Does having more cops on the streets really help?

[LOBO3315a]

this is true. but you dont get mutual respect through guns and fear.

No, you get it from an even playing field. Firearms are the great equalizer. If you fear firearms, then that says something about you. Maybe you just assume that anyyone with a gun is someone to be feared?

That's assuming the 50 armed people don't either a.) accidentally shoot the wrong person or b.) miss and hit some bystander. Plus if that one guy is a real crackshot and is in a good position, he's taking some of those people with him. That's assuming the 50 armed people don't either a.) accidentally shoot the wrong person or b.) miss and hit some bystander. Plus if that one guy is a real crackshot and is in a good position, he's taking some of those people with him. Today 11:24 AM

Mutual respect is all that keeps law and order in place to begin with.



I'm thinking the numbers game would win out. 1 armed person vs 50 unarmed citizens would be a bloodbath. 1 armed person vs 50 armed citizens would be less of one (friendly fire not withstanding).

Generally people with firearms take classes on how to shoot straight. Makes sense that you learn how to use something correctly before you have a need to use it. You can 'if' something to death, forever. Generally speaking, people who are off their rocker aren't very good shots, or are shooting at things that only exist in their minds.

 

[Wolfwood]

Sorry, didn't see the friendly fire part. However, we can also "if" the idea that 50 people are going to be well trained individuals who wont panic in a crisis and make a mistake. There's a great chasm between learning how to use your weapon properly in a structured environment and actually putting that skill in to practice under duress.

 

[Motown Marvel]

No, you get it from an even playing field. Firearms are the great equalizer. If you fear firearms, then that says something about you. Maybe you just assume that anyyone with a gun is someone to be feared?

fearing firearms, yet alone a society governed by firearms, is entirely rational. it would be an absolutely horrible way to govern society. and anyone who would prefer that over trained officers is ridiculous.

 

[LOBO3315a]

No, but I would prefer trained citizens, over no one at all.

 

[Motown Marvel]

yes, i would prefer that anyone who owns a gun to be extremely trained, responsible, and respectful with their gun ownership rights. but that is another issue.

 

[doih]

yes, i would prefer that anyone who owns a gun to be extremely trained, responsible, and respectful with their gun ownership rights. but that is another issue.

Vast majority of legal gun owners are though.

Gun control really doesn't work in North America. Jurisdictions with stricter gun control have higher rates of crime and violent crime than jurisdictions where law abiding citizens can easily posses firearms.

Look up Kennessaw, Georgia for an interesting experiment.

Also, in Switzerland and parts of Scandinavia, most citizens carry guns around due to conscription, wildlife dangers, etc. Seems to work pretty well.

 

[RockSP]

I'm sure response time is quicker with increased presence.

but with too much presence you get a bunch of bored cops with nothing better to do than look for petty violations.

Heh heh. Indeed. In some cases those "violations" include walking and breathing.

I remember years ago a cop rolling up on me and a group of my friends in our neighborhood. We weren't doing anything wrong. After a series of questions he threatens to arrest one of my friends for bouncing a basketball.

I'd like to be able to depend on outside support in case of an emergency but I don't want to live in a police state.

Indeed.

 

[The Guard]

I studied Criminology in college. More police is meant to be a deterrent, but this has never, as far as I know, actually been proven to solely reduce crime. But it does help police respond to emergencies faster. Believe or not, every so often, a cop does arrive to stop something from happening, or from something worse happening. And it tends to make the public feel safer. Watch what happens to public confidence in their safety when mass police layoffs happen anywhere. And watch what happens to the crime rate. As someone who works in insurance, traffic violations is a huge issue. It helps to have cops there to cite people and to clarify some things before an investigaiton. And State Highway Patrol officers don't just write tickets. They respond to stranded motorists, and deal with fatal or serious crashes.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Vast majority of legal gun owners are though.

Gun control really doesn't work in North America. Jurisdictions with stricter gun control have higher rates of crime and violent crime than jurisdictions where law abiding citizens can easily posses firearms.

Look up Kennessaw, Georgia for an interesting experiment.

Also, in Switzerland and parts of Scandinavia, most citizens carry guns around due to conscription, wildlife dangers, etc. Seems to work pretty well.

if society were capable of achieving law and order through its citizens without trained law enforcement officials, then armed citizens wouldnt be necessary. citizens who arent responsible enough to commit to law and order without the use of firearms is a good enough reason as to why they shouldnt be armed in the first place.

but, there are so many debatable details here i think the bigger picture needs to be questioned: does anyone actually think arming society to entrust law and order is a good idea? would you really prefer that?

 

[doih]

if society were capable of achieving law and order through its citizens without trained law enforcement officials, then armed citizens wouldnt be necessary. citizens who arent responsible enough to commit to law and order without the use of firearms is a good enough reason as to why they shouldnt be armed in the first place.

but, there are so many debatable details here i think the bigger picture needs to be questioned: does anyone actually think arming society to entrust law and order is a good idea? would you really prefer that?

I agree with the thought behind what you're saying. However, there are situations that can happen to anybody where the police aren't going to be able to help you in time. We don't live in paradise, hell, if we did we wouldn't even need law enforcement.

Arming society to entrust law and order is not a 'good' idea, but it's like making prostitution/drugs legal, providing harm reduction services, etc.

 

[mrvlknight21]

I am curious on the statistics here. I read about cops who earn tens of thousands of dollars from overtime and would like to know what good it really does productivity wise?

How many crimes do cops really prevent? What is the criminal arrests to traffic citation ratio?

Let's delve even deeper and look at State police. What do those guys do besides hang around highways and give tickets?

Ok read up a little on the State police and it makes sense they handle criminal activity that happen across jurisdictions

Criminal arrests will likely be lower than traffic citations anywhere for a multitude of reasons. As stated by other posters, more police presence should be a decent deterrent, but it would be impossible to track stats on that.

State Police are also usually responsible for criminal investigations in towns or cities that are too small to have it's own investigative department. NYC has it's own Detective Bureau, but if a triple homicide happens in the middle of west butt**** nowhere, odds are they'll call in the state police.

^^ This. Having worked for a state investigative agency I can say we did a LOT of work in rural areas and also worked on officer involved incidents/use of force incidents.
Many small towns rely on state investigative services because they have 1) no investigators or 2) no crime scene specialists or other reasons.

I am just really curious because it's budget time again and I hear talks about the Police unions and not getting raises or pay cuts etc. but one thing nobody seems to mention is the unlimited overtime police officers have and I would like to determine if manpower is really an issue or just better time/resource management

Its not that way everywhere. We were NEVER allowed to get overtime without 1) a SERIOUS investigation and 2) upper manangement approval. Essentially ALL of my overtime $ came from joint federal investigations. In other words, the state did not pay it.

I'm sure response time is quicker with increased presence.

.

^ This should be true as well.

The only thing that I remember from my economics class is a handy little bit of trivia about how having more cops can lead to an increase in crime. Lets say more police are put on the streets, which leads to more big drug busts. As the amount of drugs on the street decreases, the value of drugs already there goes up. (Supply and demand.) As the drugs are now more expensive, addicts are forced to commit more robberies/burglaries/etc to pay for them.

That sounds like a bunch of crap to me, honestly.

 

[Bboy]

It should help. Not sure if it always does, but it should. I mean, that is the point, right?

 

[Motown Marvel]

I agree with the thought behind what you're saying. However, there are situations that can happen to anybody where the police aren't going to be able to help you in time. We don't live in paradise, hell, if we did we wouldn't even need law enforcement.

i get this, but a debate on this is more in regards to merely armed citizens in society, and has less to do with arming citizens to enforce law and order in society.

Arming society to entrust law and order is not a 'good' idea, but it's like making prostitution/drugs legal, providing harm reduction services, etc.

i dont see how entrusting law and order to armed citizens provides harm reduction.

 

[doih]

I don't think people are saying that we should be literally arming people to actually enforce law and order (though some societies like the ones I mentioned before sort of do this). We're for allowing people to protect their homes/businesses in situations where the police are not going to be able to help you in time and the only option is self-defence.

Criminals love gun control, gun free zones, etc.

 

[LOBO3315a]

It harkens back to Katrina and what happened there. The Fed moved in to help, but it's a slow and ponderous reaction. Till they were able to get in, and start doing what was necessary to restore order, the citizens had only themselves to rely on.

Same thing with the police. When something happens, citizens have only themselves to rely on till the police arrive. I'm not saying a gun in every person's hands is the answer, but I am saying guns in the hands of responsible people could be part of it.

 

[The Question]

I don't think people are saying that we should be literally arming people to actually enforce law and order (though some societies like the ones I mentioned before sort of do this). We're for allowing people to protect their homes/businesses in situations where the police are not going to be able to help you in time and the only option is self-defence.

Criminals love gun control, gun free zones, etc.

Private ownership of guns is illegal in Japan and their rates of violent crimes with guns are lower than ours.

 

[doih]

Private ownership of guns is illegal in Japan and their rates of violent crimes with guns are lower than ours.

Well, ownership of guns is higher in Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, and some other comparable developed countries than the US. Violent crime is much lower there than in the US.

We can extrapolate from other countries all we want, but in societies like the US gun control doesn't work. States with stricter gun control almost always have higher rates of crime. Think of the violent cities of the US and what states they are located in.

 

[LOBO3315a]

Private ownership of guns is illegal in Japan and their rates of violent crimes with guns are lower than ours.

But is their rate of violent crime (outside of guns) actually lower? They can still use swords, knives, sticks, bottles, rocks, and fists to commit violent crimes.

Do you outlaw those things as well?

 

[Lighthouse]

My only question is how do you make sure that it's responsible citizens who end up with the guns?

 

[LOBO3315a]

By requiring annual training? Semi-annual? Some sort of Militia training?

 

[Lighthouse]

By requiring annual training? Semi-annual? Some sort of Militia training?

And you think this can be adequately done by the government?

 

[LOBO3315a]

No. Perhaps by the sellers themselves. Plenty of self-regulated programs are in place for other things. And it makes sense that the sellers would want responsible gun owners. You can't buy a gun if you are in jail, or dead.

 

[The Question]

But is their rate of violent crime (outside of guns) actually lower? They can still use swords, knives, sticks, bottles, rocks, and fists to commit violent crimes.

Yes it is, actually.

Do you outlaw those things as well?

Well, no, but knives and sricks and bottles all have everyday, non violent uses, so there is a difference, and none of them are as destructive as guns, so they're not really comperable. Swords are too conspicuous, and are fairly useless against guns (which the police in Japan do have), so they're used in crimes all that often. But I'm fairly certain their ownership and sale is actually very highly regulated in Japan anyway. And you find rocks on the ground. You can't really outlaw them, practically.

 

[doih]

Different country.

 

[LOBO3315a]

Yeah, the Japanese attitude is to go along with the group, and not make waves. I think cultural differences is part of that.

Firearms ownership has been a cornerstone since this country's inception. If you didn't have one, you were likely to go hungry. Back then they were tools and useful ones at that.

Now most people think having a firearm means you want to kill someone. As a sword enthuasist, I can understand the desire to collect firearms. Does having the desire to collect swords mean I want to cut off people's heads and put them in bowling ball bags? Of course not. I mean only sometimes. When I'm having a bad day. Actually when I open my eyes in the morning all I can think of is KILL KILL KILL.

*ahem*

Be that as it may, firearms ownership will never disappear in this country. And there will be instances in which having one in the hands of a private citizen will save the day. The genie is out of the bottle, and there's really no practical way to put it back in.