Do Americans have a right to carry?

[Friendshipandmagic]

This guy has a gun, he isn't listening to the officer, taser the fuck head.kid.

Regardless if he has a right to carry the weapon, he is blatantly defying a police officer.

So what little fantasy world police state do you live in where an officer has any right to use a taser on a law abiding citizen because the person wouldn't do what he wanted? Cause thats not how the law works regarding the police in any of the 50 I have been to. Your post is so wrong its worrying.

SNIP

He didn't listen to the officer. He should have been on his stomach, then hand cuffed, then placed in the back of a squad car until this was cleared up. That's the law. That's what 'TEMPORARILY DETAIN' means. A person a few posts up quoted the law relevant here.

Thats not right either. If someone isn't breaking the law the police have no right to "temporarily detain" anybody. Unless they want the city to get sued. Cause that is the only thing such poor behavior in the line of duty should earn you.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

That is like saying everytime you go to pick up a knife to cut your steak everyone becomes a target. LOL

Offensive Weapons Act 1996 : Not quite there yet, but close.

Also, I thought men owned cannons as well. My uncle still has one. Oh yea and catapults.. those are awesome!

Hey, if you want to have a cannon to fight your battles, cool. Muskets are easier to carry and less likely to kill you.

Not quite sure if the Black Widow existed before the Industrial Revoloution though. Or portable explosives.

Hey, if you class portable explosives as arms, then any airport security trying to stop you getting on a plane with them is breaching your rights.

A ratification of "arms" better than non-military use or even what the word "bear" stands for could probably help. Because most states don't agree.

 

[Griffolion]

We open carry for self defense, it is perfectly reasonable to want to keep yourself alive.

That's pretty much akin to saying that you should get a bigger car so if you crash you're more likely to stay alive. People will just keep getting bigger and bigger cars. If everyone wants a gun just to stay alive, everyone is very soon equipped with the means to kill each other. Remove the guns from everyone, no-one has the means to kill each other (save for knives, but this is a gun topic).

Just speaking from an English point of view where guns are very rare, and almost never seen in public save in the hands of armed response officers. There is barely any gun crime in England, because there's no guns in anyone's hands. I know it may be a case of 'oh but we have the right to bear arms', we English typically don't, and we're a hell of a lot better off for it. Sure there's knife crime and what-not but there's knife crime in more or less every country as any kid can take mum's bread slicer out of the drawer and shove it down his pants.

I know that America was founded by the gun when they won their independence etc, but anyone would have figured that 'right to bear arms' constitution the founding fathers created could have been moved on from now that you're supposedly modern and forward thinking.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Gun are bad, m'Kay?

Either way, here's what I took from this thread:

1. Cops are idiots and too busy trying to be heroes to the point they forget all they were taught to defend.

The UK. You give a man a gun, and he sees everything as a potential target.

2. The UK's policy on guns fascinates me more so than I could have imagined. Mainly because I never gave a damn about the 2nd Amendment debate before this.

Still, a police officer without a fire arm? How does that work? How do they prevent crimes? How do they stop muggings? How they fight gang violence when need be? Does that exist in the UK? So many questions I'd love to have answered.

Quite frankly, I agree on the UK's stance. A man with a gun has a much itchier trigger finger than a man without one. I just want to know how it works.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Still, a police officer without a fire arm? How does that work? How do they prevent crimes? How do they stop muggings? How they fight gang violence when need be? Does that exist in the UK?

Quite well actually.

Presence, CS gas and the nightstick work. And if you read any of the scandal sheets, the UK has the highest violent crime rate in Europe (as if), but the least armed police.

I've got no problems with the Americans "bearing arms", I just wish they'd all agree what "bearing arms" meant. In the same way as "freedom of speech". Definitions change, and it's been over 300 years.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

SNIP.

Well color me dazzled.

I knew the U.S's rate was high, but never knew it was that level of high in comparison to the rest of world.

So, in the UK, do they just rely mainly on the sheer number of police officers in an area to intimidate the potential attacks? And this works?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

So, in the UK, do they just rely mainly on the sheer number of police officers in an area to intimidate the potential attacks? And this works?

That and limiting the number of weapons allowed in the hands of civilians.

And we're still allowed to protest against the Government; the EDL protests showed that even with 1000 EDL and 700 LUAF - the day went off with only one policeman and one civilian injured - and only 14 arrests.

And I watched this. Scary.

 

[Reishadowen]

This guy has a gun, he isn't listening to the officer, taser the fuck head.

I didn't want to listen the whole audio recording because it was too long. Anyways, as far as I know, a license to carry a handgun is typically a concealed weapons permit therefore to have it holstered in plain view in a public area is not justified because it can antagonize or threaten others. If it was at a firing range or something, then its probably different.

Listen to the first 3 minutes, the rest seems to be faint whisperings and shufflings (like a phone in a pocket).

On topic. The guy couldn't have been calmer and the police guy was basically sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "get on the ground! Get your hands where I can see them!" etc etc etc.

The guy even asked if he could move his foot ...

As for the laws and ins and outs of the USA and gun controle, stop carrying them. Only leads to shoot outs and higher rate of fatalities.

Making guns illegal stops only law-abiding citizens from carrying them. Criminals break the law either way, so that wouldn't really stop them. You're only making citizens helpless that way, since the police can't be everywhere at any second to stop them.

This is why we don't arm the police.

We should arm them with nerf guns, nerf gatlings on the roofs of the cars.

It would give a good way to vent frustrations without commiting actual violence. Plus, Nerf Gatling-gun Police cars, it sells itself.

Police already have tazer guns and beanbag rifles when they want to try and take someone alive. The whole point being to stun their targets, not annoy them with foam darts.

 

[Smiles]

As far as I know yes, Americans have the right to "carry". Now whether they should is another thing...

 

[DigitalAtlas]

So, in the UK, do they just rely mainly on the sheer number of police officers in an area to intimidate the potential attacks? And this works?

That and limiting the number of weapons allowed in the hands of civilians.

And we're still allowed to protest against the Government; the EDL protests showed that even with 1000 EDL and 700 LUAF - the day went off with only one policeman and one civilian injured - and only 14 arrests.

And I watched this. Scary.

I feel like a bad person for not knowing of this system.

God our country needs to adopt it.

Thank you for learning me today, fine sir.

 

[coppah20HE]

Smart-mouthed asshole, no wonder the cop detained him.
If a police officer tells you to "jump", you don't argue, you don't even ask "how high",
You just jump.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

That is like saying everytime you go to pick up a knife to cut your steak everyone becomes a target. LOL

Offensive Weapons Act 1996 : Not quite there yet, but close.

Also, I thought men owned cannons as well. My uncle still has one. Oh yea and catapults.. those are awesome!

Hey, if you want to have a cannon to fight your battles, cool. Muskets are easier to carry and less likely to kill you.

Not quite sure if the Black Widow existed before the Industrial Revoloution though. Or portable explosives.

Hey, if you class portable explosives as arms, then any airport security trying to stop you getting on a plane with them is breaching your rights.

A ratification of "arms" better than non-military use or even what the word "bear" stands for could probably help. Because most states don't agree.

Well I mean cannons could do an insane amount of damage in the hands of a psycho group. Like mounting them onto the back of a flat bed and then going down a high way at 110mph firing..

I look at guns as "tiny cannons".

An airport is a private business. Any private business has the right to determine what can and cannot be brought on their premises. If you want to keep your firearms, fine, you just cannot enter their private business with it. As for explosives, fireworks are still legal as well.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Smart-mouthed asshole, no wonder the cop detained him.
If a police officer tells you to "jump", you don't argue, you don't even ask "how high",
You just jump.

If an officer is breaking the law, the Citizens are supposed to be the final safety net to stop them. No one is above the law, especially those enforcing it.

 

[mightybozz]

Smart-mouthed asshole, no wonder the cop detained him.
If a police officer tells you to "jump", you don't argue, you don't even ask "how high",
You just jump.

If an officer is breaking the law, the Citizens are supposed to be the final safety net to stop them. No one is above the law, especially those enforcing it.

Agreed. After all, the US was founded on rebellion against authority. A police officer is a person, just like you. They don't get to order you around without reasonable suspicion or special circumstances, and why shouldn't you stick up for yourself and ask why they're trying to interfere in your life?

 

[Mark Hardigan]

This thread will certainly turn into an argument, I feel.

With that said, I am against any kind of gun control. We have an inalienable right to defend ourselves, and that involves using any weapon we want, whether it be an AK-47 or a frying pan. I have very little respect for those who say that I shouldn't have the right to defend myself because it gives them a false sense of security.

Not to mention that the numbers and facts point to the obvious truth that gun control just simply doesn't work. You don't protect law abiding citizens by disarming law abiding citizens.

One of my favorite quotes is from Penn and Teller. I am paraphrasing: You can call the police on a criminal. But who do you call on the police?

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

I don't know anything about the gun laws in the states but shouldn't it atleast be concealed?

Depends heavily on the state. Some allow either concealed or open carry without a liscence, some require a lisecence for one but not the other, some require it for both, some allow for one and not the other, many simply make it illegal to do either.

 

[Brandon237]

And the officer was being completely disrespectful, unreasonable, unnecessarily aggressive and threatening from before the guy knew what the hell was going on, this makes compliance go to the bottom of the list of things on your mind. The law is there to guide people who don't have very good moral or social approaches to life, not to completely replace any shred of common sense or respect.
And again, any police officer who doesn't deserve respect should not get it and should not be one in the first place.

And you addressed, in very little detail, 1 point of the couple I made, ones that I'm rather scared to even have to make knowing that people who SUPPORT this exist. It is a scary thought.

Disrespectful? You sir, are hilarious! He has no obligation to say 'Please, I'm a little put off that you have a gun, would it bother you if I asked you kindly to get on the ground' instead of 'Get the fuck on the ground now!' I hear people in California complain when the police aren't all roses and sunshine, but this was in Philly, not that it matters.

The law this idiot is holding so dear, demands he be detained. End of story. It's his fault he didn't comply. The second he doesn't comply, then talks back, he is resisting.

If any person calls me junior while pointing a freaking gun at my back unnecessarily they are being disrespectful as all hell. And while he has no obligation to do so, it would certainly be the best way to handle situation instead of swearing and coming off as a tourettes sufferer with a chip on his shoulder.

While the civilian's actions weren't perfect, they were reasonable, logical and all that was necessary. The cop was Undeniably trying to cause trouble: honestly, pulling out a gun, pointing it at a civilian and then calling them condescendingly, that is asking for trouble.

And again, law versus morality and common sense. Does it not make more sense to just check the permit there and then, no dignity violated, no time wasted, same results, less paranoia. It is common sense, if you can't see that now then you never will, and there never will be any point in arguing this. If you were in this person's position, how would you feel? If you say that you were happy that the cop tried to enforce the law, then I really am in the matrix after all...

I am happy that this officer of the law, enforced the law. You might not be from an area where gun violence is a problem, but I am. When ever confronted by the police, you listen to them. Any ding bat who doesn't, is asking for trouble.

It is 100% 'UNreasonable' for this kid to have not just shut his mouth and comply. But hey, some people feel the need to be an ass, this guy did, and got not nearly enough as he deserved. You don't fuck around with guns.

This isn't the Matrix. Movies are cheap escapes from reality like video games. This is real life, and I wouldn't want an officer of the law to act like a flimsy wishy washy hippy.

Sorry to sound so angry, I just can't wrap my head around why anyone would think ill of this officer. He didn't beat the kid, he followed procedure. I can get you might not like the way he did it, but that's too bad. Like I said earlier, you don't fuck around when it comes to guns.

Me? Not from an area where gun violence is a problem? SOUTH AFRICA MATE! Here nothing short of whole family rape and homicide makes any big newspapers because if every murder was reported every day it would need a dedicated 300 page weekly magazine. Not to mention the obituaries would be comparable to those of countries at war.

I have grown up in country where exposure to crime is greater than literally almost anywhere in the world. My best friend was almost killed a year ago by some drunk thieves with fire-arms, he is a tough guy who has lived through hell and he was in tears, I know all I need to about paranoia and seriousness around guns, but clearly this cop who drew his in public and pointed it at the civilian does not.
Would you not say that drawing your weapon in public and aiming it at a civilian who is not doing anything wrong is most definitely "Fucking around with guns"?

And really, you call that enforcing the law? The Officer Didn't even know the law himself!. He also "enforced it in the most confrontational manner possible.
And the kid listened, and offered a simpler, less traumatic and time wasting solution but the cop; lacking ANY common sense or decency what-so-ever just aimed a gun at him and started giving him the third degree.
Some people feel the need to be an ass? DID YOU LISTEN TO THAT TAPE? The cop was the one who was being essentially an empowered bully, that is as ass as you get.

Read this:http://whatishappeninginsouthafrica.blogspot.com/2011/04/cop-shoots-woman.html
Quite frankly, police being softer would actually be a definite improvement, as is they cause more trouble for the innocent than for criminals.
Being an empowered ass-hole who believes it is their right to antagonise anyone they want is the LAST type of officer you want. Tough in training, good shot a strong-willed is good for an officer, but they must also be able to get along with the public and keep a cool head, those traits are all equally important.

He didn't beat the kid. What a saint, he may just get employee of the month!
I'm not sorry I sound angry, this cop's behaviour, knowledge of the law and handling of the situation was horrific.

Snip

Yes you are right you do not fuck around with guns and that is one of the biggest problems I have with this whole incident because the LEO drew his firearm and pointed it at the guy. That is an unnecessary level of force and the LEO should be reprimanded for doing something so unsafe. Rule number two of firearm safety states that you never point your firearm at anything you do not wish to destroy. In other words in addition to being an ass (for cursing and threatening to shoot the guy) and being ignorant of his cities laws he was also unsafe with a firearm. Maybe it is just because I was a RSO for two years but the idea that an LEO who was trained with my money (as a taxpayer) and still does not know the most basic safety procedures is galling.

You are amazing, +1 internets to your account immediately. This exactly, drawing a fire-arm on an innocent civilian is something to be worried about, especially where I come from

 

[Lionsfan]

Smart-mouthed asshole, no wonder the cop detained him.
If a police officer tells you to "jump", you don't argue, you don't even ask "how high",
You just jump.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The Cops aren't above the Law and it's the duty of citizen's to make sure of that. Have you ever heard of corrupt cops?

 

[Daveman]

This is why I don't want police in the UK to have guns. I mean I could be a perfectly reasonable person and still get shot due to a misunderstanding.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

To be frank, i believe there should be MUCH more strict rules on firearms, seems insane to me...