close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

If the police need it, I need it.

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by ithaca_deerslayer, Dec 25, 2012.

  1. el_jewapo

    el_jewapo

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    8,662
    Likes Received:
    8,341
    I was thinking about this the other day. The fact that police and military need high capacity "clips" proves that there are scenarios where they'd come in handy. Police and military folks are far more likely to have to use theirs than I would be. But still, there's a chance I might find myself in one of those situations.
     
  2. Ryobi

    Ryobi SummertimeRules

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    9
    Rabbi and Lumberg are correct. Just because police or military need it has nothing to do with whether you need it. Apples and oranges. I want all 922 compliant folks to have the option, but their need is in no way cparable to the need of LE.
     

  3. Kingarthurhk

    Kingarthurhk Isaiah 53:4-9

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,283
    Likes Received:
    2,771
    Location:
    Texas
    What is a clip?
     
  4. wprebeck

    wprebeck Got quacks?

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    9,254
    Likes Received:
    3,554
    Location:
    Mm..looks like heaven
    I don't wish to speak for others, but here's my take on the differences between civilian need and LE need.

    Civilians don't have to have a "need". You get it, because you can. You don't, and should never, have to justify a need to buy any type of gun (I personally include NFA items in this, as I'd immediately repeal it, GCA '68, and the import ban of '86 were I in charge).

    We, as LE, have to justify a "need" for a particular firearm, in order to convince the brass to allow it. Active shooters are, quite unfortunately, the "need" for urban and suburban agencies that allow patrol rifles. Distance shots for barricaded subjects are more likely for the rural departments, as well as having to put down critters (although shotguns typically fill that latter role).

    Since its not likely that anyone NOT in LE will be responding to an active shooter, then its easy to say that civilians don't "need" the patrol rifle platform for defense against one. Thankfully, civilians aren't required to have a need, despite the politicians rhetoric.

    You guys can have, and carry, pretty much whatever you want - and that's the way it should be. Agencies restrict officers to certain weapons, usually in accordance with their specific mission requirements, but PC runs amok there, as well. And you know, PC aside, there are a lot of good reasons to mandate certain weapons in LE.
     
  5. Kingarthurhk

    Kingarthurhk Isaiah 53:4-9

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,283
    Likes Received:
    2,771
    Location:
    Texas
    I am with you on repealing the NFA. But, then again, I started a whole thread on that issue. I wish it was like the old days, where you could go into any hardware store and buy a firearm.
     
  6. guns54

    guns54 toni

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Ohio
    We have 3 that are LEO and you are very right. Stay safe.And a happy new year to your and yours.
     
  7. x_out86

    x_out86

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    205
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Just so you know, you just proved your complete ignorance, stupidity, and lack of common sense all in one sentence. Good job.

    Statistically speaking, most people wont have a fire in their house either, but I am willing to be most have smoke detectors and fire extinguisher(s) in their house. So you dont really need them either.

    Statistically speaking, most people will never be involved in an auto crash serious enough to involve or require airbag deployment, but those idiots at the car manufacturers just keep putting those damn things in there!

    Statistically speaking, most semi trucks will never have a catastrophic failure of their air system, but they still design the air brakes to engage in the event of loss of air pressure. Technically they dont really need to have this fail safe design.



    Care for me to go on?
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
  8. x_out86

    x_out86

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    205
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Yet again Juney....your assumptions of what you know about police tactics an training are just that. Assumptions....

    We have actually been trained for quite some time now, that if the shooter is obviously dead there really is no reason to go ****ing up the crime scene by moving weapons around. Somehow I think the act of kicking a gun away from a guy whos head is blown open is probably not particularly gainful.
     
  9. ithaca_deerslayer

    ithaca_deerslayer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Messages:
    22,959
    Likes Received:
    9,777
    Location:
    Upstate NY, USA
    But even when talking about need, it will be the civilian pinned down by, or barricaded against, an active shooter. The need is there, and the accuracy of an AR over a handgun is apparent even at inside the home distances.

    For example, a woman who has retreated to the top of a stairs during a home invasion will have her needs well served by an AR to keep the kidnapper/rapist/murderers at the bottom of the stairs :)
     
  10. wprebeck

    wprebeck Got quacks?

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    9,254
    Likes Received:
    3,554
    Location:
    Mm..looks like heaven
    You do know that a home invasion is not an active shooter, right? Its kinda in the wording and all - "active shooter".


    Again, I don't see a reason for civilians to justify a weapon for need. You can have whatever you want. If you want an AR for home defense, have at it. Prefer a shotgun? Good for you. If you're more comfortable with a pistol, do your thing.

    Point is, there's no "need" for you to have a need. I'm on your side here. Its just a matter of semantics, really. Since LE are in the business of actively engaging bad guys who are doing bad things, there exists a need for officers to be equipped with certain weapon systems, and agencies should be able to justify why they use those platforms.

    Since civilians aren't in the same business, and aren't required to engage bad guys doing bad things, they don't need to justify anything. They simply buy guns because they want to - its just that easy. Sure, you can contrive any number of scenarios in which an AR would be the more desirable platform - but, you don't NEED to have that justification. See what I'm trying to say?
     
  11. ithaca_deerslayer

    ithaca_deerslayer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Messages:
    22,959
    Likes Received:
    9,777
    Location:
    Upstate NY, USA
    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.
     
  12. CLoft239

    CLoft239 I Like Turtles

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2011
    Messages:
    657
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oklahoma, USA
    Active shooter ie Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook. A situation in which an officer responds to somebody actively shooting a place/people/good guys/whoever, whether it be a business, school, etc etc.

    We have to justify the need for certain weapons due to policy.

    Ya'll are choosing your weapons because it's your right to, and no other justification is needed. Similar to choosing what you want to eat, the car you want to drive, etc. etc. No justification is needed to exercise a right, because a right is a right.

    Sent from the Titanic. I named my phone "The Titanic" so when I plug it into the computer it says "The Titanic is syncing".
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
  13. jdavionic

    jdavionic NRA Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    16,679
    Likes Received:
    5,300
    The fundamental flaw is assuming LE needs have anything to do with the second amendment. To me, a more meaningful comparison is with military needs.
     
  14. Kingarthurhk

    Kingarthurhk Isaiah 53:4-9

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,283
    Likes Received:
    2,771
    Location:
    Texas
    That is the salient point of all of this. It should not be citizens possessing what the Police have. It should be about Posessing, what YOU, as the military have, as the is the original intent of the 2A.
     
  15. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    30,705
    Likes Received:
    6,840
    Location:
    the narrow way
    (emphasis mine) THIS^

    hey ithaca_deerslayer,
    :highfive:
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
  16. elkhart

    elkhart

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    375
    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?
     
  17. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    30,705
    Likes Received:
    6,840
    Location:
    the narrow way
    [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
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
  18. brisk21

    brisk21

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    4,206
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Michigan
    Yes. I do.:supergrin:
     
  19. dougader

    dougader

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,980
    Likes Received:
    12
    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).
     
  20. Ryobi

    Ryobi SummertimeRules

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    9
    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.