Does Gun Control Benefit LE?
Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
Before we were at war in Iraq and Afghanistan… before the economy went in the toilet… before our country was overwhelming consumed by our most recent historical presidential election… BEFORE all that there was gun control. My question today is whether or not gun control laws benefit the law enforcement community?
Gun Control Laws actually have existed for hundreds of years. Of course, in colonial America they were vastly different than they are today. For instance, in colonial Massachusetts, it was required that any citizen traveling more than one mile from home be armed. Get that? It was required that they carry a gun! Can you imagine? In Massachusetts no less?
Today - a couple hundred years and a lot of technological evolution later - the reality of citizens carrying guns isn’t embraced quite as strongly by most state governments and usually not by the federal government. And, although we can all be cynical and wonder what’s really behind the votes, even our current federal government seems to want to avoid gun control issues… for now. Just recently Congress passed a bill that will allow those with concealed carry permits to carry those weapons in federal parks. While this bill may have passed because it was attached to a Credit Card Reform bill, the separate vote taken indicates suprisingly large support for the carry law.
But let us return to the question at hand: do Gun Control Laws benefit law enforcement?
There are those among us who suggest that it has to be good for law enforcement that it’s difficult (at best) for the average citizen to obtain and own a Class III weapon such as a select-fire rifle or a belt-fed machine gun. Depending on which study results you cite, laws controlling the purchase of such weapons either do absolutely no good or, if they prevent sales, the percentage of those sales is so insignificant as to not matter in the real world. As a police veteran of 25+ years, I can honestly say I’ve never seen a criminal in possession of a Class III weapon. In fact, every gun I ever took in an arrest was either dangerously cheap / ill-maintained, or was fake. My favorite of all time was the .22lr pistol that was packed in mud, in a zip lock bag (the badguy was trying to hide his possession with a bag full of “soil sample”), with the magazine loaded into the pistol backwards, and the bullets loaded into the magazine backward. SO… although the bullets WERE pointed in the right direction, the magazine wouldn’t seat fully into the pistol and the slide was so packed with mud that it wouldn’t cycle anyway.
The popular argument from pro-2nd-Amendment folks is that since criminals, by definition, don’t care about the law, then no law will ever prevent them from procuring the weapon(s) of their choice. Alongside that thought is that law ABIDING citizens DO care about the law and would, therefore, most likely be surrendering weapons or denied weapons if further gun restrictions were put into effect. If a law ABIDING citizen is legally in possession of a firearm, do they represent a threat to the law enforcement community? I don’t think so, but plenty of people disagree with me. I know officers who would prefer that no citizen ever have a gun because ANY citizen with a gun represents an increased threat possibility at every encounter. My argument is that we (police) have to treat every unknown-risk encounter with proper tactics anyway - as if the citizen DOES have a gun - so whether or not they do shouldn’t matter.
What I think concerns me most - now that I’m retired - is how we law enforcement professionals sometimes tend to lump all “unknowns” into the “criminal” category until we discover differently. This is, obviously, necessary for officer survival especially during the first few minutes of any encounter with an unknown in the course of our duties. However, once the unknown becomes known and is proven to be a law-abiding citizen who supports and respects law enforcement, then why would we even begin to worry about them being legally armed?
I know, I know… it only takes a moment… a thought… and that law abiding armed citizen can turn criminal and then we’re dealing with an armed criminal. If that’s true, then isn’t the reverse also true? It only takes a moment, a thought, for the armed criminal to become a law abiding citizen right?
Obviously we can’t work under that assumption, so the former doesn’t make sense to me either.
In the end I believe that Gun Control laws are not of much benefit to law enforcement. Bad guys will get guns no matter what. Good guys - those citizens who respect and support us - present no threat in owning or carrying firearms (although I agree they need to be well trained!).
When you stop to think about how many officers are killed with knives, cars, blunt trauma instruments, etc., it’s obvious that even if the world had no guns in it at all there would still be a huge threat of violence toward law enforcement. We can’t regulate all of those other threats out of existance, so why focus on ONE segment of threat?
I really am interested in your thoughts and opinions on this. I can’t help but wonder what the majority of other officers think and feel on this topic.
STAY SAFE!
By and large i agree with your contention, but I also feel that existing federal gun laws — the requirement that a purchaser pass a background check — are reasonable. They’d be more reasonable, of course, if the mental illness section of the law wasn’t negated by privacy laws. I held a carry license in Georgia, where I am POST-certified, and carried just about constantly. I haven’t gotten a license in New Mexico because I don’t feel the need for one where I live. I have a strong feeling that video games requiring the player to kill everything that moves and reward outright criminal conduct are a hell of a lot more threatening to society than the availabiity of firearms. Since I’m venting, I’d sure like to know what basis in fact there is for the contention that automatic weapons are flowing from the United States into Mexico. It makes no sense. As you mention, Class II weapons are pretty rare in this country. It makes a lot more sense for the cartels to import them from crooked dealers in more corrupt countries than to get them by the sedan-load from the United States. Incidentally, I’m a reserve deputy in Grant County, NM.
Frank, I have read many of your articles in the past. Mostly the ones regarding CCW holders and gun control.
I am not a police officer but I have been in the Army for 20yrs now. Someday soon before I get too old I want to join a police force locally. It is nice to hear that the majority of law enforcement officers do support law abiding gun ownership. You said it best when you said no criminal by definition do not obey the law.
I am a CCW holder for about 7 years now. I stay proficient with my weapons by doing many dry fire drills and of course shooting about 500 rounds a month. I carry as often as the law allows. Of course I do not enter any government buildings, schools , or any other placed deemed no carry by Federal and local laws. I consider myself a protector of my family first and back-up to any police officer who may need assistance. Every time I drive by a patrol officer who has a vehicle pulled over, I keep an eye in my rear view mirror on the officer till he is out of sight.
I think anyone with any sense knows that police can not be everywhere at all times and for the most part are in the business of responding to crimes that have already taken place. By that time it is already too late for the victim.
What bothers me the most is the lack of the law enforcement agencies that are not vocal enough against gun control laws. The way I see it, is the more law abiding citizens that are carrying the safer the officer is because he has instant back up. If only the criminals have guns then it is just the officer against the criminal.
I agree with several of your assertions. While it is imperative that we respect and protect law enforcement officers in the course of their duties, we must strike a balance between this and the preservation of the people’s rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc… While there are minutes of trepidation at the beginning of any encounter where unknowns are involved, it is an officer’s job and duty to discern the difference between the threatening criminal and the law abiding citizen. The reason for this is clear; in our service as officers, we do not have inherent rights, but rather are granted powers in sacred trust under the law by the consent of the citizenry. The citizenry retains all rights unto itself. When an officer crosses the line (unfortunately we have seen this from time to time) and breaks this trust, it not only violates the rights of the citizen, but can cause a reduction of the granted powers requisite to the performance of our duty – making life more difficult for all of us. This being said, the idea that somehow banning all firearms in the U.S. would make it easier for the police to identify criminals seems farcical.
Take the following scenario: We ban private ownership of firearms in the U.S. A year later two officers see a subject on the street with what appears to be a rifle in his hands. Since he appears not to be a peace officer this means he’s a criminal – right? We should open fire and nail this guy right; or at the very least throw him down on the ground and cuff him? Wrong! What if it wasn’t really a rifle that the subject was carrying? What if it was a rifle, but he just found it in the woods by his home and was taking it to the local police station to turn it in. What if he turned out to be an undercover federal agent/officer etc… The point is: the officers still had to use judgment or a gross violation, possibly a fatal one, could occur. I’ve always felt that officers who used the ban argument we essentially under-trained. The want an easy out to a difficult situation (the first encounter with an unknown subject) and there simply isn’t an easy out. Revoking the right to bear arms won’t make it any easier on us (the officers) in most cases.
As for registered class III weapons… I have never encountered one of these in the field. Ever. Since it costs a private citizen around $20,000 to obtain one of these through a registered dealer, I find it difficult to believe that this same citizen would then turn around and rob a convenience store of $200 with said firearm. While these types of firearms do look exotic in news stories after the occasional seizure, it is my opinion that the time and effort of peace officers can be much better spent working on other issues that pose a more realistic threat. For instance further research on tactics and equipment to improve the safety of traffic stops, etc…
Finally, I do agree with your feelings on training. If law abiding citizens want to carry firearms, I think they have the right. However, as with any potentially dangerous or powerful piece of equipment, they need to have the proper training to operate the device in a safe manner. Perhaps we as peace officers should spend more of our time on safety training. Many of the firearm related incidents I’ve seen over the years were actually accidents.
I have been in law enforcement for 28 years and have never had a problem with law abiding citizens with ccw permits. In fact I advocate to those who are willing to meet the requirements, that if they have the desire to obtain and to carry, by all means do so. To RegularGuy, most of the officers I have had the honor of working with share my point of view. It’s the politicians, Chiefs of Police and federal law enforcement officials, who sing the song that only law enforcement and military should have the “right” to carry a firearm. Over the years I have personally witnessed several incidents where an “average citizen” has been the difference in the outcome of a situation, by being armed. Thomas Jefferson wrote for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an unarmed man. Having been in this line of work as long as I have I believe it is the inherent responsibility of any peace loving citizen to insure his and his family’s safety, as we cannot always be there to protect them.
Keep in mind that our Constitution was written to keep the government afraid of the citizens. Once that fear is removed then the citizens have lost control.
Gun control makes my job safer, no question about it. Ineffective control of firearms importation, sales, etc is what is dangerous.
There is no purpose for any citizen to own anything more than a hunting rifle, shotgun, or target pistol with VERY limited magazine capacity and significant barrel length. Assault rifles and handguns are for shooting people, full stop.
In Canada (I’m a Mountie) we have strict gun control laws that I am thankful for. Where we fail is terrible border security and ineffective sentencing (that is another topic).
If you think that “criminals get it anyway so just make it legal for everyone” is a good argument, then you should legalize marijuana.
Simon,
I will have to disagree with you on the assault weapon issue. I personally own several “assault weapons” and none of them have every acted crazy and start shooting people. What makes your job safer is throwing thugs in jail for very long periods and not offer them second chance thru probation of some other reform program. You will find that most of your violent crimes are conducted by thugs with a lengthy arrest record who never should of been out of jail in the first place. It really bothers me whne you here of someone being attacked, robbed, or even killed by someone who had no business out on the street. The system, the judge, the governments failed that victim. You will never convince me that by the government controlling what I can and cannot do will make either of us safer. The process of making weapons illegal for ownership starts with the registration process and continues with the banning one category of weapon then it will lead eventually to all weapons being banned. We can never assume that the government will act in our best interest. I think history shows politicians from all countries are corrupt and only act in their best interest. Would you trust a thief to watch your house when you go out of town, I know I would not.
Frank, once again I agree with your logic. What is also an issue for increased gun legislation is that it makes it harder for those of us in law enforcement to increase our firepower, both on and off duty. I work for a state agency and we don’t have the cash reserves to issue the best weapons out there. So we are allowed to carry our own rifles in our cars, so long as they pass an armorer’s inspection and they meet the caliber requirements. When the laws against the “assault weapons” get tougher, it makes it harder for us to buy our own weapons to use on duty. It would be nice to put a sharter barrel on ym personal AR, making it easier and faster to deploy out the door of the car, but the paperwork, red tape, and extra $200 to shorten the barrel by 2 inces isn’t worth the hassle. So in the end, restrictive gun laws end up hurting some of us in uniform directly, hindering our ability to do our jobs more effectively.
I’m not the only one on my department to share my frustration with some of the existing firearm regulation. If legislation gets tougher, so does our ability to increase our odds of surviving a firefight.
[…] Does Gun Control Benefit Law Enforcement? A well written article by a retired LEO. He touches on some of the most common arguments. Officer.com Police Blogs & Podcasts Does Gun Control Benefit LE? […]
In the US it is legally recognized that an individual is responsible for their own protection, therefore there should never be some government agent telling you you need a reason or a permit for some particular means of protection. All citizens are law abiding until they break a law and should be treated as such. Of course an officer should always be cautious.
Studies show that none of the more than 20,000 gun laws is the US can actually prevent any crime. The Canadian gun registry has solved 3 crimes in 70 years.
There were class III’s in Mexico that came from the US government to their government. Also why would anyone spend months of time on background checks and $20,000 on one gun when they could buy a Chinese copy for $200 from one of the countries were many of these drugs come from.
Studies have also show that only a small percentage of criminals are dangerous but that these few are responsible for some 80% of (violent?)crime.
Lastly I think that getting rid of officers that don’t respect citizens, are corrupt or generally don’t respect the law themselves are your biggest detriment.
Thank you to all the officers that do respect the law and the citizens.
Gun Control is a tired old talking point that politicians use. We have enough gun laws to work with but very few Prosecutors willing to run with the right cases. Locking up the violent offenders and making punishment stick would be a great help to my job.
Canada hasn’t done anything productive with their gun control laws and hope that Australia and Canada wake up.
Murderers do not kill because they can get guns; they get guns because they intend to murder. At best, keeping them from getting guns can only delay a would-be murderer’s act; sooner or later he’s going to earn his hanging.
That’s not to admit that gun control could prevent criminals from getting guns, any more so than the ban on cocaine keeps cocaine out of the hands of criminals. (China has very few armed criminals, but that’s because quickly and routinely executes anyone caught with a gun. But if we were willing to quickly and routinely execute gun criminals, we could deter most gun crime even without gun control.)
Of course, even if gun control _could_ keep criminals from stealing or smuggling guns, they could always feed the black market by assassinating cops. Criminals in South Africa began doing this; now they mainly get guns that are “lost” by police. Perhaps this phenomenon is not solely due to police corruption, but also because cops would rather sell guns to criminals than become routine targets of assassination.
Violent criminals are going to get guns no matter what we do (short of killing or imprisoning them).
DJ… I beg to differ on the effectiveness of the Canadian gun registry. I have personally solved well over a dozen files with the registry, so your “3 in 70 years” fact is simply incorrect.
I agree that registering long guns is a waste of time. We have spent over a Billion (with a B) on the long gun registry and have not much to show for it. But other gun control laws we have are effective; you can’t buy an assault rifle here and handgun sales are severely restricted.
Dealing with suspects armed with firearms has been exceedingly rare here and being a police officer in Canada is much safer than in the US (I think; anyone have any stats to prove otherwise?) How can more guns on the street make a positive change to that? In fact, we have seen a marked increase in gun crime in Canada; and the majority of it is due to guns being smuggled from the US. So if US has no gun control and big gun problems, and Canada has strict gun control and less of a gun problem, how can you argue gun control is not a good thing for the police?
And don’t forget the topic of discussion…how does gun control help LE ? Not how does gun control help people who are paranoid of the government. (I guess that’s the result of being on the other side of the Boston tea party)
Look, Canada’s courts are a joke. We just had a guy convicted of terrorist offences planning to bomb our parliament (our white house) and decapitate our Prime Minister. He got 2.5 years but since he’s been in custody waiting for trial he got double credit for that time and walked out of court a free man the same day he was sentenced. Uh, yeah. Try working here, it’s enough to give you an ulcer.
But, for all our problems, not being able to buy assault rifles on every street corner and not having everyone have a handgun in their car is not one of them. I stand by our gun control laws. I don’t want every citizen to own a gun. They don’t need them.
If you could decide between
A) only the police having guns, or
B) everyone having guns
do you really think Option B is safer for the police? No way.
Okay, the pot has been sufficiently stirred…
Simon,
Are drugs illegal in Canada? How many drug arrest have you made? Is there a drug problem in Canada?
regardless of what you make illegal, if it is wanted they will get it. Then you will only have a country where criminals are in control of my fate. Can you guarantee me that when someone wants to do harm to my family or myself will you be there to stop them? I doubt it, no officer can make that claim.
Fix the problem of releasing criminals back on the street (like the example you gave).
if I could decide between
A) only the police having guns to defend my family
B) Or I have a gun to defend my family.
which do think I would choose?
Just because you are law enforcement does not make you the decision maker on my safety. Self defense is a natural God given right.
After reading all the comments, I arrived at the conclusion that law enforcement tends to rely on personal feelings about this gun control question. There is no way to compare the US and Canada because of the large difference of the population of the two countries. Another issue is the number of class III weapons the politicians would have you believe are being smuggled into Mexico from the US. The information being spoken by these same politicians is an outright lie. My personal feeling is an armed populace is a safer one, both for the police and the general populace. Lenient laws can be blamed for almost all of societies problems with repeat criminals committing a disproportionately large number of the violent crimes involving firearms. The author of “More guns-less crime”, John Lott has done quite a bit of research on the question of gun control in general, thus the title of his book. The fact that guns are owned by law abiding citizens does not strike fear in my heart because I feel good common sense should prevail in any encounter, whether is is a traffic stop, dispatched call or even a known threat. Be constantly vigilant and stay safe.
RegularGuy, I think we have arrived at the crux of the problem. You assert that private gun ownership is necessary to protect one’s family. I would counter that, at least in Canada, that is not the case. Indeed, I can’t think of a single case off the top of my head where someone having a gun readily available would have been the deciding factor in preventing innocent victimization. I can’t speak for the crime demographics in other countries, but here there just aren’t a sufficient number of violent home invasions, robberies, etc that would necessitate the arming of the general population.
Without the protection argument, we see there is little benefit to private gun ownership. There is, however, still a cost. When you increase the number of guns in circulation you increase the guns that criminals have access to (through thefts, purchases by proxy, etc) when the once law abiding citizen who goes off the deep end / gets drunk, he now can access firearms. Private gun ownership has a cost, but little benefit.
In fact, some of our northern communities that face considerable challenges with alcohol abuse and domestic violence issues have gone so far as to voluntarily surrender all firearms for storage at the police station. If you want to go hunting you go pick up your gun and then turn it back in when you are done.
I’m sure this would make the NRA have a heart attack but in those communities they have seen a massive decrease in firearms related deaths (suicides and murders).
That criminals will get guns regardless of the law is not, in my opinion, a reason to allow everyone to get them. Addicts can readily access drugs but I doubt you would advocate legalizing narcotics. So why make the same argument for guns? In fact, I can see more merit in the argument to legalize drugs than to abandon gun control laws.
And Frank, you ask why focus on one threat (guns) to police when there are other threats that can’t be eliminated (knives, etc). Guns are a superior weapon to anything else out there, that’s why. Guns are the biggest threat to the police; they are so dangerous that they deserve special attention.
My state, Illinois, has no ccw provision in the law at all; in fact, we have some of the strictest ‘unlawful use of a weapon’ laws you will find, regardless of whether applied to firearms or other weapons. Chicago is stricter still, with possession of handguns prohibited even in your own home! Regardless, it has one of the highest murder rates of anyplace in the US.
Someone apparently forgot to point out to the violent Chicago criminals that they are not allowed to brings and use guns in their work. And it seems they have no reservations about using them against CPD officers, either.
No, I do not think gun control laws make us any safer. I think violations of most of the good and reasonable laws are poorly prosecuted and/or consequated, and the remaining are reactionary and impractical responses to only perceived problems.
And Simon, your marijuana legalization analogy is comparing apples and Buicks, in that allowing law-abiding citizens to legally possess guns, from the standpoint of self-defense, is leveling the playing field with the criminals who, if guns were made illegal for the rest of us, would certainly be resourceful enough to get them anyway.
Sound tactics keep us safe. Remembering there is always at least one gun at every call we go to will give us perspective.
I am not a law enforcement officer but do hold CCP. I’m 52 and a lifelong Texas resident. Since the age of six I have carried long guns. At sixteen I acquired my first handgun. Living in rural farm and ranch country guns are a part of life. I personally trained a bloodhound for man work and volunteered my time state wide when called upon to hunt men for both criminal and civil matters.
I simply cannot imagine a world where law enforcement officers should be expected to be everywhere all the time to prevent crime.
The responsible man should protect himself, his family, and his holdings. Law should not limit the tools he has to work with in doing so.
Unarmed citizens certainly help police in maintaining a job. If the law-abiding citizen does not possess arms to defend himself then he must rely on the police.
Firearms are not the problem. Criminals are. A sharpened stick in the hands of a thug is more dangerous to a police officer than a fully automatic Thompson in the hands of a lawful citizen.
Just because some evil men do evil things is not sufficient reason to restrict the freedoms of the good men who exist. There are police officers out there who misuse their weapons, should we restrict all the others because of it?
I have nothing but contempt for any man (or so they call themselves) who thinks I should be disarmed just because some scumbag would shoot him in the back. Am I that scumbag? No. So why treat me like such? I understand suspicion and am not saying that police should discount all possible threats, one should always be prepared. However, they shouldn’t act as though they are the only ones with a right to be armed to defend themselves. Because I don’t have a badge my life is somehow not worth enough to have a firearm to defend it?
I pray that we will be able to protect ourselves and loved ones in the event of immediate danger. In California it is ONLY in the home. I also would like to think that in a event of earthquake or riot that I might be able to to come to the aid of a overwhelmed police officer. There are too few officers here and too many bureacrats.
Simon is a typical naive liberal who knows nothing about the fact that hand guns serve several purposes: self defense, hunting, target shooting. He knows nothing about our background checks, nothing about increased crime where guns are illegal(look at your mother country -Great Britain, where crime is out of sight,where those who defend themselves are prosecuted). Statistics prove, Simon, that law abiding gun owners pose no threat to police officers. Get rid of your prejudices and research the stats. You will find gun control benefits the criminal(remember England). Of course you will never admit to the truth! Too bad Canada doesn’t a 2nd Amendment like we do. There are many good law abiding Canadians who support self defense. Self defense is our Constitutional (which you know nothing about) and God given right. Hey America, aren’t you glad we won the war? The Revolutionary War, I mean! From our cold dead handds, Simon!
I have read with some interest the comments here. I would suggest somewhere you can find real backed up facts and figures. Especially for our Canadian friend. in the box on your home page type in GUN FACTS and click on search. Here you will find more facts than you can read in a couple of days. My favorite is found on the second page. it is called Gun Facts 5.0. everything is well documented and i like its format. then there is, ON SHEEP WOLVES AND WOLFDOGS BY DAVE GROSSMAN, FOUND IN THE SAME MANNER. As many or most or all of you are, I am a sheepdog! We are described in the article. I love you too.
IN CASE SOMEONE GETS THE WRONG IDEA, I AM NOT GAY!
I have been legally carrying for 19 years w/out incident. I’m not a LEO, but I can tell you that would not hesitate to use my weapon to save the life of a Police Officer if faced with such a situation. For the men and women who risk their lives every day to keep us safe, the good citizens of our country who bear arms are your best allies.
Simon - “here there just aren’t a sufficient number of violent home invasions, robberies, etc that would necessitate the arming of the general population.” That’s great - unless you’re one of the victims.
I also am not an officer of the law. I am very impressed with those of you that wear a badge can openly admit that a law abiding civilian can and will carry out their duty to pretect themselves and more importantly, anyone who may need protection. The way I see it, it is not just a right guaranteed by the Contsitution, but our duty as Americans. Being a resident of Kentucky, I have my Concealed Deadly Weapons Permit. Why it pertains to anything that can be considered deadly instead of just handguns escapes me. What I do know is I have it. I carry when I can. And I also beleive that anyone that can legally own firearms, should do the same. Since as stated before, police officers can’t be everywhere at once. Anyone that can, should. It’s yout duty as an American.
I am a MA Certified Firearms instructor. I have been teaching firearms safety and marksmanship for 25 years. The worst student that I have had was a graduate of a police academy. I know 6 people who have lawfully used a handgun to defend themselves. I know only one person who was murdered, strangled by his own necktie. Outlaw neckties.
The job of the police dept is to protect the community as a whole, Citizens should have the right to sue the police everytime a crime is committed and the police don’t prevent it, or have the option of arming themselves.
Do a google search for “woman hiker killed,” and you’ll find a large number of very sad cases in which an assailant used a knife, blunt instrument or brute force to slay one or more women along a trail or encampment.
No firearms needed! Just a desire to kill, overarching strength and a lack of witnesses.
These people died utterly alone, and not quickly and mercifully, either. I betcha the solve rate for these cases is lower than killings in urban areas, too.
“Get a dog” most anti-gunners say. Well, a lot of the dogs accompanying these people were either slain with their human companion or simply walked away without aiding in the fight.
“learn martial arts” well, that didn’t help a recently murdered woman who was supposedly proficient in martial arts *and* had a dog. She was apparently winning her fight against a male attacker more than twenty years her senior, but then he overcame her. I have no idea how - luck, ruthlessness or perhaps he mock-surrendered. But he somehow managed to tie her to a tree, and as he described it, walked away and then decided to finish her off with a blow to the head.
People deserve to protect themselves however they see fit. No one deserves to die alone in the woods, wishing they could have fought back more effectively, even as their life drains away.
I have attended the Machinegun Shoot at Knob Creek twice. With all of the firepower there, guns on tables, guns both mounted and unmounted, guns rented to total strangers, and attendees openly carrying firearms that are one snick of a cutting tool away from the freeing the action of their weapon to cycle normally, I felt safer there than just about any time I drive along my local highways. That’s right - I feel closer to condition white amongst thousands of strangers with a staggering array of firepower than I do while part of a pack of cars at highway speed.
A quick comment for my mountie friend…. From a Florida State Officer
Here is the flip side for you… I visited Israel some years ago and due to compulsory military service ending in a realative eternity in the reserve forces.. All Israeli citizens are issued their weapons for life.. I am talking about full auto Uzi’s.. Every adult male and many females walk about with sub-machine guns tucked under their arms…. Now for all the fighting that occurs between Israelis and Palastinians… there is no street crime to speak of … nobody robs the store because they know there will be the shop owner and about two or three other people in there with significant firepower.. It has already been established that safe and best practice for law enforcement personnel is to automatically assume a weapon is present in every encounter… Imagine if our criminals had the same mind set… would they atleast think twice about committing their crimes if they knew that the victom and any other passer by is likely to be armed… I am very much in favor of every law abiding citizen to arm themselves and I also agree that that shouldn’t happen without proper training.. A certificate of compliance from a proper safety course that should include a shooting proficiency test of some sort should count as a national concealed weapons license to include aircraft. I will bet you a years salary that you would see crime rates cut in half in less than a year. We need to take back our streets as private citizens and then wouldn’t our jobs as cops be so much more enjoyable.
doesn’t make any difference,the constitution does not give any government the power to infringe on the God given consitutionaly guaranteed rights of the people
Hey Simon,
So you think the gun registry in Canada’s a great thing? You really think it helps keep police officers safer? You don’t think it was a gratuitous waste of over $2 billion dollars of taxpayer money? You really believe that crap? I guess they really do brainwash you in the RCMP….
Well let’s see some facts here…the gun registry didn’t help save the life of Cst. Dennis Strongquill. It didn’t save Cst. Douglas Scott. It didn’t save Cpl. Jim Galloway, and it didn’t help those four boys in Mayerthorpe either, back in March,2006. And that’s just naming a few. Also, the murders of these police officers were conducted by suspects with lengthy criminal records that should not have been able to obtain firearms in the first place according to the gun registry that you think is such a great tool for police.
You really need to get off your high horse (no pun intended) and give your head a shake.
Oh, and by the way….I happen to be a serving PO, reserve soldier, and proud firearms owner in Alberta just in case you were wondering.
I have been in a situation where no police officer could have possibly helped me, but a pistol would have been handy. I got cornered by a pair of knife-wielding crackheads. I was extremely lucky to end up with no extra holes in my hide. I might not have been. Due to some legal wrangling in my state the carry law was suspended and it was not possible for me to get a license at the time, so my pistol was secure in a safe fifty feet away. The crackheads weren’t about to let me make a phone call. I did call when they left, and it took about 10 minutes for the officer to show up. I can’t fault him for that, he’s only driving a car, not magically teleporting. It really was not very useful for him to be there at that point in time. I did get a report number and a promise of a phone call if they found them. I kind of doubt they looked very hard. Had I not accidentally had some cash on me (I usually don’t), the robbers might have decided I am hiding it and they should beat it out of me. I am not able to physically overpower two people with knives, I am a regular guy, not Chuck Norris.
To forestall some common objections, I did not live in the ghetto, so moving would not take care of it. The crackheads were “guest performers” from a bad part of town.
Simon, would you say that is an OK situation with you? Is it OK for me to be less safe so that you can be more safe?
I would love to be protected by the police. These days that is not an option. They seem to be stretched awfully thin. Most often you can’t even get anyone to come out and take a report any more. Reporting a drunk wrecking my and my wife’s car with a stolen vehicle right in front of my house got a patrol car there two hours later. He, of course, was long gone by then. Another drunk running a red light and t-boning me didn’t even get that. I was told that since I am not bleeding I can stop by the station and fill out a report. Auto theft around here isn’t even handled by the police any more. I have to call it into the state database myself.
Mind you, I am not blaming the local PD for this. They are working within the limitations of budget and the space-time continuum. They are merely human, limited in number and not equipped with Batmobiles. Until I can make a telepathic 911 call and have an officer teleported to my location instantly I will need a way of protecting myself, and a firearm is the most effective means to do so at the moment.
Jason,
I never said the gun registry is a good thing. In fact, I said “I agree that registering long guns is a waste of time. We have spent over a Billion (with a B) on the long gun registry and have not much to show for it.”
You’re right, the murder of my brothers is a horrible thing but laws can’t prevent every tragedy. But would increased proliferation of firearms in our community lead to fewer such tragedies? I can’t see how that is possible.
And those are my brother’s names you are throwing around, seemingly with the suggestion that I do not understand the significance of their sacrifice. To that I take great offence.
Joel, you bring up some interesting points re: Israel. I allow that one concern I do have with strict gun control and in particular the restriction on police officers to carry off duty is those off duty officers being unable to respond to active shooter situations. Having said that, more off duty members carrying means mistaken identity blue on blue shootings, and more officer’s houses being targeted for B&E’s, etc. It doesn’t come for free.
Simon,
Firstly, I’m not just referring to the long gun registry (although I’m glad that we can at least agree that it is a waste of time and money). We’ve had our handgun registry since 1932 and gun violence, particularly among organized crime groups, has seen a drastic increase in the past 10 years alone. It certainly hasn’t made this country or it’s police officers any safer.
How about this? Instead of wasting money and time on registration and legislation that only serves to punish law abiding citizenry, why not use the money instead on hiring more crown prosecutors, drafting up legislation that hits criminals with stiffer sentencing and higher penalties for gun crimes, and most importantly, investing the money in funding more police resources (more officers, better equipment, etc.)
I’ve been reading some of your comments above, and I must say I am not impressed. You paint a very inaccurate and idealistic picture of our country and it’s issues, having made several innacurate and asinine comments, and frankly, as a police officer yourself, you ought to know better. Perhaps in the small community you’re likely posted in, there is little to no violent crime (home invasions, drive by shootings, homicides, etc.). But take a look at some crime stats elsewhere - particularly in the major centres such as Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, or Montreal. The proof’s in the pudding.
Further, you did state before in previous posts that we have terrible border security and many of the firearms used in violent crime have been smuggled in to the country. So, tell me how the registry helps anyone, let alone police officers. Let’s call a spade a spade here Simon….all it really serves to do is identify the honest people out there, doesn’t it?
I think our brothers to the south got it right. Ben Franklin once said “those who wish to trade liberty for security will find they inherit neither”. I strongly agree with that. I know as an LEO myself, as should you, that the police cannot be there every time all the time when bad things happen, especially these days when every force in Canada that I’m aware of is suffering from recruitment problems while at the same time, the population is growing exponentially. It’s only going to get worse. I feel it is much better for the common good of our society to put trust in our good people and allow them to the means and legislation to defend themselves and their homes, if or when the police cannot be there to help them. As opposed to this paternalistic and misguided attitude that the police will be there for them every time - such as what you’ve said above.
You also stated above that laws cannot prevent every tragedy. You’re right, but what I’m saying is that these current laws haven’t prevented ANY tragedies. Like I said before - the murder of your brothers (and too many other police officers) were done much of the time by violent individuals who would have never had access to firearms in the first place, yet somehow did and, well….you know the rest. Does Kimveer Gill ring a bell? He obtained the firearms he used in the shooting at McGill university in Quebec completely legally through this same registry that you defend.
Finally, I did not mention the names of your brothers above to suggest that you did not understand the significance of their sacrifice - I’m quite certain that you do. I mentioned them because these tragedies are perfect examples of how our current ways have failed us and why things need to change. If that offends you, know that I cannot and will not make any apologies for it, Simon.
Jason,
You are 100% correct that we need to invest more in prosecuting our criminals and keeping them in jail. I assure you that B.C. is far far worse than Alberta in this regard. Our courts in BC are a joke, we all know that.
I think there is real merit in your argument that if our justice system functioned better than there would be less concern with more gun ownership. I can buy into that thinking, and if that were the case I may have a different opinion, but sadly that’s not the reality.
I also agree to many of your comments on a gun registry. I don’t know about you, but I always assume there is gun in every house / car that I deal with regardless if the registry check comes back negative. So, yes, I agree the registry is of very little use to police (except for tracing recovered firearms).
Furthermore, it is true that we can’t prove that our current gun laws have prevented any tragedies…but that’s because they didn’t happen and we don’t know about them. It’s a logical fallacy. It’s impossible to prove it, but that doesn’t mean our gun laws have been totally useless.
What I cannot agree with is the need for the general population to arm themselves. Yes we have lots of gangsters shooting each other in Vancouver and other cities (with too many innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire). But that’s not a scenario in which having a handgun in your night table or even on your hip is going to help.
Honestly, how many calls have you gone to where you say “if only the victim had had a gun nearby, this would have been avoided” ? I bet not many.
I will admit that being armed does afford protection; of course it does. But it also is a risk. The guy who goes off the deep end, the drunk who gets in a fight with his wife; these guys now have immediate access to firearms. That is the flip side to increased gun ownership. Is it worth it to you? I guess so, but to me it’s not. My personal opinion, I’m entitled to it.
A response must be proportional to the threat. The threat to the average person in Canada is quite low and I don’t think a response of every person being armed is an appropriate response. And don’t tell me that the big cities are hubs of criminal activity where danger lurks around every corner and people are murdered in their beds, because they aren’t. In fact, some small towns (Hobbema for example) are like war zones compared to Calgary or Edmonton. (and for the record, I have worked places big and small so I do get it)
YOu say that “our current ways have failed us and…things need to change”. You also say that the boys down south have it right re: gun ownership. While I agree that our brothers south of the border do a lot of things far better than us, I prefer our gun ownership situation to theirs. For them it may be the right decision, but not for me. I think as Canadian police officers we have less risk of getting shot than down there. There still is risk, of course there is, but I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that the job of a police officer is less risky in the US than in Canada. Those guys have a far harder job than I do, I’m sure of that.
I don’t know about you, but I have found in the last 5 to 10 years I’ve been getting way more handguns out of cars, from drug busts, etc. And your suggested answer is to sell more guns? I’m sorry, I don’t agree.
Simon,
Your posts are starting to resemble a doctoral level exegesis… One thing is for certain… I have read through the seemingly 15 pages of posts to this topic and you pretty well stand alone brother… We all can’t be crazy and maybe it is a Canada vs. US cultural difference… Either way your not making any converts to the cross of gun control… I admire a man who sticks to his principles despite an overwhelming difference of opinion and crushing solitude.
To Frank Borelli… I hope you have gotten what you need to publish some through some scientific means because analysis of the blogs here will give you a base line for a feeling but it will be easily discredited… I whole heartedly agree with your position and don’t believe gung control benefits cops or society in any way. Get with a Criminal Justice graduate student and assist with a thesis on the subject derived of polling data of samples of Federal, State and Local LE Agencies all across the US and you will have something that is meaningful.
I’m one of those armed (CCW) citizens. How do I make police see that I’m on their side? My gun may one day help to save them.
I totally agree. CRIMINALS like some of Congress will not abide by laws that are governing them to not own illegal weapons or illegal drugs.
It is a sad case whereby many of the law makers are the LAWBREAKERS. Only in America, Lan I love can a former CONVICTED FELON become Mayor of Washington DC.
When we have peop-le like that around, then laws only protect the guilty and the law breakers.
Thank you for allowing me to vent.
Gun control is mental masturbation for the masses. It is a feel good reaction to an inanimate object so that the uninformed do not have to come to the realization that the person next to them might rob, rape or kill them. I have been a police officer for more than 25 years and have only caught a few criminals in the progress of committing the offense. Maybe I deterred someone that I am not aware of, but I really doubt that it occurred many times. I have, after the fact, investigated and arrested many people for violent crimes. We have laws against murder, assault, weapons smuggling and several hundred other violations against the peace and dignity of the State. What is a few more laws going to accomplish? They are only ink on paper, until enforced, except for the law abiding citizen that follow them.
A current popular argument is that incidents like Virginia Tech may have been avoided with stronger laws. Again it is a political point and not a safety point of view. Go into any college chemistry lab and you can find enough building blocks to build a much more efficient way of making a mass killing device. Most of these labs are not even locked. So someone hell bent on destruction can make one heck of a mess with 10 gallons of gasoline. Do we now make gasoline harder to get?
Another popular current gun control cry of the day is the smuggling of semi-automatic weapons to Mexico. Recently one smuggler received 4 years for his offense. Big deal. Each violation is worth 10 years and serious money in fines, so why only give him 4 years? Deterrence? Hardly, just a warm feeling that will make the masses “feel” safer.
Enforce the laws on the books, including securing the borders, and crime will decrease. Look at New York City after Giuliani became mayor and went after minor street crimes. Crime dropped.
Liberals feel that everyone is “savable” and if you just treat them nice and they will / can be rehabilitated. This happens in rare instances, but these cases are few and far between and are not the norm. The majority of criminals grow up as criminals and rarely hit age 25 and say, “Hey, I am going to become a bank robber today.”
Evil people will continue to kill and assault others without regard to the laws on the books. Gun control, again, is a political feel good solution, aimed at an uninformed public and not a realistic answer to the problem.
Simon I have to respond. Canada is a socialist country with serious problems. Keeping guns away from your citizens won’t help. If you look at our states with pro gun laws, they have a lower rate of violent gun crime. I work in a state where they are quite anti-gun and the area I police has a gun crime at least once a week. Lets try to use our brain here bro. Anti-gun laws don’t work. Never have. Never will. Be Safe!
The problem of permitting large numbers of people to carry handguns is that most people are not trained in shooting with good aim and in making “shoot-don’t-shoot” decisions under moments of stress. We have even seen police officers making fatal mistakes with their weapons,killing innocent persons.
We might recognize what people are like, and that they have emotional moments which may result in tragedy if there is a firearm present.
We need some sort of gun control, but we will be fighting for a long time about how to regulate firearm ownership.
W.
I know of two personal instances where police benefited from a civilian with a gun. The first was when some years ago a burglar alarm went off across the street. When a lone cop approached carefully I showed him my rifle, pointed to a telephone post and my eye. He nodded and went on in parking where he would not block my view. some of the lights were on giving me a vew through all the windows on both floors of the building. anyone behind those windows with anything resembling a gun would have been shot by me. So the cop checked the entries with confidence. The owner showed up and turned off the alarm which was a false one and left. The cop cameby my hideout grinned and thanked me. Felt good! I owned a laundry some years later and was cleaning up when a pickup pulled into the parking lot with a cop car following. I stepped out the front door to watch. there were 3 men in the truck. he got the driver out and spread against the bed of the pickup. he was patted down and told to stay put. the cop proceeded to get the middle man out and when he was doing this the first guy pushed away fro the bed I yelled UH-UH and pointed my gun at him. He got back into position and the cop continued pulling the other one out following the same procedure. That cop, I can only surmise, knew I was armed, knew I was there, and knew who I was. He looked familiar and did not wait for police backup. While he was removing the third man backup arrived and i went back to work. Another time I was on patrol of the laundry and a few friends of mine who were mostly female and living alone near the laundry when the officer on patrol stopped me. He told me that he was glad to see me. when he came around the bad guys would just hide and wait for him to go away. When I came around the bad guys went home and went to bed. LOL
Oh yes, I had a reputation. The bad guys around got the idea that i was a real bad ass. I mean just because i made no bones about the fact i was armed and had had to pull it on a couple of them on occasion and had popped a cap or two a time or two in order to enforce my reputation. I guess they decided not to bother me in any way anymore.
After reading the comments of others I might suggest something if I may. search engin in the box type ON SHEEP WOLVES AND SHEEPDOGS BY DAVE GROSSMAN, CLIK ON SEARCH. This is a very enlightening discorse and may shed some light on much of what is being said here. OKAY? You see I am a Sheepdog. Are you? Is what is said not truth? Think about it.
Re: Simon’s May 24 long response. You state that the flip side of gun ownership increases the chance that a drunk will harm family, one will go off the depend, etc. This belief, like all anti-gunners, would force and punish the law abiding citizens to give up their rights to self defense because of the actions of criminals and malcontents. It doesn’t work that way! You think big cities aren’t hubs for crime? Have you heard of D.C., Chicago, and the cities bordering Mexico, to name a few? And you state you continue to get more guns from the criminal’s vehicles. Do you know what you just admitted? Gun control does not work!! But you still use this excuse to justify denying law abiding citizens the right to own handguns (records prove that private citizens with carry permits have come to the aid of policemen - in this country that is). It’s not about selling more guns; it’s about the right of the law abiding to purchase guns. Your argument doesn’t hold water. I am reminded, by all your aforesaid comments, how fortunate and blessed I am to live in the U.S.A.
Please watch this video from England and pass it around! It is telling us to be careful based on how Englands gun control has destroyed their lives. Link:
http://thesilentmajority.wordpress.com/we-must-fight-for-what-is-right/videoengland-gun-ban-not-in-america/
Now how about a little gun history? Most of what many of us here have shared is true, but the big picture is what must be at the for front.
in 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >from 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1911, turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
China established gun control in 1935. >from 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
——————————
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—- ————- ————-
Uganda established gun control in 1970. >from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >from 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————
it has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won’t see this data on the U.S, evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ’subjects’.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were armed!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends. The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
Switzerland issues every household a gun! Switzerland’s government trains every adult they issue a rifle… Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world!!!
It’s a no brainer! Don’t let our government waste millions of our tax dollars in an effort to make all law abiding citizens an easy target. “Unknown author”
Steve Corn
In a nut shell: Gun Control will not prevent weapons in the hands of criminals, they have access to a larger variety of weapons than the LEOs. Thats why they are criminals. And on another note, the day the government says us as LEOs have to start taking the guns from the honest hard working citizens, is the day they can have my badge. I refuse to be a part of any type of fiasco like that.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas> Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
And here’s a Very Interesting Quote in light of the present US and Global / financial crisis. In 1802 Thomas Jefferson said:
Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the street continent their fathers conquered.
Smart Man!
Thanks Frank. I’m not LE but hold carry licenses and shoot/train with LE regularly.
You might be interested in this brief filed in support of overturning Chicago’s handgun ban was filed by INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT EDUCATORS AND TRAINERS ASSOCIATION and THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF AMERICA.
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ileeta-chicago-amicus-final-brief-only.pdf
Summary of Argument:
Guns save lives. In the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns provide substantial public safety benefits. The legal ownership of defensive firearms is an important reason why the American rate of home invasion burglaries is far lower than in countries which prohibit or discourage home handgun defense.
By drastically reducing the rate of confrontational home invasions, the deterrent effect of U.S. home defensive gun ownership also reduces the assault rate (since there are many fewer confrontations) and thereby reduces the total U.S. violent crime rate by about 9%. Before the handgun ban, Chicago had a lower rate of burglary and aggravated assault than did the rest of the United States. In the first full year the handgun ban was in effect, Chicago’s burglary and assault rates skyrocketed, and have remained much worse than the rest of the U.S. ever since.
Numerous surveys show that firearms are used (usually without a shot being fired) for self-defense at least 97,000 times a year, and probably several hundred thousand times a year.
The anti-crime effects of citizen handgun ownership help the police, because there are far fewer home invasion emergencies requiring an immediate police response, and because the substantial reductions in rates of burglary, assault, and other crimes allow law enforcement to concentrate more resources on other cases and on deterrence.
Lawful civilian handgun ownership improves police training by providing a larger body of recruits who are experienced in handgun safety and accuracy, as well as providing civilian experts whose ideas are adopted by police trainers.
Ordinary law-abiding citizens are not too hot-tempered or accident-prone to possess firearms safely for home defense.
Especially for home defense in an urban area, many people rightly prefer handguns because they are easier to maneuver, have lower recoil, and, of course, can be held with one hand—so that the other hand can be used to dial 911.
Mr Mountie:
In England, Canada, and many other countries, residents are called SUBJECTS. In America, we are CITIZENS! You are telling my countrymen that they are not capable or deserving of protecting their own lives in the face of vicious criminal attack, of which I have been responded to many times in the past. The police, in every country in the world including your very own, cannot, and will not ever be able to protect individuals. The only thing your gun control laws have done is make an entire class of criminals at the stroke of some politicians pen. You stay up there in your socialist fantasy land, and I’ll be happy to be far south of your ilk in the company of armed citizens.
It is nice so see a lot of common sense and reasonable discussion regarding this issue. The majority of the post seem to be against further gun control and for harsher punishment for the criminal without the jeopardizing an individual right to self defense. It all starts with the banning in any shape or fashion and then leads to another ban. It is harder to take away than to give for politicians. With the expansion of CCW it will be harder to take away ones right to gun ownership but still possible. Right now law abiding citizens face their biggest threat since the 2004 ‘Assault weapon’ ban. I feel that the first ban was a test and the next will be more detailed and target a larger group of weapons and ammunition. I hope everyone is also informing their Senators, Congressman, and Representatives of your support for the 2nd Amendment.
Simon, I certainly wish that all of our socialist in the U.S. would migrate to Canada as I’m sure they would FEEL much SAFER there. I would wager that, in Canada as in the U.S. that far more people die as a result of motor vehicle crashes, yet I don’t hear any suggestions that motor vehicles should be regulated any stricter, or their possession banned in public (except for a few radical Environmental-Statist out there). Also, according to good old Smokey the Bear, 90% of all forest fires are caused by people and I’m sure that most of those people used matches or cigarette lighters. We should ban the private ownership or at least possession outside the home of these ‘assault weapons’ used every year by so many arsonist or just ignorant individuals who let their fires get out of control. Firearms do not cause violent crime anymore than motor vehicles cause crashes or matches cause forest fires…. some people do who misuse them. It isn’t possible to prevent violent crime anymore than it is possible to prevent forest fires or motor vehicle crashes. As RBD said, by your stating that you keep finding handguns in criminals vehicles when they shouldn’t be able to buy them in the first place you’ve admitted that restrictive gun laws do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. Gun control laws have never worked, don’t work now and never will work at decreasing the number of violent crimes or the number of criminals who will obtain a firearm if they choose to.
In case you’re wondering I’m a LEO and have been for 18 + years. I’ve never once had a problem with a legally armed citizen, nor have I ever come in contact with a Class III license holder who’s done anything with or without their Class III weapon.
Let us not forget that one of the main reasons our fore fathers included the second amendment was to protect ourselves from our own government. The will of the people will always prevail in America, liberty and justice for all.
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” -Thomas Jefferson
“To disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
- George Mason
History teaches us many things.
Slavery in America was so effective by rigorous checks and precautions to ensure slaves were not armed.
Do you think the Holocust would have happened if the citizens of Russia had the right to bear arms? That’s correct, perhaps the greatest tragedy of time would have been averted if the people had a way to protect themselves from their own government.
Think about it. It’s not only about protecting yourself from the masked man that just came through the window…..
on a side note: Governor Deval Patrick has proposed a bill which would restrict lawful gun owners to ONE gun purchase a month.
I agree with Reg Guy: It all starts with the banning in any shape or fashion and then leads to another ban.
I hope those of you in Massachusetts express your outrage. This would truly be a travesty.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin
Colorado is an open carry state and as a Bondsman also doubling as a recovery agent, I do carry open. Actually I have no other choice as the Sheriff of my county (Arapaho) is anti gun, civilian gun owners that is, he deems it necessary to forbid me the right to carry concealed. The reason that I lost my CCW was that I was cited for tress pass by a property owner who filed a said charge against me when I knocked on his door to warn him that a fellow was coming to his residence to beat the tar out of him with a base ball bat. The citing deputy of course wasn’t interested in hearing my side of the story. Fact is, as a bondsman/recovery agent I at times have to go after the same people that LEO’s had to arrest initially. I have seen the elephant on occasion; one such time when a skip came off the couch with a shot gun after I crashed the apartment door and my partner lunged at the skip restraining him. I have encountered a knife attack and thwarted a serious encounter with nothing more than my tactical light since the occurrence was at night. All too often, LEO’s have shot to kill when a tac. light could have been used and other less lethal means applied. I have been to many and various training facilities and am very well informed on high warrant service and search. Often I am asked why I carry a gun. My answer is usually with a question. Why or where is your gun? It is a hostile world out there. I understand the theory behind being a first responder and running to the gun fire; being the sheep dog, not the sheep. The majority of my encounters as a runner are very subdued and I consider that in part as a result of the presence of my being armed. Carrying open is not all bad. If an officer or civilian is put down and I am the first on the scene, I will render aid to the best of my ability and to lay down my peace as soon as other LEO’s arrive thus going prostrate as a sign that I am not a threat. Most civilian’s are not oriented or trained to do likewise and with out proper training, they are more of a threat to themselves than anyone else. I am pleased and honored to say that I am well received by Law Enforcment when I call for assistance or am able to provide information to their benefit.
The primary problem that I see with registration or civilians surrendering their firearms is that they become victim’s of a loss of God given rights not to mention victim’s of the criminal element. In disarming a civilian, perhaps that should apply to LEO when they retire as they and X-military personnel also are civilian’s. Perhaps they should be deprogramed when joining the civilian ranks. I believe that once the 2Nd Amendment is done away with, the rest of the Constitution goes with it, not to mention the most important part of which are the first ten Amendments which are the Bill of rights. Of course, I realize that, that makes me a Constitutional freak.
Thanks for allowing me to rant.
Years ago I went to Canada and I thought it was nice there, but with NO 2nd Amendment, I would NOT want to live there.
As a Police Officer / Firearms Instructor, I can tell you what the problem is, and tat’s the Violent criminals not getting enough, if Any punishment.
There was a former police officer convicted of Rape, and all he got was 10 years Probation, NO prison time at all.
The elected officials just want power and control over the decent people, while they do Nothing to the Violent Criminals.
Simon, You might like the laws of Canada, but I trust the general public with guns, it’s the American way.
When I arrest a convicted Violent Felon with a gun and charge him for that crime, it’ almost ALWAYS gets dropped, when they should get 10 years in prison. We need to get the Violent Felons off of our streets and the problem will go away.
Canada and Mexico can do what they want, but don’t even think about trying to push a U.N. gun ban over here, because that would be Un-American.
I deal with armed people all the time, and it’s only the criminals that are a problem.
Maybe since so many people are killd by drunk drivers, we should ban Cars too!
[…] To read the full article, visit http://www.officer.com/interactive/2009/05/21/does-gun-control-benefit-le/. […]
I believe that CITIZENS have a right by God or whatever higher power you believe in if any to protect yourself by any means. Basically everything has been said in these posts that can be said. I love to go target shooting and go practice regularly. Gun can be for enjoyment purposes (with proper training and/or supervision) or protection. From personal experience i live in a city known for its crime. Everywhere i go i have a weapon with me whether it be my handgun or a knife or my shotgun/rifle in my car. I used to be one of those “gangstas” that everyone hated (thats a differant story) and i got people that still dont like me today which is my own fault, But i am very patriotic and love my country and fully believe in the right to bear arms, there is to many crimes here for police to respond in a timely manner. My homie was recently shot 4 times… The cops took 2 hours to respond while he laid there on the front porch in which i his mom drug him back into the house. So from personal experience i believe further gun restrictions can go to hell because i want my weapons for my own personal safety and that of my family. I now fully support law enforcement and plan to attempt to get a job as a law enforcement officer and hopefully do some good. Here where i live its so easy to come across illegally owned weapons. Criminals are going to get them whether or not they are outlawed. Its is not fair that criminals would be able to obtain weapons and have innocent citizens unarmed.
I think Clarenc summed it up pretty well for me. Sure sniper cover is great when you go to the alarm call, but he was willing to shoot anything “resembling a gun”. I would have felt bad for the janitor cleaning the building who held up an offensive looking item. He also said that he “popped a cap or two” in order to establish his “reputation”.
I’m sure his heart is in exactly the right place, but those two comments raise some big red flags for me. I question whether someone like that will shoot first and ask questions later. And what liability does that open up the police officer who was attending and gave the go ahead for the sniper cover from the civilian?
For those that would criticize Canada for our gun control, bear in mind that our gun laws were enacted by our elected officials and they enjoy the popular support of our population. That is our right as a free country (and I checked my passport, it says CITIZEN, not subject, whew!).
Please don’t misunderstand my pro-gun control stance as dictating what the US should do; I am not. What works for me isn’t for everyone and that’s cool.
Having said that, some people quote some inaccurate facts when supporting their opinions. Guns being issued to EVERY home in Switzerland, for example. (it’s actually about 27% and they have recently stopped letting guys keep ammo at home b/c of too many suicides). I think we could all question our beliefs a bit and make sure we are making decisions based on fact as opposed to seductive emotional reasoning and incorrect statistics (that goes both ways).
It is my opinion that culture has a lot to do with the effectiveness of gun control.
There are many nations in Europe that have very little gun crime. Their citizens are unarmed and happy to be so. However, many of those same countries were conquered easily by the Germans in World War II. Having a disarmed populace didn’t hurt….
On the flip side, Mexico has a murder rate over thrice that of the United States and in theory, has ultimate gun control. No law abiding citizen in Mexico carries a firearm. The general populace is victimized constantly by corrupt police, army and criminals. Although drug wars do fuel violence in Mexico, we cannot really blame there violence there solely on drugs nor their northern neighbor. Mexico has been in a state of constant revolution since their secession from Spain.
The United States is an interesting topic. We live in a nation with cultures that, in their native territories and nations, would make war against one another. Yet we live in relative peace with an unprecedented conglomeration of cultures. The mingling of “strangers” so to speak does cause some social problems. In our country the police are not necessarily designed to protect the citizen immediately as they are in danger. The police most often encounter the aftermath unfortunately although there are many exceptions. The police conduct investigations after the fact when crimes occur with the exception of traffic stops (which of course is proactive). With our extreme freedoms and 4th amendment protections, police do not have the authority to inspect living quarters for contraband unless there are exigent circumstances. The law enforcement authorities in the United States have to justify EVERY detention of a citizen or non-citizen alike. We as American citizens have an unprecedented amount of freedom in regards to movement across the width and breadth of our nation and can do so with limited involvement with the government. Due to the fact that the police are not required to immediately protect citizens, many security minded citizens choose to remain armed. This is in our culture in many areas of the United States, especially those in rural areas where you would not find police very often. In our culture, an armed citizenry is a free citizenry.
I think that we need to look at gun control in a cultural context. The United States, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, is a nation with a distinct cultural identify. We value our privacy, we want an un-intrusive government, we want to be free of fear and we are willing to fight for all of that. I think that many in our country that disagree with this conclusion have not yet been at the whim of a criminal. You could not believe how powerless you can feel when another person (who is armed) can make another person (that is not armed). The liberals in our country use the security of the places that they live and mistake that for communities are more frequently victimized.
Well, to all who may be foreign to the United States, the preceding text may assist you in regards to our way of thinking. To those that are citizens of the United States, I hope that I have represented the feelings of the majority well.
Simon:
What works in Canada; works. I think that Canada is a land with a polite culture, and in many regards a non-violent culture (not to say passive please don’t think that). Canada’s safety and security makes it part of the first world of nations and a prime area of visitation for many Americans and citizens of other nations. That is something, which I think we as Americans should admire.
Our nation however, is more a “fighting” culture. We value our military, brave police (although we do have a liberal media that sometimes does not report the good and over reports the bad), and other subjects in the warrior culture. Our warriors and heroes are very important to us.
I have studied up on certain aspects of Canadian law and have discovered that the law can change drastically from province to province. Those drastic changes (Napoleonic Law as opposed to Anglo-English law) do not occur legally in the United States although each state is different. The similarity in laws of each state makes it very easy to travel as long as you know the basic laws.
Our nations are different, not extremely, but different. Canada should retain its culture and laws because they work for Canada. I think that similarly can be said for the United States.
I was reading some articles today about down sizing within police departments and how many citizens feel compelled to take responsibility for their own protection. To me this seems to be a positive move as the number of officers are being down sized. Finally people feel the need to look out for their own safety instead of relying on the government. This is also a plus to the police departments as they are probably under man powered and over work. This will bring about relief from officers who have to respond to an investigation of a victim but instead to pick up the corps of a would be attacker. Some day in the near future police departments will once again start hiring more officers and still remains the number of citizens looking out for their own safety. Some one correct me if I am wrong but I believe this could be a good thing in the long run.
I’m a cop in Alaska. Lots of people here have guns, anything from “assault weapons” (such a made up term for the politically correct, my AR is a “patrol rifle” to make it sound “not so menacing” but I digress)to your standard hunting rifles and shotguns and handguns of all flavors. I feel no more threatened by person with a gun than I do a person with a edged weapon. The threat is the same regardless of the weapon used. Gun control laws are for political spin doctors who will the people whichever way they please because the people for the most part are unfortunately sheep with their eyes shut. People have been led to believe that no one should have a gun with more than ten rounds because otherwise they see you as planning a mass school shooting. I would say that there have been more people hacked to death by machetes in Africa than were killed by guns in the U.S. And, there are lots of gun in Africa. I digress again, gun control is nothing but a veil to hide the real reason people in upper government want it, votes plain and simple. I’m not going to give up my rights because someone thinks it will win them votes or fuel their own personal agendas. The will of the people should outweigh the will of the government. Unfortunately, the sheep refuse to see.
We can debate forever whether existing or even more gun control laws make LE officers safer than not, but this dodges the fundamental principle espoused by the Second Amendment, the RIGHT of the people to keep AND bear arms. And, as law enforcement officers, we take an oath to defend the Constitution, regardless of whether we personally agree with all of its provisions.
Consider that the State of Vermont, one of the most liberal states in the Union, does not have ANY process for issuing pistol or other firearms permits. That doesn’t mean an otherwise law-abiding resident of, or even a visitor to, VT can’t carry a firearm; rather, it means that Vermont recognizes and respects the Second Amendment by not having any laws that infringe upon it, which was clearly the intention of the Founders when they enacted it. Interestingly, Vermont has not experienced any problems because of such.
No law can make law enforcement officers any safer than if it didn’t exist. Law enforcement is an inherently dangerous job and only our own diligence as officers has any real effect upon our personal safety. Remember, only law-abiding citizens obey the law. Criminals couldn’t care less.
Robert Kirby
Wilmington, NY
I was an avid gun hobbyist a number of years ago while living in Tucson AZ, and at that time, I enjoyed the hobby. I owned a number of pistols, but never did see the need to own an assault rifle. I saw them as a military weapon and the idea of owning one did not appeal to me. Of course, there was a ban on them, but even after the ban, I now see many people buying them. I still ask myself why they want them. I figure that it comes down to the ‘cool’ factor, having something that is different, that evokes a reaction from someone. However, if I were to suddenly develop a desire to won one, and then faced with a law that required me to register it….well why not? I am a law-abiding citizen, and if I only want it as a novelty, (after all…you cannot hunt with them) to shoot targets, what would get me riled up about that? I have hunted too, and I feel that registering a hunting rifle is absurd. However, the NRA and those that so passionately stand by the second amendment, fear that give Washington an inch, and they will take a mile. You know, I really do not think that the people of the United States will ever allow a full ban on weapons. Everything is a compromise, and I will bet that if we could resurrect our forefathers, that after seeing the state of things, they too would understand.
However, more concerning to me is the sudden boom of people hoarding these guns, and ammo, all because Barack Obama became president. What does that accomplish? Are they expecting another civil war? Fear has a hold on them, all because they may not be able to own an assault rifle if Obama gets his way. Well that is a leap. Besides…since there are many officers on this forum, what do you all think of homes filled with so many weapons? Hell I bet there are some police precincts not as well armed as some communities. I for one find that scary. So let us say the law does change…what do these people become then. I mean, they would not be able to use them. So why hoard them now? I do not remember a president being in office, where there was not some big fear that this congressional representative or that senator was going to take our rights away from us. Scarier than that, is the person that boasts how easy it is to make his assault rifle, fully auto. When I lived in AZ, and during the fourth of July, it sounded like a war, there were so many weapons being shot in the air. Many times, I could hear the rip of a fully auto weapon.
I went to apply for a job the other day, at a local gun store. I so love guns, and know a lot about them. I was pulling out of the parking lot afterward, and the owner came out and stopped me. He had seen my Obama sticker on my car, and proceeded to wear me out with the same old fear mongering that I have heard repeatedly. For what it’s worth, he leaned on the fact that he had been an officer for many years and saying that I had a lot of nerve coming in to ask for a job in his place when I supported Barack for president. However, if McCain had won, he would have missed the huge rush of sales. In this economy, selling guns is like selling a burglar alarm. You need to instill fear for most people, while the rest just want to have fun, be it hunting or target practice. That Obama is ok with, as is most that want gun control.
Law enforcement *should* deeply care about gun control. I’m not talking about citizens right to bear arms and ccw. I’m talking about the gun manufacturers and dealers who don’t care where their weapons end up or who buys them. The argument should be focused on what steps we can make to be able to track weapons used in crimes and who owns that weapon. Unfortunately anytime discussions arise about guns and laws, the NRA lobbyists step in and hijack the argument to make it about the 2nd amendment. The NRA does not care about individuals either; it cares about money received from the manufacturers and dealers. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want the government to know what guns are owned by whom, and I would like to see every responsible citizen armed. But quit focusing on the bogus argument about taking away the 2nd amendment. Focus on who makes the money from the bad guys getting guns and how to make it rare for the bad guy to have a gun, and then we can start having an intelligent discussion on TRUE gun control.
On a side note, I’ve read more than one post from an officer who has never taken or come into contact with a Class 3 weapon on the street. Is your comment endorsing the ban of 1986 and showing that banning a class of weapons was successful?
I have never come in contact with a Class III weapon either but it only shows that the ban didn’t accomplish anything…Those weapons were illegal before the ban. Because they are so heavily regulated and there is a whole bunch of trouble to be had with the ATF if you do have one they are extremely expensive. Crooks and Law abiding citizens alike generally don’t feel the need to own one… Less accuracy, much more expensive to purchase and shoot and legal ownership is a paperwork PITA.
To Daryl…. If you think we couldn’t have another revolution in this country you should think again.. I am a cop and a reserve military officer and if either one of those roles cause me to have to knock on someones door and tell them to turn in their weapons I will resign from both and prepare for a good old fassioned mexican stand off in my front yard… And I personally stock 14 different weapons and never less than 2000 rounds.
Russ are you high? Stating that gun manufacturers do not care about where their guns end up or who uses them. I guess we should hold alcohol manufacturers responsible for minors obtaining alcohol. How about holding car manufacturers responsible for drunks driving their car intoxicated and killing someone. Here is new concept HOLD THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS AND STOP PASSING THE BLAME. If you think that guns purchased legally are mostly used in crimes you are crazy. Why would someone spend $1,000 for a gun when they could buy in on the streets or steal it for nothing. Why would mexican drug lords buy weapons in the states for a thousand dollars or buy about ten for the same price?
That same mentality is what is wrong with the world as a whole.
The right to bear arms in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has not prevent the erosion of our civil liberties in the last 8 years under President Bush. Bush and his people use the power of the pen instead of the gun to erode our rights, and he did it with the blessing of Congress and the passivenss of the American people.
If the Second Amendment was rigously enforced, private and public sector crimes, organized crime, corporate crimes, and police corruption would have not even existed let along be around for this long.
Russ, There is NO organization that supports law enforcement as much as the NRA. The NRA has for years had LE training and competition for the LE. To blame the NRA for the illegal use of weapons is like blaming AAA for drunk drivers. The 40+ years that I have been reading NRA publications there has always been the “The Armed Citizen” in each issue describing the lawful use of weapons for self protection or protection of another. Do the research before maligning an organization.
To Joel,
It is not that I think it could not happen, I think it is highly improbable, and that is because of patriots like you. Trust me; I would be there alongside you, as would many people. I say that it is just so much paranoia, as the government knows that there are people like you (and me) that would not stand for it. Hell, I am sure that Dave from TX would agree with this, when I say that if it ever came to that, Texas would succeed from the union. Texans helped build this country in a big way, but when it comes to gun rights, they would be the first to stand their ground again. Now I say that as a way to show how stupid it would be to try to take away our second amendment rights. The government knows this! The money the NRA uses to keep those rights in place is well spent. What I am saying is that there has to be compromise. I do not care if they want to register my assault rifle; just do not go after the hunting rifle or pistols. You have to give something, to get something. I was thinking about the world situation, and it weighs heavily on my mind that Iran and other countries are moving to nuclear power, firing off missiles. There is a lot of talk that they do not have the right, to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. However absurd this is, but I draw a parallel from this. That being, if I had a nuke in my backyard…then why can’t you have one too. It has to stop somewhere, and that is why the world is so concerned. In today’s economy, I hate like hell to see people spending hard-earned money on guns, out of the fear that they will lose their rights. Will it ever happen…to that, I say no. Being very paranoid is wrong, but a little keeps us sharp. Let us just not let the kids go without clothes to support it.
It does my heart good to hear working cops champion my right to self defense. It echoes what I say to liberal friends when they condemn cops who defend themselves in situations they neither sought nor created. My question to you good guys out there: How do you see your pro-gun views as measured against your colleagues or agencies? Are you guys mavericks? Or indistinguishable from most cops? My informal estimate, gleaned from direct experience, would put solidly pro-gun cops at no more than about 20% of all of them. Fair guess?
I was in Law Enforcement many years ago (1970-1981) Good ole days!!! I never had any problem with individuals who legally owned/carried firearms. Most of the armed law abiding community I found to be responsible, careful, and understanding of the right given to them by our founding fathers. However, scumbag street trash “felonious” types I always came down hard on them if they were “packing” because they were, in most cases, persona non grata as far as legal ownership of firearms. What frustrated me was the lack of our “system’ to properly prosecute those who carried or used firearms in the commission of crimes. Although I am still close to the LE community through other means, and I shoot and qualify on a regular basis, I presently live in a state where the States Attorney views persons like myself as potential felons or terrorits. Yet the illegally armed bad guys are treated with “understanding”. Go figure. Enough of my rant!!
I found over the years that chiefs of Police tended to be the cause of an anti civilian mentality about guns. I know of several Police chiefs who refused to sign the federal applications for people to obtain Class three weapons claiming it would put to much liability on them. Many law abideing civilians are better shooters then some of the police. I have shot alot of competitions and seen this first hand. I encourage people to get their CCW license and exercise their constitutional rights. Armed civilians are not the problem.
As a canadian “Mountie” myself, I couldn’t disagree more with Simon. Police in Canada, especially in many areas that the RCMP patrol, can’t get on scene quickly enough to help someone that is in danger of being harmed. I believe what has been affirmed by the Canadian Courts - Citizens have the right to self-defense, and a firearm is a legitimate means of self-defense in instances of death or serious bodily harm. I believe that any citizen that is law-abiding and mentally fit should be able to possess a firearm for self defense, as long as they are properly trained.
Not every Canadian cop wants to see guns banned
Russ;
In answer to your question re: Class III weapons. NO I don’t believe that the ten year gun ban did ANY good at all. I don’t believe these weapons have ever represented a problem on the streets large enough to need federal legislation to address.
I DO believe that our police officers should be armed better than any gang member could ever hope for (short of raiding a National Guard armory). I DO believe that far too much time (and tax dollars) is wasted generating new laws alleged to further reduce crime via gun control, when history and recent studies have clearly shown that increasing the number of guns legally carried DECREASES crime significantly.
As a proponent of the 2nd Amendment, responsible gun owner and responsible parent, I insured proper training / handling of firearms by all my children. I believe that there are a great many drivers on our highways every day who present a HUGE threat to our population - while all those in possession of CCW permits seem - according to data - to present FAR less of a threat.
To quote you “Bad guys will get guns no matter what.” Shouldn’t take away the constitutional rights of taxpaying, law abiding, responsible citizens, due to the actions of those who choose not to be.
Someone earlier beat me to the comment about the handgun ban in Chicago relating to the high murder rate. However, I believe there are statistics showing that the murder rate in DC has recently dropped since the lift on the ban of handguns in the city.
I have to say, as a Canadian citizen and gun owner, that I am truly dismayed by Simon’s attitudes towards us. Not all of us support Canada’s gun laws; those of us with knowledge of firearms and have personal experience with the sheer misguidedness of our gun laws do not support them. They were drafted by opportunistic politicians with the advice of hysterical hoplophobes, and are intended to secure support among the ignorant for said politicians by demonizing innocent, harmless, law abaiding Canadian gun owners.
They’re pure security theatre, nothing more.
I’d recommend to Simon that he learn a little bit about the culture that he’s unwittingly helping to oppress through enforcing bad laws and check out a local target or rod and gun club; meet the members, and realize that we are just normal Canadians who like to hunt and shoot, not criminals, and do not deserve the over-regulation and harrasment of our current gun control laws.
Firearms ownership by private citizens IS Homeland Security.
Why not take a poll of police officers. If you have, where can I find it?
I agree that strict gun control only disarms honest citizens. I have been legally carrying concealed for over 20 years and have never shot anyone. My willingness to defend myself and my property has defused 5 potential robberies, carjackings, or assaults. I have had 5 “Interactions” with police while carrying. 3 routine traffic stops - I informed the officers right up front that I was legally carrying and there were no problems. “What is it and where is it?” Only 1 instance required more than the “normal” time; the officer admired my pistol and asked to look at it closely. 1 occasion when I was with someone who was legally carrying openly and the police were doing a saturation of the local area. My companion got more hassle than I did. Lastly I was in a 7-11 while it was robbed at gunpoint, just the clerk and me. The robber was calm and controlled and just wanted the register money so I sat at the video poker machine and memorized details. The responding officers said I did the right thing, $26 was not worth a gunfight if it could be avoided. They were both supportive of private citizens legally carrying concealed.