Why do Police have guns? - Page 2

[DragonflyBlue]

Well, if you tell him that the only purpose of soldiers is to kill people, why worry about accuracy about police officers? Just make something up again.

:

I'm sorry but that is so darned offensive!

My sister is a Marine. Her only purpose is not to kill others. She's not even been in a combat situation. She is a helicopter mechanic. She's participated in numerous humanitarian missions.

Soldiers are far more than you make them out to be. Just take a look at the many, many things our troops do to come to the aide of others.

In raising well balanced children one must give them all the facts. Not just the ones we like best.

Janis

[pjabslenz]

Originally Posted by JanisB

:

I'm sorry but that is so darned offensive!

My sister is a Marine. Her only purpose is not to kill others. She's not even been in a combat situation. She is a helicopter mechanic. She's participated in numerous humanitarian missions.

Soldiers are far more than you make them out to be. Just take a look at the many, many things our troops do to come to the aide of others.

In raising well balanced children one must give them all the facts. Not just the ones we like best.

Janis

:

I was hoping to see some posts defending the soldier. They definitely do far more than kill people. I'm willing to bet that almost all of the soldiers that are defending our country would much rather be back in the US with family & friends and enjoying the freedoms that they signed up to protect & defend.

[taterbug1999]

Have to say I too am offended by the implication of the OP. My hubbie is a LEO and a master-at-arms for the Navy reserves (like an MP) so I'm getting burned on both sides. He carries a gun in both of these capacities, for his own protection and the protection of others. While in theory guns are only used to kill as the OP stated, I think the implication is that somehow that soldier or cop condones that form of use. My hubbie actually very much likes the idea of non -lethal weapons, because I don't think anyone wants to live with the memory of killing someone, even in self-defense, but there are instances where it is not an option. The primary non-lethal that most officers have right now is the taser which Amnesty Intern'l is trying to fight the use of right now. Sadly though, in the event that an armed man is holding a gun to someone's head 100 yards from him, getting close enough to use a taser is not an option. Ideally agencies will begin to bring effective long range non-lethals on board over the course of the next few years, but until then my husband has to use the means afforded to him by the state and federal gov'ts. And even the best "non-lethal weapons" can cause death in rare intances.
Now he has been a cop for about 11 years and has pulled (not fired) his weapon twice, both times a gun was pointed at him. I doubt there is a cop OR soldier out there who hopes to use their gun. If you can make it an entire career and never have to brandish/fire it for protection it is something to look back on and be proud of. But these men and women have familes, children, loved ones too and when faced by someone who has no regard for life and is choosing to try to kill them (whatever their reasoning) whether on the streets of the US or in some foreign country, they need a means by which to protect their own lives. And whether "politically correct" or not I am thankful for those weapons. If my husband is again placed in the position where he is actively being fired upon, whether at work or if called into service, I would want him to use that weapon to protect himself and those at risk around him, because, warm and fuzzy or not, his most important job is to come home to me and my kids above all else.

[memz]

Originally Posted by taterbug1999

Have to say I too am offended by the implication of the OP. My hubbie is a LEO and a master-at-arms for the Navy reserves (like an MP) so I'm getting burned on both sides. He carries a gun in both of these capacities, for his own protection and the protection of others. While in theory guns are only used to kill as the OP stated, I think the implication is that somehow that soldier or cop condones that form of use. My hubbie actually very much likes the idea of non -lethal weapons, because I don't think anyone wants to live with the memory of killing someone, even in self-defense, but there are instances where it is not an option. The primary non-lethal that most officers have right now is the taser which Amnesty Intern'l is trying to fight the use of right now. Sadly though, in the event that an armed man is holding a gun to someone's head 100 yards from him, getting close enough to use a taser is not an option. Ideally agencies will begin to bring effective long range non-lethals on board over the course of the next few years, but until then my husband has to use the means afforded to him by the state and federal gov'ts. And even the best "non-lethal weapons" can cause death in rare intances.
Now he has been a cop for about 11 years and has pulled (not fired) his weapon twice, both times a gun was pointed at him. I doubt there is a cop OR soldier out there who hopes to use their gun. If you can make it an entire career and never have to brandish/fire it for protection it is something to look back on and be proud of. But these men and women have familes, children, loved ones too and when faced by someone who has no regard for life and is choosing to try to kill them (whatever their reasoning) whether on the streets of the US or in some foreign country, they need a means by which to protect their own lives. And whether "politically correct" or not I am thankful for those weapons. If my husband is again placed in the position where he is actively being fired upon, whether at work or if called into service, I would want him to use that weapon to protect himself and those at risk around him, because, warm and fuzzy or not, his most important job is to come home to me and my kids above all else.

: Could not have said it better

[mom2snugbugs]

:

[Yoshua]

Police carry guns to protect themselves and innocent people from people who have weapons.


Police should have guns. Guns don't make people into killers. But killers can use guns to do what they want to do.

Soldiers are not killers either. They are trained to defend themselves in enemy territory, and to attack the enemy granted. But if they were not soldiers they would not be killing people for fun. It is a part of their duty to protect. I don't know if I like the connotation that soldiers have guns to kill people. Yes they are used for that, but they really have guns to protect themselves in enemy territory and to protect us from enemies trying to invade. Same principle applies there. Yes they attack enemies at the order of their Commanders. But first and foremost I believe they have guns to protect themselves and comrades.

[silvermam]

[QUOTE=Marsupialmom;7357798]Britian police are now carring guns. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/s...418660,00.html
QUOTE]
in britain (I live in london) there are special units that are armed most cops aren't. the only time I have seen an armed cop in the 6 years i have lived in london was during the bombs in the tube last year.
I dissagree with cops carrying guns as a routine I disagree with people owning guns the figures speak for themselves really. I don't know what I would have answered to the question myself since our ds is only 2.5 but maybe used it as a start to exploring guns troughout history and hopefully coming to an answer that would satisfy him. because guns are used for "fun" not every hunter hunts for survival and not every soldier is a killer so its a hard question to answer

[JBaxter]

Originally Posted by taterbug1999

Have to say I too am offended by the implication of the OP. My hubbie is a LEO and a master-at-arms for the Navy reserves (like an MP) so I'm getting burned on both sides. He carries a gun in both of these capacities, for his own protection and the protection of others. While in theory guns are only used to kill as the OP stated, I think the implication is that somehow that soldier or cop condones that form of use. My hubbie actually very much likes the idea of non -lethal weapons, because I don't think anyone wants to live with the memory of killing someone, even in self-defense, but there are instances where it is not an option. The primary non-lethal that most officers have right now is the taser which Amnesty Intern'l is trying to fight the use of right now. Sadly though, in the event that an armed man is holding a gun to someone's head 100 yards from him, getting close enough to use a taser is not an option. Ideally agencies will begin to bring effective long range non-lethals on board over the course of the next few years, but until then my husband has to use the means afforded to him by the state and federal gov'ts. And even the best "non-lethal weapons" can cause death in rare intances.
Now he has been a cop for about 11 years and has pulled (not fired) his weapon twice, both times a gun was pointed at him. I doubt there is a cop OR soldier out there who hopes to use their gun. If you can make it an entire career and never have to brandish/fire it for protection it is something to look back on and be proud of. But these men and women have familes, children, loved ones too and when faced by someone who has no regard for life and is choosing to try to kill them (whatever their reasoning) whether on the streets of the US or in some foreign country, they need a means by which to protect their own lives. And whether "politically correct" or not I am thankful for those weapons. If my husband is again placed in the position where he is actively being fired upon, whether at work or if called into service, I would want him to use that weapon to protect himself and those at risk around him, because, warm and fuzzy or not, his most important job is to come home to me and my kids above all else.

:

I have 2 military brothers DB1 is in command of a MP division currently on its way to Iraq for the second time. DB2 was a combat medic in Iraq ( now out of the military) he carried a wepon but also HELPED many military and civilians on his tour of duty. He is now working full time in an ER as an RN. I do take a bit of offence to the OP statement that soldiers carry guns to kill people.

[mamabadger]

It seems to me that the job of a soldier is to do what his superiors instruct him to do. If he's assigned to protect civilians, that's what he does. If he's part of the army of a dictator who orders his military to kill political opponents, then that's what he does. Maybe it's a mistake to focus on the individual soldier, as though he's the one who decides.

[Laggie]

A few years ago I was in line at a grocery store. Ahead of me in line was a mother with a little boy, about four years old. Ahead of them was a police officer.

The little boy asked his mom why the officer had a gun. She said, "Don't worry, it's just a toy gun, it's not real."

I had to try very very hard to keep from bursting out laughing. I think I giggled. The officer turned beet red, but didn't say anything.

Now, I'm not saying that was a great answer... but it sure was funny! Sorry if I'm derailing here but I had to share that one.

[Mrs_Hos]

I'm a very proud wife of an Air Force Cop. He carries a gun every day he is on duty. He just returned from a 6mo deployment (where he missed the birth of his son) to help protect our country from the 'drug war' (he was in the Carribean)...before that (only 1.5yrs ago) he returned from Iraq--Camp Bucca where we both feared for his life...the prison was a mad house--those people were fighting eachother in prison--the guards had to threaten with their guns just to get the prisoners to stop killing eachother. They very much used their weapons to promote peace--as odd and 'off' as that sounds.
The life of a soldier, airman, marine, or seaman is very hard. I think it is one of the hardest and heaviest in our country. We ask them to leave their family and put their lives in harms way--to protect us. The hours suck, the money sucks, but I'm thankful for it all--and I'm very proud. We are poor, but my husband is a hero.
I wish we lived in a world where he was put out of a job...but even if America 'backed down' and decided to help no one--the world out there would continue to fight and it would get worse until our boarders were attacked...oh wait...that's already happened...oh crap! :

Sorry--didn't mean to get on my little soap box...I'm just very proud of my gun carrying, protecting, serving, hero of a husband...

[BurgundyElephant]

The police carry guns because the criminals have them. If a cop doesn't have a gun and the criminal does, then he is going to get shot. If you take away all the guns, then the police don't have to have them.




That's never going to happen in the USA.

[BurgundyElephant]

That's a funny story, Laggie.

[Cersha]

Originally Posted by BurgundyElephant

The police carry guns because the criminals have them. If a cop doesn't have a gun and the criminal does, then he is going to get shot. If you take away all the guns, then the police don't have to have them.




That's never going to happen in the USA.

That is a bit naive. How would use propose to rid the world of ALL guns? Criminals don't get guns legally. Make them illegal, and you will have the same situation as the "war on drugs".

No. It won't ever happen in America, because people like ME aren't going to give up our second amendent right (and responsibility) That amendment is there for OUR protection from the *government* as well as others that would do us harm (a right that we did NOT have when we were under British rule). I hope and pray that someone never tries to take that right away, otherwise, I would be at the mercy of the federal government.

[JWSJ]

Years ago I went to Europe (Brussels, Belgium) for holiday and saw police officers in the street carrying submachine guns (H&K MP5). There was no terrorist threat and it was before 9/11.

Made the whole arguement against US police carrying handguns seem like a joke.

[PareMesAlt]

I see that I may have offended some people. Please excuse that. It is not my intention.

The conundrum I see is that in a flawed world where there is violence, do we teach our children that violence is a valid answer?

Some people agree to take on jobs where they believe that violence is a possible answer to the evils seen in this world. I am sure 99% of soldiers and police, do not want to kill and use their weapons on people. However, they have agreed to the possibility of using violence to secure society.

Generally speaking soldiers do perform many non-violent acts, but the main purpose is to exert a monopoly of violence in a particular geographic area our government has decided to control. I am not saying this is for good reasons or bad, but soldiers have agreed to be used in this way. Police have a somewhat different purpose. Generally speaking they agree to uphold the law in a place where government control is taken for granted. One of the tools that our society has granted them is lethal weaponry.

I am not saying soldiers and police are honorable or dishonorable. Only that in an imperfect world, do we teach our children they need accept and come to terms with violence, or do we say it could be better?

Soldiers and Police accept violence as a possible answer to violence.

[FancyNancy]

They're not only to protect themselve but others as well in only the most extreme circumstances... and because other people have guns.

[UUMom]

Originally Posted by JWSJ

Years ago I went to Europe (Brussels, Belgium) for holiday and saw police officers in the street carrying submachine guns (H&K MP5). There was no terrorist threat and it was before 9/11.

Made the whole arguement against US police carrying handguns seem like a joke.

I saw that in parts of Italy as well. You never see that in the US.

I think when people haven't traveled, they make a lot of assumptions about things. Even when the assumptions are wrong, they cling to them.

I encourge everyone I know to get on a plane and go somewhere!

[heldt123]

Originally Posted by Cersha

No. It won't ever happen in America, because people like ME aren't going to give up our second amendent right (and responsibility) That amendment is there for OUR protection from the *government* as well as others that would do us harm (a right that we did NOT have when we were under British rule). I hope and pray that someone never tries to take that right away, otherwise, I would be at the mercy of the federal government.

I agree.

I wonder how many countries have avoided invading this country because of how many private people own guns? Just a thought. If we didn't have guns...what would stop them? Diplomacy? I think not. I'd love to live in a world without guns, but it isn't practical in the kind of world we live in right now.

[UUMom]

When I was in Switzerland, staying with a fellow grad sutdent of my dh, I was shocked at the number of guns in the home. The father was a surgeon, the mother was a painter & poet, and the son was a PhD engineer, but both males were trained in gun use, and practiced often at the local gun club (there are many). People aren't afraid to be real and learn to use these guns. They don't hide them from the children and get all secretive -- which I think makes it more likely that kids will be silly and stupid when/if they do 'find' a gun in someone's house.

Trust me when I say I am not a gun person! I was floored learning this. I couldn't believe this awesome family, who spoke 4 languages fluently, had guns! I was taught in the US that only the ingnorant, the 'red neck', and the crimminal had guns. It took me a good deal of time to sort this out in my head! I decided it's when we get freaky-deaky about guns, forbid them without true education, and tell children they can ***never*** touch a gun, that makes them far more curious that children in other countries who are educated. And without gun safety respect and instruction, bad things happen.

edited for manic typos