Public opinion regarding US Gun laws.

[BenG549]

About a month ago 2 police officers were killed in a "Gun and grenade attack" in Greater Manchester, UK:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-shot-dead-in-Manchester-as-man-arrested.html

This lead to the inevitable re birth of the topic "Should we arm our police force?"

This will not happen in the UK, at least not in the foreseeable future, however once every few years an incident will occur which leads certain people to ask the question - Incidentally carrying guns would not have saved the lives of the two very unfortunate officers in the case above.

A discussion (among some friends) around the issues of an armed police force followed (escalation, cost of adequate training, the responsibility of effectively having a button that will instantly end a life and how easy it is to make snap judgements in 'heated' situations) this subsequently lead to us discussing general firearm licencing laws, home and abroad.

Now, in the UK we generally have a very "Guns are used to kill people - Guns are bad" attitude in fact a 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

and to that end we often look at Americas apparently relaxed attitude to firearms as curious. This lead me to wonder what the general public in the US feel about the current gun culture, I was reading some general facts and figures on fire arm policy (link below) and I understand that laws generally differ slightly from state to state but generally is there a feeling that wide spread possession of fire arms is a bad thing? (88.8 guns per 100 people, 25% of adults owning a firearm - According to the links below anyway)

or is it so ingrained into the culture that little thought is paid to the matter on a day to day basis?

Although this is directed at the Americans out there (I imagine you are in the majority on this forum) obviously I would welcome some insight into laws and the general feelings of non Americans reading this - It would interesting to compare and contrast ideas and opinions from around the world!

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States



Ben.


N.B - For the sake of saying my bit I very much follow the general public opinion in England that the distribution of firearms or even the arming of the police force (with the exception of specialist tactical units) will do a lot more harm than good... although I welcome any attempt to change my opinion on that matter.

 

[skippy1729]

Although I am not aware of any polls on the topic, support for gun rights seems to be widespread and does not seem follow any strict political, racial or gender profile. In the past 20 years with the exception of the now expired "Assault Weapon Ban" (which was largely cosmetic) gun laws have become more liberal: more and easier to get concealed weapon permits, allowing firearms in National Parks, some states allowing carry on college campuses, etc. Many politicans of both parties take great care to maintain their NRA ratings. Even President Obama, who is willing to campaign on issues which divide the country has not mentioned guns in his current campaign. In the two years when the Democrats controlled the WH and the Congress they did not pass any significant gun laws. This evidence seems to indicate that support for gun rights is deep and widespread here in the USA.

 

[Pkruse]

Gun laws vary a great deal from one state to another. Nobody knows how many we have. Your number is probably for registered guns. Most estimates I've seen are about 2.5 guns per person. From my anecdotal experience I'd say it is probably higher. Most folks I know have at least one or two, but I know people who have dozens and a few that have at least 200. If I meet someone on the street I assume they are armed. I once had my car break down and I decided to walk ten miles home. I was openly carrying a shotgun that I did not want to leave in the car. A guy picked me up and gave me a ride. He had at least four guns in the truck cab that I saw and no doubt more that I did not see. We had a friendly conversation and the subject of guns never came up. The fact that we were both armed was a matter of routine. I know an elderly couple who have dozens hidden in their home, in both cars, in their RV, and on their person. It is that much a part of the culture.

 

[TheMadMonk]

This will not happen in the UK, at least not in the foreseeable future, however once every few years an incident will occur which leads certain people to ask the question - Incidentally carrying guns would not have saved the lives of the two very unfortunate officers in the case above.

I don't see how you could possibly know that. Had they been armed maybe Mr Cregan would have thought twice about trying to ambush them in the first place so who knows? We could go round and round with "what if" all day so it isn't a point I intend to dwell upon in any great detail as it detracts from the serious discussion to be had.

A discussion (among some friends) around the issues of an armed police force followed (escalation, cost of adequate training, the responsibility of effectively having a button that will instantly end a life and how easy it is to make snap judgements in 'heated' situations) this subsequently lead to us discussing general firearm licencing laws, home and abroad.

The risk of (the criminal) getting killed far outweighs the benefit of carrying a firearm in most cases. They have to get hold of a firearm first which isn't suddenly going to become easy just because the police have them. Most of the western world manages to deal with this issue so I'm not sure why we in Great Britain would struggle. If we can't trust our police officers with firearms we really should not be trusting them with police powers in the first place.

N.B - For the sake of saying my bit I very much follow the general public opinion in England that the distribution of firearms or even the arming of the police force (with the exception of specialist tactical units) will do a lot more harm than good... although I welcome any attempt to change my opinion on that matter.

I'm not sure the public in Great Britain would notice if the police were armed or not. A lot of them seem to think police are armed anyway. The police in Northern Ireland are armed as a matter of course and they manage not to shoot everything that moves (as do the police in many, many other countries). We're far too reticent to acknowledge the fact that the police sometimes have to do things which aren't very nice to protect law and order.

Personally, I think it is utterly scandalous that we do not give our police officers the proper tools to protect themselves and others. This quaint image of Dixon of Dock Green is putting lives at risk and the public don't seem to see that. The only argument, for me, that makes any sense is that officers don't want to carry a firearm but even then I'd wager a lot of that is down to myths about firearms that pervade British society. I'd like to see another poll taken, a lot has changed since the last one was done.

Incidentally, the training police officers in England, Wales and Scotland get in relation to what to do when faced with a firearm is basically to run away and hide behind something. That is an utterly ridiculous situation to be in and I can only imagine how helpless these officers must feel having to wait for armed units that could be 10/20/30 minutes away. The same goes when faced with a knife, they have a short piece of metal and a can of glorified silly string. I'd say it is by luck more than anything that more officers haven't died or been seriously hurt in various situations.

 

[BenG549]

gun laws have become more liberal: more and easier to get concealed weapon permits, allowing firearms in National Parks, some states allowing carry on college campuses, etc. Many politicans of both parties take great care to maintain their NRA ratings. Even President Obama, who is willing to campaign on issues which divide the country has not mentioned guns in his current campaign.

That's a very interesting point about how the issue is reflected in the topics under discussion around election time. I'm shocked to hear that some states permit firearms to be carried in colleges (more shocked that the colleges allow it to be honest). Are you constantly aware of the fact the people around you will be armed, or does it pass without thought?

What is the permitting process like where you're from? Is it a simple matter of a quick background check to make sure you haven't shot anyone in the last 18 months for example?

 

[BenG549]

Gun laws vary a great deal from one state to another. Nobody knows how many we have. Your number is probably for registered guns. Most estimates I've seen are about 2.5 guns per person. From my anecdotal experience I'd say it is probably higher. Most folks I know have at least one or two, but I know people who have dozens and a few that have at least 200. If I meet someone on the street I assume they are armed. I once had my car break down and I decided to walk ten miles home. I was openly carrying a shotgun that I did not want to leave in the car. A guy picked me up and gave me a ride. He had at least four guns in the truck cab that I saw and no doubt more that I did not see. We had a friendly conversation and the subject of guns never came up. The fact that we were both armed was a matter of routine. I know an elderly couple who have dozens hidden in their home, in both cars, in their RV, and on their person. It is that much a part of the culture.

There is pretty much nothing in that post that hasn't shocked me lol. Accepting that this is based on your personal experienced and not necessarily representative of the state/country as a whole, the fact you don't think twice about picking up someone carrying a shotgun or think twice about getting into a truck with someone armed to the teeth is a little strange to me.

Is it possible that the de sensitisation to guns is a bad thing? If its common place to carry a weapon around the street does this make it easier for "bad people to do bad things" for lack of a better term? It must be reflected in the homicide rates described in the link I posted above, i'll have to compare them against other countries to be sure of course.

 

[skippy1729]

That's a very interesting point about how the issue is reflected in the topics under discussion around election time. I'm shocked to hear that some states permit firearms to be carried in colleges (more shocked that the colleges allow it to be honest). Are you constantly aware of the fact the people around you will be armed, or does it pass without thought?

What is the permitting process like where you're from? Is it a simple matter of a quick background check to make sure you haven't shot anyone in the last 18 months for example?

I am in New Mexico. Open carry is allowed without permit except in courthouses, schools, bars and liquor stores. A concealed carry permit requires fingerprints, photo, firearms safety course and minimal proficiency; a felony background check is done. No permit is required to carry while in/on your vehicle (auto, horse, bicycle, motorcycle, snowmobile) which is considered an extension of your home. In New Mexico the crime of carjacking is often referred to as "attempted suicide".

It does not concern me at all that many of my fellow citizens are armed in public, in fact, I find it reassuring.

 

[BenG549]

I don't see how you could possibly know that. Had they been armed maybe Mr Cregan would have thought twice about trying to ambush them in the first place so who knows?

And then...

The risk of (the criminal) getting killed far outweighs the benefit of carrying a firearm in most cases.

... Does it, how could you know that. Do you not think that with an armed police force criminals will attempt to better arm themselves, and I'm not sure how you know the ease with which criminals in England acquire firearms, I don't.

I did actually say that on the back of a T.V news report in which various professionals suggested (given an examination of the scene) that it would not have helped.

Personally, I think it is utterly scandalous that we do not give our police officers the proper tools to protect themselves and others.

I'll re direct you to the earlier post in which the statistics clearly state that the police don't feel the need, nor want to carry guns.

myths about firearms that pervade British society. I'd like to see another poll taken, a lot has changed since the last one was done.

The stats detailing homicide rate in the US are not myths.

Incidentally, the training police officers in England, Wales and Scotland get in relation to what to do when faced with a firearm is basically to run away and hide behind something.

.

I'm not aware of this (despite my dad being a police officer for 33 years) could you provide me with a reference as to where you got that information.

I'd say it is by luck more than anything that more officers haven't died or been seriously hurt in various situations.

Forgive me for not being convinced by your speculation that luck is to thank for the fact that our police are not regularly seriously injured.

 

[turbo]

I live in rural Maine. Every single household within a mile of my place has guns. Guns for hunting, for pest-control, and for home defense. With the exception of one household (older couple) every house has at least one dog. Great alarm systems as well as companionship.

That's just the way it is here. If meth-heads want to engage in home invasions and robbery to support their habits (a big deal out here), they would be well-advised to pick softer targets, or end up in the morgue.

For the record, our little town has no PD, and we only get occasional patrols by the county sheriff (I can't remember the last time I saw a county mountie drive by), and we are at least 20 minutes away from a 911 call to having a state trooper or sheriff's deputy show up. You're pretty much on your own here, at least for the short term. Actually, I don't regard 20 minutes as "short" if someone is trying to break in, but that's another discussion.

 

[CAC1001]

and to that end we often look at Americas apparently relaxed attitude to firearms as curious.

Yes, and we look at your apparently very restrictive attitude to them as curious We also arm our police.

This lead me to wonder what the general public in the US feel about the current gun culture, I was reading some general facts and figures on fire arm policy (link below) and I understand that laws generally differ slightly from state to state but generally is there a feeling that wide spread possession of fire arms is a bad thing? (88.8 guns per 100 people, 25% of adults owning a firearm - According to the links below anyway)

or is it so ingrained into the culture that little thought is paid to the matter on a day to day basis?

Although this is directed at the Americans out there (I imagine you are in the majority on this forum) obviously I would welcome some insight into laws and the general feelings of non Americans reading this - It would interesting to compare and contrast ideas and opinions from around the world!

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States



Ben.


N.B - For the sake of saying my bit I very much follow the general public opinion in England that the distribution of firearms or even the arming of the police force (with the exception of specialist tactical units) will do a lot more harm than good... although I welcome any attempt to change my opinion on that matter.

One thing to remember about the right to bear arms that a lot of people never consider is that it is one of the most fundamental rights of nature, i.e., one's right to protect themself. It is interesting politically that often times you'll have people who will argue very passionately about one's right to their own body, that NO ONE should have any right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own body, that if there is any very fundamental right of nature, it's one's right to their body. But then a lot of times these same people will be very anti-gun rights, and by extension, anti-one's right to protect themself.

Now we understand this right implicitly when it comes to wildlife. Walk up to a squirrel and pick it up and if it bites you, a lot of people would have the attitude of, "Well what did you think was going to happen!? It had no idea what you were going to try to do, so it is going to try and defend itself." With humans, you can't protect yourself from other animals in the wilderness if you aren't armed. And you will not be able to protect yourself against other humans, who will likely be in groups such as gangs or tribes, and armed themselves, unless you yourself are armed. So by its very nature, your natural right to protect yourself entails a fundamental, pre-existing individual right to bear arms.

Living in modern societies reduces the need to exercise this right, but it doesn't eliminate it. There are criminals who do not abide by the law, instances where civil order breaks down due to social unrest or natural disaster, and sometimes a people may have to overthrow a tyrannical government

The stats detailing homicide rate in the US are not myths.

Homicides I would argue are not caused by the prevalance of guns so much as things such as poverty, drugs, gangs, the breakdown of the family unit, and so forth. Most of the U.S. gun violence occurs in our major cities, and tends to be in the inner city areas:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2011/05/CDC-US-murder-toll-from-guns-highest-in-big-cities/47159990/1

 

[Pkruse]

Ben: honestly, I don't normally think about it any more than I think about how many hammers a carpenter might own. I attended a funeral for a very old lady who was much loved and well respected in the community.

She had a large extended family and they all came from out of town. They were all well educated professional people. Afterwards I asked one of her sons what sort of gun I should buy for my wife to carry. I told him what she already had and that she does not like it. So he called his wife over and told her to show her gun to my wife. She started to pull one from her purse, and he said, "Not that one, the one on your leg."So she reached under her skirt and handed a pistol to my wife. The two ladies had a long conversation and I ended up buying one just like it.

Her husband then asked me if we wanted to see anything else. He said that among his family in church right then they had about 300 guns and thee times that in the parking lot.

Nobody present thought that odd or expressed any concern about.

I don't know anyone not in law enforcement who has ever had a reason to point a gun at anybody, let alone to shoot at them. That is not what it is about. To many, it is simply a patriotic duty to own guns and to be ready to use them. The belief often is that if you are ready to use them, then you probably won't have to use them.

 

[TheMadMonk]

And then...

... Does it, how could you know that. Do you not think that with an armed police force criminals will attempt to better arm themselves, and I'm not sure how you know the ease with which criminals in England acquire firearms, I don't.

No, I don't. What incentive is there for a petty thief (for example) to carry a firearm just because the police also do? If he gets caught with it, he's going to prison for a lot longer than if he gets caught with a gammon joint shoved in his jacket. He's also more likely to get shot. It doesn't happen in plenty of other countries where the police are routinely armed so why do you think it would happen here?

I'd also ask your Father about what happens when armed officers turn up on scene and the effect that can have on non-compliant persons. A lot of them do not want to get shot and I don't think for a second that is a great revelation.

The availability of illegal firearms in the UK isn't exactly a secret. That's just the first link that came up from Google, I'm sure you could find a lot more if you wished.

I did actually say that on the back of a T.V news report in which various professionals suggested (given an examination of the scene) that it would not have helped.

An expert says something on TV so it must be true? You're easily convinced.

I'll re direct you to the earlier post in which the statistics clearly state that the police don't feel the need, nor want to carry guns.

Which you might have noticed is something I mentioned as probably the only reason that makes any sense to me.

The stats detailing homicide rate in the US are not myths.

I fail to see the relevance of that to arming the police in Great Britain...

I'm not aware of this (despite my dad being a police officer for 33 years) could you provide me with a reference as to where you got that information.

Is he still serving? If he is then he will have been taught the Six Cs method during OST or a subsequent refresher (or should have been). When my parents last served I don't believe it was taught that way but something very similar was. One of the ACPO guidance manuals details it, I forget which one though. This link should help you in case you don't believe me.

Out of interest what did you think they did?

Forgive me for not being convinced by your speculation that luck is to thank for the fact that our police are not regularly seriously injured.

Believe what you like.

 

[BenG549]

I am in New Mexico. Open carry is allowed without permit except in courthouses, schools, bars and liquor stores. A concealed carry permit requires fingerprints, photo, firearms safety course and minimal proficiency; a felony background check is done. No permit is required to carry while in/on your vehicle (auto, horse, bicycle, motorcycle, snowmobile) which is considered an extension of your home. In New Mexico the crime of carjacking is often referred to as "attempted suicide".

It does not concern me at all that many of my fellow citizens are armed in public, in fact, I find it reassuring.

Hey skippy, thanks for your insight into the laws in your state. Very interesting. It does fascinate me though how you can, in one breath, say that car theft can be considered suicide (i.e. someone will kill you for trying to steal their car) and in another breath say you feel remeasured by the fact that people have, and can use at any time (under their own justification) a firearm.

Don't get me wrong I'm not claiming that your wrong for thinking that but it is an interesting disparity from the view widely held "this side of the pond".

Maybe I just lack faith in peoples ability to act rationally and hence giving them a "death at the push of a button device" is not in my best interests, however your experiences seem to differ from mine. Which is point of this thread I guess!

 

[BenG549]

Yes, and we look at your apparently very restrictive attitude to them as curious.

lol that's a fair point!

It is interesting politically that often times you'll have people who will argue very passionately about one's right to their own body, that NO ONE should have any right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own body, that if there is any very fundamental right of nature, it's one's right to their body. But then a lot of times these same people will be very anti-gun rights, and by extension, anti-one's right to protect themself. Now we understand this right implicitly when it comes to wildlife. Walk up to a squirrel and pick it up and if it bites you, a lot of people would have the attitude of, "Well what did you think was going to happen!? It had no idea what you were going to try to do, so it is going to try and defend itself."

I'm sorry but I think this is ridiculous! Yes you should have a right to do what you want with your own body, but should right extend to putting a hole in some one just because YOU (one person) feel like they deserve it? What about their right to a fair trial? or their right to their own (living) body? As for a fundamental right of nature, I'm sorry but a squirrel instinctively biting you because it feels uncomfortable is not analogous to shooting, and hence intentionally killing, another human.

Living in modern societies reduces the need to exercise this right, but it doesn't eliminate it. There are criminals who do not abide by the law, instances where civil order breaks down due to social unrest or natural disaster, and sometimes a people may have to overthrow a tyrannical government

I completely agree with your first sentence but this is why we have state funded police services and not a series of renegade vigilantes. And not abiding by the law surely (given that the average person is not a judge) should not give anyone the right to shoot a person.

Homicides I would argue are not caused by the prevalance of guns so much as things such as poverty, drugs, gangs, the breakdown of the family unit, and so forth. Most of the U.S. gun violence occurs in our major cities, and tends to be in the inner city areas:

I appreciate you posting a reference for your statement, and I agree that this is probably the case, however the root issues that you mentioned are not limited to large American cities; poverty, drugs and broken homes are universal problems, but at the end of the day not having easy access to firearms makes it harder for an impoverished or deprived person to shoot someone, does it not?

No matter what your reasons are to kill, it is easier to kill a person with a gun than by any other means (it is far less personal i.e. it requires minimal contact and requires far less action i.e. pull a trigger - job done)

I'm not sure you can argue that gun relates homicides would not be reduced by making firearms illegal.

 

[BenG549]

Ben: honestly, I don't normally think about it any more than I think about how many hammers a carpenter might own. I attended a funeral for a very old lady who was much loved and well respected in the community.

She had a large extended family and they all came from out of town. They were all well educated professional people. Afterwards I asked one of her sons what sort of gun I should buy for my wife to carry. I told him what she already had and that she does not like it. So he called his wife over and told her to show her gun to my wife. She started to pull one from her purse, and he said, "Not that one, the one on your leg."So she reached under her skirt and handed a pistol to my wife. The two ladies had a long conversation and I ended up buying one just like it.

Her husband then asked me if we wanted to see anything else. He said that among his family in church right then they had about 300 guns and thee times that in the parking lot.

Nobody present thought that odd or expressed any concern about.

I don't know anyone not in law enforcement who has ever had a reason to point a gun at anybody, let alone to shoot at them. That is not what it is about. To many, it is simply a patriotic duty to own guns and to be ready to use them. The belief often is that if you are ready to use them, then you probably won't have to use them.

Cheers Pkruse, this is the sort of response I was after. As much as I find the scene you describe odd (and a little disturbing lol) I know its only because of my own prejudices and the that I'm used to a relatively gun free culture. I was wondering is the peoples opinion was reflected in the law and, apparently it is.

 

[BenG549]

I'd also ask your Father about what happens when armed officers turn up on scene and the effect that can have on non-compliant persons. A lot of them do not want to get shot and I don't think for a second that is a great revelation.

In all fairness we do have tactical armed units that are called upon in necessary circumstances, but these guys don't deal with pretty criminals... unless a firearm is involved. If they don't have a firearm I would say the risk of someone getting shot was infinitely less compared with a case where the police are armed.

An expert says something on TV so it must be true? You're easily convinced.

Are suggesting that a senior police officers statement is in valid just because it was aired on TV?... In fairness it's probably the best point you've made so i'll retract my statement that it definitely would not have helped, but we still can't be sure that it would have helped - I think that's fair.

Which you might have noticed is something I mentioned as probably the only reason that makes any sense to me... I fail to see the relevance of that to arming the police in Great Britain...

what you actually said was..

"The only argument, for me, that makes any sense is that officers don't want to carry a firearm but even then I'd wager a lot of that is down to myths about firearms that pervade British society. I'd like to see another poll taken, a lot has changed since the last one was done." ... that was the actual statement you made and the "myths" about firearms that lead to our "biased view" are the "myths" regarding gun crime and gun related homicides in places like the US - That's the relevance!

and we don't need to take a new survey, what has really changed in relation to gun crime in the last 6 years, you can't say "a lot has changed" and then not give an example!

Is he still serving? If he is then he will have been taught the Six Cs method during OST or a subsequent refresher (or should have been). When my parents last served I don't believe it was taught that way but something very similar was. One of the ACPO guidance manuals details it, I forget which one though. This link should help you in case you don't believe me.

Ok for some reason the links you gave are not working (might be my internet) I will ask him about it but on a quick Google search the Six Cs method during OST came back with nothing but a link to this thread and by ACPO guidance do you mean the police first aid learning programme? I will ask him about this (he is asleep at the moment) and if he tells me your right I'll be sure to let you know... if not I'll probably, to be honest ill probably tell you as well.

Believe what you like.

Generally what I like are things that are not borne out of speculation... you can't say "I think its just luck" and expect to be taken seriously, surely?

 

[Evo]

Cheers Pkruse, this is the sort of response I was after. As much as I find the scene you describe odd (and a little disturbing lol) I know its only because of my own prejudices and the that I'm used to a relatively gun free culture. I was wondering is the peoples opinion was reflected in the law and, apparently it is.

It's definitely not common Ben. You won't find anyone around where I live with a gun. I don't even know anyone that owns a gun and I am for gun control. Not all Americans are gun crazy.

The number of Americans that own guns is a minority, with maybe 1/3 of adults admitting to owning one. Now the ones that own them tend to own more than one. Although around 41% claim they have a gun somewhere on their property.

Majority of men, Republicans, and Southerners report having a gun in their households

One in Three Americans Personally Own a Gun

Since 2000, Gallup has asked respondents with guns in their households a follow-up question to determine if the gun belongs to the respondent or to someone else. On this basis, Gallup finds that 34% of all Americans personally own a gun.

The gender gap in personal gun ownership is wider than that seen for household ownership, as 46% of all adult men vs. 23% of all women say they personally own a gun.

Middle-aged adults -- those 35 to 54 years of age -- and adults with no college education are more likely than their counterparts to be gun owners.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

Another article you might like to read.

Crime is down -- and so is gun ownership


As the political debate over gun control heats up in the aftermath of the mass killing in Aurora, Colo., here are three important trends to keep in mind: Criminal violence in America has dropped to levels not seen in more than a generation, the percentage of Americans owning guns is down and public support for gun control measures has plummeted as well.

Do fewer Americans own guns now because crime has dropped so much? Or has crime dropped in part because fewer Americans own guns? Has support for gun control gone down because fewer Americans are experiencing gun violence in their daily lives, or because of other factors, particularly partisan differences? Each of those questions is a matter for debate.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-pn-crime-is-down-and-so-is-gun-ownership-20120722

I think that threads like this tend to draw the gun enthusiasts and skews perception.

 

[Pythagorean]

Alaskan here; I have three rifles and a compound bow. My guns are not for shooting people, not even for self-defense. They're for hunting.

Of ~70 murders in Alaska from 2003-2005, 82% if them involved handguns (no reports of rifles). However, 3% of deaths (overall deaths) were from firearm accidents (not sure if handgun/rifle).

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/25/4winter2009/b_nvdrs.html

 

[BenG549]

I think that threads like this tend to draw the gun enthusiasts and skews perception.

Based on some of the comments I've read I was starting to get that impression.

Cheers Evo I'll have a look through the links you've posted.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Incidentally, the training police officers in England, Wales and Scotland get in relation to what to do when faced with a firearm is basically to run away and hide behind something.

Your own link shows this to not be true. The 6 Cs you refer to are:

1. Confirm as far as possible the location of the suspect and that firearms are involved without unnecessarily exposing yourself to danger.

2. Cover to be taken, if possible, behind substantial material. Brick walls are usually sufficient. Motor vehicle bodies or wooden fences do not stop bullets.

3. Contact your supervisors and convince them of the serious nature of the risk and call for suitable back-up.

4. Civilians should be directed to a place of safety. Be positive.

5. Colleagues should be prevented from coming into possible danger areas. Direct them positively.

6. Contain the situation as far as practicable. Try to maintain observations on the suspect, but place emphasis on safety.

It is extremely mischaracterizing bordering on misinformation for you to describe this as "run away and hide behind something".

 

[marty1]

If we disarm our citizens and police, the criminals will be less inclined to arm themselves for protection? Is that what I am hearing?

I am in the U.S. and glad that our police are armed.

 

[Mentalist]

I've always been an advocate for gun control laws being a bit more serious and effective.

You do not need an AR15 to hunt deer. So ban long guns except for hunting rifles.

You do not need a shotgun for hunting either, so ban those as well.

Defensive handguns are okay in my honest opinion however, extended magazines need to be banned.

This was posted in July and does not take in recent gun homicide rates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

they base that chart on the UNODC:

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/data.html

 

[TheMadMonk]

In all fairness we do have tactical armed units that are called upon in necessary circumstances, but these guys don't deal with pretty criminals... unless a firearm is involved. If they don't have a firearm I would say the risk of someone getting shot was infinitely less compared with a case where the police are armed.

Do they only deal with the ugly criminals then?

They respond to far more than just people with firearms, I don't know where this misconception comes from. They attend calls where other weapons are used (knives, bats, chairs, all sorts) as well as things like dangerous dogs and all sorts of other incidents in between. It varies from force to force as well. They could be right on top of you or they could be on the other side of the force area. There aren't enough of them, routine arming or not.

You've already identified that most low level criminals don't generally carry firearms so why would they start? They'll get a slap on the wrist from the courts if they don't have a firearm and they'll get a mandatory prison term (I forget how long for) if they do on top of the fact that they're far more likely to get shot if they carry a weapon. Why risk it?

Are suggesting that a senior police officers statement is in valid just because it was aired on TV?... In fairness it's probably the best point you've made so i'll retract my statement that it definitely would not have helped, but we still can't be sure that it would have helped - I think that's fair.

I'd say senior officers have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. No Government wants to be the one that arms the police because it will be an admission that crime is worse than they want us to believe and a lot of senior officers seem to go along with whatever the Government of the day wants. If you look at ACPOs response to proposed pay and conditions reforms in England and Wales you'll see what I mean straight away.

what you actually said was..

"The only argument, for me, that makes any sense is that officers don't want to carry a firearm but even then I'd wager a lot of that is down to myths about firearms that pervade British society. I'd like to see another poll taken, a lot has changed since the last one was done." ... that was the actual statement you made and the "myths" about firearms that lead to our "biased view" are the "myths" regarding gun crime and gun related homicides in places like the US - That's the relevance!

I'm going to accuse you of cherry picking your data to fit your agenda. Northern Ireland for instance has a far greater rates of firearm ownership than Great Britain yet doesn't have sky high gun crime. Of course, it isn't in your interest to present that side of the argument so I can see why you ignore it but I do nonetheless think saying we'll turn in the USA overnight is wrong.

and we don't need to take a new survey, what has really changed in relation to gun crime in the last 6 years, you can't say "a lot has changed" and then not give an example!

Again, this idea that firearms are a response to gun crime rears it's ugly head. Knife crime is something that often requires an armed response, if somebody comes at you with a knife all you have to defend yourself is a can of spray which doesn't always work and a baton that let's that person get far too close for my liking.

I doubt a six year old survey accurately reflects the current mood one way or the other. We've had a number of high profile incidents in recent years involving weapons and there is certainly clamour for carrying of Tasers in response to situations where an officers PPE is inadequate (the PolFed in E&W did surveys on Tasers that might surprise you, amazing how it changed over time). If 90% of current serving officers decided they didn't want to carry a firearm I'm sure you'd be proclaiming the benefits of a new survey!

Ok for some reason the links you gave are not working (might be my internet) I will ask him about it but on a quick Google search the Six Cs method during OST came back with nothing but a link to this thread and by ACPO guidance do you mean the police first aid learning programme? I will ask him about this (he is asleep at the moment) and if he tells me your right I'll be sure to let you know... if not I'll probably, to be honest ill probably tell you as well.

Must be a problem at your end, shows for me. Drop me a PM if you can't see it and I'll sort something out.

ACPO produce guidance on almost anything to do with policing. Some of it is specific to England and Wales, some applies to Northern Ireland as well and some has also been approved by ACPOS as suitable for application in Scotland. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with their first aid guidance, it would either be Use of Firearms guidance or Emergency Procedures. The six cs might have been replaced with something in a newer manual but the principle for unarmed officers will be the same.

Generally what I like are things that are not borne out of speculation... you can't say "I think its just luck" and expect to be taken seriously, surely?

Do you know how many police officers get seriously injured on duty each year?

 

[TheMadMonk]

Your own link shows this to not be true. The 6 Cs you refer to are:

1. Confirm as far as possible the location of the suspect and that firearms are involved without unnecessarily exposing yourself to danger.

2. Cover to be taken, if possible, behind substantial material. Brick walls are usually sufficient. Motor vehicle bodies or wooden fences do not stop bullets.

3. Contact your supervisors and convince them of the serious nature of the risk and call for suitable back-up.

4. Civilians should be directed to a place of safety. Be positive.

5. Colleagues should be prevented from coming into possible danger areas. Direct them positively.

6. Contain the situation as far as practicable. Try to maintain observations on the suspect, but place emphasis on safety.

It is extremely mischaracterizing bordering on misinformation for you to describe this as "run away and hide behind something".

I'm sorry but that is what it boils down to. You get behind some cover, get on the radio units to attend and if you're still getting shot at there isn't a whole lot you can do.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm sorry but that is what it boils down to. You get behind some cover, get on the radio units to attend and if you're still getting shot at there isn't a whole lot you can do.

It clearly doesn't boil down to that. A big part of those 6 suggestions is keeping track of the target whilst coordinating with colleagues to keep them and the public safe. Your characterisation implies that the police just flee the scene and hide whilst waiting for an armed team to arrive. Rather they will constantly be in communication with colleagues to track the gunman and clear the area of members of the public.

In effect doing everything they can short of tackling the gunman directly. Exactly what you would expect from an unarmed officer. I'd be interested to know how this differs with offices equipped with tazers.

 

[TheMadMonk]

It clearly doesn't boil down to that. A big part of those 6 suggestions is keeping track of the target whilst coordinating with colleagues to keep them and the public safe. Your characterisation implies that the police just flee the scene and hide whilst waiting for an armed team to arrive. Rather they will constantly be in communication with colleagues to track the gunman and clear the area of members of the public.

That's not what I was trying to imply at all. The most important thing you do is get behind cover (which I think can be called hiding pretty reasonably) and they get on the radio. They aren't walking about fending off bullets with their warrant card or running at them batons drawn.

In effect doing everything they can short of tackling the gunman directly. Exactly what you would expect from an unarmed officer. I'd be interested to know how this differs with offices equipped with tazers.

I still think it is scandalous to send unarmed officers to incidents with weapons involved. A lot of times they get sent to confirm whether a weapon is present or not and then the IRV is deployed which, personally, I find unacceptable.

Taser (no z in it) alters things slightly but if somebody is shooting at you a Taser isn't going to be much help so the process going to change.

I assume you have no police service Ryan, is that correct?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's not what I was trying to imply at all. The most important thing you do is get behind cover (which I think can be called hiding pretty reasonably) and they get on the radio.

It may not be what you were trying to do but that's how it came across.

They aren't walking about fending off bullets with their warrant card or running at them batons drawn.

Of course not.

I still think it is scandalous to send unarmed officers to incidents with weapons involved. A lot of times they get sent to confirm whether a weapon is present or not and then the IRV is deployed which, personally, I find unacceptable.

What does an IRV have to do with it? They are not necessarily armed. I also question the idea that police officers are sent to confirm a weapon after it has been reported. Do you have any links demonstrating that this is standard practice?

Taser (no z in it) alters things slightly but if somebody is shooting at you a Taser isn't going to be much help so the process going to change.

That really depends on the situation doesn't it? If they are in effective range of the taser and there's a chance to shoot them with it it might change things a lot.

I assume you have no police service Ryan, is that correct?

Nope. Not that that's relevant to my ability to learn about and discuss a topic.

Either way this is getting incredibly off topic. The thread is about public opinion of US gun laws in the United States. Not whether or not police in a different nation should be armed as standard.

 

[TheMadMonk]

What does an IRV have to do with it? They are not necessarily armed. I also question the idea that police officers are sent to confirm a weapon after it has been reported. Do you have any links demonstrating that this is standard practice?

IRV (sometimes known as an ARV) is the incident response vehicle carrying AFOs (authorised firearms officers). Hopefully you can see why that is relevant now.

As for links, I can't find any at the moment (generally not something police forces want to publicise, ask any police officers you know if it happens though) but I can assure that it is a lot more common than you might imagine. No point sending firearms officers out every time a car misfires so unarmed officers will often be sent to confirm before the IRV is sent.

That really depends on the situation doesn't it? If they are in effective range of the taser and there's a chance to shoot them with it it might change things a lot.

In cases where somebody is carrying a gun but not using it then yes, it may be approriate but I can't think of one case in the UK where an active shooter has been tasered whilst engaging police.

Nope. Not that that's relevant to my ability to learn about and discuss a topic.

It's more to do with whether you understand some of the jargon or not, I'll try my best to make it clear.

Either way this is getting incredibly off topic. The thread is about public opinion of US gun laws in the United States. Not whether or not police in a different nation should be armed as standard.

The OP specifically mentioned it in their first post and invited discussion on it. How is that off topic?

 

[Alfi]

I do not own a gun I wish that no other person had a gun.

just my opinion.

 

[edward]

Tourist Information:

If you come over to the USA from any other country, things are different here. If you are pulled over by a traffic policeman, do not get out of the vehicle. Do not allow a passenger to get out of the vehicle. Do not make any sudden moves inside of the vehicle.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

hi I'm a college student in the USA and I would be a little unnerved seeing a person walking down the road with a shotgun out. However, I don't know where Pkruse is from. If I were in his area, I assume I would know about the general opinion on guns and so I wouldn't be so freaked out.

But if I were back in my home neighborhood in southeastern Pennsylvania and I saw a dude with a shotgun on... any road, I would be pretty freaked out. Getting into a pickup truck with a guy and seeing guns in there, well probably not so much, even if it was near my home. Of course, I don't come into contact with firearms very often at all... okay barely at all. The only times I see guns are when they are in the holsters of police officers. And that's not very often.But I mean I definitely understand why guns are such a big deal in parts of the country. 200-100 years ago people very literally *depended* on their guns. It's hard to change such a part of a culture. There are people who really love their guns. They see them as important, they see them as something specifically spoken about in the *constitution*.

I can also see both sides, I think, of the whole gun control debate in the USA. On one hand people say that we should have more gun control because having people walking around with guns strapped to legs, in purses, in cars, etc. is like whoooah man every body be cool. But obviously in these places, as Pkruse has shown us, people are not antsy about the idea that everyone has a gun... because it is a thing for them.

But then I mean... I would be also very much okay if we could live in a society where we just plain didn't need guns. Of course, that is a very idealistic position, but I think idealism is okay as long as it is held in check by a little realism: that realism being that there are dangerous people out there and that getting rid of guns won't stop people from doing bad things. Anyways that's my opinion on guns in the US.

 

[Evo]

I know where Pkruse lives, and I've been there numerous times and the parts of his town that I've been in, I've never seen a gun (I have no idea what part of town he lives in). You have to realize that there are "different" parts of towns that can be their own little worlds.

I grew up in Houston, TX, and back in the old days, rednecks actually had gun racks in the rear window of their pickup trucks where they would store their shotguns. Of course back then it was legal to drink and drive, you could pull up to the drive through window at the liquor store, your shotguns proudly on display behind your head, get a bunch of booze and drive off drinking. YEE HAW!

Except on Sundays, of course. If you wanted to get drunk driving around with your guns on Sunday, you had to buy your booze in advance.

 

[AlephZero]

If we disarm our citizens and police, the criminals will be less inclined to arm themselves for protection? Is that what I am hearing?

What I'm hearing from that quote is that you are living in a society where "the rules" of how to behave are set by the criminals, and you don't seem to have a problem with that.

 

[rootX]

Incidentally, the training police officers in England, Wales and Scotland get in relation to what to do when faced with a firearm is basically to run away and hide behind something. That is an utterly ridiculous situation to be in and I can only imagine how helpless these officers must feel having to wait for armed units that could be 10/20/30 minutes away.

...

I still think it is scandalous to send unarmed officers to incidents with weapons involved

It's a lengthy long discussion but this thing caught my attention. You were talking about police officers in training not all the police officers?

 

[Evo]

...

It's a lengthy long discussion but this thing caught my attention. You were talking about police officers in training not all the police officers?

I think it would have been clearer if he had said "the training that police officers get", he didn't mean officers still in training, IMO.