Poll: Research on the Police has shown....

[balanovich]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

That's stupid and untrue! The correlation between amounts of guns and crime rate shows that either guns do nothing to prevent crime or increases it ! Gun also increase the violence of crimes!

Don't be a simple minded red-neck.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

As for a source for my argument, I point to you, Chicago. Some of the harshest gun control laws in America. And also the one of the highest crime rates in America. Coincidence?

The problem with America is that once you already legalized guns once, you can't do gun control afterwards, because too many people will have them, which results in too many criminals having them. It's like a contagious virus: Once it's out there is no stopping it.

In Denmark where i live, where we have some of the highest living standards in the world and where owning a gun is illegal (in fact, carrying a knife is illegal except for work purposes), legalizing guns would be crazy.

I guess the point is that countries where low living standards force more people into crime (America), having civilians armed is a great thing, while in countries with lower crime rates and higher living standards, it's a bad thing.

i agree with this, it's not a "one solution fixes all" kind of thing.

i look around at some of the..i'll say "unfortunate" people here, and i don't trust them as far as i can throw them, so knowing i have good Samaritans that can come to my aid/i can protect myself, that gives me comfort that the criminal/thug will think twice. (i don't have a gun, probably will someday, for now my trusty bat is good enough)

however, like you said, in denmark, that is not the case really, so i see no reason to allow guns there.

 

[awsome117]

I just got done doing a little research for a speech class, and in the process I discovered something I had only ever heard in rumors or passing but never took the time to personally look into. As it turns out, via local courts and the United States Supreme Court, the Police in the United States are not legally nor do they have a "Consitutional Duty" to protect the people.

Yep, unfortunately the job of the police is to keep the peace and uphold the law. Protecting the people is secondary to that, if at all.

What I wonder via everyones thoughts is whether or not the problem is too few trained armed citizens (which is a constitutional right here and strongly supported and dictated by the founding fathers) or the absence of police obligated by law and review to do a proper job (or in general) of protecting the public.

Any thoughts?

I don't seem to understand the question, but I'll answer my thoughts.

The Founding Fathers made the Second Amendment so that if the government ever decides to become oppressive or we should be under direct attack, civilians can rise up and take arms to defend themselves and the country. So I see no problem with civilians carrying/owning guns. However, a weapons training course would be a nice thing to give to those purchasing weapons.

On the subject of the police, I believe that the law should be upheld (unless it is deemed unjust to/by the people) before protecting people.

So I guess my answer is more civilian weapon training.

 

[infinity_turtles]

Everyone looking at statistics needs to keep in mind some things. Crime rates in pretty much all areas increase the more diverse the population is, the US includes accidents in it's Gun violence statistics while most other countries don't, knife attacks have a higher lethality rate then guns here in the US, most underdeveloped countries have strict gun bans in place yet maintain much higher homicide rates, and you need to compare violence/homicide overall to see if gun laws have caused more crime/deaths rather then just changed what is used for it.

If you want to compare violence and homicide rates based on gun prevalence, the US is culturally so different from a lot of Europe that it's a poor place to look. We just have way too many different kinds of people, and often times they don't get along. Switzerland is probably the best comparison point. They have stricter gun control laws then the US, but also has one of the proportionately largest armed civilian population in the world. They also have a lower then average murder rate then the rest of Europe, and a decent sized chunk of that comes from non-citizens.

 

[spartan231490]

Armed citizens. There is a documented study done comparing all the counties in the US, and the more people(percentage) who carry handguns legally, the lower the violent crime rate. Strong correlation.

 

[pizzapicante27]

Im from Mexico, guns are outlaw (except for non-automatic rifles and the revolver type gun), were WAY better out that way,are you gonna argue about the drug cartels?, guess what their guns, they dont get it from OUR country, a clue from where they get it? it starts with United and ends with States, so yeah, no thanks were good.

 

[Dr Snakeman]

Research on the Police has shown that:

Every breath you take, every move you make, every step you take, they'll be watchin' you.

You shouldn't stand so close to them.

Women called Roxanne do not, in fact, have to wear that dress tonight.

Were I wearing a hat, I would tip it to you. This kind of response is really the only way to respond to flamebait like this thread.

Oh, but I will say that I fully support the right to bear arms. Not going to get into it, though, because then someone will flip out and try to "correct" me. And I just don't care about it that much. It's not that important of a topic.

 

[Therumancer]

I'll keep it short because people don't like to be destoryed by walls of text.

I've noticed in the last few years that gamers are a very very fickle former subculture. That is why I actually would like to have their opinion on this matter.

I just got done doing a little research for a speech class, and in the process I discovered something I had only ever heard in rumors or passing but never took the time to personally look into. As it turns out, via local courts and the United States Supreme Court, the Police in the United States are not legally nor do they have a "Consitutional Duty" to protect the people.

Simple google searches can provide dozens of case info pages so I won't ramble, but it does force the hand of that other discussion which is so popular here which is Gun Control. I've noticed that a lot of people from other countries have an even stronger negative opinion about Gun Control and the rampart problem in the US than liberals here do.

What I wonder via everyones thoughts is whether or not the problem is too few trained armed citizens (which is a constitutional right here and strongly supported and dictated by the founding fathers) or the absence of police obligated by law and review to do a proper job (or in general) of protecting the public.

Any thoughts?

You have to understand that the police are generally provided by the state or town and as such can have varying mission statements. The only authorities the federal goverment can speak for are things like the FBI that are organized and budgeted federally.

Your correct that The Constitution does not say anything about the police, because The Federal Goverment was never intended to be as powerful as it is now, that kind of stuff was up for the states to work out in their own back yard (so to speak). Things like the FBI are fairly recent developments and have been contreversial for that reason. I think Hoover started the FBI's predecessor in like 1924 (the name eludes me) and the FBI itself didn't exist until 1935. It represents a changing mentality (for good or ill) from that of the founding fathers of the country who were very much into the general independance of the states and their right to set their own policies, handle their own policing, and so on.

It wouldn't surprise me if many towns don't have anything in their police mission statements defining the police as existing to protect the public. Heck, down here in New England it's sort of "chic" to be authentic and to keep as many guidelines like that as archaic as possible... which mixed results. Back in the old days a lot of "common sense" was assumed that doesn't exist nowadays, especially with a larger population and an evolved legal system of contridictory precedents. As I learned in Criminal Justice classes there were some areas where Murder was not officially a crime (and this was used as a defense) because nobody thought you should have to actually write that down as a law because nobody would be stupid enough to think otherwise....

To be honest I think the whole "police as public servants" thing has caused more problems than it has solved. In general the police exist to maintain order and enforce laws. A lot of problems seem to come from those responsibilities becoming entertwined with other things that have lead to moral and conceptual questions about what the police should and should not be able to do, and/or how they do their job.

One thing to remember is the old statement "this is a nation of laws, not one of justice" which people oftentimes quote ironically, while missing the entire point. Justice is a subjective thing especially seen through the eyes of people. This is why we have laws that are intended to be enforced uniformly accross the board to maintain order and keep society running. The idea to make it so that one person does not get 10x the punishment of another for the same crime due to what the people that happen to be there think is just at the time.

Aa far as gun control goes, I am VERY pro-gun, which is perhaps odd to some people because I am also very pro-law enforcement (well, usually). I see the right to bear arms as an important part of our system of checks and balances. For all the powers I believe the police have, I think one of the things that prevents them from getting out of hand is simply that anyone they go up against could be armed. What's more it's possible for them to deal with an armed individual, or a small group of armed individuals, but in the case of a popular revolt in response to a law or something truely unfair the police are going to be powerless. Not to mention the simple fact that even on a small scale ANY law ultimatly has to be enforced by the guy on the street who knows the risks involved. Plenty of bad laws that wound up on the books never wound up bothering anyone because no police officer with half a brain was going to risk getting a shotgun lobotomy for some politician's pet project. If you read lists of "dumb laws" that nobody knew exist or were on the books...

I believe in leaving law enforcement to the professionals, not to armed mobs of civilians, but at the same time I like those professionals to be repectful and properly wary.

I think a lot of other countries with very strong criticism of US gun policy are that way out of jealousy even if they don't term it that way. Simply put none of those nations, no matter how seemingly free, would ever allow the populance to arm itself, and the populance knows it. This comes to a head once in a while where you see people in various countries complaining over how the goverment ignores he people despite all these protests and such. The reason is that without an armed populance there is no teeth behind it. Non-violent protest has it's root of power in the threat of violence, which is what people like Martin Luthor King Jr. tapped into in making what amounted to shows of force, likewise all those hippies succeeded like they did because of groups like the SLA (left wing terrorists that kidnapped and brainwashed Patty Hearst) and various acts of micro-terrorism all through the country that helped carry things like "The Anarchists Cookbook" to infamy. In the US we do have toothless protests by those who forget this (look at Wall Street), but the potential always exists. The goverment pretty much knows the nation exists by the will of the people in a very direct fashion. A lot of people talk about how armed civilians would have no chance against planes and tanks, but also forget that we have an army of volunteers as opposed to a caste or one made up largely of political appointees. Not to mention that if the military ever did unleash enough force to stop a popular revolution the nation would be leveled, the winners would not wind up with a country anywhere near like the one they wanted. I mean if you start carpet bombing cities and driving tanks through all the buildings you wind up ruling over say the rubble of Beirut, not a wealthy and powerful country.

 

[ace_of_something]

However armed the populous it stands to reason that the people that are supposed to stop/prevent/catch criminal should be more armed then they are. Most 1st world countries work on this theory.

The US has a mentality where anyone should have a right to have a gun. This is why everyone there has a gun and thus why gun violence is such a problem. If arming every second person prevented gun crime then there would be low gun crime in the US.

What really needs to happen is a massive crack down on firearms in the US. More restrictions, more hoops to jump through and more education before anyone is even allowed to be considered being allowed to have a gun.

Owning a firearm should be a privilege that is earned and maintained, not a constitutional right.

We actually have more hoops than most you presumptuous... anyway... [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act] Brady Bill [/a] covers most of it.

Yeah, by default you can own certain guns but it's very easily to lose the ability to have them. Most large cities also make you get a permit to carry the thing outside of your house (not counting having it in a locked box) Permits usually include safety courses exactly.

The problem isn't with the people who legally own them. The vast majority of gun crimes in the USA are committed with an ILLEGALLY obtained firearm. Which by the way automatically adds on to your sentence.

 

[ACman]

Everyone looking at statistics needs to keep in mind some things. Crime rates in pretty much all areas increase the more diverse the population is, the US includes accidents in it's Gun violence statistics while most other countries don't, knife attacks have a higher lethality rate then guns here in the US, most underdeveloped countries have strict gun bans in place yet maintain much higher homicide rates, and you need to compare violence/homicide overall to see if gun laws have caused more crime/deaths rather then just changed what is used for it.

If you want to compare violence and homicide rates based on gun prevalence, the US is culturally so different from a lot of Europe that it's a poor place to look. We just have way too many different kinds of people, and often times they don't get along. Switzerland is probably the best comparison point. They have stricter gun control laws then the US, but also has one of the proportionately largest armed civilian population in the world. They also have a lower then average murder rate then the rest of Europe, and a decent sized chunk of that comes from non-citizens.

Switzerland is a poor comparison because it's entirely ethnically European tension with the highest wealth per adult of any country in the world with moderate income inequality.

I think the thing to compare here is something called Inequality-adjusted Human Development index. It's a good way of finding comparable countries.

The region that is most comparable to the US as a block in IadHDI and murder rate and numbers of guns is the Balkans.

Lots of AK47s in the Bulkans

 

[soulfire130]

So, tell me if the citizens are armed now, what makes anyone think that the criminal won't buy more and bigger guns?

Oh, and saw if that happens: what makes anyone think the citizens won't buy more and even bigger guns?

Besides, guns, in general, are not that cheap. Even with less regulation on guns, not everyone gonna be able to buy one. so there will still be people without guns.

 

[ultimateownage]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

And the higher the chance people who just don't give a shit will be able to do some serious damage.
If you check most statistics, I promise you that your theory is complete shite.

Banning guns in America is impossible, but no country should be aiming to unban them. A good system of combating crime is much more useful than just handing the entire country those tools.

 

[Syzygy23]

I've seen this argument before from pro-gun people. Their claim that the police are "not legally obligated to protect us" is based on something we all know, which is that we can't sue the police or the government when they fail us.

It's a misleading argument, since the police officers are sworn to uphold the law, so it is the duty of the police to protect us. It's just not a legally obligated duty, meaning we can't sue them if they fail to protect us.

Anyway, gun control is good and misleading right-wing propaganda is bad. There are no cited sources because only right-wing pro-gun organizations talk about this "not legally obligated to protect us", but that would give away the game.

No, gun control is DUMB.

If you stop regular Joe Average from buying guns, how cam he protect himself or others from bad people who will just smuggle guns? Stop denying human nature, we all have the capacity to be violent selfish pricks, as well as mentally disturbed.

 

[ACman]

The problem isn't with the people who legally own them. The vast majority of gun crimes in the USA are committed with an ILLEGALLY obtained firearm. Which by the way automatically adds on to your sentence.

But why do you have so many illegally owned firearms?

The the laws controlling firearms in the United States seem to be largely ineffective.

 

[moonlantern]

All that pride you place in a two-hundred years out of date document[.]

The only thing out of date about it is all the ambiguous, open-to-interpretation stuff that must have been perfectly clear back then. Just look at this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's so messed up the Supreme Court had to tell everyone what it means.

The most important thing isn't for everyone to have a gun but for everyone who does or will have a gun to be properly trained in its use and maintenance and how to prevent accidents/theft.

As for gun control, less is more, but there should be some basic regulations. Such as minimum age, criminal background (just so they can't have a gun legally) and restrictions of concealed weapons (but not unconcealed ones).

Also, knives/swords should be completely legal everywhere, because people who are going to use them for crimes will do so regardless and banning them just annoys those of us who enjoy collecting knives/swords.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I've seen this argument before from pro-gun people. Their claim that the police are "not legally obligated to protect us" is based on something we all know, which is that we can't sue the police or the government when they fail us.

It's a misleading argument, since the police officers are sworn to uphold the law, so it is the duty of the police to protect us. It's just not a legally obligated duty, meaning we can't sue them if they fail to protect us.

Anyway, gun control is good and misleading right-wing propaganda is bad. There are no cited sources because only right-wing pro-gun organizations talk about this "not legally obligated to protect us", but that would give away the game.

No, gun control is DUMB.

If you stop regular Joe Average from buying guns, how cam he protect himself or others from bad people who will just smuggle guns? Stop denying human nature, we all have the capacity to be violent selfish pricks, as well as mentally disturbed.

Sigh. Look here.

Spoiler

Notice how all of the countries down at the bottom have strict gun control laws, and the countries up top do not.

Also, 'Joe Average' with a gun he may or may not know how to use properly verses a criminal, armed with a gun, with killing intent? Joe Average is a goner either way.

 

[infinity_turtles]

Everyone looking at statistics needs to keep in mind some things. Crime rates in pretty much all areas increase the more diverse the population is, the US includes accidents in it's Gun violence statistics while most other countries don't, knife attacks have a higher lethality rate then guns here in the US, most underdeveloped countries have strict gun bans in place yet maintain much higher homicide rates, and you need to compare violence/homicide overall to see if gun laws have caused more crime/deaths rather then just changed what is used for it.

If you want to compare violence and homicide rates based on gun prevalence, the US is culturally so different from a lot of Europe that it's a poor place to look. We just have way too many different kinds of people, and often times they don't get along. Switzerland is probably the best comparison point. They have stricter gun control laws then the US, but also has one of the proportionately largest armed civilian population in the world. They also have a lower then average murder rate then the rest of Europe, and a decent sized chunk of that comes from non-citizens.

Switzerland is a poor comparison because it's entirely ethnically European tension with the highest wealth per adult of any country in the world with moderate income inequality.

I think the thing to compare here is something called Inequality-adjusted Human Development index. It's a good way of finding comparable countries.

The region that is most comparable to the US as a block in IadHDI and murder rate and numbers of guns is the Balkans.

Lots of AK47s in the Bulkans

I wasn't looking at something to compare the United States with, so much a looking for a country with higher legal gun ownership, but otherwise comparable conditions with other first world countries with stricter gun laws so that their violent crime rates can be compared. Switzerland probably isn't the best example for the reasons you said though.

Still, the IadHDI doesn't quite fit what I'm saying, though probably the closest thing that can be found. Inequality isn't the only trigger for violence. Cultural differences result in a lot, and the diversity in the US means that there are many more groups that regularly deal with culture clash. Since the United States is a good deal more culturally diverse then other countries, it's harder to use it as a comparison point in this instance. It inherently has a much different value for one of the key variables in violent crime rates.

 

[Virtual-Goose]

I live in the UK we're state intervention in our lives has in my opinion become to rampant and self justified here for people to notice or care when their liberties are taken. I do not smoke because i have concluded it is bad for my health I get this information from independent medical groups and make an informed decision however I hate that the government has banned smoking in public places such as pubs as it can only be classed as meddling. Now gun laws in the country are tight to the point of a de facto ban, a sentiment which I detest. I feel that we have sacrificed liberty for security, freedom for control it sickens me.

 

[infinity_turtles]

Sigh. Look here.

Spoiler

Notice how all of the countries down at the bottom have strict gun control laws, and the countries up top do not.

Also, 'Joe Average' with a gun he may or may not know how to use properly verses a criminal, armed with a gun, with killing intent? Joe Average is a goner either way.

Notice how that's only a chart on gun deaths, not deaths in general? You may realize this skews things rather largely, as it's pretty obvious that more guns means crimes that would otherwise be done without them are more likely to swap tools, right?

 

[Crazycat690]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

That's why there is absolutely no crime in the US while in Finland where guns are nowhere to be seen these days we have crime happening at every corner...

OH WAIT!

Yeah that's so much bullshit, the easier it is to get guns the more criminals are gonna have guns, and it's not like old ladys are gonna have AK-47's in their purses.