Is it time to arm the police?

[SeriousSam]

A dealer or manufacturer aren't restricted to vintage guns. I've yet to see a rational argument for gun control, even one I disagree with.

So basically you believe that a Humvee dealer should be able to offer a mounted 50cal as an optional extra...

[peterb]

A dealer or manufacturer aren't restricted to vintage guns. I've yet to see a rational argument for gun control, even one I disagree with.

And I have yet to see a rational argument for access to firearms (particularly hand guns, automatic and semi-automatic weapons) other than under the controlled conditions that apply to law enforcement agencies or military personnel.

[Gerrard]

A dealer or manufacturer aren't restricted to vintage guns. I've yet to see a rational argument for gun control, even one I disagree with.

If you mean just for the US, then my limited perspective from the outside would agree that boat has long sailed and there isn't much you can do. Although, I do assume you mean there should be some sort of sensible gun control, like not selling to children?

If you are referring to the UK, then I would disagree. Whilst there are plenty of examples of where firearm (guns are on boats... ) ownership doesn't mean a rise in firearm crimes (Canada, Switzerland etc.), I view the UK society as quite "immature" and would no doubt we would see similar issues with firearm crime as the US does, and therefore do not see the point. However, I think I remember reading that if the UK were to have freer access to firearms, the number one rise would actually be suicide rather than crime, which sounds believeable.

Regarding the issues of the police being armed, I agree with the most of the comments that it should be up to the police to decide and it is good to hear they are not jumping at the chance. Tasers do seem like a better middle ground, but accept they are limited against an armed person.

[Ttaskmaster]

As a Londoner, I wouldn't want to see every police armed and then given special dispensation when shooting a person. This risks giving us a Judge Dredd type police force.

But wouldn't Police riding round on cool motorcycles be just utterly awesome??!!
That and the inevitable Gene Hunt quotes... "Drop your weapons, you are surrounded by Armed B[censored]ds!!"

I think to keep us safe is to ensure the intelligence service is funded to ensure thorough monitoring of suspects.

Even if I were on the watch-list and being monitored, I could still drive into the middle of Reading without seeming in any way suspicious, before suddenly mowing down a few dozen people within 8 minutes, though. I then get out and set to with some hand tools, maybe getting in another dozen before some armed copper dropped me.
You'd need a team of armed cops watching each and every one of your suspects, really.

We already know, these recent terrorists were known by the intelligence service so at least the identification of suspects aspect works.

SUSPECTS!!
Until they actually DO something, they are just suspects and not actual criminals... and I've already explained how quickly you can make the transition. The only way to stop that kind of tactic is to pre-empt the actions and go all Katie Hopkins on people.

The money isn't a problem as long as we don't give tax breaks to the rich. Has the Tory government put money before our safety?

Ah, yes, The Rich.
Yes, take away all their money and spend it on things like Benefits, so the higher volume of lower classers vote for you again, keeping you in power at least until you've run out of Someone Else's Money to fund your policies, before then having to tax the poor too. Good old Labour, eh. What did they do last time they had power, again? Sold off half our gold reserves? Nice one...

The money is *always* a problem, given that it's finite and there are plenty of other equally important things to spend it on... like the NHS, road repairs and MP's expenses...

A dealer or manufacturer aren't restricted to vintage guns. I've yet to see a rational argument for gun control, even one I disagree with.

Control... or outright banning?
Control means keeping them off 'the streets', out of the hands of children and away from those who will abuse them.
Outright banning is more the UK approach.

And I have yet to see a rational argument for access to firearms (particularly hand guns, automatic and semi-automatic weapons) other than under the controlled conditions that apply to law enforcement agencies or military personnel.

Plenty of perfectly valid and rational arguments to be found in sporting use, pest control and the like. Theatrical usage is another, albeit blank-modified. Same for collections and museums.
The main thing about semi-auto target shooting is that it removes the need to alter your stable shooting position from having to cycle the bolt-action.

Still trying to think of any reason for access to full auto weaps, though...!
The 'cool' factor, maybe?

[sammyc]

Yes. Semi-Automatic. A very important distinction which the gun control loons don't understand or deliberately obfuscate. Crimes with automatic weapons in the US are incredibly rare. But crimes with semi-automatic rifles are very uncommon too! More people are killed with baseball bats that with rifles of any kind. But it's the semi-automatic rifles which the loons want to ban.

Somehow I feel immeasurably more inclined to give your point of view due consideration.

[wazzickle]

A dealer or manufacturer aren't restricted to vintage guns. I've yet to see a rational argument for gun control, even one I disagree with.

Well I suppose it depends on your aims. If your aim is to reduce violent crime and death, then there is no rational argument against gun control. So I surmise that your aim must be elsewise.

[opel80uk]

Good old Labour, eh. What did they do last time they had power, again? Sold off half our gold reserves? Nice one...

They fixed all the schools that had been left in almost disrepeair under 18 Years of Tory rule
They picked the NHS up, again, after the Tories had starved it of resources. Waiting times & infection rates fell dramatically, and overall satifasction with the service increased.
They slowed the rate of inequality, removing over half a million children out of poverty.
Crime rates for all crime fell
They introduced Civil Partnerships, which paved the way for marriage equality
They brought in the minimum wage
Banned fox hunting

But your coment on the Gold, which by the way betrays a lack of understanding as to why Governments would have gold in the first place, suggests to me that you are less interested in what Labour actually did do, but rather want to make a 'tabloid' point. And even if you do believe it was mistake to sell it off, remind me again about black wednesday, and how much that cost the taxpayers..... Labour don't have a monopoly on costing the taxpayers money. Royal Mail sell off anybody?

[wazzickle]

Yeah in terms of sell-offs and deregulation I'm pretty sure any manifestation of tories in government absolutely smash labour

[Lucio]

A dealer or manufacturer aren't restricted to vintage guns. I've yet to see a rational argument for gun control, even one I disagree with.

Positive steps the US could take

1) Restricting domestic users to a maximum of 1 box of ammunition per weapon calibre
2) Mandatory gun safes with regular police inspections
3) Requiring annual mental health checks for all gun owners
4) Mandatory federal and state level criminal background checks for all potential gun owners
5) Screening processes akin to those used by the TSA at the border to prevent dangerous types from owning a gun


That's just a few idea that could be implimented to help control guns and limit the damage 1 person can do with them.

[TeePee]

Positive steps the US could take

1) Restricting domestic users to a maximum of 1 box of ammunition per weapon calibre
2) Mandatory gun safes with regular police inspections
3) Requiring annual mental health checks for all gun owners
4) Mandatory federal and state level criminal background checks for all potential gun owners
5) Screening processes akin to those used by the TSA at the border to prevent dangerous types from owning a gun


That's just a few idea that could be implimented to help control guns and limit the damage 1 person can do with them.

Thank you for making some good suggestions, however:

One box of how many? I can go through 500 rounds in an afternoon and I'm not that big of a shooter.
Gun safes are expensive, as is police time. Who pays for this? Also, keeping a home defense weapon in a safe is dangerous.
Mental Health checks are expensive, who pays of this? People who have been adjudicated mentally unfit are already legally barred from firearms ownership.
Federal and State criminal background checks are already in place for purchases from dealers. Adding background checks to legal private sales does nothing to stop the black market.
TSA is a great example of a worthless agency that accomplishes nothing. It is fitting that you would suggest they be involved with gun control.

[Ttaskmaster]

They picked the NHS up, again, after the Tories had starved it of resources. Waiting times & infection rates fell dramatically, and overall satifasction with the service increased.

Excuse me???!!!
Up to 50 thousand 'excess' deaths were recorded at hospitals during the last Labour Goverment. (Research by Sir Brian Jarman of Imperial College). They tried and failed with over 20 intitiatives, especially during the massive rise of MRSA when deaths almost doubled.
Even now, £660 million has been cut from Labour run NHS Wales over the last three years according to the Welsh TUC. When Labour came to power in 1997, spending on NHS managers was less than £190m. By 2010 this had increased by 450% to over £1bn per year.
Labour wasted £11bn of taxpayers money on a failed IT project which was eventually scrapped by the NHS in 2013.
Labour then lumbered the NHS with vast PFI repayments - £50 billion worth of loans which are costing £300 billion in repayments.
Labour also *started* the privatisation of the NHS - They brought in the 2006 NHS Act that introduced competition into the NHS, Competition Act 1998, Enterprise Act 2002 & Public Sector Procurement Regulations 2006.

Yeah, thanks Labour....

They slowed the rate of inequality, removing over half a million children out of poverty.
They brought in the minimum wage

Really?
Wow, that's cool... I wonder what else did they do for us, then....

When Labour's Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in 2007, UK public debt was 44.1% of GDP. When he left in 2010, it was 148.1%.
Youth unemployment rose by more than 40% during Labour's 13 years in office.
The devastating impact of Labour's raid on pensions: The tax grab has cost workers £118bn since 1997. (Office for Budget Responsibility).
Under Labour zero hour contracts increased by 74% between 2004 - 2009. In 2012/13 Labour councils themselves employed nearly 23,000 people on zero-hour contracts.
Council Tax doubled under Labour - 105% increase in England, 146% Wales. (The Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy: 26/03/09).
Between 1997 to 2010 gas prices rose 133% and electricity prices rose 69%.
The use of food banks went up tenfold under Labour. From 3,000 users in 2005/06 to over 40,000 by 2009/10. (The Trussell Trust/C4 FactCheck).
Only 6,330 council houses were completed from 1998 to 2010 under Labour, compared with 17,710 in 1990 alone - Thatcher's final year as PM.

Yeah....

But your coment on the Gold, which by the way betrays a lack of understanding as to why Governments would have gold in the first place, suggests to me that you are less interested in what Labour actually did do, but rather want to make a 'tabloid' point.

I understand the basics of what they tried to do, what they thought they were doing and why it backfired, costing us a lot of money in the process... £6bn, IIRC.

And even if you do believe it was mistake to sell it off, remind me again about black wednesday, and how much that cost the taxpayers..... Labour don't have a monopoly on costing the taxpayers money.

Never said they did, but don't *assume* I'm voting for the 'other' party either...

Royal Mail sell off anybody?

The Royal Mail is now sold because of EU Postal Directive 2008/6/EC, brought in by the last Labour government.


So anyway, back to guns....

Gun safes are expensive, as is police time. Who pays for this? Also, keeping a home defense weapon in a safe is dangerous.

Yes, they're expensive. It's a requirement in the UK, though and no-one complains because it helps keep your kids from taking a shotgun to their own faces.
Who pays? The gun owner does, both for the purchase and installation of the safe, and for the Police/Firearms Authority inspection and (hopefully) certification of the satisfactory installation and spec of the safe.
For home defence weapons, there are plenty of secure boxes with innovative owner-only rapid-access mechanisms out there. If it's not on you, it's in the safe... and to be honest, if you really *have* to place guns all around the house in tactically strategic locations, then you're probably a white guy living in South Africa rather than the United States!!!

Mental Health checks are expensive, who pays of this? People who have been adjudicated mentally unfit are already legally barred from firearms ownership.

The owner pays for it at the point of applying for their gun licence.
And that legal barring is why you do a mental health check *before* giving them a licence, just the same as you'd do a criminal background check first. You don't give them the tools to go nuts and then legally bar them only after they've gone nuts with it!!

Adding background checks to legal private sales does nothing to stop the black market.

I assume that in this modern world, there will be some app by which private sellers could verify the purchaser's credentials against the State/Fed databases... in the same way we can run HPI checks on cars, or something?

[wazzickle]

I don't understand. Ttaskmaster is pro-conservative and anti-guns, whereas TeePee is pro-guns and anti-conservative? You guys are somewhat outside of my regular sphere of people that I encounter if so.

[Ttaskmaster]

I don't understand. Ttaskmaster is pro-conservative and anti-guns

Am I...?
Firstly, where have I ever said I favour the Tories? Just because I think Labour are lying sacks of [censored], making promises they cannot keep or hope to deliver, paid for by Someone Else's Money and then stealth-taxing Yours when SEM runs out, while peddling hypocrisy to the nines... does NOT mean I'm in favour of the Blue Ninnies... I'm more of a Conservocrat, I think. Although blue + yellow may well = green, I'm really not a fan of them, beyond keeping the environment nice and the animals safe.

As for the guns.... I'm really, REALLY not anti-gun!!!!!
I've spent much of my life around shooty-bangs of various kinds - Small, medium, large, very large, seriously-overcompensating and especially blow-yer-tank-to-pieces-mate. I worked in the armoury under secondment, due to a particular natural talent for taking such things apart. I've shot more rounds than Mister TeePee has probably even seen in his local gunshop. I've carried live rounds in public on many occasions. Even in civvy life, I find myself drawn into things involving them, though thankfully most are the fictional, deactivated or theatrically adapted versions!
If I was rich and had a mansion (or just lived in America) I'd have my own armoury wing in my large house. Top floor, West wing, ideally. I can throw anecdotes and trivia around about some firearms like car modding fanboys do about their chosen marque.

Tasky is NOT anti-gun!!!
However, he does believe that people don't need to be carrying them in the street, where they might start shooting all the other nice folk. Keep them at home or down the Club, safely locked away.

You guys are somewhat outside of my regular sphere of people that I encounter if so.

I suspect we are a little more unusual than your average, yeah... but I'll assume that's a complement on our delightfully refreshing and intellectually complex outlooks?


Oh, forgot this one:

One box of how many? I can go through 500 rounds in an afternoon and I'm not that big of a shooter.

Most people carry a pistol for defence. Maybe two, but we'll start with one. Most magazines seem restricted to 10 rounds for Civvy use, so assume 2 spare mags on your person. 30 rounds.
Obviously you'll need to change your daily carry rounds out at some point, making 60. Ammo comes in boxes of 50, so 2 boxes for 100 rounds per calibre. Sounds reasonable to me. You shouldn't need any more than that, in your own home, for personal use. As is, that's more than enough to go on a shooting spree, but see above for that mental health check thing.

If you really need 500rnds per calibre, then buy what you need at the gun club/shooting range when you go there to shoot.

Of course, IMO, if you, in your United States urban environment civillian life, find yourself in a situation where you need more than 30 pistol rounds with which to defend yourself, you are waaaaay past [censored], mate... seriously [censored]!!
In WW2 some soldiers in heavy combat zones were given only a pistol and 21 rounds... and still managed to hold their own, for those that had to draw them. I'd say it's a rare day when, even in Cape Town or Jo'burg, you'd need to reload more than once!

[wazzickle]

So.... you're not anti-gun. Nor are you anti-conservative. You're not as unusual as I thought then.

[Top_gun]

I don't understand. Ttaskmaster is pro-conservative and anti-guns, whereas TeePee is pro-guns and anti-conservative? You guys are somewhat outside of my regular sphere of people that I encounter if so.

I wouldn't worry about it. I saw what happened to Cat the Fifth with Ttaskmaster on another thread.

[TeePee]

To clarify, I'm pro-freedom. I believe it is a civil right and a civil responsibility to own and to carry firearms, and that civil rights should not be made artificially expensive to exercise. They tried that with the first attempt at gun control in the US, the National Firearms Act, which was designed specifically to prevent African Americans from buying guns.

We don't do firearms databases here, for obvious reasons, and having an App to do a mental health background check on someone sounds like a HIPPA nightmare.

But I'm also in the US, where my local ranges aren't 'gun clubs'. There's no one there, and certainly no shop to buy ammunition from even if I were inclined. Of course, an afternoon of 3-gun practice is very different from daily carry. Only a few states have magazine restrictions, and they usually aren't enforced.