Why do LEO carry guns at BM?

[gyre]

San Francisco = irrelevant

I was just using San Francisco as a placeholder for all cities with aprox 1 million people.

To be honest, I'd rather be stabbed than shot. Given the choice between a criminal who wants my wallet who has a knife, or one with a gun, I'll take the one with the knife and hope he doesn't slash anything I need.

Not a great option, but a person holding a knife feels less secure and is more likely to use the weapon on you to control you.

Do you actually know anything about handguns?

They have limited power.
Their advantage is the ability to hold someone at a distance, not in the amount of violence incurred.
A skilled person with a knife can do more damage in less time, than most handguns will do.

The difference is a knife requires much more skill than a gun to use effectively and more skill to defend against.
Turns out criminals are quite happy to leave their guns home, (which they still have, remember), as long as the populace can no longer defend against those with sticks or knives.
The difference in gun crime, if any, is due to harsher penalties for using them, but primarily they find them dispensable, when no one has personal defense.

It is common here to see elderly people in wheelchairs with carry permits at ranges.
What do they substitute for a gun?
Victimization.

Another subject in the mix is the actual lack of a ban, in spite of strictness and deception.
Estimates are 50% compliance in canada, a bastion of obedience, but as it turns out, democracy too.
Compliance by criminals is estimated at zero.

Failure to report crime is another part of the discussion.

Did you see the recent report on ABC about fraudulent statistics relating to rape in the usa?
I know this pervades my city for all crime.
I am asking abc to pick up the story.

There is a lot of material about violence in UK.
You may want to study it.
And it is more complex than the numbers alone, even if you actually have those.

One number - 54,000 incidents of knife violence in London in one year

30% crimes of violence reported to the police = not reported as violence by the police


And you may want to take note of the trend in this country with regard to robbery victims.
The headline reads ROBBED, THEN SHOT

[1durphul]

Gyre,

I'll give you that culturally we are actually less violent than the british. Guns do in fact play heavily into our civility with each other here in the U.S.

I remember on my first visit to the UK I was there for a total of 2 weeks and witnessed no less than 6 incidence of fist fights in the streets (2 of which were road rage incidents in which both drivers got out of their car on a highway.)

You wouldn't see that thing here, god only knows if your opponent would have a gun...

[gunsmith]

dude, guns are a right, get over it. It's like complaining about there is to much water in the ocean.

oooh the cops have guns ooooh, guess what? there is massive civil disobedience of burningman gun policy, the only way to keep guns out is to have a police inspection of every vehicle & guess what that means? gun owners get sent home and shroom owners/potheads go to jail.

gun control is evil and racist, the only people for it are control freaks and nazi's

do yerself a favor, google "Clayton Cramer racist history of gun control"

[1durphul]

dude, guns are a right, get over it. It's like complaining about there is to much water in the ocean.

oooh the cops have guns ooooh, guess what? there is massive civil disobedience of burningman gun policy, the only way to keep guns out is to have a police inspection of every vehicle & guess what that means? gun owners get sent home and shroom owners/potheads go to jail.

gun control is evil and racist, the only people for it are control freaks and nazi's

do yerself a favor, google "Clayton Cramer racist history of gun control"

And Godwin's Law has been invoked.

gunsmith I'm arguing this from the point of view that if participants can't have guns, then neither should law enforcement (carry them on their person.)

This is a private event, even if it is on public land. Considering our current state of corporate rule over public rule of our country I wouldn't be surprised if the BRC LLC could actually make a demand that the cops follow their rules while inside the private event grounds.

[gyre]

Black Rock City didn't just have guns, it had guns that were used, including automatic and selectable fire weapons.


Reduction in injuries since the ban = 0%

Reduction in fatalities since the ban = 0%


It is superfluous for government to carry weapons out there, especially assault rifles, which may be at risk for theft.

The only thing that is alarming is that they think they need to have these.

A weapon is only a weapon if you use it as one.

Twitchy people without a weapon make me far more nervous than a sensible person with a gun.

Let's hope the cop that pissed all over his leg over OED's flame effect won't be back next year, or at least has a minder.

The only reason I would worry about most of the people carrying guns out there, is the increased risk of a fratboy grabbing an officer's gun.
It is distracting for everyone out there.

[gyre]

This is a private event, even if it is on public land. Considering our current state of corporate rule over public rule of our country I wouldn't be surprised if the BRC LLC could actually make a demand that the cops follow their rules while inside the private event grounds.

There is some question whether the BLM has the authority to ban guns, except as an event restriction, rather than a crime.

Guns are normally in use on the playa and laws about handgun carry on government land continue to change.

So the current law is unclear during the burn.
But you can't use a gun any longer, so you won't see one unless there is a life and death situation, just like the default world.

Many lives are saved here by permit holders as first responders.
That includes the lives of my neighbors (2 dead, 1 being shot when help arrived, the rest unhurt).
You might be glad to see someone that can do more than peer out at the violence.
Much cheerier than hearing that the police will be here eventually.

You're not going to see much of that in california, even though many carry.
Few will dare to act without a permit and an attitude of cooperation from the government.

I always thought 'first responder' was hyperbole, but it has become a fact here.

[gunsmith]

[quote="1durphul"][quote="gunsmith"]dude, guns are a right, get over it. It's like complaining about there is to much water in the ocean.

oooh the cops have guns ooooh, guess what? there is massive civil disobedience of burningman gun policy, the only way to keep guns out is to have a police inspection of every vehicle & guess what that means? gun owners get sent home and shroom owners/potheads go to jail.

gun control is evil and racist, the only people for it are control freaks and nazi's

do yerself a favor, google "Clayton Cramer racist history of gun control"[/quote]

And Godwin's Law has been invoked.

gunsmith I'm arguing this from the point of view that if participants can't have guns, then neither should law enforcement (carry them on their person.)

This is a private event, even if it is on public land. Considering our current state of corporate rule over public rule of our country I wouldn't be surprised if the BRC LLC could actually make a demand that the cops follow their rules while inside the private event grounds.[/quote]

godwins law only applies when it isn't true, really who favors gun control?
nazi's really did, control freaks really do.

anyway, who cares if the cops carry guns? there is no policy on flamethrowers. We have flame throwers

Flamethrowers rule over most handguns and are a serious deterrent to rifles ( hard to shoot what you cant see )

[1durphul]

godwins law only applies when it isn't true, really who favors gun control?
nazi's really did, control freaks really do.

The British favor gun control, and they fought the Nazi's. Hope I didn't just cause your head to explode.


RE flame throwers... I thought about that too. Cops could in fact justify carrying a gun if they felt it was their only defense against a flame throwing mad man.

Just for clarity, I'm pro 2nd amendment. I'm also kind of all-or-nothing on this issue. If the public can't carry guns, neither should the police except for SWAT type response needs.

[lambert13]

What possible reason could they have for carrying them in a place where guns are banned entirely? Just like in countries where citizens aren't allowed to carry guns, the police don't need to carry them either.

They carry guns not to protect against the 99% that follows the no guns rule. It is the ones that break that rule and bring guns in that they are safeguarding against.

In countries where citizens and police do not carry guns: There are still guns! Most often in the hands of violent criminals. Sure, a cop in England does not need a gun in nearly every situation he/she faces. Until they come across someone who has a gun and intends on using it. Then, they are screwed.

[caveatlector]

godwins law only applies when it isn't true, really who favors gun control?
nazi's really did, control freaks really do.

Hrm. In Canada we have quite a bit of gun control. Also quite a few social liberties that aren't mirrored in the USA.

Also, we entered the Second World War 2 years before America came (thankfully) to that party.

Just sayin...

[Bob]

You're camping on their land, accdg to their rules. If I made the rules, you hippies would all park in Gerlach and schlep your sad hippie shit in on wagons.

But there have been gun incidents, you just don't hear much about them from the principals.

[gyre]

I'd like to hear more about the social liberties.


It is worth noting that gun control in UK was enacted in response to one or two aberrant events that would not have been affected by a gun ban, and not by democratic choice.

Another one of these events happened recently and the first police responding were not armed or not adequately armed to make contact, so many more were killed after police response.
There were, of course, no civilian first responders, which would have been possible in this case, if not for the gun ban.

I think police in UK generally are armed.
With the kneejerk policy making, expect more guns now.

The arming of usa police with military weapons is in response to only one event, in california (of course) with its gun restrictions, which has not been repeated since.

[gyre]

You're camping on their land, accdg to their rules. If I made the rules, you hippies would all park in Gerlach and schlep your sad hippie shit in on wagons.

But there have been gun incidents, you just don't hear much about them from the principals.

What do you mean by incidents?
Shootings?

[caveatlector]

I'd like to hear more about the social liberties.

ahem... It's off topic, but what the heck:

1) Universal Heath Care
2) Gay Marriage
3) The need for "probable cause" for search and seizure.
4) Copyright Reform.
5) Decriminalization of certain soft drugs.
6) Entrenched secularism of government.

Of course, Canada isn't the land of Milk and Honey. More like Beer and Maple Syrup.

By no means am I bashing my Yankee neighbours to the south: I love you guys, and you have some things that I wish we had-- plus my country is by no stretch perfect.

I just take umbridge with some dude mixing up my country with some sort of fascist paradise because we don't support the right to bear arms for its general citizenry.

[Bob]

I've long proposed prohibiting all motor vehicles at the art fest, in the true spirit of BRC as a pedestrian city, to make reckless driving a moot issue, etc. It's a fucking wilderness, please make an attempt to treat it like one.

But I still wouldn't have a problem with LEOs driving, and carrying arms, as they see fit.

[gyre]

I think we used to have number three.

I only have republican health care now.
I am guaranteed an alcohol swab, before a lethal injection.


I hear the subject is till being debated in canada.
There is even an organization of Unregistered Gun Owners of Canada.
And I hear the long gun registry, never fully implemented and totally rejected by some provinces, may be ending soon.

I estimate compliance with a ban in this country would reach 10% at most, but 50% is quite impressive for canada.
And still no crime link to legal or once legal guns.

Do you think the general social contract works as described there?

[HandJamMasterC]

Not only do I not have a problem with LEO carrying guns at BM, I rather insist that they do. Should someone go nuts there, and have a gun of their own, I expect the LEO to stop anything neferious quickly, since I follow the rules and do not have lethal self defense force of my own. It's that simple.

[ygmir]

Not only do I not have a problem with LEO carrying guns at BM, I rather insist that they do. Should someone go nuts there, and have a gun of their own, I expect the LEO to stop anything neferious quickly, since I follow the rules and do not have lethal self defense force of my own. It's that simple.

someone could go nuts with a sword and still need to be shot.......just sayin........

.not to mention flame throwers or light sabers..........

[caveatlector]

And I hear the long gun registry, never fully implemented and totally rejected by some provinces, may be ending soon.

The Long Gun Registry is likely a go. It's a live issue that about to come to vote and in the past day there are enough votes supporting it to uphold it.

And still no crime link to legal or once legal guns.

Nope. Your point being...? The state, when it works, is supposed to safeguard the welfare of its people. We have to register, maintain and adhere to safety procedures for vehicles by state fiat-- and we do so without complaint. Why should we differentiate between one potentially lethal piece of equipment and another?

Do you think the general social contract works as described there?

General social contracts fail the moment self-interest enters the picture. However, as far as contracts go, I think my country's doing okay.

[gyre]

Registration of vehicles is a tax measure.
Requiring safety is an unrelated issue, which governments prefer to link.

If you know the history of gun restriction and democracy around the world, I really don't need to repeat it.

Do you think the information on refusal to participate in the registry is inaccurate?


I do have the impression of a social consensus in canada, generally speaking.

[ygmir]

Gyre you realize, don't you, , you're arguing guns and their possible aggressive/defensive use, and rights thereof, with a Canadian, right?

[caveatlector]

Gyre you realize, don't you, , you're arguing guns and their possible aggressive/defensive use, and rights thereof, with a Canadian, right?

Sssssh! Don't spoil the surprise!

[gyre]

Yes, but Canada counts.

[Ugly Dougly]

I'm in the mood for another plonk-fest.

But before that happy event, I'd like to point out that we're not in Kansas anymore. The mild and wise Black Rock Rangers are an experiment; they have no authority compared to sheriff deputies and the like.

Okay, the plonking begins now.

[Rilopie]

I guess i'm not bothered by the cops having guns at Burning Man because they are always carrying guns - not matter where they are. When I was in high school our campus cop had a gun, and that was at an upper-middle class school in the California foothills. I asked him about it once and he said "it's just apart of the uniform".

[ygmir]

oops...........

[caveatlector]

oops...........

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[1durphul]

Not only do I not have a problem with LEO carrying guns at BM, I rather insist that they do. Should someone go nuts there, and have a gun of their own, I expect the LEO to stop anything neferious quickly, since I follow the rules and do not have lethal self defense force of my own. It's that simple.

someone could go nuts with a sword and still need to be shot.......just sayin........

.not to mention flame throwers or light sabers..........

The problem of light saber wielding crazy men is a problem we can all get behind as a community.

[ygmir]

oops...........

I have no idea what you're talking about.

*wiping coffee from screen*

[1durphul]

Registration of vehicles is a tax measure.
Requiring safety is an unrelated issue, which governments prefer to link.

I think this may have been the case in the early days of vehicle registration, but now it is linked to things like smog checks (which are about general public welfare.) Vehicle registration also help reduce hit and run crimes (although you can make the same argument about unregistered vehicles as you can about unregistered guns.)