Gun Laws

Eru

SteveS wrote:

I was trying to compare the percentage of police that were involved in unjustified shootings with the percentage of concealed carry permit holders that were found guilty of murder, manslaughter, etc.

The two cannot be compared, its chalk and cheese. Are you suggesting that CCW holders require their firearms even remotely as much as police officers? Again, remove your claim unless you can support it.

SteveS wrote:

show that concealed carry permit holders, as a group, were safe.

Fine but my point is people do not in general, need to carry firearms while shopping or socialising and such a thing is not nor do I believe it to be, in the interests of the Irish people.

SteveS wrote:

BTW, police are civilians in the US.

That just makes your original sentence even more baised. You were the one that alienated police officers with your imaginary statistic and false statement.

May I suggest you either prove your statement or the mods remove it as it is insulting to police officers worldwide.

Eru

farohar wrote:

rather differently than everyone else; in that to me it says that criminals misuse firearms less than the police forces do, in other words I read what it actually says.

All criminals that own guns are acting illegally, they are holding illegal guns. All armed robbers are commiting gun crime, etc, etc. How can you claim this?

farohar wrote:

As such I pointed out examples of police acting poorly and that they are just as fallable as the rest of us, those examples proving such.

Funny but according to law and this is a legal section, all those involved except 1 was cleared of any wrong doing. Please once again point out anywhere in your examples where a gun was used.

farohar wrote:

Then from the fact that in the US police are issued guns as standard, whereas criminals are not, of course they are going to have higher rates of gun misuse when they have higher rates of gun ownership.

Dear sweet jesus are you for real? Do you live on earth? How can you make an estimate of how many criminals own guns? They are illegal therefore not declared. I mean seriously, how can you stand over this?

farohar wrote:

Then I said if the statistics were restricted to criminals who owned a gun I'm sure they would've been as bad as the police.

wow, nice to know that the police commit more than or equal to 50% of all gun crime in the world isn't it? Again, can you support this?

Eru

Now for the reality,

Firearm ownership in America: 49% of households and 31% of adults (47,600,000 homes or 59,100,000 people)

Total US population: 295,734,134
Total police officers in US: 940,275

Police officer to civilian ratio: Approx 1 police officer to 315 civilians.

Murders (firearm only): 10,369
Assault (firearm only): 7,927,000

10% of police officers in the US are assaulted or killed by a criminal every year.

3% of civilians are killed or assaulted by a criminal.

33% of all convicted armed criminals were shot or arrested by civilians.

66% were arrested by police officers.

586,000 people were arrested for violent crimes.

If even all the police officers in America commited a gun crime it would still be less than 20% of gun crime.

Police officers are 3 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime.

Police officers are twice as likely to shoot an armed criminal as civilians.

I could not find any statistic of % for either police or civilians using legally held firearms to commit crime but I could not find a single homocide commited by a police officer on duty.

Victor

SteveS wrote:

Michigan, where I live, has some 300,000 permit holders. The last survey showed that less the .01% of the permit holders were charged with a crime and the rate of criminal misuse of a firearm was substantially less than that of the police.

In the last sentence criminal is an adjective, not a noun.

All it is saying is if you compare permit holders (not the general population or the population of systematic / career criminals) with police officers, the then permit holders committed fewer crimes.

And while, yes, police officers all over the world are subject to violence, they are much better trained to deal with it than ordinary citizens. They are also much better supported when then are victims.

Of course, many a time a police officer will overstep what is strictly necessary in making suspects compliant - the last arrest I was involved in had the garda threathen the suspect "Get out here, if I have to go there to get you, I'll batter you". Now the case was about two guys battering two other guys with cudgels, but the suspect was cornered, disarmed, outnumbered and indeed sheepish. The garda's statement was undertandable, but not acceptable.

Eru

My point Victor is you cannot compare someone who uses a firearm in actively combating crime with a person sitting at home or shopping. they dont compare.

Put it this way, how often will I face possible assault this weekend? How often will I use force? Now compare that to your neighbours.

If I go overboard once thats probable still only 10% of the time but your neighbour will use force once if even that in a bar fight. Its still leaving the ratio of 1 to 1. Hardly accurate is it?

Victor wrote:

All it is saying is if you compare permit holders (not the general population or the population of systematic / career criminals) with police officers, the then permit holders committed fewer crimes.

Compared to who? police officers? Wheres the evidence?

Victor wrote:

And while, yes, police officers all over the world are subject to violence, they are much better trained to deal with it than ordinary citizens. They are also much better supported when then are victims.

Last time I checked my body took a knife, bullet or glass the same as everyone elses and what brilliant training would you be talking about? As for support, are you kidding me or what? Again, what support?

Victor wrote:

the last arrest I was involved in had the garda threathen the suspect "Get out here, if I have to go there to get you, I'll batter you". Now the case was about two guys battering two other guys with cudgels, but the suspect was cornered, disarmed, outnumbered and indeed sheepish. The garda's statement was undertandable, but not acceptable.

If an armed suspect is in a corner or narrow walkway then I would find you very foolish to attempt to enter and effect arrest.

However I also find the fact that you claim to be a quantity surveyer strange, do quantity surveyors arrest people often?

Victor

The particular claim refers to Michigan, not Ireland. I don't have the statistics.

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

My point Victor is you cannot compare someone who uses a firearm in actively combating crime with a person sitting at home or shopping. they dont compare.

Put it this way, how often will I face possible assault this weekend? How often will I use force? Now compare that to your neighbours.

I accept that you or any garda is more likely to be faced with violence. However, you are less likely to have to face that violence alone compared to granny walking home on a quiet street. You are trained, granny is not. You have a baton and other resources, granny does not. You can get compensation if injured, granny will not.

If I go overboard once thats probable still only 10% of the time but your neighbour will use force once if even that in a bar fight. Its still leaving the ratio of 1 to 1. Hardly accurate is it?

It is accurate, I presume you mean to dispute the fairness. And as I said, some police violence is understandable, but not necessarily acceptable.

There was a case in the 1970s in Belfast where a loyalist threw an improvised bomb into a pub. It failed to go off properly and the pubs occupants chased him and beat him until the British Army arrived. The soldiers them beat him until the police arrived. The police them beat him (seeing a pattern? ). He was then handed over to a police doctor. The doctor did not beat him (pattern broken ).

Last time I checked my body took a knife, bullet or glass the same as everyone elses and what brilliant training would you be talking about? As for support, are you kidding me or what? Again, what support?

Granny will take any of those much worse because of her fragility. She has no baton, no radio, no back-up. No Garda Benvolent Fund or compensation.

If an armed suspect is in a corner or narrow walkway then I would find you very foolish to attempt to enter and effect arrest.

It was a driveway, 3 x 5m surrounded by a 2m fence / gate on three sides and a gate / wall on the other. 2 suspects, 8-10 garda. He had no way out.

However I also find the fact that you claim to be a quantity surveyer strange, do quantity surveyors arrest people often?

I have two citizens arrests and about another 8 garda arrested as witness / complainant.

Eru

Victor wrote:

The particular claim refers to Michigan, not Ireland. I don't have the statistics.I accept that you or any garda is more likely to be faced with violence. However, you are less likely to have to face that violence alone compared to granny walking home on a quiet street. You are trained, granny is not. You have a baton and other resources, granny does not. You can get compensation if injured, granny will not.

Why a granny? why not a fit mid 20's 6ft guy? Gardai in Dublin city centre do patrol alone, very often in fact so I am more likely to encounter violence alone than granny. I only have a baton, I dont have other defensive weapons at all however I can use my radio to summon assistance but a witness of granny can also dial 999.

Victor wrote:

There was a case in the 1970s in Belfast where a loyalist threw an improvised bomb into a pub. It failed to go off properly and the pubs occupants chased him and beat him until the British Army arrived. The soldiers them beat him until the police arrived. The police them beat him (seeing a pattern? ). He was then handed over to a police doctor. The doctor did not beat him (pattern broken ).

Im sorry I can only laugh at this story, I call that poetic justice and people say theres no community partnership with the police?

Victor wrote:

Granny will take any of those much worse because of her fragility. She has no baton, no radio, no back-up. No Garda Benvolent Fund or compensation.

Yes she can obtain compansation in much the same way as any victim of crime does. The attacker can be ordered by the court to pay compensation or she may have health/life insurance. I have not, nor will I recieve a penny from the benevolent fund just because I am injured, it doesnt work like that and any Garda claim would take years and only if a serious/permanent injury would I get anything more than a pat on the head.

Victor wrote:

It was a driveway, 3 x 5m surrounded by a 2m fence / gate on three sides and a gate / wall on the other. 2 suspects, 8-10 garda. He had no way out.

No difference, first man in could still get a knife, bottle or other into the face.

Victor wrote:

I have two citizens arrests and about another 8 garda arrested as witness / complainant.

Your a vigilante.

SteveS

Karlitosway1978, first of all, I owe you an apology. In regards to police v. CCW statistics, I had originally found it on a discussion thread that is no longer active. It is also too old to be the archive. GIven that I am unable to find even the original source material makes me skeptical as to whether it is genuine. Secondly, my intent was no to start a debate on the police. In my experience, these discussions seem to rank up there with abortion, religion, and politics, in terms of how nasty they can get. My goal was to demonstrate that CCW holders were a safe group (as are gun owners).

The two cannot be compared, its chalk and cheese. Are you suggesting that CCW holders require their firearms even remotely as much as police officers? Again, remove your claim unless you can support it.

I never claimed that CCW holders needed guns more than the police. All police are issued guns and it is not need based. It doesn't matter if you are in the NYPD SWAT team or a deputy in rural Bumfart, North Dakota. I have a friend whose dad was with the MI State Police for 25 years. In that time, he never shot anyone and only drew his gun on some one once. As far as I know, there are no stats comparing police gun use v. non-police gun use.

Fine but my point is people do not in general, need to carry firearms while shopping or socialising and such a thing is not nor do I believe it to be, in the interests of the Irish people.

Again, I never claimed to know what was best for the Irish, nor would I. I am not an Irish citizen. As for in the US, I have no problem with responsible, law-abiding citizens carrying anywhere. That is up to them and I am not going to assess their need.

Now for the reality,

I could not find any statistic of % for either police or civilians using legally held firearms to commit crime but I could not find a single homocide commited by a police officer on duty.

As for the reality, I will give you the benefit of the doubt in reagards to the stats you posted. As for CCW holders comitting crimes, if you go to the Michigan State Police site, you can follow the links to the years CCW reports and they list how many permits were issued and what crimes various holders were charged and convicted of. It is somewhat ponderous, since the number arrested and convicted reflects all permit holders, not just the ones from that year.

As for stats on crimes commited by police, there aren't any. I was able to find several studies from the 70's and early 80's, but that is pretty out of date. Despite a 1997 congressional mandate to track police shootings, the US DOJ has yet to get around to it.

You must not have looked very hard to find a police homicide. I did a search under "police shooting" and found some that were considered unjustified and some where the cop was convicted of murder. I live near the state capitol. It is a moderately sized city with a population of around 100,000. There was an incident back in the late 90's in which two officiers from the Capitol Police got into some kind of argument and ended up shooting and killing each other. Obviously, no charges were filed, but there are 2 homicides, though the person that shot last was likely justified.

Here are some more stats:

During the period of 1993 to 2001, where the US saw a huge rise in the number of CCW holders, the gun violence rate fell 63%. Some researchers claim that CCW is a reason for this. Even if it wasn't, there was not a rise in gun crime, despite there being a rise in the number of people carrying guns.

According to the US DOJ, only 6% of all violent crimes involve a firearm.



As for the whole police are not civilians, don't you think that does more to encourage an us v. them divisiveness? Again, it was not my goal to bash police or even start a discussion on various police actions and procedures. If you want to do this, start another thread.

Here in the US, the rank and file police have bee strong supporters of CCW. Prior to an update in the CCW law, police that wanted to carry off-duty had to go through same training as everyone else. I had several cops in my class and they were easy students and didn't really need that much instructions. The anti-gun groups have tried to convince the people thatpolice don't want CCW. There was a survey from The National Association of Chiefs of Police that said the following:
"Gun Control: With regard to private citizens owning firearms for sport or self-defense, 93.6 percent of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights. Ninety-six percent of the police chiefs and sheriffs believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources and 92.2 percent revealed they hadn't arrested anyone for violation of the so-called "waiting period" laws. When asked if citizens concealed-weapons permits would reduce violent crime, 63.1 percent said yes."
This article can be found at : http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=22621

As for gun control laws as a tool to fight or prevent crime, I would assert that they do not. A study was set up by the Clinton administration to study gun control measures and look at the research. The National Academy of Sciences looked at 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and a survey of 80 gun-control laws. They also conducted some of their own studies. This did this work over a ten year period. They could not find any evidence to support the conclusion that government restrictions on firearms reduces gun crime, gun violence and gun accidents.

Sparks

The National Academy of Sciences looked at 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and a survey of 80 gun-control laws. They also conducted some of their own studies. This did this work over a ten year period. They could not find any evidence to support the conclusion that government restrictions on firearms reduces gun crime, gun violence and gun accidents.

Likewise they found that there was no evidence to refute it either. They basicly said that no study done to date gave sufficient reputable evidence to make a decision for either side of the debate.

SteveS

Sparks wrote:

Likewise they found that there was no evidence to refute it either. They basicly said that no study done to date gave sufficient reputable evidence to make a decision for either side of the debate.

Well, I would have to say that a lack of any evidence supporting a claim is a strong case against people that say that gun control laws increase safety. It is kind of like a prosecutor saying "we couldn't prove that the defendant is guilty, but the defense hasn't proved that he is innocent."

Eru

Thats fair enough Steve, all I wanted was that remark washed away and you have graciously done so.

As for gun laws, one mans meat as they say. America and Ireland have different cultures so its not realistic to compare our laws as a shinning beacon to the US or vice versa. What works here could not be introduced in the US and likewise, gun laws here similar to teh US would not, in my opinion, be safe (too much booze ) hell, I wouldnt trust some of the guys I work with with a loaded gun!

SteveS

No problem...again, it was never my intention to malign police, nor suggest what Irish gun law should be. As for booze, there is plenty of that over here. Incidentally, in MI, you cannot carry and have hardly any alcohol in your body. I believe the limit is .02 BAC. Also, you cannot refuse a PBT. First offense is 90 days in jail + lose your permit for 7 years. I am not sure, but I believe second offense is a felony.

Victor

SteveS wrote:

I believe the limit is .02 BAC.

You guys calculate it slightly different, whats the drink drive limit on that scale?

Here its 80mg/100ml, if I have it right.

Victor

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Your a vigilante.

I take offence to that comment.

I'm a retired vigilante.

Eru

Victor wrote:

I'm a retired vigilante.

Getting old, those bones creaking yet?

SteveS

Victor wrote:

You guys calculate it slightly different, whats the drink drive limit on that scale?

Here its 80mg/100ml, if I have it right.

I am not exactly sure. IIRC, the BAC stands for blood alcohol content and it is g/100ml of blood. Most states have two levels of drunk driving. If you have a BAC of .10, then you will be charged with DUI (driving under the influence). If you have a BAC of .07, then you will be charged with impaired driving.

Victor

We would express that as "80" rather than ".08".

For other drugs its zero (even non-prescription, over the counter stuff) if impairment can be demonstrated.

Anyway, off-topic.