• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Increasing Assault Weapons in Criminal Hands

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,895
11,102
136
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Where did criminals get them? Legally or Illegally?
I am sure after Bush and Repub. let the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expires in 2004, it's easier for criminals to get them legally.
Even the CDC came to the conclusion that the AWB had no measurable effect on gun crime.

It was a totally useless piece of feel good legislation.
Kind of like the ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds? It expired a few years ago, but I remember thinking that it really wouldn't matter much to me if someone shot me 10 times or 17 times, I'd still probably be pretty dead.

I think bans on specific weapons are pretty silly, and as you said, more about having a feel good solution rather than a real one. The problem isn't that criminals are illegally getting the "wrong" weapons, it's that they are illegally getting weapons at all. Somehow I don't think some gang banger is going to get his AR-15 (or whatever) at the local gun store, even if it IS legal for him to do so. Legislation that attacks the illegal methods by which guns are obtained seems much more valuable to me. In particular, I like the customer limits some states have on gun purchases. I think my state, Maryland, might take it to the extreme...but overall I can't think of much reason beyond illegal resale that a person would have to buy several guns every month.
Well speaking as a collector I would often purchase several guns a month (at a time even) if the items I wanted happen to pop up.

I think it would be a lot more effective to address the causes of violence rather than the tools used to commit it. Granted that is a harder task than Congress or the people at large seem to want to take on.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Where did criminals get them? Legally or Illegally?
I am sure after Bush and Repub. let the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expires in 2004, it's easier for criminals to get them legally.
Even the CDC came to the conclusion that the AWB had no measurable effect on gun crime.

It was a totally useless piece of feel good legislation.
Kind of like the ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds? It expired a few years ago, but I remember thinking that it really wouldn't matter much to me if someone shot me 10 times or 17 times, I'd still probably be pretty dead.

I think bans on specific weapons are pretty silly, and as you said, more about having a feel good solution rather than a real one. The problem isn't that criminals are illegally getting the "wrong" weapons, it's that they are illegally getting weapons at all. Somehow I don't think some gang banger is going to get his AR-15 (or whatever) at the local gun store, even if it IS legal for him to do so. Legislation that attacks the illegal methods by which guns are obtained seems much more valuable to me. In particular, I like the customer limits some states have on gun purchases. I think my state, Maryland, might take it to the extreme...but overall I can't think of much reason beyond illegal resale that a person would have to buy several guns every month.
Well speaking as a collector I would often purchase several guns a month (at a time even) if the items I wanted happen to pop up.

I think it would be a lot more effective to address the causes of violence rather than the tools used to commit it. Granted that is a harder task than Congress or the people at large seem to want to take on.
Hmm, I suppose that could be a problem for collectors, hadn't thought of that.

And you're right, while going after illegal gun distribution would be more effective than going after which guns are LEGALLY sold, I think going after the root causes of violence is an even better approach. It's just that doing so is difficult, and banning large magazines or "assault weapons" is easy. We are nothing if not the easy answer society.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,438
5,510
126
the drug runners are going to have high powered weaponry regardless of what the US congress does.

and the media confuses semi-automatic weapons with actual assault rifles because congress did so when it passed the 'assault weapons' ban (actual assault rifles having been heavily regulated for decades already). a ban that did nothing but increase the cost of guns and weapons to legitimate, law abiding gun owners.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,633
1,121
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
More people are killed with hands and feet every year than with rifles. Assault weapons just aren't used in violent crimes. It's exceptionally rare.

I agree the police should have access to the same weapons as everyone else. That's why they should not be allowed to purchase post-1986 machine guns. :thumbsup:

The Miami police chief is an infamous anti-gunner. Cops want a chance to play army by carrying assault rifles, and they justify it by saying that criminals have them while at the same time getting them banned for regular, law abiding people.
Nebor is 100% correct here. :)

I think that the SWAT team should have access to whatever they need, because they have the added training and experience necessary to ensure proper usage.

The numbers of crimes using heavy weaponry / assault rifles are so few, that having them widely deployed in the regular police force is unnecessarily expensive, dangerous, and brings us perilously close to having a military force masquerading as police.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Nebor
More people are killed with hands and feet every year than with rifles. Assault weapons just aren't used in violent crimes. It's exceptionally rare.

I agree the police should have access to the same weapons as everyone else. That's why they should not be allowed to purchase post-1986 machine guns. :thumbsup:

The Miami police chief is an infamous anti-gunner. Cops want a chance to play army by carrying assault rifles, and they justify it by saying that criminals have them while at the same time getting them banned for regular, law abiding people.
Nebor is 100% correct here. :)

I think that the SWAT team should have access to whatever they need, because they have the added training and experience necessary to ensure proper usage.

The numbers of crimes using heavy weaponry / assault rifles are so few, that having them widely deployed in the regular police force is unnecessarily expensive, dangerous, and brings us perilously close to having a military force masquerading as police.
Plus a small percentage of the illegal full autos on the market are stolen from police cars. People know that police have these guns in their cars, and that they're easy targets to steal. I remember a couple years back, an Irving police car was broken into, and the thief absconded with a brand new (in the case) H&K UMP (full auto) in .40S&W and a GLock pistol new in the case.

In theory, such a weapon (the UMP) has astronomical value on the private market, since there are 0 legal UMPs on the market, and an old pre-1986 MP5 goes for about $20,000. Of course, the fact that it is illegal tempers it's value to some degree with traditional collectors. But if someone like me, who has no respect for unconstitutional laws and jackbooted poliec forces, came across one for sale, I'd be willing to pay a pretty penny for it.

My point being, allowing the police weapons above and beyond what the rest of us are allowed to have just makes them targets for theft and contempt. I wouldn't steal one myself, but they certainly have my contempt.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,633
1,121
126
Nice, so are you in the DFW metro area? I'm 1 hour south, run a PC shop in a small town.

I think the only recent crimes committed in this area with serious weaponry were those bank jobs by the 'takeover bandits'. Pretty crazy stuff, but that's what SWAT is for.

If anything, I'd support more $$$ for making police cars bulletproof, increasing the training period and standards, than something as dumb and dangerous as arming regular officers like they're Marine recon operators.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Nice, so are you in the DFW metro area? I'm 1 hour south, run a PC shop in a small town.

I think the only recent crimes committed in this area with serious weaponry were those bank jobs by the 'takeover bandits'. Pretty crazy stuff, but that's what SWAT is for.

If anything, I'd support more $$$ for making police cars bulletproof, increasing the training period and standards, than something as dumb and dangerous as arming regular officers like they're Marine recon operators.
Yup, I'm from the DFW area. Colleyville to be precise.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Nebor
More people are killed with hands and feet every year than with rifles. Assault weapons just aren't used in violent crimes. It's exceptionally rare.

I agree the police should have access to the same weapons as everyone else. That's why they should not be allowed to purchase post-1986 machine guns. :thumbsup:

The Miami police chief is an infamous anti-gunner. Cops want a chance to play army by carrying assault rifles, and they justify it by saying that criminals have them while at the same time getting them banned for regular, law abiding people.
Nebor is 100% correct here. :)

I think that the SWAT team should have access to whatever they need, because they have the added training and experience necessary to ensure proper usage.

The numbers of crimes using heavy weaponry / assault rifles are so few, that having them widely deployed in the regular police force is unnecessarily expensive, dangerous, and brings us perilously close to having a military force masquerading as police.
Plus a small percentage of the illegal full autos on the market are stolen from police cars. People know that police have these guns in their cars, and that they're easy targets to steal. I remember a couple years back, an Irving police car was broken into, and the thief absconded with a brand new (in the case) H&K UMP (full auto) in .40S&W and a GLock pistol new in the case.

In theory, such a weapon (the UMP) has astronomical value on the private market, since there are 0 legal UMPs on the market, and an old pre-1986 MP5 goes for about $20,000. Of course, the fact that it is illegal tempers it's value to some degree with traditional collectors. But if someone like me, who has no respect for unconstitutional laws and jackbooted poliec forces, came across one for sale, I'd be willing to pay a pretty penny for it.

My point being, allowing the police weapons above and beyond what the rest of us are allowed to have just makes them targets for theft and contempt. I wouldn't steal one myself, but they certainly have my contempt.
Doesn't it seem kind of weird to you guys that you support the PUBLIC having fully automatic weapons but not the police?
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,633
1,121
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Nebor
More people are killed with hands and feet every year than with rifles. Assault weapons just aren't used in violent crimes. It's exceptionally rare.

I agree the police should have access to the same weapons as everyone else. That's why they should not be allowed to purchase post-1986 machine guns. :thumbsup:

The Miami police chief is an infamous anti-gunner. Cops want a chance to play army by carrying assault rifles, and they justify it by saying that criminals have them while at the same time getting them banned for regular, law abiding people.
Nebor is 100% correct here. :)

I think that the SWAT team should have access to whatever they need, because they have the added training and experience necessary to ensure proper usage.

The numbers of crimes using heavy weaponry / assault rifles are so few, that having them widely deployed in the regular police force is unnecessarily expensive, dangerous, and brings us perilously close to having a military force masquerading as police.
Plus a small percentage of the illegal full autos on the market are stolen from police cars. People know that police have these guns in their cars, and that they're easy targets to steal. I remember a couple years back, an Irving police car was broken into, and the thief absconded with a brand new (in the case) H&K UMP (full auto) in .40S&W and a GLock pistol new in the case.

In theory, such a weapon (the UMP) has astronomical value on the private market, since there are 0 legal UMPs on the market, and an old pre-1986 MP5 goes for about $20,000. Of course, the fact that it is illegal tempers it's value to some degree with traditional collectors. But if someone like me, who has no respect for unconstitutional laws and jackbooted poliec forces, came across one for sale, I'd be willing to pay a pretty penny for it.

My point being, allowing the police weapons above and beyond what the rest of us are allowed to have just makes them targets for theft and contempt. I wouldn't steal one myself, but they certainly have my contempt.
Doesn't it seem kind of weird to you guys that you support the PUBLIC having fully automatic weapons but not the police?
(1)- I support SWAT having all necessary tools available to them to meet extraordinary threats. This includes full auto / high caliber weaponry, or whatever it takes to get the job done. SWAT officers training is FAR in excess of the ordinary police officer's scope.

(2)- Legally owned assault rifles/automatic weapons are spectacularly rarely used in any type of crime. The type of person who can afford/are interested in/qualifies for ownership of these weapons are law-abiding people.

(3)- Handgun crime incidents are thousands of times more common than rifle incidents (including all types of assault rifles).

(4)- The issue is that Nebor and I do not agree with the militarization of the regular police forces, while supporting a limited but specialized section (SWAT), to deal with a limited but dangerous threat (the RARE criminal who commits a crime with heavy weaponry). It makes no sense to flood the regular police forces with heavy weaponry to meet a threat so rare that when the events do occur, they make headlines. Adding to what Nebor said in an earlier post, I think that putting automatic rifles in the backs of police cruisers would ADD to gun crime, because they would be an obvious target for dedicated thieves.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Heh, listen to all you gun lovers. When it comes to your habit, any law limiting gun ownership, even those that bans high powered assault weapons, violates your right. But when it comes to people who actually have to fight against criminals armed with assault weapons, it's militarization blah blah blah. I guess your precious habit is more important than those people who put their life on the line to protect your @ss.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,633
1,121
126
Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, listen to all you gun lovers. When it comes to your habit, any law limiting gun ownership, even those that bans high powered assault weapons, violates your right. But when it comes to people who actually have to fight against criminals armed with assault weapons, it's militarization blah blah blah. I guess your precious habit is more important than those people who put their life on the line to protect your @ss.
Huh? I don't own any firearms at all. How often do you think the average police officer is confronted with a criminal with an assault weapon? It's pretty damned rare. I don't oppose the ready availability of heavy weaponry to the specialists (SWAT), but it's unreasonable to expect our police to be armed like the military.

And as far as legal gun owners, it's been proven and proven and proven again and again that the percentage of gun crimes committed with legally owned rifles is incredibly low.

Virtually all gun crime is from handguns/ repeat criminals.

 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Miami police Chief John Timoney said, "There's a need for Congress to step in here and pass some reasonable legislation that reduces the availability of these weapons in the hands of people who shouldn't have them."
We already such legislation. Basically, convicted felons can't purchase/own guns.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure any legal sales must be made through licensed gun dealers and are registered. I know mine are.

I suppose some private sales of used guns get around that. Not sure how legislation can prevent that though.

I would guess most criminals get guns by stealing them. Pretty sure that's already illegal too.

Fern
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Nebor
More people are killed with hands and feet every year than with rifles. Assault weapons just aren't used in violent crimes. It's exceptionally rare.

I agree the police should have access to the same weapons as everyone else. That's why they should not be allowed to purchase post-1986 machine guns. :thumbsup:

The Miami police chief is an infamous anti-gunner. Cops want a chance to play army by carrying assault rifles, and they justify it by saying that criminals have them while at the same time getting them banned for regular, law abiding people.
Nebor is 100% correct here. :)

I think that the SWAT team should have access to whatever they need, because they have the added training and experience necessary to ensure proper usage.

The numbers of crimes using heavy weaponry / assault rifles are so few, that having them widely deployed in the regular police force is unnecessarily expensive, dangerous, and brings us perilously close to having a military force masquerading as police.
Plus a small percentage of the illegal full autos on the market are stolen from police cars. People know that police have these guns in their cars, and that they're easy targets to steal. I remember a couple years back, an Irving police car was broken into, and the thief absconded with a brand new (in the case) H&K UMP (full auto) in .40S&W and a GLock pistol new in the case.

In theory, such a weapon (the UMP) has astronomical value on the private market, since there are 0 legal UMPs on the market, and an old pre-1986 MP5 goes for about $20,000. Of course, the fact that it is illegal tempers it's value to some degree with traditional collectors. But if someone like me, who has no respect for unconstitutional laws and jackbooted poliec forces, came across one for sale, I'd be willing to pay a pretty penny for it.

My point being, allowing the police weapons above and beyond what the rest of us are allowed to have just makes them targets for theft and contempt. I wouldn't steal one myself, but they certainly have my contempt.
Doesn't it seem kind of weird to you guys that you support the PUBLIC having fully automatic weapons but not the police?
(1)- I support SWAT having all necessary tools available to them to meet extraordinary threats. This includes full auto / high caliber weaponry, or whatever it takes to get the job done. SWAT officers training is FAR in excess of the ordinary police officer's scope.

(2)- Legally owned assault rifles/automatic weapons are spectacularly rarely used in any type of crime. The type of person who can afford/are interested in/qualifies for ownership of these weapons are law-abiding people.

(3)- Handgun crime incidents are thousands of times more common than rifle incidents (including all types of assault rifles).

(4)- The issue is that Nebor and I do not agree with the militarization of the regular police forces, while supporting a limited but specialized section (SWAT), to deal with a limited but dangerous threat (the RARE criminal who commits a crime with heavy weaponry). It makes no sense to flood the regular police forces with heavy weaponry to meet a threat so rare that when the events do occur, they make headlines. Adding to what Nebor said in an earlier post, I think that putting automatic rifles in the backs of police cruisers would ADD to gun crime, because they would be an obvious target for dedicated thieves.
I don't disagree with those arguments, but I think they apply just as strongly to the general public, and are just as compelling a reason to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of the average Joe.

Regular citizens aren't SWAT officers either, hell, they don't (usually) even have training as good as that available to the ordinary police officer. If it's unnecessary and unsafe for the average police officer to have an automatic weapon, it seems like that logic would also be an argument against the average civilian owning one.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Its an open arms race that feeds on itself.

The population has knifes, some % of that population commit crimes with knifes.
The population gets a better defense against knifes, pistols, some % of that population commits crimes with pistols.
The population gets a better defense against pistols, shotguns, some% of that population commits crimes with shotguns.
.... semi autos
... full autos
... sharks with lasers
Genetically modified sea bass...sharks are endangered.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't disagree with those arguments, but I think they apply just as strongly to the general public, and are just as compelling a reason to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of the average Joe.

Regular citizens aren't SWAT officers either, hell, they don't (usually) even have training as good as that available to the ordinary police officer. If it's unnecessary and unsafe for the average police officer to have an automatic weapon, it seems like that logic would also be an argument against the average civilian owning one.
I'm going to assume when you write "automatic weapons" you really mean semi-auto.

Otherwise, merely owning one (as the generalpublic would) and using one in field in one's daily job are tow completely different things and the level of danger does not equate..

The only places I know of that the general public uses a semi-auto rifle are (1) a shooting range, or (2) in woods when hunting (.308 semi-auto deer rifles exist). AFAIK, the mere fact that the rifle in use is semi-auto does not increase danger in either of those two locations.

I suspect most peoples antipathy towards semi-auto rifles results from a fear that the guns will somehow fall into the hands of a criminal for use in a crime.

But as has been pointed out numerous times, they are rarely employed in committing a crime, and are generally poorly suited for such purposes.

Given the rarity of their use, and infrequent encounters with criminals armed with semi-auto rifles by police, seems unnecessary to me widley deploy these weapons throughout the police force.

Nor am I comforted by the seemingly frequent and numerous examples where police discharge their firearms excessively, and rarely hit the target.

I support limited use & deployment by law enforcement.

Fern
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Nebor
More people are killed with hands and feet every year than with rifles. Assault weapons just aren't used in violent crimes. It's exceptionally rare.

I agree the police should have access to the same weapons as everyone else. That's why they should not be allowed to purchase post-1986 machine guns. :thumbsup:

The Miami police chief is an infamous anti-gunner. Cops want a chance to play army by carrying assault rifles, and they justify it by saying that criminals have them while at the same time getting them banned for regular, law abiding people.
Nebor is 100% correct here. :)

I think that the SWAT team should have access to whatever they need, because they have the added training and experience necessary to ensure proper usage.

The numbers of crimes using heavy weaponry / assault rifles are so few, that having them widely deployed in the regular police force is unnecessarily expensive, dangerous, and brings us perilously close to having a military force masquerading as police.
Plus a small percentage of the illegal full autos on the market are stolen from police cars. People know that police have these guns in their cars, and that they're easy targets to steal. I remember a couple years back, an Irving police car was broken into, and the thief absconded with a brand new (in the case) H&K UMP (full auto) in .40S&W and a GLock pistol new in the case.

In theory, such a weapon (the UMP) has astronomical value on the private market, since there are 0 legal UMPs on the market, and an old pre-1986 MP5 goes for about $20,000. Of course, the fact that it is illegal tempers it's value to some degree with traditional collectors. But if someone like me, who has no respect for unconstitutional laws and jackbooted poliec forces, came across one for sale, I'd be willing to pay a pretty penny for it.

My point being, allowing the police weapons above and beyond what the rest of us are allowed to have just makes them targets for theft and contempt. I wouldn't steal one myself, but they certainly have my contempt.
Doesn't it seem kind of weird to you guys that you support the PUBLIC having fully automatic weapons but not the police?
No, I'm supporting everyone having fully automatic weapons. I just don't think the police should be more heavily armed than any other law abiding citizen. I was making the point that if we the public can't buy new machine guns, the police shouldn't be able to either.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, listen to all you gun lovers. When it comes to your habit, any law limiting gun ownership, even those that bans high powered assault weapons, violates your right. But when it comes to people who actually have to fight against criminals armed with assault weapons, it's militarization blah blah blah. I guess your precious habit is more important than those people who put their life on the line to protect your @ss.
It's not the job of the police to protect you. Their guns are there so they can protect themselves from criminals. I don't have a problem with the police having guns, I do have a problem with the police having access to guns that have been legislated away from everyone else.
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,271
0
0
the post is stupid. Stop using the words 'assault weapon' for crying the fuck out loud.

Assault weapon doesnt mean anything. You have to differentiate between 'automatic' and 'semiautomatic'. I don't know shit-all about guns, but I know that people get their hands on semiautomatic weapons. Now the stupid article is whining about semis (right? I didn't see anything about automatic weapons) and that's just the same god damn problem we've been having for X years. Nothing new here, move along.

Btw, the term 'assault' weapon is normally used when you make a semiautomatic gun look more deadly. Oh noes, it's black and metallic, it must be more dangerous. Stfu media. And while we're at it, congress too. You should see those idiots standing around yelling about 'assault weapons' when that term has absolutely no effective meaning. If you want to ban 'assault' weapons then you should be banning all semiautomatic rifles.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, listen to all you gun lovers. When it comes to your habit, any law limiting gun ownership, even those that bans high powered assault weapons, violates your right. But when it comes to people who actually have to fight against criminals armed with assault weapons, it's militarization blah blah blah. I guess your precious habit is more important than those people who put their life on the line to protect your @ss.
It's not the job of the police to protect you. Their guns are there so they can protect themselves from criminals. I don't have a problem with the police having guns, I do have a problem with the police having access to guns that have been legislated away from everyone else.
Oh yeah, that's a great argument. So if the police don't go after criminals and enforce laws, why would they need to protect themselves from criminals?

Well, thanks to the current president and republican dominated congress back in 2004, the assault weapon ban expired and everyone including criminals have easy access to high power weaponry like AK-47 (which was specifically named as one of the assault weapon and included in the ban). So now that criminals have access to those weapons, you people still expect police to fight them with pistols? Why don't you just legislate something to have them carry mace only.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, listen to all you gun lovers. When it comes to your habit, any law limiting gun ownership, even those that bans high powered assault weapons, violates your right. But when it comes to people who actually have to fight against criminals armed with assault weapons, it's militarization blah blah blah. I guess your precious habit is more important than those people who put their life on the line to protect your @ss.
I read this whole thread and I didn't see one 'gun lover' saying the police shouldn't have the weapons they need to maitain law and order?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't disagree with those arguments, but I think they apply just as strongly to the general public, and are just as compelling a reason to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of the average Joe.

Regular citizens aren't SWAT officers either, hell, they don't (usually) even have training as good as that available to the ordinary police officer. If it's unnecessary and unsafe for the average police officer to have an automatic weapon, it seems like that logic would also be an argument against the average civilian owning one.
I'm going to assume when you write "automatic weapons" you really mean semi-auto.

Otherwise, merely owning one (as the generalpublic would) and using one in field in one's daily job are tow completely different things and the level of danger does not equate..

The only places I know of that the general public uses a semi-auto rifle are (1) a shooting range, or (2) in woods when hunting (.308 semi-auto deer rifles exist). AFAIK, the mere fact that the rifle in use is semi-auto does not increase danger in either of those two locations.

I suspect most peoples antipathy towards semi-auto rifles results from a fear that the guns will somehow fall into the hands of a criminal for use in a crime.

But as has been pointed out numerous times, they are rarely employed in committing a crime, and are generally poorly suited for such purposes.

Given the rarity of their use, and infrequent encounters with criminals armed with semi-auto rifles by police, seems unnecessary to me widley deploy these weapons throughout the police force.

Nor am I comforted by the seemingly frequent and numerous examples where police discharge their firearms excessively, and rarely hit the target.

I support limited use & deployment by law enforcement.

Fern
Actually, I DID mean fully automatic weapons. Nebor and Arkaign appeared to be suggesting that they support private citizens having fully automatic weapons, but NOT the police...when the arguments they were using appeared to argue just as strongly against EITHER group having access to automatic weapons.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
...

No, I'm supporting everyone having fully automatic weapons. I just don't think the police should be more heavily armed than any other law abiding citizen. I was making the point that if we the public can't buy new machine guns, the police shouldn't be able to either.
Fair enough, I can agree with that logic. Although in crowded urban areas, fully automatic weapons raise some important safety issues. The more rounds get fired, the greater the chances some random neighbor sitting in his living room is going to take one in the squash.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Nebor
...

No, I'm supporting everyone having fully automatic weapons. I just don't think the police should be more heavily armed than any other law abiding citizen. I was making the point that if we the public can't buy new machine guns, the police shouldn't be able to either.
Fair enough, I can agree with that logic. Although in crowded urban areas, fully automatic weapons raise some important safety issues. The more rounds get fired, the greater the chances some random neighbor sitting in his living room is going to take one in the squash.
Based on that logic, shotguns would be the first thing I'd ban. You do know that a 12 gauge firing 00 buck is roughly equivalant to loosing 9 9mm bullets simultaneously, right?
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, listen to all you gun lovers. When it comes to your habit, any law limiting gun ownership, even those that bans high powered assault weapons, violates your right. But when it comes to people who actually have to fight against criminals armed with assault weapons, it's militarization blah blah blah. I guess your precious habit is more important than those people who put their life on the line to protect your @ss.
It's not the job of the police to protect you. Their guns are there so they can protect themselves from criminals. I don't have a problem with the police having guns, I do have a problem with the police having access to guns that have been legislated away from everyone else.
Oh yeah, that's a great argument. So if the police don't go after criminals and enforce laws, why would they need to protect themselves from criminals?

Well, thanks to the current president and republican dominated congress back in 2004, the assault weapon ban expired and everyone including criminals have easy access to high power weaponry like AK-47 (which was specifically named as one of the assault weapon and included in the ban). So now that criminals have access to those weapons, you people still expect police to fight them with pistols? Why don't you just legislate something to have them carry mace only.
You need to stop foaming at the mouth with emotional, partisan "reasoning."

I said it's not the police's job to protect YOU. Because it's not. It's been ruled again and again. Their job IS to solve crimes, and arrest suspected criminals for said crimes. I never said otherwise.

And you do know that from 1994 to 2004, you could go to any gun show, or gun store in the country and walk out with an AR-15 or AK47, right? The ban only named cosmetic features of guns. It was feel good legislation at it's absolute best.

And even if it were an effective ban, do you really think the criminals were sitting around going, "Aw man, now I can't go shoot up that bank!" No, criminals will get the guns they need no matter what laws you pass because *gasp* criminals don't care about laws!

And I'm glad that everyone has access to "assault weapons." If it were up to me, everyone would have access to full auto weapons. It certainly hasn't hurt Switzerland.

And I never said that police should only have pistols. All I was saying is that the police shouldn't have weapons above and beyond what any other CIVILIAN can get. You do realize that police are civilians, right?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,109
488
126
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, listen to all you gun lovers. When it comes to your habit, any law limiting gun ownership, even those that bans high powered assault weapons, violates your right. But when it comes to people who actually have to fight against criminals armed with assault weapons, it's militarization blah blah blah. I guess your precious habit is more important than those people who put their life on the line to protect your @ss.
It's not the job of the police to protect you. Their guns are there so they can protect themselves from criminals. I don't have a problem with the police having guns, I do have a problem with the police having access to guns that have been legislated away from everyone else.
Oh yeah, that's a great argument. So if the police don't go after criminals and enforce laws, why would they need to protect themselves from criminals?

Well, thanks to the current president and republican dominated congress back in 2004, the assault weapon ban expired and everyone including criminals have easy access to high power weaponry like AK-47 (which was specifically named as one of the assault weapon and included in the ban). So now that criminals have access to those weapons, you people still expect police to fight them with pistols? Why don't you just legislate something to have them carry mace only.
How many crimes are committed with AK-47's?

Also, I think you completely missed his point. He is NOT saying that the police should not have access to these weapons, he is saying that the police should not have access to these weapons if regular civilians do not have access to these weapons. There is a difference.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY