Civillians with legal fire arms, asset or liability

[screenwriter6]

Out of sheer curiosity. I am wondering if law enforcement sees civilian gun ownership as an asset to their duties, which prevents, deters and stops crimes, or simply a dangerous hassle which creates poorly trained loose cannons.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Out of shear curiosity. I am wondering if law enforcement sees civilian gun ownership as an asset to their duties, which prevents, deters and stops crimes, or simply a dangerous hassle which creates poorly trained loose cannons.

"Shear" = scissors. I believe the word you were looking for is "sheer" curiosity.

Legal gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution which we are sworn to uphold. I would imagine most state constitutions have something similar.

[retdetsgt]

Personally, I'm all for 2nd amendment rights and citizens being armed. The current gun control laws only affect the law abiding citizens who choose to obey the law.

I have investigated a lot of crimes, including armed robberies and homicides. I've never had an armed robbery where the defendant bought their gun legally. The only homicides where they got it through legal means were a few domestic violence cases. Gun control laws only hassle people who are honest.

I do have to say that I haven't really seen armed citizens having any significant difference in crime rates. The NRA makes a big deal of any time an armed citizen stops or intervenes in a crime, but my experience has been that's really rare. About as many CCW holders get into trouble as ones who do something righteous with their guns.

About 15 years ago, I read a study some guy did advocating that crime rates went down when CCW laws were relaxed. The study was flawed as hell, IMO. The author took nothing else into consideration that might have had an affect on it and it was obvious he was wanted nothing to dilute his hypothesis. And it certainly didn't follow my personal experience.

[Citicop]

"Shear" = scissors. I believe the word you were looking for is "sheer" curiosity.

Legal gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution which we are sworn to uphold. I would imagine most state constitutions have something similar.

This has been covered many times. Most cops are very pro-gun rights.

A search will reveal many other threads like this.

-Citicop.

[screenwriter6]

Fixed the typo.

[screenwriter6]

Personally, I'm all for 2nd amendment rights and citizens being armed. The current gun control laws only affect the law abiding citizens who choose to obey the law.

I have investigated a lot of crimes, including armed robberies and homicides. I've never had an armed robbery where the defendant bought their gun legally. The only homicides where they got it through legal means were a few domestic violence cases. Gun control laws only hassle people who are honest.

I do have to say that I haven't really seen armed citizens having any significant difference in crime rates. The NRA makes a big deal of any time an armed citizen stops or intervenes in a crime, but my experience has been that's really rare. About as many CCW holders get into trouble as ones who do something righteous with their guns.

About 15 years ago, I read a study some guy did advocating that crime rates went down when CCW laws were relaxed. The study was flawed as hell, IMO. The author took nothing else into consideration that might have had an affect on it and it was obvious he was wanted nothing to dilute his hypothesis. And it certainly didn't follow my personal experience.

I feel people on both sides of the gun control debate are too cavalier in assuming one problem or another can be solved simply by changing the number of guns. I've heard people claim trying to get rid of guns is the best approach, I've heard other claim the solution is that everyone should have a gun.

Sadly society's problems are much too complicated or something so simple.

[screenwriter6]

This has been covered many times. Most cops are very pro-gun rights.

A search will reveal many other threads like this.

-Citicop.

Not the exact question.

You can support a person's rights but still be annoyed by the way a person exercises them. I was damn furious when a girl exercised her free speech right to badmouth "Dexter" (which is a show I love), doesn't mean I don't believe in the first amendment.

[retdetsgt]

Every so often, I'd have a problem with a drunk with a gun. But not enough instances to be significant in the scheme of things.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Every so often, I'd have a problem with a drunk with a gun.

I could see that as a self-correcting problem. If not, the armed sober people that are in the immediate vicinity could correct it for him/her.

[Samuel]

Out of sheer curiosity. I am wondering if law enforcement sees civilian gun ownership as an asset to their duties, which prevents, deters and stops crimes, or simply a dangerous hassle which creates poorly trained loose cannons.

As Citicop said, there are plenty of threads similar to what you are asking BUT, since you're unwilling to accept that you are NOT breaking new ground here (and because your question was poorly phrased/framed) - let me rhetorically ask you: WHY would simple gun OWNERSHIP by civilians be an "asset" OR a "hassle" to law enforcement? (it wouldn't make a difference either way) WHY would simple gun OWNERSHIP by civilians "prevent, deter and stop crime"? (it wouldn't) WHY would simple gun OWNERSHIP by civilians "create poorly trained loose cannons"? (it wouldn't - you're saying every civilian who owns a firearm is a "poorly trained loose cannon"?).

[retdetsgt]

I could see that as a self-correcting problem. If not, the armed sober people that are in the immediate vicinity could correct it for him/her.

In theory. But in reality, the vast majority of people aren't willing to actually shoot someone else. I'll spare you my repetitive lecture on that subject though.

[screenwriter6]

As Citicop said, there are plenty of threads similar to what you are asking BUT, since you're unwilling to accept that you are NOT breaking new ground here (and because your question was poorly phrased/framed) - let me rhetorically ask you: WHY would simple gun OWNERSHIP by civilians be an "asset" OR a "hassle" to law enforcement? (it wouldn't make a difference either way) WHY would simple gun OWNERSHIP by civilians "prevent, deter and stop crime"? (it wouldn't) WHY would simple gun OWNERSHIP by civilians "create poorly trained loose cannons"? (it wouldn't - you're saying every civilian who owns a firearm is a "poorly trained loose cannon"?).

By all means link me to one. I found many about applying for carry permits and general regulations. The closest I found was an article about how open carry can get you shaken down even if you own the gun legally.

I was not trying to imply arguments in those questions. I was actually asking.

I can easily point out scenarios where an individual who legally purchased a gun could be a benefit to law enforcement.

For example, a gun owner could shoot and kill armed home invaders in self defense. Officers arriving on the scene would then not have to deal with the deadly threat of these home invaders.

One of the officers has mentioned a situation in which it was a hassle (The drunk with a gun).

I'd like to know which is more common.

As for the "loose cannon" issue, I am not implying all gun owners are untrained. I'm asking if most get proper training.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

I can easily point out scenarios where an individual who legally purchased a gun could be a benefit to law enforcement.

For example, a gun owner could shoot and kill armed home invaders in self defense. Officers arriving on the scene would then not have to deal with the deadly threat of these home invaders.

That doesn't illustrate a situation that's "beneficial" to law enforcement. It is, however, beneficial to society in that those people wouldn't be robbing anyone else. Get it in the news and if it happens a couple times to a few different people, it may create a deterrent effect as home invasion thugs generally want to get out alive.

One of the officers has mentioned a situation in which it was a hassle (The drunk with a gun).

I'd like to know which is more common.

Killing armed home invaders vs. drunks with guns?? Which one do YOU think is more common.

As for the "loose cannon" issue, I am not implying all gun owners are untrained. I'm asking if most get proper training.

What is your definition of "proper training"?

[screenwriter6]

That doesn't illustrate a situation that's "beneficial" to law enforcement. It is, however, beneficial to society in that those people wouldn't be robbing anyone else. Get it in the news and if it happens a couple times to a few different people, it may create a deterrent effect as home invasion thugs generally want to get out alive.

I'm not sure if your objection is semantic, but I'm sure we can agree an officer would rather respond to a scene and deal with two dead crooks and some paperwork, then respond to a scene and find to live crooks with guns, and upon surviving that still have to do paper work.

Killing armed home invaders vs. drunks with guns?? Which one do YOU think is more common.

Probably drunks with guns would be my guess.

What is your definition of "proper training"?

I suppose that would depend on the person. If they're jumpy and easily spooked they should probably work on that somehow.

To get my driver's license I went through weeks of classes totaling many hours of training and testing. A car is possibly less dangerous then a fire arm. If I should choose to purchase a gun next year and apply for a concealed carry permit, I imagine it would be worth it to spend about that much time at the range.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

I'm not sure if your objection is semantic, but I'm sure we can agree an officer would rather respond to a scene and deal with two dead crooks and some paperwork, then respond to a scene and find to live crooks with guns, and upon surviving that still have to do paper work.

No. We can't agree on that.

A car is possibly less dangerous then a fire arm.

You should search out some statistics on crashes, injuries and deaths related to driving cars if you think that way.

If I should choose to purchase a gun next year and apply for a concealed carry permit, I imagine it would be worth it to spend about that much time at the range.

Knowledge is power, they say...