gun control

[MDS]

Yes, I did a search for just this forum and surprisingly, did not find a thread devoted to this. If I missed it, I apologize.

I grew up in Canada and moved to the U.S only 5 years ago, so my first trip to a gun shop was pretty shocking to say the least. I'm now a cop here and this is my feeling: I don't believe citizens should be better armed than those who are paid to protect them.

That being said, I am not a liberal by any means. Most of my politics lean to the right but this is one of the exceptions. Now I am not against private gun ownership, it's just the type of gun that is allowed. I got joked on nonstop by both classmates and instructors in my academy for being anti-gun, although I thought I made myself clear (I'm sure part of that was just trying to have fun with me).

I simply don't understand why anyone needs an assault rifle for 'home defense' when a pistol/shotgun will do just fine. Evoking the 2nd Amendment doesn't seem right, because when it was written, I'm sure the writer had muskets in mind and government was a real threat. Saying that it is what keeps this land free doesn't seem reasonable, because I come from a free land where we cannot own guns (nor can UK citizens, also free). Saying it is to keep the government 'at bay' doesn't seem reasonable either nor does it address my argument: the TYPE of weapon is my problem, not weapon ownership per se.

That being said, I absolutely agree that it is the person behind the weapon who kills, not the weapon itself. But...making weapons readily available and accessible is what drives up a death toll. Yes, its easy to kill someone with a kitchen knife or a hammer, but it's much easier to kill someone in the heat of passion by grabbing a gun and pulling the trigger. How many drive bys are successful by means of a hammer?

[Mitchell_in_CT]

I grew up in Canada and moved to the U.S only 5 years ago, so my first trip to a gun shop was pretty shocking to say the least. I'm now a cop here and this is my feeling: I don't believe citizens should be better armed than those who are paid to protect them.

The police are supposed to enforce the laws and protect public order, where is it written that you are obligated to "protect everyone"?

Warren v. District of Columbia, a federal case, specificaly says that the police are not obligated to protect everyone.

I simply don't understand why anyone needs an assault rifle for 'home defense' when a pistol/shotgun will do just fine.

Then you probably had your head up your arse during the firearms section, especialy the class on fighting in structures.

Furthermore, it is not for the police to feel comfortable in doing their jobs; it is for the citizens to be free from government interference in their lives, tolerating intervention only when expressly allowed by the Constitution of the United States and the State within which you work.

You say the type of weapon ownership is at issue, not ownership itself...

What use is a right to keep and bear ARMS if the arms are not sufficient for the task? The second amendment was not put in for hunting, it was put in as a clause to insure the government had a very heathy respect for the people's potential to eliminate it.

Your comfort level is not in any manner related to my rights. Your oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State in which you work is.

Are you now saying you are uncomfortable with with the oath you took, or that you were not fully informed when you took that oath?

[jdh]

The northern border is still open. You are free to go back to Canada where the laws are more in line with your opinion.

[MDS]

The police are supposed to enforce the laws and protect public order, where is it written that you are obligated to "protect everyone"?

Warren v. District of Columbia, a federal case, specificaly says that the police are not obligated to protect everyone.

If you'd be so kind as to fill me in on those specifics, I'd be grateful. As far as I am aware, I am indeed obligated to protect those who require it. Are you an LEO? Irregardless, what does this have to do with my complaint?

Then you probably had your head up your arse during the firearms section, especialy the class on fighting in structures.

Yes of course, every citizen simply by virtue of owning an assault rifle is bound to know how to fight inside a structure. How ridiculous.

Furthermore, it is not for the police to feel comfortable in doing their jobs; it is for the citizens to be free from government interference in their lives, tolerating intervention only when expressly allowed by the Constitution of the United States and the State within which you work.

You're right, how dare I ask for an increased chance of survival? Government interference? This sounds like far-right nut-talk that belongs in one of those 'survivalist' camps in the woods somewhere. How, exactly do you plan to use your assault rifle against the government? In what situation do you deem this right and proper?

You say the type of weapon ownership is at issue, not ownership itself...

Correct, Chico.

What use is a right to keep and bear ARMS if the arms are not sufficient for the task? The second amendment was not put in for hunting, it was put in as a clause to insure the government had a very heathy respect for the people's potential to eliminate it.

'Not sufficient'...for what task, exactly? Please, fill me in here.

Your comfort level is not in any manner related to my rights. Your oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State in which you work is.

Are you now saying you are uncomfortable with with the oath you took, or that you were not fully informed when you took that oath?

I'm not uncomfortable with the oath I took, nor do I claim to be uninformed. Your flip use of the word 'comfort' above displays near contempt for anything I've said and pretty much tossed any chance at civil conversation out the window I guess. If eliminating unnecessary firearms increases my chance of survival (and my teammates), I'm all for it.

[MDS]

The northern border is still open. You are free to go back to Canada where the laws are more in line with your opinion.

Wow. Fascinating point. Thanks for your useless input.

[LPI]

I don't believe citizens should be better armed than those who are paid to protect them.

Uh, last I checked, LEO's carried M4's, MP5's, etc., etc., and the military and National Guard are certainly better armed than the citizens. Check your facts!

I got joked on nonstop by both classmates and instructors in my academy for being anti-gun, although I thought I made myself clear (I'm sure part of that was just trying to have fun with me).

Yeah, you made yourself clear, that's the problem. Do you see a pattern yet?

Saying that it is what keeps this land free doesn't seem reasonable, because I come from a free land where we cannot own guns (nor can UK citizens, also free).

Those two countries enjoy their freedom thanks to the U.S. If we lose our freedom, they will certainly lose theirs. It is our second ammendment that preserves that freedom! Without the U.S., those two countries would have been speaking German, Russian, etc., etc., a long time ago. Get the picture?

You then say

the TYPE of weapon is my problem

, but then go on to say

it's much easier to kill someone in the heat of passion by grabbing a gun and pulling the trigger. How many drive bys are successful by means of a hammer?

You say the type of weapon is your problem, but what you describe for the most part is not at all with the use of a rifle (or assault weapon as you put it). Just come out and say it, YOU ARE AGAINST PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP.

[armoredman]

MDS, first, welcome to the US, hope you enjoy your stay here.
I am not street LE, but a correctional sergeant here in Free AZ. I have worked as a firearms instructor/rangemaster/range safety officer for two armored trucking agencies, an indoor range, outdoor range, and the US Navy.
The Second Amendment does not specify what "arms" are allowed at all. However, the Framers intent was to have a sufficient armed citizenry so as not to require a standing army. Reading the Federalist Papers will shed much light on that. Also remember that the cannon used in our Revolution were privately owned.
Understand, contrary to the assertion that the National Guard, (federally supplied, federal weapons, federal uniforms, sited on federal land, and able to be federalized at the stroke of a pen), is all of "the militia", the Dick Act of 1903 established the NG as the organized militia, and the rest of the citizenry as the unorganized militia. Just in case that entered into your thinking.
Now, let's turn the argument around. You believe that citizens having access to "better" weapons than you have issued is a threat to you.
Do you know how many people are killed by trigger fingers each year? Now compare how many die by vehicle accident, or deliberate act, even though vehicles are registered, licensed, insured, and drivers licensed and tested at regular intervals? Hmm, ban SUVs.
Nobody needs an "assault rifle"? OK, definition time. A true "assault rifle" is select fire, i.e., capable of full and semi automatic fire, and those weapons have been strictly controlled since 1934. Interestingly enough, the ONLY time a NFA registered weapon was used in a crime, it was a LEO doing it. OOps.
A semi automatic rifle that has a military appearance may be "scary looking", but is NOT an assault rifle.
FBI uniform Crime Stats from 1994, right before the ban, stated a citizen was 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than killed by an "assault rifle". Real danger there. Ban fists. When the ban was lifted, the FBI stats of 2004 showed crime DECREASED 1.7% and murders went down 3.6%The same stats from a year prior to the ban showed that all weapons mischaracterized as "assault weapons" were used in less than 1% of all homicides.
Sounds like that's a non-issue.
So, are you just scared of someone having a rifle you don't like the looks of? Realize something VERY important. "Assault rifles" are a medium power cartridge, a "split the differance" round, between pistol and true rifle calibers. A typical hunting rifle can shoot farther, straighter, and punch through a lot more.
I hope that answers some of your questions. Have a nice day.
PS, saw I missed some points. Let me address them.
Availabilty of firearms has no correlation to homicide. When in 1968, the UK passed laws reducing the number of gun licensees, the homicde rate has been riding steady since then - "A Century of Change - trend is the UK Statistics since the 1900s", House Of Commons.
Per capita firearms ownership in the US has risen at a steady pace since 1959, but crime rates go up and down depending on economics,drug trafficking innovations, and "get tough" legislation.
Perhaps onetelling item would be to compare rape trends in three industrialized nations, in 1993, and 2003,crimes per 100,000.
Austrailia, where posession of almost all firearms was banned. 1993, 72.5, 2003, 91.7, an increase of 26.5%
UK, where private ownership of any defensive firearms is virtually impossible, and the political climate makes certain any attempt to defend yourself is vigourously prosecuted...1993 43.3, 2003 69.2, an increase of 59.8.
USA, where since1994, rates of available concealed carry has increased to the number now that all but two states offer some form of CCW permit. 1993, 37.1, 2003, 32.1 a decrease of13.5%. If you wish, I will cite sources tomorrow, but I have to go make my positive contribution to crime control, by keeping the incarcerated ones inside the walls.

Please, have a nice day.

[MDS]

Uh, last I checked, LEO's carried M4's, MP5's, etc., etc., and the military and National Guard are certainly better armed than the citizens. Check your facts!

I don't carry an M4 or an MP5. I'm aware of the fact that some LEO's carry such weaponry, but not all/most. Thanks.

Yeah, you made yourself clear, that's the problem. Do you see a pattern yet?

No.

Those two countries enjoy their freedom thanks to the U.S. If we lose our freedom, they will certainly lose theirs. It is our second ammendment that preserves that freedom! Without the U.S., those two countries would have been speaking German, Russian, etc., etc., a long time ago. Get the picture?

No doubt the U.S played a huge role in that war (and others) but that's got nothing to do with citizen average joe owning an assault weapon that can pierce my vest.

You then say , but then go on to say You say the type of weapon is your problem, but what you describe for the most part is not at all with the use of a rifle (or assault weapon as you put it). Just come out and say it, YOU ARE AGAINST PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP.

No, you need to read closer. I already made my point that I've got no problem with private gun ownership per se. Why the hostility?

[MDS]

MDS, first, welcome to the US, hope you enjoy your stay here.
I am not street LE, but a correctional sergeant here in Free AZ. I have worked as a firearms instructor/rangemaster/range safety officer for two armored trucking agencies, an indoor range, outdoor range, and the US Navy.
The Second Amendment does not specify what "arms" are allowed at all. However, the Framers intent was to have a sufficient armed citizenry so as not to require a standing army. Reading the Federalist Papers will shed much light on that. Also remember that the cannon used in our Revolution were privately owned.
Understand, contrary to the assertion that the National Guard, (federally supplied, federal weapons, federal uniforms, sited on federal land, and able to be federalized at the stroke of a pen), is all of "the militia", the Dick Act of 1903 established the NG as the organized militia, and the rest of the citizenry as the unorganized militia. Just in case that entered into your thinking.
Now, let's turn the argument around. You believe that citizens having access to "better" weapons than you have issued is a threat to you.
Do you know how many people are killed by trigger fingers each year? Now compare how many die by vehicle accident, or deliberate act, even though vehicles are registered, licensed, insured, and drivers licensed and tested at regular intervals? Hmm, ban SUVs.
Nobody needs an "assault rifle"? OK, definition time. A true "assault rifle" is select fire, i.e., capable of full and semi automatic fire, and those weapons have been strictly controlled since 1934. Interestingly enough, the ONLY time a NFA registered weapon was used in a crime, it was a LEO doing it. OOps.
A semi automatic rifle that has a military appearance may be "scary looking", but is NOT an assault rifle.
FBI uniform Crime Stats from 1994, right before the ban, stated a citizen was 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than killed by an "assault rifle". Real danger there. Ban fists. When the ban was lifted, the FBI stats of 2004 showed crime DECREASED 1.7% and murders went down 3.6%The same stats from a year prior to the ban showed that all weapons mischaracterized as "assault weapons" were used in less than 1% of all homicides.
Sounds like that's a non-issue.
So, are you just scared of someone having a rifle you don't like the looks of? Realize something VERY important. "Assault rifles" are a medium power cartridge, a "split the differance" round, between pistol and true rifle calibers. A typical hunting rifle can shoot farther, straighter, and punch through a lot more.
I hope that answers some of your questions. Have a nice day.
PS, saw I missed some points. Let me address them.
Availabilty of firearms has no correlation to homicide. When in 1968, the UK passed laws reducing the number of gun licensees, the homicde rate has been riding steady since then - "A Century of Change - trend is the UK Statistics since the 1900s", House Of Commons.
Per capita firearms ownership in the US has risen at a steady pace since 1959, but crime rates go up and down depending on economics,drug trafficking innovations, and "get tough" legislation.
Perhaps onetelling item would be to compare rape trends in three industrialized nations, in 1993, and 2003,crimes per 100,000.
Austrailia, where posession of almost all firearms was banned. 1993, 72.5, 2003, 91.7, an increase of 26.5%
UK, where private ownership of any defensive firearms is virtually impossible, and the political climate makes certain any attempt to defend yourself is vigourously prosecuted...1993 43.3, 2003 69.2, an increase of 59.8.
USA, where since1994, rates of available concealed carry has increased to the number now that all but two states offer some form of CCW permit. 1993, 37.1, 2003, 32.1 a decrease of13.5%. If you wish, I will cite sources tomorrow, but I have to go make my positive contribution to crime control, by keeping the incarcerated ones inside the walls.

Please, have a nice day.

I appreciate your informed and seemingly pleasant response.
There are two solutions to the problem I pose:
1 - Issue better armor/weapons to current LEO's and the problem disappears.
2 - Ban assault weapons as average joe has no true use for them (as opposed to SUV's and fists).

If you've ever been to the Officer Down Memorial Page, you'll notice that gunfire is the #1 reason for deaths each year (with the exception of 01, that being Terrorist attack for obvious reasons). Now, that doesn't exactly mean that an assault weapon was used, but it does show that guns are the #1 threat to those of us who are on the street. Your odds of surviving a gun battle are much higher if you are being shot at with a handgun (which your armor can stop) than a 5.56, 2.23, etc... (which it cannot).

[LPI]

I think it is simply a fundamental difference. We obviously believe strongly one way and you obviously do not.

If you started this thread to ask an honest question, then I can respect that, and posters are answering your questions. If you started this thread to complain about Americans second amendment rights, then you've come to the wrong place.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

Ban assault weapons as average joe has no true use for them (as opposed to SUV's and fists).

Please define "true use" as you see it.

[RR_Security]

Well said, Armoredman.
MDS, I must take issue with your statement "But...making weapons readily available and accessible is what drives up a death toll." With waiting periods for purchases of firearms and all the other regulation in the U.S., I don't think they're all that "readily available" unless somebody already owns one (or more), or chooses to acquire a gun outside of the legal channels. My guess is, most of those who use a gun unlawfully will probably not acquire one lawfully. And if a gun isn't "accessible" to someone who may legally possess it, then of what use is it if needed for defending themself, family, home, etc.?
One way we can agree that the general populace shouldn't be "better armed" than the police is to say that "street cops" should have training in and access to rifles, as LAPD is doing in the aftermath of the North Hollywood shootout.
To quote Ron McCarthy, former LAPD SWAT officer, "The suspects, Phillips and Matasareanu, were experienced, well trained, committed terrorists." That voids them out of being "general populace." Those two mooks ignored the National Firearms Act (that 1934 one that may have been mentioned earlier) and a whole bunch of other laws.
The cities with the most restrictions on private gun ownership (NYC, DC, etc.) still seem to have the highest crime rates. Gun control does not equal "crime control."

"Gun control" is being able to put two in center-of-mass and then one in the bad guy's head in the shortest possible time.

[bcoffill]

i like the way armoredman went with this...

i think we have allowed our politicians to get way too involved in the way we live our lives...

recently i was CARDED at WALMART to buy an R RATED movie...a few days prior i bought beer there without even a blink of an eye from the cashier...

whether it be abortion, gun control, marriage etc. etc. the government is not supposed to have a say in how its citizens live thier lives...thats not saying that criminals i.e. rapists, murderers, thieves shouldnt be prosecuted but law abiding citizens should be left well alone...

im not sure of the numbers but i know that citizens who purchase thier weapons legally (from a liscenced dealer)and procure proper permits to carry are not the ones committing crimes with them...(of course there are examples of some but the percentage is very low)

[jdh]

Wow. Fascinating point. Thanks for your useless input.

The point is, if you are afraid for your safety because of the laws in this country go back to a country where the laws are more to your liking.

This country was founded on the priciples that the function of goverment is to serve the people. Not like that in the British empire where the people are subject who serve the goverment. The founding fathers fled the tyrany of the crown and formed a republic of the people, by the people, and for the people. The powers of the federal government were limited by the constitution and protections were written into the contitution for the people to abolish the goverment if it came to abuse it's power.

The founding fathers were also against the notion of a standing army. They believed it was the duty of all able bodied citizens to come to the defense of their commuities, the state, and the nation until an army could be raised.

They knew that the people would not be able to do this if they did not have the tools. That was the purpose of the second amendment. It is not about duck hunting. It is about the people having the tools to defend themselves against all enemies foreign and domestic. That means having access to military style arms (assault weapons to use the left's fear mongering terminology) of the kind in use at the present time.

What is needed is criminal control not gun control. And to deny the law abiding citizen's rights because they may someday in your opinion misuse them is to violate the very basic principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. You would rather confer guilt on every single citizen, before they comit a crime, because you are uncomfortable. That ain't the way we do things here.

[MDS]

I think it is simply a fundamental difference. We obviously believe strongly one way and you obviously do not.

If you started this thread to ask an honest question, then I can respect that, and posters are answering your questions. If you started this thread to complain about Americans second amendment rights, then you've come to the wrong place.

Absolutely not. As stated, I agree with private gun ownership. I disagree with the type allowed. I love this country and relocated myself to it. If I didn't want to be here, I wouldn't have done that.
Well as I said, there are two solutions to the problem; banning isn't my only solution.