Lets talk about gun control

[FA_Q2]

Specifically, I want to address the idea that police are highly trained individuals who can be trusted with guns. To do this I will look specifically at NYPD because I just happen to have the numbers I need to actually make this discussion meaningful.

In order to get hired by NYPD you have to go through a process which involves multiple interviews, a background check, a psych eval, and a character assessment, then you have to take a test.

Requirements to Take the Written Examination

• Applicants must be at least 17 ½ years of age when taking exam.
• Applicant must not have reached their 35th birthday on day of exam.
• Those applicants who are 35 and over and have active United States military service may deduct up to six years from the age requirement.

Requirements to Be Hired:

• Candidates must be at least 21 years of age on or before the day of hire.
• Candidates must be a United States citizen on or before the day of hire.
• On or before the day of hire, candidates must have successfully completed either:
  1. Sixty (60) college credits with a 2.0 G.P.A. from an accredited college or university, or
  2. Two (2) years of full-time, active military service in the United States Armed Forces with an honorable discharge and have a high school's diploma or its equivalent.
• Thirty days following the date of hire, candidates must reside within the five (5) boroughs of New York City and the surrounding counties
• Thirty days following the date of hire, candidates must possess a valid New York State Driver's License
• Candidates must pay a $75.00 fee for fingerprinting as part of the investigation process.
• Candidates must pass a drug/alcohol screening.
• Candidates must pass a character and background investigation.

The following factors are some of those which would be cause for disqualification:

• Any conviction of an offense which is punishable by one or more years imprisonment (felony).
• Any repeated convictions of an offense which indicate a disrespect for the law, a lack of good moral character or disposition towards violence and disorder.
• Discharge from employment, where such discharge indicates poor behavior and/or an inability adjusting to discipline.
• A Dishonorable discharge from the armed forces.
• Persons convicted of a petit larceny.
• Persons convicted of any domestic violence offense.
• Candidates must pass all medical, physical, written psychological and oral psychological examinations.

Exam & Employment Requirements | NYPDRECRUIT.COM

After that, you get to go to school which includes a special course in firearms and tactics. After all of this you are fully qualified to carry a gun in New York, and be exempted from all firearms laws that apply to people who haven't been through that training.

That should, at least, make people safe, unless you happen to be a criminal.

So, just how qualified are the police in NYC to draw a gun?

Officers in Bronx Fire 41 Shots, And an Unarmed Man Is Killed - New York Times

Forty one shots, one dead body. Must be an outlier.

Woman sues NYPD over Empire State shooting - CBS News

Much better, 16 shots, 9 innocent bystanders, and 1 suspect, hit.

Just how good is the NYPD at hitting what it is aiming at? Remember where I said I had numbers? I love these numbers.

People hit by NYPD gunfire: 30

People killed by NYPD gunfire: 16

People shot by the NYPD accidentally (bystanders or accidental discharge): 14

Total rounds fired by NYPD: 331

Total rounds fired during one incident in Washington Heights: 84

Officers shot: 13

Officers killed in shootings: 0

Officers who killed themselves with NYPD guns: 8

Dogs shot by NYPD: 24

Police Shootings by the Numbers, 2012 Edition -- Daily Intelligencer

In 2012 NYPD fired 331 shots, hit 24 dogs, 16 people they were aiming at, 14 people who were in the way or as the result of an accidental discharge of a police weapon, and all this happened while only 1 officer actually violated weapons policy.

(Did that 1 guy shoot all 14 people, or is NYPD policy actually include accidentally shooting the wrong person? Sorry, another topic entirely, this thread is about gun control.)

What I don't get is why people keep telling me that I am safer with the police have all the guns than letting the crazy guy next door, who hasn't actually shot anybody, have a gun.

No matter where you find yourself there are the good and the bad, Angels and Demon's if you will. No place, no group is exempt or immune. I live in NYC and have known both good and bad cops. I'm a non gun owning lifetime member of the NRA, and support the rights of self defense and the rights to bear arms. What in life is without risk or consequence? When the intent is both keeping the peace and preserving justice, where is the problem?

Irrelevant. The contention is not that there are bad cops but that cops are not necessarily safer than citizen gun owners and the numbers seem to bear that out given that it seems they only hot the intended target half the time.

It speaks to those that think we should limit a right by demanding training and other requirements in order to exercise that right. Such requirements are garbage if you cannot show they would actually make gun ownership safer and I don't think you can show such to be true.
Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Delta4Embassy]

'Gun control' is a bit of a misnomer. With over 300 million firearms in private hands, you could ban all new weapons sales overnight and not actually effect gun violence. Short of such a total ban AND confiscation of existing weapons, we're always going to have the problem until we face what really causes violence and quit pretending like we don't have a clue.

Sexual repression = violence

 

[Steven_R]

So maybe it's time to start talking about training for average citizens. Guns are freely available, every American has a right to own and use them, so why not start teaching gun safety and marksmanship in schools or require police departments to set up citizen training classes?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Anything that puts rounds on target and not on innocent bystanders has my support. Said in another thread properly conducted combat shooting should be required for CCW permits. Not as pressing for home defense ownership, but if you wanna carry in public I'd very much like to make sure you've been taught how to shoot accurately even pumped up on adrenaline.

 

[KGB]

So maybe it's time to start talking about training for average citizens. Guns are freely available, every American has a right to own and use them, so why not start teaching gun safety and marksmanship in schools or require police departments to set up citizen training classes?

gun safety & proper use should be required part of the education curriculum. If kids are exposed to proper safety earlier on, they would have a healthier appreciation for weapons & the harm they can do.

 

[KGB]

Anything that puts rounds on target and not on innocent bystanders has my support. Said in another thread properly conducted combat shooting should be required for CCW permits. Not as pressing for home defense ownership, but if you wanna carry in public I'd very much like to make sure you've been taught how to shoot accurately even pumped up on adrenaline.

which is why you start this in the school system.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I wouldn't support training in public schools. Too militant. We should be raising kids to seek peaceful solutions to problems, not training them how to deploy a weapons system.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

What I don't get is why people keep telling me that I am safer with the police have all the guns than letting the crazy guy next door, who hasn't actually shot anybody, have a gun.

[B]You get a lot of police officers from the military and they are trained to be hyper or they are hyper for some reason.[/B] This is the wrong mix to put in with civilians who are not hyper.

We're just stuck in the crossfire.

I have to ask this, let me guess, you're not prior military, huh? Quite the opposite, we are trained not to be hyper, we are trained to maintain our composure. Otherwise, you lose your ability to think under pressure and you sure as hell are going to hit any target you are trying to aim at.

Add to that how current military members are operating under a ROE more limited than the NYPD anyway....almost to the point of not being able to shoot back until you have already BEEN shot (slight exaggeration, but not much).

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Reason for the rules of engagement in Afganistan is their gun culture is even more pronounced than our's. So because just about every man will have a weapon, waiting until they actually take a shot at you prevents a lot of innocent casualties.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Reason for the rules of engagement in Afganistan is their gun culture is even more pronounced than our's. So because just about every man will have a weapon, waiting until they actually take a shot at you prevents a lot of innocent casualties.

Absolutely wrong. Tthe reason we have such restrictive ROE is because we have liberal politician wanks who don't have a clue how to wage war, and a populace who doesn't have the stomach for it either.

 

[westwall]

Anything that puts rounds on target and not on innocent bystanders has my support. Said in another thread properly conducted combat shooting should be required for CCW permits. Not as pressing for home defense ownership, but if you wanna carry in public I'd very much like to make sure you've been taught how to shoot accurately even pumped up on adrenaline.

I agree with you on this. It should likewise be mandatory for all peace officers as well.

 

[Iceweasel]

Anything that puts rounds on target and not on innocent bystanders has my support. Said in another thread properly conducted combat shooting should be required for CCW permits. Not as pressing for home defense ownership, but if you wanna carry in public I'd very much like to make sure you've been taught how to shoot accurately even pumped up on adrenaline.

And I don't care about making people like you feel good. This is a shall issue state, even as liberal as it is. There is no problem with bystanders getting mowed down, people aren't having quick draw contests in the mall. Your emotional state of mind should not rule out anothers' right to defend his or hers or family's life.

Training is always good but mandatory training makes it a state privelge and I don't trust the state. The fact is that crime has gone down where CCW's have been loosened and I've seen no evidence that innocent lives lost have been the result.

 

[JenT]

I simply can't believe anyone would actually take the guns away from those who legally pursue them.

 

[FA_Q2]

Anything that puts rounds on target and not on innocent bystanders has my support. Said in another thread properly conducted combat shooting should be required for CCW permits. Not as pressing for home defense ownership, but if you wanna carry in public I'd very much like to make sure you've been taught how to shoot accurately even pumped up on adrenaline.

And I don't care about making people like you feel good. This is a shall issue state, even as liberal as it is. There is no problem with bystanders getting mowed down, people aren't having quick draw contests in the mall. Your emotional state of mind should not rule out anothers' right to defend his or hers or family's life.

Training is always good but mandatory training makes it a state privelge and I don't trust the state. The fact is that crime has gone down where CCW's have been loosened and I've seen no evidence that innocent lives lost have been the result.

And that its the entire point of the thread. I notice that even though the OP points out evidence showing that training does not necessarily equate to better results, the more reductions croud have not bothered to address that and just declared that it should be so.

That is always the core problem with gun control advocates, evidence is not required when your stance is based on an emotional response.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[KGB]

I wouldn't support training in public schools. Too militant. We should be raising kids to seek peaceful solutions to problems, not training them how to deploy a weapons system.

We have kids now shooting up schools without the training. This never happened before with such seemingly regularity. My proposal isn't about militancy, it's about proper respect & accountability for something that requires it. Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is part of the fabric of our culture & society. It is utterly foolish to ignore it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anything that puts rounds on target and not on innocent bystanders has my support. Said in another thread properly conducted combat shooting should be required for CCW permits. Not as pressing for home defense ownership, but if you wanna carry in public I'd very much like to make sure you've been taught how to shoot accurately even pumped up on adrenaline.

And I don't care about making people like you feel good. This is a shall issue state, even as liberal as it is. There is no problem with bystanders getting mowed down, people aren't having quick draw contests in the mall. Your emotional state of mind should not rule out anothers' right to defend his or hers or family's life.

Training is always good but mandatory training makes it a state privelge and I don't trust the state. The fact is that crime has gone down where CCW's have been loosened and I've seen no evidence that innocent lives lost have been the result.

And this is an example of the sloppy, ill-considered ‘reasoning’ that makes Second Amendment advocates look ridiculous.

The issue has nothing to do with ‘state privilege’ or ‘trusting the state.’

The issue only concerns compelling advocates of a given gun control measure to justify and support that advocacy with objective, documented facts and evidence.

And absent that evidence, disallow such measures to be put into place.

Period.

What you’ll find is there is indeed no objective, documented facts and evidence that justifies such measures as gun permits and licenses, gun registration, purchase restrictions and waiting periods, or bans on firearms for purely cosmetic reasons as well as magazine design and capacity.

The only thing that matters is what can be proven in court; or in the case of most gun control measures, what can’t be proven.

 

[Iceweasel]

Anything that puts rounds on target and not on innocent bystanders has my support. Said in another thread properly conducted combat shooting should be required for CCW permits. Not as pressing for home defense ownership, but if you wanna carry in public I'd very much like to make sure you've been taught how to shoot accurately even pumped up on adrenaline.

And I don't care about making people like you feel good. This is a shall issue state, even as liberal as it is. There is no problem with bystanders getting mowed down, people aren't having quick draw contests in the mall. Your emotional state of mind should not rule out anothers' right to defend his or hers or family's life.

Training is always good but mandatory training makes it a state privelge and I don't trust the state. The fact is that crime has gone down where CCW's have been loosened and I've seen no evidence that innocent lives lost have been the result.

And this is an example of the sloppy, ill-considered ‘reasoning’ that makes Second Amendment advocates look ridiculous.

Arrogance makes you look smart and right? Guess again.

The issue has nothing to do with ‘state privilege’ or ‘trusting the state.’

The issue only concerns compelling advocates of a given gun control measure to justify and support that advocacy with objective, documented facts and evidence.

And absent that evidence, disallow such measures to be put into place.

Period.

What you’ll find is there is indeed no objective, documented facts and evidence that justifies such measures as gun permits and licenses, gun registration, purchase restrictions and waiting periods, or bans on firearms for purely cosmetic reasons as well as magazine design and capacity.

The only thing that matters is what can be proven in court; or in the case of most gun control measures, what can’t be proven.

No, what matters is reality. The reality is that all but about two states do have permitting for carry weapons. Arrogance and insults won't change it and it puts you out in the fringe league. One that has zero hope for any change, except perhaps making it worse, like the open carry zealots.

I have no problem with shall issue for CCW because it does offer the state a chance to look at your background and there are a lot of whackjobs I wouldn't want carrying. The law may not stop it but we don't need to enable it either.

Since you are in the minority to the extreme I'll let others decide on whose thinking is sloppy and ill considered.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

And I don't care about making people like you feel good. This is a shall issue state, even as liberal as it is. There is no problem with bystanders getting mowed down, people aren't having quick draw contests in the mall. Your emotional state of mind should not rule out anothers' right to defend his or hers or family's life.

Training is always good but mandatory training makes it a state privelge and I don't trust the state. The fact is that crime has gone down where CCW's have been loosened and I've seen no evidence that innocent lives lost have been the result.

And this is an example of the sloppy, ill-considered ‘reasoning’ that makes Second Amendment advocates look ridiculous.

The issue has nothing to do with ‘state privilege’ or ‘trusting the state.’

The issue only concerns compelling advocates of a given gun control measure to justify and support that advocacy with objective, documented facts and evidence.

And absent that evidence, disallow such measures to be put into place.

Period.

What you’ll find is there is indeed no objective, documented facts and evidence that justifies such measures as gun permits and licenses, gun registration, purchase restrictions and waiting periods, or bans on firearms for purely cosmetic reasons as well as magazine design and capacity.

The only thing that matters is what can be proven in court; or in the case of most gun control measures, what can’t be proven.

Where is the sloppiness? I think he made three points:

1) Despite the gun-grabber's hysterical predictions, we have not seen ma ssive shoot-outs between CCW holders resulting in carnage to bystanders.

2) Any "requirements" outlined in law (mandatory training) can be expanded by regulation to be overly burdensome. For example, New Jersey has CCW, but you have to show a cause (ie: get permission") from the sheriff or city police. This is not necessarily a horrible law....except for how the LE agencies are handling it - - - they don't give anybody (but their friends) this permission. The same could go with training. If training becomes a requirement, then who gets to outline the training? In my state there is an 8 hour training class with a live-fire component, but this training is outlined in the state law. What is to keep the gun-grabbers from turning this into an 80 hour training class? You know they would if they could.... and

3) He said that violent crime has gone down where concealed carry laws have been loosened. True story!

Where is the "sloppy, ill-considered reasoning"??

Lastly - Courts don't care about proof, or facts. Our judicial system is simply set up to find out who presents the best arguments. While sometimes facts are part of the arguments, cognitive/logical arguments are most often beaten out by emotional appeal.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Sure never thought I would hear this from a Detroit police chief. Statements like this give me hope that we are turning things around. Detroit may just have hit rock bottom and be starting to climb it's way out of the hole it's dug itself.

Detroit police chief James Craig says more citizens should be armed | Fox News

 

[Iceweasel]

Where is the sloppiness? I think he made three points:

1) Despite the gun-grabber's hysterical predictions, we have not seen ma ssive shoot-outs between CCW holders resulting in carnage to bystanders.

I made that point earlier yesterday.

2) Any "requirements" outlined in law (mandatory training) can be expanded by regulation to be overly burdensome. For example, New Jersey has CCW, but you have to show a cause (ie: get permission") from the sheriff or city police. This is not necessarily a horrible law....except for how the LE agencies are handling it - - - they don't give anybody (but their friends) this permission. The same could go with training. If training becomes a requirement, then who gets to outline the training? In my state there is an 8 hour training class with a live-fire component, but this training is outlined in the state law. What is to keep the gun-grabbers from turning this into an 80 hour training class? You know they would if they could.... and

I made that point earlier yesterday.

3) He said that violent crime has gone down where concealed carry laws have been loosened. True story!

I made that point earlier yesterday.

Where is the "sloppy, ill-considered reasoning"??

Lastly - Courts don't care about proof, or facts. Our judicial system is simply set up to find out who presents the best arguments. While sometimes facts are part of the arguments, cognitive/logical arguments are most often beaten out by emotional appeal.

He responded to that and said it was sloppy and ill considered.

THEN he went on to say "What you’ll find is there is indeed no objective, documented facts and evidence that justifies such measures as gun permits and licenses, gun registration, purchase restrictions and waiting periods, or bans on firearms for purely cosmetic reasons as well as magazine design and capacity."


The Constitution doesn't say anything about NOT letting 10 year old's run around armed either. Or the insane, etc. It was left up to the state since it isn't spelled out and you won't find much support in letting either of those examples be armed. So the state clearly can play a role and like I said (earlier yesterday) shall issue doesn't violate the Constitution.

If one wants to argue that no state should regulate firearms at all, you will get nothing but laughs from left, right and center with zero chance of getting closer to your goal.