Why are guns made to kill?

[gumboot]

I replied to a post that suggested people should not take a job so dangerous that they would need to arm themselves for their own personal protection. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that employment as a peace officer might fall into that category...

Just a curious question, but are police officers primarily armed to enable them to protect themselves, or are they primarily armed to enable them to protect the general public and to ensure that criminals comply with their demands?

I'm thinking along similar lines as the military - soldiers do not actually carry rifles for their personal protection.

A firearm is actually a really stupid thing to use for personal protection. Body armour seems a much more sensible choice (and I believe both police and soldiers commonly wear body armour, no doubt for personal protection).

 

[gumboot]

Security firms in the UK are not armed.

Nor in New Zealand.

 

[Autolite]

I am not a lawyer either, but I think that anyone in the USA is not going to be indicted for brandishing if they are defending themselves from a sword wielding assailant.

Here is what the Canadian Criminal code has to say:



Pointing a firearm

87. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded.

Punishment

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 87; 1995, c. 39, s. 139.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdo...l=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50

So it would seem that if the Crown is satisfied that there was "lawful excuse" then pointing a firearm in the reference scenario shouldn't bring forth charges. Bring on the Samurais!!!

 

[Autolite]

Just a curious question, but are police officers primarily armed to enable them to protect themselves, or are they primarily armed to enable them to protect the general public and to ensure that criminals comply with their demands?

Here is the Canadian National Firearms Association interpretation (as per the Canadian Criminal Code):

A police officer carries a loaded firearm for the primary purpose of protecting human life from criminal violence--his own, or lives of those under his protection. An officer is not authorized to use that firearm to protect property, or to threaten an individual who is no threat to the officer or anyone else, or to shoot a criminal who is fleeing the scene of a crime. He may not use it unless he is acting to protect human life from criminal violence.

http://www.nfa.ca/content/view/261/199/

 

[Autolite]

Security firms in the UK are not armed.

Is that due to the law? Do they have the option of arming their officers???

 

[Autolite]

I doubt it. New Zealand police don't carry firearms and our treatment of criminals is embarrassingly soft. I'd be quite appalled if your treatment of criminals is even softer.

Perhaps the N.Z. police don't carry firearms but do they not have access if required? I was under the assumption that police forces whose officers do not carry will maintain an armed force as a stand-by (to deploy as necessary)...

 

[volatile]

Is that due to the law? Do they have the option of arming their officers???

That is certainly due to the law. They are not allowed to carry weapons. Our regular street cops and traffic cops are similarly unarmed (except with a truncheon).

Security guards and police officers do not carry guns. There is no corresponding spate of anarchic violence against either group.

 

[Drudgewire]

People like you are the ones who effectively make the guns available for the nutters/sons/daughters/uncles.

To illustrate. When was the latest time you entered into a firefight with a nutter?

No, I don't. I keep mine away from those who shouldn't have access to them and carry mine in a safe position that prevents discharge.

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem and never have been. And if I ever come up against a "nutter" I have an equalizer. Have fun enlightening the one you come up against out of killing you.

 

[gumboot]

Perhaps the N.Z. police don't carry firearms but do they not have access if required? I was under the assumption that police forces whose officers do not carry will maintain an armed force as a stand-by (to deploy as necessary)...

Certain officers (dog handlers and senior emergency response officers) are authorised to carry firearms. By "carry" I mean they're allowed to have a couple of pistols and an assault rifle locked in a safe in the boot of their patrol car.

Typically when an officer encounters an incident that requires firearms, or when an emergency call is received for any sort of armed incident, an armed officer will be dispatched and therefore may have a firearm on his or her person (rather than just in the safe). Regular police officers can be issued firearms in the event of a situation that warrants an armed response if supervised by a senior officer.

Most detectives, I believe, are also issued a firearm, which is likewise "carried" in a locked safe in the boot of their car.

We also have the Armed Offenders Squad which is basically a SWAT team and respond to specific incidents and the Special Tactics Group which respond to terrorist incidents as well as diplomatic protection type stuff. Members of the AOS are only part time - spending most of their time as regular police officers. STG members are full time, but do not feature in regular day-to-day policing.

Police shootings in New Zealand are extremely rare, and you will never see a regular police officer walking around with a gun on their hip.

 

[Ranb]

.....With guns in America, there is no such requirement to record sales AFAIK. In a previous gun control thread, I remember someone (Ranb?) being aghast at the suggestion that gun owners be required to register their guns and tell the FBAFT when they sell them......

Every gun that is sold by a licensed dealer is done so with a background check and a record of the sale is retained as long as the dealer is in business. The records go to the BATFE after the dealer goes out of business. I have never had a problem with this.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but it was probably something about the local sheriffs being able to refuse a sign-off on ATF forms for making or purchasing NFA (machine guns, silencers, short barreled rifles/shotguns) weapons for any reason at all.

Ranb

 

[volatile]

That is certainly due to the law. They are not allowed to carry weapons. Our regular street cops and traffic cops are similarly unarmed (except with a truncheon).

Security guards and police officers do not carry guns. There is no corresponding spate of anarchic violence against either group.

As an addendum to this: As at 2003 "more than 50 officers in England and Wales have been killed by suspects since 1980". That's an average of one every 2 years. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jan/15/terrorism.ukcrime)

In contrast, in one year approx. 82 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6762180/) US officers were killed by suspects in the US.

US Population: 300,000
UK Population: 61,000

US population is 5 times larger. Police killings 164 times more prevalent.

 

[Drudgewire]

Every gun that is sold by a licensed dealer is done so with a background check and a record of the sale is retained as long as the dealer is in business. The records go to the BATFE after the dealer goes out of business. I have never had a problem with this.

That's not what I've been told. I've bought three guns from the same dealer (right across the street from our state law enforcement headquarters so he's very above board). They do the background check, they retain the records for three days, then they're deleted. While it seems to me there's some sort of paper trail just by doing the check, he hands nothing over and wouldn't have to if he were to ever close.

According to him, the only time a government agency ever has to be notified of a purchase in any way, shape or form is if I were to buy two guns in a five day period... but even that can gotten around easily by putting one on layaway for three days.

And yeah, I can't deny it. I love having a hobby that angers so many people and terrifies so many others.

 

[volatile]

Every gun that is sold by a licensed dealer is done so with a background check and a record of the sale is retained as long as the dealer is in business. The records go to the BATFE after the dealer goes out of business. I have never had a problem with this.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but it was probably something about the local sheriffs being able to refuse a sign-off on ATF forms for making or purchasing NFA (machine guns, silencers, short barreled rifles/shotguns) weapons for any reason at all.

Ranb

But there is no compulsion to register a gun you sell second hand, correct? If you sell your gun, or you buy one at a gun show, there is no corresponding paperwork or compulsion to register, correct?

 

[Rolfe]

That is certainly due to the law. They are not allowed to carry weapons. Our regular street cops and traffic cops are similarly unarmed (except with a truncheon).

Security guards and police officers do not carry guns. There is no corresponding spate of anarchic violence against either group.

I posted (I think in another thread) about a colleague of mine who was the victim of an armed robbery. He was working as a repairman for bank cash dispensers, and was attacked by armed robbers. If I remember his account correctly, there was money involved because he had been asked to fill the machines up at the time he repaired them. He was badly shocked by the experience, but not physically harmed. He is firmly of the opinion that if there had been any chance of him being armed, the robber who threatened him with the gun would have pulled the trigger.

This colleague has in the past served in the armed forces (the navy) and in the police force. He, of all people, I might have expected to be in favour of carrying a gun for self-protection. But he isn't.

Such robberies are rare, and rarer as bank management realise the folly of asking unprotected casual staff to fill the machines up at weekends, and pass the job on to proper security firms. Who still don't carry guns.

Leaping to the conclusion that these occasional occurrences would justify a relaxation of the gun laws that would result in our society becoming as firearm happy and obsessed as the USA isn't on anybody's priority list.

Rolfe.

 

[volatile]

According to him, the only time a government agency ever has to be notified of a purchase in any way, shape or form is if I were to buy two guns in a five day period... but even that can gotten around easily by putting one on layaway for three days.

If that is the case, then Gumboot is correct that car ownership in the UK is more tightly controlled than gun ownership in (your particular part of) America.

That's quite scary.

 

[volatile]

I asked it in a post to Gumboot, but I think it got buried.

Can I ask the gun owners here if they would be prepared to side with an armed resistance against the US government? If such an armed resistance arose, do you think most Constitutionally-minded gun owners would join them, or consider them terrorists and side with the government?

It seems to me that those who cite the Second Amendment as their ultimate reason for owning a gun or resisting gun controls are the most patriotic, and as such the least likely to take up arms against their own government - a weird piece of doublethink.

 

[Mobyseven]

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem and never have been.

You heard it here first people. We can all stop worrying, because it's only the irresponsible gun owners we have to worry about.

Of course, how exactly does one tell if a gun owner is responsible or not? Well, we could ask them, but who in their right mind is going to say they aren't responsible? I suppose we could check and see how their guns are stored, but even if they own a safe, how do we know that the guns are properly stored in there at all times?

Every gun owner thinks that they are responsible. And every time a tragedy occurs the same voices pipe up to tell us that it's only the irresponsible gun owners that are the problem. All those responsible gun owners have never had an incident in their lives, no-siree.

Guess what. Up until moments before that tragedy occurred the victim thought they were also a responsible gun owner. It could just as easily be any gun owner on this forum winding up in such circumstances, as horrible as the thought may be. It doesn't take much. One mistake, one time, could be all it takes, and none of us are infalliable.

It seems the only way to tell a responsible gun owner from an irresponsible gun owner is by looking for the epitaph.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's a commendable attitude. As a matter of fact I've been thinking of starting a such a security company. I would advertise the fact that none of the security officers will ever be armed! Would you care to invest in my fledgling enterprise???

So you are for shooting people who are commiting crimes even if they are just property crimes?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, I don't. I keep mine away from those who shouldn't have access to them and carry mine in a safe position that prevents discharge.

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem and never have been. And if I ever come up against a "nutter" I have an equalizer. Have fun enlightening the one you come up against out of killing you.

Now all we need to do is determine responcible. Was the woman who killed a man stealing beer responcible? As that was found to be a non criminal action it would seem so.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As an addendum to this: As at 2003 "more than 50 officers in England and Wales have been killed by suspects since 1980". That's an average of one every 2 years. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jan/15/terrorism.ukcrime)

In contrast, in one year approx. 82 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6762180/) US officers were killed by suspects in the US.

US Population: 300,000
UK Population: 61,000

US population is 5 times larger. Police killings 164 times more prevalent.

You are failing to account for just how uncontrolably violent americans are.