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.

 Hordini wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.

Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.

What do you consider military grade weaponry? The military uses both 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Are those military grade weapons? The military doesn't use AR-15s, but some police do. Is that a military grade weapon?

Nope.

I consider anything that a normal soldier has as standard issue. Should not be carried by an officer. AR-15 is a civilian rifle that is fine. As long as your not an idiot.

A 12-Gauge shotgun is not military issue that is civilain.

The military does use 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Just FYI. My point is there is some overlap between what the military uses and what civilians are able to own and use, particularly when it comes to small arms.

The shotgun in that picture Jihadin posted can be bought by any civilian. There isn't anything special that makes it "military grade."

I know. I didn't argue against that. I am arguing for them using guns that can tear people apart ALA The Striker which is used by police currently.

Military grade meaning it is meant for killing not enforcement.

The point of the gun on an officer is to deter. Not to use in case of a gunfight. Its a last resort. Not the only thing you can use. You have a night stick and a glock. And a shotgun in your car. There are some cases where you do need more, but thats why you have the national guard, anti-terrorist squads, a hit squad, a wet team for gods sakes. The polices job is simply to keep the peace and to be an example of how to follow the law, but not by any means necessary.

Officers are brought up with the thinking that an officer has to have a gunfight once in their life. We are taught as a society that police have them all the time. Do they? No because the crime rates are incredibly going down. Yet officers have access to military grade hardware, and keep getting this military grade hardware for no other reason.

A patrol officer should not be equipped with an ar-15 at all times. He is not going to be in firefights. A regular cop does not need to have a bullet proof vest period. It is only fear mongering to think so. In some areas. They do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkLink wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


WOO! WE GOT A VIDEO! Finally, some evidence. Alright, lets look at this bad boy. Oh man, he DID reload his firearm after 7 shots. Then he didn't shoot anymore and ran away!

Wow, you really showed me with that situation. The cop clearly needed more firepower with that one weapon being fired at him and one magazine being used. GIVE THIS MAN A GRENADE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZg4mcYkIwU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norco_shootout

The police are there to respond when things go wrong. And things do go wrong. Most of the time, they only go wrong a little bit. The average shots fired in the past few decades by NYPD during shooting incidents was 3-4 rounds, depending on the decade. But every once and a while, things go really, really wrong, and often there's no time to assemble a SWAT team to get into place, and it's the random patrol officer who has to deal with the situation. The vast majority of cops go their whole careers without firing their sidearm outside the range, but they still carry a sidearm (and a rifle or shotgun in their patrol car) because it's their responsibility and job to put themselves in harm's way when need be, and they can't do that while unarmed. From any rational, objective standpoint, if police are going to carry firearms there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have a second magazine.

To quote Theodore Roosevelt: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

You quite clearly don't know what you're talking about. Any input you can provide on whether or not the police are over or under equipped is going to be twisted by your lack of knowledge on the subject and what appears to be a rather large chip on your shoulder. Sure, it really doesn't matter if internet expert #538,544 decides he knows better than everyone else, but still, you're being as unreasonable as the suggestion to shoot anyone who doesn't like police.

I still doubt you need a bloody assualt rifle if an AR-15 or a shotgun can do the job just as well. Police have no need for a high powered rifle. They only need civilain gear. Not military grade.

 Hordini wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.

Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.

What do you consider military grade weaponry? The military uses both 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Are those military grade weapons? The military doesn't use AR-15s, but some police do. Is that a military grade weapon?

Nope.

I consider anything that a normal soldier has as standard issue. Should not be carried by an officer. AR-15 is a civilian rifle that is fine. As long as your not an idiot.

A 12-Gauge shotgun is not military issue that is civilain.

The military does use 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Just FYI. My point is there is some overlap between what the military uses and what civilians are able to own and use, particularly when it comes to small arms.

The shotgun in that picture Jihadin posted can be bought by any civilian. There isn't anything special that makes it "military grade."

Benelli Tactical is a division of Beretta's Law Enforcement (LE) division. Benelli Tactical manages the sales of all Benelli tactical shotguns to law enforcement, government, and military entities. The M4 shotgun is sold in three configurations: M4 Entry with a 14 in barrel; M4 with an 18.5 in barrel; and M1014, which is an M4 with the "M1014" nomenclature on it for military usage only. M4 shotguns sold through Benelli tactical are available with the collapsible buttstock.

Benelli Tactical and Beretta LE have maintained the belief that the collapsible buttstock, while no longer illegal in the United States, is still only to be made available to law enforcement and government agencies. Benelli Tactical/Beretta LE will not sell these stocks to private individuals. Benelli Tactical does sell the stock piece for retrofitting the pistol grip stock for $150. The stock must be direct-shipped from Italy, however it and other aftermarket stocks are commercially available and not restricted by the United States.

Suggested retail price of the civilian version is around $1,899.[3] An NFA stamp is required to purchase or own the 14.5" barreled model only since this model is considered to be a Short Barreled Shotgun or SBS. Standard magazine capacity of the civilian version is 5+1, although it is possible to fit 6+1 and two shot extension tubes are sold by Benelli as well as some other companies. Some LE models have become available to private individuals on the secondary market.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.

Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.

What do you consider military grade weaponry? The military uses both 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Are those military grade weapons? The military doesn't use AR-15s, but some police do. Is that a military grade weapon?

Nope.

I consider anything that a normal soldier has as standard issue. Should not be carried by an officer. AR-15 is a civilian rifle that is fine. As long as your not an idiot.

A 12-Gauge shotgun is not military issue that is civilain.

A Striker or better known as Armsel Striker. Is military grade and its buckshot could rip you apart.

yeah I highly doubt that a Police officer needs access to military vechiles, armored vechiles, mine trucks *

*unless specified in certain areas. IE a Police force needs to requisition temporary, but you don't need a bloody tank in your arsenal.....

Since when have any police forces ever used a tank? And if you try and call an MRAP a tank... just, don't.

Believe it or not, rare as they are, police do have to respond to violent situations. There are situations like this (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/nyregion/2-firefighters-killed-in-western-new-york.html?pagewanted=all) where someone is in a position where they can kill people who drive up in just anything. How are the police supposed to respond to a situation like that? If you've got an MRAP, you can get your SWAT team in place to take out the shooter in a much safer manner than swarming them with patrol cars and hoping the bad guy is a poor shot. There are absolutely unquestionably legitimate uses for most of the military equipment police have acquired. If you're going to criticize police militarization, then criticize cases in which this equipment was used improperly, not that the police have them. It's a tool that is very useful in certain, dangerous situations, and the police are getting the military surplus for incredibly cheap, so why wouldn't they have a SWAT vehicle for use in case something bad happens? As long as they use it appropriately.

 Asherian Command wrote:


Most Soldiers know what they are doing when they are pulling the trigger.
Guess what. Most cops Don't.

I'm sure you're basing this on your extensive personal experience training soldiers and officers as a civilian marksmanship instructor for various agencies, right?

Interesting statistic I dug up while looking up a few things on the subject. Did you know that of all the shots fired by the NYPD, 34% struck their target? That's actually pretty good shooting, far be it from poorly trained cops. As I mentioned above, the average number of shots fired was 3-4 rounds per shooting incident for the NYPD. That works out to the officer sees some threat, draws their firearm, fires 3-4 shots, hits the target, and the target goes down. Sure, Navy SEALs would probably do better, but I don't see those numbers backing up the idea that police can't shoot. Note that this is independent of whether or not these shootings were justified.

Granted, that's just the NYPD, but you should do a little more research before just blindly throwing out the claim that police are all incompetent. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to spend five minutes on google and find a counter-example, at the very least.

Had my driver drive through the front door in our MRAP to get two Insurgents

Course the CROW system got jacked up but....two captured Insurgents

That's pretty awesome, gotta admit.

 Asherian Command wrote:

I still doubt you need a bloody assualt rifle if an AR-15 or a shotgun can do the job just as well. Police have no need for a high powered rifle. They only need civilain gear. Not military grade.

The difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 is primarily that the M-16 has a 3-round burst option that basically no one uses. Good shooters use rapid, aimed, semi-automatic fire instead. So, in a way, you're right, there is no reason for the police to use M-16's. Thing is, you only think that because you have this arbitrary idea in your head that anything labeled "military" should only be used by the military, regardless of actual utility.

One of the links I posted above was the North Hollywood Shootout, in which heavily armed bank robbers got into a massive firefight with local police. The police were armed with handguns and shotguns, and weren't able to effectively engage the bank robbers because they were so outgunned and the bank robbers were wearing body armor the handguns couldn't reliably penetrate. Several officers literally drove to a local gun store, borrowed a few AR-15's off the shelves, and used those. It took SWAT 18 minutes to arrive on scene, which is a fast response but a very long time for the officers waiting for backup.

The idea that the police have no purpose using anything military related is pretty absurd. If you say there should be careful oversight of their use of that equipment, then absolutely, I can agree with you. But absolutely nothing military related at all? You're being silly.

I'm sure you're basing this on your extensive personal experience training soldiers and officers as a civilian marksmanship instructor for various agencies, right?

Interesting statistic I dug up while looking up a few things on the subject. Did you know that of all the shots fired by the NYPD, 34% struck their target? That's actually pretty good shooting, far be it from poorly trained cops. As I mentioned above, the average number of shots fired was 3-4 rounds per shooting incident for the NYPD. That works out to the officer sees some threat, draws their firearm, fires 3-4 shots, hits the target, and the target goes down. Sure, Navy SEALs would probably do better, but I don't see those numbers backing up the idea that police can't shoot. Note that this is independent of whether or not these shootings were justified.

Granted, that's just the NYPD, but you should do a little more research before just blindly throwing out the claim that police are all incompetent. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to spend five minutes on google and find a counter-example, at the very least.

Thats not what I was saying I was saying that a soldier is trained to know if they pull a trigger they are going to kiill someone. Soldiers are trained to kill people.

OFFICERS ARE NOT TRAINED TO KILL PEOPLE.

Got it? Officers are not soldiers. They are peacekeepers. They are never meant to be soldiers. They shouldn't have to pull the trigger, in fact most cases they don't have to pull the trigger.

Since when have any police forces ever used a tank? And if you try and call an MRAP a tank... just, don't.

Believe it or not, rare as they are, police do have to respond to violent situations. There are situations like this (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/nyregion/2-firefighters-killed-in-western-new-york.html?pagewanted=all) where someone is in a position where they can kill people who drive up in just anything. How are the police supposed to respond to a situation like that? If you've got an MRAP, you can get your SWAT team in place to take out the shooter in a much safer manner than swarming them with patrol cars and hoping the bad guy is a poor shot. There are absolutely unquestionably legitimate uses for most of the military equipment police have acquired. If you're going to criticize police militarization, then criticize cases in which this equipment was used improperly, not that the police have them. It's a tool that is very useful in certain, dangerous situations, and the police are getting the military surplus for incredibly cheap, so why wouldn't they have a SWAT vehicle for use in case something bad happens? As long as they use it appropriately.

Your the one putting words in my mouth

Watch the video I dare you. Look to the part where they actually get to the part where a small town requisitioned a armored jeep to protect a pumpkin celebration. Or where they requisitioned a ww2 tank to protect a town in colorado. Because you know those places definitely needed it. NY and big cities need armored vehicles but they don't need tanks. If there is a problem way above the paygrade of cops, call the FBI task forces. THey will fly out pretty quickly.

In fact I remember reading that the reason the SWAT did not go into certain situations was because they were afraid of the hostages getting hurt. Sometimes the negotatior makes a bad call.

Infact most hostile situations like you are talking about are extremely rare. Infact they only happen if the team taking on the problem are professionals. Guess what happens when a professional hit squad is sent into a building you get rid of the police and replace them with special task forces AKA Anti-Terrorist Groups. The police are not meant to take on high risk operations. They are not John Mcclaine.

All LEO goes through shooting ranges and fire arm classes. They are taught to aim for center mass.

Actually, Officers are trained to kill people.

What do you think their getting trained to do every time they are getting range time.

You do not train to injure people when you pull that trigger.

 Asherian Command wrote:


Thats not what I was saying I was saying that a soldier is trained to know if they pull a trigger they are going to kiill someone. Soldiers are trained to kill people.

OFFICERS ARE NOT TRAINED TO KILL PEOPLE.

Got it? Officers are not soldiers. They are peacekeepers. They are never meant to be soldiers. They shouldn't have to pull the trigger, in fact most cases they don't have to pull the trigger.

If an officer pulls a trigger they know that they are going to kill someone. And yes, officers are trained to kill people. That's not the only thing they are trained for, but it is one thing.

..

 DarkLink wrote:
That's pretty awesome, gotta admit.

 Asherian Command wrote:

I still doubt you need a bloody assualt rifle if an AR-15 or a shotgun can do the job just as well. Police have no need for a high powered rifle. They only need civilain gear. Not military grade.

The difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 is primarily that the M-16 has a 3-round burst option that basically no one uses. Good shooters use rapid, aimed, semi-automatic fire instead. So, in a way, you're right, there is no reason for the police to use M-16's. Thing is, you only think that because you have this arbitrary idea in your head that anything labeled "military" should only be used by the military, regardless of actual utility.

One of the links I posted above was the North Hollywood Shootout, in which heavily armed bank robbers got into a massive firefight with local police. The police were armed with handguns and shotguns, and weren't able to effectively engage the bank robbers because they were so outgunned and the bank robbers were wearing body armor the handguns couldn't reliably penetrate. Several officers literally drove to a local gun store, borrowed a few AR-15's off the shelves, and used those. It took SWAT 18 minutes to arrive on scene, which is a fast response but a very long time for the officers waiting for backup.

The idea that the police have no purpose using anything military related is pretty absurd. If you say there should be careful oversight of their use of that equipment, then absolutely, I can agree with you. But absolutely nothing military related at all? You're being silly.

Yeah thats one case. Again small and rarely happens.

Plus that is hollywood an area where the Crips and bloods battle it out for quite often. No duh you would need AR-15s for the police.

Which I have stated many times. I am fine with.

Some of you are very selective when you are debating.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
That's pretty awesome, gotta admit.

 Asherian Command wrote:

I still doubt you need a bloody assualt rifle if an AR-15 or a shotgun can do the job just as well. Police have no need for a high powered rifle. They only need civilain gear. Not military grade.

The difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 is primarily that the M-16 has a 3-round burst option that basically no one uses. Good shooters use rapid, aimed, semi-automatic fire instead. So, in a way, you're right, there is no reason for the police to use M-16's. Thing is, you only think that because you have this arbitrary idea in your head that anything labeled "military" should only be used by the military, regardless of actual utility.

One of the links I posted above was the North Hollywood Shootout, in which heavily armed bank robbers got into a massive firefight with local police. The police were armed with handguns and shotguns, and weren't able to effectively engage the bank robbers because they were so outgunned and the bank robbers were wearing body armor the handguns couldn't reliably penetrate. Several officers literally drove to a local gun store, borrowed a few AR-15's off the shelves, and used those. It took SWAT 18 minutes to arrive on scene, which is a fast response but a very long time for the officers waiting for backup.

The idea that the police have no purpose using anything military related is pretty absurd. If you say there should be careful oversight of their use of that equipment, then absolutely, I can agree with you. But absolutely nothing military related at all? You're being silly.

Yeah thats one case. Again small and rarely happens.

Plus that is hollywood an area where the Crips and bloods battle it out for quite often. No duh you would need AR-15s for the police.

Which I have stated many times. I am fine with.

Some of you are very selective when you are debating.

That situation can happen anywhere. Do you think this stuff is only confined to Hollywood? What if that kid hadn't surrendered in Aurora? What if some nut in rural Texas gets into a long range shoot off with police where their handguns and shotguns only have an effective range of 50 or so meters?

The problem is you never know when you may NEED it, so having the option there is better then not.

You just need to get over the whole "black rifle is scary because it is black" thing. Seriously.

 djones520 wrote:
Actually, Officers are trained to kill people.

What do you think their getting trained to do every time they are getting range time.

You do not train to injure people when you pull that trigger.

Funny thats what I was taught.

Don't aim for the center of mass, if you do you kill them.

Hit them where there hands are disarm them. Can't pull a trigger if you have no fingers.

You do not train to injure people when you pull that trigger.

In a perfect world all weapons used by the police would be non-lethal.

Sadly that doesn't happen. The goal should be pacify and ensure the gunmen is caught, not shot dead.

Otherwise you are nothing more than a murderer with a badge. You are not a soldier as a police officer.

Actually, Officers are trained to kill people.

I doubt they are.

They are trained to protect and serve.

They are trained to hit the center of the mass the killing comes because they shot the center of mass.

A soldier is taught to kill. An Officer is not. An officer is not given that mentality at all.

They are not going off to war. Unless you are in gang territory which I know is basically going to war. As some of my friends tell me.

Doubt all you want. They are. When you are using that weapon, there is only one thing you are using it for.

That is the simple fact of the matter. Whatever you "doubt", won't change it at all.

Meh
Forget sending in LEO's into situations
Everyone is a law abiding citizen

..

 Asherian Command wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Actually, Officers are trained to kill people.

What do you think their getting trained to do every time they are getting range time.

You do not train to injure people when you pull that trigger.

Funny thats what I was taught.

Don't aim for the center of mass, if you do you kill them.

Hit them where there hands are disarm them. Can't pull a trigger if you have no fingers.

I'm curious. Who taught you that? Because unless you were training to be some kind of trick shooter, if that was how you were trained, your training was horrible.

 djones520 wrote:
Doubt all you want. They are. When you are using that weapon, there is only one thing you are using it for.

That is the simple fact of the matter. Whatever you "doubt", won't change it at all.

I know that there are many things I would usually agree with you on. But this I don't. In australia guns are not used by the police except in rare cases. (AKA the sitation in sydney, which in fact was then taken over by TAG.

Just because you think Police officers should play soldier does not mean all of them should. In fact some do need it. But not every single one of them. Its called false generalizing if you think it is bad everywhere, its going to be bad everywhere in your mind.

But it doesn't make that true. You are setting yourself up to be completely in undeniable fear that something bad like that might happen. When it hasn't. Guess what happens to most mass murderers. They get shot. By who? An officer or sometimes a sniper from a SWAT team.

If the police have need of a talented sniper. Then you can get loaned one. Infact that is what happens in many districts. When ever a situation comes up like a robbery by professionals you bet there will be an alert sent to a swat team from another township or county. The police aren't bloody clueless. This isn't some vast empire here. It would take 18 minutes and that is fine, just hold them. Your job is to stop them from hurting innocent people. Not to play as soldier.

Meh
Forget sending in LEO's into situations
Everyone is a law abiding citizen

Some of you are completely hopeless :/

How many times have I mentioned gangs now? Three four times?

How many times Have mentioned gang wars... once. Oh yeah I did mention it You know because I think every human being is completely perfect.

Yeah right. And I am a delta force sniper on loan to israeli commando teams -.- (Hint I am a game designer, SO no I am not)

I'm curious. Who taught you that? Because unless you were training to be some kind of trick shooter, if that was how you were trained, your training was horrible.

I was not trained to kill people. Only to defend myself.

Infact the main thing I was told was to drop a gun whenever possible and run the hell away from a gunfight. You know because me someone who is a completely untrained civilain would be completely useful compared to a well trained police officer.

I was taught by an officer. But the officer taught me never to kill someone. Because you know why? I am a fething civilain. I won't ever get into a gun fight. There is no need for me to learn how to kill people. But that doesn't mean I don't know how to defend myself. And incapacitate someone.

Sometimes to protect others, you have to kill the person who is trying to hurt or kill them. In those situations, police officers have to be equipped to do that.

And I truly hope you never have to experience a gunfight.

 Hordini wrote:
Sometimes to protect others, you have to kill the person who is trying to hurt or kill them. In those situations, police officers have to be equipped to do that.

I rather die than take another life.

Sorry but Even if I was forced to take someones life I rather take that barrel and stick it down my own throat.

Otherwise it makes me no different than the person that is trying to kill that person I love.

I am a kantian. I can't kill. Even If I wanted to. Its not right to take a life. Yes it may seem backwards or stupid. But the goal is never to kill. Even if it is to defend someone.

Otherwise what are we but taking an eye for an eye. Thats not justice thats pure and outright revenge. That is not justifiable in the slightest.

To some it might, but it isn't that is such an old way of thinking.

It is quite sad people still think that way. The goal should be to capture and release. To recooperate those criminals not to shoot them and not give them the chance.

I've been told many things in my life one being the classic if someone pulls out a knife on you, they forfeit their right to live. Which I find kind of stupid and immoral. Yes you may see it is right to defend yourself. But Don't I have the right to just. Run? I don't know my wallet doesn't seem that important to me. ITs material what the hell do I care.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

Yes because you need an assault rifle to settle a domestic dispute.

You don't need a gun to settle a dispute its called talking and being a good and lawful citizen.

Trust me when I say if people in other countries are able to do it. So can an American Police officer. Right now officers are far too trigger happy.

I am given to understand through a brother in law, who was in law enforcement for about 18 years, that domestic disputes can be some of the worst and most dangerous calls to go in on.

Some info on the subject.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2378&issue_id=52011

So you're saying that you need access to military grade weaponry, an armored vehicle, grenades, tear gas, full body armor, and an entire swat team to settle a domestic dispute.

Unless your expecting a warzone I don't think you need those weapons or an entire swat team to deal with it.

If crime is starting to decrease shouldn't the amount of weaponry you currently own being going down with that slope. Not I don't know... Up?

.

I am not saying that at all. What I am doing is disagreeing with your assertion that a domestic dispute is a walk in the park when 14% of police fatalities happen on these calls.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Sometimes to protect others, you have to kill the person who is trying to hurt or kill them. In those situations, police officers have to be equipped to do that.

I rather die than take another life.

Sorry but Even if I was forced to take someones life I rather take that barrel and stick it down my own throat.

If that's how you feel, that's fine for you. Personally, I don't think I could live with myself if I knew I could have defended the life of one of my loved ones, or an innocent person, and chose not to. Even if that meant I would have to kill an attacker to do it.

I am not saying that at all. What I am doing is disagreeing with your assertion that a domestic dispute is a walk in the park when 14% of police fatalities happen on these calls.

I did? Whoops. WEll most domestic situations here are quite tame in comparision apart from that one time during 1930s till the 1980s where the mob used my home town as a burial site for hits.

If that's how you feel, that's fine for you. Personally, I don't think I could live with myself if I knew I could have defended the life of one of my loved ones, or an innocent person, and chose not to. Even if that meant I would have to kill an attacker to do it.

See that would happen if they killed my loved one. I would rather die, than have them die because of me. I would comply but say instead take me. Even if they don't barter all I am doing is running that precious time away. I won't ever get into a situation like that *knocks on wood*

Now I know you're not trying to say Chicago is tame...

Top 4 news stories on the Sun Times is about people being killed...

In 2013, there were more then 1500 instances of domestic battery with a deadly weapon. There are on average, about 500 domestic violence calls a day.

 cincydooley wrote:

But please, we'd still love for you to tell us how many magazines a LEO should be allowed to carry, and in which caliber, and whether or not that applies to only full sized weapons, or if it also applies to compact and sub-compact firearms.

I like how you are implying that by questioning LEO's carrying around 2-3 extra clips I am suddenly arguing the whole aspect of their use of firearms. I am also suddenly calling for all LEOs to drop their 2nd and 3rd magazine. I have not once talked about the caliber of a bullet or anything else you have implied. You are implying that I am saying a lot and all I am doing is asking you to provide evidence for your arguments. I said none of these things. I really expected much better from you.

 DarkLink wrote:
From any rational, objective standpoint, if police are going to carry firearms there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have a second magazine.

See, I agree with you. There is absolutely no reason an LEO should not have a second magazine on them, the video that Hordini posted has shown a very rare and violent case where a second magazine was very beneficial and clearly helped put the suspect down. Now in that same video, the LEOs are pinned down at their vehicle where they should have additional firepower(shotgun/rifle) to pull from. Why does that LEO need one to two more magazines when he has all of that at his disposal?

 DarkLink wrote:
You quite clearly don't know what you're talking about. Any input you can provide on whether or not the police are over or under equipped is going to be twisted by your lack of knowledge on the subject and what appears to be a rather large chip on your shoulder. Sure, it really doesn't matter if internet expert #538,544 decides he knows better than everyone else, but still, you're being as unreasonable as the suggestion to shoot anyone who doesn't like police.

How am I the unreasonable one here? I have asked questions and gotten ridiculous responses. I have responded to those ridiculous responses ridiculously. Suddenly this is all my fault.

I am still waiting for the white community to riot. What's going on? D:

Pft, tell that to those poor Pumpkins!

Can't really be revenge if the only link they have is that they're black. I could understand if the guy was family or a friend to Mike Brown/Garner. Just violence for the sake of being angry about it.

Either way, world's better off without the shooter. A shame though that he felt the need to express himself in that way and end his own life over it.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I am still waiting for the white community to riot. What's going on? D:

We need some motivating music.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Sometimes to protect others, you have to kill the person who is trying to hurt or kill them. In those situations, police officers have to be equipped to do that.

I rather die than take another life.

Sorry but Even if I was forced to take someones life I rather take that barrel and stick it down my own throat.

Otherwise it makes me no different than the person that is trying to kill that person I love.

I am a kantian. I can't kill. Even If I wanted to. Its not right to take a life. Yes it may seem backwards or stupid. But the goal is never to kill. Even if it is to defend someone.

Otherwise what are we but taking an eye for an eye. Thats not justice thats pure and outright revenge. That is not justifiable in the slightest.

To some it might, but it isn't that is such an old way of thinking.

It is quite sad people still think that way. The goal should be to capture and release. To recooperate those criminals not to shoot them and not give them the chance.

I've been told many things in my life one being the classic if someone pulls out a knife on you, they forfeit their right to live. Which I find kind of stupid and immoral. Yes you may see it is right to defend yourself. But Don't I have the right to just. Run? I don't know my wallet doesn't seem that important to me. ITs material what the hell do I care.

I totally agree, killing someone takes a huge toll on your soul as seen by the cops & soldiers that either quit or commit suicide after killing someone.

there's no cash in my wallet ever, who uses cash anymore in a digital age? I would turn it over in a second, but I would ask "For the love of god, let me keep my drivers license, you can have my wallet, but don't make me to sit through DMV hell for hours."

It's amazing how people think the insured stuff in their house or pockets is worth more than a human life.

Having a gun in the house is more likely to be used on your family than against any intruders.