No. Like the UK - our police officers should not be armed at all.
Looks like they've been readjusting their expectations: http://news.sky.com/story/poli...
So why can't we do the same with guns ? Why can we not at least restrict gun ownership to people who have proven they know how to be responsible with them ?
No problems there. Not everyone should have a gun, but anyone who is willing to learn and train and abide by the law should have that right.
I can't imagine why anybody would want one in a residence
Not saying these are high frequency occurrences, but the obvious answers:
* home invasion
* WROL scenario (riots, for example, that I have personally experienced)
Put another way, it's better to have a gun and not need one, than need a gun and not have one :)
Using a gun defensively just increases the risk of it being somebody else who dies.
Defensive use of a gun doesn't require you to discharge your weapon, just as defensive use of your car doesn't require you to sideswipe a reckless driver off the road. Simply having the weapon can be enough to deter a criminal most of the times, and more than that, just having the *chance* of having a weapon can be enough to deter a criminal most of the time. tl;dr - there's a reason why most high profile mass shootings happen in gun free zones
Optimists don't worry about negligible risks like violent crime.
Sure they do. It's idealists that don't :)
I really don't trust cops with guns - but I can't in good conscience take their guns away and let you keep yours.
Funny, I feel exactly the opposite way. Knowing the culture of "gun guys", I would much rather have the guy practicing at the range with me armed than a cop who simply requalifies once a year. In fact, given the fact that civilian use of force is so much more scrutinized, I'll even argue that civilians are much more likely to be safe with their weapons than police. A police officer who kills someone in the line of duty has the protection of his union, and a bunch of the legal system. A civilian who kills someone in self defense, even when it's completely legit, is held accountable in extreme ways.
A reasonable projection - based on the century long continuous decline in voilent crime rates - of when that reverse would come into being if it really hadn't done so already.
My problem with your choice of a century as a timescale is that there are too many confounding variables. Society, culture, technology, economy, infrastructure, have all changed dramatically over 100 years, and it's very hard to assert even a standard reporting of violent crime over that period of time.
Cognitive dissonance exercise for you (since I think you mentioned you believed in global warming obliquely) - given that 1916 was a worse time for humanity than 2016, and we experienced a change of approximately +0.8C of warming, why shouldn't we expect the same benefit from the next +0.8C of warming over the next hundred years?
A responsible gun owner, by definition, is not keeping his gun ready - that would not be responsible.
I firmly disagree. A CCW holder is a responsible gun owner, and keeps his gun ready. And even if you're not carrying in the house, if you have a proper safe, you can get to your loaded firearm in an emergency while still keeping your family safe from accidents. (Oh, and don't forget to keep your wife trained and your kids trained in safety and operation too!)
Those guys may not be any better with a gun than you - but they show up with their guns already loaded and they are quicker than the police - and in sufficient numbers to outgun most break-in crews.
When seconds count, cops (and security guards) are just minutes away - see https://forums.1911forum.com/s...
There is no conceivable self-defense scenario where you need to shoot 30 people in 3 seconds.
Sure, and I've got no particular problem with restrictions on fully automatic weapons. "The right to bear arms" for me ends at area effect weapons, which, effectively is what fully auto fire is.
That being said, even against a single opponent, 15 rounds is better than 10, and the numbers get even more important if the number of assailants goes up.
Thank you for the conversation - I believe I accurately understand your position, even if I disagree with the premises that lead you to it. I hope at the very least I haven't come across as some sort of "gun nut", but rather a respectful "gun guy" :)