Why Support Unsafe Cops? (Gun Control)

Great Debates
1

Often proponents of gun control measures state that some proposed restriction on gunowners is purely a safety measure and is not aimed in any way at making gun ownership in general more difficult or rendering legitimate uses of a gun (such as self-defense) difficult or impossible. Pro-gun types are, in fact, often accused of paranoia, irrationality, and a reckless disregard for safety for questioning whether such proposals are really designed for safety or are really designed to hinder legitimate gun ownership (indeed, I could dig up quotes of people calling me all of those things on this board), in some cases the accusations begin at merely asking exactly what a given proposal entails.

Yet, one question remains which I’ve never seen a gun control proponent address. To wit, why do these proposed (and in some cases implemented measures) exempt the police, who use guns routinely and certainly have their share of gun accidents. “Saturday Night Special” laws, for example, are generally supported by the claim that the guns affected by the law are unsafe for people to use - yet I’m not aware of a single saturday night special law that passes this bit of consumer safety on to the police. Similarly, “safe storage” laws are generally said to be aimed at preventing gun accidents and access to guns by children, and not at hindering legitimate self-defense. Yet, time and again when those laws are passed police officers are not required to store their guns in a safe manner despite the fact that children do access policemen’s guns, and criminals steal policemen’s guns.

To hit one that’s currently in the papers, lets look at “Smart Gun” laws in New Jersey. According to the proponents of the law, the requirements for all guns sold in NJ to be “Smart Guns” once a comittee has determined that they are feasible. Yet according to http://nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1035278209246170.xml , gun control groups are screaming that the bill was killed by the committee head amending it to include police. If such laws are really for safety and not meant to inhibit law-abiding gun owners, shouldn’t NJ gun control groups have included police in the law in the first place, and shouldn’t they be whipping up a frenzy about the police who don’t care about protecting children? It seems to me that if such laws were really about safety, the gun control organizations would be in favor of applying them to the police also (especially since many gun control proponents would like to limit most firearm ownership to the police).

Note that I’m not talking about capability restrictions here - while I don’t neccesarily agree with the arguments, there are certainly arguments put forth for exempting police from things like ‘high-capacity’ bans, machine-gun bans, or ‘assault weapon’ bans and I have no interest in discussing those. I only want to hit one regulations which are allegedly for safety.

2

Familiarity breeds complacency. IMHO that’s one of the big reasons more cops have a lot of ADs (accidental discharges).

It is a dangerous misconception that a gun can be made foolproof. A gun is an inanimate hunk of metal and sometimes polymer. It can only be unsafe is someone used it unsafely. The classic Colt revolver design is well over 150 years old and arguably has no safety features. If it’s handled correctly it can be one of the safest weapons in the world. I regularly compete with such weapons at least once a month with about 150 people at my club alone. Many thousands do this across the country every weekend with an astonishingly good safety record.

You can also have a modern gun like the Glock design with loads of passive safety features built in yet lots of cops manage to shoot themselves in the leg because they don’t follow rule 3*. No modern passive or active safety feature can make up for an unsafe person.

I used to belong to a gun club in Catalina Arizona. In the time I was there I only heard of one gun accident. A couple was putting away their guns after shooting and a .22 rifle went off, striking their baby in a stroller. The baby survived fortunately. Both parents were police officers and one was a firearms instructor. :frowning:

Don’t think I’m painting all cops with the same brush. A vast majority of cops are safe with weapons.

  • The four cardinal rules of gun safety:
  1. Every gun is loaded.
  2. Do not allow the muzzle to cover anything you do not with to destroy.
  3. Keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you are ready to fire.
  4. Know your target and what is beyond.
3

Why are police exempted from gun control?

Political survival - if a single police union objects to a bit of legislation, there ain’t NO politician who’s going to get labelled “voted for a law the cops opposed”, and nobody likes laws “telling them how to do their jobs” - especially cops.

The case a couple of months ago (Georgia, IIRC) wherein a cop came home, put his duty belt on the table, and the son picks up the glock and fatally shoots daddy is a prime example of why cops should NOT be exempted, but that’s another rant.

note: the glocks do not have a (conventional) safety - if the trigger is squeezed, and a round is chambered, it will fire - real handy for people who know how to handle firearms, but a deadly feature with kids and other idiots.

sub-note: glock is very upfront about this issue, and cannot be accused of deceptive or misleading marketing - their market is the serious shooter (incl. police), and they make that clear.

4

Even if I bought that, that doesn’t explain why gun control groups rant and rave about how the NRA doesn’t care about children instead of complaining about the police groups that don’t care about children. Look at the story I quoted; if anything, the ceasefirenj representative should be grateful to the chairman for having the guts to stand up for the principles of safety which ceasefirenj allegedly was fighting for by applying them to ALL people using guns.

Further, it doesn’t explain why the police groups oppose the laws in the first place. If the laws are really there only for safety, then aren’t the police condoning supplying criminals with guns and slaughtering children in gun accidents by opposing them?

Finally, there are numerous laws (such as laws on police accountability) that have been opposed by police unions but have passed into state or federal law. If your statement above was true, then none of those laws would have passed. Since they have, however, it’s clear that it is possible to pass a law without the approval of a police union.

5

OK, so why do you think cops are exempted?

Maybe 'cause this technology, if ever available, would make it nearly impossible for departments to issue weapons?

What about the riot gun (if they are still around) in the cruiser? How is everyone who might ever be assigned that car going to get recognized as the “owner”?

Then there is the matter of SWAT teams - those weapons are not owned by the users.

another strawman goes down in flames…

6

Either I misunderstood what you said, or you may not understand what straw man arguments are.

7

Oh, and I think, in most cases, cops are exempted because gun control advocates are simply lying about the fact that certain laws not affecting law abiding gun owners. They know it affects them, but lie anyway to get it passed - but as they don’t want to hamper the effectiveness of police, they’re exempted from such restrictions.

Personally, I’m sick of government agents being first class citizens.

8

Nit: The type of discharge you’re referring to, in which familiarity causes one to relax and break safety rules, is an ND (negligent discharge). Accidental discharge refers to a physical malfunction in the gun causing an inadvertant discharge (and they’re extremely rare), whereas negligent discharge refers to user errors (disobeying of safety rules) which result in a discharge.

9

Because they wear a badge. Do you wear a badge?

10

Happyheathen:

Because I believe that gun control groups are typically lying when they say that ‘safety measures’ will not and are not intended to hinder legitimate usage of firearms by citizens.

If that was true, then the smart gun technology would make it nearly impossible for gun stores to sell weapons, wouldn’t it?

A “riot gun” is typically a shotgun, and the NJ law in question only affects handguns, so its irrelevant to this issue. Of course, you could ask the same question about a gun kept in a home - since, allegedly, the technology will only prevent criminals from using the gun and not hinder legitimate use such as self-defense, how is everyone who might be living in that home going to be recognized as the “owner”? And this doesn’t address the general case, do you want a kid playing around with that (often sawed-off) shotgun or a criminal getting his hands on it?

Like above, the typical SWAT weapons are not handguns, so the NJ law specifically would not affect them. And I would think that safetey requirements in general would be much stricter for the fully automatic weapons that SWAT teams typically use.

Do you even know what that word means?

11

That’s not really an argument is it? Firemen wear badges, and they’re not exempt. Boy Scouts wear badges, and they’re not exempt.

Try to put a little more effort into your next post so that I can determine what you really mean, people tend to get angry if you guess wrong in interpreting vague statements.

12

Well- in the old days the Police looked at the world as “Us vs Them”- where “Us” was the police & the law abiding citizen, and the "them’ was criminals, scum, the underworld & their associates.

Now that is still true- except the “Us” is now only police officers, and the “them” is everyone else (including just about all of us here). Many Police Officers turn a blind eye to serious civil rights & procedure violations by their “fellow officers”. Notice that Police Offciers now call citizens= “civilians”, whereas I am sure Monty can confirm that unless you are subject to the UCMJ- you are a civilian- which includes Police Officers (exept MP’s, reservists, etc)

In those “old days” Police Officers mostly belonged to the NRA, and were staunchly anti-gun control. Now- they are mostly pro-gun control, as nearly every law is written to exempt THEM. For instance in CA there is a ban on so called 'assualt weapons". Of course this cannot apply to Police in the line of duty- after all, they sometimes have a legit need for such weapons. BUT- the Law as writeen also exempts RETIRED Police Officers. I admit that perhaps due to grudges from his former career a ret Cop might need a gun- but why a “street sweeper” or an “assualt rifle”? No- the only reason to include that loophole was to get the support of the Police- many of which are bona-fide “gun nuts” - but only for “US” of course. The Police were
“bought off”.

13

IIRC, the Federal “Assault Weapons Ban” also exempts retired police officers. The clause was put in as what some claim was an “FOP Kickback” for their intimidating support for the bill.

A retired cop should have no more or less rights than I have. Same with an off-duty cop. I do not understand why this is so difficult for people to agree with. Also, wasn’t there a big fuss a while back over the fact that cops were no longer allowed to possess firearms if they were convicted of a misdemeanor spousal abuse/domestic violence charge? Oh yes, it was the disgusting HR 455 (1997) introduced by Representative Stupak, which was created to repeal this. And somehow, some way, some gun control advocacy groups (HCI for one) actually supported allowing these convicted creeps to get a special status - that is, gun control advocates were pushing for convicted criminals who wore police uniforms to have more access to firearms? Am I mis-remembering here, or confused? :confused:

14

Sorry for my extreme ignorance here. Are off-duty cops exempt from gun laws?!? Can they take them home and store them exempt from the laws that govern storage around children for other folk? They don’t need to leave it locked up at the station? Once they are off-duty they should be just regualar citizens and subject to all the same rules as you and I. On duty they are carrying a weapon under their direct control and with special training in the circumstances that justify its use and what would constitute misuse. And even with lots of training specific to that subject they screw up on occasion. I’m with you “gun-nuts” on this one. This is wrong wrong wrong. And I’m not even going to go into the epidemiology of how the high rate of completed suicide among police officers correlates with the easy availabilty of guns … :wink:

BTW, I’ve read an article on smart guns and one specific rational to motivate its development was for police use … to reduce the risk of a criminal getting ahold of the police officers weapon and using it against him.

15

Smart gun technology is being supported by police and they are expected to be the first to adopt it. Enough police have been shot by their own guns that the average officer understands the value of the technology. I have no idea why exempting the police in NJ killed the bill, but I would bet it had more to do with bean counters that didn’t want to pay for the more expensive technology than the police who generally support smart gun technology.

Off duty police in many localities are required to carry guns. Most police forces that don’t require their officers to carry guns off duty encourage it. It is considered a multiplication of force. The logic is that there is a higher likelihood of having an armed officer at the location of a random crime if they are always armed. I can see where some exemptions of responsibility could be of benefit to the community.

I think a police officer who’s kid gets hold of his gun and shoots himself or a playmate should go to prison the same as any other citizen though. I wasn’t aware that police were exempt from such laws, but it is wrong if they are.

16

So-called “Smart Gun” technology is desired by police officers, but I’m not sure it can be said they’re “supporting” it.

The problem is a complex one:

A) Make sure the gun can only be fired by it’s owner, and not by anyone else.

B) Make it 100% reliable, or at least as close to reliable as current purely-mechanical firearms.

The problems, however, are numerous:

Electronics means batteries, batteries can die. If a dead battery disables the gun, the gun becomes a short cudgel at best.

Fingerprint sensors can take a few seconds to “recognize” a pattern, and can be fouled by sweat, dirt, blood, dust or rainwater. They also require the gun be gripped the same way, each time, and usually don’t accomodate switching hands.

Magnetic rings, or rings/watchbands/etc that have small transmitters, are subject to proximity. For example, Colt is working on a gun wherein it will not discharge if the badge is in front of the gun, but will if it’s behind the gun. A great idea (other than again, it’s dependent on batteries) but subject to electromagnetic interference (cop’s got a perp parked near a cellphone tower and all of a sudden the gun won’t “enable”, maybe) but worst of all, if the cop is toe-to-toe with a bad guy struggling for control of the gun, the range may be so short the system can’t tell “front” from “back”.

Same goes for magnetic/encoded rings- of the cop’s wrestling with the perp, his hands are probably close enough to the gun to enable the failsafes.

There’s one company (Galco, I think?) making a fingerprint-sensing holster. An excellent idea, again, except that currently it works at about 88% reliability. Meaning that roughly one out of ten “draws”, the holster might not release. And even when it does, it takes roughly 1.2 seconds to cycle and unlock. (Which doesn’t sound like much, but the average cop can draw and fire at least one aimed shot in about 1.2 seconds.

The reliability issue is the key. Whatever control, interlock, sensor or detector is used, if it’s not just as reliable as a purely mechanical arm, few officers are going to want it. Look at when some departments switched from revolvers to semiautos- lots of officers balked a little because they went from a point-and-shoot (DA revolver- pull the trigger and it goes “bang”) to something that required the manual release of a safety (S&W M59, Colt 1911, etc.) Which is partly why the Glocks are so popular- no manual external safety; they are operated like a DA revolver, but with more ammo on tap and faster reloads.)

17

So-called “Smart Gun” technology is desired by police officers, but I’m not sure it can be said they’re “supporting” it.

The problem is a complex one:

A) Make sure the gun can only be fired by it’s owner, and not by anyone else.

B) Make it 100% reliable, or at least as close to reliable as current purely-mechanical firearms.

The problems, however, are numerous:

Electronics means batteries, batteries can die. If a dead battery disables the gun, the gun becomes a short cudgel at best.

Fingerprint sensors can take a few seconds to “recognize” a pattern, and can be fouled by sweat, dirt, blood, dust or rainwater. They also require the gun be gripped the same way, each time, and usually don’t accomodate switching hands.

Magnetic rings, or rings/watchbands/etc that have small transmitters, are subject to proximity. For example, Colt is working on a gun wherein it will not discharge if the badge is in front of the gun, but will if it’s behind the gun. A great idea (other than again, it’s dependent on batteries) but subject to electromagnetic interference (cop’s got a perp parked near a cellphone tower and all of a sudden the gun won’t “enable”, maybe) but worst of all, if the cop is toe-to-toe with a bad guy struggling for control of the gun, the range may be so short the system can’t tell “front” from “back”.

Same goes for magnetic/encoded rings- of the cop’s wrestling with the perp, his hands are probably close enough to the gun to enable the failsafes.

There’s one company (Galco, I think?) making a fingerprint-sensing holster. An excellent idea, again, except that currently it works at about 88% reliability. Meaning that roughly one out of ten “draws”, the holster might not release. And even when it does, it takes roughly 1.2 seconds to cycle and unlock. (Which doesn’t sound like much, but the average cop can draw and fire at least one aimed shot in about 1.2 seconds.

The reliability issue is the key. Whatever control, interlock, sensor or detector is used, if it’s not just as reliable as a purely mechanical arm, few officers are going to want it. Look at when some departments switched from revolvers to semiautos- lots of officers balked a little because they went from a point-and-shoot (DA revolver- pull the trigger and it goes “bang”) to something that required the manual release of a safety (S&W M59, Colt 1911, etc.) Which is partly why the Glocks are so popular- no manual external safety; they are operated like a DA revolver, but with more ammo on tap and faster reloads.)

18

The article was Nov '99 Science and here is a summary and pertinent snippet from it

Parts of two letters that were published in response:

FWIW

19

As is usual on these sorts of things, the most technically correct (statement is ‘off-duty cops are exempt from some gun laws in some states’. It’s easy to find a gun control law in most states that cops aren’t exempt from, but you’ll almost never find a state where off-duty cops are treated just like any other citizen. The most common exemptions (and some of these aren’t what’s really being talked about here):
Specific safe storage laws. The ‘if a child takes your gun and shoots someone, you’ve committed X’ don’t exempt off-duty cops, but the ‘you must do A, B, and C’ ones typically do. Frex DC requires non-cops to store a gun unloaded, partially disassembled, and locked in an inaccessable manner, while cops aren’t subject to that restriction.

“Saturday Night Special” laws - generally such laws allow sale to police officers in general, not just for on-duty actions. South Carolina’s SNS law is like this.

Concealed Carry laws without exception exempt off-duty cops, in some states/localities off-duty cops are required to carry a handgun, and they are generally exempt from ‘location’ restrictions (schools, restaurants, bars, etc.) for concealed carry license holder. Pretty much anywhere fits this one, NC, CA, NY, NYC, IL, DC for examples.

Waiting period laws also pretty universally exempt cops from the waiting period for personal purchases, CA’s is an example though its kind of buried in the text.

License/Permit/Safety Class requirements for purchase generally exempt or are much easier to get by police for personal use. For example, the only people who can legally possess a handgun for personal use in Chicago or DC are current and police officers.

(I can find specific cites of the above if you’re unsure about a particular one, or you can look at the BATF’s state law summaries at http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/statelaws/22edition.htm . Note that the NRA-ILA’s state law summaries (or similar summaries from the Brady Bunch) aren’t useful here because they don’t list LEO exemptions.)

I’m not aware of any jurisdictions that have the police lock up their duty weapons at the police station (though I haven’t looked into it much), I know that in the ones I’m familiar with police take their duty guns home with them or don’t really have an issue gun (in some places, the officer selects and buys his own sidearm).

Well, then you might have to go into the epidemiology of how the high rate of complete suicides in Japan correlates with the incredibly hard availability of guns…

On your Science article:

The survey is pretty meaningless without the survey questions available, they could easily be treating “should there be laws against dangeously defective firearms” as part of that 72%, somewhat like the survey that showed that 1/3 of all women had been raped but included “have you ever had sex and regretted it the next morning” as rape. The vagueness of the statements about what people support would lead me to believe that there’s a jump from the questions asked to how they’re interpreting it. Oh, and although the author doesn’t come out and say it, he appears to be saying that smart guns wouldn’t have much effect on firearms deaths since he says early on that the incidents that he lists as things the smart guns would prevent are a vanishingly small part of overall deaths from firearms.

There’s an interesting little quirk in that; while Colt makes a number of (rather famous) handguns, Fulton only makes/does work on rifles as far as I’m aware (and doesn’t do any of the smart gun stuff today AFAIK, though I just emailed Clint about it). From the switch from ‘handguns’ to ‘firearms’, I wouldn’t be suprised if the personalization they were looking at was primarily suited to rifles. I don’t think you need to be an expert to realize that technology that will work fine on a rifle might be grossly impractical to use on a handgun.

That about sums up my position. Either the police are simply misinformed as to what ‘smart guns’ mean in practice, in which case the gun control groups should be educating them and not exempting them from laws designed to stop the slaughter of our children. Or smart guns would actually make handguns prohibitively expensive and unreliable, which contradicts the claims normally made about them and is part of their justification for passing the law.

20

Or maybe you did know just what I was talking about. A policemans’s badge is his license to carry firearms, make arrests, etc. Cops are extensively trainined in the law and handling firearms etc., and go through thorough background checks and psychological screening before being certified by the government that they can be relied upon to use their guns in a manner that is legal and safe. When a cop is suspended he is told to “turn in your badge and your gun”, and presumably guns issued by the department are registered.