Gun control is coming
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ban-marijuana-users-owning-guns-is-unconstitutional-us-judge-rules-2023-02-04/
i'm not quite sure where to post this...or feel about this...
i'm not quite sure where to post this...or feel about this...
OldMedUser
Well-Known Member
I'd put it in the 'Another win for our side' column. Go get pissed and shoot the place up and it's boys will be boys but don't let the druggies get guns. How stupid is that?
If any dangerous drug should keep guns out of people's hands it's booze. Every stupid thing I've done in my life, (and the list is long), started in a bottle. 2 years sober end of this May and still healing.
Wattzzup
Well-Known Member
This is what the couple guys on here that won’t shut up about the balloons looks like.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
In that case I’ll move it here, because if you do disagree, I’d like to hear your thoughts on it.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I think there is a place for armed police that can take on whatever the bad guys can bring. I'm not talking about the militarization of police forces today, that's as you say, corrupt or I would say, fascist.
But I prefer that the decision of how many and what kind of weapons be carried by the police be negotiable between law enforcement officers, their leadership, the mayor or governor's office and the public.
As gun nuts say, it's not the weapon but who uses it that creates bad outcomes. There are bad officers and they can create bad outcomes regardless of the weapon the carry. So, I don't understand why we need to create yet another regulation that doesn't address the real problem.
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
This is what they look like in real lifeThis is what the people who want you to "register your gun" look like to me.
View attachment 5256592
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I worry that police organizations would not negotiate in the best of faith. It’s a status thing.
If a state, county or municipality bans handguns, the police should imo not be exempt. They are civilians, after all. If the police need to carry pistols to work safely, it becomes hard to argue that that privilege be denied other local civilians in good standing.
Any situation that needs SWAT gets them from the local FBI. Decouple special weapons from local PDs. I’m thinking LA. Imo the police weapons culture is a major element of their vigilante attitude, and a driver of their overuse of force. They will fight negotiating on that issue tooth and nail.
As you said, it will be a matter for the judges, and I’m good with that. So long as they aren’t appointed by being dishonest, they’ll know better than I.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
At this time, I see no chance of banning handguns in Oregon, so it's a hypothetical issue. If we ever get to that, and I'm not sure we should, then likely there will be no need for armed police out on patrol every day. What you advocate would just be common sense.
At this time, we can't even ban magazines that hold enough rounds to slaughter a small town. (exaggeration) It's tied up in courts and probably wont see the light of day until another cycle of mass shootings at schools is complete. So, we are far away from needing to confront issues with civilian vs police weapons restrictions.
Regarding banning all handguns in California, that's not a thing yet, is it?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
It’s happening in stages. One thing here is that guns need to be on an approved list. I used to be into weird low-volume (usually target) models, so that hit me where I lived. The list isn’t getting longer.
Perhaps I’m overprojecting a trend I observe. But I grew up on the suburban East Coast where many places made it hard or impossible to legally own or operate handguns. It affects my perception of the default.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Tell me more about how gun laws on the East coast affect your perception, especially wrt armed police.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
My opinion about arming police didn’t form until I lived in California.
But living east, guns were not a part of my culture anywhere I was. My folks came here from Europe, where guns were for soldiers. I was amazed when I learned that just plain people could buy handguns; I’d always assumed that they were military or police items.
Even once I had a gun or three of my own, I always had a twilight sensation: keep’em while I can. I eventually developed a very protective attitude toward 2A, and predicated my arguments on the sanctity of that text until it would be inevitably repealed or neutralized by state and local laws.
Over the last decade, my passion for guns has atrophied. This freed me to view the text of the amendment from a more disinterested perspective, and to examine and adopt the epidemiological view of using handguns.
The cop thing grows out of my belief that they should not be a privileged class. That is imo a linchpin of their perception of being to some degree above the law they enforce on us lessers. It fosters brutality.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If they want to make laws ("support measures") which will need guns or threats of gun use to force peaceful gun owners to comply with some political bullshit, they aren't trying to "prevent gun violence". They are trying to legalize it, via the enforcement mechanisms.
That's not an opinion, it's a self evident fact.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
They would have to restructure the entire policing system.
Patrolmen on the street should be armed, they have no idea what kind of situations they will happen upon, and waiting for armed backup is just not an option at times. Those same patrolmen should be trained much better than they are. The first contact should always be about peacefully resolving the situation, whatever it is. They should also be required to train in non lethal methods, and become proficient in them to advance. there is never going to be a justifiable instance of shooting a man confined to a wheelchair who has a knife. If a few healthy policemen can't disarm and subdue a paraplegic, then they don't belong in uniform.
officers sent to domestic violence cases probably don't need to be armed with anything more lethal than a good strong stun gun, and that should be the last line of defense.
in short, you can't just disarm the police, but you can limit what they carry into certain situations, and train all of them much more intensively in when a situation calls for violence, and how much violence it requires...
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
I tend to think that a fair amount of police shootings come from very poor training. You point your weapon at someone, everyone in the area sees you do it. If you don't use it, they'll start thinking they can do what they want...what are you going to do, not shoot them?
If you don't point your gun at someone to begin with, and still defuse the situation, those same people would have a lot more respect for you, and a lot less fear...
but some people don't seem to see the difference between respect and fear.
If you don't point your gun at someone to begin with, and still defuse the situation, those same people would have a lot more respect for you, and a lot less fear...
but some people don't seem to see the difference between respect and fear.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I’m not sure what the answer is. (I think that is why I am using bandwidth on the topic … I care, and I know my thoughts on the matter will improve with discussion.) My big gripe is corrupt use of power, something of which I keep seeing serious instances, like the guy you mentioned and now Tyre Nichols.
Part of the solution probably is what someone here suggested: have a different first-response organization for situations with reduced threat of harm or violence.
Something else to consider is mandatory audio and video recording (body and dash) for every single second an armed officer is on duty, without exception even for sudden burrito-related events.
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
It appears that domestic violence cases are the most dangerous for a police officer to respond to. In 2015-2016, 41% of fatal calls for service were domestic related. Putting myself in their shoes, I wouldn't respond to a D.V. call if I was not cleared to have a firearm while responding. While I am quite uncomfortable with the militarization of police services and believe reform is needed, I couldn't ask them to patrol without a firearm even though it isn't really that dangerous of a job.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
At least currently, I haven't been given a lot of reason to believe that armed officers can be trusted. That's something the entirety of American police forces has to take the responsibility for. They have shown, time and time again, that there are enough of them that can't be trusted, that are actually murderers using their uniforms to escape punishment, that the entire system NEEDS change, YESTERDAY...A lot of change.
Perhaps if they send those units trained in negotiations to domestic disputes first, those numbers would change, they sure seemed to in those pilot projects...projects that were ruined by local politicians trying to "improve" them, which is just another argument against states rights.
Police administration should have federal oversights, with a set of standards that must be met for every force in the country. How they operate outside of those standards should be up to individual police commissioners, not local politicians, most of whom should probably be investigated for improper conduct to begin with.