How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

General Law Enforcement discussion which does not fit into other channels. Post your thoughts and feelings about anything you want (LE related), or just vent those fumes about whatever is on your chest.
Jim Street
King Poobah
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:25 pm
Contact:

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Postby Jim Street » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:43 pm

Thanks but no thanks, it's bad enough you have to worry about Clayton Shitrat carrying, I'd rather not have to factor in some wannabe good samaritan with a Glock who decides that he should start taking matters into their own hands or God forbid assume he's helping and pull it at an inappropriate or dangerous time.

I'd love to live in a world that there was a clear cut black and white view of what's right and what's wrong. However, there are far too many human factors and flaws in allowing just anyone to carry a lethal weapon.
Opinions posted are my own sole opinion not reflective of any views/thoughts of agency. Answers may or may not be truthful, As if you couldn't tell.

User avatar
Bitterman
Rookie Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:09 pm
Contact:

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Postby Bitterman » Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:16 pm

I see it from two perspectives...
A phylosophical one as well as a practical one.
On the phylosophical side people can not rely on the state (the police) to protect them. Those who cling to the notion that the police are there to protect are kidding themselves.
At best our police show up afterwards to take reports and hopefully aprehend the evil doe(s)
So... It is completely ridiculouse that the state forbids the population from arming themselves (as the police are) in order that they may have a fighting chance against said evil doers.
Philisophically I have a huge problem with people being denied the means that they see fit to protect themselves.
On the practical side...
As the Widowson mentioned... I have a problem with some people being allowed to drive cars let alone carry a loaded gun... :mrgreen:

I will say this though... the idea that somehow allowing a person to carry a weapon will turn them into some kind of homocidal maniac Charles Bronson vengance seeking take the law into their own hands nut case is silly.

I know many folks who carry guns regularly and non of 'em are blood thirsty. We look at it here like..."Why do you need a gun. They're so dangerous.. How irresponsible" They look at it like.. "How come you don't have a weapon.. That's just irresponsible. Who's gonna protect you and your kids while the cops are coming to "save" you...

They're more indipendant and self reliant. We've had most of our indipendence and self reliance bred out of us.
Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
Make counter accusations...

User avatar
Columbo
Seasoned Member
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:38 pm
Location: Barney's Beanery
Contact:

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Postby Columbo » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:28 pm

This one time at band camp, I used my 9mm to dislodge a stuck flute.
"One more thing..."

remote
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:05 pm
Contact:

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Postby remote » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:30 pm

Horatio wrote:How many trained, certified, practiced, responsible, accountable citizens are there? I mean sure there are a lot of people on this forum who I'd be comfortable having CCW's but most of them are ALREADY carrying LEO's, or on their way to becoming such.
Trained & practised citizens? Think about all of those men and women who are involved in shooting sports like IPSC, IDPA, etc. They are a good example of people who are highly trained, competent and responsible with their firearms. Think also about off-duty police officers.
Training also encompasses a thorough understanding of legal ramifications of use of force, and especially use of a firearm. It includes a thorough understanding of the years of legal, emotional, spiritual trauma and expenses that can haunt a person in the aftermath of a justified shooting - this can't be understated. A person who is properly educated about these issues during the process of acquiring an Authorization to Carry will be very responsible and reluctant to discharge his firearm unless absolutely necessary in the same way that 99% of LEO's use restraint.
Horatio wrote:What I'm concerned about is the "average" person, who passes all his training and such and appears to be the model CCW holder, but then gets drunk one night and does something stupid? A lot of people's personalities change SIGNIFICANTLY when they've been drinking. Or what about people who find themselves in emotionally charged situations? Someone may be relatively sane and normal, but then they have a really bad day, and get cut off in traffic on the way home. In todays society this may result in not much more then shouting/swearing/bird flipping, maybe at WORST a fist fight at the side of the road. What would happen if this person just happened to have access to a firearm at the time? I'm not talking about the gangster sh!tbag who already has a "nine" in his glove box, I mean the middle aged business man who doesn't carry now - but would if he could legally.
Your concern about an ATC holder getting drunk or losing his temper on account of road rage is, in my opinion, a real stretch - it's way too hypothetical. How often does this happen in places where CCW is legal? As I alluded to above, the person who jumps through all of the flaming hoops in order to aquire an ATC is not the "average" person. He's not the trigger happy slick-looking-dude in the corner of the restaurant. ;)

Horatio
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:09 am
Contact:

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Postby Horatio » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:53 pm

remote wrote:Trained & practised citizens? Think about all of those men and women who are involved in shooting sports like IPSC, IDPA, etc. They are a good example of people who are highly trained, competent and responsible with their firearms. Think also about off-duty police officers.

A person who is properly educated about these issues during the process of acquiring an Authorization to Carry will be very responsible and reluctant to discharge his firearm unless absolutely necessary in the same way that 99% of LEO's use restraint.


Agreed, there are scores of people to be found who would be responsible with a CCW, I just fear there are too many who WOULD get licenced who aren't that responsible. As Jim Street pointed out, the police really don't need semi-trained individuals jumping in to assist. Note: I say semi-trained because I doubt any hypotethical CCW course would include the level of training/retraining police receive.

remote
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:05 pm
Contact:

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Postby remote » Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:06 am

Horatio wrote:Agreed, there are scores of people to be found who would be responsible with a CCW, I just fear there are too many who WOULD get licenced who aren't that responsible. As Jim Street pointed out, the police really don't need semi-trained individuals jumping in to assist. Note: I say semi-trained because I doubt any hypotethical CCW course would include the level of training/retraining police receive.

Well, I can't debate with you if that's your fall-back position.
My original post stated "trained, certified, practiced, responsible, accountable citizens". I'm not advocating for semi-trained, un-practiced, irresponsible, flakey citizens who get their ATC from a box of Crackerjacks. You are derailing my valid argument by defaulting to the lowest common denomination. I stated that a thorough understanding of legalities can't be understated - perhaps I should have used the word "overstated". I'm trying to drive home the point that those who meet exceptional character and training standards should be given an Authorization to Carry. :banghead:
:D :D

User avatar
Bitterman
Rookie Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:09 pm
Contact:

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Postby Bitterman » Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:33 am

VanB wrote:Did I miss the bulletin that announced that these situations are so commonplace for the average citizen to encounter that this measure would even be worth the inherent risks?


Doesn't have to be common place. A situation need only arise once.
Using your logic one could argue that because enough cops get through their entire career without ever unholstering their weapon that cops don't really "need" to carry guns, but we'd all say that's crazy.

I thinks it's easy for those in (armed) LE to dismiss the idea that anyone else but them should be allowed to have a gun for protection because well.... They have a gun for protection and for the most part people really only think of themselves.

I remember back when Allan Legere(sp?) was running ammock in NB and the RCMP were telling people it would be illegal for them to keep loaded guns avilable in their homes for protection... You could taste the silent F-you from the townsfolk.
I think the Miramichi Canadian Tire ran out of 12 ga. shotshells.

Sure... the odds of any one member of the public being the victim of a violent crime are slim, but it happens all the time.

Would I shoot a guy trying to steal my car outta the driveway...? No.
Would I use a gun to defend myself/loved ones from "grievous bolidy harm"... Fuck yeah. Why not.
I'd also use a baseball bat or a pointy stick... Whatever I have on hand.

... and when the cops come by and arrest my ass I'll STFU and let my lawyer do the talking.

I once had a coworker come to me and ask about "getting a gun" for protection. The police told her that it was out of the question and that if the guy threatening her tried to do her harm she should call 911.
Kinda difficult to call 911 when your throat is slashed and you've been set on fire. :roll:

So... the law of man aside. I wonder if she'd be alive today "if" I hadn't been afraid to break the law and gave her a .38 spl. chunk to hold onto while she walked to her car...?
Last edited by Bitterman on Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
Make counter accusations...

User avatar
Columbo
Seasoned Member
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:38 pm
Location: Barney's Beanery
Contact:

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Postby Columbo » Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:36 am

While I agree wholeheartedly with Bitterman's philosophy and reasoning to a tee, why is this even being debated? Again. CCW will never happen in this country, and certainly not in the lifetime of any living generation. Handgun ownership and CCW in Canada are akin to jai alai in Alabama: it's so emphatically far-off the average Canadian's radar and foreign to the vast majority of their upbringing and culture, that it would take a Liberal squadron of cultural diversity experts and human rights arbiters to beat us into agreement and comfort with the idea through proselytism.
"One more thing..."

User avatar
Bitterman
Rookie Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:09 pm
Contact:

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Postby Bitterman » Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:57 am

[quote="Horatio] As Jim Street pointed out, the police really don't need semi-trained individuals jumping in to assist. [/quote]

How is it that some guys can't untangle the badge and the gun....?
This assumption that carrying a gun for "personal protection" will make people think they're some kind of junior ranger police cadet is silly.

As far as assisting police... i thought we all have a duty to do so. I wouldn't join in in the middle of a fire fight, hell you'd be on your own... I'm outta there :mrgreen:
But... I'm sure cops who have received help in scuffles with baddies from passers by would disagree with a ban on "individuals jumping in to assist"
Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
Make counter accusations...

User avatar
Alberta Blue
Sage Member
Posts: 487
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:22 pm
Contact:

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Postby Alberta Blue » Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:16 am

Bitterman wrote:
Would I use a gun to defend myself/loved ones from "grievous bolidy harm"... Fuck yeah. Why not.


This is legal already. You don't need to make any changes to the law for this.

Bitterman wrote:I once had a coworker come to me and ask about "getting a gun" for protection. The police told her that it was out of the question and that if the guy threatening her tried to do her harm she should call 911.
Kinda difficult to call 911 when your throat is slashed and you've been set on fire. :roll:


Kinda difficult to shoot a gun if your throat is slashed and you've been set on fire. I don't see how this lends any weight to your argument.

Bitterman wrote:So... the law of man aside. I wonder if she'd be alive today "if" I hadn't been afraid to break the law and gave her a .38 spl. chunk to hold onto while she walked to her car...?


Because the bad guy didn't come calling because he somehow knew that she was carrying a gun?

remote
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:05 pm
Contact:

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Postby remote » Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:37 am

Alberta Blue wrote:
Bitterman wrote:Would I use a gun to defend myself/loved ones from "grievous bolidy harm"... Fuck yeah. Why not.
This is legal already. You don't need to make any changes to the law for this.

Huh?
Surely you are generalizing and simplifying and playing dirty pool, too? :ponder:
The topic is CCW (or ATC) for civilians.
You can't poop out a statement like that and not justify it. 88) :)
I apologize, sincerely, if I"m missing something. :bow:
Please explain. :dubious:

User avatar
Bitterman
Rookie Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:09 pm
Contact:

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Postby Bitterman » Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:59 am

Alberta Blue wrote:Kinda difficult to shoot a gun if your throat is slashed and you've been set on fire. I don't see how this lends any weight to your argument.


True, but... who's to say things may have turned out differently if she had a weapon?
Maybe she did a a moment's notice before the onslaught. 'Don't know for sure.
Maybe she could have shot the fucker and then with throat intact called 911...

Alberta Blue wrote:Because the bad guy didn't come calling because he somehow knew that she was carrying a gun?


No, maybe like above... She'd have shot the fucker before he killed her.... Maybe.

I mean the poor girl was 5'2" and maybe 110lbs....
Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
Make counter accusations...

User avatar
Sumo_CPO
Seasoned Member
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:25 am
Location: Alberta
Contact:

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Postby Sumo_CPO » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:12 am

remote wrote:
Alberta Blue wrote:
Bitterman wrote:Would I use a gun to defend myself/loved ones from "grievous bolidy harm"... Fuck yeah. Why not.
This is legal already. You don't need to make any changes to the law for this.

Huh?
Surely you are generalizing and simplifying and playing dirty pool, too? :ponder:
The topic is CCW (or ATC) for civilians.
You can't poop out a statement like that and not justify it. 88) :)
I apologize, sincerely, if I"m missing something. :bow:
Please explain. :dubious:


What you're missing is Section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada, genius.
Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and f**k the prom queen.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Cogito, ergo armatum sum


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests