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

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,119
498
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
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?

:thumbsup:
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor


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?
Heh, so you pro gun NRA people aren't partisan? Correct me if I am wrong, isn't one of the motto for police "to protect and serve"? If solving crime and arresting criminals not protecting us, what exactly does that do for our society?

Yeah there were lots of ways to get around the 10 year ban. But that's because of the chicken $hit politicians and powerful gun lobbyist protecting the need of some lame hunters who need to have semi-auto weapons to shoot ducks. The law had good intentions, the problem was the enforcement and politicians should have looked to improve the law and the enforcement instead of letting it die.

I understand there will always be some criminals who can get their hand on illegal stuff, ban or no ban. But the key is average everyday crook can have easy access to high power semi-automatic stuff without good regulations.

Everyone should have the right tools for their profession. Computer developers need good computers, musicians need good instruments, so why shouldn't police have good weapons to fight criminals who will have legal AND illegal weapons? As long as they are trained, and there are rules and laws to ensure proper conduct, why shouldn't they be properly equipped to do their job? And please don't give me their job isn't protect us again, yeah I know you gun people love to shoot intruders yourself but for average people like us, we still call 911 and have police come over if we have any problem.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,119
498
126
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Nebor


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?
Heh, so you pro gun NRA people aren't partisan? Correct me if I am wrong, isn't one of the motto for police "to protect and serve"? If solving crime and arresting criminals not protecting us, what exactly does that do for our society?

Yeah there were lots of ways to get around the 10 year ban. But that's because of the chicken $hit politicians and powerful gun lobbyist protecting the need of some lame hunters who need to have semi-auto weapons to shoot ducks. The law had good intentions, the problem was the enforcement and politicians should have looked to improve the law and the enforcement instead of letting it die.

I understand there will always be some criminals who can get their hand on illegal stuff, ban or no ban. But the key is average everyday crook can have easy access to high power semi-automatic stuff without good regulations.

Everyone should have the right tools for their profession. Computer developers need good computers, musicians need good instruments, so why shouldn't police have good weapons to fight criminals who will have legal AND illegal weapons? As long as they are trained, and there are rules and laws to ensure proper conduct, why shouldn't they be properly equipped to do their job? And please don't give me their job isn't protect us again, yeah I know you gun people love to shoot intruders yourself but for average people like us, we still call 911 and have police come over if we have any problem.
For one thing, you are wrong. There was a court case a while back that stated that the police do NOT have to protect you. The majority of the time, police arrive AFTER the crime has been committed, if you are relying on the police to protect you in the event of a rape, robbery, murder, home invasion, etc... then you are in for a rude awakening if anything like that were to ever happen to you.

Secondly, you never answered my question. How many crimes have been committed with an AK-47, since you seem to be concerned about criminals getting their hands on them.

Edit - I just skimmed over the article, but the first paragraph states "The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

Link
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Police should have nuclear weapons. A few shots fired in some major cities and the crime rate's sure to go down.
I prefer instead to give criminals hugs and flowers after they murder, rape and pillage. Rehabilitation is the best deterrent, and they just need to feel loved.


Too bad guns don't shoot rainbows.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: JD50


For one thing, you are wrong. There was a court case a while back that stated that the police do NOT have to protect you. The majority of the time, police arrive AFTER the crime has been committed, if you are relying on the police to protect you in the event of a rape, robbery, murder, home invasion, etc... then you are in for a rude awakening if anything like that were to ever happen to you.

Secondly, you never answered my question. How many crimes have been committed with an AK-47, since you seem to be concerned about criminals getting their hands on them.

Edit - I just skimmed over the article, but the first paragraph states "The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

Link
Heh, you pro-gun people loves to cite those few cases where police wasn't able to respond and make blanket statement that police don't have to protect people don't you? For everyone of those cases, there are hundreds cases where police saved people's live. Yes police are not meant to be body guards to everyone, they will never have the man power to do that, the court recognize that and have laws to prevent them being liable for someone they failed to protect. But in general, police response to help requests and make their best effort to protect everyone. I mistakenly dialed 911 once, and the police showed up at my door in 3 minutes.

And you gun lovers are just delusional thinking you don't need the police and you can protect you and your family with your assault weapons. If criminals want to get you , they will get you. Ever heard of ORGANIZED crimes? You think one of you will be able to fight off gangs and mafia if they want something from you? You must watch too many hollywood movie if you think you will be able to do that. That's the whole reason we need an organized police force to fight against organized criminals.

Oh and me talking about assault weapons? why don't you go back to the OP and read the article. The whole point of the thread is criminals are using more and more assault weapons, and that's why police need to be armed better. Next time you wanna get into a debate, know what we are debating first before jumping right in.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,550
4
81
Originally posted by: rchiu

Ever heard of ORGANIZED crimes? You think one of you will be able to fight off gangs and mafia if they want something from you? You must watch too many hollywood movie if you think you will be able to do that.
Oh the irony
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,341
11,810
136
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: JD50


For one thing, you are wrong. There was a court case a while back that stated that the police do NOT have to protect you. The majority of the time, police arrive AFTER the crime has been committed, if you are relying on the police to protect you in the event of a rape, robbery, murder, home invasion, etc... then you are in for a rude awakening if anything like that were to ever happen to you.

Secondly, you never answered my question. How many crimes have been committed with an AK-47, since you seem to be concerned about criminals getting their hands on them.

Edit - I just skimmed over the article, but the first paragraph states "The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

Link
Heh, you pro-gun people loves to cite those few cases where police wasn't able to respond and make blanket statement that police don't have to protect people don't you? For everyone of those cases, there are hundreds cases where police saved people's live. Yes police are not meant to be body guards to everyone, they will never have the man power to do that, the court recognize that and have laws to prevent them being liable for someone they failed to protect. But in general, police response to help requests and make their best effort to protect everyone. I mistakenly dialed 911 once, and the police showed up at my door in 3 minutes.
3 minutes is an eternity in the event of a possibly armed home invader. The cops I've known always told me that the majority of time they arrive to late to help people in violent situations and that self defense is really the best option.

I used to live in an area outlying a small city. Response time could be 5-20+ minutes depending on where the County Sheriff's Depudies or State Police are at any given time.
 

Nebor

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


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?
Heh, so you pro gun NRA people aren't partisan? Correct me if I am wrong, isn't one of the motto for police "to protect and serve"? If solving crime and arresting criminals not protecting us, what exactly does that do for our society?

Yeah there were lots of ways to get around the 10 year ban. But that's because of the chicken $hit politicians and powerful gun lobbyist protecting the need of some lame hunters who need to have semi-auto weapons to shoot ducks. The law had good intentions, the problem was the enforcement and politicians should have looked to improve the law and the enforcement instead of letting it die.

I understand there will always be some criminals who can get their hand on illegal stuff, ban or no ban. But the key is average everyday crook can have easy access to high power semi-automatic stuff without good regulations.

Everyone should have the right tools for their profession. Computer developers need good computers, musicians need good instruments, so why shouldn't police have good weapons to fight criminals who will have legal AND illegal weapons? As long as they are trained, and there are rules and laws to ensure proper conduct, why shouldn't they be properly equipped to do their job? And please don't give me their job isn't protect us again, yeah I know you gun people love to shoot intruders yourself but for average people like us, we still call 911 and have police come over if we have any problem.
We all keep telling you, the police have NO responsibility to protect you. Most police are good people, so they'll do their best, but they are not liable for your safety.

Hunters aren't the ones opposed to the assault weapons ban. I absolutely abhor hunting, I don't think it's sporting, I don't think it's fun, I don't hunt. My guns, each and every one of them, was designed, built and purchased to kill people. I'm not lying about my intentions. In my whole life, I've only shot two people, and they were both bad guys that deserved it. People like you, who would disarm all of us because you're afraid to defend yourself, and want big brother to watch over you, are the biggest danger of all.

In fact, some of my guns were bought just to keep people from taking my other guns. :Q
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
...
We all keep telling you, the police have NO responsibility to protect you. Most police are good people, so they'll do their best, but they are not liable for your safety.

Hunters aren't the ones opposed to the assault weapons ban. I absolutely abhor hunting, I don't think it's sporting, I don't think it's fun, I don't hunt. My guns, each and every one of them, was designed, built and purchased to kill people. I'm not lying about my intentions. In my whole life, I've only shot two people, and they were both bad guys that deserved it. People like you, who would disarm all of us because you're afraid to defend yourself, and want big brother to watch over you, are the biggest danger of all.

In fact, some of my guns were bought just to keep people from taking my other guns. :Q
Interesting, I find myself agreeing with Nebor. I expect to see polar bears heading to hell for the weather any minute :D

Seriously though, you're right that there are reasons to oppose the assault weapons ban for reasons other than hunting. I don't think it's a very useful ban, and I am also very much against hunting. It's sure as hell not a sport if you're using a semi-auto or fully-auto rifle to do it. Go after a bear with a knife and maybe I'll be impressed.

And honestly, the term "assault weapon" does seem a little silly. After all, it's a GUN, what the hell else am I going to do with it besides assault someone?

On the other hand, I think there are self-defense issues beyond gun ownership. Having a gun doesn't mean you can defend yourself any more than having a guitar means you can play Detroit Rock City. Whether or not someone is armed, the real issues seem to be behavioral and legal ones. In the first place, having the will and desire to defend yourself is something no object can provide, it's very much a cultural taboo for some people. And beyond that, from a legal perspective, even in places that allow you to own a gun, many of them seem to limit just how you can defend yourself with it (or with anything else, for that matter).

If someone attacks you, you are not always legally allowed to use enough force to make them stop. Many places have "proportional force" laws...which seems pretty silly. The whole point of being armed and/or knowing how to defend yourself is so that the fight is as UNfair as possible. If someone takes a swing at me, I'm not going to take a swing back and then stop, I'm going to kick him in the knee or elbow him in the face and keep going until he is no longer interested in attacking me. But in many places, that's not a legal way to defend yourself.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Nebor
...
We all keep telling you, the police have NO responsibility to protect you. Most police are good people, so they'll do their best, but they are not liable for your safety.

Hunters aren't the ones opposed to the assault weapons ban. I absolutely abhor hunting, I don't think it's sporting, I don't think it's fun, I don't hunt. My guns, each and every one of them, was designed, built and purchased to kill people. I'm not lying about my intentions. In my whole life, I've only shot two people, and they were both bad guys that deserved it. People like you, who would disarm all of us because you're afraid to defend yourself, and want big brother to watch over you, are the biggest danger of all.

In fact, some of my guns were bought just to keep people from taking my other guns. :Q
Interesting, I find myself agreeing with Nebor. I expect to see polar bears heading to hell for the weather any minute :D

Seriously though, you're right that there are reasons to oppose the assault weapons ban for reasons other than hunting. I don't think it's a very useful ban, and I am also very much against hunting. It's sure as hell not a sport if you're using a semi-auto or fully-auto rifle to do it. Go after a bear with a knife and maybe I'll be impressed.

And honestly, the term "assault weapon" does seem a little silly. After all, it's a GUN, what the hell else am I going to do with it besides assault someone?

On the other hand, I think there are self-defense issues beyond gun ownership. Having a gun doesn't mean you can defend yourself any more than having a guitar means you can play Detroit Rock City. Whether or not someone is armed, the real issues seem to be behavioral and legal ones. In the first place, having the will and desire to defend yourself is something no object can provide, it's very much a cultural taboo for some people. And beyond that, from a legal perspective, even in places that allow you to own a gun, many of them seem to limit just how you can defend yourself with it (or with anything else, for that matter).

If someone attacks you, you are not always legally allowed to use enough force to make them stop. Many places have "proportional force" laws...which seems pretty silly. The whole point of being armed and/or knowing how to defend yourself is so that the fight is as UNfair as possible. If someone takes a swing at me, I'm not going to take a swing back and then stop, I'm going to kick him in the knee or elbow him in the face and keep going until he is no longer interested in attacking me. But in many places, that's not a legal way to defend yourself.
The majority of the country has "Castle Doctrine" now, with more to follow. Even your home state of Maryland has Castle Doctrine, as well as full-autos (pre-86) supressors, open carry and concealed carry. ;)
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Nebor
...
We all keep telling you, the police have NO responsibility to protect you. Most police are good people, so they'll do their best, but they are not liable for your safety.

Hunters aren't the ones opposed to the assault weapons ban. I absolutely abhor hunting, I don't think it's sporting, I don't think it's fun, I don't hunt. My guns, each and every one of them, was designed, built and purchased to kill people. I'm not lying about my intentions. In my whole life, I've only shot two people, and they were both bad guys that deserved it. People like you, who would disarm all of us because you're afraid to defend yourself, and want big brother to watch over you, are the biggest danger of all.

In fact, some of my guns were bought just to keep people from taking my other guns. :Q
Interesting, I find myself agreeing with Nebor. I expect to see polar bears heading to hell for the weather any minute :D

Seriously though, you're right that there are reasons to oppose the assault weapons ban for reasons other than hunting. I don't think it's a very useful ban, and I am also very much against hunting. It's sure as hell not a sport if you're using a semi-auto or fully-auto rifle to do it. Go after a bear with a knife and maybe I'll be impressed.

And honestly, the term "assault weapon" does seem a little silly. After all, it's a GUN, what the hell else am I going to do with it besides assault someone?

On the other hand, I think there are self-defense issues beyond gun ownership. Having a gun doesn't mean you can defend yourself any more than having a guitar means you can play Detroit Rock City. Whether or not someone is armed, the real issues seem to be behavioral and legal ones. In the first place, having the will and desire to defend yourself is something no object can provide, it's very much a cultural taboo for some people. And beyond that, from a legal perspective, even in places that allow you to own a gun, many of them seem to limit just how you can defend yourself with it (or with anything else, for that matter).

If someone attacks you, you are not always legally allowed to use enough force to make them stop. Many places have "proportional force" laws...which seems pretty silly. The whole point of being armed and/or knowing how to defend yourself is so that the fight is as UNfair as possible. If someone takes a swing at me, I'm not going to take a swing back and then stop, I'm going to kick him in the knee or elbow him in the face and keep going until he is no longer interested in attacking me. But in many places, that's not a legal way to defend yourself.
The majority of the country has "Castle Doctrine" now, with more to follow. Even your home state of Maryland has Castle Doctrine, as well as full-autos (pre-86) supressors, open carry and concealed carry. ;)
Yeah, but in Maryland, concealed carry is "may issue", as far as I know. And you have to demonstrate a good reason for wanting a permit, and unlike some states that ask for a reason, Maryland REALLY seems to care. As a result, only about 11,000 people in Maryland have CCW, and the organization Maryland Shall Issue has documented some pretty weird cases of permits being denied. Like a DC police officer who lives in Maryland being unable to obtain a permit even after getting a death threat from a gang member. Our current governor has a pretty strong anti-gun stance (I suppose guns get a bad rap in Baltimore), but the legislature seems more pro-gun, so we'll see... Between that and the restrictions on shipping wine to the state, Virginia doesn't look so bad. Too bad it's so damn far away from my job ;)

By the way, my one criticism of Castle Doctrine is that I think sometimes it encourages "no retreat" even when that's probably a good idea. I like having the option there, but under most circumstances, I wouldn't advise someone to die for their stereo if they could avoid it. But I suppose that's the risk you take with rights, and I'd rather have that right than not.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Nebor
...
We all keep telling you, the police have NO responsibility to protect you. Most police are good people, so they'll do their best, but they are not liable for your safety.

Hunters aren't the ones opposed to the assault weapons ban. I absolutely abhor hunting, I don't think it's sporting, I don't think it's fun, I don't hunt. My guns, each and every one of them, was designed, built and purchased to kill people. I'm not lying about my intentions. In my whole life, I've only shot two people, and they were both bad guys that deserved it. People like you, who would disarm all of us because you're afraid to defend yourself, and want big brother to watch over you, are the biggest danger of all.

In fact, some of my guns were bought just to keep people from taking my other guns. :Q
Interesting, I find myself agreeing with Nebor. I expect to see polar bears heading to hell for the weather any minute :D

Seriously though, you're right that there are reasons to oppose the assault weapons ban for reasons other than hunting. I don't think it's a very useful ban, and I am also very much against hunting. It's sure as hell not a sport if you're using a semi-auto or fully-auto rifle to do it. Go after a bear with a knife and maybe I'll be impressed.

And honestly, the term "assault weapon" does seem a little silly. After all, it's a GUN, what the hell else am I going to do with it besides assault someone?

On the other hand, I think there are self-defense issues beyond gun ownership. Having a gun doesn't mean you can defend yourself any more than having a guitar means you can play Detroit Rock City. Whether or not someone is armed, the real issues seem to be behavioral and legal ones. In the first place, having the will and desire to defend yourself is something no object can provide, it's very much a cultural taboo for some people. And beyond that, from a legal perspective, even in places that allow you to own a gun, many of them seem to limit just how you can defend yourself with it (or with anything else, for that matter).

If someone attacks you, you are not always legally allowed to use enough force to make them stop. Many places have "proportional force" laws...which seems pretty silly. The whole point of being armed and/or knowing how to defend yourself is so that the fight is as UNfair as possible. If someone takes a swing at me, I'm not going to take a swing back and then stop, I'm going to kick him in the knee or elbow him in the face and keep going until he is no longer interested in attacking me. But in many places, that's not a legal way to defend yourself.
The majority of the country has "Castle Doctrine" now, with more to follow. Even your home state of Maryland has Castle Doctrine, as well as full-autos (pre-86) supressors, open carry and concealed carry. ;)
Yeah, but in Maryland, concealed carry is "may issue", as far as I know. And you have to demonstrate a good reason for wanting a permit, and unlike some states that ask for a reason, Maryland REALLY seems to care. As a result, only about 11,000 people in Maryland have CCW, and the organization Maryland Shall Issue has documented some pretty weird cases of permits being denied. Like a DC police officer who lives in Maryland being unable to obtain a permit even after getting a death threat from a gang member. Our current governor has a pretty strong anti-gun stance (I suppose guns get a bad rap in Baltimore), but the legislature seems more pro-gun, so we'll see... Between that and the restrictions on shipping wine to the state, Virginia doesn't look so bad. Too bad it's so damn far away from my job ;)

By the way, my one criticism of Castle Doctrine is that I think sometimes it encourages "no retreat" even when that's probably a good idea. I like having the option there, but under most circumstances, I wouldn't advise someone to die for their stereo if they could avoid it. But I suppose that's the risk you take with rights, and I'd rather have that right than not.
I think Castle Doctrine is entirely righteous. I have some issues with the "Stand your ground" bits attached to most Castle Doctrines that say that if you are in any place you have "a right to be" (ie: the sidewalk, Walmart, the bank) and someone threatens you with force, you can immediately respond with force with no duty to retreat. I like to think I can de-escalate most situations without coming to blows, sprays, or shots. But I suppose it's better to ere on the side of the victim.

Oh, and Maryland is a rather funny state for CCW. It's shall issue, but all of your local police seem to be against it. The state police, on the other hand, are big proponents of CCW. As a result, "non-resident" CCWs are easy to get (from the state police,) while you residents have a hard time getting them.

Of course it would be much simpler if every state just reciprocated with every other state, and New York City... well, burned to the ground. :D
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: rchiu
=snip-

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.
An AK-47 is NOT a high powered weapon, or rifle.

Actually, it's a rather weak and inaccurate firearm. Dependability/realiability is it's strong point. Very loose engineering tolerances allow it remain operable even clogged with dirt or sand.

I've got an ancient Moisin-Nagant (from the early 1900's) that's far far more powerful than any AK, not to mention about a bazillion hunting rifles that are far more powerful, accurate with and much much longer range

Fern
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: rchiu
=snip-

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.
An AK-47 is NOT a high powered weapon, or rifle.

Actually, it's a rather weak and inaccurate firearm. Dependability/realiability is it's strong point. Very loose engineering tolerances allow it remain operable even clogged with dirt or sand.

I've got an ancient Moisin-Nagant (from the early 1900's) that's far far more powerful than any AK, not to mention about a bazillion hunting rifles that are far more powerful, accurate with and much much longer range

Fern
Over on DU, when you present an argument like that, the gun-grabbers say, "Well good, if it's so underpowered and useless, you won't mind them being banned."
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,119
498
126
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: JD50


For one thing, you are wrong. There was a court case a while back that stated that the police do NOT have to protect you. The majority of the time, police arrive AFTER the crime has been committed, if you are relying on the police to protect you in the event of a rape, robbery, murder, home invasion, etc... then you are in for a rude awakening if anything like that were to ever happen to you.

Secondly, you never answered my question. How many crimes have been committed with an AK-47, since you seem to be concerned about criminals getting their hands on them.

Edit - I just skimmed over the article, but the first paragraph states "The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

Link
Heh, you pro-gun people loves to cite those few cases where police wasn't able to respond and make blanket statement that police don't have to protect people don't you? For everyone of those cases, there are hundreds cases where police saved people's live. Yes police are not meant to be body guards to everyone, they will never have the man power to do that, the court recognize that and have laws to prevent them being liable for someone they failed to protect. But in general, police response to help requests and make their best effort to protect everyone. I mistakenly dialed 911 once, and the police showed up at my door in 3 minutes.

And you gun lovers are just delusional thinking you don't need the police and you can protect you and your family with your assault weapons. If criminals want to get you , they will get you. Ever heard of ORGANIZED crimes? You think one of you will be able to fight off gangs and mafia if they want something from you? You must watch too many hollywood movie if you think you will be able to do that. That's the whole reason we need an organized police force to fight against organized criminals.

Oh and me talking about assault weapons? why don't you go back to the OP and read the article. The whole point of the thread is criminals are using more and more assault weapons, and that's why police need to be armed better. Next time you wanna get into a debate, know what we are debating first before jumping right in.
So you can't answer my question?

And speaking of knowing what you are talking about, you might want to take your own advice. Your first post in response to the OP was -

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.
Then you say

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.
If YOU knew what you were talking about, you would have known that AK-47's were legal even with the assault weapons ban, and you would have known that us "gun lovers" have no problem with the police having access to these weapons, as long as us "gun lovers" aka law abiding citizens, also have access to these weapons.

I'll say it again, if your idea of defending your home and your family from rape, robbery, burglary, murder, home invasion etc.. is waiting for the police to arrive, you are in for a deadly surprise. The majority of the time police arrive AFTER the fact, I was a cop for 3 years, I have a little bit more experience in this than you do.

So, one more time, how many crimes have been committed with the eeeevul AK-47 that you are so terrified of? Please don't respond with another bullshit emotional rant, I'd really like to see some facts that back up your fear of "assault weapons".

 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Bring Back Dirty Harry.

Just need a few good cops with 44 Magnums.

When I watch TV shows with cops chasing criminals, the bad guys always take off running from their crashed cars and the cops have to then chase them on foot. I think in cases like this we should just let the cops kill them if they run away. We need to stop being such panzies and just kill these people on the streets. What happens is these same thugs will just have to be chased down over and over. Kill them and be done with it.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
17
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
There are many incidences of shootouts and such using "assault weapons" during the ban. The AWB was a joke, it banned ridiculous things and let other things float. If you want to keep the ban to full-auto weapons, then do it. Even then, you're still talking about most of these weapons being semi-auto. Then what?

Criminals will always get guns. Look at Japan, you always see stories of the Yakuza having guns, yet citizens rarely can. You see stories of shootings by criminals everywhere in the world. Death by others means also is higher in those countries that ban guns, it just shifts.

Additionally, there is *one* reason why we have a right to have guns. If you look at all of the writings of the founding fathers, you can find that one reason. it is the reason why we have any freedoms at all, because those very people could and did have and use their guns. Many say that the democratic process should be more civilized and guns shouldn't be used. However, when the democratic process becomes corrupt, then the last resort is to remove corruption.

Leave guns alone.
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

If the price of corruption becomes death by an angry mob, engaging in corrupt behavior is seen as more risky.
Right now, the population has accepted corruption as "normal," and so it remains a popular activity. It is not pursued, prosecuted, or punished as severely as it should be.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,649
1,158
126
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
:thumbsup:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY