Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by HerrGlock, Jan 19, 2013.
...or the Military?
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2
Did you see the last sentence, "You can't give the criminal more ammo". Lmao!
Guess they know criminals won't be turning in their higher cap mags...too bad politicians don't realize this.
On duty should be exempt, absolutely.
Off duty, grab your 7 rounder...welcome to the party.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhlzUELSzs0"]Trololo - Padre de Familia - YouTube[/ame]
An off duty cop is still a cop and expected to take appropriate action if necessary. An off duty cop taking such action is acting alone with no immediate instant communications with his dept. or back up.
So they should be armed with the same thing they armed with on duty. Particularly since they will be the one running to the sound of the gunfire instead of for the nearest exit.
They also don't just point guns at active shooters then retreat. they have a tendency to SHOOT them.
I bet you dollars to doughnuts the bad guys would set their guns down of the cops did. I have no doubt they would limit themselves to 7 rounds.
Sorry, I know I shouldn't joke about doughnuts on CT.
Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Obviously the military and police need the best they can get their hands on. My life is as important to me as their is to them. It pisses me off that the politicians think I should have to settle for less. I certainly don't begrudge the cops or the soldiers for it, though.
They shouldn't, and this comes from a LEO. Though I enjoy the benefits of being able to carry off duty I would not respond (off duty) any differently than I would as a lawfully armed individual. Meaning to defend myself or others from imminent loss of life. My first option is always to call the on duty guys if the situation permits.
**** the police.
Did CT make a collective agreement to ignore trolls for New Years? This has been up for 10 minutes and not 1 response.
Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Amen to that.
I agree. Besides, if the law works like it's supposed to, the criminals won't have anymore than 7 rounds to shoot at anyone anyhow so why would anyone need more to send back at them?
Welcome to the party! (I sense major butt hurt coming!)
They voted these retards in so they shouldn't complain. They are now reaping what they've sown.
When the agency rules change and says that I, as an off-duty, has exactly the same duty to respond to a crime as a civilian, I probably won't even carry a gun, or a cell phone.
Or carry both but frack all third parties, just like those who post here on GT posts says.
I'd certainly not go on national media and say I had a bead on some BG shooting up a mall, but held my fire because I wasn't sure of my aim. Then I got out of there, pronto!
As the courts have ruled that even on duty police have no duty to protect, I find it hard to believe that those off duty are held to a higher standard.
Police can call for backup or work in groups. A homeowner is on his own with no backup to defend himself and his family from the same criminals that the police face. Also, police are trained and more experienced shooters than your average John Q. Homeowner.
Theoretically, the homeowner should have a greater need for higher capacity magazines.
Law enforcement happens to be on the side of the law makers who come up with these ridiculous laws so **** em, honestly.
I cannot be more serious.
That's a great point.
An off duty LEO is in the same boat as anyone else. No police radio, only a cell phone (if they carry one).
And most posters here will tell tell you they are better gunman than any LEO. Really.
It's one thing when you're defending yourself and/or your family, in your own home. It's another when you're out in public, such as at a mall or shopping center, and face the prospect of defending an unknown (or multiple unknowns) third party. This is where the off duty LEOs, and the private CCWs, break down dramatically.