# Gun Control



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

I have pretty good gun control .. use both hands .. proper stance ... center mass.


----------



## wetrain17 (May 25, 2011)

I was referring to this:
2 killed, 9 injured in shooting near Empire State Building - U.S. News


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

It appears the gunman had a particular grudge against the one person he actually made sure he killed.

It also appears he had every intention of committing suicide by cop, and shooting at other people then turning the gun on responding officers pretty much sealed his fate.


----------



## wetrain17 (May 25, 2011)

I have to point out that some by standers were shot by the police as well, it wasn't all him as the media wants you to think.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Oh yes, the article states that, so I don't think it's slanted one way or the other.


----------



## wetrain17 (May 25, 2011)

Yes it does if you read it. Most headlines that I've been seeing are something along the lines of "Gunman kills 1, Wounds 9..." And once people read the headlines, they tend to quickly skim over acticles and may miss it. Yet another example of media trying to manipulate society (of course that's just my opinion). One lined facts like this have a way of dissappearing in the long run.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Interesting. I wonder if the police were using rifles or handguns. I mean, if it turns out people were injured by "friendly fire" in this case, I would think it would indicate a rather large issue w training.


----------



## gunslinger (Sep 17, 2011)

Just more proof that gun control doesn't help much. NY city has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.

Big news from a big mouth, Bloomburg.

This didn't make much news:

19 people shot in overnight shootings across Chicago - chicagotribune.com

Is it because black on black crime is not news worthy?

More killed in one day in Chicago than in a month in Afaganistan and it barely makes the news.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

wetrain17 said:


> I have to point out that some by standers were shot by the police as well, it wasn't all him as the media wants you to think.


So, it starts again....cop bashing. Why don't you try stepping into the line of fire some day? 


And, BTW Wetrain, I am a democrat AND a law enforcement firearms instructor and gun toter. Try not stereotyping that way.....OK?


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

There is a town near me in North GA, that in the early 80' required every citizen to own a gun that lived in the city limits.
The crime rate dropped by over 50% and not a single act of gun violence, with the exception of a couple of criminals being shot during a home invasion, if I remember correctly.

The bleeding hearts sued the city about 10 years ago saying it could not force people to own a gun, crime rate has risen again since the lawsuit was upheld :-(


.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Missy May said:


> Interesting. I wonder if the police were using rifles or handguns. I mean, if it turns out people were injured by "friendly fire" in this case, I would think it would indicate a rather large issue w training.


I wouldn't be surprised if some could have been over penetration issues. Training a bullet to stop once in a body really IS a training issue:evil:

As a law enforcement trainer, training can never REALLY simulate the real act of stepping into the line of fire of a person who wants to kill you. It really is a game changer.

I suspect only a soldier with combat experience , or a cop, might actually understand this.


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

texasgal said:


> i have pretty good gun control .. Use both hands .. Proper stance ... Center mass.


*roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

me, too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Chevaux (Jun 27, 2012)

I`m from Canada and we`ve just gone through decommissioning of the long gun registry. I did always think the registry was frightfully expensive and didn`t lower the crime rate. For me, I can take or leave firearms -- I believe them to be just a skill required tool no different than a surgeon`s knife or a carpenter`s band saw. I also believe someone with murderous and criminal intent will find a way to do their deed regardless of gun control legislation.

Anyways, I have a question on the police side of things and I guess it`s really directed at Allison Finch (I apologize ahead of time for my cluelessness and inappropriateness on this thread). Ì`m given to understand that a police officer shoots for body mass or center target (I`m sorry I don`t know the correct term) rather than try to wing somebody. I think they do this because shooting a hand gun doesn`t have the same accuracy of sighting as a rifle. So, is it practical for a police officer to use a shot gun instead a hand gun? Wouldn`t a shot gun with its spray pattern enable a police officer to disable a villian without having to kill them by `knocking the legs out from under them`so speak? Also, I do not think that a shot gun shoots as far as a hand gun so may reduce the chance of hitting bystanders who are further away?


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Allison Finch said:


> So, it starts again....cop bashing. Why don't you try stepping into the line of fire some day?


Whoa, gal! Stand down! :wink:

The article itself stated that some of the bystanders MAY have been hit by police bullets. I don't find that surprising considering the time of day, especially since NYC is wall to wall people most of the time. 

It all happened so fast, I don't think people had time to get out of the way. Nobody's blaming the police. At least, I'm sure not!


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

ALL I know is that when we were practice shooting on the 4th of July, I would have GOTTEN that rascally rabbit if I had shot at him with a rifle, instead of a pistol!
Seriously, it takes the police at least 15 minutes to get a dispatched officer to your house after a 9-1-1 call--LONGER where I live bc I'm 22 miles from the closest city. I depend upon my (inside) dogs, my door locks, and my weapons to keep ME safe. I never raise a gun to warn, and I aim, then shoot. 
My 30 lb dog (at the time) prevented a bugler from breaking into our house (1987). My 60 and 70 lbs dogs will probably discourage a criminal from approaching me or my house. I may NEVER have to shoot a person who is threatening me. If it ever happens his face won't be recognizable, or his heart bc I will aim to kill. I refuse to be like the latest statistic, who is the women who called 9-1-1 in Dallas recently. Her ex-husband was strangling her (audible on the call tape,) she died and the water in the tub was overflowing outside of the house for 2 days before any police checked on her BODY.
Anti-gun sentiments are a very new thing in America. People moved west, built a home and stored a rifle on top of their fireplace. They hunted with a gun and used it for protection. Criminals always acquire guns where the locals outlaw it for law-abiders. I shake my head.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

Chevaux, wounding someone in the real world is impractical and takes a Crack Shot like in the Movies, anyone with firearms training Civilian or Law Enforcement is trained to shoot for Center Mass, this is to stop the Attacker and avoided collateral damage.

A shotgun where there might be several people would be the worse thing in the world, defensive shotgun ammunition uses BB sized projectiles, usually 13 to 15 of them in the shell, the pattern and force of them could easily kill or wound a lot of people.

Rifles are kinda of like Shotguns, too much firepower on a crowded city street


.​


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Allison Finch said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if some could have been over penetration issues. Training a bullet to stop once in a body really IS a training issue:evil:
> 
> As a law enforcement trainer, training can never REALLY simulate the real act of stepping into the line of fire of a person who wants to kill you. It really is a game changer.
> 
> I suspect only a soldier with combat experience , or a cop, might actually understand this.


Well, it will be difficult to ever know w surety who, exactly, owned the rounds that injured these people. So, no telling.
Fear, and one's response under intense fear, is understood by most all adult people that have lived outside of a bubble. So, people give a "wide swath" to anyone's actions in the line of fire. That is my fear. 
Procedures taught in training for a dangerous situation works b/c it is proven that most people remember it in an emergency. Some will not remember, okay, they just shouldn't be put in a "shoot out" situation ...but if the appropriate training were not drilled into them to begin with..._not_ fine.
It is pointless for anyone to speculate on this event until facts are known. But, if I were going to train someone to take someone out w extreme discrimination, and do so effectively...I think I would train them to reach for the appropriate weapon and ensure their marksmanship was excellent.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

Missy May said:


> Interesting. I wonder if the police were using rifles or handguns. I mean, if it turns out people were injured by "friendly fire" in this case, I would think it would indicate a rather large issue w training.


Missy, we normally agree, but in this case I believe that statement is wrong.

How many more might have been hurt or killed by the gunman in this case or any other case if the Police just sat there and watched? Personally I think if I was there (and did not have my gun) I would want the Police to intervene, they probably have better training that I do anyway 


.


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Chevaux said:


> I`m from Canada and we`ve just gone through decommissioning of the long gun registry. I did always think the registry was frightfully expensive and didn`t lower the crime rate. For me, I can take or leave firearms -- I believe them to be just a skill required tool no different than a surgeon`s knife or a carpenter`s band saw. I also believe someone with murderous and criminal intent will find a way to do their deed regardless of gun control legislation.
> 
> Anyways, I have a question on the police side of things and I guess it`s really directed at Allison Finch (I apologize ahead of time for my cluelessness and inappropriateness on this thread). Ì`m given to understand that a police officer shoots for body mass or center target (I`m sorry I don`t know the correct term) rather than try to wing somebody. I think they do this because shooting a hand gun doesn`t have the same accuracy of sighting as a rifle. So, is it practical for a police officer to use a shot gun instead a hand gun? Wouldn`t a shot gun with its spray pattern enable a police officer to disable a villian without having to kill them by `knocking the legs out from under them`so speak? Also, I do not think that a shot gun shoots as far as a hand gun so may reduce the chance of hitting bystanders who are further away?


 
I’m not Allison, but there are many reasons why an officer would carry a handgun over a shot gun or any other long barreled gun. Kinda hard to wrestle someone down to handcuff them with a monster like that strapped to your side. 
During a struggle, it could be easier for a perp to grab and turn it on the officer.
Also, struggle aside, if the larger gun is properly and safely secured it takes much longer to clear a holder and take aim against the impending threat.

Most of the time officers, like soldiers, have only milliseconds to react to a given situation. An officer needs to be able to respond in the blink of an eye at all times while in uniform, and the handgun is generally quicker and safer in many many instances.
But, it isn‘t something that needs to be out all the time like a soldier would need with his or her rifle.
And, there are plenty of times the spray of a shotgun would be more harmful too.

Fairly sure some would argue with you about the accuracy of using a handgun as well (depending on the distance) because some people are excellent marksmen or markswomen with handguns as well as with shotguns. 
Anyway, I’m sure Allison can explain it much batter than I.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> .​
> Chevaux, wounding someone in the real world is impractical and takes a Crack Shot like in the Movies, anyone with firearms training Civilian or Law Enforcement is trained to shoot for Center Mass, this is to stop the Attacker and avoided collateral damage.​
> A shotgun where there might be several people would be the worse thing in the world, defensive shotgun ammunition uses BB sized projectiles, usually 13 to 15 of them in the shell, the pattern and force of them could easily kill or wound a lot of people.​
> Rifles are kinda of like Shotguns, too much firepower on a crowded city street​
> ...


I don't know, southern. It depends on what distance one can take a clean shot, IMO. Shotguns are out, obviousely. Rifles, by design, are far more accurate, and can be selected for use at a distance to be no more dangerous than a given hand gun at close range. There was probably "no room" for rifles in this situation...no telling.

How accurately one can hit a given target is only a matter of practice. IMO So, I expect pretty darn good shots in a police department.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> Missy, we normally agree, but in this case I believe that statement is wrong.
> 
> How many more might have been hurt or killed by the gunman in this case or any other case if the Police just sat there and watched? Personally I think if I was there (and did not have my gun) I would want the Police to intervene, they probably have better training that I do anyway
> 
> ...


Didn't see this before, Southern. I probably miscommunicated what I meant, so forgive. I did not mean I would not want and _expect_ the police to intervene. I meant that when valuable information comes to light it is often ignored which means it is highly likely the same "error" will occur again for the same reason.

In the case of police, valuable information can be ignored b/c people respect what they do (including me) and any "observation" that questions their operations are often taken to be disrespectful criticism. Improvement cannot be made w/o analyzing how effective something operates. Do they evaluate internally? I would guess, yes. However, how effectively cannot, in practice, be measured. Compare this to a nuclear power plant.


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Missy May said:


> .... But, if I were going to train someone to take someone out w extreme discrimination, and do so effectively...I think I would train them to reach for the appropriate weapon and ensure their marksmanship was excellent.


Missy, here is a question for you.
Lets say you and I are cops (just bear with me here) and we are called out to respond to a juvenile stealing an ice cream cone from the local dairy stand.
“Ugg, bored kids… why can’t they stay home and play video games??“ I quip because I’m cynical.
Ok, we head on over. 
We exit our cruiser (which has a shotgun in a locked case on the rack, and a trigger lock as well because all our department cruisers do.)
Once we are out of the cruiser we see it is about 100 yards off the road to get to the stand and we start walking.
As we walk up to the stand the owner and Juvie are yelling at each other and don’t notice us. 
All of a sudden the juv pulls a gun and threatens to shoot the owner.
Do you shout, “Ok everybody, no one move while I run back to the cruiser and get the shotgun because it might be more appropriate. Be right back!”
Or do you draw the gun on your side and deal with the situation since it has all unfolded in about 1 1/2 seconds??

I mean you never actually trained this exact situation with an ice cream stand being 100 yards from the cruiser. But as you _were_ trained, you don't pull the shot gun upon arrival for every single call. 

Because, remember the time you pulled the big 'un for the mountain lion up the tree call and when you arrived it was a three month old kitten?? Yeah, we are still laughing about that one in the squad room. :wink:


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Chevaux said:


> I`m from Canada and we`ve just gone through decommissioning of the long gun registry. I did always think the registry was frightfully expensive and didn`t lower the crime rate. For me, I can take or leave firearms -- I believe them to be just a skill required tool no different than a surgeon`s knife or a carpenter`s band saw. I also believe someone with murderous and criminal intent will find a way to do their deed regardless of gun control legislation.


Sadly, I couldn't agree more.



> Anyways, I have a question on the police side of things and I guess it`s really directed at Allison Finch (I apologize ahead of time for my cluelessness and inappropriateness on this thread). Ì`m given to understand that a police officer shoots for body mass or center target (I`m sorry I don`t know the correct term) rather than try to wing somebody. I think they do this because shooting a hand gun doesn`t have the same accuracy of sighting as a rifle. So, is it practical for a police officer to use a shot gun instead a hand gun? Wouldn`t a shot gun with its spray pattern enable a police officer to disable a villian without having to kill them by `knocking the legs out from under them`so speak? Also, I do not think that a shot gun shoots as far as a hand gun so may reduce the chance of hitting bystanders who are further away?


There are definitely times when different weapons are better choices. While shotguns are real stoppers, they have a downside when used in a crowd. The pellets in 00 buckshot ate the equivalent of 9 32 caliber bullets all flying at once. the problem is that there is a spread. The further away from the suspect, the wider the spread. So, there is the possibility that one or more pellet may miss. Now, slugs are one projectile that is the equivalent of a 72 caliber bullet. GOOD stopping power. Here, the problem is over penetration. A single projectile may be easier to keep on target. 

As for stop vs wound....it has been shown again and again, just because you wound someone, you often don't stop their desire to kill. Even someone shot center mass in the heart will have time to keep shooting. The Calif. bank robbery had a suspect with fatal wounds, shot in the heart, who kept fighting a good while killing during that time. So, a shot in the arm or leg is truly irresponsible, not only because it risks the cops, but the public as well. "Knocking the legs out from under them" doesn't keep them from pulling a trigger.

It is a terrible sad situation and, when a cop has to take a life, they often suffer their whole lives with the burden.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Lockwood, you can be at my side, in an emergency, any time. You couldn't be more correct. Just yesterday we had a jump and run where the guy had a gun. he was running through THICK brush. We were running through it with little visibility, not knowing if he had stopped and was now aiming at us. Yup, you get a bit "hyper". Those 911 calls with a report of lethal force being used, you have all of that response time building up huge amounts of adrenaline. When you get there, it can often affect how you deal with the incident. Yes, this can lead to rash reactions and mistakes. There really is no real life training that will really prepare you for that. Regular training...you always know you are going home to your family.

I have no doubt that some of the wounded was "friendly fire". Luckily none of the people seemed to be seriously wounded. On a crowded street (think the empire state bldg may have been a bit crowded?) there simply is no way to ensure that all the rounds will hit AND stay in the bad guy.


----------



## wetrain17 (May 25, 2011)

Allison Finch said:


> So, it starts again....cop bashing. Why don't you try stepping into the line of fire some day?
> 
> 
> And, BTW Wetrain, I am a democrat AND a law enforcement firearms instructor and gun toter. Try not stereotyping that way.....OK?


 
Allison, I think you're being a bit sensitive. I by NO means meant this as a "cop bashing" thread. It was more of a media bashing thread, if you read my other comments you may have picked up on that instead of jumping to conclusions, but considering your line of work, I can see how that happens.

I get very irritated when the media tries to manipulate stories, like wording the headlines to make it seem like this guy randomly shot 10 people when in fact a few stray bullets from the cops hit bystanders OR how the media insisted on showing a picture of Trevon Martin when he was seven and picturing George Zimmerman as a big bad wolf. 

And Im aware that some Democrats carry, but let's face it, if the Democrats could just do away with the 2nd Amendment, they would.


----------



## PaintHorseMares (Apr 19, 2008)

Allison Finch said:


> As for stop vs wound....it has been shown again and again, just because you wound someone, you often don't stop their desire to kill. Even someone shot center mass in the heart will have time to keep shooting. The Calif. bank robbery had a suspect with fatal wounds, shot in the heart, who kept fighting a good while killing during that time. So, a shot in the arm or leg is truly irresponsible, not only because it risks the cops, but the public as well. "Knocking the legs out from under them" doesn't keep them from pulling a trigger.
> 
> It is a terrible sad situation and, when a cop has to take a life, they often suffer their whole lives with the burden.


Very true. That's why our son (Marine vet and now big city policeman) carries a .357 Sig P229 instead of the 9mm. Paraphrasing him...if it ever came to that type of unfortuneate situation, you want to make sure he doesn't get back up.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

wetrain17 said:


> And Im aware that some Democrats carry, but let's face it, if the Democrats could just do away with the 2nd Amendment, they would.













I'm glad you are comfortable believing that. I know too many dems who would disagree. I even know rebublicans who believe in gun control:shock:


----------



## wetrain17 (May 25, 2011)

Allison Finch said:


> I'm glad you are comfortable believing that. I know too many dems who would disagree. I even know rebublicans who believe in gun control:shock:


 
However, those are not the ones in office trying to rewrite the Constitution.


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

Missy May said:


> Well, it will be difficult to ever know w surety who, exactly, owned the rounds that injured these people. .


once they collect the bullets from the victims they will be able to tell if it came from a cops issued gun or the killers.

with the bolistics(sp) they will even be able to tell which gun each bullet came from because of different pressure points put on the bullet even if its the same make of gun. 

the police will know who shot where etc etc after all the testing but who knows if that information will be released to the public :?


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Lockwood said:


> Missy, here is a question for you.
> Lets say you and I are cops (just bear with me here) and we are called out to respond to a juvenile stealing an ice cream cone from the local dairy stand.
> “Ugg, bored kids… why can’t they stay home and play video games??“ I quip because I’m cynical.
> Ok, we head on over.
> ...


 
One cannot be trained for every permutation and combination of possible events. It is impossible. However, it does not mean they should recieve no training.

If I had been trained that the shotgun was the appropriate weapon in that case, AND, to turn my back, AND, to _go back_ for an appropriate weapon in such an instance, there is something very _seriousely_ flawed w the training I recieved, and I would probably go w better judgement and use what I had at hand. 

I was unaware that the only weapons all police departments have at their disposal are shotguns and side arms. My mistake.

A shotgun is never my weapon of choice, so I would probably have asked for a waiver to replace the issue w another kind, been denied - and quit! So, I wouldn't have even been icecreaming it.

Lets take a more realistic situation, say it is in the 80's-90's and you work for the LAPD. You are are beyond reproach - do you just keep on keep'n on to keep your job? I mean, after all...those w legit complaints are easily made out to be icky cop bashers, and LA ain't exactly mayberry.

No equipment ever manufactured has, to date, replaced the importance of training. When training cannot be questioned....it will not end well.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

kait18 said:


> once they collect the bullets from the victims they will be able to tell if it came from a cops issued gun or the killers.
> 
> with the bolistics(sp) they will even be able to tell which gun each bullet came from because of different pressure points put on the bullet even if its the same make of gun.
> 
> the police will know who shot where etc etc after all the testing but who knows if that information will be released to the public :?


Yes, ballistics is extremely accurate, especially when examining bullets from different callibers.

And, I completely agree...there will be no way to personally verify the results, and/or they may not be released.


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Allison Finch said:


> Lockwood, you can be at my side, in an emergency, any time. You couldn't be more correct. Just yesterday we had a jump and run where the guy had a gun. he was running through THICK brush. We were running through it with little visibility, not knowing if he had stopped and was now aiming at us. Yup, you get a bit "hyper". Those 911 calls with a report of lethal force being used, you have all of that response time building up huge amounts of adrenaline. When you get there, it can often affect how you deal with the incident. Yes, this can lead to rash reactions and mistakes. There really is no real life training that will really prepare you for that. Regular training...you always know you are going home to your family.
> 
> I have no doubt that some of the wounded was "friendly fire". Luckily none of the people seemed to be seriously wounded. On a crowded street (think the empire state bldg may have been a bit crowded?) there simply is no way to ensure that all the rounds will hit AND stay in the bad guy.


Thanks Allison. 
Although..... I’m not sure you would want my short little out of shape behind trying to run and keep up shouting.… “Whait fo’ me!” 

Your bad a** would catch the dude and once I finally caught up huffing and puffing I would pass out on top of both of you while you were cuffing him. :-o
Jeeze, I got winded just reading about your chase.


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Missy May said:


> One cannot be trained for every permutation and combination of possible events. It is impossible. However, it does not mean they should recieve no training.
> *No, never said it did.*
> If I had been trained that the shotgun was the appropriate weapon in that case, AND, to turn my back, AND, to _go back_ for an appropriate weapon in such an instance, there is something very _seriousely_ flawed w the training I recieved, and I would probably go w better judgement and use what I had at hand.
> 
> ...


 
Pfft, as *IF* I would ever think of working in LA! Now there is a huge icky for me.
(Relax CA people, it’s just me.. I don’t like big big cities J )
　
There is somewhere in the neighborhood of around 750,000 to 1 million cops out there in the US. Should they all be judged on the same merits of the very few bad ones?
　
Nobody is perfect and no one career ever has (or had) all perfect employees.
Ain’t possible. 
Cops aren’t some magical perfect breed of people either. Just ordinary people like you and me.

I’m not a gun guru and have no idea what all the thousands upon thousands of departments across the US issue, but we were issued a handgun and a shotgun for our ice cream call department. 
We don‘t get a choice and since you decided that putting food on the table for your kids was pretty important you compromised on the shotgun thing after getting your waiver denied. (With many dirty looks too.)

Back to the ice cream call...
Um, lets see… kid has a gun. 
Maybe my baton will work?? I could throw it at him I suppose, since I‘m certainly not dumb enough to walk right up to him and shake it at him.
No, that won’t work, he’ll be ****ed I bonked him on the head and shoot me, then you, then the owner for good measure.

Um, tazer… oh wait, our department isn’t well funded because our town is poor, so there aren’t funds for a tazer or tazer training.


I know… release the canine unit! (Yeah.. little punk is going to get it now!!!!:twisted 
Oh, wait… again with the lack of funds thing…. Dang it, I personally love the canine units!!

Ok, that leaves pepper spray… hmmm, a little breezy today, would probably take out about 30 or 40 bystanders, many of them children :shock: waiting for their cool treats. 
_And,_ you really can still shoot after being hit with pepper spray. :-x 

Ok, back to the gun..... because, the academy trains the levels of force, appropriate responses, and what to do when faced with lethal force. Cops are not just some joe blows who are hired right off the streets with no training what-so-ever.
Humans are a tad bit smarter than that.
(Well, ok… most humans.) 
But again with the no person is perfect thing. 

I wouldn't say the LAPD in the 80's and 90's is a realistic situation that represents all cops.
How long can we keep bashing the hundreds of thousands of good cops? The ones you NEVER read about because they are doing exactly the job they have been hired to do and doing it very well?


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Lockwood said:


> Pfft, as *IF* I would ever think of working in LA! Now there is a huge icky for me.
> (Relax CA people, it’s just me.. I don’t like big big cities J )
> 
> There is somewhere in the neighborhood of around 750,000 to 1 million cops out there in the US. Should they all be judged on the same merits of the very few bad ones?
> ...


Okay, I am totally lost. What have I said that would lead you to conclude that I am "police bashing"? Or that I am unaware of the uniqueness of individual humans, animals, or snowflakes?

I would say that in the 80-90's the LAPD very well represented any operation that requires more than one person _and_ requires training, _and _that is beyond reproach. 

But, I agree...LA isn't my cup of tea either, nor is NYC...or any city, for that matter.

BTW, in your example, I was assuming that any police officer would have a loaded side arm on their belt....i.e., w them at all times. And, the age of the teenager wouldn't matter at that point. But, TRAINING as to how to proceed might help.

So, here is an example for you. Lead is not a good element to injest. However, it was once used in water pipes. Should we have changed that application after its effects were known?


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Missy May said:


> Okay, I am totally lost. What have I said that would lead you to conclude that I am "police bashing"? Or that I am unaware of the uniqueness of individual humans, animals, or snowflakes?
> 
> I would say that in the 80-90's the LAPD very well represented any operation that requires more than one person _and_ requires training, _and _that is beyond reproach.
> 
> ...


Sorry if it came off ****y, it was meant to be more of a someone else’s shoe type of response. Fail! LOL. 

Not completely police bashing, but comments like this-
"I would say that in the 80-90's the LAPD very well represented any operation that requires more than one person _and_ requires training, _and _that is beyond reproach. " along with how some of your posts read, do lead me to believe you have a low opinion of law enforcement in general.
And that you hold them to a standard they could never meet unless they were perfect.

(That’s how I read it anyway. Maybe if I have more cheesecake first before hitting HF I’ll be in a happier place. Mmmmm… cheesecake.)
And I disagree with the LAPD statement. It is only one of many many cities that have much more history than that.

Statistically there generally is a higher level of corruptness in huge cities because there are more people overall. Just like there is a higher level of just about everything else there too. And I am not defending the LAPD in any way. 
But my scenario is far more realistic in anywhere or everywhere town, city, or wide spot in the road. 

That’s the thing… 99% of police work in our policed society is never heard about or even known about. It is only the rare times when things go wrong that people really pay attention. Kind of how if a Hollywood star dies or gets a divorce it is all over the news, but if my neighbor dies or gets a divorce… eh, maybe just a one liner in the obits or public announcement section hidden somewhere deep in the newspaper. If that even.

FYI the officer holding his or her gun back on the kid in the ice cream scenario has received training on how to proceed in that type of situation just like every officer has. Maybe just not at an actual ice cream stand. I surprised you don’t think that they would have.
And while my scenario may have seemed a little silly I used it to emphasize a point. 

Lead pipes…. Um ya got me there and now I am lost. :? 
I guess I just assumed they were changed. Have they not been?
Kinda like how paint no longer has lead in it either?
Even though my house is pretty old, it has copper pipes and PVC drains now. I don’t find evidence of it ever having had lead pipes, but it did use to have terra cotta drain pipes. 
Last time I went pipe shopping, lead pipes weren’t on the shelves either.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Well, Lockwood, I haven't had any cheesecake either and I almost stepped on a rattler, so I had to shoot it (sad)...so....look out... I might just post a mean response! 

First of all, I do _not_ have a low opinion of law enforcement, and I have no opinion of law enforecement with which I am not personally familiar...including these folks in NYC. For all I know, they did their job in such a superb manner they will revise the training manuals to include the valuable info this "superior manner" has provided them.

The lead pipes may have been a bad example, but my point was -lead was used for water pipes for hundreds of years, but luckily no one was accused of "pipe bashing" after lead's toxicity was known and changes were called for accordingly. 

My only point about the LAPD was that it developed an attitude or culture that it could not be improved and took liberties that it could not have achieved, imo, without the concent of the citizenry....e.g., citizens believing _any_ statement that might have been percieved as "criticism" was "bashing". There is no question that anyone in the LAPD has a really tough job..then, now, or tomorrow. I, personally, do not feel that that means their actions should never be questioned and training and methods cannot ever be improved.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

We in the USA need to evaluate our thinking and come to the realization that everyone should not own a gun. That no one needs to own a assualt rifle or fully automatic weapon. They serve no purpose except in war.
How many more mass shootings are going to happen before we realize that regulation and accountability is needed.
It is far too easy to obtain a gun in this country.
I cannot stress this enough.
I have never been asked if any of my clients are competent to own a gun. Even those that have had violent past or have mental disorders that should preclude them from owning any firearm.
A few suicides that I have known about might not have been prevented but they might not have been fatal if a gun were not used.
There are millions of people who are unstable that own guns in this country. something should be done about that.
Until then we will continue to see mass shootings occur regularly in this country.
How many people must die before we address this problem? Shalom


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Gun control is not an answer. Culture control may be. Norway has strong gun control, yet it did not hamper the horrible mass shooting there. China has very strong gun control, but it hasn't deterred the school shootings that have happened there the last year. I could go on and on on the examples coming out of countries with restrictive gun laws.

What may need changing is our culture. If you can start getting the media to stop making celebrities out of these sick offenders, it may help keep the disenfranchised from seeking their "claim to fame". If we could stop producing video games that serve to desensitize people to violence and death, if we could stop making movies that are so violent that it also serves to desisitize the children who watch them.....

See where I am going with this? Gun control does not stop violence. Turning away from *reveling* in violence might be a good start, though.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Allison Norway is one of the safest countries in the world. Very few murders occur there. Or elsewhere in Europe. Using that incident in Norway as an example that gun control doesn't work is not logical.
Easy access to firemarms by anyone with enough money and the proper ID leads to more gun violence.
the anger against soceity that these shooters possess is evidence that yes our culture needs to adjust itself and focus on preventing further violence.
Part of the equation must include a reasonable way to weed out those who exhibit tendencies toward violence.
Unless you have already committed a crime there is no way to monitor those that are potential to become mass shooters.
I own guns and support the right for sane well adjusted individuals to own them. Not eveyone should however. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Allison Finch said:


> Gun control is not an answer. Culture control may be. Norway has strong gun control, yet it did not hamper the horrible mass shooting there. China has very strong gun control, but it hasn't deterred the school shootings that have happened there the last year. I could go on and on on the examples coming out of countries with restrictive gun laws.
> 
> What may need changing is our culture. If you can start getting the media to stop making celebrities out of these sick offenders, it may help keep the disenfranchised from seeking their "claim to fame". If we could stop producing video games that serve to desensitize people to violence and death, if we could stop making movies that are so violent that it also serves to desisitize the children who watch them.....
> 
> See where I am going with this? Gun control does not stop violence. Turning away from *reveling* in violence might be a good start, though.


I agree. Washington, DC has the strictest gun control in the country that I am aware of, and their crime rate is off the chart...almost 3 times the crime rate of Texas, where gun laws are very relaxed. It's the people - not the guns...


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Missy May said:


> Well, Lockwood, I haven't had any cheesecake either and I almost stepped on a rattler, so I had to shoot it (sad)...so....look out... I might just post a mean response!
> 
> First of all, I do _not_ have a low opinion of law enforcement, and I have no opinion of law enforecement with which I am not personally familiar...including these folks in NYC. For all I know, they did their job in such a superb manner they will revise the training manuals to include the valuable info this "superior manner" has provided them.
> 
> ...


Okie Dokey… I gotcha now. 

And I do agree with you. People should question things. Citizens should wonder what is happening and why. I don’t believe we (the people) should believe everything that is spoon fed to us, especially by the media, and never question it how we can make things better.

But there is a difference (in my eyes) between questioning…. asking why did they?…. and learning about vs. playing armchair cop, or armchair psychiatrist, or armchair teacher, or armchair _________ (insert whatever is appropriate here) saying they did it wrong.


It is far too easy and common for most people to say “They shoulda done this instead of that.” when they really don’t know what should have been done, what was done, or why it was done.

I don’t know about anyone else, but in all the times I have been cut open, repaired, or stitched back together, I never said to my doctor,,, “You should have used a number 10 blade with 3 ott sutures instead of what you did use.” 
Everybody views things differently, but by and large most people don’t question… they accuse. (And yes, I’m guilty of that too.) 

Sorry about the rattler, but am glad you are the one still here and not the rattler. :thumbsup:


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

dbarabians said:


> We in the USA need to evaluate our thinking and come to the realization that everyone should not own a gun. That no one needs to own a assualt rifle or fully automatic weapon. They serve no purpose except in war.
> How many more mass shootings are going to happen before we realize that regulation and accountability is needed.
> It is far too easy to obtain a gun in this country.
> I cannot stress this enough.
> ...





Allison Finch said:


> Gun control is not an answer. Culture control may be. Norway has strong gun control, yet it did not hamper the horrible mass shooting there. China has very strong gun control, but it hasn't deterred the school shootings that have happened there the last year. I could go on and on on the examples coming out of countries with restrictive gun laws.
> 
> What may need changing is our culture. If you can start getting the media to stop making celebrities out of these sick offenders, it may help keep the disenfranchised from seeking their "claim to fame". If we could stop producing video games that serve to desensitize people to violence and death, if we could stop making movies that are so violent that it also serves to desisitize the children who watch them.....
> 
> See where I am going with this? Gun control does not stop violence. Turning away from *reveling* in violence might be a good start, though.





dbarabians said:


> Allison Norway is one of the safest countries in the world. Very few murders occur there. Or elsewhere in Europe. Using that incident in Norway as an example that gun control doesn't work is not logical.
> Easy access to firemarms by anyone with enough money and the proper ID leads to more gun violence.
> the anger against soceity that these shooters possess is evidence that yes our culture needs to adjust itself and focus on preventing further violence.
> Part of the equation must include a reasonable way to weed out those who exhibit tendencies toward violence.


I think you BOTH are right.
Now in my recollection (which is rusty) Norway doesn't have the history of this type of thing the way the US does. It doesn't discount what happened there, but I don't think it (what happened) is as relavent as it is here.
We do need to change what our children are exposed to and our views of culture, but we also need some fail safes in place. A way to recognize the perils of who owns what.
It is past time to find some solutions, IMO.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

dbarabians said:


> Allison Norway is one of the safest countries in the world. Very few murders occur there. Or elsewhere in Europe. Using that incident in Norway as an example that gun control doesn't work is not logical.
> Easy access to firemarms by anyone with enough money and the proper ID leads to more gun violence.
> the anger against soceity that these shooters possess is evidence that yes our culture needs to adjust itself and focus on preventing further violence.
> Part of the equation must include a reasonable way to weed out those who exhibit tendencies toward violence.
> ...


I have a student who was born and raised there and she says that your statement may be misleading.

safer than here? Certainly. The safest in the world? Not at all. Not even in the 48 countries compared.

NationMaster - Norwegian Crime statistics - How Norway compares

I agree, not everyone should own guns. There are tough laws against felons and mentally ill people. Sadly, they are poorly enforced and many people still fall through the cracks.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> We in the USA need to evaluate our thinking and come to the realization that everyone should not own a gun. That no one needs to own a assualt rifle or fully automatic weapon. They serve no purpose except in war.
> How many more mass shootings are going to happen before we realize that regulation and accountability is needed.
> It is far too easy to obtain a gun in this country.
> I cannot stress this enough.
> ...


hmmm. Just spooky.

Db, any attribute of a gun can be measured within a very narrow tolerance - not true for "mental stability". You think ownership should be controlled b/c of the human factor, although there is only one human in the equation. Your solution is to _double_ the human factor by requiring one human to certify the mental status of another human, a status that cannot be measured w surety? So, who or what would "control" those in such a position of power that abuse or misuse the pen, which is mighter than the sword?

btw, I do not know why you think most murders are committed by those that could be certified as mentally unfit. In order for such a stat to be credible, it would require that they were evaluated _before_ they committed a murder. 

The majority of murderers had a past conviction. I think I would start there.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Db, who would ask you about your "dangerous" clients? How would they know who they are? Are you suggesting that people in your profession should report them and violate confidentiality? I wouldn't think so....So, what is your suggestion for getting these dangerous clients on a no-buy data base BEFORE the act on their violent tendencies?


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

I and other medical professionals are reuired to report anyone who poses a threat to themselves or soceity.
In other words we have them committed to a mental hospital or ward.
After they are released however they can buy a firearm unless they have a judges order.
paitent client confidentiallity trumps the publics right to know who has a mental disorder.
I am not advocating eliminating guns or denying any sane person the right to own a gun.
If you have to take a test to operate a vehicle legally then why not a gun.
There are test that can alert us to individuals that are predisposed to commit certain violent acts. all the mass shooters have exhibited behaviour that were warning signs of the potential for violence.
In other words most could have been avoided and lives saved if someone had alerted authorities about the indivduals involved.
Allison I would feel much safer walking the streets of Norway or any other European country than most major cities in the USA.
Whatever the solution to the problem is the NRA and its lobby should not be allowed to interfere with the legislation. Shalom


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

Did you know 86% of all gun related crimes are by those under 18?
Did you know 97% of all gun related crimes are gang related?
Did you know non-gun murders account for over 50% of all homicides?

Guns are not the problem :wink:

.


----------



## tempest (Jan 26, 2009)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. As a great SSgt once said, "There is not reason to be afraid of a gun. A gun cannot hurt you unless someone is holding it."


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Guns cannot think or act on their own. They do not discharge by themselves.
Guns are no the problem.
Guns in the hands of the wrong person are though.
Every mass shooter has strongly exhibited behaviour that should have forewarned others of the impedeing atrocity.
There are no enforcable regulations that can easily reduce our current spat of shootings.
I ask once again how many lives must be lost before we wake and realize what we are doing currently is not working?
The shooter in Colorado was under the care of a Psychiatrist who followed all the rules in place . However he bought 15,000$ worth of guns and ammunition without being uestioned or alerting authorities.
How can someone purchase that amount of deadly weapons without any fear of impunity?
You cannot purchase a certain amount of cough medicine because it can be used to manufacture crystal meth. Why not do the same with guns and ammunition? Shalom


----------



## tempest (Jan 26, 2009)

dbarabians said:


> You cannot purchase a certain amount of cough medicine because it can be used to manufacture crystal meth. Why not do the same with guns and ammunition? Shalom


I won't comment on the first part of the post other than this. I never said that guns killed people. Anyway, that is an excellent idea, however, there is one flaw. What if they buy only certain amounts of ammo a year and decide to store it. No one suspect anything because they aren't buying large amounts of ammo over time. Just like Johnny Cash's song, "One Piece at a Time", they would get their material one piece at a time and no one suspect anything at all.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

DB, I can kind of see your point, but when you look at the overall picture of who commits these extraneous acts are you saying we should violate the rights of 1/2 of the US population who owns a gun and purchases ammunition with respect for the law and their fellow citizens?

Should we restrict Cars, Knives, Baseball Bats that someone purchases or uses to physiological evaluation, intense background checks, blood tests, all these have been used to kill people, yes it sounds silly doesn't it  , but a these are weapons used by 1,000's every year to kill.

.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> That no one needs to own a assualt rifle or fully automatic weapon. They serve no purpose except in war.


 
I just can't let this go.

No one can legally purchase a "newly manufactured" fully-auto gun w/o jumping through some rather large hoops. Hence, it is expensive to own one legally, and illegal to own one w/o all the right permits...including conversions. I am not a gun fanatic by a looong shot, I tune "gun lovers talk" out when I am subjected to it, and my favorite rifle is a poopy old pellet gun...but _even I_ know this! 
There is no point in duplicating laws in an attempt to enforce current laws.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

Missy May said:


> I just can't let this go.
> 
> No one can legally purchase a "newly manufactured" fully-auto gun w/o jumping through some rather large hoops. Hence, it is expensive to own one legally, and illegal to own one w/o all the right permits...including conversions. I am not a gun fanatic by a looong shot, I tune "gun lovers talk" out when I am subjected to it, and my favorite rifle is a poopy old pellet gun...but _even I_ know this!
> There is no point in duplicating laws in an attempt to enforce current laws.


I agree, to own an Automatic Machine Gun is expensive and not available to just anyone off the street.

As far as an Assault Rifle (the Semi-Automatic kind), I find my AR-15 very fun to target shoot with, I do not have to reload every 5 shots and ammo for it is dirt cheap, as it uses the same as an M-16.
It also is an awesome Varmit Gun 
I have used my semi-automatic AK as a deer rifle also, it is similar in knockdown and range as my 30-30 carbine.

One thing many anti-gun people fail to realize is when a criminal or other person who cannot legally own or purchase a gun, they can always order one from the person they get their illegal drugs from a half a dozen other ways on the black market, most black market fully automatic guns are not even made in the USA.

.


----------



## myhorsesonador (Jun 21, 2009)

dbarabians said:


> Guns cannot think or act on their own. They do not discharge by themselves.
> Guns are no the problem.
> Guns in the hands of the wrong person are though.
> Every mass shooter has strongly exhibited behaviour that should have forewarned others of the impedeing atrocity.
> ...


A bit can not hurt a horse, till it's in the hands of humans, we should regulate who buys bits. What about whips, they dont whack horses on there own, we should regulate them 2.

We came to America to be free, not to let the Gov. run our lives, and to tell us what we can and can't own.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> I agree, to own an Automatic Machine Gun is expensive and not available to just anyone off the street.
> 
> As far as an Assault Rifle (the Semi-Automatic kind), I find my AR-15 very fun to target shoot with, I do not have to reload every 5 shots and ammo for it is dirt cheap, as it uses the same as an M-16.
> It also is an awesome Varmit Gun
> ...


Can't get much cheaper than pellets.  I love to target practice. It is a sport/hobby, and semi is a convenience. Lets make convenience illegal!!! No more cars, they kill to many people! I would never shoot an innocent fellow creature unless absolutey necessary, so I do not hunt. 

Yes, I am assuming anti-gun folks believe there is no illegal drug trade in the US, and believe so on the basis they are illegal. Go figure.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

wetrain17 said:


> However, those are not the ones in office trying to rewrite the Constitution.



Forgive me, I don't totally understand your set up, but aren't amendments to the Constitution in affect a form of re write? And there are how many of them now?

If you stick by the original Constitution do you not lose a lot of the rights that you now take for granted?

You either accept only the original or you accept that it changes, and like the laws of any land maybe things have to change in line with new realities.

I am not supporting any side in this, just asking a genuine question.


As to police and guns and 'Friendly Fire' yeah well no firing is very friendly is it, you all defend the right to have guns and use them you have to accept that the wrong people will get shot. 

If the Police who are trained to deal with incidents like this have stray rounds, then what would happen if Joe public starts firing as well?


last random thought, I hope absolutely and totally that I am never in the situation when I have a weapon in my hand and have decide if I should actually shoot a person.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

I am not advocating total elimination of gun ownership nor am I suggesting that we implement strict gun laws like the European countries.
We do regualte things that are lethal everyday.
Cars, certain chemicals, medication, and other things that are hazardous to the health and well being of the general population.
If we in the USA do not make changes to our laws we will continur=e to see an increase in gun violence.
Do any of us want to pass thru metal detedtor just to go to the mall or mvies. Anywhere there is a large gathering of people?
You have to pass thru one to board planes?
I own several guns only 2 of which I will ever have any use for . Both are handguns. The rest I inherited from my father to pass along to my future extended family members. I am not either pro gun or anti gun ownership.
With the admancement of treatment to mental health disorders and our ability to understand them increasing we have the tools to identify and monitor those that may react violently.
The number of mass shootings is growing and are more deadly than ever before.
Sooner or later one of them will access bombmaking materails or chemical agents and unleash more terror than ever before. Not because of some political belief but to lash out at eh general population in anger and self hatred. Shalom


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

GH, I simply love your "random" thoughts. You ought to go random more often!!!


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Well, in NC we have to purchase a gun permit from the sheriffs dept to buy a gun. The sheriff's office does a background check before they will give these permits to you. One gun purchase will use one permit. At least the background check TRY to weed out the ineligible. The problem is many have not been determined ineligible, even though they ARE dangerous. It is an "after the fact" situation.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Allison Finch said:


> GH, I simply love your "random" thoughts. You ought to go random more often!!!



There are those who will say I'm always random, and dangerous, :wink:


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Golden Horse said:


> Forgive me, I don't totally understand your set up, but aren't amendments to the Constitution in affect a form of re write? And there are how many of them now?
> 
> If you stick by the original Constitution do you not lose a lot of the rights that you now take for granted?
> 
> ...


Yes, we have amendments to the Constitution - it is not intended to be static. However, the process is purposely difficult - designed so that the vast majority of people must want the amendment...not just a minority of malcontents like me or activists like db. Both the House and Senate must approve it by a supermajority (2/3) vote, and then 3/4 of the states must ratify it. As a sidebar, the President has nothing to do with a Constitutional amendment. There have been a bajillion propsals put forward to amend the Constitution in over 200 years, but only 33 have made it through Congress, and only 27 of those have been ratified by the states.

But, a vast majority of the people do not want the right to bear arms provision removed or modified. And until that time comes, it remains an absolute right of the people. That is what makes limiting gun ownership very difficult - it is a Constitutional right. You pretty much have to demonstrate incompetence in one way or another or demonstrate that the person is a menace to society to limit ownership. Then, of course, is the subjective assessment of who is incompetent or who is a menace...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman once again I gotta agree with you in your above posts.
We do have a constitutional right to bear arms however we do not have the right to pose a threat to soceity or harm anyone else.
I am frustrated by the fact there are test to evaluate the potential for violence are not being utilized.
Neither law enforcement or the medical communtiy work together to prevent people with emotional or behavioural issues from owning firearms.
Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> I am frustrated by the fact there are test to evaluate the potential for violence are not being utilized.
> Neither law enforcement or the medical communtiy work together to prevent people with emotional or behavioural issues from owning firearms.
> Shalom


That is certainly true to a degree. We both know the recent Colorado episode by the red headed wonder could have been avoided if the medical and law enforcement communities worked together. However, current laws discourage just such cooperation.

The other issue is that, although his particular evaluations were evidently relatively conclusive, you know very well that psychological evaluations are largely subjective and dicey at best. While it is true that the bottom 20% or so might be so obviously a danger they could be skimmed off, there are a lot of people that are going to fall into a large grey area and if the evaluation is not 100% conclusive, preventing them from bearing arms would infringe upon their constitutional rights.

I will grant you, though - if we could skim off the bottom 10% or 20% with conclusive evaluations, it would more than likely resolve a far higher percent of the problem...how much, I don't know, but it could be a situation where removing 10% of the people evaluated would resolve 80% of the problem...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman I agree with 100 percent of what you posted
Once someone has completed , discountinued, or is released form treatment we have no way to be accountable for thier actions.
Yes there are plenty of people that are a danger only to themselves or others for a short period of time.
I am not suggesting that we treat them like we do some sex offenders have them register for life and account for every move they make.
That in my opinion would prevent and discourage most from seeking treatment. 
That is the paradox we are dealing with.
However once it has been noted that the individual has tendncies to be violent perhaps we can have a team of mental health professional decide if and when to release them from the ban on owning firearms. Shalom


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Are there no checks before a US citizen can buy guns?

The process up here..


*Individuals* who wish to possess or acquire firearms, and acquire ammunition in Canada, must have a valid Possession and Acquisition Licence. This licence is distributed exclusively by the RCMP and is generally obtained in the following three steps:
Safety TrainingTo be eligible to receive a PAL, all applicants must successfully complete the Canadian Firearms Safety Course[1] (CFSC) for a Non-restricted licence, and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course[2] (CRFSC) for a restricted licence. In most cases, the Non-restricted class is a prerequisite to obtain the Restricted licence. Information on the locations and availability of these courses can be found here.Applying for a licenceCurrently there is only one type of licence available to new applicants, the Possession/Acquisition Licence (PAL). Canadian citizens, as well as non-residents, can request a PAL by filling out form CAFC921Security ScreeningBackground checks and investigations are performed. All applicants are screened and a mandatory 28-day waiting period is imposed on first-time applicants.
As part of the application you have to give references, and the referees are always phoned. If you are vouching for a family member when they call they will identify themselves straight away and check if the applicant is in the room with you, and if so are you free to talk or would you rather talk to them at a later date.


It may sound long winded, but it seems to me to be a reasonable check and balance in the system, and once you have your PAL, a photo ID licence, then you have no limit on the amount of legal firearms you can go and purchase.

The licence doesn't allow you to buy hand guns or automatic weapons, but once again, doesn't bother me, I just want to own long guns, and we have a nice collection of them between us.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

Each individual State has their own laws about guns whether purchasing, owning or concealing.

Gun Laws- California Gun Laws, Gun Law, Florida Gun Laws, Texas Gun Laws

Then there are Federal Laws

ATF Online - Laws, Regulations & Rulings - Laws

.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Here in Texas as a private citizen I can sell STG any firearm that I have without ever disclosing it to the authorities. Unless he is a convicted felon he doesn't have to disclose that he bought it. See the problem.
It takes less than a a few hours in most cases here to purchase a firearm.
Something that can cost a person thier lives. Shalom


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Or… in the case of where I live…
Um, I decide I want a gun. (Not going to say why…. I just do.
So, I drive down to the local store that has what I want (8 minutes away) look all the pretty guns, chat with the employees, fiddle with this one and that one… ask questions (because I’m playing ignorant) like which gun is best for what use. I mean, I may need to shoot a bear, moose, or a raging bull with it someday!

The employees are only too happy to make recommendations, brag on the powers of certain guns over other ones, and swap gun stories while I jot down the required personal info on a piece of paper, all of which I can lie about with the exception of my ID. Because of course we know that NO ONE ever uses a false ID. wink

While said employees fax whatever paper to wherever it goes, I pick out a pretty case for said gun of my choice, several boxes of ammo, wait… they are having a big sale on ammo plus rebate coupons!! Oh happy day…. I grab 10 boxes!
Ding ding, papers are back and I’m all set to go. Employee carries said gun to the front of the store (policy thing) I pay for purchase, take said weapon into my hands plus my bag of goodies and walk out of the store.
It was far too easy.

After I leave I can sell it to whomever I wish, or in the case of this particular area, it will most likely get stolen within a few years.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Just read about a case in Georgia where 4 soldiers murdered someone and how they bought 87,000$ worth of guns, ammo, and bombmaking material.
We are seeing far too many such cases and sooner or later we need to demand some sort of reasonable systems that can track such large purchases.
Before we see not just a dozen people dead and more wounded but hundreds from one incident.
Time that we demand accountablity. Shalom


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

When I buy a horse I ensure I get a bill of sale _and_ a brand inspection. If I were purchasing a gun from someone that did not have the original bill of sale, I would like to have the serial number run so I knew it had "no complication" attached to it. 

Someone that does not want this info is eiher ignorant, or does not care b/c they couldn't buy one legally anyway. Kind of like prescription narcotics.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Would people be comfortable with people control rather than gun control then?

I understand that the USA is very proud and attached to their fundamental right to bear arms, but does not every right come with a responsibility? In this case your right to bear arms would be balanced by showing that you are responsible enough to own one.

Surely everyone would feel a little more comfortable knowing that guns are issued to people who are at least currently well balanced and reasonably sane?


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

Missy May said:


> When I buy a horse I ensure I get a bill of sale _and_ a brand inspection. If I were purchasing a gun from someone that did not have the original bill of sale, I would like to have the serial number run so I knew it had "no complication" attached to it.


As DB mentioned he could sell me a gun with no paperwork, but since it is DB, I know I would want paperwork :lol::lol:

.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Golden Horse said:


> Would people be comfortable with people control rather than gun control then?
> 
> I understand that the USA is very proud and attached to their fundamental right to bear arms, but does not every right come with a responsibility? In this case your right to bear arms would be balanced by showing that you are responsible enough to own one.
> 
> Surely everyone would feel a little more comfortable knowing that guns are issued to people who are at least currently well balanced and reasonably sane?


And, how do you suggest measuring that (well balanced and reasonably sane)? Within what tolerance? Since the accuracy cannot be measured or established, the answer is necessarily - n/a. 

BTW...is "long gun" a term just you use...or is that accepted slang for a rifle in your "neck of the woods"? Kind of a funny, but descriptive, way to put it.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Long gun is the accepted term in Canada for a rifle, hell we even had the much loved long gun registery *insert sarcasm for*

How do I suggest measuring reasonably sane, well as I said I like the system we have in Canada, is it perfect, no, but it is probably a step better than nothing.

As long as guns exist they will fall into the wrong hands, as long as there are people with guns there will be the odd crazy with a gun, that is inevitable.

Is my comfort level higher up here knowing that people who legally hold a firearm have completed a safety course, applied for a permit, gone through a cooling off period, had their relatives questioned, before they bought their gun, HELL YES.

Once I completed those steps I can take my licence anywhere and but another rifle, can buy a new gun every day for years if I want to, so I don't feel my rights are restricted at all.

But I did come from the UK where it is next to impossible to get a licence without a really good reason, and the vast majority of households do not keep weapons.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Well, maybe the District of Columbia should practice the same gun laws as Wyoming....in view of the fact that the number of murders involving a firearm commited per capita in DC were reportedly over 16 times greater than in Wyoming in 2010.


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Missy May said:


> When I buy a horse I ensure I get a bill of sale _and_ a brand inspection. If I were purchasing a gun from someone that did not have the original bill of sale, I would like to have the serial number run so I knew it had "no complication" attached to it.
> 
> Someone that does not want this info is eiher ignorant, or does not care b/c they couldn't buy one legally anyway. Kind of like prescription narcotics.


Yeah but you are smart Missy and know how to use the brain God gave you. 
Many many people in many many places view buying a gun (as in the weight and knowledge of owning such a thing) as being no different from getting a puppy from the neighbor down the road's mixed something-or-nother dog or the hun'art an' fitty dolla purty horse they been eyeballing for a few days.
So many people have no respect of the power a gun weilds or are so desensitized from gun culture it means nothing to them.
And, like the pup and purty horse, it won't be long before it's dumped at the pound or traded for a purtier one.


----------

