Registering Guns Leads to Itchy Police Trigger Fingers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zoogster

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
5,288
I saw some articles and studies which have cited registered guns in California (which is available to police) lead to police using SWAT type raids for even minor warrants.
When they hear guns are present at the location they go into red alert mode.

So if say a gun owner has a teenager that gets into some trouble, if they serve a warrant they go in hard and ready to kill at the first sign of perceived danger. This is because they feel the risks are higher, as they have a record there is some deadly guns at the residence.
So they go in more prepared to use lethal force with a more equipped team, and they are more likely to see any sudden action as something hostile, because there is deadly guns someplace.


Before 2014 only handguns and previously registered 'assault' weapons were on that list.
As of 2014 it is all guns, and police have stated they care more about long guns anyways.



Other dangers beyond just police and bureaucrats, these registries are available as a list in a digital age of hacking as well as intentional information sharing (legal or otherwise.)
This means even foreign nations can obtain such lists to know who and where various specific types of guns are owned.
Imagine Cold War spy level stuff, and the Soviets know exactly where specific model firearms are stored throughout the US.
Want 10 of X? Visit these 3 residences....
You could arm a force.
Cartels can be tipped off where to go.
This information will be used for different purposes by different entities, and shared or stolen between those entities.
Imagine an ISIS hack that then gives them details and exactly where to obtain various guns.
Even places like North Korea do extensive hacking of our nation.
 
Imagine Cold War spy level stuff, and the Soviets know exactly where specific model firearms are stored throughout the US.

Except a kid could hack the information after he gets home from school.
 
So if say a gun owner has a teenager that gets into some trouble, if they serve a warrant they go in hard and ready to kill at the first sign of perceived danger.
Don't know much about how warrants are served, do you?

OP's thesis statement is quite off-base. Mostly, law enforcement worries more about the guns it doesn't know about than guns that are lawfully owned.
 
I believe Canada discovered in their recent 17 year long gun registry was that registered legal owners were the least likely to give trouble on a warrant service or other knock and talk encounter; if they did have trouble it was from was the unregistered illegal gun owner. Of course the antigunners wanted police to be prepped for trouble from registered gun owners; cops being psyched to go swat on registered legal gun owners was supposedly one of the benefits of the law. Before Canada joined New Zealand who in 1983 repealed their registry.
 
Are there any firearms in the home?
That question is almost a sure bet.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
Zoogster said:
I saw some articles and studies which have cited registered guns in California (which is available to police) lead to police using SWAT type raids for even minor warrants.
When they hear guns are present at the location they go into red alert mode.
If you're going to put out information like this, you're going to have to cite/link to the sources.

1. Accurate information of that sort just isn't readily available
2. They don't do raids, much less "SWAT" type raids for minor warrants...they don't even pursue minor warrants, no one has the time for such nonsense
3. In LE, there is no such thing as "red alert mode"

In 28 years in LE, the only hint I ever had that there was a gun in the residence was if the complainant said there was...and in most cases, they were lying about it to get faster response
 
1. Accurate information of that sort just isn't readily available
2. They don't do raids, much less "SWAT" type raids for minor warrants...they don't even pursue minor warrants, no one has the time for such nonsense

These points appear to be counterfactual. Your third claim...well, cite a source.

My sources:
http://theweek.com/articles/531458/troubling-rise-swat-teams - several stories including SWAT raids for failure to appear warrants.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/woman-killed-son-shot-after-raid-baltimore/ - woman killed because of a SWAT raid justified because of a registered firearm. Crime: littering.

I could cite more but I am busy.

According to credible statistics, 36% of SWAT raids are for no crime whatsoever. That is to say, no evidence of any crime is found. That is remarkable for two reasons. 1) once a SWAT raid is launched everyone involved has a heavy incentive to find evidence of a crime, to justify the use of a SWAT raid. If they can't find anything you know the target was beyond any reasonable suspicion. 2) 36% is 28,800 per year. That is nearly 30,000 SWAT raids per year where they couldn't even find a minor infraction to give a pretense of reasonableness. Since every single one of those is a risk to both officers and civilians, that's a huge problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top