Off duty American cop in foreign land can't shoot people

[njiska]

I think this pretty much sums up where the psychology of fear factors into the gun debate. Apparently an off duty American cop was visiting Calgary, Alberta during the Calgary Stampede and was approached by two men who aggressively asked, "Have you been to the stampede yet?" The guy was so bothered by the fact that he didn't have his pistol to defend himself from the two men that he wrote a letter to the editor of the Calgary Herald complaining about how Canada's gun laws prevent a visitor from protecting his family.

The whole affair is absurdly ludicrous and highlights one of the biggest issues with the gun debate; the need for legitimate ownership vs. paranoia. I'm personally a huge fan of gun ownership, but I wouldn't want anyone who thinks two guys asking him if he's been to the biggest show in town, in a city where everyone asks you that, are a threat to own one. Or a knife for that matter.

And yes, he is a real person and this is not a hoax. I love the fact that his letter was so absurd to us Canadians, that they actually verified it.

http://gawker.com/5932846/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/s ... ce-us.html
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/op ... story.html

[Friendly]

I'm personally a huge fan of gun ownership

Of course you are. Because there's nothing like the awesome feeling of safety you get by living in a country with almost as many privately owned firearms as people. You should move there.

[shmuppyLove]

Oh boy ... that Herald article ...

Kalamazoo police officer's letter to editor about handguns points to cultural divide

Wow, that's a huge fucking leap.

I'm not saying the guy probably isn't a bit cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, but that article is bad, and the writer should feel bad.

[shmuppyLove]

I'm personally a huge fan of gun ownership

Of course you are. Because there's nothing like the awesome feeling of safety you get by living in a country with almost as many privately owned firearms as people.

Um, njiska is Canadian

[njiska]

I'm personally a huge fan of gun ownership

Of course you are. Because there's nothing like the awesome feeling of safety you get by living in a country with almost as many privately owned firearms as people.

Um, njiska is Canadian

And not even from Toronto!

[Friendly]

Updated my post accordingly

Really though, there is 0 reason for private gun ownership, unless you are a hunter.

[njiska]

Updated my post accordingly

Really though, there is 0 reason for private gun ownership, unless you are a hunter.

Um, sure there is. I can name three right off the bat:

- Historical Significance
- Competitive Target/Skeet shooting
- Pest control

The first one is the main reason why I need to get my Possession and Acquisition License. The only problem is that due to increased restrictions that have been added over my life, I still can't own most of the firearms I wish to have unless I become a dealer due to them becoming prohibited.

Also fanatical gun-ban supporters are just as bad as fanatical gun owners. There is such a thing as reasonable restriction.

[Friendly]

- Historical Significance
- Competitive Target/Skeet shooting
- Pest control

None of these require private gun ownership.

[njiska]

- Historical Significance
- Competitive Target/Skeet shooting
- Pest control

None of these require private gun ownership.

ALL of those require private gun ownership.

If I want to collect firearms for historical significance, you know the same way I collect video games, movies, beer steins, etc.; I need to be able to privately own them.

If I want to competitively shoot I need my own firearm. This is both to guarantee my familiarity with the weapon as well as to make sure that it is properly maintained to me standard. See: The absolutely crap performance of the British handgun shooting team at the Olympics.

If I'm a farmer and I need to deal with pests on my fields, be it deer, rabbits or whatever, I need a rifle.

[DragonInstall]

What a weirdo cop.

Carry a knife in Canada then

[sven666]

What a weirdo cop.

Carry a knife in Canada then

stabbin a man to death is hard work - unamerican!

[njiska]

What a weirdo cop.

Carry a knife in Canada then

stabbin a man to death is hard work - unamerican!

But it's so more personal and satisfying.

[GaijinPunch]

Updated my post accordingly

Really though, there is 0 reason for private gun ownership, unless you are a hunter.

This is the only thing you've ever said in the history of this forum that I agree with. Don't tell anyone.

- Historical Significance

This is kind of laughable at just about everything. If I considered the historical significance of everything I would have slaves, radioactive toothpaste, and Japan would still be slaughtering dolphins for no good reason. Oh, wait...

In all seriousness, I don't care what it is, the "culture card" is a fucking cop out. You do something just b/c someone before you did it? Maybe b/c I've lived most of my adult life in a country that plays it ALL the fucking time. If you have to play it all the time, then you're probably doing something pretty fucking stupid.

[njiska]

- Historical Significance

This is kind of laughable at just about everything. If I considered the historical significance of everything I would have slaves, radioactive toothpaste, and Japan would still be slaughtering dolphins for no good reason. Oh, wait...

In all seriousness, I don't care what it is, the "culture card" is a fucking cop out. You do something just b/c someone before you did it? Maybe b/c I've lived most of my adult life in a country that plays it ALL the fucking time. If you have to play it all the time, then you're probably doing something pretty fucking stupid.

I just have one simple problem to ask you then. If I collect vintage firearms, mostly of historical significant due to their use in major conflicts or because of the technological advancements they represent; as well as keep them securely stored, locked and only bring them out for shows or occasionally to use at the range; what is the problem?

Having respect for history is not a bad thing. Do we keep having slaves? No, because slaves are not objects, they're people, but firearms are objects. Collecting antique arms is no different than collecting any other antique be it swords, tools, cast iron pans, crockery, clocks, cars, etc. And having them does no one any harm as long as the person in possession is responsible.

And people do collect radio active toothpaste. There's a difference between keeping something that existed and continuing to produce it.

[FIL]

If you're collecting historic firearms, surely de-activated ones will suffice.

[njiska]

If you're collecting historic firearms, surely de-activated ones will suffice.

No, they won't, because a deactivated weapon is not a historically accurate item. It is not functional. Half the fun of collecting any historical item is restoring it to it's original condition. If I just wanted to keep something that wasn't functional, replicas would suffice. Keeping a deactived firearm for historical significance is like keeping a Model T Ford, but destroying the axles.

[njiska]

It get's better!!!

The "aggressive" gentlemen that caused Wawra to fear for his family's safety were just promoters giving away free Tickets.

http://gawker.com/5933264/report-nose-h ... socialflow

[TransatlanticFoe]

What pests require shooting? Do you regularly get swarms of huge rats or rampaging bears or something? Otherwise you absolutely do not need to use firearms as pest control.

There is zero need for an active historical firearm. Especially when you get far enough back that they were more likely to miss by miles or blow up in your face than hit what you're aiming at. And if you have a desperate urge to fire off an MP 40 or something more recent, then I have concerns over your mental health.

Fair enough if you want to hunt or shoot at ranges but that only warrants use of the firearm there and then.

[brentsg]

Updated my post accordingly

Really though, there is 0 reason for private gun ownership, unless you are a hunter.

I would disagree 100%. I'm not a huge gun person, but I was able to stop someone from breaking into my home with my trusty 9mm. It also came in very handy when my wife had a stalker. They can be quite effective deterrents without even having to fire them.

[Ed Oscuro]

Knives aren't really an option because of the Michigan knife laws. There have been some efforts lately to clarify the laws but I believe the strict no-carry and carry length restrictions still apply. You couldn't carry most brands of rescue knife with a seatbelt cutter and windshield basher in your own vehicle.

Canada apparently doesn't have any restriction on knife length, but many useful kinds of "assisted-opening" (not switchblade) knives are banned there, along with the infamous "switchblades." That won't help him get it across the crossing, but apparently in Canada it's OK to carry around a huge knife wherever you go, as if that's not menacing or potentially dangerous either.

Most people are treating the story as if it is simply about the facts of this specific case - the officer felt himself in danger from some men who were probably just giving away free tickets to the Stampede. No, it's about more than that. For the author of this article to say there was "no benefit of the doubt given" to the men, as if he would have shot them if he had the pistol, is beyond laughable. That is not what this is about and the author should be ashamed at her sloppy reasoning. Officer Wawra's little encounter caused him to reflect upon what could have happened, and he's right to point out that you generally can't rely on bystanders or the police to help you. For an officer of 20 years, a handgun is just a tool available on the job along with everything else in the "spectrum of response," including less-lethal options and the ability to just speak to people. I think he has paid his dues and, despite the various readings given to his article and his use of the word "menacing," there is no indication he would've escalated the encounter with a handgun. As far as I am aware, he's served his time without having shot anybody, and doubtless he has been in other situations that were genuinely threatening. We can complain about police being superstitious or profilers, but the fact is that most police become attuned to certain cues which will set off their suspicion. As faulty as this very subjective process might seem - potentially illegal, even - there is really no other practical way for officers (or any person, really) to react quickly enough to defeat criminals and protect themselves and the public. What this suspicion does not cover, however, is the response spectrum: Police should have it fairly drilled into them that shooting is a last resort, and I think the officer's 20 years without having shot anybody would be an indication that he would not have made a different judgment here. In that case, the argument must become "well, it's a bad thing for him to carry a pistol," which ignores the potential and irreplaceable benefit of the handgun.

I hope that he has had a moment to reflect on whether the situation really was as distressing as he depicts it, but at the same time all the yahoos on the sidelines were not there and none of us really have all the facts. It strikes me as potentially suspicious that two guys tasked with handing out free tickets to the Stampede would provoke such a reaction. If Wawra had intended to fabricate a story to make a point, he would've picked something less ambiguous and which didn't transparently check out like this one seems to have. At the same time you have to wonder if they really were handing out tickets, and how event organizers could have people representing them who are scaring people. Have a sign or something, sheesh.

What I find interesting is that his argument is for all people to be able to go armed, which is something that many prominent police chiefs have sought to reduce, in New York, Chicago, and elsewhere.

What else the author doesn't realize is that in Kalamazoo there have been some incidents where gangs of youths have nearly beaten men to death on multiple occasions. I don't know if it's still happening, but this was only a few years ago. There may have been a cultural difference here, but it seems odd to blame the potential victim of a crime when his suspicion merely lead to an awkward moment, rather than any real potential of crime. Barely over a year ago, a Kalamazoo police officer was shot and killed.

As brentsg points out, if we could get away with it, we'd not even use pistols, but alas that option belongs only in a fantasy world. A rubber gun would be fine too, but you want it to be able to fire in case you are actually left with no choice.

[trap15]

tl;dr

[Ed Oscuro]

dr;wua (did't read, won't understand anything, lost cause)

[opt2not]

Poor police officer, can't walk around in society without his crutch/firearm at his side. This said a lot about cops in general.
Here in Vancouver there has been a bunch of recent cases where trigger-happy cops have flipped that "last resort" to a first one, opting to shoot first at a drop of a hat.
Bunch of cowards.

In the wise words of Public Enemy...F*** the Police.

[njiska]

An Essay

Ed, the only thing that is being pointed out by this whole affair is the cultural divide. Most people in this country do not desire to carry weapons, even for self defense. We do not jump to using guns to defend our homes. Similarly, we do not automatically assume that a person approaching us in any manner, aggressive or not, is armed. For us there is no "what could have happened" to reflect upon and that's why we find the entire idea ludicrous. So when an american cop pens a letter to the editor because he felt the need to share his opinion that citizens should expect to be able to defend themselves in the same way as a police officer, this is the reaction he gets.

Hell, I love guns, and I vehemently disagree with his points. In this country no one needs to carry a gun.

[FIL]

I would happily pass a law that allows you to shoot people who offer you stuff in the street. Also Charity muggers.

[opt2not]

Ed, the only thing that is being pointed out by this whole affair is the cultural divide.

To me, this article made me think 1. Cops are dicks, period. And 2. I wouldn't be too sad if a Calgarian got shot. Especially Flames fans.

[system11]

I think they should legalise ownership in the UK, there'd be a hell of a lot less annoying people around. I can think of at least 3 people I've worked with, who were hell to work with, and would definitely have been killed by now.

[Ed Oscuro]

If there is one thing I could say: Yes, I write a lot sometimes. But it is better to be wordy and get the nuances than to insist on having a child's view of a simple world full of whites and blacks, if I can be dramatic in making the distinction clear. If I am unclear, then please ask about whatever I have said that I failed to make clear, but I share a bit of Friendly's annoyance at people who insist on spouting off without showing any engagement with even the superficial facts or arguments. Sometimes, it astonishes me that people ever get anything done. Heinlein must've been wrong; too many people only focus when they're specializing like ants.

For us there is no "what could have happened" to reflect upon

I find that actually foolish. Of course history only happens in one way that we know about - but you won't know which way your day is going to turn out when you wake up in the morning, do you? Do you have a crystal ball?

I do agree that the wish of people not to have guns around, or other sources of risk, ought to be respected when possible.

At the same time, it seems to be one of the most basic rights that a person should be able to take reasonable precautions for their own safety and to do so as they see fit. There are many situations where people do not know what is best for them, but these are not nearly overwhelming enough that a paternalistic attitude can be considered the cornerstone of society. The "safety versus autonomy" debate may look like a delicate balancing act when we draw up uncommon or even fantastical situations to challenge the morality or ethics of people (even serious philosophers can't agree about standards of morality or conduct, so good luck), but this obscures the plain reality that the requirements for use of deadly force are usually considered clear-cut, and they should also carry a requirement that the person using deadly force be able to explain themselves afterward in a court of law if there was any ambiguity (the "stand your ground" laws sought to revoke this, arguing that the potential ruin brought on by being put on trial - which has actually happened to some folks - only could be remedied by narrowing the situations that a person could be tried for, which is a nevertheless false belief).

It is sort of funny that many of the folks against handguns, albeit for reasonable reasons, will also be strongly against police states. I don't find it laughable - it's perfectly coherent and fine to say that you accept the risks inherent in life, and you don't want more arms or more intrusive policing. But I don't think it's something that I can expect to have a right to force upon others who don't share that opinion; the question becomes how much of a bias towards being hands-off on defense is reasonable to force on everyone else. The annals of policing history and law detail many victims who were denied police assistance ("what do you want us to do, sit outside your house?"), denied the ability to protect themselves, and were abused or murdered as a result. Furthermore, in many cases the police have been found blameless. Just because you and I share a comfortable existence and we might have reasonably professional police nearby doesn't mean that this pattern holds for all people in all places.

There ought to be a better reason and standard for what is a reasonable precaution other than "handguns are icky" and "handguns disturb me." If you want to talk about cost-benefit analysis, the possibility of a gun going off is close to nil, with some important exceptions like children finding them, or careless storage. You will not that it is not the ownership of the weapon that is to blame in these cases - it's a risk factor - but the actual cause of a fatal accident is traced to some misuse of the weapon, and while I won't say "guns don't kill people," I will say that most guns held in holsters by your friendly patrol officer never kill people, nor do most nightstand guns, nor other guns kept or carried in a safe manner. Handguns are not a safe science, but I think that when you factor in the random malfeasance of people, and the potential to end a deadly situation peacefully, the potential benefits far outweigh the costs. (I should note that the argument the founding fathers used is not exactly a utilitarian argument, nor need it be constructed as one). My heart rate probably jumps a bit when a police officer walks into my view, even though I have never had anything but cordial and respectful interactions with them. Whether they have a pistol or not - of course the proximity of the pistol must slightly (but negligibly) increase my risk of endangerment, just as surely as the officer's wearing a uniform makes them a target - none of us in America would dream of using this as an argument for having them discontinue carrying firearms. Although the British seem to have found a different way - albeit one that is still very physically tough, if not more, on officers - neither American police departments nor the public at large buy the argument that disarming police is worthwhile or likely to have a good result. Tasers are also a useful new tool to use in place of lethal force, and I'm happy for those as well.

Is a handgun a reasonable precaution? Depending on the situation, maybe or maybe not, but we also live in a world (or at least I and the officer do) where two guys are more dangerous than one, regardless of whatever physical implements of violence are available, and we also live in a world where the cowards often gang up on weak targets. They have, in the city he and I have walked around in. I have never been scared to walk about Kalamazoo but at the same time I mostly drive through the area on my way to the university. I've been panhandled a couple times (once in Kalamazoo; in fact one infamous panhandler merited a WMU homepage news piece alerting students that he had been banned from campus - this jolly-looking middle-aged fellow had a few stolen cars in his record as well). Out of the goodness of my heart I gave money over both times (a substantial amount in Kalamazoo, to a woman who had an incredible story, but I could tell just enough to be sure that regardless of the story she could definitely use the money and I have been unable to hold any regrets).

Would having any weapon have changed my interactions in those cases? No, because those folks were harmless compared to me. I don't carry any weapons and I would be more likely to use a knife to pry a mouse out of a sticky trap than to kill something.

Some people think that handguns are a "silver bullet," and these are the folks who ought to get a stern talking-to. At the same time, this stereotype of the fool with a gun doesn't seem to represent all that many gun owners; and even if it did, the farmer or backwoodsman who grabs his rifle to scare off a trespasser is, in the history of the United States, evidence enough that casual murders weren't committed with regularity. There is certainly no reason to paint the officer, even if he was wrong about his particular case, as one of these people.

Two assumptions people hold about the handgun community are unfortunate: One, that there is no emphasis on safety, and two that there is no emphasis on peaceful resolutions. Both of these beliefs are false. Does every handgun owner emphasize safety and peace? Unfortunately, no, but the handgun community seems to agree with us that these people are not living up to the requirements of owning a dangerous weapon, and they should emphasize these things.

We should note that many people critical of the officer and his letter have appealed to some obvious reality, as if the facts allegedly discovered after the fact could have been of any use to him, or as if their second- or third-hand understanding of the situation based only on written accounts and word of mouth give them the right to say that their judgment would have been as accurate in the moment. For the part of the law, it attempts to put enough pieces together after the fact to discover what probably happened, but it can't pretend to deliver a final judgment.

I'll leave aside the cultural differences spiel except to say that if you are really scaring American tourists that much, it can't be all their doing. If these guys were so non-threatening, surely a hardened Kalamazoo officer wouldn't have been given reason to worry. And, again, everybody seems to miss the point that it's not so much that he was worried about them, as it made him realize that the rules were no longer in his favor, even as a law-abiding citizen who will happily jump through reasonable hoops to carry a weapon.

I think they should legalise ownership in the UK, there'd be a hell of a lot less annoying people around. I can think of at least 3 people I've worked with, who were hell to work with, and would definitely have been killed by now.

Once again, this isn't the view of any responsible handgun advocate. You don't shoot people just to get rid of annoying people. Even though you're joking, I think most people do realize the "make my day" mentality is a problem, and they certainly should.

[Ex-Cyber]

What pests require shooting?

Coyotes.

[GaijinPunch]

I just have one simple problem to ask you then. If I collect vintage firearms, mostly of historical significant due to their use in major conflicts or because of the technological advancements they represent; as well as keep them securely stored, locked and only bring them out for shows or occasionally to use at the range; what is the problem?

There's not one -- but that doesn't seem like "historical significance". Seems more like collecting to me, which most people here do in one form or another. Maybe we just don't agree semantically. In the states, I would take that argument as "I need a gun b/c my daddy had one."

Having respect for history is not a bad thing. Do we keep having slaves? No, because slaves are not objects, they're people, but firearms are objects. Collecting antique arms is no different than collecting any other antique be it swords, tools, cast iron pans, crockery, clocks, cars, etc. And having them does no one any harm as long as the person in possession is responsible.

Yes, firearms are objects, but people use objects, and most people are stupid. I fully subscribe to this, so I can't think that giving a bunch of morons guns is a good idea. I'm not saying everyone with a gun is a dip shit, but a lot of them are (by simple mathematics... has nothing to do w/ the demographics of people that own guns). At some point, bad things are going to happen.

Having said that, I do not support gun control b/c there's no way it will work. However, I do point out that if you are against gun control and also against medicinal marijuana (or any drug for that matter) then you are a hypocrite. Simple as that. You cannot say "it's my responsibility" for one, and not the other. My biggest problem is a lot of the red states have people that are pro-gun, anti-drug. Totally contradicting.

In the wise words of Public Enemy...F*** the Police.

That was NWA you Canuck.