Should police have guns?

[Revoltingest]

Whatever you need to tell yourself to shift your share of the blame away from yourself.

What a strange & hostile non sequitur.

 

[esmith]

Off the top of my head...

Widespread availability of firearms, especially so-called "self-defense" weapons.

All firearms can be considered to be used in a "self-defense" role. Or do you have any specific ones in mind?

Allowing public carry, both open and concealed.

I will agree with you that open-carry in a populated area is in most cases dumb, but concealed carry is just that concealed and should/must be allowed.

Generally, policies that encourage or sanction "defensive use" of firearms, including castle doctrine, "stand your ground" laws, and firearm storage rules that prioritize quick access over safety.

That is your opinion, but there are many of us that disagrees with those ideas for these very simplistic reasons:
It is my responsibility to insure the safety of myself and my family in the absence of immediate response by law enforcement.
Your idea of firearm storage is generalized and does not take in to account the situation of every unique household. Therefore no rules should be enacted that does not take into account the unique situation in all instances.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Doesn't seem reason to assume that every person is potentially carrying a gun. Unless there is some premise of yours I missed.

I thought it would have followed, but maybe this will get the point across better:

Roughly 3 million Americans carry loaded handguns with them every day, primarily for protection, according to a new analysis of a national survey of gun owners published in the American Journal of Public Health.

The information comes from the National Firearms Survey, which the authors — a group of public health experts at the University of Washington, Harvard University and the University of Colorado — administered in 2015. The nationally representative survey was conducted online with 4,000 U.S. adults, including more than 1,500 who identified themselves as handgun owners.

The survey asked handgun owners how often they carried a loaded handgun on their person when away from home.

The peer-reviewed study concluded that roughly 9 million people carried loaded handguns at least one a month, including 3 million who carried them every day. People who carry handguns at least once a month were disproportionately likely to be conservative men between the ages of 18 and 29 residing in Southern states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...m-every-single-day-study-finds/?noredirect=on

3 million and 9 million people works out to about 1% and 3% of the total population, though as the article notes, the proportion of the population carrying a firearm isn't uniform all over the US. IOW, on average, about 1 in 36 people in the US carry a gun at least some of the time, and about 1 in 100 carry a gun every day.

 

[Curious George]

I thought it would have followed, but maybe this will get the point across better:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...m-every-single-day-study-finds/?noredirect=on

3 million and 9 million people works out to about 1% and 3% of the total population, though as the article notes, the proportion of the population carrying a firearm isn't uniform all over the US. IOW, on average, about 1 in 36 people in the US carry a gun at least some of the time, and about 1 in 100 carry a gun every day.

Again doesn't seem that 1/36 (some of the time) to 1/100 deserves the assumption that all persons are potential gun carriers. Especially, when the facts show otherwise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All firearms can be considered to be used in a "self-defense" role. Or do you have any specific ones in mind?

Handguns, mainly.

I will agree with you that open-carry in a populated area is in most cases dumb, but concealed carry is just that concealed and should/must be allowed.

"What you strongly want" <> "what must be."

That is your opinion, but there are many of us that disagrees with those ideas for these very simplistic reasons:
It is my responsibility to insure the safety of myself and my family in the absence of immediate response by law enforcement.
Your idea of firearm storage is generalized and does not take in to account the situation of every unique household. Therefore no rules should be enacted that does not take into account the unique situation in all instances.

Yes, I'm sure your case is special and unique and doesn't follow general trends at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again doesn't seem that 1/36 (some of the time) to 1/100 deserves the assumption that all persons are potential gun carriers.

1/100 means that a cop doing traffic stops would expect to pull over someone who is armed with a deadly weapon at least every week or two, approximately.

It gets more extreme when a cop has to visit a home, since about a third of households in the US have firearms:

Despite mass shootings, number of households owning guns is on the decline

Especially, when the facts show otherwise.

What facts?

 

[Curious George]

1/100 means that a cop doing traffic stops would expect to pull over someone who is armed with a deadly weapon at least every week or two, approximately.

It gets more extreme when a cop has to visit a home, since about a third of households in the US have firearms:

Despite mass shootings, number of households owning guns is on the decline


What facts?

The facts that not everyone is carrying a gun.

 

[Koldo]

Again doesn't seem that 1/36 (some of the time) to 1/100 deserves the assumption that all persons are potential gun carriers. Especially, when the facts show otherwise.

The problem is that not assuming the other person is carrying a gun puts your life in danger.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The facts that not everyone is carrying a gun.

Which wasn't what I was arguing. I said that cops in the US have to acknowledge the potential that anyone they encounter has a gun. It happens so often that it's a frequent occurrence that they need to be ready for.

 

[esmith]

I thought it would have followed, but maybe this will get the point across better:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...m-every-single-day-study-finds/?noredirect=on

3 million and 9 million people works out to about 1% and 3% of the total population, though as the article notes, the proportion of the population carrying a firearm isn't uniform all over the US. IOW, on average, about 1 in 36 people in the US carry a gun at least some of the time, and about 1 in 100 carry a gun every day.

I will counter the Washington Post article with the following:
Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Concealed Carry
Do Right-to-Carry States Really Have Less Violent Crime?
Stanford law prof gets it wrong on guns -- right-to-carry reduces crime, not the other way around
Concealed-Carry Laws

 

[Curious George]

Which wasn't what I was arguing. I said that cops in the US have to acknowledge the potential that anyone they encounter has a gun. It happens so often that it's a frequent occurrence that they need to be ready for.

I believe you said assume not acknowledge. But, not everyone does have the potential for carrying a gun. I am not opposed to police assuming such- i just asked for your reasoning and your reasoning failed to support such an assumption.

 

[Curious George]

The problem is that not assuming the other person is carrying a gun puts your life in danger.

Why is that? Is this not true everywhere?

 

[Koldo]

Why is that? Is this not true everywhere?

There is a saying in Portuguese: "Seguro morreu de velho."

It means something like: those who take precautions die of old age.

If you assume that a criminal is armed you will take precautions to avoid getting shot. Acting carefree is the easiest way to get hurt.

If a burglar breaks into your house, wouldn't you assume he is armed ?

 

[Shad]

So, I wonder, should we take away all police officers guns?

Only if you arm the citizens as weapons are a deterrence for crime.

 

[Curious George]

There is a saying in Portuguese: "Seguro morreu de velho."

It means something like: those who take precautions die of old age.

If you assume that a criminal is armed you will take precautions to avoid getting shot. Acting carefree is the easiest way to get hurt.

If a burglar breaks into your house, wouldn't you assume he is armed ?

So people in general should assume others are potentially armed?

 

[Koldo]

Only if you arm the citizens as weapons are a deterrence for crime.

Only if the criminal knows or believes someone will come after him and punish him for his actions. Otherwise, criminals could just kill their victims and then steal rather than threatening them to steal their possessions. After all, a dead corpse can't pull any triggers.

 

[esmith]

Which wasn't what I was arguing. I said that cops in the US have to acknowledge the potential that anyone they encounter has a gun. It happens so often that it's a frequent occurrence that they need to be ready for.

Yes, any LEO approaching anyone has to take precautions that their lives and those around them are protected. This is called training. When an officer approaching anyone will always demand that the persons hands must be visible at all times. You normal law abiding person will comply, it is when a person does not comply for various reasons that the problem exist. In those situations the threat level rises and can escalate. It all comes back to training-training-training-training and more training.

 

[esmith]

Only if the criminal knows or believes someone will come after him and punish him for his actions. Otherwise, criminals could just kill their victims and then steal rather than threatening them to steal their possessions. After all, a dead corpse can't pull any triggers.

However, the punishment for homicide is far more severe than robbery.

 

[Shad]

Only if the criminal knows or believes someone will come after him and punish him for his actions.

A gun in every household would do this for the most part.

Otherwise, criminals could just kill their victims and then steal rather than threatening them to steal their possessions. After all, a dead corpse can't pull any triggers.

Only if they got a good shot off first.

 

[Koldo]

So people in general should assume others are potentially armed?

In a sense, yes, since pushing the wrong buttons can get you suddenly shot for instance.

But cops are under a different circumstance while approaching a criminal, since the latter wants to get away from his crime and the police poses a very real impediment towards that goal.