[elkhart]

The whole arguement of hi cap mags and "assault" rifles is moot. So we ban 30 round mags. Let's pretend the next bad guy follows that law and leaves his 30 round mag at home but takes six 5-round mags to his next killing spree. Do you think it will matter to the classroom of unarmed kids that he had to reload a few times? Do you think it will matter to the antis?

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer

Yes I see what you are trying to say, that we don't need to justify need But the anti-gun people seem to need us to do so.

What is the definition of the police jargon "active shooter"?

I mistook it to mean someone who is actively shooting. A bad guy, shooting at good guys. But you may have a much more specific definition in mind.

[rant] Forgive my off topic perceptions here...

BUT, I'm in the camp of those people who completely disagree with using the term of "shooter" with respect to these idiots who are murdering people.

IMHO, I think the media, and especially all law abiding gun owners, need to begin calling a spade a spade, if you will, and refer to these idiots as to what they really are, which they are murderers. (Or, murdering cowards who pick gun free zones to further their criminality.)



STOP CALLING THEM SHOOTERS PLEASE.


For instance, in this latest event, meaning Sandy Hook, this murderer chose a legislated gun-free zone in Massachusetts to further his criminality. He was NOT a shooter, he was a maniacal murderer and idiot!




(Only Police radios or written reports should refer to these murdering cowards as shooters.)



/rant

[brisk21]

Originally Posted by Smithers

You have opined the thoughts of many.

Yes. I do.

[dougader]

Originally Posted by ScottieG59

The big difference between the armed civilian and police has to do with a duty to respond. Police have an obligation to intervene while others simply defend themselves and others, if they wish.

Actually, no they do not have a duty to respond or protect anyone. If you dial 911 and the police fail to respond and someone dies.. you get bupkiss. Several lawsuits have been filed on this issue and they all end up the same: police have no duty, per se, to protect any one individual.

Some even go as far as to proclaim "Dial 911 and die."

When everything turns bad, you are the only one responsible to protect yourself and your loved ones. And that's why we need decent weapons (in addition to the basic 2A arguments).

[Ryobi]

Anything an astronaut needs, I need. This thread is. Hilarious. Wanting it and believing you should have the option is one thing. Claiming you need the same gear as those on a job that is in no way similar to yours, a threat profile no way similar to yours is just pretending.

[Ryobi]

Anything an astronaut needs, I need. This thread is. Hilarious. Wanting it and believing you should have the option is one thing. Claiming you need the same gear as those on a job that is in no way similar to yours, a threat profile no way similar to yours is just pretending.

[ithaca_deerslayer]

Originally Posted by Ryobi

Anything an astronaut needs, I need. This thread is. Hilarious. Wanting it and believing you should have the option is one thing. Claiming you need the same gear as those on a job that is in no way similar to yours, a threat profile no way similar to yours is just pretending.

The threat is the same bad guy. Only, he tries to avoid police and is trying to civilians. No joke, that's truth.

[byf43]

Originally Posted by BodymoreMurderland

Many police departments do not issue or allow rifles.

Until just a very few years ago, Charles County Sheriff's Dept. REQUIRED each deputy to purchase their own duty/off-duty weapons.
This included sidearm(s), rifles and shotguns.
This department is just 50 miles south of where you're sworn, and is the only county-wide law enforcement agency, in Charles County.
In other words, the sheriff's department IS the county police department.

I know for fact, that the department's EST (Emergency Services Team - same thing/different name used for SWAT), the sniper (a sergeant) purchased his own sniper rifle. (Remington 700 Varmint - .308 Win.)

At the time, the only weapons that were provided by the department, were the Beretta (if memory serves me) the M12 (9mm) and AR70 (.223).

The 'purchase policy' started changing in 1990/'91, for liability reasons (and a Federal Grant).

[dougader]

Originally Posted by Ryobi

Anything an astronaut needs, I need. This thread is. Hilarious. Wanting it and believing you should have the option is one thing. Claiming you need the same gear as those on a job that is in no way similar to yours, a threat profile no way similar to yours is just pretending.

You posted it twice; maybe you thought it was significant in some way, but I just don't see it. So what exactly does an astronaut have to do with the 2nd amendment?

I know officers that have been on the job for over 20 years and have never drawn their sidearm. Police have back up. I have no back-up, because I am the back-up. If anything, I have a greater need than the basic patrol officer.

In my 52 years I have had to draw my weapon twice. Once at a 7-11 and once at my home in North Portland. My fishing buddy and I didn't draw our pistols when we were approached by two thugs looking to roll us for some quick cash up past Estacada on the Clackamas river; all it took was to put a hand on the grip of the gun and they skipped away like little girls.

You can't disarm the populace then run away when it looks bad (e.g., LA Riots). And then, to add insult to injury, when a citizen tries to get recompense for the inaction of the police (who apparently need semi-auto and select-fire weapons) you get nothing. You might as well put them in a room and turn the thugs loose on them.

And yes, the people do need modern weapons to protect their rights to be secure in society and at home. The 2nd Amendment is important and you coming here to knock it down is what I call counterfeit and ignorant.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer

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

Okay.

You willing to be subjected to the same classroom and range training & periodic qual requirements?

Granted, with more than 17,000+ LE agencies in the country, I'm sure the policies and training requirements vary quite a lot.

Originally Posted by BodymoreMurderland

Many police departments do not issue or allow rifles.

Yep. Some won't let their folks have issued or personally-owned rifles or carbines. Some will.

You want to be limited to whatever it is the agencies do, or don't do, in this regard in your area ... so your equipment "needs" accurately reflect those of your local agency?

The "If they need it, I need it" reasoning can easily be used to cut both ways. Be careful what you wish for ...

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by fastbolt

Okay.

You willing to be subjected to the same classroom and range training & periodic qual requirements?

Granted, with more than 17,000+ LE agencies in the country, I'm sure the policies and training requirements vary quite a lot.
....

Not the same thing.
I'm not paid with tax money to have the capability and qualifications to deal with any dire situation which may come up anywhere within a given jurisdiction.

That doesn't negate or minimize my need to have the means and gear to protect myself.

I'll be the judge of what are the probabilities that I'll need the final 'nth degree' of gear for that purpose.

[dougader]

Huh. Out here there's a reason that the civilian gun club members at Tri-County can't participate in the Al Mar Knives LE Invitational shoot anymore: because the civies kept taking home the vast majority of the prizes!

[Bill Lumberg]

You can do better than this. One is paid to chase down the bad guy. The other isn't. One seeks out the bad guy, serves warrants, generally goes out of their way 40-80 hours per week, as a condition of the job, to find, deal with, be around, confront, arrest or investigate the bad guys. The other might or might not come into contact with the bad guy at all. One's association with assaultive, armed criminals is all but definite. The other is somewhere between incredibly unlikely and random. That's the truth in the real world. I agree with your desire, but saying it's because cops find them useful is a rather weak attempt to associate two very different groups.

Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer

The threat is the same bad guy. Only, he tries to avoid police and is trying to civilians. No joke, that's truth.

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

[rant] ...

...



STOP CALLING THEM SHOOTERS PLEASE.


For instance, in this latest event, meaning Sandy Hook, this murderer chose a legislated gun-free zone in Massachusetts to further his criminality. He was NOT a shooter, he was a maniacal murderer and idiot!




(Only Police radios or written reports should refer to these murdering cowards as shooters.)



/rant

My guess is that most police reports will show a different word for that person such as "suspect," "subject," "deceased person #8," etc. depending on the local report writing techniques. Ohh, and picking the wrong state may not help bolster credibility. In case that train has not already left the station...

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg

You can do better than this. One is paid to chase down the bad guy. The other isn't. One seeks out the bad guy, serves warrants, generally goes out of their way 40-80 hours per week, as a condition of the job, to find, deal with, be around, confront, arrest or investigate the bad guys. The other might or might not come into contact with the bad guy at all. One's association with assaultive, armed criminals is all but definite. The other is somewhere between incredibly unlikely and random. That's the truth in the real world. I agree with your desire, but saying it's because cops find them useful is a rather weak attempt to associate two very different groups.

Whether we choose to agree with that or not, one must presume that little technicalities like this will certainly play into what the other side believes. And we probably paint ourselves further into a corner when we try to argue we need the same weapons as the police but do not have to have the same training or qualifications at least from the view from the other side.

[Gallium]

For me it distills to this:

Criminals don't selectively target only the police. The "worst" non-war crimes in America were not foisted against the police. The crimes easiest to repel with a firearm are perpetrated against the populace at a higher rate than against the police.

[writwing]

Originally Posted by fastbolt

Okay.

You willing to be subjected to the same classroom and range training & periodic qual requirements?

.

LOL LOL Based on reports and video evidence of leo shootings its a safe to say that many cc permit holders cab out shoot many leos.

[ithaca_deerslayer]

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg

You can do better than this. One is paid to chase down the bad guy. The other isn't. One seeks out the bad guy, serves warrants, generally goes out of their way 40-80 hours per week, as a condition of the job, to find, deal with, be around, confront, arrest or investigate the bad guys. The other might or might not come into contact with the bad guy at all. One's association with assaultive, armed criminals is all but definite. The other is somewhere between incredibly unlikely and random. That's the truth in the real world. I agree with your desire, but saying it's because cops find them useful is a rather weak attempt to associate two very different groups.

Liklihood doesn't mean anything when it is happening to you. At that moment you need the best tools for the job.

[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by fastbolt

Okay.

You willing to be subjected to the same classroom and range training & periodic qual requirements?

Granted, with more than 17,000+ LE agencies in the country, I'm sure the policies and training requirements vary quite a lot.



...

I shoot competition with a lot of cops and most of the time they get smoked. Maybe we should hold cops to our standards?

[Gwalk]

Many do.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by writwing

LOL LOL Based on reports and video evidence of leo shootings its a safe to say that many cc permit holders cab out shoot many leos.

Many CCWs choose to walk away from situations where shooting is/maybe required. Or have reasons why they didn't participate. End result of that is, they would have been more helpful behind a phone, talking to 9-1-1.

To paraphrase what the character Pinkley in The Dirty Dozen said: "Very pretty, General. Very pretty. But, can they fight?"

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

I shoot competition with a lot of cops and most of the time they get smoked. Maybe we should hold cops to our standards?

I'm sure you know, for the average LEO, shooting is just one of many required skill sets. The reality is, it's not even the most important.

[maestrogustav]

OP is correct.

this is not about equipping for riot control, or arrests. Not about tear gas or handcuffs. It's about the officer's ability to protect himself. Departments all over the country have determined it is best for their officers to have standard capacity mags.

It's true, an officer is called to the scene of a crime, as part of his job. But if a citizen needs a weapon, that means he IS the scene of the crime.

and yes, they are the same bad guys. And no doubt the bad guys we face will have managed to find one of the tens of millions of "high capacity" magazines now in circulation.

I say any LEO or politician advocating partial disarmament of citizens be required to announce that they have similarly disarmed themselves, or their security detail. Mr. Mayor, if you have three security guards, and you want to limit your citizens to 10 rounds, I say you announce that each of your guards will download to three rounds.

[dougader]

Originally Posted by Patchman

Many CCWs choose to walk away from situations where shooting is/maybe required. Or have reasons why they didn't participate. End result of that is, they would have been more helpful behind a phone, talking to 9-1-1.

That's not what happened at the Clackamas Town Center here in Oregon. Ask yourself why only 2 people were killed in a mall with 10,000 shoppers. An armed CCW simply aimed at the cowardly murderer, but didn't fire because he was concerned about hitting one of the Christmas shoppers behind his target.

The next round fired was a self-inflicted wound by the armed idiot into his own head.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by dougader

That's not what happened at the Clackamas Town Center here in Oregon. Ask yourself why only 2 people were killed in a mall with 10,000 shoppers. An armed CCW simply aimed at the cowardly murderer, but didn't fire because he was concerned about hitting one of the Christmas shoppers behind his target.

The next round fired was a self-inflicted wound by the armed idiot into his own head.

Yes, he's one of many I was thinking of and referring to... about "can they fight?"

So is this guy one of those guys who kick ash at shooting competitions, like those posted about?

[Dragoon44]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

I shoot competition with a lot of cops and most of the time they get smoked. Maybe we should hold cops to our standards?

Which standard would that be?

The i'm running for the nearest exit instead of running to the sound of the gun fire, that appears to be the "Standard for gun range gunslingers?



As far as the issue of what non LEO's should or should not have as far as firearms. I see no reason that a citizen should not be able to arm themselves in similar fashion as the police. (or better if they can afford it). that is the way it has been in this country since it was founded.