• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Only cops should have guns

OfTheDamned said:
Good lord Bob, use the
multiquote_off.gif
for multi-quoting in the future.
Click to expand...

So how did I do what I did? Or what did I do wrong? No need to bother the list, PM me.

Bob
 
*sigh*

Well, perhaps it is because it is legal to do so? Ordinary people do not generally own fully automatic weapons.
Click to expand...


More own them than you think. they are (under current laws) a fairly good investment item...

You pay big fees and you need background checks,
Click to expand...

Yep

you need a license,
Click to expand...

BUZZZ! Wrong answer!

Actually, what you get from the government is a tax stamp. Looks like a postage stamp, but it's a good couple inches square. Costs $200, and you need one for each full-auto or suppressor you own...

and there are severe restrictions on ownership and how you can use the gun.
Click to expand...

Again, wrong. There aren't really any laws governing where/how you can use one. At least, not at the federal level.

Some states ban their ownership, but those are state laws. Some municipalities do, too.

But assuming that your state and locality allow ownership, you can legally use one anywhere you would normally go shooting (some ranges don't allow them either, but that's not a law).

Carrying one (as with a CCW) wouldn't be wise: if you (gods forbid) were involved in a defensive shooting, you're making it through the grand jury/trial/civil case would be nil...

Also, you would need to mortgage your trailer home in order to buy enough ammo to have a good afternoon shooting at the range.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely true. And reloading ("Rolling your own") is NOT something you do with FA, for multiple reasons...
 
If police are going around shooting at cars because of loud noises... there is SERIOUSLY something wrong. It's that kind of shoot first ask questions later attitude that gets innocent people killed. And they came DAMN close to doing it in this scenario.

Those officers should be doing jail time right now.
Damn the government really pisses me off sometimes :mad:
 
I'm going to go ahead and skim past most of the discussion on here and say this; outlawing guns only enhances the chance of the criminal using it to their advantage.

A criminal isn't going to think twice about getting/using a gun illegally, cause they're already breaking the law. Example: if they're breaking into your house, the've already committed a crime, why would they choose not to be armed?

If they had the choice to go into a house that didn't have a gun owner, to one that did, i'm pretty sure that they would skip past the risk of being possibly capped in the middle of the robbery.

If criminals were a bit more wary of civillians owning guns, i'm pretty sure that they would think twice about pulling out that cannon, if they knew that the person they were robbing had one too.
 
tommy_ed said:
Those officers should be doing jail time right now.
Damn the government really pisses me off sometimes :mad:
Click to expand...

Anyone else starts shooting at a car that backfires, and they do jail time, but not cops. Cops get a free pass. Cops should be bound by the same laws as the general public is.
 
byteware said:
Anyone else starts shooting at a car that backfires, and they do jail time, but not cops. Cops get a free pass. Cops should be bound by the same laws as the general public is.
Click to expand...
Yup
Personally I think that if someone harms a police officer they should pay a far higher price than if they harmed an ordinary civilian
But I think that principle should apply too when a member of the Police commits a crime, they must pay a far higher price than if an ordinary civilian committed the same crime
 
shadowninty said:
Yup
Personally I think that if someone harms a police officer they should pay a far higher price than if they harmed an ordinary civilian
But I think that principle should apply too when a member of the Police commits a crime, they must pay a far higher price than if an ordinary civilian committed the same crime
Click to expand...

In the U.S., certain higher courts like the 9th circuit court, would likely rule that it's cruel and unusual punishment if a police officer were obligated to serve a more significant sentence than a citizen would serve for the same crime.

Personally I think the police officer simply needs to be held accountable for his/her actions. There should be no preferential treatment and officers should understand that if they commit a serious crime they will be punished AND placed in the general prison population to serve their sentence. Frequently, imprisoned police officers are sent to country club prisons or placed in solitary confincement to keep them away from the general prison population. After all, prisons are filled with violent wacko's who'd love to take a little revenge on a police officer within easy reach.
 
^^ frequently imprisoned?
iirc they usually get dismissed here if they commit a crime worthy of imprisonment
I cant remember the last time I heard of a Gard being jailed, the media makes a fuss here about that kind of thing
 
byteware said:
Anyone else starts shooting at a car that backfires, and they do jail time, but not cops. Cops get a free pass. Cops should be bound by the same laws as the general public is.
Click to expand...

I think the scary part is that cops have specialized training. Even I can tell the difference between an engine backfire and a firearm.....without special training. Maybe there are too many cops working on traffic violations that help pay for their salary and not enough pursuing actual crime, where the solution pays nothing.
 
Batgeek: you're an H&K fanboy, but have a Sig logo as your avatar. What's up with that?

And you DID know that H&Ks stand on "civilians" is "You suck. And we hate you", right? :P
Click to expand...

i'm a fanboy of quality firearms. i only own 1 HK pistol, almost all of the rest are SIGs.

i don't fault a firearm manufacturer for going for the money where the money is, even if they choose to neglect other aspects of the market.

:)
 
Sorry... was quoting a friend of mine with the "you suck..." line... ;)

Actually, my wife's first handgun was a USP compact. And she LOVES the MP 5. But their disdain for the civilian market, coupled with the "fanboi" attitude some have (especially when they haven't actually shot anything, only played counterstrike) kinda rubs me wrong...
 
oh i know, i've heard the line before. :)

i bought the P2000SK before SIG had anything that size(double stack sub-compact). i was carrying a P239 for my light clothing carry weapon prior to that.

SIGs QC has gotten pretty crappy over the last 10 years, and that's why i haven't bought one since 1999. was gonna try the P238 but it just didn't feel right in my hand....and i'm very happy with the HK.

i wish i could shoot Glocks well. that funky grip angle throws me off, and they don't point naturally for me. i would love to only spend ~$500 instead of the $700+ for pistols that i usually spend. maybe my next pistol purchase will be a S&W M&P series pistol. i kinda like them. :)
 
I've not been disapointed with the Springfield xd. I figure if you are looking at the M&P series the Xd is right up there? And I typically only own sigs also.
 
I certainly haven't heard anything bad about the XD. Usually hear it described as a Glock with a grip safety...

Personally, my carry pieces are a Beretta M9 (large for my hands, but I can't seem to miss with one), Colt 1991 compact, and a Smith 19. Looking at a Taurus 651 to leave in my colors though...
 
Strings said:
I certainly haven't heard anything bad about the XD. Usually hear it described as a Glock with a grip safety...
Click to expand...

The XD grip angle feels a bit more natural IMO than the Glock. The subcompact XD 9mm is an incredibly nice gun for the price, and holds only one less round than my Glock 17, while being much more concealable. Also, the trigger is lighter and smoother from the factory than any Glock. However, the reset point for the trigger is too far forward in my experience and makes follow up shots hard for me since I'm so used to the Glock trigger.

I'm not about to go trade my gun in for an XD, but I would likely take one over a Glock if I was buying it right now.

My next gun will be a 1911. ;)
 
You really can't go wrong with a decent 1911. And there are almost as many options for them as there are for Androids!
 
Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.
Heinrich Himmler
 
personally, i love this one:

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. - Mahatma Gandhi

which goes along with this one:


Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws. - Edward Abbey
 
I carry a gun because carrying a cop is just too damn heavy.

"Better police"? What would you suggest: a cop on every corner of every city, and stationed on every house out in the countryside?

We carry weapons to deal with threats: those can be two legged, four legged, even no legged. You're no less dead from a criminal's assault, a mountain lion's attack, or a snake bite (to give an example of each).

And criminals really aren't afraid of police. They do, however, tend to be a little more concerned about armed victims.
 
police do not stop crime. they are there just to clean up after the fact.

a well run Neighborhood Watch program, with an actual visable presence, deters more crime than a couple of police cars rolling through a neighborhood once or twice a shift.
 
There is case law on the books saying exactly that: the police have no duty to protect you from crime.

Case in New York: girl was being stalked by an ex. Including threats of death or great bodily harm. Police told her they couldn't take action until he actually DID something. When she asked if she could get a gun to protect herself, she was told "no" (New York city has some messed up gun laws).

Guy ended up hiring a goon. Goon knocked on her door: when she opened it a crack to see who it was, goon threw acid on her face.

She tried suing the NYPD for failure to protect her, and failed. One of the NYSC Justices stated in his opinion that it is ridiculous that we're telling our citizenry that they can't protect themselves, but that the police have no duty to protect them (not quoting)...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom