Baltimore Police Department: Guns That Look Like Toys

BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE SECTION

  • 2 pages
  • For Official Use Only
  • Law Enforcement Sensitive
  • January 29, 2008

Download

30 comments for “Baltimore Police Department: Guns That Look Like Toys

  1. Nick
    April 16, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    I like how you kept the FOUO markings. Admitting you’re a public propaganda agency?
    Nick

  2. namenamename
    April 17, 2010 at 7:28 am

    Ah at least!

    I see AK47 in my favorite Hello Kitty Skin… was dream about it. <3

  3. felgus
    April 17, 2010 at 12:28 pm
  4. o.O
    April 18, 2010 at 5:46 am

    Fajne :) Nie głupi pomysł :P

  5. G Evans
    April 18, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    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

    • John Aaron
      July 6, 2011 at 3:09 am

      Weapons are made to protect. Unfortunately some use them to kill. However if you ban all guns then what’s stopping people from killings others with knives, bats, fists ect.? If you have a gun in your house you just feel safer, knowing if there is a robber in the night, you have a weapon to protect yourself. Yes, you hear always about murders that are the result of guns on the news. Yet what you don’t hear on the news is how many crimes and robberies guns have stopped as well. If you are going to ban guns, you might as well ban cars because car accidents are a higher cause of death.

      • janus
        August 21, 2012 at 3:15 am

        I see youre an aussie too, just like me… so tell me Johnny “Widdershin”, how did Howard’s gun buyback and ban on semi-autos and pump-actions stop the bikie gangs from accessing those kinds of guns and killing each other… oh wait a minute, that’s right, _IT_DIDN”T_!
        it just took guns away from people who wouldn’t have gone murdering in the first place. Maybe if people could keep a gun in their home here in Aus, there’d be fewer break-ins, and some woman living alone would not have to worry about being raped in her own home if she hears a noise in her yard at night, because she could actually defend herself.
        And as for ‘defending people’s rights’ the intent of that law was to defend americans against the excesses of their OWN government. But I guess you know that saying, don’t you? “People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people. How lucky for governments that the people don’t think” funnily enough, it was Hitler who said it, not long before he banned all guns, in fact. Im certain that the Jews felt safe that only their country’s army and police had guns, right? Right???

  6. Johnny Widdershin
    April 21, 2010 at 5:03 am

    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

  7. SkyKing
    April 21, 2010 at 7:34 am

    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.

    • Renegade
      April 10, 2012 at 2:49 am

      An armed society is a polite society.

  8. Randy
    April 22, 2010 at 10:03 am

    @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.

  9. Ike
    April 22, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    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.

    • Renegade
      April 10, 2012 at 2:55 am

      Because if the US banned guns how would we fight back??? How would we protect ourselves against robbers who still have their guns??? Do you know why Japan didn’t attack our mainland with ground forces? Quote from the Emperor of Japan ” I fear there is a gun behind every blade of grass”, So you tell me are guns bad or not. if you say that they are you have your mind closed to the facts that are plainly stated.

  10. SEA
    April 22, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    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.

  11. Randy
    April 23, 2010 at 6:38 am

    @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.

  12. CarryingColoradan
    April 23, 2010 at 11:19 am

    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.

  13. SEA
    April 23, 2010 at 7:11 pm

    “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.

  14. Jack Parsons
    April 25, 2010 at 12:16 am

    Now, the Hello Kitty vibrator, that’s definitely criminal!

  15. FP
    April 26, 2010 at 8:29 am

    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.

    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?

    • Renegade
      April 10, 2012 at 3:00 am

      This is dumbfounding…. All I can say is wow, really no not even those words can describe the I fell right now. Ok just going to say this it is not the gun that kills it is the person that wields it.

    • Renegade
      April 10, 2012 at 3:00 am

      the way I feel*

  16. Johnny Widdershin
    May 5, 2010 at 12:52 am

    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

    • Sean
      April 2, 2011 at 2:14 pm

      Don’t you worry your little self about America. You think we have too many guns in this country? Fine. Stay away. Either way I don’t think it’s any of your business. Unless you’ve recently become an American citizen. Which I would find improbable seeing as one must agree to come to defense of the US should you be called to do so before being sworn in as a US citizen. I wholeheartedly believe you could not agree to this. I feel for the Great Country of Australia with it’s weak, frightened and ignorant citizens. I can only imagine what rights are you willing to give up next?

      • Renegade
        April 10, 2012 at 3:02 am

        “Like”

  17. May 6, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    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.

  18. Brian Lloyd
    May 15, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    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.

  19. heywood
    June 3, 2010 at 10:13 am

    “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.

  20. Stanley
    July 24, 2010 at 11:27 am

    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.

  21. Eli
    July 25, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    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.

  22. April 13, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Hey! Ѕomeone in my Facebook ցroup shared this ѕitе with us so I came to look it over.
    Ι’m definitely enjߋying the information.
    I’m book-marking and will be tԝeetinց this to my folloաers!
    Wonderful blog and fantastic design.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *