D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2015, 07:22 PM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(23-11-2015 10:20 AM)yakherder Wrote:  Brazil is in the midst of making some big changes to its gun laws.

Brazil Set to Recognize Individual Gun Rights

Quote:Brazil’s congress is set to vote on legislation that would eliminate many of its restrictive gun laws and recognize the right for individuals to own guns for self-protection.

“Brazil is an extremely violent country and the state has failed to resolve this problem,” Laudivio Carvalho of the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party, who wrote the legislation, told Time.

“The population needs the right to defend themselves, their family, and their property as they are the ones being attacked. Ninety percent of assaults are being carried out with illegal weapons.”

The bill would remove restrictions that require Brazilian citizens to obtain approval from government officials before purchasing firearms as well as lower the age of ownership from 25 to 21. It would also increase the number of firearms and amount of ammunition Brazilians can purchase each year. However, they would still be limited to nine firearms and 600 rounds of ammunition per year.

...

So their solution is to make it even more violent? Sounds like the shitheads we have running 'Murrica.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 09:07 PM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(23-11-2015 07:22 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  So their solution is to make it even more violent?
Fortunately, there is no known solution. They're merely acknowledging this fact in trying to break the monopoly on the violence.

(23-11-2015 07:22 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Sounds like the shitheads we have running 'Murrica.
Countries and their governments are made up of people. People are shitheads and always have been. Such is life.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
23-11-2015, 10:18 PM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(23-11-2015 07:22 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 10:20 AM)yakherder Wrote:  Brazil is in the midst of making some big changes to its gun laws.

Brazil Set to Recognize Individual Gun Rights

So their solution is to make it even more violent? Sounds like the shitheads we have running 'Murrica.

That's right, by god, if somebody is trying to kill you, let them do it. The cops will arrest the bad guy but we don't want to increase the level of violence. Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Black Eagle's post
24-11-2015, 08:16 AM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
If somebody is trying to kill you -- calling the police first is the action of an invalid at best, coward and a likely victim at worst.

Your safety (and your family) depends on you taking action.

Call for the cops after you have done what you can do, to best insure your survival.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 08:36 AM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
I don't get what you guys have against private or government security? They're trained and it's their job. Seems a lot more logical than arming everyone to me. If shit goes wrong on their watch they can be held to account. Can't do that with armed civilians.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 09:00 AM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(24-11-2015 08:36 AM)morondog Wrote:  I don't get what you guys have against private or government security? They're trained and it's their job. Seems a lot more logical than arming everyone to me. If shit goes wrong on their watch they can be held to account. Can't do that with armed civilians.

Absolutely nothing against armed security, except that I can't afford it even on a six figure income. Even if I'm working in armed security or law enforcement myself, when the shift is up the weapon gets locked up. And for the record, all I had to do to begin picking up some shifts doing armed cash transit when I got to Canada while I was waiting for my other opportunities to pan out was get my firearms permit and a security guard license, the required classes for which I was able to finish over a weekend, and not have a criminal record. Whether or not the people I worked with had any actual training beyond how to load their gun was a matter of chance. Some were ex-military, others were right out of high school. In more advanced, higher paying armed security gigs I've taken, they've been more interested in my language skills than whether or not I knew how to handle myself in a scrap.

That's not to say the average armed security guard isn't better trained than the average concealed carrier, but there's certainly no standard in place. Most of the guys I see at the range who shoot for sport have more experience handling firearms than the police I've worked with.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 09:15 AM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(24-11-2015 09:00 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 08:36 AM)morondog Wrote:  I don't get what you guys have against private or government security? They're trained and it's their job. Seems a lot more logical than arming everyone to me. If shit goes wrong on their watch they can be held to account. Can't do that with armed civilians.

Absolutely nothing against armed security, except that I can't afford it even on a six figure income. Even if I'm working in armed security or law enforcement myself, when the shift is up the weapon gets locked up. And for the record, all I had to do to begin picking up some shifts doing armed cash transit when I got to Canada while I was waiting for my other opportunities to pan out was get my firearms permit and a security guard license, the required classes for which I was able to finish over a weekend, and not have a criminal record. Whether or not the people I worked with had any actual training beyond how to load their gun was a matter of chance. Some were ex-military, others were right out of high school. In more advanced, higher paying armed security gigs I've taken, they've been more interested in my language skills than whether or not I knew how to handle myself in a scrap.

That's not to say the average armed security guard isn't better trained than the average concealed carrier, but there's certainly no standard in place. Most of the guys I see at the range who shoot for sport have more experience handling firearms than the police I've worked with.

I think though, that in terms of expense and effectiveness of the solution, armed security is likely to be less expensive and more reliable than armed civilians. The only thing is that arming civilians hides the cost because the civilians arm themselves.

And I think if armed security was to become standard then the costs would be driven down. Currently it costs a lot to hire armed guards because it's an expense that might be absorbed by few individuals. Cops are basically armed guards with a bunch of other legal responsibilities too, and cops are not seen as expensive - because they are paid for with taxes.

I would not be surprised if gun enthusiasts who're going for proper training are probably even more effective than security who do it as a paid job, but again, there's no holding them to account. If security is the task of amateurs there's no one you can really go after if stuff goes wrong, whereas if for example at a school security is entrusted to a company then if stuff goes tits up the company can be sued for damages. That's the upside. The downside is that to cover themselves the security companies will charge more.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 09:28 AM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(24-11-2015 09:15 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 09:00 AM)yakherder Wrote:  Absolutely nothing against armed security, except that I can't afford it even on a six figure income. Even if I'm working in armed security or law enforcement myself, when the shift is up the weapon gets locked up. And for the record, all I had to do to begin picking up some shifts doing armed cash transit when I got to Canada while I was waiting for my other opportunities to pan out was get my firearms permit and a security guard license, the required classes for which I was able to finish over a weekend, and not have a criminal record. Whether or not the people I worked with had any actual training beyond how to load their gun was a matter of chance. Some were ex-military, others were right out of high school. In more advanced, higher paying armed security gigs I've taken, they've been more interested in my language skills than whether or not I knew how to handle myself in a scrap.

That's not to say the average armed security guard isn't better trained than the average concealed carrier, but there's certainly no standard in place. Most of the guys I see at the range who shoot for sport have more experience handling firearms than the police I've worked with.

I think though, that in terms of expense and effectiveness of the solution, armed security is likely to be less expensive and more reliable than armed civilians. The only thing is that arming civilians hides the cost because the civilians arm themselves.

And I think if armed security was to become standard then the costs would be driven down. Currently it costs a lot to hire armed guards because it's an expense that might be absorbed by few individuals. Cops are basically armed guards with a bunch of other legal responsibilities too, and cops are not seen as expensive - because they are paid for with taxes.

I would not be surprised if gun enthusiasts who're going for proper training are probably even more effective than security who do it as a paid job, but again, there's no holding them to account. If security is the task of amateurs there's no one you can really go after if stuff goes wrong, whereas if for example at a school security is entrusted to a company then if stuff goes tits up the company can be sued for damages. That's the upside. The downside is that to cover themselves the security companies will charge more.

From 2010, Canada 24 Accidental Deaths by firearms Source

In the USA 606 Source

Having more access to guns leads to nothing but more gun deaths.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 10:51 AM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
So don't buy one.

You'll be "safe".

Don't tell me I can't have one.

You're not a legislator - you don't make laws.

And - you're not my fucking mother. You don't get to set the level of danger I expose myself to.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
24-11-2015, 02:57 PM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(24-11-2015 10:51 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  So don't buy one.

You'll be "safe".

Don't tell me I can't have one.

You're not a legislator - you don't make laws.

And - you're not my fucking mother. You don't get to set the level of danger I expose myself to.

You don't get to legislate *either*. And though legislators codify laws, laws are made at the behest and in the name of all the people. Which means society *does* get to set the level of danger you expose yourself to, for example by regulating trade in dangerous stuff, making certain actions illegal etc.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: