Sure, firearms can be misused. But don't criminals show more respect for citizens if they know they are ready to defend themselves? Or even suspect that they might be?
We have cities where gun possession is banned, and they are not exactly America's crime-free zones. Isn't an armed civilian population a less attractive target for criminals?
Oak Park, Illinois, went gun-free about 25 years ago, and crime has risen steadily ever since. Hmmm.
2007-04-05 09:39:05 · 10 answers · asked by fra59e 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Carrying, or possessing a firearm is not going to necessarily make the streets safer, or cut down on crime. If an armed offender is going to commit a crime, and already figures the victim is carrying a gun, WELL, you do the math. There are probably thousands of STOLEN guns recovered nationwide each year. Is everyone who wants to arm themselves ready to take on the responsibility, and liability of carrying a firearm. Police are constantly being criticized for their split decisions. What kind of a decision is an untrained citizen going to make. How about the drunken domestic situation that everyone is familiar with. Now give each one a gun, welcome to the wild west. I read somewhere that most Police are in favor of citizens arming themselves, this is not true. Don't get me wrong, I am in total favor of people protecting themselves, and in fact, I don't live too far from you, so I know exactly what you're saying, BUT, most crimes are committed when no one is at home, such as a burglary. Most people don't know that they are going to be a victim of a crime, until after it happened. In some areas where everyone is allowed to carry a gun, everyone most likely knows each other. A gun may be a deterrant, but I can't agree that it would be the solution.
2007-04-05 10:45:10 · answer #1 · answered by CGIV76 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Check the crime statistics for New York City and Washington DC, both are anti-gun, and neither are even close to crime free. Even Handgun Control acknowledges that citizens use firearms for self defense. If guns caused crimes, states like Wyoming and Montana would be nothing but criminal areas as guns are very common and in nearly every household.
Criminals do not like armed "targets" - why risk being shot during the commission of a crime when you can go to Oak Park and be almost positive that no one has a firearm.
2007-04-05 09:46:29 · answer #2 · answered by jack w 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am all in favor of the average citizen , if he legally qualifies,carrying firearms.Usually Police department heads that publicly are against this are Chiefs or Top Brass. They have to be political and many big cities require a liberal Police standing. I don't think criminals" respect" citizens more if they are carrying guns. They just don't want to work hard for their crimes or get killed in the process. Unarmed victims are the easiest victims. When you read "ALL POLICE" are in favor of more gun control laws, don't believe it. I am not very far from Oak Park either. Cook County laws suck as well as surrounding areas.
2007-04-05 12:56:20 · answer #3 · answered by Ret. Sgt. 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a member of law enforcement, I believe that if citizens are made to take a concealed handgun and gun safety class before being allowed to purchase a weapon, then it is fine. Education is an important tool. No city will ever be crime free or gun free for that matter.
2007-04-05 14:34:55 · answer #4 · answered by Kidd Dynamite 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Police have no problem with the law-abiding citizens having guns. It is the criminals that are the problem. Granted, accidents do happen, but we are not talking about that, we are talking about crimes against society involving guns. Los Angeles is anti-gun, and we ALL know who's winning the war on gangs and drugs down there...Criminals never show respect for citizens, that is why they are criminals.
2007-04-05 12:40:58 · answer #5 · answered by lovemytc 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Kayne Robinson, former Assistant Chief of Police, Des Moines, Iowa, US Marine Corps Viet Nam veteran, recent President and now Executive Director of the NRA, certainly favors armed citizen sef-defense.
Concealed carry, now law of the land in nearly every state in the USA, was passed by the state legislatures. Many of their members are attorneys.
2007-04-05 09:53:00 · answer #6 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with union. For brave new world: you said people who are being robbed are being irresponsible because they do not have their guns locked up. Hello!!! They are being robbed, you don't think that the robbers who just broke into the house can break into the gun cabinet, safe, or whatever else is holding the guns?? Anyway, I do not see anything wrong with having more thorough background checks for owning guns but I absolutely believe in our right to bear arms.
2016-05-18 00:14:38 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes most police do want citizens to be able to protect itself and beleive in the right to bear arms.
2007-04-05 09:55:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i am a police officer and i do i thin this would make the streets a safer place to train people to carry a concealed weapon and use it if need be ..
2007-04-05 09:42:22 · answer #9 · answered by THE GREAT ONE.... 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if they are well trained then mabye
2007-04-05 10:47:22 · answer #10 · answered by Kevy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋