- #36
rootX
- 479
- 4
Thanks, you are right.Evo said:I think it would have been clearer if he had said "the training that police officers get", he didn't mean officers still in training, IMO.
Thanks, you are right.Evo said:I think it would have been clearer if he had said "the training that police officers get", he didn't mean officers still in training, IMO.
AlephZero said:What I'm hearing from that quote is that you are living in a society where "the rules" of how to behave are set by the criminals, and you don't seem to have a problem with that.
You've never been hunting, have you?Mentalist said:You do not need a shotgun for hunting either, so ban those as well.
Mentalist said:I've always been an advocate for gun control laws being a bit more serious and effective.
You do not need an AR15 to hunt deer. So ban long guns except for hunting rifles.
You do not need a shotgun for hunting either, so ban those as well.
Defensive handguns are okay in my honest opinion however, extended magazines need to be banned.
Pythagorean said:Agreed about shotguns for hunting, but...
I'm not sure the 2nd amendment can really do what it's intended anymore. Citizens arming themselves legally against the US army or well-equipped police would be bringing sticks and stones
edward said:The bump fire techniques developed during the past few years have changed everything.
Bump fire with an extended magazine.
Now we have the slide stock which supposedly prevents an accidental bump fire. But look what happens with a bit of practice.
At some point a line has to be drawn and politicians won't touch it.
Hyng Dieng said:As Galteeth pointed out in a post above mine, whether to arm police and whether to arm the populace is separate question. Those are two similar but at the same time very different topics, that should be approached differently.
Arming the police is a 'must do' for any country if you ask me. Police is the hand of law and therefore should have means other than just authority of defending that same law. For a policeman to own a gun is not a question of self-defense of the policeman nor is it the question of the willingness of one to engage some serious threats. I personally think it is more of a need in times like these. It's much easier to attack a police officer who doesn't have any guns on him, but a simple baton or a taser than to attack fully armed officer of law. Every criminal, no matter how tough or redneck or whatever the word you may use, will think twice of attacking an armed police officer or rob a store in the vicinity of armed police officers.
Arming the populace on the other hand is a 'must not do' for any country. What is the difference between a common citizen and a police officer in that case? A police badge or the amount of authority? Anyone can flash a badge, but not everyone can wear a gun around his waste. I understand that in the USA lobby of gun owners is very strong. And I don't see their gun regulations to change any time soon. Handguns are to blame for high homicide and suicide rates as the articles posted here suggested. So why then put hunting in front of human life I ask you?
And in the end police force is a government force. And as we all know government (or country, state, constitution whatever word you may use) has a physical monopoly over it's residents or even dare I say minions in order keep everything under law and order. What kind of physical monopoly is there if just every 20th cop on the streets is armed?