Interesting police opinion

Larry,

I answered your question, now answer mine.

These countries all had millions of guns (three of them are English speaking countries with very similar ideals of personal responsibility and personal values when compared to the USA), they then made almost all of them illegal, why did their gun murders decline to almost nothing?


2012 gun murders...........all types of guns, not just assault type rifles with large magazines!

Australia........................30
Japan............................11
New Zealand....................7
England & Wales..............41

Total.............................89
Australia - A large island that does not have open boarders with Mexico.
Japan - An island that does not have open boarders with Mexico.
New Zealand - An island that does not have open boarders with Mexico.
England & Wales - On an island that does not have open boarders with Mexico.

So Jim, your comparison between the US and these other countries is pretty much irrelevant. You also continue to bring up Japan as some sort of benchmark. Are you saying we should become like Japan and be very non-diverse and conservative?

Jim, you forgot one statistic:

The Moon.................... 0
 
Australia - A large island that does not have open boarders with Mexico.
Japan - An island that does not have open boarders with Mexico.
New Zealand - An island that does not have open boarders with Mexico.
England & Wales - On an island that does not have open boarders with Mexico.

So Jim, your comparison between the US and these other countries is pretty much irrelevant. You also continue to bring up Japan as some sort of benchmark. Are you saying we should become like Japan and be very non-diverse and conservative?

Jim, you forgot one statistic:

The Moon.................... 0
How many millions of guns did these island nations have? FYI, the UK began pistol registration back about 100 years ago. With a knee jerk reaction due to a mass shooting, took them off people about 20 years ago. And we have significant gun crime given the amount of police control over firearms ownership.
 

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Aw jeeze... Here we go again....

Look through any of the other dozen or so gun threads here in the paddock over the last couple of years and you'll find enough opinions and metrics to keep you reading for days..

It amazes me how many ways we find to beat the same friggen horse to death here.. :rolleyes:
 
As long as the horse is not beaten to death with a sandal!
hehehehe :lipsrsealed:

The Sandal is OK, just not when it is loaded with brown or tan socks. White, ankle length by the way, are right out. Too easy to quick change/reload!
 
Well, here is a simplistic definition:

Gun control defined: The theory that people who refuse to obey laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft, and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Well, here is a simplistic definition:

Gun control defined: The theory that people who refuse to obey laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft, and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm.
Wish I had said that,:thumbsup:
 
Jack, Don't you realize when guns are taken away, all crime and murders will stop? You will be able to walk around anywhere with $100 bills sticking out of your pockets and be absolutely safe!:)
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Oh, places like NYC, Chicago and Detroit will be like paradise...
You mean paraDICE...since residence will have to roll 'em everytime they leave their house. 'Probably every time they lock up their house and go to bed at night as well for that matter...
 
FWIW, getting back to the original, original post that started this thread, I can report anecdotally that I know about a half-dozen active peace officers, and to a man, they all agree with the vast majority on every question raised in that poll. They are pro-gun, and especially pro-good guy with a gun. They know they need all the help they can get.

They are largely contemptuous of their leadership (from five different departments in different parts of California). Not one single police chief is a true police officer. They are all careerist politicians who left the ranks of the police to take on a political office, where their future is only guaranteed by sucking up to the politicians above them. Rank-and-file officers have job protections (from their unions--most of them are 'liberals' in that sense) and thus can speak their minds, but police chiefs can lose their jobs overnight if they upset the mayor, city council etc.

Do not for one moment believe that police chiefs speak for the men and women who serve under them when they make public statements, about anything. They serve the politicians who placed them into their exalted positions and could remove them at any moment. Too, the very mindset that has them seeking that sort of power is the kind of mindset that is often bent on taking it away from others.

If you want to talk to a spokesman to learn what cops really think, you need to ask the cop unions, not the police chiefs. The unions speak for the officers, not for the politicians.
 
Mike, I agree 100% except for where you clearly offer up Union leaders as though they are something different to the politicians they stand opposed to. Again, here we have another group of people who claim to speak for others. Union Leaders? Screw them. Simply ask the officers.

Ever wondered what happened to Arthur Scargil? Sitting in a multi-million pound home that is paid for by the Miners Union even to this day. Whilst his members have gone without. Smug, self serving a holes the lot of them. Asked recently if he thought that were fair, when all around is going to the dogs, he vehemently defended his right to have his home paid for by the Union, it is his right don't you know!
 
Ever wondered what happened to Arthur Scargil? Sitting in a multi-million pound home that is paid for by the Miners Union even to this day. Whilst his members have gone without. Smug, self serving a holes the lot of them. Asked recently if he thought that were fair, when all around is going to the dogs, he vehemently defended his right to have his home paid for by the Union, it is his right don't you know!
Oh yeah, the English miners situation was/is a fiasco. Cop unions in the US aren't typically like that though. Union officers come from, and return to, the rank-and-file, and don't enjoy the huge perks you are referring to.

Same in the airline pilot industry where I work. The union guys bust their asses and work WAY harder than the pilots flying the line, for the benefit of all of us (and, honestly, for the benefit of the airline as well, which historically has been grossly mismanaged by upper management tools), and typically serve for just a few years before returning to the line.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Not sure when we decided that police officers have some special insight on social policy, especially given their lower educational attainment, and higher levels of divorce, drug abuse, mental illness, alcoholism and suicide vis a vis the general population. Not taking anything away from the job that they do, but suggesting that men and women who deal with so much crap every day on the streets that they have the mental and abuse problems they do should be the bellweather for social policy decisions seems rather absurd to me.

But beyond that, there has been a fair amount of discussion about the PoliceOne poll over the last few days with some interesting points raised. It was a survey, mailed to retired and ative duty officers. Only those mailed back were counted. Thus only those who had a point to make -- i.e. that they did not support gun control -- probably responded.

But beyond that the idea that the line police officers' opinion matters but that of the chiefs and sheriffs who aren't out writing speeding tickets all day doesn't is just stupid.

And on that point, major US city police chiefs are behind stricter gun control because, it appears, they believe it will result in fewer dead officers and fewer dead citizens.

Interestingly enough, the major US sheriff's organization is not in favor, again highlighting the differing opinions of folks in the cities where guns are used frequently to commit crimes and violence versus the sticks where there is a stronger culture of hunting, shooting etc.

See here:

Police chiefs, sheriffs divided over gun control measures - U.S. News

The point is that the PEOPLE get to make social policy, not poilce officers. So while this study is interesting, holding it up as some end all be all on how we should deal with teh 310 million guns in the US and a gun death rate astronomically higher than in other western countries as Jim C. points out, is silly.
 
And on that point, major US city police chiefs are behind stricter gun control because, it appears, they believe it will result in fewer dead officers and fewer dead citizens.
Here in Chicago there is evidence of "opinion based off political appointment" with our Chief of police. You may know that conceal-carry is coming to Illinois soon, Chief Mccarthy has made comments on the topic saying "he will not train his officers to distinguish between criminals and civilians with guns". He as also made off comments about the second amendment.

It was clear from the beginning that Rahm Emanuel was never going appoint a strong second amendment advocate - something that he doesn't believe in.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
...from Mr. Young:

"Not sure when we decided that police officers have some special insight on social policy, especially given their lower educational attainment (that's rich! IOW, they're too DUMB to know what's going on?!), and higher levels of divorce, drug abuse, mental illness, alcoholism and suicide vis a vis the general population. Not taking anything away from the job that they do (of COURSE not! You're just suggesting they're all LOOOOZERS!), but suggesting that men and women who DEAL WITH SO MUCH CRAP EVERY DAY ON THE STREETS that they have the mental and abuse problems they do should be the bellweather for social policy decisions seems rather absurd to me (MORE marginalization!). (So again, the very people who actually DEAL WITH THIS STUFF on a daily basis are NOT [in your opinion] the people we should consult on the issue. We should instead consult some faaaaaaar lefty professor at Haaaaaaaaarvaaard, I suppose?)

But beyond that, there has been a fair amount of discussion about the PoliceOne poll over the last few days with some interesting points raised. It was a survey, mailed to retired and ative duty officers. Only those mailed back were counted. (Well, duh? Isn't that the case with any survey?) Thus only those who had a point to make -- i.e. that they did not support gun control -- probably responded. (Again - isn't it always the case that people "with a point to make" are the ones who respond?!)

But beyond that the idea that the line police officers' opinion matters but that of the chiefs and sheriffs who aren't out writing speeding tickets all day doesn't is just stupid ("stupid". Uuuuuh huh. Of course. Soooooo the guy who sits in a office all day knows as much or more about what's actually happening out on the street than the guys who see it face-to-face daily???)

And on that point, major US city police chiefs are behind stricter gun control because, it appears, they believe it will result in fewer dead officers and fewer dead citizens. (MORE do not see it that way.)

Interestingly enough, the major US sheriff's organization is not in favor, again highlighting the differing opinions of folks in the cities where guns are used frequently to commit crimes and violence versus the sticks where there is a stronger culture of hunting, shooting etc.

See here:

Police chiefs, sheriffs divided over gun control measures - U.S. News

The point is that the PEOPLE get to make social policy, not (police) officers. (Are "the people" the ones who decide whether this-or-that law is actually enforced on an incident-by-incident basis? Nope. It's the various LEOs who do that. And how many initiatives passed by "the people" ARE TOSSED ASIDE BY POLITICANS/JUDGES EVERY DAY???!) So while this study is interesting, holding it up as some end all be all on how we should deal with teh 310 million guns in the US and a GUN DEATH RATE astronomically higher than in other western countries as Jim C. points out, is silly."

"Silly"? Really. What about MURDER RATES - PERIOD - no matter by WHAT method??? Is there a difference in the degree of 'dead' between someone murdered with a gun and someone murdered with a knife? A bomb"? Poison? Strangulation? Or, to paraphrase Archie Bunker's stmt to his daughter Gloria: "Would yuz feel better lil' goyal if de wuz tossed outta windahs?"


Check out where we stand murder rate-wise vis-a-vis the world here:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Obviously, the statements typed in (RED) above are mine.
 
Last edited:
Top