A Police Officer's View on Gun Control

This post was taken from the rec.martial-arts newsgroup.
From: Katana@voyager.cris.com (KATANA)
Subject: Re: Right to vote/right to bear arms
Date: 1 Dec 1994 11:40:51 -0500
Zshoozshitsu (kholdi@csulb.edu) wrote:
: I tried to stay away from this argument, but to no avail. I made
: some statements that I feel I need to clarify before I get
: hammered for them.
Too late.

: When I made the statement about bullets penetrating bullet-proof
: vests, my intention was to imply that law enforcement (i.e. cops),
: are faced with fire power far superior to their own.
Well crap, now I have to drag myself into this. You see, I'm a cop, and I don't need you speaking for me.

You show a severe lack of knowledge about every point you've tried to make, and bringing "the cops" into it is my major pet peeve. What do you think the percentage is of cops who support gun control? I'm talking street level, vest wearing, "outgunned" cops. There are 1000 officers in my department. With the attention given to the crime bill, the topic of gun control comes up a lot. I've met *2*, yes *TWO* uniform officers who supported gun control. I've been involved in various police discussion groups, including FIDO and GEnie, for the last 6 years or so. In those forums, I met no more than 4 uniform officers who supported gun control.

You have been lied to about the position of the police concerning gun control. When a chief is appointed to his position by a mayor who is trying to display a "tough on crime" agenda, that chief better speak out for gun control. That's why you hear that the police support it. Those of us who work the street know that those effected by these laws weren't a problem for us to begin with. Did you know that there is a lawsuit pending, filed by the officers who were ORDERED under threat of disciplinary action to stand behind Bill Clinton during a pro-crime bill press conference just before the vote?

Hypothetical (I hate these, but it makes a point): I am given the power to force you to carry a gun at all times. Is my life, as a police officer, in danger from you? Does the presence of that gun somehow change you and make you more dangerous? If you never draw that gun from the holster, is it any different than the pen in your pocket? You see, it's not the GUN...it's the PERSON. Why take guns away from good people...because there are those who mis-use the tool and kill people? If that's your arguement, then we should ban cars as well. Those who drive recklessly or drive while drunk kill far more people, so let's take away your car for what they've done. But you "need" you car? Your car has never hurt anyone? Sorry, it's necessary because we need to protect those people that are being killed every year. My gun has saved my life and the life of my family and fellow officers on numerous occasions on and off-duty. I cannot deny a citizen that same right. A citizen with a gun is no threat to me, a criminal with a gun is.

: Someone said it was necessary to put guns in the hands of the
: ordinary citizens as a tool against a corrupt government.
: I'm sorry but I had to roll over and laugh on that one.
: A corrupt government that dares attack its citizens, will
: be in no mood to back down with their tanks, cobras, stealth

Tell that to the troops in Vietnam. Do you think the government is going to bomb Seattle because a certain percentage are sympathetic to or participating in a revolutionary action? While I'm of the opinion that it's unlikely we'll come to a point where revolution is the answer, I'm not so naive to believe it can't happen. Military heavy weaponry will not work against an America divided.

: bombers etc. etc. Now, handguns would really make a difference
: in that situation. That statement sounds like from

Which is why military-style weapons should be available, in addition to the necessary possession of these types of weapons to field any type of ""militia".

: Look for more and more disgruntled employees spraying bullets
: at people as they get laid off in the age of the infobahn.

And it's the gun's fault? I can think of a hundred different ways to kill the same number of people. The gun is the scapegoat.

: If you do away with guns completely, except hunting rifles, then
: there won't be armed burglars to fear. Instead, you can shoot
: with tazor (sp?) and stun guns. Or even use your deadly martial
: arts skills to win against multiple attackers.

Ever used a taser? They don't work a large percentage of the time (see Rodney King). Ever been hit with a stun gun? Mildly annoying and made me want to beat the crap out of the person who zapped me with it...and I could have. Oh, we're allowing hunting rifles? Did I mention that every single caliber used in average hunting rifles will penetrate body armor like it's not even there? Oh, maybe you didn't know that (see Threat Level). Let's see...Hunting Rifle: large caliber rifle, usually with scope, used to accurately shoot targets at distances of up to (we'll be conservative) 300 yards. Penetrates body armor. Sounds like the perfect cop killer to me. Better get rid of those too. (sorry, I'm getting sarcastic)

No armed burglars to fear? You mean "armed with guns". First, that's not true, but even if we pretend it is, it leaves is with a burglar armed with a wide variety of available weapons, the most common being a knife (yes, burglars are usually armed with some type of weapon). Now, who's gonna win when he confronts you or your family? That's easy, the one with the weapon and the strength. When you get rid of the guns you deny yourself and other law abiding citizens the ability to defend yourselves from those who don't play by the rules. It's that simple.

Ric DeLand (tired of looking at the faces of victims)

(not usually this far off-topic, but glad to give an officer's point of view, since the subject, as always, came up)

Eclipse's RKBA & Martial Arts pages.