Baltimore Police Department: Guns That Look Like Toys
10 April 2010
26 Comments
BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE SECTION
- 2 pages
- For Official Use Only
- Law Enforcement Sensitive
- January 29, 2008
Related posts:
- Oakland Police Department Officer Shooting Brief March 21, 2009
- IACP State and Provincial Police Planning Sections (SPPPOS) Directory
- District of Columbia Health Department “Cities Readiness Initiative Plan”
- NY Police: Rental Car Database Info Poses Risk to Undercover Officers
- Fraudulent U.S. Department of Transportation Letters Circulating
[...] Guns Painted to Look Like Toys [...]
[...] it’s an AK – my point still [...]
I like how you kept the FOUO markings. Admitting you’re a public propaganda agency?
Nick
Ah at least!
I see AK47 in my favorite Hello Kitty Skin… was dream about it. <3
Prostowanie felg
Fajne :) Nie głupi pomysł :P
I can tell a toy from a real wepon, and if your in Law Ienforcement
you should know the difference to.
We as a country are having to get smarter not take away any more right’s.
It’s true we have have bad out there, just don’t make all weppon’s
bad
What’s wrong with your country? Just ban ALL weapons, they are NOT worth all the death, murders and violence to ‘protect people’s rights’! It’s an obsolete and irrelevant belief. if you are ever invaded in a conventional battle (which is logistically impossible), handguns will be absolutely useless.
Peace
Johnny W
AUS
[...] Baltimore Police Department released several photographs of various handguns and assault rifles painted to look as if they were plastic, toy firearms. What [...]
To Mr. Widdershin,
We have a 2nd amendment that allows us to protect our family and friends from the rapers and murders. PLEASE tell me why the crime rate keeps climbing in Austrailia since your governmet had you turn in your guns? Could it be ONLY the thugs have guns NOW? We have Concealed Carry here and the crime rate DECREASES.
[...] Police Department. Devious…” Posted in Uncategorized by mikj on 22 April 2010 GUNS PAINTED TO LOOK LIKE TOYS That’s a real Colt .45 confiscated by the Baltimore Police Department. [...]
@SkyKing: “PLEASE tell me why the crime rate keeps climbing in Austrailia since your governmet had you turn in your guns?”
[citation needed]
Proportion of armed robberies involving firearms has decreased for them. Homicides committed with firearms has decreased there. The most commonly cited increase I think is probably regarding the homicides in Victoria, but it’s a questionable statistic – the increase from 7 in 1996 to 19 in 1997 is almost statistically meaningless given the population of over 4.5 million people. This is an example of small changes which appear large viewed only as a percentage change when the original numbers are small to begin with, more than a reflection of a massive increase in crimes.
Snopes takes an in-depth look at this claim, finds it somewhat unsubstantiated.
@SkyKing: “We have Concealed Carry here and the crime rate DECREASES.”
[citation needed]
The research I’ve found suggests nothing stronger than the possibility that concealed carry *might* decrease crime rates, but such research does state absolutely that there are instances where permits were seen in areas that crime rates still increased. Just as one example: A Public Health Law Research study.
It’s worth a higher death rate to maintain our freedoms. We could decrease the death rates in this country further if we took everyone’s cars away too.
As Johnny Widdershin said, a pointless out-dated right that only has negative consequences, why should people have the RIGHT to carry something specifically designed to end someone’s life? If your society NEEDS to defend itself in this way, maybe you should look to solve that.
@SEA: “a pointless out-dated right that only has negative consequences,”
I disagree. There are plenty of documented cases of firearms successfully used in self-defense, many times against an aggressor not armed with a firearm. There are still reasons to have firearms that aren’t purely negative. Hunting and self-defense come to mind. I have friends who spend literally thousands of dollars a year on bullets that they only use on a firing range. To them, it’s a relaxing hobby. Only one of them has ever drawn a firearm on someone, and he did it to dissuade young man who was threatening to kill a woman (with a knife, I might add) that had gotten a restraining order against him for stalking her after they broke up.
@SEA: “why should people have the RIGHT to carry something specifically designed to end someone’s life?”
That’s a firearm’s most obvious and easiest to rail against use. It’s not the only use, and I don’t believe it’s the sole design reason for firearms.
100 million people murdered in the 20th century. BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS. *That* is the main reason the Second Amendment was adopted by our country’s founders.
The word “genocide” didn’t even exist prior to the 20th century. It was created to describe current events. The world is an even more dangerous place now than in the 18th century. The Founders were prescient in codifying our right to defend our lives.
It is good and right for freemen to keep, and bear, arms, because evil exists in the world, and will always exist; and evil people use force (including guns) to impose their will on whomever they can. You can try to resist armed thugs (whether bearing the government’s imprimatur or not) with your hands and feet, or with lower technology; Americans prefer to keep the option of using the best technology for that duty.
The fact that guns are intended to project force (e.g., to end life in some cases) is actually a good thing if you’re defending yourself against one or more violent aggressors. The fact that evil people can use guns does not negate the fact that good people can use guns. The sole difference is in the intent, good or evil, of the person wielding the gun. To attribute moral qualities to objects is nothing more than animism.
“100 million people murdered in the 20th century. BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS. *That* is the main reason the Second Amendment was adopted by our country’s founders.”
What are you talking about? You’re referincing(ambigigous) stats in polically unstable states.
“The word “genocide” didn’t even exist prior to the 20th century. It was created to describe current events.”
That I must take issue with, do you even know what genocide means? Although the word is only recently (relatively speaking) created, genocide is as old as civilisation and has happened to almost, if not all regions.
“The world is an even more dangerous place now than in the 18th century. The Founders were prescient in codifying our right to defend our lives.”
So you’d like to live in a country where pirates were cuttting off your supplies and doing as they please as long as they paid off the mayor of your town?
Law enforcement don’t need guns, they need to enforce the law. You have the SWAT for firearm situations.
Now, the Hello Kitty vibrator, that’s definitely criminal!
I keep hearing that weapons should be born by the people to defend against an evil government. But comes a president that stole the 2000 election, nobody revolts? And even better, you vote for him a second time? And when he get 5000 of his own soldiers killed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irak_War#2001.E2.80.932003:_Iraq_disarmament_crisis_and_pre-war_intelligence"for the benefit of oil companies, no armed revolts from the people?
No, the 2nd amendment is but bullshit. If you need weapons to be safe in the streets, then maybe the proper fix is to get rid of the reasons “murderers and robbers” murder and rob, isn’t it?
[...] à celles des jouets : Rouge carmin, jaune canari… la police de Baltimore propose même un jeu mortel : spot the real gun. Entre l’AK47 décorée à la « Hello Kitty » et le Glock rose bonbon, [...]
Thanks Randy for your comments, there is no evidence that violence has increased in Australia since gun laws have become more strict. I think these rumours were started in the late 90′s by the NRA. Anyone can come and have a look at what it is like here, it’s a VERY safe place where only hunters need guns.
Anyone can look up Australian bureau of statistics for the real stats. They are insignificant compared to many other countries.
It seems as though guns will make little difference in stopping a genocide, I can’t really see this happening in the USA….
I think you guys have shot yourself in the foot (sorry about the pun), there are WAY too many guns in your country for there to be any kind of serious collection, there are countless anti-government extremists with an arsenal of weapons who aren’t going to back down and there are millions of criminals with weapons which will just keep getting worse with severe poverty and drug problems. There is also no way of any other country could launch a ground assault, attacks have come in the form of terrorist attacks which can’t be stopped by the fact that an ordinary Joe owns a handgun. I think it’s too late, the more your gangs spread and crime increase, the more people will justify the use if guns resulting in even more murders…..
Please don’t believe the lies about Australia, we are much better off with strict gun laws, look at statistics and come a see for yourself!
You guys HAVE to do something, it is so sad to see such a great country destroying itself. It is complete insanity that more guns will fix the problem.
Peace
Johnny W
I just purchased my first handgun. Going to the range is great fun. When the gun is home, I keep it locked up in a safe in the bedroom, where only my wife and I know the combination. I keep ammunition stored in a separate safe in a separate room. Once you actually shoot and around a gun, the huge “stigma” that people who literally have never seen a gun really goes away.
I’d be interested in learning the statistics on how many gun crimes are committed by legal, law abiding gun owners. I bet the number is ridiculously small. I’m all for reasonable regulation – i.e. people with any kind of history of mental illness, depression, or criminal records should never be allowed to own a gun. But for someone who wants to target practice, or hunt, or protect their own home, and they are of sound mind? The risk is negligible.
There are always some bad apples in any bunch – even in the military, police, teachers, gun owners, and “peace activists” – those need to be disregarded and handled appropriately. Target shooting is an extremely enjoyable activity and when exercised with the appropriate precautions is much less dangerous than many other commonplace activities.
It would be great if people actually though things through instead of jumping to conclusions based on only their perceptions of how “dangerous” something is.
Both sides of this argument are wrong and for all the wrong reasons. Does anyone ever bother to ask, “What is the nature of the crime and how does the firearm figure into its mitigation?” Not that I can tell. So I am going to direct my comments to both sides.
To the anti-gun folks let me give it to you very simply so that you can understand. Crimes happen and the police are almost never there to stop it. The firearm provides a potential victim the means to resist an attack from a superior, e.g. bigger or stronger, force. As long as there exists a sociopathic fraction of the population that feels no deterrent sufficient to cause them to reconsider their actions from the point of view of self preservation they will continue to mount attacks.
Now before the pro-gun folks begin dancing about shouting, “Yeah baby,” let me now point out the opposite side of the coin — that the presence of a firearm is almost never an aid to its owner. Why? Because the owner does not know how to use it properly, when to use it, and what its limitations are. It takes significant training to know where, when, and how to properly use a firearm, training that, frankly, precious few ever bother to get. For example, few know that, in a 12′x12′ room an attacker wielding a knife has a significant advantage over a defender with a handgun.
And it is not just a case of knowing how to shoot. Just being able to shoot well does not convey understanding of the use of a handgun in a fight. Do you know when you must shoot in order to nullify a threat? Probably not. Here is a hint — it is a LOT sooner in the course of a confrontation than you think. And then there is this point — are you really prepared to present your firearm and take someone else’s life before they can complete their attack on you, especially if you must react BEFORE they begin the actual physical attack? For most people the answer is ‘no’. That means that these people MUST NOT possess a firearm for self-protection.
But there is the side that says, if you are willing to get the proper training for both your shooting skill and your mind, having a personal firearm will very likely be a good protective device. Just be prepared to deal with the rain of fecal material that is going to come down on you AFTER you have saved your own life.
And to the poster who talked about how safe it is to have his firearm in a safe with the ammunition somewhere else I add, what a twit you are. If you wish to have a firearm for self protection it must be where you can use it within a second or two. If you are going to keep your firearm in a locked safe with the ammunition elsewhere you do NOT have a device useful for self protection. You have a dangerous toy you take to the range periodically to poke holes in paper at a distance. Don’t get me wrong, that is a lot of fun and is also quite safe when done properly. (God knows I have run tens of thousands of rounds downrange.) But it is NOT a device for self protection.
So the answer to the whole discussion about whether or not one is safer with or without a firearm is simple — Yes. Yes, you are safer with a firearm if you get proper training. Yes, you are safer if you do not have a firearm if you do not get proper training and/or are not in the frame of mind to use it properly.
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” – Admiral Isoroku Yamamot
Mr. Whidderwhatever: If that’s what’s “wrong with my country” which happens to be the only superpower left in the world thanks to the freedom of it’s people, than so be it. We true Americans care not what the rest of you limp wristed nancies in the world think of us and our rights. After giving up your arms, you have made yourselves helpless against your own government, or another for that matter.
And thats the answer.
Guns are simple machines, all they do is focusing explosion in one direction.
Thats Human who pulls the trigger, and he would bash you with crawbar if he had no gun.
And mr heywood, he is completly right, guns are for protection, mainly from thieves, murderers and above all to protect you from your own government. (check US constitution, and famous right to own gun, check why they got that right)
Howgh.
Those guns were not taken by the police they clearly show the website the pictures were taken from. http://www.jimsgunsupply.com which specializes gun painting.
Leave your response!
Support Us
Advertisements
Related Topics
Categories
Translator
Recently Uploaded Documents
Most Commented
Fair Use Notice: