Poll: Research on the Police has shown....

[dyre]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

You have lots of guns in the US. We have very few guns in Sweden. The US has a much higher crime rate, population difference taken into account. Explain this.

I'd guess it's not because Sweden has less guns; it's because Sweden has less criminals (percentage-wise). The US has a lot of diversity in cultures, wealth, education-level, etc. Lots of poor people who don't know who their dads are and only have access to shitty inner city schools. That sort of thing tends to lead to more crime. Guns are just an easily accessible tool (and will remain so, regardless of laws). We should've heavily regulated the damn things from the start, but it's too late for that.

Sweden's gun laws are tailored to work for Sweden, not the US

Interesting, so you're saying that crime rate has to do with non-gun related problems. How peculiar then that they can be solved by guns!

Why is that peculiar? Crime rate also has to do with non-police related problems, but they can be solved by police...

 

[metal mustache]

Simple google searches can provide dozens of case info pages so I won't ramble, but it does force the hand of that other discussion which is so popular here which is Gun Control.

Any thoughts?

My thought it is, why did you have to bring up gun control, it always turns into angry thread


I guess Constitutional Obligation would be nice because it would force the police to be accountable. I have no idea if we have something like that in Canada though.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

(which is a constitutional right here and strongly supported and dictated by the founding fathers)

Why are the insane puritans who fled Britain/The Netherlands to preach racism and narrow-mindedness held in such great regard in the U.S.?

Anyway, civilians have a slightly higher tendency to shoot one another than cops have.

 

[Dogstile]

I honestly can't figure out what the OP is saying, so I'll just go ahead and make some broad statements.

When people talk about gun control, they will bring up politicians that may or may not agree with them, and use it as a justification to say "I'm right, you're wrong".

When discussing gun control, people will pull random, false statistics out of their ass, and pass them off as real.

When people discuss gun control, they will pull anecdotes out their ass and pass them off as facts.

When people talk about gun control, they will pull all of the above out of their ass, and quote them completely out of context.

This thread will devolve into a flamewar.

Guns are too deeply rooted in American culture, so it'll be a long while before they're ever banned/restricted, so getting into petty arguments on the internet is pointless.

Did I miss anything?

Probably the part where near enough nobody will realise there's a balance between the two and you don't need to jump into the deep end of either argument to yell on the internet.

But you mostly got it

 

[chadachada123]

Somehow I doubt that gangs get most of their revenue from marijuana. Hell, in high school, most of the kids that I knew were growing their own damn gardens of the stuff.

Most gangs get their money from cocaine, heroine, and meth. Well...I should say, Mexican, Colombian, and Dominican gangs get their profits from that. Asian gangs do generally do the whole marijuana and opium scene, but only because it keeps them out of conflict with the other gangs.

I suppose I wouldn't know anything about foreign gangs. I live in Michigan, near Detroit, and as far as I know it's mostly crack and weed there.

So, I guess, I'll change what I said. Most of Detroit's problems could be solved by nuking, or by legalizing weed and decriminalizing crack. From there victims will have a better way to seek help and gangs will lose a lot of their power.

I can't speak for California or Florida gangs/shitholes, though.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Somehow I doubt that gangs get most of their revenue from marijuana. Hell, in high school, most of the kids that I knew were growing their own damn gardens of the stuff.

Most gangs get their money from cocaine, heroine, and meth. Well...I should say, Mexican, Colombian, and Dominican gangs get their profits from that. Asian gangs do generally do the whole marijuana and opium scene, but only because it keeps them out of conflict with the other gangs.

I suppose I wouldn't know anything about foreign gangs. I live in Michigan, near Detroit, and as far as I know it's mostly crack and weed there.

So, I guess, I'll change what I said. Most of Detroit's problems could be solved by nuking, or by legalizing weed and decriminalizing crack. From there victims will have a better way to seek help and gangs will lose a lot of their power.

I can't speak for California or Florida gangs/shitholes, though.

Well, I live in Florida. And it is indeed a shithole.

I doubt legalizing or even decriminalizing drugs will help. It would either just force the gangs to sell cheaper (Possibly meaning that they'll end up diluting the drugs to maximize profits...not that they don't anyway), or they'll just start pushing harder drugs. (Not that they don't anyway.)

A repeat of this is undesirable: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/flesh-eating-cocaine-laced-veterinary-drug-levamisole/story?id=13902353

 

[Saltyk]

I believe the case you are referring to sprang from a woman who was the victim of a crime attempted to sue the police for not protecting her. This went to the Supreme Court who decided that the police do not have an obligation to protect. Funny since the traditional motto of the police is "To Protect and Serve".

Personally, I don't think police should be held responsible for the actions of criminals. Which is basically what the woman was asking for. The police are under no legal obligation to prevent harm from befalling you. They will try to stop it, resolve conflicts, investigate crimes, make arrests and other things related to that. But they don't have to prevent it.

Now, as for the other question.

I'm largely against "Gun Control". My main issue is that it naively believes that criminals get their weapons legally. This is the same naive belief that suggests that Mexican drug cartels are getting military grade weaponry from the U.S. Also, I've heard of certain pet projects that groups like the Brady Campaign support. One such idea includes ammo that degrades over time or guns that stamp a serial number on the bullet before it is fired (to allow it to be traced). These ideas aren't feasible. In the case of the later, the only systems for that would increase the cost of the gun greatly and could be easily foiled.

Long story short. I'm for laws that require background checks and even a small waiting period. I'm for laws that prevent criminals and certain "at risk" individuals (like the mentally handicapped) from purchasing guns. I'm for laws that prevent people from taking guns into some locations, such as public schools, courts, and airports. I also support Concealed Carry and Castle Doctrine laws. I don't own a gun. I'm not afraid of guns. Seriously, a gun is no better than any other tool. It won't do anything on its own and is not inherently good or evil.

I fully agree that Americans have a Constitutional Right to guns for self defense, sport, and hunting. Just like any other right, you do not have the right to use it to inflict harm on others. For those of you in other countries, that's on you. If you think America is stupid for allowing citizens to posses guns. Good for you. You have an opinion.

 

[SilentCom]

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 don't follow your logic, if everyone is armed wouldn't the criminals have them too? not to mention most gun related deaths are by accident anyway. and what about the people who are not able to afford guns, is it free reign on them?

It's the police, the great thing about living in the first world is that we have systems in place to make sure the people we put in charge of 'protecting and serving' actually do those things.

I agree that the police should be 'protecting and serving' the public however I think what was meant is that even if criminals are armed, they would not be as willing to risk attacking another person because everyone else around them are likely armed as well.

Also, there are some cheap guns out there that are easily concealable that even poorer people could afford. Plus, if they can't afford a weapon then chances are they wouldn't have much of anything that a robber would want. Lastly, people with a criminal record cannot legally own a gun and should they have one in their possession, it would be through illegal purchase (black market) that cannot be regulated by laws, hence the illegal nature of the trade.

 

[RoBi3.0]

I am pro gun. Why? simply because, People should not fear their Governments, Governments should fear their People.

The second Amendment is a fail safe allowing the American People to maintain the ability to raise up and seize their Government back, if the need ever arose. I don't think we will ever need it, much like my spare tire I don't think I am going to need it but, I will not be taking it out of my car for any reason.

 

[Axyun]

No one can say with any level of certainty whether we will have less crime by further limiting the availability of guns or by giving guns to everyone that wants one. All we can do is speculate on either take.

IMO, completely abolish guns from the public. Modern armies are so advanced that I doubt a few hundread thousand untrained civilians could take down columns of tanks and squadrons of jets in case of a coup d'etat or wide-scale revolution.

But more importantly, I don't trust the general public with guns. Not out of fear of crime but fear of stupidity. Cars require training, money, and maintenance to operate yet millions don't know and don't care to know how their car works. On top of that, they drive irresponsibly and do stupid shit that gets them and other innocents killed.

I don't want people owning guns because they can. Most are too dumb and/or irresponsible to wield such a tool.

Picture a drunk, college frat dumbass driving a car. Now picture the same dumbass with a Beretta.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I am pro gun. Why? simply because, People should not fear their Governments, Governments should fear their People.

The second Amendment is a fail safe allowing the American People to maintain the ability to raise up and seize their Government back, if the need ever arose. I don't think we will ever need it, much like my spare tire I don't think I am going to need it but, I will not be taking it out of my car for any reason.

Yeah, except there is this teeny tiny thing called an army who will crush any attempt at rebellion.

And don't get your hopes up thinking that the army will turn on the government. They won't. [http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2007/02/16/when-good-people-do-evil-%E2%80%93-part-i/]

 

[dyre]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

You have lots of guns in the US. We have very few guns in Sweden. The US has a much higher crime rate, population difference taken into account. Explain this.

I'd guess it's not because Sweden has less guns; it's because Sweden has less criminals (percentage-wise). The US has a lot of diversity in cultures, wealth, education-level, etc. Lots of poor people who don't know who their dads are and only have access to shitty inner city schools. That sort of thing tends to lead to more crime. Guns are just an easily accessible tool (and will remain so, regardless of laws). We should've heavily regulated the damn things from the start, but it's too late for that.

Sweden's gun laws are tailored to work for Sweden, not the US

Interesting, so you're saying that crime rate has to do with non-gun related problems. How peculiar then that they can be solved by guns!

Why is that peculiar? Crime rate also has to do with non-police related problems, but they can be solved by police...

Actually, I think the police would have a lot fewer problems if guns weren't so readily available!

Do you have a point, or are you just spewing random talking points? Your statement is tangentially related to mine at best...

edit: I guess I'll clarify that a bit more
if you mean that police would have fewer problems fighting crime, then I don't see how that's related to what I'm saying
if you mean that police would have fewer problems because there would be less crime in general, then I already addressed that in my first reply to you

 

[RoBi3.0]

I am pro gun. Why? simply because, People should not fear their Governments, Governments should fear their People.

The second Amendment is a fail safe allowing the American People to maintain the ability to raise up and seize their Government back, if the need ever arose. I don't think we will ever need it, much like my spare tire I don't think I am going to need it but, I will not be taking it out of my car for any reason.

Yeah, except there is this teeny tiny thing called an army who will crush any attempt at rebellion.

And don't get your hopes up thinking that the army will turn on the government. They won't. [http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2007/02/16/when-good-people-do-evil-%E2%80%93-part-i/]

Meh, it is impossible to predict what will happen in any given situation that hasn't happened yet. I am not even going to begin to argue with you because as it is pointless. People will do what they must. Revolutionaries are rarely as well equipped to carry on the war they fight then those who they are fighting against. Your not really stating anything that isn't already known. Yet that doesn't ever stop them.

 

[direkiller]

I believe the case you are referring to sprang from a woman who was the victim of a crime attempted to sue the police for not protecting her. This went to the Supreme Court who decided that the police do not have an obligation to protect. Funny since the traditional motto of the police is "To Protect and Serve".

Personally, I don't think police should be held responsible for the actions of criminals. Which is basically what the woman was asking for. The police are under no legal obligation to prevent harm from befalling you. They will try to stop it, resolve conflicts, investigate crimes, make arrests and other things related to that. But they don't have to prevent it.

did a bit of digging
(think this is the case your talking about)
Castle Rock v. Gonzales: police cannot be sued for failure to enforce a restraining order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

DeShaney v. Winnebago County: state cannont be sued for failure to prevent child abuse

theres a few more but basically if a crime happens the police cannot be sued because they did not stop a crime.

 

[PhiMed]

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 don't follow your logic, if everyone is armed wouldn't the criminals have them too?They already have them. Arming non-criminals wouldn't make the criminals more armed

It's the police, the great thing about living in the first world is that we have systems in place to make sure the people we put in charge of 'protecting and serving' actually do those things.

Everyone trusts the system, until they are failed by it. A cop shot my friend's grandmother. In the face. When she was unarmed. Because they were serving a no-knock warrant to her next door neighbor, but they had the wrong address.

No one apologized. They tried to demonize her.

They tried to claim she had a weapon (her cane).

Her neighbor was still never arrested.

No police officers were disciplined.

She was 79. They have no justification for entering her house without identifying themselves, but she was killed because she was "resisting arrest" for a charge that has yet to be identified.

People defend the police in this country without question, because "they have such a hard job".

They have one of the few shift jobs left that still offer defined benefit pensions. They get paid, well, for work which requires next to no education. They are respected and venerated in nearly every public venue simply because they are wearing a uniform, and they are protected with the entire weight of the system when they screw up. The police, the district attorney, and the legislature all work together to ruin the life of anyone with a legitimate claim against them.

Google "police officer rape" some time. Very enlightening.

I have met exactly 3 police officers that actually deserve to wear the badge on their chest.

On a related note, if you still believe in "the system", I'll just leave this here.

 

[spartan231490]

Armed citizens. There is a documented study done comparing all the counties in the US, and the more people(percentage) who carry handguns legally, the lower the violent crime rate. Strong correlation.

United States of America / USA - 90 school shootings and 231 deaths, 13 of the 90 shootings did not result in any deaths. The first recorded shooting was in 1966.

Europe - 16 school shootings and 91 deaths, 3 of the 16 shootings did not result in any deaths. The first recorded shooting was in 1913.

Canada - 9 school shootings and 26 deaths, 1 of the 9 shootings did not result in any deaths. The first recorded shooting was in 1902.

South America, Asia, and Australia - 8 school shootings and 29 deaths, all shootings resulted in at least 1 death. The first recorded shooting was in 1997.

USA school shootings/deaths, more than the combined total of the rest of the world^...

It also apparently has the highest gun crime rate of any developed nation. (but that's all to be expected I guess)

Either a whole lot of you are a bunch of murderous monsters, or its the abundance of guns that is the problem. I'm an optimist, so I like to think its the guns

But even so, I'm pretty sure its too late for USA, gun bans wouldn't work now.

We have the highest gun crime. Not the highest violent crime. Or the highest total crime. my answer still stands.

 

[drmigit2]

in my opinion, guns should be outlawed 100%, giving police the ability to arrest anyone with a gun thus making the stopping of gang violence easier and drastically reducing the fatality score in America. I think this would also lead to the gradual demilitarization of the police and the end goal is for criminals to use knives and the police to use tazers.

 

[Axyun]

snip

Sorry to hear about what happened to your grandmother.

Most people think the police's job is to protect the innocent. That's not true. Their job is to arrest criminals. When they are interacting with you, they are not trying to gauge if you are an innocent they should risk their lives for. They are trying to gauge if you are a lying criminal that needs to be locked up.

A cop never asks you if "everything's alright" unless he suspects you are up to no good.