The other day I got a phone call from someone collecting for the FOP and I asked them what they thought about gun control. The caller said the FOP asa whole supported gun control but that opinions amongst LEO officers varied on the question. What do some of the LEO on here think about gun control?

"Gun control means hitting your target."

"I miss my X, but my aim is improving."

Some people should not have access to guns. I have dealt with some of them on a professional level and in spite of their background checks and numerous gun safety classes, they were just plain wacky. If guns were outlawed, these guys would find ways to possess guns anyway just because of a fanatical desire to be "armed".

These days, any criminal can get ahold of a stolen firearm and use it to commit a crime against a citizen. To say that these "citizens" don't have a right to take steps to protect themselves is a bold statement to make. Everyone wants a safer society, but some want it safer so they can be a bigger predator.

I support gun control pretty much as it is.

Certain people should not be allowed to own guns, however, for the most part, I think people should be allowed to have one for self defense (if they have attended the appropriate classes of course).

Fletch is right, IF someone wants a firearm they will get one, no matter what.

Also, there are plenty of sportsmen that own guns for skeet, trap, hunting, or just letting off steam.

It is a constitutional amendment after all.

K

PLUS, usually the people that call to ask for money for FOP, PBA etc, are not officers...they are simply people that are hired to make cold calls (at least in the area where I am at).

I'd have no problem with a majority of the population having a gun provided they have had training in the proper use and care of the weapon. An all out ban on guns isn't going to solve anything other than making more people victims. In some cases the knowledge that citizens of a certain community are likely to have a gun in there home deters criminals from attempting B&E, but not always. I don't see the need for the common person to have a full auto assault rifle but there are those who would love to own a few. Owning one or two guns is one thing but the guys who feel the need to own 15-20 guns starts to raise an eyebrow. The people i'm referring to are the "collectors" who instead of having a variety of guns have 10 of the same gun, say semi-auto M4s. Here almost everyone has a gun and most aren't registered and almost all of them are either shotguns or AK47s. It's tradition here for them to shoot them in the air during celebrations. I couldn't begin to say how many times i've been woken up in the middle of the night by gun fire next door. I'm used to it now but it would have been nice if someone would have told me about it when i checked in.

If I was the great and powerful OZ, I would ban all guns from the planet. Personally the fact that humans still need to shoot other humans show how much further humanity needs to go.

BUT since I am not the great and powerful OZ, I think it's onlt reasonable to attempt to prevent automatic and larger weapons. Of course we will fail to some degree but to attempt to control hand guns and shotguns etc...is just unrealistic, too much a part of the culure at this point.

I am about to buy my first gun, not because I have any desire to have one but because when society breaks down I don't want to be the only guy without one.

I also agree we should force people to get certified and trained in firearm use and handling, we do it with cars we should do it for guns.

I also believe that the reading of the 2nd amendment does not give the right to own guns, BUT we as a society have accepted that definition so there is no point in trying to un ring that bell.

I am not a LEO but have a few in my family, they to a person recommed peope NOT own guns.

All very interesting points. Let me touch on one more thing.

An arguement one often hears from gun control opponents is that "if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them." Some of you have made similar points--i.e. that people with few scruples and plenty of determination can usually manage to get their hands on a firearm.

One of the counterpoints I have heard to this view is that it assumes there is a special class of people--"outlaws"--who, for some reason, have priviledged access to firearms. This, the arguement goes, is not true.

Supposedly, the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes entered ciriculation because somebody somewhere along the line bought them legally. Legally purchased firearms then get sold, stolen, lost, etc. and end up being used in crimes.

The bottom line: if guns were not available legally, would they be harder to get illegally?

Quote:

---

The bottom line: if guns were not available legally, would they be harder to get illegally?

---

Harder, yes but you would also create an even larger black market then already exists.

Guns can come from anywhere and in prison they are even made. It's not hard to do.

There are soooo many out there now.....it'd be a tough battle.

Again, tho; it is a right granted by the constitution.

K

I think that the point, though: Is the "black market" in firearms really the dark, mysterious thing we think it is? Or is the term "black market" shorthand for something much simpler?

For example, say a man buys a gun to keep in his car for protection. A year later, someone breaks into his car and steals the gun. Two months after that, the thief sells the gun to a guy in his neighborhood who in turn uses it to hold up a liquor store. Wouldn't we say the liquor store stickup man obtained his gun through the "black market?"