Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Yes, in some parts it is common for people to give 5 years olds fully functioning guns.
Not the first case, unfortunately. The parents must be devastated. Will the parents be prosecuted for some kind of negligence in this case? I got nothing about that from the article. I'm not saying that it's necessary punishment since they already lost a 2-year old daughter, but the questions interests me.
Miraclefish wrote: Are you any safer owning an assault rifle over a semi-automatic pistol?
Since its illegal for civilians to own assaulot rifles without a very stringent licensing process the question is moot.
How deadly a weapon should the line be drawn on what the public can't own but law enforcement/armed forces can?
Why should law enforcement have deadlier weapons then citizens? The military already has that. WE can't own tanks, ships, and Vought F4U Corsairs with napalm, sadly.
I find it all fascinating. And I type this as a British fella who's never so much as held a gun, let alone owned one. They're interesting things, but I don't have any desire to have one in my house or indeed my life.
So you have what we like to call 'no point of reference whatsover.' Gotcha.
Non-Brits often find it odd that even the vast majority of our police constables aren't armed, only specialist response units. I rather like that. We have very little gun crime and not a lot of knife-based violence all things considered.
Good for you. Your overall assault and murder rates are higher though. You also don't live next to cartel country thank you.
I'd certainly support being able to carry a sword around, mind you. And I do own two rather tasty recurve bows. I'd happily defend my property with one of those. An Englishman's home is his castle, they say! Come at me, dear boy, and I shall fill ye full of feathered shafts. In the non gay way...
A home invasion would exterminate your arrow chunking ass. Sorry.
Frazzled, why do you want your police officers to be in a situation where they can be potentially out-gunned through sheer force by those dastardly criminal types?
And you always bring up the "Cartel country" line... could you specify exactly what your belief of your own potential interactions with cartel violence would be, and what your reaction to it would likely be?
Also, for what it's worth, you really should reconsider both the speed and stopping power of a recurve bow.
Frazzled, why do you want your police officers to be in a situation where they can be potentially out-gunned through sheer force by those dastardly criminal types?
Why do I want them more armed than the citizenry they work for. To use the British analogy. Bobbies (thats the term right) are not generally armed except for sticks right? Thats because the citizenry is also not armed except with sticks (and the occasional battleaxe). Cool. Then you go to your average dictatorship where the citizenry have nothing but the "police" are armed with fully automatic weaponry. No thanks.
And you always bring up the "Cartel country" line... could you specify exactly what your belief of your own potential interactions with cartel violence would be, and what your reaction to it would likely be?
Wait you claim to know much about the USA but don't know about the cartels? Now I'm confused.
Also, for what it's worth, you really should reconsider both the speed and stopping power of a recurve bow.
Wait, what seriously? Dude there's a reason the Sioux shot up Custer with guns and not...bows.
Bad Guy at door. Azazel gets up. Bad Guy in house. Azazel goes to closet to get bow. Bad Guy hits Azazel with brick Later in hospital Azazel ponders, if only he had a brace of full auto wiener dogs or at least a nice maple donut.
Meanwhile at the Hall of Justice. Bad Guy at door. Frazzled opens the PLEASE LET THERE BE A ZOMBIEPOCALYPSE box and sounds the Horn of Summoning. Ten million wiener dogs eat Bad Guy. Much later, TBone finally makes it over (he's slow) and pees on whats left. Then he barks.
Mmmm...maple donuts...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/02 18:53:39
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled, the average UK contable doesn't carry a firearm, but the police do have special response units who do, who can (obviously) severely out-gun a generally gun-free populace.
I think you need to recognize that whatever firearms are obtainable by upstanding citizens like yourself, are also obtainable by less-than-upstanding citizens. So do you really want a situation like from North Hollywood?
Now, you're ducking my question here. I asked what your belief is. Exactly what do you think your interactions with cartel violence, should it come to pass, would look like?
And if you meant that several tiny dogs will protect you from a home invasion, then that's fine. I was assuming you were trying to imply that somehow a recurve bow would be absolutely useless by contrast to a firearm, of which the latter would certainly be more tactically useful, though the former is not without its merits.
CptJake wrote: Guess that is why all the bad guys of the world as well as all the militaries have armed themselves with recurve bows
Contrary to Rambo movies, they also make a very loud Kthwap sound.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: Frazzled, the average UK contable doesn't carry a firearm, but the police do have special response units who do, who can (obviously) severely out-gun a generally gun-free populace.
I think you need to recognize that whatever firearms are obtainable by upstanding citizens like yourself, are also obtainable by less-than-upstanding citizens. So do you really want a situation like from North Hollywood?
There is no reason for police to be better armed then the citizenry. North Hollwyood - guess what, the police weren't worse armed. The BG's had body armor. I don't know about current laws as I don't play a taticool mall ninja, but that used to be illegal.
Now, you're ducking my question here. I asked what your belief is. Exactly what do you think your interactions with cartel violence, should it come to pass, would look like?
And if you meant that several tiny dogs will protect you from a home invasion, then that's fine. I was assuming you were trying to imply that somehow a recurve bow would be absolutely useless by contrast to a firearm, of which the latter would certainly be more tactically useful, though the former is not without its merits.
1. Tiny? I'll have you know Rodney the Shanker is all of 16 lbs now, fatty fatty. Rusty is 82lb of course. 2. Nah didn't imply firearms although, yea you wouldn't stand a chance in that instance either. But thats way better than being eaten alive by rampaging BADGER DOGS
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/02 19:40:32
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled, why do you want your police officers to be in a situation where they can be potentially out-gunned through sheer force by those dastardly criminal types?
As someone who grew up in the deep south, I have to ask "Who says they AREN'T the dastardly criminal types?!" (Though, this does bring up an interesting devil`s advocate point: Sometimes they should be outgunned.)
On a more serious note, why are the firearms deemed "acceptable" for me to defend my life with suddenly inadequate for the guys who generally ARE NOT the first ones to get attacked by <Insert nutbar here>, arrive with backup, and are generally wearing something more bullet resistant than a T-shirt in their daily activities? Legally speaking, our policemen are not military, and as far as I am concerned they can "do more with less" just like the rest of us.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/02 21:02:08
azazel the cat wrote: Frazzled, the average UK contable doesn't carry a firearm, but the police do have special response units who do, who can (obviously) severely out-gun a generally gun-free populace.
I think you need to recognize that whatever firearms are obtainable by upstanding citizens like yourself, are also obtainable by less-than-upstanding citizens. So do you really want a situation like from North Hollywood?
There is no reason for police to be better armed then the citizenry.
North Hollwyood - guess what, the police weren't worse armed. The BG's had body armor. I don't know about current laws as I don't play a taticool mall ninja, but that used to be illegal.
Am I remembering something else, then? I thought the BGs also had semi-auto AK knockoffs, because I seem to recall an officer taking cover and being shot through the wheel well of his squad car.
Frazzled wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:Now, you're ducking my question here. I asked what your belief is. Exactly what do you think your interactions with cartel violence, should it come to pass, would look like?
Right. Now that we've got your belief as to what your possible interactions with cartel violence would look like, and in using the article you linked as an example, how exactly is the outcome going to change if you have a gun?
My point, now that I can get to it, is that whether or not you're carrying a firearm seems to have very little bearing on the situation you've provided. This is what I'm talking about when I say that it seems like it's mostly just an action-movie-inspired fantasy that causes you to carry a firearm when you use "borders on Cartel country" as your excuse. Now, if you said "I carry a full-bore Taurus Judge because I live in rattlesnake country" or even "I live in a rural area and the nearest police station is 20 mins away" I would likely just nod and say "makes sense". But that's not the reason you provide: you appear to be implying that you're going to be the last man standing after a gunfight with the cartels.
I thought the BGs also had semi-auto AK knockoffs,
Illegally converted to full auto, with a 50/50 chance of being obtained by a felon in the first place (Or by a non-felon FOR a felon, also a felony), along with the whole body armor thing that was either purchased illegally or, as above, purchased by a non felon for a felon (Again, also a felony.)
because I seem to recall an officer taking cover and being shot through the wheel well of his squad car.
What's special about this exactly? It's a rifle. Not a very big one, as rifles go, but still a rifle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/02 21:23:05
I thought the BGs also had semi-auto AK knockoffs,
Illegally converted to full auto, with a 50/50 chance of being obtained by a felon in the first place (Or by a non-felon FOR a felon, also a felony), along with the whole body armor thing that was either purchased illegally or, as above, purchased by a non felon for a felon (Again, also a felony.)
because I seem to recall an officer taking cover and being shot through the wheel well of his squad car.
What's special about this exactly? It's a rifle. Not a very big one, as rifles go, but still a rifle.
It's also important to point out that, contrary to Hollywood movies, patrol cars are not armored in any way.
I thought the BGs also had semi-auto AK knockoffs,
Illegally converted to full auto, with a 50/50 chance of being obtained by a felon in the first place (Or by a non-felon FOR a felon, also a felony), along with the whole body armor thing that was either purchased illegally or, as above, purchased by a non felon for a felon (Again, also a felony.)
because I seem to recall an officer taking cover and being shot through the wheel well of his squad car.
What's special about this exactly? It's a rifle. Not a very big one, as rifles go, but still a rifle.
What's special is that my point was that the police, with their handguns, were outgunned.
Look at the LAPD higher ups on that one. Not issuing your officers a rifle has never been a good idea IMO.
I will also point out, that they ceased being outgunned when they went to a local gun shop and removed rifles from the shelves (As in, the AR-15s they sold to most folks. Until CA promptly banned them, changing nothing but the list of felonies you can unwittingly commit in CA.)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/03 01:25:48
SOFDC wrote:Look at the LAPD higher ups on that one. Not issuing your officers a rifle has never been a good idea IMO.
I will also point out, that they ceased being outgunned when they went to a local gun shop and removed rifles from the shelves (As in, the AR-15s they sold to most folks. Until CA promptly banned them, changing nothing but the list of felonies you can unwittingly commit in CA.)
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but I'll refer you to my discussion with Frazzled re: cops being outgunned to place my end of things in context.
Well.....since the M16A2 is being phased out to the M4.....think the officer can upgrade the vehicle loadout with a shotgun alongside of it. There is a program emplace for that. Granted the A2 is capable of a "burst" round...3 round burst....is not fully automatic....just recently didn't some county/state let their LEO's bring their personnel AR's on their patrols?
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Frazzled wrote:Why should law enforcement have deadlier weapons then citizens? The military already has that. WE can't own tanks, ships, and Vought F4U Corsairs with napalm, sadly.
Surely the entire point of the deterrent of police service is that they are better equipped and better armed than the general population? They certainly don't outnumber them, so that's the only advantage they have.
Frazzled wrote:So you have what we like to call 'no point of reference whatsover.' Gotcha.
Well that's why I asked, I wanted some opinions from those who live in the situation.
Frazzled wrote:Good for you. Your overall assault and murder rates are higher though. You also don't live next to cartel country thank you.
Except that they aren't.
Murders committed per annum:
139 per 100,000 people (UK) vs 8,226 per 100,000 (US). 58x more in the USA.
Murders with guns per annum:
14 per 100,000 (UK) and 9,369 per 100,000 (US). 668x more in the USA.
Source: World Health Organisation.
And you may have 'cartel country', but we have open immigration to Eastern Europe and countless countries just as inventively violent and nasty as Latin America...
Frazzled wrote:A home invasion would exterminate your arrow chunking ass. Sorry.
Not if the most you can expect people to be armed with is a knife or, very rarely, a handgun.... the lower the level of weapons generally available, the lower the level you need to defend yourself....no?
Codex: Grey Knights touched me in the bad place...
Miraclefish wrote: Surely the entire point of the deterrent of police service is that they are better equipped and better armed than the general population? They certainly don't outnumber them, so that's the only advantage they have.
Wrong, the deterrence is their presence. Obviously a crap ton of crime gets committed regardless of how any particular county or municipality equips their LEOs. A lot less crime occurs where those LEOs are physically located or known to frequently patrol.
Also, you may want to relook your crime statistics. I find it hard that gun murders outnumber total murders... Seems wrong that a subset outnumbers the whole. More importantly, you failed to address assaults, which Frazz specifically brought up. Less guns = less gun crime. Got it. Less guns does NOT necessarily equal less violent crime. For example, your rape and assault rates are higher than in the US according to:
CptJake wrote:Also, you may want to relook your crime statistics. I find it hard that gun murders outnumber total murders... Seems wrong that a subset outnumbers the whole. /quote]
They don't, there are 14 gun murders in every 139 overall murders.
Assault the WHO didn't have figures on.
That link, yes, you're right, we have more assaults than the USA.
Also, brilliantly, we clearly love the drugs. 180k drug uses per 100k people, vs 500 per 100k in the USA....
Codex: Grey Knights touched me in the bad place...
They don't, there are 14 gun murders in every 139 overall murders.
Wrong, they do.
8,226 per 100,000 (US) total murders < than Murders with guns per annum: 9,369 per 100,000 (US). Unless in the UK 8,226 is more than 9,369. The answer is, your label on the 8,226 number is wrong
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2013/05/03 10:54:00
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
That wasn't users, it was offences. Meaning you guys must have some serious revolving door issues with that to bust people several times a year.
Edit: Actually, those numbers gotta be way off. There was only something to the scale of 300,000 drug seizures in the UK at their peak in 2008/2009. Another 140,000ish cannabis warning.
I don't think that comes close to accounting for nearly 2:1 ratio of drugs to people in the UK.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/03 11:02:22
Well that's why I asked, I wanted some opinions from those who live in the situation.
Frazzled wrote:Good for you. Your overall assault and murder rates are higher though. You also don't live next to cartel country thank you.
Except that they aren't.
Murders committed per annum:
139 per 100,000 people (UK) vs 8,226 per 100,000 (US). 58x more in the USA.
Murders with guns per annum:
14 per 100,000 (UK) and 9,369 per 100,000 (US). 668x more in the USA.
Source: World Health Organization.
You're completely and utterly wrong, those are totals maybe but not per 100,000 people. Cause that would mean there were 2467000 murders committed in the United States annually. Considering the average number has been more like 11,000 total, with 9000 of those being gun murders on average per the FBI for the last couple years...yeah no.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Frazzled, why do you want your police officers to be in a situation where they can be potentially out-gunned through sheer force by those dastardly criminal types?
As someone who grew up in the deep south, I have to ask "Who says they AREN'T the dastardly criminal types?!" (Though, this does bring up an interesting devil`s advocate point: Sometimes they should be outgunned.)
On a more serious note, why are the firearms deemed "acceptable" for me to defend my life with suddenly inadequate for the guys who generally ARE NOT the first ones to get attacked by <Insert nutbar here>, arrive with backup, and are generally wearing something more bullet resistant than a T-shirt in their daily activities? Legally speaking, our policemen are not military, and as far as I am concerned they can "do more with less" just like the rest of us.
What he said (I think).
After all, its only relatively recently that the legal concept of self defense against police was dropped in Texas. After all, when the police have had a history of being members of the KKK (or the mob in the North), this concept is not at all outlandish.
I thought the BGs also had semi-auto AK knockoffs,
Illegally converted to full auto, with a 50/50 chance of being obtained by a felon in the first place (Or by a non-felon FOR a felon, also a felony), along with the whole body armor thing that was either purchased illegally or, as above, purchased by a non felon for a felon (Again, also a felony.)
because I seem to recall an officer taking cover and being shot through the wheel well of his squad car.
What's special about this exactly? It's a rifle. Not a very big one, as rifles go, but still a rifle.
Again what he said. Only TV cops hide just behind a car. Azazel, are you a TV cop? It explains a lot. On the positive are you the 'always ready with a quick one liner' police cop, the "hard case with a heart of gold' type or my favorite 'the bride taking evil nightmare' police cop?
I thought the BGs also had semi-auto AK knockoffs,
Illegally converted to full auto, with a 50/50 chance of being obtained by a felon in the first place (Or by a non-felon FOR a felon, also a felony), along with the whole body armor thing that was either purchased illegally or, as above, purchased by a non felon for a felon (Again, also a felony.)
because I seem to recall an officer taking cover and being shot through the wheel well of his squad car.
What's special about this exactly? It's a rifle. Not a very big one, as rifles go, but still a rifle.
It's also important to point out that, contrary to Hollywood movies, patrol cars are not armored in any way.
Well, if you pack enough empty donut boxes in there...
I thought the BGs also had semi-auto AK knockoffs,
Illegally converted to full auto, with a 50/50 chance of being obtained by a felon in the first place (Or by a non-felon FOR a felon, also a felony), along with the whole body armor thing that was either purchased illegally or, as above, purchased by a non felon for a felon (Again, also a felony.)
because I seem to recall an officer taking cover and being shot through the wheel well of his squad car.
What's special about this exactly? It's a rifle. Not a very big one, as rifles go, but still a rifle.
What's special is that my point was that the police, with their handguns, were outgunned.
They weren't. They also had shotguns.
The ones that rousted us usually had shotguns and AR-15s. (not M4s, thisis a bit older than that). That was years ago. Now the police have been much more militarized. Live in a less good area and you're almost under military occupation. We sure were. Every bohunk popo has a SWAT unit to execute simple arrests. DHS literally has thousands of armored vehicles in the US...somewhere...
Does obliterating a restroom after tacos el carbon count? If so, yea I could see that...
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/05/07 11:34:41
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
(Though, this does bring up an interesting devil`s advocate point: Sometimes they should be outgunned.)
