massachusetts proposed gun control

In Australia prior to their idiotic gun ban there was no such thing as home invasion now it is epidemic, since it's new they don't as far as I know even have a name for it.
Click to expand...
The media refers to "home invasions" but the law lays charges of armed robbery, unarmed robbery, burglary, break and enter dwelling, break and enter dwelling + common assault, break and enter dwelling + sexual assault and several other variations. Any or all of these may take place during a 'home invasion' so the statistics from the charges are meaningless due to double, triple counting.

By the way, guns are not banned in Australia. That is a gross misrepresentation of the national legislation.
So is the statement that home invasions are now epidemic. These offences have always occurred. That's why people have security systems and keep big dogs.

I don't have a dog, no security system, no gun and my front wire door is never locked. But then I don't keep cash, drugs or contraband in my house and I'm very unlikely to experience a 'home invasion' even though I live in south west Sydney.
 
Maybe someone from England can answer me this. I have read a lot of mysteries by, M.A. Comley, which take place in London and surrounding areas. None of the officers, or DIs, are allowed to carry guns without permission from their superiors although several officers have been shot and killed. The bad guys have guns don't they?

I fail to see the logic behind this and even the police people don't agree with this decision. Maybe someone can enlighten me on this.

Hope I didn't hijack your thread too bad.
 

The police do not want to be armed; although they are in specific circumstances.
there are a few police in each force who are allowed to draw arms out under authority; and every shot fired must be investigated by another force.
i repeat; the police do not want to be armed...
 
Ralphy1 said:
Why is that other civilized countries have gun control that seems to work?
Click to expand...


Easy answer,those countries dont have all the gun crazies we have here like "every one since birth has the rights to a gun".and "when you die make sure you take it with you,never know who ya gonna meet up there."
 
Vivjen said:
The police do not want to be armed; although they are in specific circumstances.
there are a few police in each force who are allowed to draw arms out under authority; and every shot fired must be investigated by another force.
i repeat; the police do not want to be armed...
Click to expand...

Thanks! Vivjen for replying. The police do not want to be armed is what I can't wrap my arms around. They prefer to be shot at with no means of defending themselves?
I realize the stories I'm reading are fiction, but several times the DIs were in a position where they needed and wished for a weapon. Anyway, thanks again for replying.
 
I understand now Pappy!
i believe that general opinion is that arming the police all the time would just lead to an escalation in violence.
there have been occasions when police have been shot; that even if they had been armed it would not have made any difference; one I remember when two women were shot; and were just attending a routine call in a residential area....they stood no chance, and the call did not warrant an armed response .

We have armed police at all airports; I used to work at one, and usually the police would have their machine guns casually slung over their shoulders; they never appeared to be bothered by them at all, or interested in using them!

Unfortunately, times change...but we still keep resisting; at the moment we appear to have more problems with knives..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top