The NYPD is one notable exception, but the LAPD and the LA Sheriffs and the CHP all require cops buy their own.
*More commonly, the department issues a gun that probationary officers carry until they are off probation, then they can switch to any personal weapon they like from a list approved by their department.
If I had to guess, I’d say that most U.S. police officers carry personally-owned weapons on duty.
Off-duty guns are another matter. A few limit any off-duty carry to the same gun the officer carries on duty. More commonly, the department authorizes one or more ammunition types, and officers can carry any firearm that will handle that ammunition. This permits officers to carry smaller, more easily-concealed firearms while off duty.*
*By the time they graduated from the academy earlier in March, Minneapolis’ newest police officers had everything they needed to bring criminals to justice.
Everything, that is, except a gun. And handcuffs. And a flashlight.
…
Before hitting the streets, new recruits are required to buy their own sidearms ($600-$700) and holsters ($100-$200), although the department does supply ammunition.*
In other nations, usually the police are issued their duty, but not their off duty or back up guns.
So, department issue plus upgrades plus smaller, off duty guns, for the million or so law enforcement officers in the US. Plus military weapons. That’s a lot of guns. Should be enough to keep Smith and Wesson in business for decades, centuries even.
Like a permit to march or demonstrate, perhaps? Or being restricted in where/when you can do either?
Like those marching and demonstrating permits, I presume?
It’s a hypothetical; there’s a perceived need to tighten up the gun ownership restrictions because of the recent uptick in mass shootings by clearly mentally ill people.
And what would be a compromise exactly? The current situation seems to be one side saying that they’d like a change in the status quo (i.e. tighter restrictions), and the other side accusing them of not wanting to compromise. In my experience, it’s been the gun owner/gun lobby that’s been notoriously unwilling to compromise, budge, consider, or anything- the strategy seems to be one of dogged and insane stubbornness in terms of not considering anything beyond a completely free and unfettered access to guns, along with an absolute refusal to engage with the idea that there could possibly be a problem with that. Look at the opprobrium and hatred that still dogs Bill Ruger’s memory because he had the temerity to actually try to compromise and not dig his heels in on RKBA stuff.
It’s a very 3 year old approach to the problem- one that works if you get enough people being stubborn enough. Problem is, that I have a feeling that like a 3 year old, when the grownups get fed up, they’re going to get overruled and spanked.
First, I wasn’t talking about gun registration. I was talking about something much more akin to a drivers’ license or fishing/hunting license that indicates that you’ve been duly trained and vetted to operate a firearm. Just having the license doesn’t indicate anything about what fishing rods or boats or how many of each you have.
Put simply, I’m not advocating gun control so much as shooter control. I’m not so stupid as to think that a guy with a Winchester 1907 couldn’t be nearly as deadly in a mass shooting as a guy with an AR-15. Or a 10/22 for that matter. It’s not the tool that’s deadly; it’s the guy pulling the trigger, and that’s where the effort needs to be put in identifying and preventing loons and felons from openly buying guns.
More like a permit to publish your own book, or to speak in the public square. Permits for marching and demonstrations are typically for logistical purposes, not content.
Those proposing a change from the status quo have the burden to offer the compromise. When all is proposed is restriction after restriction, it’s accurate to level the accusation of not wanting to compromise.
I was talking about licensing as you were. The concerns still stand. What would be a fair offer to mitigate those risks or assuage those concerns?
But none of the suggested solutions would have helped in those rare cases.
They have that in CA. As you can see by CA’s murder and violent crime rate, it hasnt helped.
First off, I just want to say this has been my experience too, and it infuriates me. I’m sick of it.
This however is just silly. You don’t think that if we did as Japan does and only allow shotgun and air rifle ownership, and no handguns, that we could solve the problem to a great degree?
Right. Those are worthlessness stopgap measures. Banning unneeded and powerful guns would be the most effective. You know, if people are really serious about greatly reducing deaths by guns.
Yep, see. CA has the strongest gun control laws in the nation. Many of which are under judicial review. But these very strong and restrictive gun laws are called “worthlessness stopgap measures”. Why should the gun side offer to compromise when the grabber side refuse to compromise? When even the strongest gun laws in the nation- are 'worthless"? (which, more or less, they* are*- worthless)
But without defining what they are, or on what Constitutional, legal, and moral basis they derive. So, whaddaya got? Nuthin’, amirite?
But mentally ill people do keep getting guns anyway, don’t they? Despite your total denial just a few posts ago. So, whaddaya got?
Easy, since real semiautomatics are still easy to get, and you don’t want to do anything about them.
Three? Why not one? Harder to evade that way.
And we agree, although it’s way too easy to create loopholes and simply lie. I do hope you can agree that only guns appropriate and intended for those purposes would fit under those usages, or it’s meaningless.
Since you implicitly admit that there are no other valid uses, and I agree, then anything outlawing those other uses and guns intended for those other uses is reasonable. Good. Now why do you oppose those measures?
Can you honestly claim to be willing to entertain any position other than the one you hold? Is any compromise, however you define the term, something that there’s any point presenting to you?
It would be more in line with the thinking of civilized society to say that those wanting to exert a right to undermine its most basic precept, the preservation of human life, have the burden to support their claim. You might try that approach sometime if you want to convince anyone.
What sort of “compromise” is even theoretically conceivable to you other than one creating restrictions on your ability to kill?
How about saying “Your concerns are unfounded, now get on with it”? Concerns are held by the concerned. Getting them taken seriously is their own problem, and if they can’t do it they need to grow the hell up.
You said: “They have that in CA. As you can see by CA’s murder and violent crime rate, it hasnt helped.” You are making my point for me. The measures are virtually worthless, because they HAVEN’T WORKED! And as I’ve said, oh 3 thousand times to you*, strong gun control laws in just select states are of course not going to address the problem.
As for “unneeded and powerful”, as I alluded to earlier, how about we go the Japan route and only allow shotguns, air rifles, and no handguns. The 2nd amendment would be preserved, and gun deaths would drop dramatically.
Gee, ya gotta really read the thread, I have listed several Constitutional gun control measures in this very thread, such as a ban on bump stock and better controls/background checks. And, you are responded to a couple now, so?
Yes, and you know what? Drunk drivers still kill people. Despite strong laws against it, campaigns, etc.
“real semiautomatics”? what the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about banning all semi-automatic firearms?
I picked a reasonable number. And really- background checks dont stop criminals from getting guns.
Pretty much all guns are "guns appropriate and intended for those purposes ".
I dont really know what you’re talking about. The list is not all inclusive.
What do you mean by *“anything outlawing those other uses and guns intended for those other uses is reasonable. Good. Now why do you oppose those measures?” *What other uses? What guns are intended for uses other than those I have listed? What measures do i oppose? But for the FOUTH time:what "reasonable’ gun controls do you propose? YOU. And try to make your response understandable.
**Yep, this proves my point. **No matter how strong and restrictive gun laws in America are- the gun grabbers want even more restrictive laws. Why? Well, because the ones we have dont work! (we can all agree on that). But you see- The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. So, a sane person would say “*Hey , these gun laws dont work! Clearly gun laws in American are useless in reducing violent crime!” *The *other type of person * would say "Hey , these gun laws dont work! Clearly, we need to double down and get more and stronger laws!"
Because a sane person would expect to see *some *results from the toughest and most restrictive laws in America- and then be able to go "See, those laws reduced violent crimes by 25%! Clearly, even more laws would get a bigger reduction! " But no! it’s "See, those laws didnt reduce violent crime at all! Clearly, even more laws would get a bigger reduction! " Logic much?
No… my point was that a Winchester 1907 is a semi-automatic, large caliber, magazine fed self-loading rifle. It also looks a little like the grand-dad of the M-14.
But in practical terms, there’s no difference between one of these and an AR-15, except that nobody would call this an “assault rifle” because it’s old looking, has a wooden stock, etc… Someone could easily use one in a mass shooting.
Another point is that this thing was produced and sold commercially in the US for 53 years from 1905-1958.
Clearly whatever problems we’re having with mass shootings aren’t really with the availability of guns- they’ve ALWAYS been available and common. The issue is with people thinking that mass shootings are a valid way to do… something. And since nearly every one is mentally ill, or thought to have been mentally ill, that something is probably irrational and insane.
So the rational way to prevent these events isn’t to come down like a hammer on the sale of guns; they’re already out there in too great of numbers, it’ll just force people underground (much like prohibition), and it effectively punishes the overwhelmingly vast number of law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a handful of lunatics.
The rational way is to better vet the owners/users such that lunatics and unstable types are prevented from having them. I’d think a combination of better vetting of gun owners and/or licensing combined with better reporting requirements and penalties for non-compliance among the mentally ill would reduce the number of mass shootings. I’d also think that some kind of crackdown on the number of hours you can report on a mass shooting would help the most (if they weren’t in the news, nobody would do them), but that would probably run afoul of the 1st amendment.
But making much more restrictive laws, ones that would actually DO SOMETHING to reduce deaths, is not “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” It instead would be doing something new, that we have never tried in this country. Call it gun-grabbing, call it what you wish. You might be against this (and understatement to beat all understatements, I am well aware), but that doesn’t mean it’s illogical.
So? If one really wanted to see deaths reduced by even more than has happened due to the general decrease in violent crime over the last few decades, one might at least consider the possibility that the 2nd Amendment is not sacrosanct, and amending it or even abolishing it should be on the table.
I am not opposed to these things. If I were a betting man, though, I’d wager they won’t do much at all to stop mass shootings. No, it’s like some people say about climate change. We can’t do anything about it now, so we’re gonna just have to learn to live with it. So, if we won’t put heavy restrictions on the number and types of guns we are allowed to own, we’re just gonna have to learn to live with mass shootings.
ETA: Wait, what the hell am I saying? We obviously have learned to live with them.
We already tried bans on handguns- they didnt work.
Except that there is no evidence that gun control laws would reduce violent crime. They never have- why should they then if we just make them stronger?
Banning handguns would cost tens of billions, put millions in prison, and all for what? To maybe reduce violent crime? “It’s never worked before, but* this *time!”
would say "Hey , these gun laws dont work! Clearly, we need to double down and get more and stronger laws!"
