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
- 11,631
- 2,016
- 126
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
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.
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.
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,550
- 4
- 81
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 46,031
- 33,012
- 136
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
- 12
- 76
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
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
- 12
- 76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Interesting, I find myself agreeing with Nebor. I expect to see polar bears heading to hell for the weather any minute
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.
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Interesting, I find myself agreeing with Nebor. I expect to see polar bears heading to hell for the weather any minute
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
- 12
- 76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Interesting, I find myself agreeing with Nebor. I expect to see polar bears heading to hell for the weather any minute
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.
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
We've taken this thread way off topic, let's get back to business.
In 2008 we can look forward to these new "assault weapons":
The FN SCAR
The H&K 416
The Kriss Super-V
All will be available to the general public by the end of 2008. It's a good year for guns!
In 2008 we can look forward to these new "assault weapons":
The FN SCAR
The H&K 416
The Kriss Super-V
All will be available to the general public by the end of 2008. It's a good year for guns!
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 173
- 106
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
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,631
- 2,016
- 126
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 -
Then you say
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".
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.
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
- 19
- 81
"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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter