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

[Gunthr]

Wrag, you are mistaken my friend, about the Government sending troops. There are several examples, but I will quote you one in which I was present - although I was locked up on a construction site on the Detroit River for 2 days at McClouth Steel, my buddy in the 101st Screaming Eagles later told me all about manning his post with a 50 cal maching gun on the streets of Detroit. My point is, the government does deploy troops.

I don't think this is an example of troops employed improperly. It is just an example of troops being employed....

Also, I don't agree with the conclusions below about those who engage in riots. I think rioting is a group mentality phenomenon, with no real order or group consensus about why they are rioting.

A Firebell in the Night
By William M. King, Afroamerican Studies, University of Colorado, Boulder
At 2320 on Monday, 24 July 1967, Lyndon Johnson, at the request of then Michigan governor, George Romney, ordered 4700 members of the 82d and 101st Airborne units, who had begun arriving in the area earlier in the day, into Detroit to supplement 7000 National Guardsmen already in the city. Twice before, under Eisenhower in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, and under Kennedy in Oxford, Mississippi in 1962, troops from these two divisions had been called into action to protect life and property and restore civil order that was beyond the ability of local authorities to handle. Detroit, with 7200 persons (most of them young black males) in temporary detention, 43 dead, 33 of them Afroamericans, and 50 millions of dollars in property damage, was but the loudest cry for justice in America by black people in this fifth year of urban unrest that had begun with Harlem in 1964. This decision was taken after some negotiation between the president and the governor to avoid nullification of extant insurance polices that would occur if the locals declared that the riot was beyond their ability to control. Clearly, in a capitalist society, property, being more important than human life, must be protected at all costs.

The triggering event for Detroit was a raid on a "blind pig", an after-hours joint in the black community early Sunday morning, 23 July 1967. The after-action analyses and investigations made clear that the police arrived with inadequate intelligence about the resources they would need to quell the disturbance they had catalyzed. Their continued presence in the area, the fact that the police force was 95 per cent white and their track record of acting like an occupying army in the provinces, gave impetus to the need of the citizenry to vent the frustration and rage that had intensified over the years as a consequence of tilting against the racial barriers white America had thrown up in education, employment, housing, government and the media in an attempt to make the fact that the economic order of this society was incapable of responding to the needs of all its constituents. Indeed, we had designed a society that was predicated on the principle of exclusion and then we had sought to rationalize away its inequities by blaming the victim for not being able to compete, overlooking the differential distribution of opportunity the land in accordance with certain ascriptive criteria over which the victims of American democracy, as Malcolm pointed out, had no control. It is not so much the fact of oppression that destroys a people as it is acceptance of that oppression made manifest in disingenuous social policies and practices that in the case of Detroit and other cities of long hot summers were symbolized in the presence and conduct of the police who are charged with maintaining law and order.

Clearly, the conduct of black people during that five day period of barely controlled chaos was exacerbated by the "revolutionary" climate of opinion that had been building in Black America since World War II, which I contend is second in significance only to the War Between the States in understanding the history of black people in the United States. By the beginning of the 60s, there was sufficient momentum in the struggle by black people for self -determination, for the objective of black control of black communities, that any attempt to thwart that realization without the use of massive force was bound to inflame extant passions and heighten tensions in the community. Moderate leaders who entered the riot area were as ineffective as Martin Luther King, Jr had been in Watts in 1965 necessitating a show of massive force to reimpose that thin veneer of civilization that distinguishes us from other members of the animal kingdom. And so, some 12 hours after the raid that initiated the riot as an event, it having become evident that things were getting out of hand, Romney mobilized the Michigan National Guard and ordered them into the city, heavily armed and without any training in riot control tactics that would prove most tragic in the hours and days ahead.

What existed in Detroit during the riot was an atmosphere of confusion and uncertainty fed by rumors and fear. Not unlike in the bush, in Vietnam, the guardsmen saw themselves surrounded by an enemy they did not understand; an enemy that appeared willing to sacrifice itself to achieve its objective of ridding its turf of oppressors and exploiters who did not belong. All those folk ever did was take from the community. Seldom did they give anything back. As in the jungle, there was no front line against which to focus the forces that had been brought in to quell the disturbance. Detroit had become a place, during this most recent rebellion, where everyone was at risk, civilians and soldiers alike.

The national guard, virtually all white, young and inexperienced, possessed tremendous firepower which they used indiscriminately. They shot out the streetlights making it difficult to distinguish the friendlies from the foe. Backlit by burning buildings, their pale faces, like in the jungles of Southeast Asia, made them easily identifiable targets of opportunity for the supposedly large numbers of black snipers that crept across the rooftops firing down into their massed numbers causing them to break discipline in the belief that their numerical and technological superiority could put things right again. They could not and so federales were sent in albeit with unloaded weapons, because the President did not want it said that any of his boys had killed anyone, to demonstrate the national commitment to restoring order. As Johnson would say later, "No society can tolerate massive violence anymore than a body can tolerate massive disease. And we shall not tolerate it." But the actual truth of the matter was that large numbers of Americans were disturbed by what they were seeing on their TV screens. The political climate of the country had begun to shift, becoming more conservative, retreating within itself as a way of coping with the changes that were occuring daily. The reins of power were slipping away. A sense of impotence and ennui were loose in the landand TET was yet to come.

And then it was over. Whether it was due to exhaustion or the presence of some 17,000 law enforcement personnel is still not clear. But it was over. No new programs would be created. The war would see to that. Many of the young brothers who had taken part in riot activities would soon find themselves fighting again; this time in a war whose objectives were not as clear as they had been in Detroit. And they would take with them changed attitudes, a new and different consciousness that the big green machine would respond to with great difficulty further straining an army that, unacknowledged, was already in a state of collapse.

The primary significance of Detroit and the numerous other riots that took place between 1964 and 1967 was that they were all for naught. The sought-for change of national will called for by the Kerner Commission did not and has not yet come to pass. Indeed, if we might conclude anything, it is that, relatively speaking, the status of inconsistency and black powerlessness that was present in the United States before the riots is still with us today. The deaths, the arrests, the destruction of property in the community, much of which was owned by outsiders, was an injudicious use of the talents of black people forced by a society to resort to extreme means to seek a just end. Like the firebell in the night, the riots were the acts of a desperate people who sought only to acquire what others before them had achieved but which had been denied them: some semblance of influence or control over the events effecting their lives. Perhaps, though, they were better off in one manner of speaking. They did not need to create a series of illusions to shield them from the awful truths of their powerlessness. Yet they did make an attempt to point out, to make known to those with the means to make alterations in the asymmetry of life chance, that there is a danger in keeping a people powerless for too long.

[Nashwan]

except the one statistic that would seem most relivant to that event says otherwise
 
Possessing firearms with intent to
cause fear of violence

Intent to cause fear is hardly the same as Dunblane, that's covered by "Possession of firearms with intent to
endanger life or injure property".

The odd thing about intent to cause fear is that many of those "firearms" were probably replicas, hence the intent to cause fear. British police like to "overcharge", and would go for an intent to endanger life if possible.

Obviously, you can't endanger life with a replica.

Replica guns and air guns are classified as firearms if used as such during a crime. There's a fairly famous case of a man in the UK convicted of armed robbery, after using a banana in a bag and claiming it was a gun.

also do you have any figures on actual crimes? by that I mean that the statistics are for crimes that are mostly just crimes because of gun regulation,

I gave these figures because they show the oft repeated claim that there are large numbers of ilegal guns in Britain are false. If there were large numbers of criminals with guns, then you would expect to see large numbers of people being charged and convicted of possesion of firearms.

The actual number of crimes committed with "firearms" is fairly hard to pin down, partly because they lump air weapons and firearms together for many of the categories, and partly because the way they record crimes has changed.

Offences with air weapons have gone up hugely, but I think that's mainly because such "crimes" went un-reported before. It used to be that a kid could go out in to fields with an air weapon, now thanks to the hysteria about uns whipped up by the media, some idiot will se him and phone the police, who have to respond.

The kid gets a warning for armed trespass, and another "firearms" offence is recorded.

Also, the vast majority of handguns used in robberies in the UK are replicas, but they are still recorded as firearms crimes.

There's no doubt the number of murders with guns has gone up, to 96 last year. That's about as much to do with the "ban" on handguns as the fall in 1997/98/99 was.

[capt. apathy]

There's no doubt the number of murders with guns has gone up, to 96 last year. That's about as much to do with the "ban" on handguns as the fall in 1997/98/99 was.

the above quote proves my point exactly.  now here is the very hart of the issue.  most people who state a reason for being anti-gun do so on the basis that they believe it's the guns that kill people.  you don't often hear people say that guns should be banned because people might have a shotgun too short, or resist arrest with a gun in their pocket, the big worry is that if guns are legal people will be killed with them.

and here the statistics prove the point that outlawing guns (or restricting or outlawing certain types of guns), does nothing to make people safer. quite the contrary, gun related deaths went up when peoples right to own them legally was restricted.

number of people killed by guns is a direct and to the point statistic as far as the effectiveness of gun law in deterring violence.  however you dismiss this statistic out of hand because it just doesn't fit into the way you see the issue (never considering that your view may be wrong), and you can't provide any reason why you think this statistic could be in error.

for example, the statistics you posted of changes in gun crime could be easily explained (as you mentioned) by changes in what is considered a crime.  

however number of people killed with a gun is a fairly hard statistic,  there's not too many ways to interpret a corpse with a bullet hole in it.

[mauser]

Originally posted by Dune
Here is an interesting thread.  The website is "Police: The Law Enforcement Magazine".  Here is what LEO's had to say about the "Assault Weapons Ban":

http://www.policemag.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=300&whichpage=1

Thanks Dune... I liked the response from user "712."  

mauser

[Curval]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
I never labled you a democrat or a republican, but from your posts on the issue, I don't feel I was out of line in assuming you where anti-gun.

as far as the AK's being ilegal in the whole US or just Cali, it doesn't really matter, SAM's are ilegal for private ownership just about everywhere, but if you have the money you can still buy them.  so wether these guns where bought legally in mexico and smuggled in.  or bought legal in Nevada, or ilegal everywhere but stolen from a military base and sold on the blackmarket,  it doesn't matter, they where still ilegal and it didn't stop the crooks from getting them.  it just proves that you can make any damn law you want and the only people you restrict are law abiding people.

On the first point, I guess you missed it that I was in line at the GUN RANGE in Grapevine.  

Or this "It's not guns I don't like...just the stupid people who own guns. Actually it's not that I don't like them, but knowing they are amongst me, based upon average numbers of stupid people in crowds, when I visit makes me nervous."

From this you have assumed I am anti-gun?

Just because I am not agreeing with every point made by the pro-gun lobby and because I question the logic of totally unrestricted selling of all types of guns doesn't make me anti-gun.  To immediately jump to that conclusion is called "stereotyping", something I have been accused of by at least three people in this thread.

Now...as to your second point, this is a much better argument, but somewhat similar to Medicboy's point, which I conceeded.

I'm here to discuss the issues...not to get gang-banged by a bunch of pro-gun enthusiasts.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by mauser
Not a police officer, but there are a few here in this thread:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=37813&highlight=LEO+patrol+rifle

It doesn't really answer the question on why the switch, but rather correctly goes over how patrol rifles are not a new concept, and they aren't necessarily there to replace shotguns but are another tool in the toolbox.  Different tools required for different situations.  Sorry for the mislead.  

mauser

Just to support Mauser's point, the LAPD up-gunned to patrol rifles after a policy change as a result of the north Hollywood bank-robbery shootout.  I would suspect that this influenced other police units to change their policies as well.

http://www.emergency.com/lapdbank.htm

http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/28/shootout.update/

Shotguns are good for some situations, rifles are good for others.

[lazs2]

Hmm... and still no one comes up with a reason to ban the so called assault rifle... it isn't used in any crimes now so why bother?   Incremntalism.

As for troops attacking citizens... it has happened before and will happen again.   Not all the troops... some will defect... lines have been drawn before..  we have a history of war with brother against brother in this country...   We have a history of troops attacking the populatin or vice versa.

Some guy stole a tank one time and drove around LA crushing cars and such.   It could happen again.   Probly not worth putting an anti tank missle in the trunk of patrol. cars tho.

england.... so banning handguns hasn't increased gun crime significantly?   It certainly hasn't decreased it tho.... so what's the point?  has overall homicide gone down since the ban?   Crime has gone up because of the way it is reported?   How do you report a burglary now in england compared to before?   Burglaries are up in england and worse.. in england they don't fear the homeowner so they do it while he is home...  I guess in england it is fair that the young and strong should prey on the weak.   No thanks... I would like to have the crooks worry.

But... no one has addressed the issue.   How would england or Canada be if they had Mexico along 1500 miles of their border and they had the money to spend on drugs that we have?   Mr moore never touched on that because it is a sore spot for him and his lefty, loady friends... it is they who are supporting the death rate in the U.S. not some homeowner with a gun.  

Nice to sit on an island or up North with the U.S as a buffer and condem a country that has the third world at it's border and on it's streets...   Nice to be economically so bad off that it isn't worth the trouble to smuggle CHEAP drugs and guns into the country...

lazs

[lazs2]

curval... it's that you sound condencending... so what if you went to some rent a gun carnival one time.   It's not what most of us gun owners are into and we certainly wouldn't be happy with that as our only outlet.   I like to shoot by myself or with friends and any gun I want... I want to transport em in my car from my home.   I want to load my own ammo and take my guns home and cean em there.   I want to shoot anywhere that it is safe and not at a range.   I shoot at the range very seldom.

And... your stupid people thing... again.... condencending.   sign of youth... as I get older I am either getting more stupid or more tollerant of stupid people..   Turns out some of the people I thought were stupid do a lot of things better than I do... I don't know that I want a smart person who doensn't know anything about guns handling one around me... I know a few people with fairly low IQ's that I would trust without question with loaded firearms around me.... The miltiary would seem to point to me being correct more than you.

lazs

[Dowding]

[lazs2]

You are right dowding... you should be bored by this thread since you are anti gun and anti rivate ownership of guns... you have what you want in your country so there is no need to even show up in this thread.   Another country talking about a subject that you know absolutely nothing about (and wish to know nothing about) shouldn't attract you at all.  
lazs

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Mini D
Gofaster... you're typing alot without really saying anything... but I get the feeling you're pretty much dancing around something.  Seems you're trying to lay a trap for gun-rights advocates to fall into and then throw out what you're really trying to say.

If you're in here debating over "bigger guns", then you are showing you don't really know anything other than what you've been told by the extreme left.  Either that, or you could tell us all what kind of gun you don't mind having fired at you.

Police don't need bigger guns than the criminals.  Criminals don't need bigger guns than the police.  The decision for some police units to switch from shotguns to Mini-14s or AR-15s was not driven by what the criminals were armed with, but rather what they might be protecting themselves with.

So... if you want to start learning about firearms, I suggest you take some firearms safety courses, read up on the subject from enthusiasts (as opposed to those against it) and actually try to learn something.  That way you don't have to show up here and come off as someone that is pleading ignorance when it suits him.

MiniD

You're close, but not quite there yet.

You are correct.  You're the first person that has actually made a useful suggestion - that citizens should take a firearm safety course.  If it were me, it would be done as a high-school elective course, like driver's ed.  Now, if I want to learn about firearms, where would I go?  The closest I've come to firearms education was shooting bolt-action .22s at Boy Scout camp (probably the best part of Camp Flaming Arrow other than listening to Dr. Demento via a radio antennae strung up a pine tree).  The instructor showed us how to load the cartridge into the breech, aim, and fire, but we never cleaned the rifles.  We weren't even allowed to clear the jams (and there were quite a few).  Would a gun range offer classes, even if I don't own a gun?  There's nothing offered at my local community college.

However, I disagree with you about one thing. Police most certainly do need to have more firepower than the criminals they are trying to apprehend.  Call it an arms race, call it gun control, but either way I want my local boys in blue to have the ability to take down a perp without the perp having the upper hand in a gunfight.

When I read the article about the cop getting his head creased by an SKS, the thought that first popped into my head was "what the heck are SKS's doing out on the streets?".  When respondents stated that there were more powerful guns allowed on the streets, the next thought I had was "what have we become?".

[lazs2]

gofaster... contact the NRA..  they have excellent gun safety course and can put you in touch with the right people.   Before they were chased out the NRA had marksmanship and safety courses at schools and groups like the boy scouts.   I got a merit badge in marksmanship and was able to shoot through a school program... we also had boxing.   we can't have these things now because... because... well, who knows?  

I would suggest that anyone interested in firearms join the NRA.   It is only $35 a year and they send out an excellent magazine every month that is very informative about firearms and safe handling etc.   Their web site is also useful..   I would challenge even the most ardent anti gun person to find anything evil in the NRA publications.  

and as far as all these powerful weapons on the street and "what have we become?".... we have allways had these powerful weapons on the street and the rate at which they are used has not changed nor is it significant... less than 3% rifle use in crimes is pretty low to worry about eh?
lazs

[Dowding]

You are right dowding... you should be bored by this thread since you are anti gun and anti rivate ownership of guns... you have what you want in your country so there is no need to even show up in this thread. Another country talking about a subject that you know absolutely nothing about (and wish to know nothing about) shouldn't attract you at all.

You're babbling man. "Another country talking about a subject..." - eh? Are you America personified? Talk about illusions of grandeur.

Why am I anti-gun, out of interest? Do condescend to enlighten me as to my own thoughts on the subject. Cheers.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by lazs2
deja... I get the same feeling about gofaster... he seems to think he is laying some kind of trap but I still haven't seen hjis point.   He just seems like every other "ban em all" guy... he knows nothing about em except that they have potential for evil and he feels that the best way to get rid of guns as a whole is to do it incrimentally "surely you don't need (place gun of the month in this spot) to (place hobby of the month here)?"  

Ok, some good points here.

(a) I'm not laying a trap.  I'm trying to find a resolution.  Budda became enlightened speaking to a brick wall, but I prefer to learn by examining counterpoints.  

(b) This is the 3rd time you've correctly pointed out that I know nothing about guns, and yet you still haven't offered to inform as to where I would go to get educated about them.  So, I will ask you, again, for the third time, where would I go to take a firearms class?

(c) Nothing wrong with finding the border of gun control laws incrimentally.  Better to do it in small increments than in one fell swoop.  I'd rather see it done bit by bit.

[lazs2]

dowding... you don't know anything about guns.   I would be glad to talk to you in person or on the phone... at the end of the conversation I am convinced that even you would admit that you don't know anything about guns in America.

So why bother to pop in and.... yawn.   everyone else seemed interested.   The fact that you have no interest means that you know everything there is to know about guns in America (or want us to think you do) or.... have no interest... in which case... why bother.
lazs