poll: guns

[Skinsfan1311]

I draw the line at automatic weapons. IMHO, their only purpose is killing people. If the guns are made legal for collecting, make the bullets for the automatics illegal.

It's the only sound opinion, and I NEVER want the cops in my town to feel outgunned because some wacko has an automatic he picked up at the local Guns -n- Bibles store (not that I need to worry about that in Mass though, see living in a liberal state isn''t bad:))

Where is this "Guns -n- Bibles" store that you speak of?

[Skinsfan1311]

I just do not get it!

Fair enough!

[Redskins Diehard]

Interestingly enough, in my experience there's a group that are CONSIDERABLY worse shots than members of the general public..... Local and state level LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. Now, I'm a great supported of local, state and federal law enforcement officers. I know quite a few and shoot with a good number of them on a regular basis. Unfortunately, on the local and state level, most of these officers get far less training with a firearm than they need or deserve. Especially when it comes to combat shooting. Oh an officer may be able to shoot an excellent score twice a year standing there in an empty range, shooting at a cardboard target at a known distance. Unfortunately that's about the single most unlikely scenario for an officer involved shooting I've ever seen.

To emphasize my point, I harken to a discussion I had several years ago with retired NYPD officer Jim Cirillo. Jim's a decorated officer, a former member of the NYPD Stakeout Squad and his career record vs. Armed Felons is 17-0. I asked him why it was that I'd recently seen a statistic stating that the NYPD's officers expended something like 12 rounds of ammunition for every hit on a suspect compared to something like 3 rounds per hit in his day and age. Jim's response.... "Those Godd*mn slab-sidded guns. (referring to the Glock semi-auto pistols NYPD now issues). Back in my day you had a revolver and they never taght us in the academy how to use a speed-loader effectively. We KNEW that if we had to reload we were dead. These new kids fire indiscriminately because they carry 17 rounds in the gun and they can reload quicker than I can say my name."

If by "members of the general public" you mean your average gun enthusiast that has recieved firearms training AND shoots under the conditions you describe then maybe I agree with you, if by "members of the general public" you mean citizens on general or even the members of this fine online community, then I would disagree with you. Now this is not saying that your average LEO would not benefit from additional training as you can never have too much of that, but I don't buy into the fact that they are worse off than the average citizen on the street.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

If by "members of the general public" you mean your average gun enthusiast that has recieved firearms training AND shoots under the conditions you describe then maybe I agree with you, if by "members of the general public" you mean citizens on general or even the members of this fine online community, then I would disagree with you. Now this is not saying that your average LEO would not benefit from additional training as you can never have too much of that, but I don't buy into the fact that they are worse off than the average citizen on the street.

I'm talking about the "average" gun owner versus the "average" police officer. The "average" civilian gun owner goes out and shoots probably 4-6 times a year. Likely more if they own a gun for self-defense. Those of us who really put a large amount of stock in a firearm for self-defense and carry it quite often generally shoot much more often. Personally, I shoot somewhere between 150-300 rounds per month.

The average local/state level police officer is likely to shoot his/her firearm TWICE a year, at their qualification times ONLY. Maybe, if they're not confident about their skills, they'll go to the range the week before qualifying and shoot a bit to make sure they can stay on duty.

Obviously there are gun owners who NEVER practice with their firearms. Similarly there are police officers who DO put the time and effort into becoming truly competent with their sidearm. We all know that.

Of the four Northeastern state's whose police academies I can speak to, they average 15 weeks of training and 5 days of firearms training per academy. None of them do any movement, low-light or flashlight shooting training with the officers. None of them offer any additional range time to officers before they are asked to qualify. HOWEVER, the instructors WILL spend a large amount of time beating the idea that using that firearm is an absolute LAST OPTION and the SEVERE PENALTIES that will be handed down upon an officer who inappropriately discharges or even draws their sidearm. Effectively, these acadamies give the officer a tool and then tell them if they ever use it, they're gonna lose their job, their pension, and probably a civil lawsuit.

Additionally, most departments mandate the firearm and ammunition officers MUST carry. Regardless of whether it is a good fit for the officer carrying it. These departments also generally do not allow officers to change the grips, sights or action on their sidearms. In some cases this makes the sidearm completely ineffective for the officer carrying it.

As you can see the system is set up to make sure that the officers have no confidence, skill or personal investment in their firearm and their skills with it. In fact, it's almost like the departments are doing everything humanly possible to ensure that officers don't even want to think about ever drawing that weapon. Even in those few extreme circumstances that warrant its use.

I could go on nearly indeffinitely on this topic, but I think I've proven my point.

[Redskins Diehard]

I'm talking about the "average" gun owner versus the "average" police officer. The "average" civilian gun owner goes out and shoots probably 4-6 times a year. Likely more if they own a gun for self-defense. Those of us who really put a large amount of stock in a firearm for self-defense and carry it quite often generally shoot much more often. Personally, I shoot somewhere between 150-300 rounds per month.

Your commentary serves more to indict the officers, training programs, and policies of the departments in question than anything else in my opinion. I seriously think you overestimate the capability of the "average gun owner" and speak more to the "average gun enthusiast".

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Your commentary serves more to indict the officers, training programs, and policies of the departments in question than anything else in my opinion. I seriously think you overestimate the capability of the "average gun owner" and speak more to the "average gun enthusiast".

That's fine. You're entitled to be wrong. That's Constitutionally guaranteed.

It's not the officers that I seek to indict, but the departments, academies and training/purchasing people. The officers are simply at the bottom of the **** pile where everything rolls down to. In many cases they disagree with the policies, but can't do anything about them.

I truly believe that you UNDERestimate the average gun owner. Either that or you're adding illegal gun owners into the equation and bringing down the average ability of gun owners that way.

[Predicto]

Interesting that you should mention that. I was just reading today that the City of San Francisco pushed the date back to at least Mid-June because of an NRA funded lawsuit challenging the law that's still waiting for a judge's ruling. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors HAS, however, set the penalties for possession of a firearm inside city limits If/When the law goes into effect... a one thousand dollar fine and ninety days to six months in jail.

handgun, not firearm, right?

[Predicto]

Whether it went up or not is really irrelevant... .

Whether or not people just make stuff up as fact is irrelevant....

[flashback]

I think all weapons should be legal. The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to keep and bear guns. It guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Not only should automatic weapons be legal, so should tanks, the F-18A Hornet, the B-1B Lancer and nuclear Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles.

The Constitution makes perfectly clear that the government has no right to keep these important tools of freedom out of our hands.

[Predicto]

This post shows your thinking, which tells me there is no point in arguing with you. To compare those things you just mentioned with guns is lunacy. Anthrax sitting around kills. Guns dont. I am going to have to leave this conversation now as your mind is obviously irrational.

It's an analogy.

People use them to demonstrate logical connections, not identical situations.

There is an obvious logical connection here which may or may not be dispositive. You do not choose to accept it, fine.

ps - certainly I can defend myself with anthrax. Who would screw with me if they knew I had it?

[Fred Jones]

I'm talking about the "average" gun owner versus the "average" police officer. The "average" civilian gun owner goes out and shoots probably 4-6 times a year. Likely more if they own a gun for self-defense. Those of us who really put a large amount of stock in a firearm for self-defense and carry it quite often generally shoot much more often. Personally, I shoot somewhere between 150-300 rounds per month.

The average local/state level police officer is likely to shoot his/her firearm TWICE a year, at their qualification times ONLY. Maybe, if they're not confident about their skills, they'll go to the range the week before qualifying and shoot a bit to make sure they can stay on duty.

Obviously there are gun owners who NEVER practice with their firearms. Similarly there are police officers who DO put the time and effort into becoming truly competent with their sidearm. We all know that.

Of the four Northeastern state's whose police academies I can speak to, they average 15 weeks of training and 5 days of firearms training per academy. None of them do any movement, low-light or flashlight shooting training with the officers. None of them offer any additional range time to officers before they are asked to qualify. HOWEVER, the instructors WILL spend a large amount of time beating the idea that using that firearm is an absolute LAST OPTION and the SEVERE PENALTIES that will be handed down upon an officer who inappropriately discharges or even draws their sidearm. Effectively, these acadamies give the officer a tool and then tell them if they ever use it, they're gonna lose their job, their pension, and probably a civil lawsuit.

Additionally, most departments mandate the firearm and ammunition officers MUST carry. Regardless of whether it is a good fit for the officer carrying it. These departments also generally do not allow officers to change the grips, sights or action on their sidearms. In some cases this makes the sidearm completely ineffective for the officer carrying it.

As you can see the system is set up to make sure that the officers have no confidence, skill or personal investment in their firearm and their skills with it. In fact, it's almost like the departments are doing everything humanly possible to ensure that officers don't even want to think about ever drawing that weapon. Even in those few extreme circumstances that warrant its use.

I could go on nearly indeffinitely on this topic, but I think I've proven my point.

Not bad from an extreme right wing radical, but I disagree a little bit with these comments.

HOWEVER, the instructors WILL spend a large amount of time beating the idea that using that firearm is an absolute LAST OPTION and the SEVERE PENALTIES that will be handed down upon an officer who inappropriately discharges or even draws their sidearm. Effectively, these acadamies give the officer a tool and then tell them if they ever use it, they're gonna lose their job, their pension, and probably a civil lawsuit.

Can't say what they do up north, but I would not agree with this statement here in Northern Virginia. From my understanding, officers are taught to deal with the situation at hand. Each situation is viewed separately and the officer must determine the level of appropriate force to bring the situation under control. If the level of force requires the discharge of a firearm the officer just needs to justify the use of such force. Last option and severe penalties do not apply. The situation dictates the level of force to use.

Additionally, most departments mandate the firearm and ammunition officers MUST carry. Regardless of whether it is a good fit for the officer carrying it. These departments also generally do not allow officers to change the grips, sights or action on their sidearms. In some cases this makes the sidearm completely ineffective for the officer carrying it.

That is not true of all departments. Yes, most Departments dictate the firearm and ammunition, but that is not a bad thing. At least here in Northern Virginia officers can use different types of grips if they choose. Departments want uniformity in equipment and training. That also applies from a legal standpoint. Some Departmens around here use Glocks and have at least two different sizes of Glocks depending on hand size and strength. Standard ammunition is kind of a no brainer. You can't have different officer carrying different types of ammunition. That said, I know most of the Departments around here use appropriate ammunition that will stop a bad guy. EST teams use their own equipment/guns and ammunition that is different from the rest of the Department.

s you can see the system is set up to make sure that the officers have no confidence, skill or personal investment in their firearm and their skills with it. In fact, it's almost like the departments are doing everything humanly possible to ensure that officers don't even want to think about ever drawing that weapon. Even in those few extreme circumstances that warrant its use.

A little harsh. As with anything some people will simply be a better shooters than others. Many people I know serve and they practice all the time. The NRA HQ is 10 minutes from where I live and a number of people go there to shoot handguns and rifles. Many Departments around here spend a lot of time training their people and have large outdoor ranges to provide adequate training. That said, of course their there are Departments that fall in line with your statement.

[Predicto]

These are the facts that were gathered over the 12 month period after the ban was instituted.

• Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%.
  
• Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%.
  
• Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44%. (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
  
• In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%!
  
• The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
  
• The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
  
• There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.
  
• At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm".
  
• From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
  
• The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions.
  
• The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
  
• Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".
  

There is also a reason why D.C. is considering removing the ban they have in affect, because they noticed the same thing. I give you many places that back up these findings.

Sometimes its just too damn easy around here. I tried to warn you.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

By the way, I respect the arguments of those who oppose gun control on principled well-reasoned grounds, and I hope they respect mine.

[Midnight Judges]

These are the facts that were gathered over the 12 month period after the ban was instituted.

• Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%.
  
• Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%.
  
• Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44%. (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
  
• In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%!
  
• The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
  
• The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
  
• There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.
  
• At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm".
  
• From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
  
• The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions.
  
• The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
  
• Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".
  

There is also a reason why D.C. is considering removing the ban they have in affect, because they noticed the same thing. I give you many places that back up these findings.

No offense but I can't believe a word of it until you provide a link to a reputable source.

Edit: Don't bother, I just read predictos link that shreds yours to smitherines.

[Redskins Diehard]

It's not the officers that I seek to indict, but the departments, academies and training/purchasing people. The officers are simply at the bottom of the **** pile where everything rolls down to. In many cases they disagree with the policies, but can't do anything about them.

I truly believe that you UNDERestimate the average gun owner. Either that or you're adding illegal gun owners into the equation and bringing down the average ability of gun owners that way.

If it's not the officers you seek to indict, then why did you say...

"The average local/state level police officer is likely to shoot his/her firearm TWICE a year, at their qualification times ONLY. Maybe, if they're not confident about their skills, they'll go to the range the week before qualifying and shoot a bit to make sure they can stay on duty."

Are these guys forbidden by policy to go to the range more than TWICE a year, at their qualification times ONLY? Or does the department not issue them enough initiative to hone their skills in...gasp...their off time.

And no, I'm not adding illegal gun owners(and are you talking about convicted felons?) into the count. Maybe you'd be suprised at the number of people that own a gun and shoot it less than twice a year, have never received ANY training with it, and have most likely fired it in a "familiarization" mode only.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Can't say what they do up north, but I would not agree with this statement here in Northern Virginia. From my understanding, officers are taught to deal with the situation at hand. Each situation is viewed separately and the officer must determine the level of appropriate force to bring the situation under control. If the level of force requires the discharge of a firearm the officer just needs to justify the use of such force. Last option and severe penalties do not apply. The situation dictates the level of force to use.

As I said myself, this is just coming from the departments, academies, and individuals that I have contact with. What happens in other departments and areas of the country could obviously by 100% different. Your description is just about what these officers are SUPPOSED to be taught. It's just not what they're getting.

Officer-involved shootings in this area of the country work basically under a "guilty until proven innocent" system; both in the public's eye and in IAD's eyes. Especially if the shooter was white and the suspect was a minority.

That is not true of all departments. Yes, most Departments dictate the firearm and ammunition, but that is not a bad thing. At least here in Northern Virginia officers can use different types of grips if they choose. Departments want uniformity in equipment and training. That also applies from a legal standpoint. Some Departmens around here use Glocks and have at least two different sizes of Glocks depending on hand size and strength. Standard ammunition is kind of a no brainer. You can't have different officer carrying different types of ammunition. That said, I know most of the Departments around here use appropriate ammunition that will stop a bad guy. EST teams use their own equipment/guns and ammunition that is different from the rest of the Department.

Dictating a particular manufacturer and caliber I have no problem with. That's simply common sense. However, we have deparments around here that REQUIRE the Glock 17. It's a large gun for many of the smaller officers to carry. A large percentage of the departments no longer allow for grip or sight changes as well, and any sort of action work is completely out of the question. Most departments around here issue jacketed round nose ammo; which is about worthless in stopping an attacker. Obviously ESR/Tactical/SWAT groups have their own equipment standards and ammo.

A little harsh. As with anything some people will simply be a better shooters than others. Many people I know serve and they practice all the time. The NRA HQ is 10 minutes from where I live and a number of people go there to shoot handguns and rifles. Many Departments around here spend a lot of time training their people and have large outdoor ranges to provide adequate training. That said, of course their there are Departments that fall in line with your statement.

As I said earlier, I know a number of quality shooters in the law-enforcement community. However, THEY are generally the first ones to tell you that their brother & sister officers are some of the worst shots on the planet and largely have in interest in becoming better shots. We have deparments in Massachusetts that actually enforce policies that officers MAY NOT be involved in certain shooting sports and/or non-departmental training activities. Few departments have their own ranges around here, and there is often little to no budget for any non-qualification shooting.

Obviously we live in different areas of the country and the departments are going to do things differently in different places. I just see the near total lack of interest from departments in this area in making their officers better shooters as a serious problem. Especially with as dangerous as some of our towns in New England are.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

If it's not the officers you seek to indict, then why did you say...

"The average local/state level police officer is likely to shoot his/her firearm TWICE a year, at their qualification times ONLY. Maybe, if they're not confident about their skills, they'll go to the range the week before qualifying and shoot a bit to make sure they can stay on duty."

Are these guys forbidden by policy to go to the range more than TWICE a year, at their qualification times ONLY? Or does the department not issue them enough initiative to hone their skills in...gasp...their off time.

By shooting twice a year the officers are meeting the requirements of their job description. IF their range offers the ability to shoot more often, they generally have to schedule the time in advance and PAY for the ammunition they use. On an officer's salary that can be a serious deterent to additional training. I'm not going to indict an officer for following their department's policy and doing only what they're required to.

In many departments, there's a stigma attached to being a private gun owner/shooter. It's seen as being a renegade and a malcontent in many places. Some departments deny their officers the right to go to civilian training sources or to engage in certain types of shooting sports.

ie.... The Massachusetts State Police deny their troopers the right to go to any shooting match or training school/class where head shots are required in the course of fire. Even a SINGLE head shot disqualifies the course. This means MOST self-defense training and shooting sports are denied to these troopers.

And no, I'm not adding illegal gun owners(and are you talking about convicted felons?) into the count. Maybe you'd be suprised at the number of people that own a gun and shoot it less than twice a year, have never received ANY training with it, and have most likely fired it in a "familiarization" mode only.

No, I'm not adding convicted felons into my numbers. I also know that there are a large number of people like you describe in the private gun owning ranks. They're the people I try VERY HARD to disuade from purchasing a firearm. I have a list of questions I ask every new gun owner I'm introduced to in person before I make up my mind on whether or not they're someone I would ever shoot with. However, I believe you might be surprised at how many gun owners (at least here in New England) ARE very active shooters.

Obviously neither one of us has the hard facts to back up their side of the discussion on this point, so it's pretty much a moot point.

[twenty-eight]

**** gun control, what we need is some damn bullet control! Have every bullet cost $10,000!! Yeah $10,000...I'd blow youre ****ing brains out if i could afford it! You better hope they dont give me any ****ing bullets on layaway.....

Damn they put $90,000 worth of bullets in his brain

[twenty-eight]

Major...you there buddy??

[BlueTalon]

**** gun control, what we need is some damn bullet control! Have every bullet cost $10,000!! Yeah $10,000...I'd blow youre ****ing brains out if i could afford it! You better hope they dont give me any ****ing bullets on layaway.....

Damn they put $90,000 worth of bullets in his brain

I could only DREAM that someone would seriously try to implement that!

I have a reloading machine and several thousand bullets, I'd be set for life!

[BlueTalon]

i'm not exactly sure what to think about automatics yet, they haven't been legal long enough to see the effects.

They've always been legal. Fully automatic weapons like M-60 machine guns, submachine guns like Uzis, and assault rifles like M-16s are legal to own, but they are considered Class III weapons, and are highly regulated. You need a Class III license to own one, and you have to pay a hefty transfer fee whenever you want to buy or sell one. But they're perfectly legal.

[twenty-eight]

I could only DREAM that someone would seriously try to implement that!

I have a reloading machine and several thousand bullets, I'd be set for life!

you my friend as crazy! I'm just glad youre on my side! :point2sky

[Major Harris]

if bullets cost 10,000 dollars, there wouldn't be any more innocent bystanders. :cool:

[PokerPacker]

if bullets cost 10,000 dollars, there wouldn't be any more innocent bystanders. :cool:

heck, if bullets cost 10,000 dollars, i think i'd get myself a muskette and make my own ammunition... out of gold :cool:

[twenty-eight]

if bullets cost 10,000 dollars, there wouldn't be any more innocent bystanders. :cool:

:laugh::laugh:

[Commander PK]

All guns should be legal for purchase by citizen. (Within reason, I'm not talking about tanks or rocket launchers.) I'm talking about shotguns, rifles, semi-automatics, automatics, revolvers. The criminal element among us will get whatever gun they want, whether they are legal or not.

Also, one well placed shot by a confident shooter with a cool head, will usually beat a person who just "sprays and prays." If you have a gun, learn to be proficient with the gun, and practice. There are firing ranges where you can practice, and classes you can take to properly train you with the weapon.