Sandy Hook Commission: No gun that can fire over 10 rounds in a row

[Quiet]

Off duty I agree.

On duty I expect them to be held to a higher standard when applying the firce if government upon the populace. Thing is, society expects that level of behavior from them 24/7 now. So when ARE they off duty?

 

[Trouble]

They won't be happy until all that's legal is muzzle loading black powder muskets.

The original rifle of liberty.

 

[Quiet]

That kind of garb used to be (still is? ) reserved for the tactical teams. Remeber the show SWAT?

They were developed when the forces were carrying .38 revolvers and were outgunned at every encounter.

 

[PrimusTactical]

Trying to put this the best way to get guys to see where I'm coming from... Would you expect your Doctor to not have the best equipment to treat you if you couldn't have the equipment? Or the firefighters to not have the best firetrucks and apparatus to fight fires? The medics to have the best drugs or equipment to treat you in the field? It's no question you do want them to have these things, even when you can't (thinking like a MRI machine you prob can't have in your basement). So why is it the field that's supposed to protect you shouldnt have the best equipment even if you can't? And it's tough to hang magazine stuff on 2a because it doesn't explicitly spell it out. So the grabbers say show me where it says!! And we say... interpret it.

I get it, the guys on here are all very capable of taking care of themselves with their thousands of rounds and high speed low drag gear that probably outperforms anything in my department, but it's not just about you. Do you have any family who lives alone? Any females (hate to single them out, but it's true) the live alone with kids? When they get into a jam do you guys go there to help with your silenced bazookas? (lol) No. And not a person would ever expect you to. Sure guys say they would go to a school shooting, but you won't. You won't even get the call next time someone but goes berserk. LEOs will. Someone on here said "oh you'll wait outside and just say it's not secure" Not sure what Dept. they are referring to, but the State (possibly National) training on that that has changed. We now are trained in Active shooters and no longer wait for SWAT (depending on situation active shooter is different then hostage). LEOs have to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves. Its hard to see that because you guys are all very well taken care of and self sufficient which is awesome.

Can you imagine the LA shootout all over again except having all those officers who fought them to only have pistols because ARs are banned out there? Could you imagine the backlash from that? To say sure we had the equipment to stop these shooters all body armored up, but we let them kill more people because we are being "fair" and following the same bans..

 

[MisterHappy]

Your own argument defeats you.

The single mother, living alone should not have to call us with our silenced bazookas, but should be able to, if she chooses, protect herself. As well as you can.

When the door is kicked in at zero-dark-thirty, it will be faster for the Female you mentioned to grab her own bazooka (not having to call anyone), than for her to call you, or your partner, or the SWAT team.

Because, unless she lives over the Dispatch Desk , whatever is happening will be over by the time you arrive.

If you, with a Vest and Training and Backup "need" a crapload of ammo, then the undefended single mom needs it more. Because you are responding to a call for help, and can prepare and plan between the call and arrival, and the person with the intruder has to react. Now.

Most NESers are not anti-cop. Most are, however, anti-Cops-Are-Better-Than-You-So-We-Can-Do-What-We-Want.

 

[PaulD]

Trying to put this the best way to get guys to see where I'm coming from... Would you expect your Doctor to not have the best equipment to treat you if you couldn't have the equipment? Or the firefighters to not have the best firetrucks and apparatus to fight fires? The medics to have the best drugs or equipment to treat you in the field? It's no question you do want them to have these things, even when you can't (thinking like a MRI machine you prob can't have in your basement). So why is it the field that's supposed to protect you shouldnt have the best equipment even if you can't? And it's tough to hang magazine stuff on 2a because it doesn't explicitly spell it out. So the grabbers say show me where it says!! And we say... interpret it.

I get it, the guys on here are all very capable of taking care of themselves with their thousands of rounds and high speed low drag gear that probably outperforms anything in my department, but it's not just about you. Do you have any family who lives alone? Any females (hate to single them out, but it's true) the live alone with kids? When they get into a jam do you guys go there to help with your silenced bazookas? (lol) No. And not a person would ever expect you to. Sure guys say they would go to a school shooting, but you won't. You won't even get the call next time someone but goes berserk. LEOs will. Someone on here said "oh you'll wait outside and just say it's not secure" Not sure what Dept. they are referring to, but the State (possibly National) training on that that has changed. We now are trained in Active shooters and no longer wait for SWAT (depending on situation active shooter is different then hostage). LEOs have to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves. Its hard to see that because you guys are all very well taken care of and self sufficient which is awesome.

Can you imagine the LA shootout all over again except having all those officers who fought them to only have pistols because ARs are banned out there? Could you imagine the backlash from that? To say sure we had the equipment to stop these shooters all body armored up, but we let them kill more people because we are being "fair" and following the same bans..

So you're saying criminals won't follow the gun control laws, so you need to be equipped to a level appropriate to these extremely rare situations that 99.9% of cops will never see in their whole career? Interesting.

 

[PrimusTactical]

Your own argument defeats you.

The single mother, living alone should not have to call us with our silenced bazookas, but should be able to, if she chooses, protect herself. As well as you can.

When the door is kicked in at zero-dark-thirty, it will be faster for the Female you mentioned to grab her own bazooka (not having to call anyone), than for her to call you, or your partner, or the SWAT team.

Because, unless she lives over the Dispatch Desk , whatever is happening will be over by the time you arrive.

If you, with a Vest and Training and Backup "need" a crapload of ammo, then the undefended single mom needs it more. Because you are responding to a call for help, and can prepare and plan between the call and arrival, and the person with the intruder has to react. Now.

Most NESers are not anti-cop. Most are, however, anti-Cops-Are-Better-Than-You-So-We-Can-Do-What-We-Want.

Sure they should have the right. Missed my point. Never said they shouldnt have that right... I've never ever said they shouldnt have the right. Please read that again. Wait one more time,. never said they shouldn't have the right. Was that clear?

We were talking about stripping LEOs the right becasue politicians pass dumb laws. That very specific thing. I see why these these threads go nuts and way off what was said or intended.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Sure they should have the right. Missed my point. Never said they shouldnt have that right... I've never ever said they shouldnt have the right. Please read that again. Wait one more time,. never said they shouldn't have the right. Was that clear?

We were talking about stripping LEOs the right becasue politicians pass dumb laws. That very specific thing. I see why these these threads go nuts and way off what was said or intended.

What is it that you are really trying to prove to either yourself or others here?

If given the task of making a list of exclusive advantages that you could have as a police officer over any member of the genral public what would the first 6 be?

Note: The fifth is also an option.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

Sure they should have the right. Missed my point. Never said they shouldnt have that right... I've never ever said they shouldnt have the right. Please read that again. Wait one more time,. never said they shouldn't have the right. Was that clear?

We were talking about stripping LEOs the right becasue politicians pass dumb laws. That very specific thing. I see why these these threads go nuts and way off what was said or intended.

What you are missing is that the idea of applying the same standards to departments and officers, is a tactic. You HAVE to know that there are many of your fellow officers who are not anti, not pro, but off in limbo when it comes to the disparity of firearm law application to them. The concept introduced here is NOT to punish officers. It's to WAKE them UP. At least that is how I see it.

 

[PrimusTactical]

What is it that you are really trying to prove to either yourself or others here?

If given the task of making a list of exclusive advantages that you could have as a police officer over any member of the genral public what would the first 6 be?

Note: The fifth is also an option.

lol... I've said it ten times.. Since you are asking me directly (was trying to let this lie.) I was sating that restricing LEOs on mag size because the general public is resitricted is... dumb. Pretty sure at least a couple other guys on here have agreed to that and said it better then I.

There itsn't 6, it comes down to weapons (MP5, etc.) and mags (30 rds, 13 rds, etc.). Basically everything else is and should be the same. Are you talking about lights and sirens too? I mean how in depth and dumb are you looking for this to be? This whole thread has been the same thing. Group A says "Whatever we have they have" Group B says "It's really sucks that certain laws are getting passed, but LEOs shouldn't be hammered to prove a point". I'm Group B. Is that clear enough we can let it ride and agree to disagree on it?

 

[PrimusTactical]

What you are missing is that the idea of applying the same standards to departments and officers, is a tactic. You HAVE to know that there are many of your fellow officers who are not anti, not pro, but off in limbo when it comes to the disparity of firearm law application to them. The concept introduced here is NOT to punish officers. It's to WAKE them UP. At least that is how I see it.

Thank you sir (can I use it here), for the clarification. THAT makes sense. I'm sure there are some guys on here that dont give a F about tactics and want us to burn, but the tactic thing makes more sense. I honestly appreciate that clarification. Still disagree from a safety standpoint, but I get it maybe if a few people get hurt going to calls then the Politicians will see the point (which sucks..)

 

[josh2600]

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.

You're ****ing delusional.

 

[PrimusTactical]

You're ****ing delusional.

So says my wife everytime I bring home a new gun...

 

[Mass-diver]

A majority of police support disarming citizens. By all account, police misconduct is widespread in this country. Unless the cops stop playing solider and actually start protecting people, I'd be fine with them carrying billy clubs and whistles.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

A majority of police support disarming citizens. By all account, police misconduct is widespread in this country.

Sweet generalizations bro.

I've got an oldie (not really) but goodie that should sound familiar and equally ridiculous:

A majority of gun owners favor reasonable restrictions.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Sweet generalizations bro.

I no rite?

 

[MisterHappy]

The problem is that there is a division between cops and non-cops.

Cops get special privileges that non-cops don't.

And, some cops are just fine with that.

Primus: I've asked you this before in this thread: Should a cop involved in a shooting (as the one I linked to) be identified as a non-cop would be. Please read again, as you so eloquently put it.


If you think no, please explain why.

 

[CTpatriot]

most cops are hired for their lack of critical thinking, that way the higher ups are not threatened by the worker bees.

 

[Mass-diver]

Sweet generalizations bro..

Do you not think both points are true?

 

[Deleted member 12999]

Do you not think both points are true?

I never said they weren't true, I think your estimations are off though. Two different things. It's easy to say things like: 'most, all, tons, every, and majority'. It lends a difficult obstacle to having a reasonable discussion about something. You're frustrated. I get it. Don't water down your message with hyperbole.

 

[PrimusTactical]

The problem is that there is a division between cops and non-cops.

Cops get special privileges that non-cops don't.

And, some cops are just fine with that.

Primus: I've asked you this before in this thread: Should a cop involved in a shooting (as the one I linked to) be identified as a non-cop would be. Please read again, as you so eloquently put it.


If you think no, please explain why.

I missplaced that link (lost in the numerous posts obv.). But if your question is this : Should a cop who wrongfully shoots someone get outed for what he did and/or prosecuted. Of Course. Thats easy. Now do I think that everytime a cop gets into a shoot out he should get strung up by his heals and labeled a racist or jbt or any of the other dumb lables (dog killer etc., just read the posts here). No. It's bad enough going into a house or chasing a guy through yards and they reach for something and you have no idea what it is, then they draw it and you think it might be weapon and you react (OMG that does really happen) and then have to think about what the public might think.

Have you guys seen the bb guns they sell at place's like Dicks? The metal ones that actually look real? Well guys/kids here actually use those to commit robberies (few times a week). Imagine trying to differntiate that in the dark while chasing someone.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that there is a division between cops and non-cops.

Cops get special privileges that non-cops don't.

And, some cops are just fine with that.

Primus: I've asked you this before in this thread: Should a cop involved in a shooting (as the one I linked to) be identified as a non-cop would be. Please read again, as you so eloquently put it.


If you think no, please explain why.

I apoligize if I missed the intent, are you referring to identified as in the media?

 

[Mass-diver]

I never said they weren't true, I think your estimations are off though. Two different things. It's easy to say things like: 'most, all, tons, every, and majority'. It lends a difficult obstacle to having a reasonable discussion about something. You're frustrated. I get it. Don't water down your message with hyperbole.

I picked "majority" because most of the information about how cops feel about guns is from polls. >than 50% = majority, so I don't think that term is the same as "most, all, etc"

However, I will concede my characterization of police misconduct as "widespread" is imprecise, although the numbers (based on convictions) are shocking.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

I picked "majority" because most of the information about how cops feel about guns is from polls. >than 50% = majority, so I don't think that term is the same as "most, all, etc"

However, I will concede my characterization of police misconduct as "widespread" is imprecise, although the numbers (based on convictions) are shocking.

...aaaaaaand there is the problem. Polls.

 

[Quiet]

What you are missing is that the idea of applying the same standards to departments and officers, is a tactic. You HAVE to know that there are many of your fellow officers who are not anti, not pro, but off in limbo when it comes to the disparity of firearm law application to them. The concept introduced here is NOT to punish officers. It's to WAKE them UP. At least that is how I see it.

I think the tactic is misguided; I don't think that the limbos will be happier with you , I think you'll just piss'em off, they're gonna "wake up" grouchy. LOL

But it's just a guess.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

I think the tactic is misguided; I don't think that the limbos will be happier with you , I think you'll just piss'em off, they're gonna "wake up" grouchy. LOL

But it's just a guess.

I think there is a reasonable point at which when you continue to 'ask' for rights, they cease to be rights. It's not a matter of happiness... it's a matter of a cold shower. Nobody likes cold showers, but you can't deny their effectiveness.

 

[Quiet]

I fail to see how imposing this tactic to slightly inconvenience PDs is asking for or demanding a right. It's just a PR move (destined to backfire in my estimation) as far as I can tell.

But we can certainly agree-to-disagree on the issue. I'm not married to my position and I could very well be wrong.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

I fail to see how imposing this tactic to slightly inconvenience PDs is asking for or demanding a right. It's just a PR move (destined to backfire in my estimation) as far as I can tell.

But we can certainly agree-to-disagree on the issue. I'm not married to my position and I could very well be wrong.

I think it's just one small piece of the puzzle. It's not like you do something like this, and then stand in the driveway saying 'nah... nah... nah.nah.nah'. Set limits, open a dialogue. Stick to your principles.


Trust me. I understand the implications of a range doing this, and the effects of manufacturers refusing to deal with LE agencies. When you are in a situation... control the things you have control over.

 

[Quiet]

Yeah, well. Maybe.

I'd wanna see the rest of the puzzle.

I agree with companies choosing not to sell banned items to instate LEOs if they want to; other than profits on the sales I don't think there's much to lose; I don't believe that action would alienate townsfolk to the RKBA, but I could be wrong on that.

Remember, even though I've made most of my comments about the effect on the LEOs and PDs, my theory is it's really all about the middle 50% of people we need to bring along. Many if not most LEOs, I'm guessing, already have their positions pretty well set on the issues.

 

[PaulD]

Yeah, well. Maybe.

I'd wanna see the rest of the puzzle.

I agree with companies choosing not to sell banned items to instate LEOs if they want to; other than profits on the sales I don't think there's much to lose; I don't believe that action would alienate townsfolk to the RKBA, but I could be wrong on that.

Remember, even though I've made most of my comments about the effect on the LEOs and PDs, my theory is it's really all about the middle 50% of people we need to bring along. Many if not most LEOs, I'm guessing, already have their positions pretty well set on the issues.

At the January rally in Boston, I made it a point to go around to every single LEO there, ask them what they thought of the bills in the state house and if they disagreed, to call their reps. I'd say 80% actively said they didn't like the bills. The other 20% didn't explicitly state an opinion but implied they didn't like the bills. There were about 30 officers there that day.

 

[Billy]

No survivors and no 223 casings? Crazy kid or well trained? I wonder, a lot of questions clouded by emotions. I have been around the country with my new job and have many interesting theories?