated view of something. Most recently I read your comments The News Sentinel's May 11, 2009 article “Semiautomatic rifles a 'hazard'; seizures are up”. This article first and for most was lacking in factual evidence, any real investigation about guns, a biased opinion stating guns were bad, and bad logic.
First off here are some statements that caught my eye as being opinionated and incorrect. The first paragraph, “ They can kill from more than four football fields away, shred police officer's vest, fire up to 75 bullets at a time-and they're increasingly showing up in criminals, hands, -Evan Goodenow”
this paragraph insinuates that the only thing you can do with a gun is kill people, that the vest worn by police officers were ever designed to stop a rifle round and are impenetrable by pistol rounds, knives, or anything else for that matter. It also leads me to believe that there is a gun available that can discharge 75 rounds with one trigger squeeze. This doesn't exist, perhaps he ment to say 75 rounds without reloading? Either way it frames guns in a poor light and is poor reporting. You , Mr. York, should never have gotten involved with this article.
Next, any mildly educated gun enthusiast can tell you that 90 round drums, 100 round C-mags , and belts that can feed as many rounds as you can acquire and link together, are readily available for private sale in this country. This is not a problem. The reason this is not a problem is simply these items by themselves are useless. They cannot go off on there own and start shooting people. They require the help of people, to load, aim, and fire them. This article also suggests, through ATF firearms trace data, that every time a cop finds a gun and does a trace it is a stolen gun, I myself have had a firearm traced by the Indiana State police and returned without question, the officer just assumed a young man with a gun had to be involved in crime, or had acquired the gun through unsavory means.
The vest worn by police officers are designed to help stop injury, and many kitchen knives can penetrate these vest, the 7.62x25mm round, fired from any of several guns, using cheap surplus ammo can penetrate these vests. Not only rifle rounds, and not only from a semi automatic gun. Are you afraid of the Thompson center encore, or contender series of pistols that are a single shot. Are used by bullseye league shooters, because of their accuracy? And can be chambered in rounds like .30-06 or .308 winchester, either of which can penetrate a bullet proof vest?
This article also contains quotes from Paul Helmke, another man that has a history of using bad facts, figures, and misleading rhetoric to make guns sound bad. “ anyone can go in and buy an unlimited number, so we're starting to see a lot more used. They fire so many rounds so quickly. You can get close to 50 rounds off in 30 seconds... Do we really want to make it easier to kill people?” Here again this article uses opinion stated as fact to make guns look evil. Mr. Helmke states in the next article that , which is a spotlight feature on him, “that he went to D.C., where nobody listens to me anymore.” maybe people would listen if he used sound arguments, good logic, and if the campaign he leads had any type of sound evidence for there requests, look at there website, the states that receive the highest rating for having “good” gun control. Also share the highest crime rates in the union. But Mr. Helmke anyone cannot go in an buy an unlimited number of guns, you can only buy 3 per 4473 form. Any anyone that has ever filled out this form understands that not everyone gets to buy a gun. That the people that are buying guns may not be the most respectable or the most responsible, but if they buy a gun, its because they were approved, generally on the basis that they have no criminal record, and have done nothing wrong. Basically they were considered innocent, until proven guilty, maybe your familiar with the concept? These people buy guns , may go and hurt people, commit crimes, kill someone, or intimidate people into cooperation, however, most gun owners are not, and they shouldn't be lumped in with criminals until they do something to warrant it, not buy an inanimate object.
Mr. York the gun ban you mention was shown pretty conclusively to have no effect on crime. May I suggest you look into the Kates-Mauser study. I think its time you understand a few things, one you are a police officer, and as such you are a public servant, you chose to dedicate your life protecting the population of Fort Wayne and as such put your life, just as every other law enforcement officer does, in jeopardy every day. This does not mean you are our better, you are somehow all knowing and there for above us ordinary citizens, it means you took a job which requires you to risk your life.
It doesn't mean that you deserve to have a gun and we don't. I could list off many officers throughout this state that are some of the best people I have ever meet, but not because of there badge, its because of who they are and how they conduct themselves.
Mr. York you are quoted with saying, “Its a weapon of war, not of sport.” I want to remind you that the second amendment is about leaving the population the ability to defend there rights and essential liberties. And it has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or sport. I also would like to ask, Why is okay for you and your officers to have semiautomatic pistols on there hip, shotguns in there car, and often times semiautomatic M4 styled carbines in there car. But it isn't okay for us to even posses them?
Mr. York it seems to me that as the police chief of Fort Wayne, IN. You believe that you are superior to the population, that somehow your status as a police officer means that you are a good person and there fore should be allowed weapons, but us ordinary citizens, us everyday folk should be unarmed, and therefore at the mercy of the criminal element or your own police force? This sounds very authoritarian and very dangerous thinking to me.
I will leave you with some points to ponder as you hopefully tender your resignation or rethink your outlook on firearms and the people you serve.
The average police response time is over four minutes, so providing you can get to the phone and make a call if someone breaks into your house wishing you harm, you ONLY have to survive four minutes till the cops get there.
I carry a handgun for self defense and to protect my property because the police aren't always there to protect me, have been told by the supreme court of this country that their job is to protect the general well being of the public and not the individual citizen. So I carry a gun because I may need it to protect myself, not to cause harm of to be used in a crime. I generally carry a glock, loaded with Speer gold dot ammunition because that is what the police ten to carry, on or off duty. Books can be written on why this is a good idea but to put it simply if the police are carrying it I would surmise it is effective.
Every day cars are stolen, people are killed, raped, and houses burglarized, and the police generally get there in time to fill out a report. Very rarely are they able to prevent a crime. I don't blame police for this I blame criminals, the police can't be everywhere at once, all a criminal has to do is be where the police aren't, I have guns to protect me, my family, and my belongings when the police aren't there.
My name is Jeremiah Forbes, I am 22, a college graduate, a journeymen boilermaker, and an all around responsible citizen. Mr. York , please tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to protect myself?
