Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?

[gofaster]

Originally posted by lazs2

It apears that you know nothing at all about firearms.   Is this a fair assesment?
lazs

Yep, that's a fair assessment.  Where could I go to learn?

[Curval]

Originally posted by lazs2
I know a lot of cops since they use my facility.   They not only condone firearms ownership by citizens.... they suggest it.
lazs

Firearms..maybe.

Do they condone the use of assault rifles?  Ask them for me next time...I'm genuinely curious.

Tarmac..not picking on you man, just curious...and thanks for the response.  

Now..you don't "think" it would change your mind.  I think that is an honest answer because it hasn't happened yet.  There is clearly an element of doubt.

You go on to say that you might ask "why" that person had an assault rifle.  Asking that question may prove to be difficult if one of those bullets should hit you.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit

The primary deterent for those who think this way is the perception of risk being higher than the perception of potential gains.  If you were a house robber and one house had a alarm system and you know the owner has a gun  and the other house had neither , where would you go?
 

I see your logic but you make it sound like I'm in an arms race with my neighbor.  By that logic. if I have a .22 pistol and he has a Mini 14, I'm the more likely target for an attack by a criminal.  So really, as a novice gun user buying a first gun, I should skip all the small stuff and go straight to the big hardware.

Conversely, if I have big hardware and the criminal knew it, wouldn't I become a more likely target for attack since he knew I had big hardware that he could steal?

Also, if I took the security measures to protect my big hardware, such as burglar bars, alarms systems, motion sensor lights, and a dog, to keep the bandit at bay, then I wouldn't need the big hardware to begin with, since there would be no way for him to get in before the cops arrived.

I know your point was that a gun owner makes a less likely target, but what's the optimum for home security?

[Curval]

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Why?

Because you have a gun culture in the US.  Guns have been illegal here for years, before that ownership was only possible with a permit.

If you were to make guns legal here individuals would be so badly trained in their usage that people would get hurt by accident more than on purpose.

[mauser]

Originally posted by Curval
I found it interesting that Tarmac supports the right of an American to be able to walk into a gun shop and buy himself an assault rifle.

He will be attending the police academy soon.

Will his opinion change if he is fired upon by a person with an assault rifle in the line of duty after he graduates?

You can ask this question to folks who frequent The High Road forums (http://www.thehighroad.org).  They are a collection of folks who are knowledgeable of firearms, firearms laws, useage, etc.  and include members of the law enforcement.  My impressions from reading posts there for a couple years generally point me to believe that law enforcement's attitute towards private gun ownership has a lot to do with the area they are serving.  Those in the cities tend towards more restrictions, those in more rural areas tend towards less.  Even so called "assault" weapons.  Remember, the current ban on "assault" weapons which sunsets next year is based on appearances  - not function.  A stock mini-14 fires the same cartridge as an AR-15 and is also semi-automatic - put the two next to each other and ask the average person which one is the "assault" weapon and they'll point to the AR.  

If he is undergunned as a LEO in such a confrontation, the "upper  management" is responsible for not providing him with the right tools to handle the confrontation.  As when agencies began switching from revolvers to semi-autos, and body armor became more prevalent, law enforcement agencies need to keep on top of things.  I'm fairly sure many agencies have gone from issuing shotguns in patrol cars to issuing AR's or some other carbine weapon.  Our policemen and women deserve to have the tools they need to serve and protect.  

mauser

[gofaster]

Originally posted by mauser
If he is undergunned as a LEO in such a confrontation, the "upper  management" is responsible for not providing him with the right tools to handle the confrontation.  As when agencies began switching from revolvers to semi-autos, and body armor became more prevalent, law enforcement agencies need to keep on top of things.  I'm fairly sure many agencies have gone from issuing shotguns in patrol cars to issuing AR's or some other carbine weapon.  Our policemen and women deserve to have the tools they need to serve and protect.  

Local law enforcement in an arms race with the population it is supposed to protect.

[Curval]

Mauser...one question.  WHY would he be undergunned?

edit...Gofaster beat me to it...an arms race with the population...well put man.

[mauser]

Is it an arms race with the general population (who are law abiding citizens in general)?  Or an arms race with those like organized crime, drug cartels, gangs?  Although the general population may be prohibited in owning so called "assault" weapons, who is to say the aforementioned won't be able to get them?  Maybe if you (like me) live in the middle of a big ocean you could control smuggling, but with the way things are on the mainland, I don't think you can guarantee that.  As it is now, border patrols in the south are undergunned against drug runners.   You can't be saying that they shouldn't NEED to have the latest tools right?  It's already happened that criminal elements are armed and some are fairly well armed.  Why would you deny Law Enforcement the tools that will help them maintain order?  

mauser

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Curval
Tarmac..not picking on you man, just curious...and thanks for the response.  

Now..you don't "think" it would change your mind.  I think that is an honest answer because it hasn't happened yet.  There is clearly an element of doubt.

You go on to say that you might ask "why" that person had an assault rifle.  Asking that question may prove to be difficult if one of those bullets should hit you.

No problem.  I would much rather be objectively asked and have the opportunity to explain my views than be lumped into a category (ie "gun nut") based on someone's suspicions.

When I spent a summer in England, I genuinely enjoyed firearms discussions with the locals (especially cops)... both hearing their views on why their own system, and their views and stereotypes of our people and system.  While I usually did not find anyone who genuinely agreed with what I said, I think both sides usually came away from the discussion with a little more insight into the other side's position.    

And yes, I can't say for sure that being shot at (knock on wood here) wouldn't change my mind about weapons.  But I don't think I would blame the gun, I would blame the person and possibly the laws that allowed that individual to get the weapon.

And on the job, guns don't scare me nearly as much as cars do.  At least against a person with a gun I have some options, be they negotiation, other officers, or my own gun.  On the other hand, a car coming at me at 60 miles an hour is pretty non-negotiable.  

But like you point out, all this would be academic if the **** did hit the fan.  But there are multiple types of **** that can hit the fan, and assault weapons don't constitute a very common type of poo.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by mauser
Is it an arms race with the general population (who are law abiding citizens in general)?  Or an arms race with those like organized crime, drug cartels, gangs?  

Good point.  

We need to give the cops the tools they need to defeat the big hardware of the criminals.

So the cops get bigger guns than the general population.

If the 2nd amendment was intended to protect the general population from an oppressive government, wouldn't the general population need to keep pace with the bigger guns of the cops?

I guess that's the biggest reason to permit assault rifles to be sold to the general population - to keep us on par with the criminals and the cops.

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by Curval
Because you have a gun culture in the US.  Guns have been illegal here for years, before that ownership was only possible with a permit.

If you were to make guns legal here individuals would be so badly trained in their usage that people would get hurt by accident more than on purpose.

Training and education is quite effective most anywhere I'd imagine.  I can't see how folks would be particulary ignorant if things where set up properly.

regards

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by gofaster
I see your logic but you make it sound like I'm in an arms race with my neighbor.  By that logic. if I have a .22 pistol and he has a Mini 14, I'm the more likely target for an attack by a criminal.  So really, as a novice gun user buying a first gun, I should skip all the small stuff and go straight to the big hardware.

Conversely, if I have big hardware and the criminal knew it, wouldn't I become a more likely target for attack since he knew I had big hardware that he could steal?

Also, if I took the security measures to protect my big hardware, such as burglar bars, alarms systems, motion sensor lights, and a dog, to keep the bandit at bay, then I wouldn't need the big hardware to begin with, since there would be no way for him to get in before the cops arrived.

I know your point was that a gun owner makes a less likely target, but what's the optimum for home security?

Don't take this an an offense but I'm rather sure you don't see my logic.  No criminal is going to break into someones house if they expect that they have a chance to lose more than they have to gain especially when they have other options that offer much less risk.  If this potential robber had actually spent the money on a mini 14 they would still be far better off going across the street to the poor sap without the alarm system and weapon. (deterent).  be mindful that a percieved deterent is nearly as effective as a actual one since it's the perception of risk that affects behavior of people.  Alarm systems are more about deterence than effective shields.  Most commercial systems are far from effective if one truely wants to gain entry.  See my point above..  It's about deterence and signifcant risk of death is far more effective than than a loud noise.

regards

[Curval]

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Training and education is quite effective most anywhere I'd imagine.  I can't see how folks would be particulary ignorant if things where set up properly.

regards

You are kidding right?

Not even the cops carry guns here.

Why would we bother to educate people on how to shoot clean and maintain weapons now?  What exactly would be the point?

[capt. apathy]

By that logic. if I have a .22 pistol and he has a Mini 14, I'm the more likely target for an attack by a criminal.

I'd take a .22 pistol in my own house over a mini-14 on someone elses property any day.

the homeowner with a .22 has a deffinate advantage in his own home. he knows where every blind spot and peice of furniture in his house are.

[Dune]

Originally posted by gofaster
Local law enforcement in an arms race with the population it is supposed to protect.

Where?  The average officer in a car is armed with a semi-auto handgun and a shotgun.  And a radio.  And probably more ammunition.  Some officers are armed with AR-15's.  Swat teams have all kinds of weaponry.  

In your original post, you had what? two men in a car.  The story says they were armed w/ SKS's.  I wonder if there were two or one.  Either way they were being chased by two officers, both armed with handguns and shotguns.  

And, once again, I offer the facts I provided.  A miniscule number of crimes are committed with "assault rifles".  Most are handguns and a few shotguns.  The same weapons carried by every officer.  And I would suggest that the majority of LEO's have more training than your average bad guy.  Plus they tend to show up in bunches.  

This "arms gap" is crap.

And you ask how law enforcement feels about armed civilians?  Right now my office is prosecuting a person for killing a deputy in the line of duty.  And it has not changed my mind.  Nor the minds of the officers I've spoken with.