Poll: Research on the Police has shown....
- Thread starter David VanDusen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They could, yes. Would they? Should they?shadyh8er said:
Lets start with the fact that most people would panic. Police and army included, but they have training which helps. Average joe just has his gun.
Police are trained not just to shoot accurately, but to check their targets and make sure they aren't hitting innocents. Average joe is not. So yes, maybe average joe WILL successfully kill raving lunatic before he manages to kill anyone himself or maybe average joe will just shoot some more innocents himself. Perhaps both. I would also not be suprised if after average joe kills random lunatic, average joe #2 mis-reads the situation and shoots average joe for shooting random lunatic.
The bottom line is that I have no problem with a person owning a gun, until I remember that most people are fucking idiots. For example, if someone I worked with admitted owning a gun I would make sure to keep someone else I worked with between me and them at all times, since we are talking people that can't operate an on/off switch without my help.
Yes, and then the classic response to that is "oh, but they don't have training with the weapons, or situational training." To which I say "yes, but then clearly the solution is to make a certain amount of situational and weapon training necessary."shadyh8er said:
It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.
And I had a PM conversation with someone on this site (whose username I won't reveal, because I've no idea how private this is) who lives in "a suburban, predominantly white neighborhood" (apparently the safest place to the lay-person) and has been through all of the nasty shit you'd expect from a scummy inner city, IE: mugged, stabbed and shot, violated, etc. If they say they need a gun, I'm damn inclined to let them have one.
In my case, I'm joining the Royal Marine Commandos in a few years, and after that I'd like to move to America. Why? Lots of reasons, but ONE (IE, not the only reason) is that I would have access to firearms. I think after several years of frontline military service, I'll be much more comfortable with a gun on my hip.
Hoo doggy, this one's gonna get ugly.
Well, personally I don't have a problem with people being armed, unless they're shooting me of course and criminals are always going to find ways to get guns if they really want them. But on the other hand a lot of crimes are carried out in the heat of the moment without any planning involved and having access to guns just means more people shot.
Yeah, I'm not being very solid in any convictions here, but the truth is I think there are valid arguments on both sides.
As for the topic of the police force, well it seems like it'd be part of the job knowing that you're obligated to put the lives of those your protecting above your own. It's why the police exist, and it's why they would deserve all the honor they get.
Of course I live in a small town devoid of any major violent crime so I don't have firsthand experience when it comes to any of these topics. So, take my word for whatever it's worth.
Well, personally I don't have a problem with people being armed, unless they're shooting me of course and criminals are always going to find ways to get guns if they really want them. But on the other hand a lot of crimes are carried out in the heat of the moment without any planning involved and having access to guns just means more people shot.
Yeah, I'm not being very solid in any convictions here, but the truth is I think there are valid arguments on both sides.
As for the topic of the police force, well it seems like it'd be part of the job knowing that you're obligated to put the lives of those your protecting above your own. It's why the police exist, and it's why they would deserve all the honor they get.
Of course I live in a small town devoid of any major violent crime so I don't have firsthand experience when it comes to any of these topics. So, take my word for whatever it's worth.
When you outlaw weapons, only outlaws will have them. Or so goes the quote.Limecake said:
And frankly, anyone that's been in the military for more than a month can tell you that's truly the case. Allow people to defend themselves and criminals will think twice before committing a crime.
As for a source for my argument, I point to you, Chicago. Some of the harshest gun control laws in America. And also the one of the highest crime rates in America. Coincidence?
So that's why the murder rate in Detroit is about 500x higher than Windsor,ON right across the river? *rolls eyes*shadyh8er said:
Then it makes sense that America's crime rates are amongst the highest of first world nations.shadyh8er said:
I don't think that many police should be armed. In Ireland we have an unarmed police force, with some armed branches but the average garda won't have a gun.
To reply to this... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html is a very good example.Istvan said:
To reply to some of the negative comments. It's a complicated issue between putting in enough information and putting in too much on the internet. The more you put in the more likely you are to instantly hit a wall of people yelling that you wrote too much.
The reality, in the United States, is that statistics have shown that the cities with the tightest Gun Legislation are usually the highest in gun violence. Last year alone, it was recorded that Chicago, which was probably in the top 3 toughest cities, was the deadilest for officers who were recorded to being shot and killed more than any other area. D.C. and NYC also have some very tough gun laws and also suffer from really high gun homicide rates.
Now, I've usually taken a moment to stress that Gun Homicides Statistics are not the same as Gun Murders, but they are often thought to be the same thing. A while ago, groups like the CDC stopped splitting them up in reports for whatever reason.
The issue I suppose I have is that for the US anyway, we have a Consitutional right under the 2nd Amendment which is heavily (and possibly illegally) restricted upon the citizens. We are generally, by the majority, under the belief that we are safe because we have the police when infact they are not only not legally required to protect you, they far too often couldn't protect you even if they wanted to do so diligently.
This is another grave story of the reality...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Listen, I'm not saying that for sure every single person should have a gun in their hand and on them at all times. What I am saying is that over 200 years ago there was a notion so strongly believed in by the founding fathers that one of them, Jefferson, even went on record to quote it.
?Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.?
The issue is that while it is easy to look at a country such as Germany and say "Look they have strickt gun laws and next to no gun deaths each year." There is a much bigger picture to look at, mainly their entire legal system and their censorship pannels.
I'm not trying to enter another discussion on how people somewhere over the rainbow who have an entire different set of laws, no consituation, nearly no civil rights, and 200 or more million people some how have a better idea when said ideas would require a complete restructuring of our Consitution and daily lives. What I am saying however is that it seems to be that the problem stems from our legal system (mainly the police) and the notion that we as a public are not liable for taking action to protect ourselves.
The problem with America is that once you already legalized guns once, you can't do gun control afterwards, because too many people will have them, which results in too many criminals having them. It's like a contagious virus: Once it's out there is no stopping it.Ympulse said:
In Denmark where i live, where we have some of the highest living standards in the world and where owning a gun is illegal (in fact, carrying a knife is illegal except for work purposes), legalizing guns would be crazy.
I guess the point is that countries where low living standards force more people into crime (America), having civilians armed is a great thing, while in countries with lower crime rates and higher living standards, it's a bad thing.
I'm assuming "ON" stands for Ontario, Canada. Canadian gun laws require you to take a safety class so you know what you're doing when you do get a gun. Criminals who get their guns illegally don't get these classes. So their potential victims not only have guns, they know how to use them better.Avaholic03 said:
I am reminded of an excellent quote written by Robert E. Howard (for those not in-the-know, he is the creator of Conan) in the short story "The Tower of the Elephant" that greatly sums up my view of weapons and their use.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
For those who are or may be confused, my belief is thus: the more policing and the less personally owned "arms" a society has, the more said "arms" become a problem, mostly because people lose respect for weapons and their capabilities.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
For those who are or may be confused, my belief is thus: the more policing and the less personally owned "arms" a society has, the more said "arms" become a problem, mostly because people lose respect for weapons and their capabilities.
This is hardly a surprise.
Police forces don't exist for the reasons people think they do.
It's historical fact for instance, that the UK police force wasn't created to prevent crime, or protect the public.
No. It was created so that when there is a riot, they can send in a group of people trained in non-lethal crowd control.
Because the alternative was to send in the army and pretty much kill all the rioters.
The reason the police do anything else besides this is mostly a PR exercise meant to divert attention away from this simple fact.
Of course, it's made more complex in that this was supposed to protect the upper classes from the working classes going out of control, but suffers from the rather obvious issue that most of the police officers were themselves working class.
Now, given that this is the origin of the UK police force, has anything changed?
Not really. The idea that they exist solely for riot control seems borne out by the frequency of riots, and the police response to them.
However, it's quite apparent that to modern sensibilities, the idea that this is what the police are actually for is even less acceptable than it once was.
So... A lot more effort is made to give the appearance that the police force has other uses...
Police forces don't exist for the reasons people think they do.
It's historical fact for instance, that the UK police force wasn't created to prevent crime, or protect the public.
No. It was created so that when there is a riot, they can send in a group of people trained in non-lethal crowd control.
Because the alternative was to send in the army and pretty much kill all the rioters.
The reason the police do anything else besides this is mostly a PR exercise meant to divert attention away from this simple fact.
Of course, it's made more complex in that this was supposed to protect the upper classes from the working classes going out of control, but suffers from the rather obvious issue that most of the police officers were themselves working class.
Now, given that this is the origin of the UK police force, has anything changed?
Not really. The idea that they exist solely for riot control seems borne out by the frequency of riots, and the police response to them.
However, it's quite apparent that to modern sensibilities, the idea that this is what the police are actually for is even less acceptable than it once was.
So... A lot more effort is made to give the appearance that the police force has other uses...
I believe this is a good example of a point of view that makes sense. The US has a lot of problems which are often deeply rooted in many other problems.Athinira said:
I don't believe that banning guns here will ever work nor do I believe that arming everyone will fix the problem either. I do believe that we have a poor social understanding and education towards protecting ourselves in this country. I also believe that there should be more mainstream media coverage of stories like this...
http://starbeacon.com/local/x343694117/Teen-shoots-burglar
Its sort of apples and oranges though...Avaholic03 said:
population windsor on: 216,473
population detroit: 3,903,377
And the demographic distributions are somewhat different, as well. I'm not trying to make a value-added statement about gun-control here, I'm simply stating that detroit has a much higher murder rate than the vast majority of US towns with substantially smaller populations and different demographics.
Whats that city in UK/Ireland that gets all the heat for being such a hellhole? People getting mugged all the time? The comparison between detroit would be better made there than to a quaint little canadian town.
Precisely! This is what Canada does actually. Criminals don't stand a chance against citizens who can use guns better than they can.binnsyboy said:Yes, and then the classic response to that is "oh, but they don't have training with the weapons, or situational training." To which I say "yes, but then clearly the solution is to make a certain amount of situational and weapon training necessary."shadyh8er said:
It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.
I saw this topic and thought it was about the idea that police officers are more likely to be the perpetrators of violent crimes. I cant back this statement up with facts because I heard about it like 3 months ago on the radio, but it had to do with some government report that police stations are required to make about their officer's or something. Really wish I could remember the name of the author, book, or the report they were talking about.
Oh boy, gun control debate!
Let's do the metric system and paedophile debates while we're at it!
Hide yo kids, people, 'cuz it's flame on time here!
And on the issue of armed citizens: No thank you. The homicide rate over here is 0.6 per capita as opposed to the US's 5 point something. We're good, thanks.
[sub]And no, the fact that a bunch of people 200 years ago thought it was a good idea for everyone to carry guns is not a decent argument.[/sub]
Let's do the metric system and paedophile debates while we're at it!
Hide yo kids, people, 'cuz it's flame on time here!
And on the issue of armed citizens: No thank you. The homicide rate over here is 0.6 per capita as opposed to the US's 5 point something. We're good, thanks.
[sub]And no, the fact that a bunch of people 200 years ago thought it was a good idea for everyone to carry guns is not a decent argument.[/sub]