[brisk21]

Why the hell do we have to justify "needs" when it comes to firearms? That right there is the question. When someone asks me why I need something like an ar-15, I wonder, Who the ****** are you to ask me that?"

[OlliesRevenge]

Originally Posted by Gallium

So what we are seeing is, you have not sat and thought hard enough about all of the "what ifs" that can turn your day into "oh crap".

• What if you are in your garage, which is attached to your house, and some guy sticks a knife in your neck as soon as you strap on your seat belt?

• What if every other layer of security failed (dogs, alarm, door) you step out the bedroom with your rifle and dude gets you in a bear hug?

.... I would much rather have a small handgun I can get to fast and stick in someone's gut for a rapid succession of shots until they stop beating my head in or choking me out or ventilating my torso with a sharp edged weapon.

Dude, you have a violent imagination. Having a knife stuck in my neck just for putting on my seat belt... would particularly suck! Maybe the guy just hates seat belts?

Seriously though, that's a lot of "what ifs". I don't even feel like I disagree with you enough to want to split those hairs. But to be fair I feel like you are largely ignoring my original caveat of -- "if there were a rifle or shotgun available".

Stay safe, and watch your neck!

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by OlliesRevenge

Dude, you have a violent imagination. Having a knife stuck in my neck just for putting on my seat belt... would particularly suck! Maybe the guy just hates seat belts?

Seriously though, that's a lot of "what ifs". I don't even feel like I disagree with you enough to want to split those hairs. But to be fair I feel like you are largely ignoring my original caveat of -- "if there were a rifle or shotgun available".

Stay safe, and watch your neck!

It is called a survivor's mindset. It is no uncommon to think of scenarios in your head and logic out what would probably work less. That is typically the difference between people who freeze up and panic and those who act.

People who freeze up are useless and a danger to themselves and others, or at the very least an obsticle in the middle of the problem to be overcome to solve the problem.

You have a split second to make a decision-right, wrong, or indfifferent. The fun part is you have to spend forever justifying that split second reaction to peers. It is even more fun in a society where the unwashed and smelly have cell phone cams, that they edit heavily later to make it say whatever they want.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by OlliesRevenge

Dude, you have a violent imagination. Having a knife stuck in my neck just for putting on my seat belt... would particularly suck! Maybe the guy just hates seat belts?

Seriously though, that's a lot of "what ifs". I don't even feel like I disagree with you enough to want to split those hairs. But to be fair I feel like you are largely ignoring my original caveat of -- "if there were a rifle or shotgun available".

Stay safe, and watch your neck!

• I did not mean your skin was pierced by the knife . Think of the analogy of a gun being stuck in your neck.
• I didn't ignore your original caveat. There are times where rifles or shotguns (using your restriction of inside the home) are LESS practical and useful that handguns, edged weapons or even hands.

We should always seek to match not only the proper tool to the situation, but also our mindset to the tool and the scenario. I see so many dudes with knives on their persons, and they can't handle cutting off the head of a chicken, killing a pig (you know, where bacon comes from) or gutting a deer. How do they plan to use that knife up close and personal on another human being if they have no stomach for wounding or killing someone in breathing space?


Follow the advice of the gent that posted above me. Think think think all the time about what ifs. Visualize some nasty crap popping up on you as you walk around a corner, as you walk into a 7/11, that accident where someone ran in your back and the car in front of you slows down inexplicably.

[writwing]

I spoke with a leo from a large CT city that just finished doing long shifts in Newtown. During our discussion he flat out told me that he and many fellow officers WILL NOT go into a building to disarm a criminal. They will not risk their life for a Bushmaster.


We need rifles to protect us from the globins that strike fear into a unionized pd.

ps. I do not own a rifle of any type.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by writwing

I spoke with a leo from a large CT city that just finished doing long shifts in Newtown. During our discussion he flat out told me that he and many fellow officers WILL NOT go into a building to disarm a criminal. They will not risk their life for a Bushmaster.


We need rifles to protect us from the globins that strike fear into a unionized pd.

ps. I do not own a rifle of any type.

I assume you don't mean an active shooter incident where the shooter has a long gun. I assume what you mean is if legislation is passed to confiscate these types of long guns, he is saying they won't do it.

If this is what you mean, I am here to tell you this is not how police business works. If they don't follow a directive to seize a gun, what happens? Charges might be made against them.

If they don't seize a gun, and the owner goes nutz, and shoots up a mall, not only liability becomes an issue, but vicarious liability for that agency and its supervisors/administrators.

There is no history of police in the NE (particularly NY, CT and NJ NOT implementing those types of arrests. The reality is, some of those arrests are rungs for promotion.

[Dragoon44]

I spoke with a leo from a large CT city that just finished doing long shifts in Newtown. During our discussion he flat out told me that he and many fellow officers WILL NOT go into a building to disarm a criminal. They will not risk their life for a Bushmaster.

none of that conversation makes any sense. First how would they even know the make of the weapon? second, cops go in after armed criminal, active shooter or not on a regular basis. THIRD, cops are not rained to "disarm" active shooters to begin with.

[writwing]

Originally Posted by Gallium

I assume you don't mean an active shooter incident where the shooter has a long gun. I assume what you mean is if legislation is passed to confiscate these types of long guns, he is saying they won't do it.

If this is what you mean, I am here to tell you this is not how police business works. If they don't follow a directive to seize a gun, what happens? Charges might be made against them.

If they don't seize a gun, and the owner goes nutz, and shoots up a mall, not only liability becomes an issue, but vicarious liability for that agency and its supervisors/administrators.

There is no history of police in the NE (particularly NY, CT and NJ NOT implementing those types of arrests. The reality is, some of those arrests are rungs for promotion.

NO I am talking of trying to apprehend someone who is known to have a weapons cache. He flat out stated that he and some fellow officers will not risk their lives for that.

[writwing]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

none of that conversation makes any sense. First how would they even know the make of the weapon? second, cops go in after armed criminal, active shooter or not on a regular basis. THIRD, cops are not rained to "disarm" active shooters to begin with.

I used the term "Bushmaster" in the contemporary mass media jargon.

Sorry but that is what the officer claimed, like it or not.

It seems that the Adam-12 type of officers retired a long time ago.

[Dragoon44]

Originally Posted by writwing

NO I am talking of trying to apprehend someone who is known to have a weapons cache. He flat out stated that he and some fellow officers will not risk their lives for that.

Ok now that makes more sense. I thought you were talking about going in after an active shooter.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by writwing

NO I am talking of trying to apprehend someone who is known to have a weapons cache. He flat out stated that he and some fellow officers will not risk their lives for that.

Policing is very local, and has it's own sub-culture, which is often parallel to the locality where officers serve.

A street (traffic, etc) cop in Irving, TX or Vail, CO or Douglas, GA is going to be a different beast than a cop from Stamford, CT/ Larchmont, NY, Great Neck, NY, Garden City, NJ or anywhere in NYC.

[writwing]

Originally Posted by Gallium

Policing is very local, and has it's own sub-culture, which is often parallel to the locality where officers serve.

A street (traffic, etc) cop in Irving, TX or Vail, CO or Douglas, GA is going to be a different beast than a cop from Stamford, CT/ Larchmont, NY, Great Neck, NY, Garden City, NJ or anywhere in NYC.

The point is that we cannot count on the police to protect us. This is why we need certain types of weapons for protection.

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by OlliesRevenge

Dude, you have a violent imagination. Having a knife stuck in my neck just for putting on my seat belt... would particularly suck! Maybe the guy just hates seat belts?

Seriously though, that's a lot of "what ifs". I don't even feel like I disagree with you enough to want to split those hairs. But to be fair I feel like you are largely ignoring my original caveat of -- "if there were a rifle or shotgun available".

Stay safe, and watch your neck!

Great response. Maybe he is a writer for one of those "true crime" story magazines that women love to read.

[mack0311]

Originally Posted by BodymoreMurderland

Many police departments do not issue or allow rifles.

As with anything else, some people are slow to change. The majority have come around to seeing the versatility and increased benefit of a patrol rifle over a shotgun. Both have their place though.

[coastal4974]

Originally Posted by Rabbi

Again, Much of Europe...

We have actual results vs. your opinion on how that would play out here.

I actually agree with you but what you fail to see is, to an on the fence party, who is looking at results vs. the feelings of pro gun people, well, we look like a damned fool in the eyes of most people.

In the face of facts, your untested opinions dont mean much to most people. You must chew on this truth no matter how you feel about the issue, and in particular, how you feel about people who dont see it your way.

That fact might be explained by the U.S. having such a high percentage of kids living in a single parent (mostly mothers only) household. Over 70% of black kids. I remember reading that if you took single parent childhood out of the equation, the prison population would be equal among whites and blacks. It would make an interesting study.

That might not be what the liberal would want to hear.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Gallium

Policing is very local, and has it's own sub-culture, which is often parallel to the locality where officers serve.

A street (traffic, etc) cop in Irving, TX or Vail, CO or Douglas, GA is going to be a different beast than a cop from Stamford, CT/ Larchmont, NY, Great Neck, NY, Garden City, NJ or anywhere in NYC.

Why would Vail be different? They are used to seeing people with open carry?

[NorthernAlpine]

Originally Posted by Gallium

So what we are seeing is, you have not sat and thought hard enough about all of the "what ifs" that can turn your day into "oh crap".

• What if you are in your garage, which is attached to your house, and some guy sticks a knife in your neck as soon as you strap on your seat belt?
• What if every other layer of security failed (dogs, alarm, door) you step out the bedroom with your rifle and dude gets you in a bear hug?

In short, if I am physically fighting with someone - especially someone larger and stronger than I am, and ESPECIALLY if there is more than one of them, I DO NOT WANT my go to percussive gun to be a long gun...

You're right. Eat more red meat, hit the weight room, learn the basic 5 pressure points of striking.

Seriously though, I have met 4 people who go to the bathroom (in their house) with a firearm. They are all from either Montana or Texas.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by NorthernAlpine

.

Seriously though, I have met 4 people who go to the bathroom (in their house) with a firearm. They are all from either Montana or Texas.

That's crazy talk. I don't go to the bathroom with a handgun. I have a long gun in the toilet stall and (big inside joke) a Mac-10 attached to the underside of the sink with magnets.

[CLoft239]

Originally Posted by NorthernAlpine

Seriously though, I have met 4 people who go to the bathroom (in their house) with a firearm. They are all from either Montana or Texas.

inside my home carry here in OK. Home invasions are high here.

Handgun, IWB, to clarify. I don't do roving patrol inside my house with a rifle lol.



Sent from the Titanic. I named my phone "The Titanic" so when I plug it into the computer it says "The Titanic is syncing".

[ithaca_deerslayer]

Originally Posted by NorthernAlpine

Seriously though, I have met 4 people who go to the bathroom (in their house) with a firearm. They are all from either Montana or Texas.

I'm from NYS. Just got done clearing my driveway of a foot of snow. My kid is playing legos on the floor. Wife is making supper.

I'm sitting in my easy chair carrying a Glock 26, 10+1. When I go potty, it goes with me to the bathroom

Evil assault weapon is loaded at the ready, too. Whether it be coyote or bad guy, I'm grabbing the bullet spraying high powered death ray. The pistol is what I use to fight
to my military grade semi-automatic machine gun style high capacity bullet tumbling armor penetrating shoulder thing that goes up.

[concretefuzzynuts]

It seems we are at times our own worst enemies. When we bicker among ourselves over semantics and theories of explanations. Can we all agree that if we stick to facts, followed by logic, both stated calmly, we gain much more ground?

Example: While getting coffee at the local convenience store this morning the man next to me (a stranger) asked if Santa was good to me this year. I stated he was and that I got a better gun safe for Christmas. He said he wished the mother in CT had been as safe about her firearms and I agreed.

He then said, "But I do think they should ban automatic rifles." I asked if he had a minute. And then told him (calmly) that automatic guns are already regulated so tightly that there are very few in the publics hands. And that the guns used in these highly publicized shootings are semi-automatics and explained the difference. Also explaining to him they are used for hunting, sport shooting, competition shooting and home defense. And that under 2% of these type of guns are used in homicides.

He said he didn't know that and thanked me. I said feel free to look it up as I let him in line in front of me to pay for the coffee. He then held the door for me and we went on our merry ways.

My point is facts and logic stated calmly will work.

[concretefuzzynuts]

Oh, and I always (except at bedtime) have a pistol on me. For no other reason than just like I always have my keys, wallet, etc.

We are creatures of habit. I don't empty my pockets, holster, etc when I'm home. Never have.

Some people do, more power to you.

[iiibbb]

It is enlightening to know that some departments do not issue/allow their patrol officers to carry rifles.

Personally, I often take the OP's position on my access to weapons... it is very effective when talking to the "smart gun" crowd.

At any rate. I am comfortable with the argument that I should have access to the weapons that my local patrol officers have... if the local cops don't arm themselves with AR's or equivalent, I could go along. What situation am I ever going to encounter that my lever action or shotgun can't handle?

My biggest problem with the gun-control crowd is they are disingenuous about meeting in the middle. You can tell by the fervor they attack law-abiding citizens (see the NY paper that published registered pistol owners). What better argument against registration than it's use to back stab the law abiding?

There's lots of compromises I actually think are reasonable... unfortunately I don't trust the other side at all to play fair. I'm not giving up anything I don't have to in such a climate.

[JimBean]

Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer

My own my mother, on a Christmas phone call, asks my opinion of assault weapons. After explaining to her that there is no such thing and that they just look like army guns, and describing the difference between automatic army guns versus semi-automatic civilian guns. . .

She asks, "Why do you need one of these so-called assault weapons anyway?!"

My final convincing response to her was, "Why do the police need them?" To defend themselves from bad guys, she said. "Well, that's the same reason I need them." Oh, that's true, she said, as if a light bulb had gone on.

Yup, I continued, the same bad guys the police face are the same bad guys any civilian might need to fight off. Whatever the police need for defense, I need too.

Please feel free to pass this on: If the police need "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines, we need them too

Edited to add:
Obvioulsly it should be undertood the context is in when the bad guys come looking for us, and not about us civilians going out looking for bad guys

The way I look at it is law men use guns as defensive tools to defend themselves or others from bad people or animals. Semiauto rifles must be good for the purpose of defense otherwise why would they be used at all. The reporters that have no idea what they are talking about continue to label them weapons of war that are useless for defense. They are contradicting the very use of these rifles because law men are not killers that premeditate murder. I agree with you entirely that if semiauto rifles are useful to law men then the same weapons would equally serve well protecting my family. My family is every bit as important as the life of any officer and should be protected to the same degree.

[ithaca_deerslayer]

Originally Posted by JimBean

The way I look at it is law men use guns as defensive tools to defend themselves or others from bad people or animals. Semiauto rifles must be good for the purpose of defense otherwise why would they be used at all. The reporters that have no idea what they are talking about continue to label them weapons of war that are useless for defense. They are contradicting the very use of these rifles because law men are not killers that premeditate murder. I agree with you entirely that if semiauto rifles are useful to law men then the same weapons would equally serve well protecting my family. My family is every bit as important as the life of any officer and should be protected to the same degree.

Well said