In a message dated 9/7/01 12:31:51 PM Central Daylight Time,
bsm11@cornell.edu writes:
<< I feel bad for the people that truly respect guns, and the law; However,
the gun problem has to be stopped. You know, it's pretty sad when criminals
are armed with bigger, more powerful guns, than our officers of the law.
>>
Brian,
This is due to the fact that many police departments are restricted by
just what you said you want! If a police officer were to go out into the
field and shoot a perp with his 44 Magnum, the police precinct will be sued
in a civil suit saying that "if the cop had not had such a powerful handgun,
the perp could have been stopped and not killed. Therefore the police
precinct is at fault, not because the perp decided to break the law, but
because the officer decided that his life was in peril and returned fire with
a ""way to powerful weapon"" for a police officer to need." And don't say
this isn't so. I have sat through one court hearing about this here in my
hometown. A man was in the process of a burglary, we will call him John Doe.
When Officer Larry (name changed) responded to the call, he found the John
Doe to be in the process of coming out the front door. As soon as John Doe
saw the police car, he dropped everything and started shooting at the car
with a 9 mm automatic handgun. At this point, Officer Larry came to a
screeching halt, rolled out his driver's side door and returned fire. John
Doe was hit twice in the chest with 230 grain loads of 45 ACP. John Doe was
pronounced dead on the scene by the coroner. The family of John Doe then
reciprocated by suing both the police precinct and Officer Larry. They
claimed that "If Officer Larry had not used such a powerful handgun, then
their family member John Doe might still be alive." The family case was
thrown out of court thank goodness. The bad part though is that all this
cost the people money by wasting their tax dollars. Not only on Lawyers, but
in wasted court time, wasted defense time, etc. Now because of this lawsuit,
my home town police officers are limited to a 40 S&W in caliber. They are
also limited in the rounds they are allowed to load in this firearm. No
longer can they use ammo that can be labeled as "self defense," but they have
to use standard velocity ammo. So much for being able to match the criminals
in firepower. Also, no longer can just any officer carry a shotgun. And out
of approx. 100 officers, only 4 are allowed to carry rifles for any type of
use. And these must be carried in the trunk. So once again, it is not the
criminal that is the reason the cops are outgunned, it is all the legal stuff
that is holding the police back in their armament. Remember that bank heist
in Cali a while back? I don't suppose that you also remember that the cops
in that instance had to go to a local pawnshop and get more powerful
firepower? The cops were not issued the firepower they need. They only had
a semi-auto handgun and maybe a back up revolver. And if you like the idea
of no guns what so ever. Look at Britain. Their crime rate is much higher
than ours. Granted, we have more crimes committed each year, but we also
have many times more people than they do. What you have to look at is the
crime percentage, in other words, how many crimes are committed for how many
people are in that countries population. Now on to a more real world
comparison. Let's suppose that you are criminal. You are looking for
someone to mug so you can make some quick cash to buy whatever it is that you
want.
1) Ok, let's first walk through a situation that you would prefer. Firearms
are illegal to own for anyone except police or gov't authorities. You are
standing on a street corner and have roughly 10 people to choose from. They
range from a very large frame man who looks to be about three times your size
down to a middle aged woman who is about 5' tall, is obviously not very
strong and appears to be slightly disabled by her slight limp. Who would you
choose?
2) Ok, now to today's modern society. Firearms are legal for those with
permits, police and gov't authorities. People with permits do not have to
let it be publicly known, for they are concealed carry permits. You have the
same ten people to choose from. Except this time you have to wonder who has
the firearm. The middle-aged lady has a purse that is large enough to hide a
handgun in. Does she have one? If she does, it will mean your life, either
literally or in jail with the scars to remind you of why you are there. Who
would you choose? And how confident would you feel about choosing them??
3) Firearms are required to be owned by any and all civilians, police and
gov't authorities. They can be carried concealed, open holstered, cocked
loaded and ready to go legally. The same ten people are walking around you.
You still want some money. They all have firearms and you know it. Do you
dare take a chance on your life knowing that a firearm will be involved? How
confident would you feel about taking that chance?
These are just different scenarios to show my point. The usual responses to
the questions are as follows:
1) I would rob the middle aged lady. Why? Because she is the weaker and the
one least likely to put up any resistance. Even if she did resist, she isn't
strong enough to fend me off.
2) IF I did rob anyone, it would be the middle aged lady. Confidence? I
don't think my life is worth the few bucks she would have in her purse. And
that purse size still bothers me. I don't think I would rob anyone in this
case.
3) I would NOT rob anyone. Granted I may have a firearm, but everyone else
does as well. It is like playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded
firearm.
This is not truly scientific evidence, but I have done this survey before in
my college psychology class. The three answers above were the paraphrased
answers from the whole group of 150 people that I polled on this issue. I
personally would agree with these answers myself. Also, if the right for a
civilian to posses and use firearms did not exist, then the Colonies would
have never been able to break from the grasp of Great Britain Ok, I have used
up enough bandwidth as is. For those of you who may complain, I am sorry. I
did however try to move this topic to the off topic list, however no one
seemed to follow it. I am making another attempt to do that with this post.
Ok, I am stepping down off my shoe box now.
The other Will
Cain Killed Abel with a Rock
Rocks are killing people!!
Let's Ban Rocks!!!!
RCI - Rock Control International
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:02:45 EDT