Civilian Concealed Carry

[Irish]

Here in Ohio Gov. Taft, while running for office, said he was in favor of allowing civilians to carry concealed weapons. Now he is crayfishing. He has said recently that he will sign no such legislation, and cites his reasoning on the basis that the FOP and Assoc. of Chiefs of Police are against any such legislation.

What I would like to know is if the states that allow civilains to carry cancealed weapons have had any flux in their crime rates because of the law.

I also would like opinions from around the country on this. Personally I haven't made up my mind yet either way. On one hand I think our present laws are sufficient but on the other hand it seems that so many people carry a gun now that legalizing CCW wouldn't matter.

Is it me or does this topic parallel marijuana laws?

[dkiefner]

Vermont is the only state that permits CCW without permit, and well, our LOW crime rate speaks for itself. http://www.officer.com/ubb/cool.gif

I frequent a BB for firearms enthusiasts, and have heard many bemoaning the state of affairs in Ohio. http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Since yorec mentions it below, and I neglected to do so, it is indeed The Firing Line. It should be back on its usual address shortly. Please visit - over 5000 members strong and growing daily. www.thefiringline.com (http://www.thefiringline.com)

My personal opinion is that armed society is polite society. There are already mucho laws on the books that are not enforced, and enacting more legislation will not help the incidence of firearms-related crime.


------------------
Dave Kiefner
[i]Die Wahrheit ist eine Perle. Werfen sie nicht vor die S

[KenM]

My opinion is that the crooks already have their guns. They are not going to wait for or apply for a permit to carry or the right to carry. We have a CCW program in Texas and the permittee is required by law to show their permit when they are stopped by an LEO. I always figured that if the person went to the trouble to apply for the permit, passed the background and the qualification course I really don't have to worry about him/her. We've had more than one incident where an armed CCW (called CHL here) has assisted us. I personally am all for it.

[John from Maryland]

I would be in favor of a concealed carry law assuming background checks were comprehensive and realistic training standards were met. I am unaware of any problems resulting from Virgina's concealed carry law. Be safe.

[yorec]

I am very much in favor of civilian CCW. I live on the border next to Utah and, despite being a LEO in Wyoming, it would be illlegal to carry in Utah. I'm a civilian there and unless some kind of law is passed allowing officers from different states to carry in other states, (unlikely) I need to get a civilian CCW to be armed when in Utah.

I also have a friend (WHP) who was severely cut on the neck during a traffic stop. (The bad guys just over whelmed him and pulled out a knife........) Passing, armed civilians were all that saved his life. Civillian assistance is a common occurance here where the deer and the antelope play.

Maybe you should post this on some other BB if you want a large response. The Firing Line is a good place with thousands of reqistered users. You won't get purely law enforcement opinion, but then again-there's no way to know which people are really LEOs on this board either.

TFL is temporarily at: http://204.235.96.21/cgibin/Ultimate.cgi

They are busy changing location again - upadating due to the number of active users.

[GDenman]

Here in Texas we have always had a right to carry a rifle or shotgun just about anywheres. When the Concealed Handgun License was proposed, I was not all that for it. My opinion was: If they're packing, they're a bad guy. It seemed to me it would be easier dealing with the situation, whatever it was, if the one with the gun was considered a bad guy until it was all sorted out. But it hasn't been bad at all. We (our town) haven't had one incident involving a licensed handgun carrier. There have been a couple across the State but I don't think any of them were in the wrong. I don't have any problem with it now. Of course, it hasn't done anything to take guns away from the bad guys and I really don't see any reduction in crime. But it hasn't hurt us yet either.

[radar]

North Carolina has had carry by permit for a couple of years now. First 2 things noticed were the doors were not kicked in to obtain them and there have been no high noon shootouts or mass vigilantism as advertised.

[Niteshift]

A lot of the states model their CCF law on Florida's. We've had "shall-issue" permits for over 10 years. The results are good. Not only has crime dropped since then, but the permit holders have shown themselves to be very responsible. It is really easy to lose your permit, but our revocation rate is less that 1/2 %. Show me another state license that has a revocation rate that low! Certainly not drivers licenses!

Like someone said above, the licensees go through a lot of stuff and pay good money to get the permit. They are, by and large, responsible, mature people. Since it is legal in FL to carry a loaded gun in your car without a permit, we didn't see a huge increase. FL has issued around 300,000 permits. This number includes residents of other states, since our requirement is only to be a legal resident of the US. Last year, we started to recognize permits from a number of other states as well.

Overall, I think it is a success. Prior to the state-wide "shall-issue" permits, it was on a county by county basis, and then good only in that county. That sucked. There have even been a few cases in which legally armed citizens have helped LE, even saved them.

I support it. Always have.

[Dave T]

Radar,

Leave an e-mail address or drop me an e-mail at five_0_dpd@yahoo.com. As a fellow NC LEO I am always interested in exchanging ideas with one of my "brothers".
Dave

Originally posted by radar:
North Carolina has had carry by permit for a couple of years now. First 2 things noticed were the doors were not kicked in to obtain them and there have been no high noon shootouts or mass vigilantism as advertised.

[king310]

In Iowa the ccw are issued by the sheriff! if you are not politicaly connected you can forget it. As a correctional officer and have to recieve the same training as any other leo in the state I am Still not allowed to carry unless I'm on the clock?
The sheriff will still not issue under professional permit!
IOWA CONCEALED GUN PERMIT STINKS!
http://www.officer.com/ubb/frown.gif



[This message has been edited by king310 (edited 04-20-2000).]

[TLH]

Hi, first time post. Indiana has had a "Shall Permit" for years (at least 30). It
was rather messed up for years. The State Police required a letter of "need" and they made the decision. They were sued and now the "shall issue" is applied.
I have been a LEO for 23 yrs. I encounter armed persons here every day. I have NEVER had a problem with any of these people. I have arrested some people that had CCW permits for offenses un-related to weapons and never had a problem with any of them.

I have had occasion where armed civilians have offered assistance a couple times. I am a strong Second Amendment supporter and becoming more so every day I hear the junk from the media.

I do understand the requirement of states to require a permit as opposed to a badge. As much as I dislike to admit it. Getting a badge, if politically connected isn't hard at all. I also moan the fact that Kentucky
(my next door neighbor)had the good sense to require mandated training. Indiana started issuing back when common sense and some weapons knowledge was taken for granted ....
NOT always the case today. (Probably wasn't back then either but what can you say)

[Marko]

I don't think there is any valid reason for a civilian to carry a concealed weapon. It should be an offence to do so, punishable by serious jail time. As a Police officer I don't like the idea of any offenders, I have the misfortune to deal with, to be carrying a firearm. Guns are out of control in the US. Allowing the general public to be "tooled up" is one retrograde step.

[Niteshift]

A responsible citizen should npt have the right to defend himself against those who would break the law in the first place? If I could guarantee 100% safety to the population, I'd agree with you Marko, until then, I think they deserve the right to defend themselves when using proper and legal means.

One incident that prompted Florida to pass our "shall issue" law was when a police officer (Melbourne PD if I remember correctly) was pinned down by gun fire and was rescued by a citizen who had a gun in his truck. His actions saved that officers life and because of his ability to carry a gun, there is one less name on the memorial wall.


[This message has been edited by Niteshift (edited 04-29-2000).]

[dkiefner]

I agree, Niteshift. Marko, guns are NOT out of control here - criminals are.

Niteshift's example is but one of many. If you see my earlier post in this thread, you will see that I live in Vermont, and we have the least restrictive firearms laws in the USA, and one of the lowest rates of homicide and other firearms-related crime.

In another forum, we have a running discussion on coincidence. Is this one here? Perhaps. Perhaps it is also because people here are more responsible with firearms. Think it is another coincidence that the places with the most restrictive laws have some of the highest rates of firearms-related crime? Did you see the London Times article in January of this year that stated that violent crime rates have risen in GB since the enactiment of some knee-jerk legislation by Parliament?

People have had ready access to firearms for at least a couple of centuries. Why is it that there is deemed to be such a problem with them now?

Stay safe all.

------------------
Dave Kiefner
[i]Die Wahrheit ist eine Perle. Werfen sie nicht vor die S

[John from Maryland]

Marko, the problem is not with citizens carrying weapons under lawful permit. These individuals have undergone a background check and, depending upon the state, some degree of training.
The majority of the crimes you read about are committed by people carrying weapons illegally, often with weapons they are prohibited from owning. It is rare for a citizen with a CCW permit to be arrested.
Many of the states with liberal CCW permit systems have experienced a decreased crime rate. While trends such as this are almost impossible to quantify exactly, there is evidence that lawfully armed citizens have proven a deterrent to crime.
There have been claims that the crime rate in Australia, especially burglary and violent crime, has increased since severe restrictions were placed on firearms. Could you offer any views on that? I am also intrigued how those in isolated areas or those in high risk professions protect themselves.
Thanks and be safe.

[Badgeman]

Before we got concealed carry in Texas the police organizations were predicting running gun battles on the freeways...cops getting gunned down etc.. Well it did not happen. Crime went down... at the time they inacted it we had a big problem with carjacking.. once a couple of those got shot it became almost nonexistant, hard to make a direct comparison but I think it was the reason. No running gun battle or gunning down cops..

[THE BRONZE]

Marko, while you're correct about the crime rate being out of control, your're off base fearing armed citizens. Of all the concealed carry permit holders I have encountered, none have been less than a pleasure to deal with. I have encountered several in traffic stops, and all of have complied with the requirement of notifying me they were armed.
With all the thugs and the shortage of police, I feel anybody who goes to the trouble of qualifying and meets the requirements set out by the law should have the right to defend themselves.



------------------
Jim

[David]

Marko,
I can see that you have not had your *** pined aainst a wall by a bad guy and been assisted by a civilian in cutting the ***-kickin' to a minimum amount of bruises and abbraisions. I have.
The paperwork done back in Colonial times made sure that a person should be able to defend themselves up to and encluding killing in self defense.
It would not bother me in the least to stop 100 civilians a night who had a gun permit if it was for the good of mankind that he toted it. These are NOT BADGUYS. Only Clinton and his groupies are shouting this. When the Chief Association came out in favor of no guns they almost lost their charter because of the uproar.
Give me a gun toting civilian ver. a crook anyday! Remember the crook will have one whether the civilian populance does or not. In fact, they declare a holiday whenever they hear about a jurisdiction tells their population that they don't need a gun to be protected. That's why they have a cop to every thousand or so civilians. And the idiots believe this !
That's the mental level I cannot, for the life of me, swallow. How can people be so ignorant??
Example...
A year or two back, a lady's residence (apartment), was being broke into. She called the police and stayed on the line while the 911 operator was telling her help was on the way. 911 heard her give a running, step by step play action, of what occurred from when they told the lady to take the phone into the bathroom and lock the door.
Everyone got to hear all about her wanting a gun but because of the impression that she lived in a nice neighborhood with active patrol and the guns being a threat to some child getting hold of one, she decided against the purchase.
I wonder how many times she regretted the decision, while he invaded her apartment, broke down the bathroom door, and beat and stabbed her to death...
In my home, at any given time you will find, at least, four loaded and fully operational weapons; my duty, my back-up, my wife's and one in a fake picture, in the hall
I raised 2 children with the same set up. The weapons were not hidden, out of their way. The kids knew the guns were where they were, except the picture, and they knew they were fully loaded.
If kids were taught that at home you would not hear about a kid getting killed accidently or not at home. This occurs maybe one/three times a year out of a population of a billion +/-?
Once is too much, granted, but not the 'end of the world' the gun activists would have you believe. Accidents happen, it's a fact of life.
I'm sure the Indians had an occassional accidents with bows & arrows. Don't you think if the whites could get them to turn in the weapons to keep accidents, like they must have had from occurring, they would have done just that? As silly as that sounds, our policy of 'gun control' is basically the same.
As long as our households are armed, the 'indian attacks' will be kept to a minumim. In Riverdale, Ga. we have been experiencing breakins where b/m's kick in the front door and, with guns drawn, rob the inhabitants of everything that can be grabbed in a few minutes, then run away. In and out in 3 to 5 minutes.
How can you respond and capture felons such as that? You can't. That occurred on one occassion where the family was afraid of it being done to them so they kept a shotgun in the living room and sure enough it happened.
When the 3 guys came in screaming to get on the floor, they were ****ing in their pants as they ran back out of the door, at the sound of a shotgun going off behind them.
The crooks did not hit for over 3 months following the incident. Moral? It took awhile for them to find their balls and courage, at least enough to try their trademark again. If law abiding citizens have the means to protect themselves, there will be a lower crime rate.
Remember my story about Kennasaw, Ga. They still have pratically no burglaries or breakins when premises are occupied or a vehicle is in the driveway...I wonder why?
WHEN EVERYONE IS UNARMED ONLY THE CROOKS WILL HAVE GUNS> Marko, if you are a street cop, I can't believe you would have such a naive attitude on the populance being allowed to protect themselves...and you maybe sometime, you just never know. http://www.officer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif :O

[Rob]

Alright, I'm not yet an LEO so I probably shouldn't post here. BUT...I have to jump in on this one.

Marko, you must be one of those cops that stand behind Clinton everytime he annouces a push for new gun control. Let me get this straight...you think that a honest, law abiding citizen has no valid reason to protect themselvs and/or their family outside of the home? Do you carry off duty??

[Niteshift]

Those cops you saw standing behind Bill were ORDERED to be there. Most did not agree with the new law.

Survey after survey shows that around 80% of the cops support citizens rights to be armed. For once in my life, I'm not a minority.

[Dilbert]

I think that a well run CCW program like in Florida and Texas is just fine. Require background checks and training. I have nothing to fear from a law-abiding citizen, armed or not. I have everything to fear from a criminal, armed or not. I hope that every officer when dealing with anyone in the field considers the possibility that the person might be armed and takes proper steps. If you are prepared then you can deal with the surprises that come your way.


I had heard this and maybe someone from Florida can tell me if this is correct. Back several yrs ago in Florida they were having lots of problems with tourists getting car-jacked and killed in their rental cars. Crooks were targeting the tourists because they knew that since they were from out of state or country that they would not be armed, and hence make a easy score for them.
Just something to think about.
Everybody be careful today!!

[radar]

Marko must be kin to Groucho and Harpo!!

[Sparky]

Law abiding citizens should carry firearms early and often!

I'm not afraid of the guy with a permit who is carrying a weapon for the purpose of defending himself or others.

I worry about the guy without the permit who carries a gun to victimize people.

Guns don't cause violence. It really scares me that some governments do not trust thier citizens enough to possess firearms yet they trust them enough to VOTE!

The FOP on the national level is screwed up. Their anti-gun policies and kow-towing to RKBA opponents is what keeps me from joining the FOP.

If a population is not armed, they are not truly free. And law abiding people should have the right to protect themselves and their loved ones from those that would harm them.

------------------
-Sparky
Fiat justina.

[Niteshift]

Dilbert, you're right on the money about FL.
That's part of the reason that FL is one of the states that does not require you be a resident of the state, only a legal resident of the US. Further, last year we started recognizing permits from several other states. Like I said, we've issued over 300,000 permits with less than 2/10th of a percent revocation rate. Show me another license that has that good of a rate of compliance. And it's darned easy to lose your carry permit.

[Dilbert]

Niteshift,
The last solid number that I saw for Florida's revocation rate was 7. That was 7 permits total. This number is at least 5 yrs old. I remember seeing it in either American Rifleman or Guns & Ammo.

[Patrick]

I totally agree with what Nightshift said 100%
I couldn't of said it better! http://www.officer.com/ubb/smile.gif

Patrick


------------------
*************************
Stay Safe!
*************************

[POINTERCOP]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Irish:

What I would like to know is if the states that allow civilains to carry cancealed weapons have had any flux in their crime rates because of the law.

I also would like opinions from around the country on this. Personally I haven't made up my mind yet either way. On one hand I think our present laws are sufficient but on the other hand it seems that so many people carry a gun now that legalizing CCW wouldn't matter.

I am a 30 year cop and a Life Member of the NRA. I am a very strong proponent of 2nd Ammendment rights and I teach in the CCW classes held here.

For answers to your questions, read the book
MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws by John R. Lott, Jr. Lott teaches criminal deterrence and law and economics at the University of Chicago where he is the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow. Quote page 159: "However, nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime." Lott testified before the Congress during the Juvenile Crime Bill hearings and indicated with charts the dramatic drop in violent crime in states which have adopted CCW. Facts...plain facts.

[Niteshift]

Another thing to keep in mind; Professor Lott was in favor of gun control and initially started his study to prove his case. He found out, through cold hard facts, that he was wrong.

[Marko]

I get the message. Too many guns in the USA so everyone should have one (or two). Excuse my sarcasm but it is difficult for a person who lives in a country like Australia to come to grips with the American passion for guns and more guns. Is membership to the NRA compulsory over there ? Do members actually believe the propaganda that the NRA puts out ?
Fact. Australians do not live in fear of being raped, robbed or murdered.
Fact. 98% of Australians support the gun laws.
No, I do not carry a gun off duty. I am not a cowboy and I do not believe it is necessary to carry a gun if I am not at work.
I understand that if you are not a gun lover in the US then you are considered to be weird. Well, that is Australia, 98% weird.

------------------

[7@NGHS]

FACT! Americans do not live in fear of being raped or robbed. Just the tyrrany and stupidity that surrounds the world.

[THE BRONZE]

Hey Marko, what would someone in your country use for protection if someone were to break into their home in the middle of the night? I know Australia still has burglars.

[Niteshift]

Marko,

What you are failing to realize is something that the pro-pot types are failing to realize. What works in one country isn't always going to work elsewhere.

We have millions of guns in this country. They will not magicly vanish with the stroke of a pen. It is a reality we must deal with. Taking guns from law-abiding citizens will not solve the problem of crime. It is no different that you having a gas leak in your house, so they come and take the matches out of mine. Didn't solve the problem.

Just because you don't carry off duty, don't label us as cowboys because we do. We are in completely different worlds. Do you even have the right to carry off duty? Does your legal system allow someone to sue you for not taking action, even though you were off-duty? One of my shootings was off-duty and I'm damn glad I had my gun. If carrying a gun off-duty makes me a cowboy, well then yippe-ky-yeaaah.......I carry 2.

I know several cops that have been involved in off-duty shootings (investigated one of them), as well as several civilians. Let me ask you this Marko, which of those people would you like to tell, face to face, that in your opinion they should not have been carrying the gun that saved their life?

[Sparky]

In the words of the immortal Krusty the Clown, "HEY YUTZ! Guns aren't toys! Guns are for keeping the King of England out of your face!"

In the U.S., our founding fathers put down in writing the right for us to keep and bear arms as well as the right to a free press and freedom of religion. The RKBA is fundamental to protect our other rights.

If we cannot bear arms, how will we or our children or our children's children protect the rights of a free press, the right to choose your own religion or right to vote in free democratic elections should these rights ever come into question?

Go ahead, numbskull, say it can't happen here. Say it can't happen now.

No one thought it would happen in Germany but it did. No one thought it could happen in Russia, but it DID.

No one thought it could happen under the scrutiny of a world wide press, but there are some folks in Bosnia that will argue with you. Call up East Timor and tell me how the political weather is. China gets alot of bad press on human rights....any changes there lately?

I don't care how ancient or how recent. Go back to any country or region where there has been mass oppression, and you will find a correlative prequesite of gun control or unarmed citizenry.

It is interesting to me that the press is mainly anti-gun. If our guns are taken away, who will be there to protect them?

If you feel that the issue of constitutional rights is academic, then I suggest you grab your passport and do some traveling.

The historical pattern is clear:

Germany passed law that makes it illegal for Jews, Gypsies, and others to own firearms.

Lenin cited "the public good" to justify gun control.

Pol Pot, again...gun control.

These wonderful leaders then went about killing a pretty sizeable chunk of their population. Parts they considered "undesirable".

This 200 year old experiment in self-government will effectively come to an end when our right to bear arms to protect our other liberties is "given away".

I don't believe that Klinton and his similar cohorts are wanting to start up the camp fires, BUT...
If our rights to protect our "self evident" rights are lost now, what will happen if such an individual WERE to gain office in a hundred years?

Our founding fathers wanted Americans to have the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR ARMS so that we could protect our other liberties. To prevent dictators, from without or within, from gaining absolute power over us. If this right is lost, what kind of situation will it create in the future?

And for every one of these genocides there was somebody just like you reading this now that JUST DID'NT GET IT and said laughingly, "But that won't happen here (or) to us (or) nowadays."

To paraphrase Plato, in a democracy, the people will only get the government that they deserve. -----Lord, help us.


------------------
-Sparky
Fiat justina.

[This message has been edited by Sparky (edited 05-25-2000).]

[Marko]

I concede Nighshifts point. If I lived in the US I would probably carry off duty. Here a Police officer can only take his gun home if he has a gun safe at home. A Police officer is not permitted to carry a gun off duty unless he is under serious threat (which is not uncommon).
I do not concede Sparky's 2nd Ammendment retort. I've heard it all before. I just don't see where a "regulated militia" can equal everyone who wants to carry a gun. As for keeping tyranny at bay, please, give me a break.
We live in almost opposite ends of the spectrum so I suppose we must agree to disagree.
Also in reply to Nightshift, failing to act whilst off duty is dealt with on it's merit.
e.g. If I witnessed an armed hold up taking place I would not announce my office, I would be the best witness possible. If that is not carrying out my duty as a Police Officer then I will stand to be accused. We have a saying here which applies to many situations a Police officer may find themselves in, "It is better to be judged by twelve than be carried by six".

[Sparky]

Hey Marko....check my edit.

We quit taking direction from good ole bloody England along time ago....we sure aren't going to start taking it from the likes of some penal colony at this late date.

To retort:

1) In colonial times, the population at large was considered the militia. Standing armies did not come into vogue until the early 1940's when, you may recall, the U.S. raised a rather sizable one to get your mother country and a few others out of a serious crack.

2) If you think tyranny is some abstract, antiquated notion from history, take a quick hop over to East Timor....almost your neck of the woods.

------------------
-Sparky
Fiat justina.

[This message has been edited by Sparky (edited 05-25-2000).]

[7@NGHS]

I guess it is understandable that a country who does not want there LEOs taking weapons home would not want their civilians armed.

It kinda reminds me, about 10 or 12 years ago, the IPS was testing security at a DOE plant in Louisianna and it's emergency response teams. They found out that all of the swat teams weapons were being required to be left at the facility's armory.

When the IPS assaulted the facility, the armory was among the first areas secured. When the swat team arrived, they were found empty handed and looking like a fool.

The result of this was that now the weapons are stored at the local LE agency. They have a delayed response because of having to pick up their weapons, but at least they are armed when they arrive.

I find it hard for me to consider being only a witness if I am near a crime that is being committed. I will not jepardize mine nor anyone else's safety, but if the opportunity presents itself, you can bet this southern redneck will be in their face. http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

I guess you can chalk it up to different cultures.

Stay safe all!

------------------
Eddie

[KenM]

Marko, you're crawfishin' here. You say that Australians do not live in fear of being raped, robbed or murdered. Yet you now post that it is common for police to be "under serious threat". Which one is it? And if all the turds in your neck of the woods aren't armed, what are you under such a serious threat from?

I don't buy that bit about 98% of Aussie's being OK with giving up their guns. That's against human nature. Not just because they're guns and I am a self professed gun-nut. If the govt tries to take ANY property from its citizens they aren't going to like it.

[Badgeman]

POINTERCOP:
In Texas we have seen a dramatic downturn in the number of crimes against person. Funny thing right before we got CC there was a rash of car jackings in Houston a lot of cars were bumped from behind and when the driver got out they pulled a gun and robbed him and took his car. They were pulling up next to cars and pointing a gun at them and hitting folks in drive up windows etc. Lots of folks were getting shot by these heros. Well we got CC and it still went on till the first jacker got DOA...permanently rehabilitated by a CC civilian...well it did not take long for word to get out and by the time the second one met a similar fate...the bad guys moved on to other targets. I know the liberals have a hard time thinking this is posible...course they don't understand how capital punishment works either but thanks to compassionate conservative George W. we have safer streets in Texas.

[Marko]

Settle down Sparky, my mother country is Australia, not England. And get over the revolution, it is over, you won. Home ground advantage had more to do with the win then the Second Amendment.

------------------

[Niteshift]

Actually Marko, the "well-regulated militia" part has nothing to do with the National Guard. The 2nd states "The right of the people...." which has usually been held to mean all people. If you read the legal definition of militia at the time of the writing, you'd see it meant able bodied men (women weren't equal at the time). Contrary to what some liberal judges have ruled, the majority of legal scholars from the nations top law schools agree.

In any case, I support the laws. Since they are currently the law of my state, I will continue to support them. I will also oppose deprivation of those rights. The second amendment was passed as much as another "check and balance" as it was for defense. An armed population will not be oppressed.

[John from Maryland]

Marko---Many gun magazines report a sharp increase in the Australian crime rate (especially crimes that might be deterred/resisted by an armed citizen) since the severe restrictions on firearms. Can you offer any perspective on these reports or refer us to websites that provide your statistics?

Some reports even allege increased dingo incursions in rural areas since the civilians are unarmed and police response time is so long. An armed security officer from Australia I met at the 1999 HK conference told me this was false. It's such a great story, however, I would like another opinion.

Lastly, how many cops are under serious threat that they carry off-duty? When I train other officers I advocate uninvolvement in most off-duty situations. There are, however, times to jump into the mix.

Be safe.

[Marko]

John, recreational shooters do not hunt dingos in Australia, mainly just wild pigs and kangaroos. Dingos are usually culled by farmers and professional shooters who are well armed and rightly so.
Police response times are the same here as they are there. Depends on what else is happening at the time. A good crim will use a scanner and choose to commit his crime when Police are obviously busy.
Shooting magazines aim to sell guns. Stories of crime getting out of hand here since gun laws have been introduced are completely false. In fact the NRA commercials stating the same made big news over here and the government was seeking advice in regards to legal action against the NRA for telling such lies. (Your government can't beat the NRA so I doubt ours would bother trying.)
As for getting involved off duty, a person has to ask themselves the question "am I recklessly endangering myself or the public by getting involved ?". You don't go storming into an armed hold up while on duty without back up, so why would do off duty. It is a personal choice.

Stay safe.

------------------
Mark

[Don]

Marko
The main reason to pack off duty, is the same as for a civilian: personal safety. When you work and live in the same area, it is very easy to be recognized by some a-hole that you have put away and wants to do you. If you happen to be off duty at the time, it just might be wise to be packing!
I had two instances during my career where this happened to me. In both cases an a-hole went back to jail, instead of me going to the morgue or emergency room.
Which would you rather do?

[THE BRONZE]

Hey Marko, you

[John from Maryland]

Marko,according to Law & Order magazine (if you're not familiar, a pretty mainstream police management publication) the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics & Research reported a sharp increase in crime in Australia last year.
According to L&O, homicide was up 26%, attempted murder was up 26%, armed robbery increased by 20%, and kidnapping went up 18%. Apart from providing increased job security for police, I'm hard-pressed to believe that gunban is really effective.
Be safe.

[ChileBean]

Okay, I'm not suppose to be here. Just want to give a civilian perspective.

There is no way, no how that anyone will tell me that I do not have a right to defend myself from some punk with a gun who doesn't give a damn about the "law" by telling me that I have to give up my weapons. It isn't going to happen.

The FACT is that criminals do not follow the law, duh, otherwise we wouldn't have a need for law enforcement. Lets see, it is against the law to rape. But scum still rape. It is against the law to murder, but scum still murder. It is against the law to molest children, but scum still molest children. Etc. But, I suppose by your way of thinking, if guns are outlawed, then criminals will not have guns? They will just say, "Golly King George, it is against the law to have guns, so we better turn ours in, otherwise we will be criminal."

The last I heard, the Aussies are still trying to define what a home invasion is?

And yes, crime has shot up in England and Australia. Home invasions up. Robberies up. Muggings up. Yet here in the USA where the gun laws are more favorable to the citizens, crime goes down.

No, I refuse to get on my knees begging for mercy from some punk who doesn't want to leave any witnesses by inserting a bullet into my head. And if I die fighting for my life, then so be it.

And I hate to say this, and I hope it never comes to this, but try taking the guns out of millions of citizens hands forcefully in this country won't be a very bright thing to do. Sure, some will do it willingly, I venture to say most won't.

And by the way, I have been handling weapons for 23 years now and my weapons have never got up by themselves and killed anyone. And even if you could get rid of allllllllll those bad ol' guns in this country, hell, they'll just come storming in with baseball bats. Ever had a baseball bat connect with your head? I have and it will never happen again.

Enough said. It is heartening to know that the majority of the LEO's in this country don't fall for this lets all drip with brotherly love crap that seems to be going around in the politically correct circles. Besides, the nature of crime says that cops show up after the fact, not before.

Okay, I'm outta here.

[Sparky]

List of other physical objects that have killed more people than my pistol:

1) Ted Kennedy's car.
2) "OJ's" swiss army knife.
3) Ramsey family's clothes line.

Little reported in the press, but the shooting at Pearl High School was stopped because a faculty memeber was able to go to his car to retrieve his pistol and return to hold the shooter at gunpoint until the police arrived.

All of this fervor over gun control to stem the recent and aberrational tide of school shootings. Excuse me, but:

a. it was already illegal for students to carry weapons into school.
b. it was already illegal to shoot people.

Would making another law for a criminal to break stop them? No. But it would keep law abiding people from being armed and able to protect themselves from those that do not have the same regard for the law.



------------------
-Sparky
Fiat justina.

[Marko]

I don't know where you guys get your Australian crime statistics, but they don't correlate with I see in everyday Policing. In the patrol that I work crime has come down on all fronts except fraud and SMV. Home invasions are not prevalent across the broad community and seem to only occur amongst the Asian population at a rate of about 1 per month. I have attended only one in the last 5 years and there were no firearms produced. In a city of 4 million plus, that is not too bad and certainly not on the increase. Sorry for being slow to reply.

To answer a question regarding what would I do in the event of a home invasion. My answer is this, I don't know. I do know however that I do not need to worry about sleeping with a gun under my pillow, because it ain't going to happen.

It comes down to this. The USA, for better or for worse, is a gun culture and the land of litigation. Australia, and for that matter England, are not. We sit in front of our TVs here and see what is going on over there with gun violence and kids shooting kids, and we think how scary it must be to be a parent over there. I hope my kids don't feel the need to own a gun just for the sake of protection.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone, it was unintentional. We are quite different in what we believe it seems. But please don't believe the NRA crap about Australia, it is not true and not even close. Come and see for yourselves.

Marko

------------------
Mark

[Don]

Marko,

I don't think you should worry about having offended anyone. I haven't seen anything in your posts that seemed to be offensive toward another individual. The whole purpose of these posts is to have reasonable discussion about things that effect us all.

So your opinion is different than mine (and a lot of others), so what. That's what it is all about. I don't believe that you are going to change my mind, and I don't believe that I am going to change yours. No problem.

However, I seriously do not understand how a law officer can believe that laws about guns are going to stop CROOKS from using them. Or nut cases. And if they are armed you can bet your bippy that I will be too.

------------------
Stay safe out there,
6P1 (retired)

[THE BRONZE]

Marko, the fact I have access to a firearm, or several firearms for that matter, and that I can use them for self defense should the need arise does not cause me to worry. It comforts me to know my family and I have other options besides hiding, running, and/or hoping the overworked police arrive in time. Greensboro is not a particularly large city, but I have seen instances where it took over fifteen minutes to get a car to a reported burglary in progress while the residents were hiding inside. I have witnessed the terrible aftermath of crimes that occurred when we arrived much quicker. There are too many dirtbags on the loose for me not to provide my family with the means necessary for self-protection.

I know several groups have argued the guns in my house are most likely to be used on my own family. I realize that is always a remote possibility, but they would have to find them first, and that will take time.

My department encourages us to not get involved in things when we are off-duty unless absolutely necessary. (I suspect that will change before long with the way our new Chief thinks.)For thirteen years, I have abided by that rule. Despite my obedience to regulations, I have been in at least four situations within sixty feet of my front door where I was very glad I was armed. One of those was at my front door when a neighbor came to me for help, and trouble followed on her heals.

With proper training, maturity, and the required forethought, an off-duty and armed law enforcement officer can only be an asset to a community.


------------------
Jim

[7@NGHS]

Since I live in "redneck" country, not a whole lot of neighbors, unless you can hide what you do for a living, any and all neighbors, when in trouble will be headed for your front door when help is needed. That is what the profession is about. I had one case where a lady said "why call thje police, I got one down the street".

------------------
Eddie

[TC]

I'm proud of our American "gun culture". That is what founded this country. Besides, imagine if we were to come up against a super power intent on taking over the world. They could roll right through Australia. Try that in the United States. An invading army would literally have to fight from house to house, man to man, woman to woman, child to child. We are Fortress America. I feel a helluva lot safer sleeping at night knowing we only have to worry ourselves with internal problems because I know I'll never be speaking German, Japanese, Russian, etc. against my own free will. Will you?

[This message has been edited by TC (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Marko]

TC
I was going to abstain from further contribution to this topic but TC, you got a bite out of me. If a America ever got invaded those who are not vaporised in the first few minutes could use their precious guns to save themselves from suffering the after effects of a nuclear holocaust. Paranoia about invasion is non existent here. As for what languages we can expect to be speaking in Australia. Well, we already speak the lot here. I hear in America that Spanish is overtaking English in many areas. Mate, any decent country is already being invaded by stealth. Guns aren't going to stop it. Strong governments who don't bow to lobby groups can stop it.

That's about it from me. I promise.

Mark

------------------
Mark

[THE BRONZE]

Marko, It