Is it time to take guns away from the police?

[Captain Awesome]

It harder than you think.

Wouldn't think it was easy, I'm sure there's a lock. Just saying - things that pop into my head when I'm waiting for my coffee.

[KL3-Something]

I'm sure it crosses a lot of people's minds. I can remember thinking something similar years ago before I joined.

[Donald G]

To Mexicalidreamer ...

Perhaps you wouldn't mind running on ahead of the police so you could come back and let them know whether weapons of any kind, including guns, were required or not. If they were required,the police could drive on over to wherever you think they should be safely stored, retrieve their guns, and hurry on back to where you are keeping an eye on things pending their return. Lard jay'sus save us.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

my property line(s) have been respected all my life. when i venture into public space i recognize i am taking a chance.

as the rcmp/police have demonstrated for us and the courts have affirmed, if you fear for your/a life then it is acceptable to take the life of the offender. it has worked for me and mine so far.

i keep a safe yard, the rcmp/police should keep the public spaces safe.

as i put forth originally, if the rcmp/police were to be removed of sidearms, i believe public tolerance/acceptance of armed criminals would be diminished. there has to be a first step in the right direction.

the assertion that criminals may wield weapons of convenience is invalid as police would have superior non-lethal weapons and defensive armour, and of course, a shotgun in the trunk, and the ert on call.

surveillance is critical to accountability with respect to all.

[Ken7]

Sometimes, when I stand in line behind a police officer, I wonder what would happen if I reached out and took the officer's gun out of his holster.

You might get a elbow to the face and thrown to the floor. Let me know when your going to Tims next. I'd like to watch, but pick the big burly guy ok.

Also the holster you can't get it out...so don't try.

[Glacier]

The police guns are a bit on the heavy side. The police should upgrade to something a little lighter. It has got to be hard on the hips walking around with such a heavy belt.

[Donald G]

To A-Britishcolumbian ...

Your comment about the police being issued only "superior non lethal weapons" is a perfect example of theory vs reality. That way the police will only GET killed, not kill anyone with a gun.

One hundred and six police officers have already been killed in the line of duty across B.C. Your theoretical weapon should triple that number in no time flat.

[fluffy]

One hundred and six police officers have already been killed in the line of duty across B.C. Your theoretical weapon should triple that number in no time flat.

I think a little further information on that statistic is needed to judge its relevance to this discussion. Were all these deaths at the hands of "bad-guys" or does it include other means of death? It would also be interesting to see how many have died at the hands of police as a point of comparison.

Personally I think the idea of taking away an officer's means of self-defense is folly. It would eliminate much of the deterrent that allows them to function effectively in their role. I think the issue here is inadequate monitoring of the psychological make-up of those who we choose to give the weapons to.

[Donald G]

To Fluffy ...

The 106 police officers killed on duty was used solely as a measurement device to identify that an accelerated number of police officers would be killed in B.C. by guns if only the criminals were henceforth permitted to carry guns. Moving it away from that context distorts the picture. IMO.

[Donald G]

To Captain Awesome ...

You CAN grab a police officers gun and put it in your car ... but the police officer will still be attached to it.

[fluffy]

To Fluffy ...

The 106 police officers killed on duty was used solely as a measurement device to identify that an accelerated number of police officers would be killed in B.C. by guns if only the criminals were henceforth permitted to carry guns. Moving it away from that context distorts the picture. IMO.

My point was that the statistic is meaningless without some further basic qualifications such as over what length of time does the number span, are occurrences rising or dropping, and of course the actual cause of death ? I'm not trying to move anything out of context, quite the opposite actually, I'm just trying to determine what segment of the number you supplied is actually relevant to this discussion.

[Donald G]

I think the death record goes back to when the RCMP took over from the old BC Provincial Police and started to keep such records in about 1955. I have no idea what the cause of death was in each instance but I know some were shot, some were knifed, one fell from a glacier, a few froze to death, some died in traffic accidents etc.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

i feel the issue of criminals with guns is separate. why cannot 'government' and police keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

i brought up my fuzzy memory of the 4 year of prison for offenders that use firearms. did that legislation fail somehow?

[Donald G]

To A_Britishcolumbian ...

Maybe we could make a law that says a criminal who does not turn himself/herself in at the jail within ten minutes of murdering any police officer the criminal could also be charged with failing to turn himself in at the jail.

What do you think the sentence should be for the unarmed police officer who negligently allowed himself/herself to be killed and thus contributed to the trauma of the criminal who felt inclined to murder him/her? A rounded of length of time will do.

Lard Ja'ysus save us from genetic mutations.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

dangerous professions are dangerous professions, its that simple. no amount of firepower can protect oil rig or sawmill worker from the hazards of the job. not to mention police are not targeted anymore than the general public when it comes to death by guns.

there is a new study out that suggests the current inequality in access to firearms actually creates a situation where more people get shot and fatally.

With 11,000 gun-related homicides occurring each year in the US, the gun policy tradeoff has been the subject of many recent arguments. While a strict "no guns" policy would seem to decrease the overall number of available guns and therefore decrease gun use, a "guns for all" policy that allows anyone to own a gun may arm potential victims and deter criminals from attacking in the first place. And then there is also a middle ground: a moderate gun policy in which certain kinds of guns are available to some people under certain circumstances.
So which policy is best? According to the model, the somewhat surprising result is that the gun-related homicide rate can only be minimized for the two extreme strategies: either a complete ban or a "guns for all" policy. The moderate policy—although seemingly most realistic of the three—results in a higher homicide rate than either of the two extreme policies. So the problem is still far from solved.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-mathematic ... f.html#jCp