Why do LEO carry guns at BM?

[justfred]

Maybe they carry guns because their penises aren't long enough for shirtcocking?

[Fire_Moose]

...to shoot anarchists and malcontents

[theCryptofishist]

My burning question is: Why do fish click on this thread?

[swampdog]

Who really who favors gun control?

You do, probably. The second amendment refers not to guns but to arms. That's a much bigger category and can be include basically any weapon. RPG anyone? How about a Stinger surface to air missile? Nuclear warhead? What do you think they talk about at arms limitation talks, .22 cal pistols? Do you REALLY think access to arms should be unlimited?

Even if you only include firearms, guns, look around your neighborhood and tell me if there's anyone you'd rather wasn't permitted to mount a .50 cal machine gun on their pickup truck. Go to your local hard right church or biker bar (depending on which scares you most) and imagine them all with UNLIMITED right to ARMS. Not pretty, is it?

So SOMEBODY needs to draw some lines. If you say, "well the second amendment only refers to rifles, shotguns, and pistols" what is your basis for that? And, who decides if there should be limits to caliber, rate of fire, concealability? Are things assumed legal until declared otherwise? Do armor piercing bullets and non-metallic guns need to be explicitly judged in or out?

It's a done deal, people. Arms are restricted by local, state, and federal governments. We're just haggling over the price*.

In 1934, the federal government made a law in response to the level of weaponry available to gangsters. Automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, etc, were outlawed. That (federal) law seems to outline what people think of today as good weapons that should be unlimited vs. weapons we accept as 'naturally' limited. But it's just a federal law, one that restricts the right to keep and bear arms.

Personally, I don't have or want a gun. I'm not interested in killing animals (Yes I eat them, but I've no interest in participating in the killing). I could enjoy target shooting, I suppose, but it doesn't particularly attract me. I believe I'd be less safe with a gun in the house than without - the chances of needing it and being able to use it effectively in an in-house attack seems small. And as long as a gun is around, in my view, it's an accident waiting to happen.

But I respect that there are people who hunt, shoot at targets, and think guns make them safer.

So we need to compromise. That compromise is an ongoing discussion. It never seems to get too far one way or the other. It can never go to wholly restrictive - too many guns already out there - nor can it go wholly permissive - see above re: .50 cal machine guns.

But please stop saying the second amendment is sacrosanct. It's not. Get over it.

*the above is reference to an old joke - you got that, right? Man meets woman in a bar and asks, "would you sleep with the richest man in the world, one night, for one million dollars?" She thinks about it and says, "hmmm, maybe.... Ok, yes, I would." Guy says, "Ok, would you sleep with me tonight for $100?" She gets indignant and says, "Of course not, what do you think I am!?!?" and he says, "We've established that, now we're just haggling over the price."

[unjonharley]

Mall shopper are not allowed to carry gun.. So cops should check theres at the door??

Ya right.. A dubbel muder not ten feet from me.. Dumped six shot from a 357 and reloaded.. The guy had quick loads hanging from his hand so I beat feet..

The shooter was a x cop.. They dumped him for mental reasons..

He killed a cop and dispachter, she was preganet so it was a triple..

Twenty years and I still don't like going to that mall..

[gyre]

Registration of vehicles is a tax measure.
Requiring safety is an unrelated issue, which governments prefer to link.

I think this may have been the case in the early days of vehicle registration, but now it is linked to things like smog checks (which are about general public welfare.) Vehicle registration also help reduce hit and run crimes (although you can make the same argument about unregistered vehicles as you can about unregistered guns.)

A reminder that "registered" guns are primarily a hollywood gimmick in this country.
It does not exist in the usa generally.
It is harped about constantly by the anti personal defense crowd, in an attempt to delude the public.

My confidence that smog checks are anything but a pacification and revenue tactic is nil.

My 1968 modified engine in a 1986 car, passes all 1993 california smog standards for the exhaust, but would still not be licensed in california.

Car manufacturers love smog checks though.

[gyre]

Who really who favors gun control?

You do, probably. The second amendment refers not to guns but to arms. That's a much bigger category and can be include basically any weapon. RPG anyone? How about a Stinger surface to air missile? Nuclear warhead? What do you think they talk about at arms limitation talks, .22 cal pistols? Do you REALLY think access to arms should be unlimited?

Even if you only include firearms, guns, look around your neighborhood and tell me if there's anyone you'd rather wasn't permitted to mount a .50 cal machine gun on their pickup truck. Go to your local hard right church or biker bar (depending on which scares you most) and imagine them all with UNLIMITED right to ARMS. Not pretty, is it?

And yet, that is reality in this country and any other country without draconian controls.
That is why restricting arms belonging to the citizen is so ludicrous.

And it was actually the anti-gun arguments that convinced me of the true meaning of the second amendment.

I do think it includes any arms needed to control a government gone wrong.

The machine gun thing is a joke to anyone understanding weapons.
The rules were not because of weapons at all.
It was an end run around the constitutional rights of citizens, though directed at gangsters.
(Governments love possession laws. No actual work involved.)

And anyone that can get their hands on illegal weapons at all, can get their hands on selectable fire weapons too.

The laws have no effect on criminals unless they decide to accept them.
And the criminals that are the most dangerous with guns are the least likely to care about penalties.

[thirt33n]

1durful-
a scenario as to why LEO's have guns at Burningman;

you are in your camp minding your own business and stirring your coffee.
elswhere someone is walking to the shit house. a chick is playing the piano at the skinny kitty. two guys are jumping on a trampoline. three are congregated, straddling their bikes in the middle of 3:30. one is playing tetherball by himself. it's 12 noon and atop a high platform at 3:00 and H 5 guys who have been planning this for years make their move. They uncase their sniper rifles and systematiccally dispose of you and all other subjects and then move on to the nest round....when panic breaks out over the east side of the playa it is the "evil" LEO's with their guns that are able to finally control the situation and we all find out that this was a camp of 20 hippie hating mental cases from bumfuck wherever who's chatter had been picked up by a certain government security agency...

point is, 1derfol...when you work it that field you must be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. It is people like you with your contempt and attitude towards LEO's whether or not you accompany those traits with scowls and disrespect when you come across LEO's...they can feel and sense your disdain and it wears on them and makes it worse for all of us.

in your recent posts you have demonstrated nothing other than your ability to put you head and ears firmly between you hands and spew your utter bullshit.

i wood voodoo you to be paralyzed from your elbows to your fingertips if i could. you, are a FARKTARD

suck it

[gyre]

Personally, I don't have or want a gun. I'm not interested in killing animals (Yes I eat them, but I've no interest in participating in the killing). I could enjoy target shooting, I suppose, but it doesn't particularly attract me. I believe I'd be less safe with a gun in the house than without - the chances of needing it and being able to use it effectively in an in-house attack seems small. And as long as a gun is around, in my view, it's an accident waiting to happen.

The statistics you may have heard about gun risks in the home are a great example of the Big Lie technique.

Any powerful tool represents a risk, but you are more likely to die in an accidental fire than a mistake with a gun.

It is a personal decision for everyone to make, and stupid is not a good mix with a gun (or a car or fireplace or any gas appliance...or electricity...)
But safe handling is not just possible, it is taught in classes as a matter of course.

Being able to reach a weapon is always an issue to consider, but it does happen often enough.

This is a database of real events, many home invasions.
It can be educational.

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/
http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index_oct09.asp

So we need to compromise. That compromise is an ongoing discussion. It never seems to get too far one way or the other. It can never go to wholly restrictive - too many guns already out there - nor can it go wholly permissive - see above re: .50 cal machine guns.

Actually the laws continue to get more restrictive rapidly, in spite of important progress being made.

Current rules allow changes with the force of law, without notice or legislation.
One week you may be allowed to own a gun, the next you can't.
This is happening all the time.

[gyre]

Some canadian stuff ~ from 2007

There are about 1.6 million semi-automatic firearms in Canada's firearms registry. These represent about 23 per cent of the firearms in the system. An enormous proportion of these are common rifles and shotguns.

The most recent numbers available the from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics show 74.9 per cent of firearms used in crimes are handguns, a type of firearm that has been very tightly regulated since 1934. Since the introduction of the current legislation banning some 60 per cent of all civilian-owned handguns, handgun murders have increased 83 per cent. Sobering but true.

It also shows that most of these guns have never been registered and are likely smuggled into the country by organized crime. A study by the Vancouver police department found that 97 per cent of firearms seized in 2003 did not originate in Canada. In fact, Statistics Canada shows that only three per cent of all firearms used in homicides in 2005 were registered to the accused murderer.

[caveatlector]

Really, Gyre, I get it. You're very pro gun and anti gun control.

Strangely, you didn't quote some other facts:

For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.

For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.

For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.

So my country is actually a safer place despite the lack of a generally armed populace. This isn't to say that the comparisons should be direct-- the US is far more densely populated, and the socio-economic environment is different-- I just felt that if you were going to be spouting facts, I should at least return the favour.

To be clear, though: Canada isn't actually anti-gun... it's just anti-idiots-having-guns. It's not a right here, but it is often seen as a necessity. I've personally carried a semi-auto rifle whenever I've been north of the Arctic Circle.

(Note: The rifle I was carrying was mostly there to warn other people and attempt to scare the bear. I'd pretty much be bear-chow if I attempted to bring the thing down with it.)

[gyre]

I thought the lower rate of crime in canada was pretty much a given.
I am aware that canada is hardly crime free though, with Vancouver probably having higher rates of most types of crime.
Seem to be a much higher incidence of bombs as weapons too.


This is interesting, though I'm not sure how much consolation it would be to be a victim of non-gun homicide.
It isn't surprising in a place that restricts handguns though.

Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.

If I were going to be a homicide victim, I think rifle would be my first choice.
Not a question that comes up a lot.

This statistic could be interpreted to indicate that people intent on murder still find options.


Bears make me quite apprehensive, and recent events in places I have walked don't help much.
It takes a lot of weapon to do more than annoy a bear, though there are the stories of people taking them down with light guns.

[swampdog]

Gyre, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I am genuinely interested in understanding competing viewpoints. I apologize in advance in case I step over the snark line - my intent is to not do so but errors could happen.

I don't understand your comment

And yet, that is reality in this country and any other country without draconian controls. That is why restricting arms belonging to the citizen is so ludicrous.

Do you mean that (as in my example) the local hard right church or biker bar has unlimited access to weapons? I find that hard to believe. Can you clarify?

I do think it includes any arms needed to control a government gone wrong.

So let's say, hypothetically, that Sara Palin is elected in 2012 and declares war on San Francisco because she considers it a threat to the American way of life. Let's say she calls out the full weight of the US Military, and it responds without question.

What weapons are you going to use to fight against the US Military? Tanks? Artillery? Fighter jets? Drones? And, we're back to the question - ok, which of our fellow citizens would you trust with heavy weapons?

I'd much rather trust in the humanity of our soldiers to not attack our citizens than in the humanity of that nutjob in Florida who wanted to burn the koran.

And anyone that can get their hands on illegal weapons at all, can get their hands on selectable fire weapons too.

I assume selectable fire = what I would call automatic weapons? Does that include .50 cal machine guns? Can these things be obtained by, say, a Hell's Angels leader? What about RPGs? Plastic explosive?

The statistics you may have heard about gun risks in the home are a great example of the Big Lie technique.

Perhaps I was a bit coy in saying accident. I mean, in most cases, angry spouse, jealous boyfriend, fucked up road-rager, suicidal depressive. How many fewer deaths would there be of that sort if people couldn't stomp off to the garage or whatever and come back shooting? How many of those people could sustain the rage necessary to kill someone by hand, bat, knife? By one of your links, there were 4 cases in my state, WA, so far this year of violence averted by gun ownership. How many dead spouses, family members, suicides, annoying neighbors, etc etc etc do you suppose there were during that time? I bet it's a lot more than 4. On a purely empirical level I believe there would be fewer Americans dead each year if there were fewer households with guns (avoiding the issue of how to achieve having fewer households with guns)

[theCryptofishist]

Because there's a "B" in both.

[1durphul]

1durful-
a scenario as to why LEO's have guns at Burningman;

you are in your camp minding your own business and stirring your coffee.
elswhere someone is walking to the shit house. a chick is playing the piano at the skinny kitty. two guys are jumping on a trampoline. three are congregated, straddling their bikes in the middle of 3:30. one is playing tetherball by himself. it's 12 noon and atop a high platform at 3:00 and H 5 guys who have been planning this for years make their move. They uncase their sniper rifles and systematiccally dispose of you and all other subjects and then move on to the nest round....when panic breaks out over the east side of the playa it is the "evil" LEO's with their guns that are able to finally control the situation and we all find out that this was a camp of 20 hippie hating mental cases from bumfuck wherever who's chatter had been picked up by a certain government security agency...

point is, 1derfol...when you work it that field you must be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. It is people like you with your contempt and attitude towards LEO's whether or not you accompany those traits with scowls and disrespect when you come across LEO's...they can feel and sense your disdain and it wears on them and makes it worse for all of us.

in your recent posts you have demonstrated nothing other than your ability to put you head and ears firmly between you hands and spew your utter bullshit.

i wood voodoo you to be paralyzed from your elbows to your fingertips if i could. you, are a FARKTARD

suck it

Uhm, chances are the same snipers you speak of would take out the LEOs as well. Long before the LEOs were able to get a fix on their position and a clear shot of the 5 men on their elevated platform. I'm assuming that since these 5 men planned this for years their platform was built not to leave them exposed, and had a retractable ladder.


Now I have a scenario for you, just as ridiculous.

Larry Harvey it turns out is a reptile and eats humans. And it turns out that the only thing that makes him more powerful is when hot lead is shot into his body. His body can then efficiently turn the heavy metal into fuel for his internal fusion chambers that allow him to shoot lasers from his eyes.

Would you want the LEOs to have guns then?

suick it.

[gyre]

Gyre, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I am genuinely interested in understanding competing viewpoints. I apologize in advance in case I step over the snark line - my intent is to not do so but errors could happen.

I don't understand your comment

And yet, that is reality in this country and any other country without draconian controls. That is why restricting arms belonging to the citizen is so ludicrous.

Do you mean that (as in my example) the local hard right church or biker bar has unlimited access to weapons? I find that hard to believe. Can you clarify?

Well, as unlimited as their cash anyway.

And anyone that can get their hands on illegal weapons at all, can get their hands on selectable fire weapons too.

I assume selectable fire = what I would call automatic weapons? Does that include .50 cal machine guns? Can these things be obtained by, say, a Hell's Angels leader? What about RPGs? Plastic explosive?

An M16 is selectable fire usually, burst (three shots)/ single or auto/burst/single.
A machine gun only does one thing.

And yes, available at a price.
A 50 calibre machine gun would likely be the hardest to obtain and ammo is around $5 a round, just so you know, X per minute rate of fire.
Look at any weapon used in the war in mexico, and you can assume it could be bought for enough cash.

Explosives can be made.
Anyone with a machine shop can manufacture a machine gun.
Harder to build semi-auto weapons.

Any further gets us into a discussion about intelligence operations, politics and the international arms trade, which is like opening the can of worms of who controls record distribution, and why.

It is hard not to conclude that most of the time that weapons of light or military capability aren't used, that a decision has been made somehow to not use them.
The only real control is economic.

[gyre]

Perhaps I was a bit coy in saying accident. I mean, in most cases, angry spouse, jealous boyfriend, fucked up road-rager, suicidal depressive. How many fewer deaths would there be of that sort if people couldn't stomp off to the garage or whatever and come back shooting? How many of those people could sustain the rage necessary to kill someone by hand, bat, knife? By one of your links, there were 4 cases in my state, WA, so far this year of violence averted by gun ownership. How many dead spouses, family members, suicides, annoying neighbors, etc etc etc do you suppose there were during that time? I bet it's a lot more than 4. On a purely empirical level I believe there would be fewer Americans dead each year if there were fewer households with guns (avoiding the issue of how to achieve having fewer households with guns)

The Armed Citizen link I posted is not inclusive by any means, but even statistics don't include most events where a gun calms a situation.

Obviously if you lack confidence in the people in a house, it's better not to have any guns or knives around.
But I think you underestimate most people's self control.
And it isn't that easy to point a gun at someone with intent and pull the trigger.
A knife can be very quick and in an uncontrolled situation, I think might be more likely to be grabbed, even with a gun available.

Even in a country without a constant threat of violence, I see no harm in sensible people carrying weapons.
But the effect here has been quite dramatic.
Very few self defense situations even get reported to the police.
Even most criminals have zero interest in pursuing a confrontation with a weapon.

I find far more situations calmed by a weapon and a calm attitude than provoked.
After all, you only need to use it with a determined attacker.

A friend even ended one with a knife in the robber's hand and his gun against the robber's head.
The robber said "Just kidding."

[gyre]

I do think it includes any arms needed to control a government gone wrong.

So let's say, hypothetically, that Sara Palin is elected in 2012 and declares war on San Francisco because she considers it a threat to the American way of life. Let's say she calls out the full weight of the US Military, and it responds without question.

What weapons are you going to use to fight against the US Military? Tanks? Artillery? Fighter jets? Drones? And, we're back to the question - ok, which of our fellow citizens would you trust with heavy weapons?

I'd much rather trust in the humanity of our soldiers to not attack our citizens than in the humanity of that nutjob in Florida who wanted to burn the koran.

It's a matter of scale, but citizens usually fight a limited war of attrition.

Generally weapons that didn't demand huge infrastructure would be included.
Stinger missiles would be at the top of that list, but are probably staggeringly expensive, and of intense interest to any government, for obvious reasons.

The japanese took a very close look at our citizen's stunning access to military weapons (by their standards) and cited it as the reason for not sustaining any of their invasions of the usa.
Their statistic was that one of every three houses had a weapon capable of making things unpleasant for them.
The famous line is,
"We are not so stupid as to march into quicksand."

Not sure palin would want to refudiate San Francisco, but an iron man fascist government in mexico, in reaction to the drug war, with strange political alliances might be troublesome.
Or not.

[unjonharley]

Even most criminals have zero interest in pursuing a confrontation with a weapon."

Friend of mine (older lady) was home alone, deadbolt locked.. The narrow window next to that door was smash and a hand and arm was reaching for the deadbolt. She got her son pistol and yelled: I have a gun and will shoot you. That did not stop the robber.. He did not know she was trying to pull the triger.. She moved into his line of sight.. He left.. Lucky bastard. It was a doubble action and she didn't know it had to be cocked first.

[swampdog]

Sorry to obsess on .50 cal machine guns, but it represents a dividing line for me. I think they should definitely not be made readily available. Should citizens be able to openly buy a .50 cal WITHOUT engaging a black market/hard core criminals? If yes, is there a place where you draw the line on what a citizen should be able to freely purchase? If you eliminate the black market, then I assume the prices would drop radically.

re: home violence, I have plenty of confidence of people in my home, but not necessarily the home down the street.

re: national defense, your example doesn't wash - Mexico's iron man fascist would still need to either have control of or be able to defeat the US military.

I am clearly a suburban guy who has never lived in a dangerous neighborhood. I have never seen a gun drawn with intent to use (or threaten). This no doubt colors my beliefs.

[gyre]

Regarding mexico, I am assuming a new orleans speed response from the us military.


Legal machine guns are artificially high due to restrictions on manufacture, so there is currently no free market here.
Most people simply can't afford one, legal or not.
There have always been stringent legal checks of people owning such things.

I would put the current second amendment limit at the stinger, or between that and rpgs.
But armament levels shift constantly.

[Bob]

Larry Harvey it turns out is a reptile and eats humans. And it turns out that the only thing that makes him more powerful is when hot lead is shot into his body. His body can then efficiently turn the heavy metal into fuel for his internal fusion chambers that allow him to shoot lasers from his eyes.

Would you want the LEOs to have guns then?

Kudos, that's the most credible thing you've typed in the last five years.

[ygmir]

Who really who favors gun control?

You do, probably. The second amendment refers not to guns but to arms. That's a much bigger category and can be include basically any weapon. RPG anyone? How about a Stinger surface to air missile? Nuclear warhead? What do you think they talk about at arms limitation talks, .22 cal pistols? Do you REALLY think access to arms should be unlimited?

Even if you only include firearms, guns, look around your neighborhood and tell me if there's anyone you'd rather wasn't permitted to mount a .50 cal machine gun on their pickup truck. Go to your local hard right church or biker bar (depending on which scares you most) and imagine them all with UNLIMITED right to ARMS. Not pretty, is it?

why do you exclude left wing radicals?
other religious radicals?
I can't imagine, that, you don't think they exist..................


or, do you submit that only "right wing" radicals are dangerous?
Or, just "moreso"?

I don't get it.

[theCryptofishist]

How many examples is Swampdog supposed to come up with? Admitedly, the magic number is three and he's one short of that, but how many left-wing radicals are comfortable with hard-core, meth-fueled biker gangs?

Oh, and can he accuse you of forcing political correctness on him?

[ygmir]

yeah, one or three...........and, I'm not forcing PC, at all......
I'm wondering, if, he only thinks this issue exists on the "right". More, a question to see where the statement comes from.

well, how many right wing radicals are comfortable with left wing crack fueled gangs?

I suppose, I just like to see balance in these things.
For, we all know, it's not one side, or the other.
the radicals are just that, radical.
IMHO.

[goathead]

Sorry SD

if you have problems with .50 cals I would bet it has more to do with "other things", also engaged in....

Why not engage the problems that at fueling the killing then the symptoms.....

I just love the urban thought pattern here, blame the fucking GUNS, but noting else.....

[goathead]

not only that but hippies are hard to herd

taze them and they just stand in line

saying me next, me next........

[knowmad]

Larry Harvey it turns out is a reptile and eats humans. And it turns out that the only thing that makes him more powerful is when hot lead is shot into his body. His body can then efficiently turn the heavy metal into fuel for his internal fusion chambers that allow him to shoot lasers from his eyes.

Would you want the LEOs to have guns then?

Kudos, that's the most credible thing you've typed in the last five years.

The most Creative, Fer sure!
Keep storming the castle!

[1durphul]

Larry Harvey it turns out is a reptile and eats humans. And it turns out that the only thing that makes him more powerful is when hot lead is shot into his body. His body can then efficiently turn the heavy metal into fuel for his internal fusion chambers that allow him to shoot lasers from his eyes.

Would you want the LEOs to have guns then?

Kudos, that's the most credible thing you've typed in the last five years.

The truth is out there my friend. And it is frightening.

[1durphul]

The most Creative, Fer sure!
Keep storming the castle!

Sadly my castle storming is wrecking California's green energy initiatives. And far fewer gay men have a place to cruise in Golden Gate Park after my most recent castle charge.