15,000 Police Officers Weigh In on Gun Control [Charts]

[Grenadiac]

you would all be bitching and moaning if a law to ban video games got passed, and applauding any cops who said they wouldn't enforce it

[Kartoffel]

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;40223726]you can be pulled over and fined even if you're only going 2 mph over that. Course that would be ridiculous so no cop in his right mind would do that.[/QUOTE]

Beware of Fairfax, VA. The cops there are out of their minds. :v:

[Nebukadnezzar]

[QUOTE=thisispain;40213563]when you dont enforce a law youre not expressing an opinion, youre not doing your job
i think its bizarre how the police in america treat the law as a recommendation or a suggestion.
if a sheriff or police chief doesnt enforce a law they shouldnt be sheriff or police chief.[/QUOTE]

Shut up, the poll said officers believed armed civilians would REDUCE violence

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=teh pirate;40224032]you would all be bitching and moaning if a law to ban video games got passed, and applauding any cops who said they wouldn't enforce it[/QUOTE]

This logic doesn't work because you can apply this to literally anything.

[Freezorg]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;40214884]which is kind of the point i'm trying to make. most cops are conservative fuckwits just because you have a badge doesn't mean you somehow know what would or wouldn't reduce crime[/QUOTE]
Facepunch is so full of armchair experts it's unbelieveable.
I love how you people always find a way to say "no they're not right because this and that, I am the one who's right"

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;40223726]Pretty much, and if you're not going at EXACTLY the posted speed limit, you can be pulled over and fined even if you're only going 2 mph over that. Course that would be ridiculous so no cop in his right mind would do that.

You can also be charged with assault if someone saw you take a knife out of your pocket to cut open a package or something in a public place. On top of that you can be charged with carrying a concealed weapon because it was in your pocket and hidden from view unless you've got a concealed weapon license. But it's just a pocket knife that wasn't being used to threaten anyone at all so that would be stupid.[/QUOTE]

that's not true. you can carry a concealed knife as long as it isn't a certain size(dependent on state laws) and doesn't use certain opening mechanisms(switchblade). and a box cutter is not considered a weapon except when used as one.

[Grenadiac]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40224347]This logic doesn't work because you can apply this to literally anything.[/QUOTE]

because banning guns is just as arbitrary and ineffectual as a video game ban

that's why the logic works that way

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=teh pirate;40225438]because banning guns is just as arbitrary and ineffectual as a video game ban

that's why the logic works that way[/QUOTE]

Well no because you can check to see the results of what happens through gun legislation.

[Grenadiac]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40225470]Well no because you can check to see the results of what happens through gun legislation.[/QUOTE]

and you can check to see if a video game ban has an impact on crime (tip: it won't, nor will gun bans)

confiscation is irreversible, you can't just take everyone's property to "see what happens". real life has no undo key.

[yawmwen]

sobotnik i thought you said(numerous times) the role of government is largely to protect the property rights of the citizen. how do you compromise that with the fact you seem pretty ok with government seizing a person's private property?

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=teh pirate;40225550]and you can check to see if a video game ban has an impact on crime (tip: it won't, nor will gun bans)[/quote]

It could, though it would require a good deal of research (unfortunately, the NRA likes to block research into crime involving firearms).

[quote]confiscation is irreversible, you can't just take everyone's property to "see what happens". real life has no undo key.[/QUOTE]

This is assuming the number of guns, their makes, their use, etc are all universally spread.

[Grenadiac]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40225571]It could, though it would require a good deal of research (unfortunately, the NRA likes to block research into crime involving firearms).

This is assuming the number of guns, their makes, their use, etc are all universally spread.[/QUOTE]

just because it "could" you're going to seize millions of peoples' private property for the sake of seeing what happens

ok

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40225566]sobotnik i thought you said(numerous times) the role of government is largely to protect the property rights of the citizen. how do you compromise that with the fact you seem pretty ok with government seizing a person's private property?[/QUOTE]

Because if you manage to reduce crime rates and increase living standards then its probably justified.

[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=teh pirate;40225584]just because it "could" you're going to seize millions of peoples' private property for the sake of seeing what happens

ok[/QUOTE]

You do realize that research doesn't solely consist of "take away all guns to see what will happen".

[Grenadiac]

and if you don't, which is - according to 15,000 experts - the more likely outcome, what then?

[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40225589]Because if you manage to reduce crime rates and increase living standards then its probably justified.

[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]

You do realize that research doesn't solely consist of "take away all guns to see what will happen".[/QUOTE]

that's what you're advocating

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40225589]Because if you manage to reduce crime rates and increase living standards then its probably justified.[/QUOTE]

but then the primary role of government is NOT to protect the private property of citizens, but to reduce crime rates and increase living standards. "rights" become nothing but a convenience, a set of things the government allows you to do because it doesn't disrupt the status quo.

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=teh pirate;40225600]and if you don't, which is - according to 15,000 experts - the more likely outcome, what then?[/QUOTE]

Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong.

Firstly, they aren't experts at all, they are police officers. They aren't criminologists.

Secondly, you don't rely on their opinion, you research to see the effects of legislation.

[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40225612]but then the primary role of government is NOT to protect the private property of citizens, but to reduce crime rates and increase living standards. "rights" become nothing but a convenience, a set of things the government allows you to do because it doesn't disrupt the status quo.[/QUOTE]

Ok and what's your point?

[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=teh pirate;40225600]and if you don't, which is - according to 15,000 experts - the more likely outcome, what then?

[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]

that's what you're advocating[/QUOTE]

Since when did I advocate confiscating every firearm?

[Grenadiac]

sobotnik i understand you have an image of the ideal world in your head but it is simply not attainable, in the real world things are not as simple as they seem on paper

[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]

policemen know nothing about crime

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=teh pirate;40225638]sobotnik i understand you have an image of the ideal world in your head but it is simply not attainable, in the real world things are not as simple as they seem on paper

[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]

policemen know nothing about crime[/QUOTE]

I'm not too sure if you even read my posts, because I don't know what you are arguing.

[Grenadiac]

i'm hoping that you'll notice how ridiculous you sound

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40225627]Ok and what's your point?[/QUOTE]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euqf_UKFtgY[/media]

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=teh pirate;40225672]i'm hoping that you'll notice how ridiculous you sound[/QUOTE]

Well, if you could care to actually point out where I am wrong instead of making vague posts about my unrealistic ideas I could actually see where the ridiculous is located.

15,000 policemen are not experts to be relied upon for firearms legislation. In the real world, we use more than just peoples opinions.

[Splarg]

I'm not sure how I feel about this because they favor concealed carry laws over better mental health programs.

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40225681][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euqf_UKFtgY[/media][/QUOTE]

Killing the poor would be very detrimental to everyone.

I'm of the view that the state should work towards the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

[Grenadiac]

i'm sorry 15,000 policemen isn't a few bottomfeeders in the hickville, tx police department
their opinions are based on experience unlike yours which is based on oh wait nothing haha

[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=Splarg!;40225708]I'm not sure how I feel about this because they favor concealed carry laws over better mental health programs.[/QUOTE]

you act like it's one or the other, sensible people know you can have gun rights and good mental health care

[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40225711]Killing the poor would be very detrimental to everyone.

I'm of the view that the state should work towards the greatest happiness of the greatest number.[/QUOTE]

if that was true you would have shut up about this long ago, the majority of americans do not want more arbitrary obstacles to gun ownership

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40225711]Killing the poor would be very detrimental to everyone.

I'm of the view that the state should work towards the greatest happiness of the greatest number.[/QUOTE]

so what if the greatest happiness of the greatest number involves great suffering of a minority?

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=teh pirate;40225732]i'm sorry 15,000 policemen isn't a few bottomfeeders in the hickville, tx police department
their opinions are based on experience unlike yours which is based on oh wait nothing haha[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, we don't rely on that either when formulating policy. Instead, we use what is termed in the business "scientific methodology".

The really clever thing about it is how it can gather information in an near objective manner as possible, to actually tell us /why/ crime happens.

Simply asking 15,000 people who broadly agree is not a good way to do this.

You could ask 15,000 people, who have had experience of watching the skies, if the sun moved around the earth, or the other way around.

[Lachz0r]

[QUOTE=sgman91;40220244]aka. Expert opinion is only valid if it agrees with me.

Cop's lives are on the line when it comes to gun control issues. Are you really saying they are knowingly going to push for policies that put themselves in more danger? No one sees the effects of gun control policies more directly than officers on the street who have to deal with them.[/QUOTE]

they're not experts they're morons. the majority of them think that 'lack of family values' and videogames are a bigger factor in crime than economic factors

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40225772]so what if the greatest happiness of the greatest number involves great suffering of a minority?[/QUOTE]

Well no, because utilitarianism isn't about punishing innocent people for the greater good.

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40225804]Well no, because utilitarianism isn't about punishing innocent people for the greater good.[/QUOTE]

...so then no gun laws?

[Grenadiac]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;40225783]they're not experts they're morons. the majority of them think that 'lack of family values' and videogames are a bigger factor in crime than economic factors[/QUOTE]

what the fuck