Please list crimes committed by people legally carrying a firearm. The fact is that the only people who wouldn't carry should a law like that go into effect are law abiding citizens. Illinois had it nearly impossible to carry concealed until recently, and that never stopped the hundreds of gang bangers in Chicago (where it is illegal to step out of your house with a gun unless disassembled, let alone carry) from shooting each other.

 

Besides that major flaw in it being for "public safety", police have proven they can't shoot straight either. My primary example being Chris Dorner. The LAPD mistook 2 hispanic women in a wrong make, model and color truck for a 6 foot tall black guy. They opened fire on the truck, firing a total of 113 shots and only hitting the truck 43 times. Of those shots, only one women was grazed with a bullet. Out of 113 shots, only one hit.

 

Another example is this story from Ogden, Utah. Police felt the need to SWAT Team a veteran with PTSD, but no violent history, who was growing marijuana in his basement to self medicate (they couldn't find any evidence of dealing). Because of the need to act like tactical special ops badasses, they raided his home in the middle of the night. I don't know about any of you, but I don't think clearest when I have just woken up, especially to a high stress situation. The veteran walked out with a handgun and killed one officer, while wounding another 6 with only 30 shots. The 12 man SWAT Team fired 250 rounds in return, and only hit the suspect twice. Keep in mind, this was at point blank distance.

 

However, when citizens are able to legally carry outside their home, it is not just their family they are saving from the too long average 7.5 minute response time of police, but other citizens.

 

During the Clackamas Mall shooting just days before Sandy Hook in December, a man armed with an AR-15 attempted to go on a mass shooting. After killing two people and wounding one other, his gun had repeated jams, leaving him unable to fire until the casing was cleared. It was at this point that Nick Meli, a 22 year old concealed carry permit holder who failed to see the gun free zone sign, pulled out his Glock 22 and took aim at the shooter. While he didn't fire, fearing missing and hitting a civilian behind the shooter, the shooter noticed he wasn't the only one armed and ran around a corner, putting a fatal bullet in his head.

 

Had he simply waited for police to respond, the shooter could have continued his rampage, resulting in more tragedy.

I don't understand your point in asking me to "Please list crimes committed by people legally carrying a firearm.". What relevance is that to my post?

 

Exactly, and they've had training. How dangerous is it going to be if the police, civilians and criminals start firing?

 

But if the police can't shoot with training, how on earth are citizens going to protect other citizens?

 

I'll agree that allowing citizens to carry isn't always a bad idea, but I still believe that the chances of them doing any good are slim to none, especially without adequate training.

a) Damn, ninja'd by c13 on "need reasonable suspicion for detention."

b) You aren't detained when cuffs are put on. Being handcuffed is sufficient to conclude that you're being detained, but you are involuntarily detained the instant that you are told that you aren't free to go. Now, I might actually challenge the idea that skirting around "Am I free to go?" means he isn't; I'd imagine that that might be a cop who knows he has no basis to detain him trying to not let him know. I think a court would likely rule that he'd reasonably think he was being detained and wasn't free to go, though. The exact language from Terry v. Ohio, which is the basis for police stopping people on reasonable suspicion, is "whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person." If the cop implies you aren't free to go, courts can find that you aren't.

Tom H: It isn't unusual for civilians who carry to be better marksmen than police. Police are trained to the level that's required for their jobs; civilians who carry do it by choice. People who do something because they have to for their job tend to be worse at it than those who do it because they want to. Now, you could make a really good case that marksmanship on a range has nothing to do with marksmanship in actual firefights (I'm pretty sure numerous studies have found exactly that), but often, neither police nor civilians do the sort of training that'd help in real situations. For example, the NYPD basically does the bare minimum under state law, because every year they need to requalify all of their 35,000 or so officers. Police who only shoot for their annual qualification may be worse shots than civilians who go to competitions once a month.

I don't understand your point in asking me to "Please list crimes committed by people legally carrying a firearm.". What relevance is that to my post?

 

Exactly, and they've had training. How dangerous is it going to be if the police, civilians and criminals start firing?

 

But if the police can't shoot with training, how on earth are citizens going to protect other citizens?

 

I'll agree that allowing citizens to carry isn't always a bad idea, but I still believe that the chances of them doing any good are slim to none, especially without adequate training.

Because what is typically claimed for abolishing carrying is that it will reduce crime rates. However, a majority of firearms crimes are committed be people who are already banned from owning firearms. Other crimes are committed in the home (which is much rarer than the majority of ghetto violence), but still not where the argument of someone legally carrying would be applied.

 

My point was that having a label in front of a name doesn't mean anything in regards to skill level. A large majority of police officers only shoot when they are required to qualify, which in most places is about 2-4 times a year, with some as little as once a year. An average civilian goes shooting one or twice a month, and fires more rounds than the police officers do (typically 50-100 depending on qualification).

 

Also, almost every single mass shooter has stopped as soon as someone with a gun, whether law enforcement or civilian, arrived. However, the difference between an armed citizen and law enforcement is that Law Enforcement is almost never in the area, and takes around 7 minutes to respond to large shootings. Where legally permitted (since almost all mass shootings are in gun free zones where only cops can carry guns), the chance of someone with a gun immediately responding drastically increases.

 

Here's a few examples of armed citizens and off duty cops (under a system like some are proposing, cops would be unable to have a firearm outside of home or work) stopping situations that might have turned into mass shootings. http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

First, It's typical a liberal Canadian would tell us not to own guns. Recent examples are blatantly obvious, school shootings, shootings of random people inside of coffee shops, etc. anywhere else in public really. It's my right to carry my gun because I have ONE life, and only ONE life. I will protect it by any means necessary. That includes carrying my firearm with me whereever I go. Do you think the parents of those children in Mass. thought their children were safe? You bet they did. It's better to HAVE a gun and not need it then to need it and not have it. Secondly, with this douche recording the video, just like others said. He's trying to cause trouble, FYI if a call comes in from dispatch, the police are required to respond, when an officer sees that you match the description of someone who was called in, UNFORTUNATELY it is reasonable suspicion. The problem comes when officers Assume Probable cause off of tips, reasonable suspicion is different. I have been stopped by police in Walmart for carrying before my career in Law enforcement started. I gave the man everything he needed and was out in less than 5 minutes. Reasonable suspcion is very, VERY little. If I get a call about someone and i see him/her on the street or in the area, I will check them out. Will i violate their rights? No, is asking for their ID violating there right? No, its not. I will damn well place someone who is verbally not complying in handcuffs for my own safety. Does that mean they are being detained? No, if they ask to leave then by law i unlock the cuffs and let them on their way. In a nutshell, 1. People Anti-gun are complete liberal open minded idiots who's first response is to cower and hide when someone would bust into their home. Unfortunately police cannot respond in seconds and I being involved in LE believe that you as a citizen should take it upon yourself to protect your life, libery, and property. 2. Reasonable suspicion can be justified after dispatch gets multiple calls on a suspect, and 3. Handcuffs does not immediately = detaining.

Slimory, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a semiautomatic-only firearm; assault rifles MUST be selective fire (meaning they MUST have fully-automatic capabilities). It IS extremely expensive to acquire full-auto weapons in the US; the only weapons that can legally be full-auto were made before 1986, so they cost a lot of money because there aren't many of them left.

Also, the Second Amendment isn't going away for a long, long time. Not sure how constitutional amendments work in Canada, but here they need two-thirds of each house of Congress to even be formally proposed, and then need three-fourths of the states to ratify it. There have only been 27 , and the first 10 and the 27th were proposed together (yeah, the 27th Amendment was proposed with the Bill of Rights in 1789 and ratified in 1992). The only amendment that actually took away an individual right was the 18th (allowing Prohibition), and that was also the only amendment to be repealed by another. It's really, really hard to amend the US constitution.

Also, what are you talking about when you dare someone to go into a gun shop and say they're buying a gun for self-defense? That's going to get a reaction of "Oh, OK." It's not weird or anything, it's a perfectly normal reason to buy a gun. I'd imagine that the only other reason that's around as common would be "I like to go to gun ranges, and I think this gun would be fun to shoot" and "I like hunting". c13 knows more about this than I do, but gun store clerks are generally armed themselves to protect themselves and the store (people might try to rob a gun store to get more/better guns, so clerks are armed to prevent it).

 

Sorry for the double post, but Technically, fully auto weapons are legal, even those after 1986. Its called and FFL Class 3 I believe. They can legally own fully automatic weapons. Also, nothing in my opinion is an "assault" rifle. All guns have the ability to kill people, hell a hammer can kill people, shit with martial arts training a credit card can kill people.

First, It's typical a liberal Canadian would tell us not to own guns. Recent examples are blatantly obvious, school shootings, shootings of random people inside of coffee shops, etc. anywhere else in public really. It's my right to carry my gun because I have ONE life, and only ONE life. I will protect it by any means necessary. That includes carrying my firearm with me whereever I go. Do you think the parents of those children in Mass. thought their children were safe? You bet they did. It's better to HAVE a gun and not need it then to need it and not have it. Secondly, with this douche recording the video, just like others said. He's trying to cause trouble, FYI if a call comes in from dispatch, the police are required to respond, when an officer sees that you match the description of someone who was called in, UNFORTUNATELY it is reasonable suspicion. The problem comes when officers Assume Probable cause off of tips, reasonable suspicion is different. I have been stopped by police in Walmart for carrying before my career in Law enforcement started. I gave the man everything he needed and was out in less than 5 minutes. Reasonable suspcion is very, VERY little. If I get a call about someone and i see him/her on the street or in the area, I will check them out. Will i violate their rights? No, is asking for their ID violating there right? No, its not. I will damn well place someone who is verbally not complying in handcuffs for my own safety. Does that mean they are being detained? No, if they ask to leave then by law i unlock the cuffs and let them on their way. In a nutshell, 1. People Anti-gun are complete liberal open minded idiots who's first response is to cower and hide when someone would bust into their home. Unfortunately police cannot respond in seconds and I being involved in LE believe that you as a citizen should take it upon yourself to protect your life, libery, and property. 2. Reasonable suspicion can be justified after dispatch gets multiple calls on a suspect, and 3. Handcuffs does not immediately = detaining.

 

Sorry for the double post, but Technically, fully auto weapons are legal, even those after 1986. Its called and FFL Class 3 I believe. They can legally own fully automatic weapons. Also, nothing in my opinion is an "assault" rifle. All guns have the ability to kill people, hell a hammer can kill people, shit with martial arts training a credit card can kill people.

 

I am glad we agree on some points, but the first time an officer illegally detains me by handcuffing me without telling me what I am charged with (if anything), he will have a lawsuit coming his way.

I am glad we agree on some points, but the first time an officer illegally detains me by handcuffing me without telling me what I am charged with (if anything), he will have a lawsuit coming his way.

 

Which you rightly should, just know detaining and placing in handcuffs are two different things. I can say, "sir I'd like to talk for a second and im going to place you in handcuffs for both of our safety, you are not being arrested and you have not been charged and are free to go if you like." MOST people will just go along with it, however i included that you were free to leave, therefore any lawsuit would be dismissed. Asking if you are free to leave is always legal. If they say yes, than if you really don't want to talk you are free to leave. This video basically shows some douchebag who can pull out a century book out and aggravate the cops, not to mention wasting resources that could be preventing that officer from doing something important.

 

if you're not doing anything wrong why would the police bother you anyway?? im sorry but even though openly carrying a weapon is Legal.. how do you NOT see the police getting involved with that after everything that's happened in this country the last 20 years.. its really a dick move to be doing that and also wasting the cops time stopping him from dealing with REAL criminals not wanna be lawyer's.. which it looks like the OP is since his title on here is "code3customz Legal consultant" give me a damn break man! this is just ridiculous yes there are some asshole cops but that doesn't mean you can go stretching the law looking for trouble which is exactly what they were doing in the video (to me it looks like a cry for attention to be quite honest)

Sorry for the double post, but Technically, fully auto weapons are legal, even those after 1986. Its called and FFL Class 3 I believe. They can legally own fully automatic weapons.

Regarding this, the ATF refuses to process automatics that were manufactured past 1986 (I have a part time job at a Class 3 dealer), so you could never order it. Some PD's, especially in rural areas, exploit LE exemptions to get fun guns for the department, but none of the officers could keep them after leaving the job. I know of one former police chief in Missouri who burned through tens of thousands of rounds of ammo a month with various PD owned full auto's.

 

They will process suppressors and Short Barreled Rifles made past then though, which might be what has confused you. Once the paperwork is filled out, it takes a 6 month background check, and the gun has to stay in the shop the entire time.

Your right, I guess technically people will get fully auto weapons, with the FFL class 3, with the receivers and other crucial parts pre-dated 1986. I know it is very difficult, and very expensive to acquire.

Wrong the media alot is. Semi-Automatic fire capablilities make not an "assault rifle". Hard to acquire true assault rifles are.

Nope, a tip does not necessarily constitute reasonable suspicion. See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266. An anonymous tip, to count for reasonable suspicion, must at the bare minimum provide some reason to believe it is reliable in its description of illegal activity. The fact that it correctly describes the appearance of a person is insufficient. An officer who searches based on an anonymous tip that a person meeting some description is carrying a gun is violating the Fourth Amendment and has an excellent chance of getting the evidence thrown out in court.

In Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, an anonymous tip was enough in a "close case", and that involved a tip that predicted non-obvious future behavior (the tip included when a woman would leave a building, and where she would go). The Supreme Court ruled that that prediction, once verified by police, showed that the informant knew something of the affairs of the suspect, even though it was close. In general, a tip can be the source of reasonable suspicion, but it depends where the tip comes from.

Handcuffs are a detention or an arrest. While handcuffs do not necessarily an arrest make, they certainly result in a situation where a reasonable person would conclude they are not free to go. That means the person has been seized in the Fourth Amendment sense (to quote Terry again, "It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person.") Seizing/detaining a person absolutely must be supported by at least reasonable suspicion. If you explain to the person that they are free to leave but you want to handcuff them, you'll get an odd look, and it still may not hold up in court. Generally, the idea is that a cop talking to someone who is free to go is like two citizens talking on the street; handcuffs aren't part of that. If you announce that you'll "talk for a second, and I'll cuff you", a reasonable person would probably assume "lets talk" is an order, which is a detention. You'd have to bend over backwards to make cuffing someone NOT a detention, and frankly, I can't imagine why anyone would agree when they could instead agree to keep their hands in view.

Also, to reply to the comment about assault rifles: It's actually a specific technical term. For you to say you don't think there's such a thing as an "assault" rifle would be like me saying there isn't such a thing as a "hybrid" car. It's a translation of the name of the first assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr 44 (Sturmgewehr = "storm rifle"). It refers to individual selective-fire rifles firing intermediate-power cartridges. Unlike "assault weapon", there is a strict formal distinction between assault rifle and not-assault rifle.

EDIT: There was a mega researched info dump here, which took time, but it's been snipped because it was kinda excessive and we moved passed it.

This is a public safety issue not a human rights issue

This is a public safety issue not a human rights issue

True, guns should never be human rights issues.

This is a public safety issue not a human rights issue

 

 

True, guns should never be human rights issues.

It doesn't matter what you two believe when it comes to this. In the US, we have laws that bound the government. One of them is the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Supreme Court, as well as multiple federal courts, have ruled multiple times that someone carrying a gun properly (ie: holstered for handguns or slung with rifles/shotguns) is not reason for police to detain someone. As cp702 pointed out, the judicial interpretation of it is the same as a "man with a wallet."

 

Until a gun is used to harm or threaten to harm someone else by an individual, the police have no right to stop him, much like with free speech.

It doesn't matter what you two believe when it comes to this. In the US, we have laws that bound the government. One of them is the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Supreme Court, as well as multiple federal courts, have ruled multiple times that someone carrying a gun properly (ie: holstered for handguns or slung with rifles/shotguns) is not reason for police to detain someone. As cp702 pointed out, the judicial interpretation of it is the same as a "man with a wallet."

 

Until a gun is used to harm or threaten to harm someone else by an individual, the police have no right to stop him, much like with free speech.

I agree but if people would just cut the BS and do what the officer asks rather then argue his rights are being violated then life would be easy

It really makes 0 sense to be able to open carry in the U.S, what does anyone need a gun for? I don't have one, what makes 0 sense is, people know open carry is legal and STILL call the police because it poses a threat, yet if a police officer stops you to find out whats going on, he can't do anything about it, whats the point? I think the American open carry law needs to re-written... nobody needs a firearm unless in a position of authority or emergency personnel.

oh really? i guess you never heard of theft where criminals steal your shit at gun point or you never heard of a shooting before...yeah that's why we have open carry laws here buddy...to keep the crime rate down and to keep the government in check

That was deep. My thought on the video is, the reason cops are edgy and don't answer certain questions are because of people like him. Yes the man has the right to question the officer and his intents, but the officer doesn't know what is going on inside that man's mind. He doesn't know whether or not the person is contemplating drawing and firing on the officer or other people. Yes the officer should have answered his questions and told him his intents, but if the person just would have been cooperative and not beligerant and bullheaded, he could have avoided all of the confrontation. As for the open carry laws, I agree with them, I think every American citizen should be allowed to posses a firearm. BUT, in my opinion, they shouldn't be allowed to have it on their waistband in plain sight, because situations will occur like in the video above. BUT, if they do decide to carry, it should be in some sort of concealed holster, like an in-the-waistband holster, or a shoulder holster. Somewhere that it is easily accessed when it is needed, but not in plain sight so that it will scare people and have people contact the police. As for what Slimory was saying, people should be allowed to posses a firearm for personal defense reasons. If someone were to break into my house, which is private property, with harmful intent, whether it is to severely injure or kill with a firearm, I should be allowed to meet him with equal and, if necessary, opposite and deadly force. Going into any gun store across the U.S. and saying, "I would like to purchase that firearm for self-defesne purposes" is like going into Wal-Mart and saying, "I want to buy that watermelon for eating purposes". No one is going to question your intent, why you bought the firearm. Although, I do agree that background checks should be required for any firearm at any point in time. Whether it is at a gun show or a gun store, they should be required.

I agree but if people would just cut the BS and do what the officer asks rather then argue his rights are being violated then life would be easy

And if the officer would've realized that no crime was being committed after responding to the call and if he didn't feel the need to "prove" he was better than the open carrier, then the entire thing would've been avoided.

oh really? i guess you never heard of theft where criminals steal your shit at gun point or you never heard of a shooting before...yeah that's why we have open carry laws here buddy...to keep the crime rate down and to keep the government in check

Yes really, i'm gonna tell you something, I was held at gun point 3 years ago my second winter in Nova Scotia, I wasn't mugged , why? because I beat the shit out of him and to this day I don't carry a gun or a knife, why do I need to? i'm not a panzy.

Yes really, i'm gonna tell you something, I was held at gun point 3 years ago my second winter in Nova Scotia, I wasn't mugged , why? because I beat the shit out of him and to this day I don't carry a gun or a knife, why do I need to? i'm not a panzy.

Just because you can say you've done something doesn't mean everyone else can. Look, I've had people in wheelchairs buy guns from me. Are you saying that they are all panzys who need to man up?