-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Sandy Hook Commission: No gun that can fire over 10 rounds in a row
- Thread starter BeastlyAdams
- Start date
Which was the worst of these and against adults who let themselves be shot down without even a charge.
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,428
- Likes
- 17,624
LEOs have voluntarily entered into that occupation. It's not like they were drafted, and handed a gun, and told, "GO!".
If a cop has to have a "big" magazine to protect him/herself from the bad guys, that they volunteered to fight, why should a non-cop be different. After all, a cop can call for backup more easily than a "regular" person.
Oh....since you put "(depending on [sic] town)" , are you saying that only in places where they "go TOWARDS the fighting EVERYDAY [sic]" that only cops in those locales should have lots of ammo, and the ones in more peaceful places can go back to six-shooters?
Next time a cop shoots a guy, face down, on his own floor, in the back, with a rifle, will you publicly call for the police officer's name to be released (as would that of any other citizen), and that he be held to the same level of scrutiny?
Or are cops more equal?
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 13,395
- Likes
- 8,239
Of course, the media is purposely not reporting this, but the Sandy Hook Shooter (anyone who uses that criminals name is just helping to keep him famous) didn't shoot large numbers of rounds at a time. He is reported to have changed magazines long before they were empty. As one of the reports I read quoted from a 'source close to the investigation' said:
"... just like the video games tend to enforce."
In other words, it does not matter how many rounds are in a magazine. When you are the only one shooting, you could have a single shot and do considerable harm.
"... just like the video games tend to enforce."
In other words, it does not matter how many rounds are in a magazine. When you are the only one shooting, you could have a single shot and do considerable harm.
PrimusTactical
Banned
Sure LEOS sign up for it. They don't sign up to die though. And what happens to the victim when cop runs out of ammo because he only has 18 rds? Or gets killed because he's reloading and the bad guy has 30rd magazines? Argument doesn't hold water. The only reason people bring up the LEO vs. citizens with mags is like saying "I can't have it then neither can you! NAH (insert stuck out tongue)". Most poeple realize LEOs are there to fight bad guys. Average joes dont' (they shouldn't have to). Do you advocate sending troops overseas with 10 rd mags? Just to prove a point? They are no more special then LEOS, they are citizens defending other citizens. And the reason I said depending on the town/city is because not every day does something crazy happen in certain towns. But again it can at any point in time. Insert that quote about needing it and not having it or having it and not needing it here.
And "guys getting shot in back while face down" or w/e your talking about is NOT what this thread or anyone on here as been talking about.
From a sheer tactical standpoint LEOs need that stuff because bad guys have it. So my statement from before still stands.
D
Deleted member 12999
No man. Just no.
Boghog1
NES Member
no they won't be happy until we have to club each other to death, it is so much more humane.
- - - Updated - - -
maybe the leo should carry more than a revolver with 2 speed loaders, oh and we shouldn't be sending troops overseas willy nilly like we do.
PrimusTactical
Banned
Actually clubbing is not more humane. Take Harp Seals for instance....
Mass-diver
NES Member
Ya, LEOs with tons of backup need more firepower than the lone civilian? Give me break. Your posts make me sick to my stomach.
By a large majority, police, around the country, favor disarming citizens. Police abuse is widespread and well documented, the idea that LEOs are simply "citizens defending other citizens" is beyond naive.
PrimusTactical
Banned
Tons of backup that can be minutes away when seconds count. Your opinion on Police is your opinion and "well documented". Doesn't change anything I've said. And if you pose the question and the idea as I put it in my post, anybody but someone who just hates LEOs would agree it isn't worth LEOs or MORE IMPORTANT, victims dying to prove a point. But we can agree to disagree.
Boghog1
NES Member
so why should non leos be limited to sub standard capacity magazines, you have a direct line to help that make take a few minutes where I will need to go to a third party and it wil add time to the arrival of help?
PrimusTactical
Banned
I don't have an opinion on what YOU (and me off duty) should be allowed, I was talking about what LEO should be allowed. It's two seperate things. Do I think that if the politicians pose some STUPID ban and say everyone can have 3 rds, would I agree that LEOs should have it or anyone? Hell no.
AllaSnackbah
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,287
- Likes
- 11,499
i just want all of this to end...
D
Deleted member 12999
Why not just advocate for their possession of them in the first place, then you can keep yours.
F
Finalygotabeltfed
Yes, yes, yes and yes, and I did it long before you were probably born and with a 6 round revolver. Speed loaders were still new to the market and not issued. Shotguns were in every other car and bullet proof vests were unheard of in the majority of police departments.
You're by far not the first or only person who's ever wore a badge in this life and you're not going to be the last either. You act and speak as if the job of police officer is somthing that was just invented the day you stepped into the career.
I'd gladly come give you a hand clearing a school but I'd more than likely be shot on approach by some trigger happy roid head if I were carrying a gun in plain sight.
Get over yourself, you're not the world's savior or even a good facsimile.
Last edited by a moderator:
PrimusTactical
Banned
D
Deleted member 12999
PrimusTactical;30252 but I won't turn my (duty) stuff in and get myself or others hurt if they are too dumb to pass good laws.[/QUOTE said:
Last edited by a moderator:
PrimusTactical
Banned
Well said. I'm far from anyones savior and have invented nothing at all. But everything I've said has been facts. And if you ever did the job youd agree to all the scenarios I've given. Even if you dislike me, doesn't make things I say untruthful....
Boghog1
NES Member
then the logical conclusion is to not arrest people because they have a magazine that contains over some arbitrary number that was manufactured after some arbitrary date?
I have had to sweep my house when my alarm was set off in the middle of the night (motion sensor). Because you have a badge, you should have more ammo than me during the same type of scenario? I am there with my family when it goes down... you come 5 minutes later when the threat is most likely gone.
What if I am already there with my wife and kid (lets say it goes down at the mall). Because I am not responding with a badge (5-10 minutes late mind you), I don't deserve to have the capacity to stop the threat?
Bad guys will only have that capacity too though... right? What you fail to understand is that you guys are typically the clean up crew... the real shit goes down before you get there... where normal citizens have split seconds to either become the victim or stop the crime.
Unfortunately you and all these anti's keep resorting to standing on the graves of the kids at Newtown. How many mass school shootings have occurred over the last 10 years? Who cares though, lets limit the rights of millions of law abiding citizens because of it.
Mass-diver
NES Member
You know the reality is that tons of cops can't wait to play solider and start raiding people's houses over high cap mags.
Heck, weaver was accused of making two short barrel shotguns. They murderd his son and unarmed wife.
Lots of these sickos get off by bullying civilians. When gun bans are enacted it's just another reason to go after the people in society who can actuakly protect themselves.
F
Finalygotabeltfed
No, but you live and breathe a double standard by thinking that nobody else is or should be entitled to the same treatment or protections under the law as police officers.
Any exemptions in any laws that place police officers above the average citizen are wrong and devisive. They set up a two tiered system of justice in which the average citizen who foots the bills for this whole societal charade is placed at the bottom of the heap.
Your life isn't worth a bent nickel more than mine or anyone elses and your ability to access assistance is far better and faster than that of the average joe walking down the street in the bad part of town or anywhere for that matter. The necessity for a larger capacity magazine is universal. If the bad guy has them, he doesn't beg permission or kiss someone's ass to have them, he just has them and doesn't give a rats ass what anyone thinks or says.
Placing a restriction on my ability to obtain or keep them is totally unacceptable. Placing that same restriction on my ability to obtain and keep them while making an exception for someone who has no duty to protect me is just pure insult added to injury. I don't accept it and I will never abide by it no matter the consequence.
Boghog1
NES Member
Not to mention it pisses off the law abiding guy that would back you 100% if you stood up for us. as of now I vote down most LE budget request and say Eff you because of the constant double standard, so if you don't make enough money or think your job should pay more remember I am the guy that approves your departments budget.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2010
- Messages
- 1,544
- Likes
- 1,467
Give me a break, rookie. Go tell that to the fathers of the dead children from Newtown and the CT state police. Your ass would be sitting outside not doing a ****ing thing because, "we can't go in there yet, there's still an active shooter." Meanwhile, YOU would be holding back the fathers who would gladly take your weapons and do the job themselves.
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,428
- Likes
- 17,624
Conflating troops overseas and domestic police is either: silly; wishful thinking; or downright scary.
Police are not here to "fight bad guys" in the context of stepping between bad guys and victims, as you infer in your third sentence. Cops arrive on the scene, after the fact, then try to catch them. The initial damage has been done. Then, when the alleged perp is located, it's generally not one cop v. one bad guy.....it's a far more robust response. I'm not saying that that's wrong, but your premise that "We protect victims from bad guys, and don't have the time to reload" is specious.
Some (though not all) police think that they're special - and generally are conferred privileges that non-cops (carry anywhere, etc.) cannot exercise; and your use of the "Better to have it and not need it, etc." for cops, but not for the average guy on the street shows that you think that this is the correct policy.
And the "shot in the back" part was to see if you think that the officer that negligently/accidentally discharged should have had his name and face in the paper, as a non-cop would have been.
Do you?
Oh, and from a sheer tactical standpoint, anyone that might encounter bad guys need it, too.
Similar threads
