Nope they're suppose to keep unloading until they run out of bullets. If other cops are present they need to unload too. Which is completely retarded imo. If the suspect deserves death by firing squad, that should be determined by a judge not a cop.
Question: once the cops start shooting, does it only end with the suspect dying? Or can they still surrender and be taken alive?
If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop making ridiculous statements and speaking in hyperbole.
Cops should be able to meet fire with fire not be put into a situation where they bring a knife to a gun fight.
Question: once the cops start shooting, does it only end with the suspect dying? Or can they still surrender and be taken alive?
I hope you're not saying lawful Americans demanding constitutional gun rights is a bad thing, are you? If so we need to instead be pointing the finger at those who abuse gun rights, not those who exercising them lawfully "blowing holes in things from a distance." Anyway, this is why I believe we have little chance of ever having a gun ban in America.
America was theoretically founded by folks looking for freedom and economic opportunity. Basically folks who were looking for the freedom to exploit this land and they weren't afraid to use violence to do so. Just ask the Native Americans. And every little kid is told this is the land of opportunity. This is where you can achieve anything, where you have rights, where nobody can tell you what to do because you are one of the free and one of the brave.
Culturally, many Americans are drunk on rights and conveniently forget about their responsibilities to society, IMHO. Most folks handle those rights within the bounds of lawfulness, but a small number do not. So we can either try our best to keep guns out of the hands of those who abuse them criminally, or we ban them completely from the lawful as well.
Now here's the big question: exactly how do you do than in a country founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty? In America a person has certain rights unless they violate the law and those rights are revoked via due process in a court of law. That due process is essential if we want to limit the tyranny of government as much as possible. So, exactly how many rights are we willing to surrender because a small portion of folks abuse them? When is enough enough? And if we do sacrifice those rights and it doesn't achieve the safety we think it would, what then?
But, as I've said repeatedly, if someone thinks they've got the votes to change the constitution then go for it. I'll give up my guns when it's no longer my right to have them. Until then I'll continue to enjoy the shooting sports, hunting and know that in the unlikely event I should ever need to protect myself or my family that I have the means to at least attempt to do so.
And it would be something like 40 to 80 million US gun owners against around 2 million in the armed forces combined. Yeah if they want to drone/nuke a city block have at it. If they want to round people up that's a whole other messy irregular house to house warfare story the 2nd amendment is there to backstop against.the government has tanks, missiles, drones, and training.
And Private Pyle isn't going to shoot Uncle Bubba. That newly minted 2nd Lt might catch some friendly fire.And it would be something like 40 to 80 million US gun owners against around 2 million in the armed forces combined. Yeah if they want to drone/nuke a city block have at it. If they want to round people up that's a whole other messy irregular house to house warfare story the 2nd amendment is there to backstop against.
Hopefully, no president would ever be foolish enough to order the military to confiscate guns from American civilians. I can only imagine a huge majority would refuse the unconstitutional order, but I doubt it would EVER result in military in-fighting or the military firing on civilians.And Private Pyle isn't going to shoot Uncle Bubba. That newly minted 2nd Lt might catch some friendly fire.
Insults just mean you are out of logical points to argue. I stand by my statement that if you really believe cops are that dumb then you either live under a rock or are just using hyperbole to try and make your point. Hyperbole isn't a logical argument.My statement was unadulterated fact in response to someone else's hyperbole. Go back to your middle school library, check out a dictionary and maybe a thesaurus and try again.
Insults just mean you are out of logical points to argue. I stand by my statement that if you really believe cops are that dumb then you either live under a rock or are just using hyperbole to try and make your point. Hyperbole isn't a logical argument.
Lawful Americans aren't the problem- it's the fact that multi-round versions of military style death machines are publicly accessible, meaning any seemingly healthy person that suddenly snaps can take out a room full of people in a few seconds. I've never been comfortable with 15 round handguns, 50 round semi-automatic rifles, and long range-high velocity rifles being sold to citizens. These weapons are specifically designed to kill humans and people want them simply for the fact it makes them feel powerful.
Hunters can use bolt action or pump action rifles. Same with sports. The best home defense weapon for home defense is a 12 gauge firing buckshot- accuracy won't play a role and the shot won't go through several walls to possibly injure neighbors. Public handguns IMO should be limited to 6 rounds. I also feel that every gun owner must have a license that has to be renewed every 1-2 years...like a drivers license. Those arguments about "What if the government tries to take over..." or "learn your history" are all hogwash: the government has tanks, missiles, drones, and training. Your AR-15 you got from a trade show would not be effective against that (and a sudden police state shift would be incredibly unlikely in today's world anyway).
This is just the way I feel and an no way to I impose my feelings on others. It just makes logical sense to me and would go a long way in curtailing random public mass shootings.
I think if you read back through what I said and what it was in response to, and, spend some time thinking about it, you will realize I am right.
This is not P&N, I like to think we are a smarter class of people here in OT.
If you mean you can't tell who is a criminal and who is not just by looking at them, then I agree. You can never tell who will try to attack you until they do. Cops have lost their lives on simple traffic stops when a person they stopped seemed compliant but then suddenly attacked.
If you mean most cops are too dumb to know when to and when not to shoot someone then I disagree with you.
We're done here.
It will be a "slow crawl" to banning if it goes that way.Hopefully, no president would ever be foolish enough to order the military to confiscate guns from American civilians. I can only imagine a huge majority would refuse the unconstitutional order, but I doubt it would EVER result in military in-fighting or the military firing on civilians.
Members of our military almost universally believe they fighting to protect freedom and the American people. They fight for each other. They've accepted that they may even lay down their lives to protect their country. Good luck ever getting them to go to war against their own law-abiding, civilian, gun-owning population, a fair number of which are vets themselves.
Doubt that. Hoarding became a thing with just that kind of talk. Someone I know had to buy a 4 drawer file cabinet to hold his. He doesn't even shoot much any more.Confiscating all the guns........... nearly impossible.
Drying up the ammunition............ much easier.
Doubt that. Hoarding became a thing with just that kind of talk. Someone I know had to buy a 4 drawer file cabinet to hold his. He doesn't even shoot much any more.
Look at all the cities and states that have magazine restrictions, bullet buttons requirements, assault weapons bans, waiting periods and tell me it's done a single thing to stop gun violence. You can't. No weapon prohibition has ever worked in America to change the hearts and minds of sick/evil/criminal individuals bent on doing their fellow man harm with a gun.
I understand that if we could make all the guns go away we'd have to fight with knives and pointed sticks. I just don't know how to achieve that. It seems to me like a lot of folks want to start by making the law-abiding give up their guns first, because they have ZERO ability to stop evil/sick/criminal from arming themselves with whatever they want. And that's folly, IMHO.
Law abiding gun owners are the low hanging fruit everyone harasses because they can't control the crazies who actually do the killing. We have zero ability to downgrade the 350 million guns in circulation in the country to shotguns and revolvers only. Not to mention the vast majority of gun violence is committed with handguns. Long guns barely chart.
And, for the record, I'm not a black rifle gun. The highest capacity firearm I own is a lever action .22 rifle. I'm mostly into cowboy guns, cap and ball black power revolvers and muzzleloaders.
I understand that if we could make all the guns go away we'd have to fight with knives and pointed sticks. I just don't know how to achieve that. It seems to me like a lot of folks want to start by making the law-abiding give up their guns first, because they have ZERO ability to stop evil/sick/criminal from arming themselves with whatever they want. And that's folly, IMHO.
You wouldn't want the politicians to lose out on a divisive topic, would you?American cops aren't going to use rubber bullets, we aren't going to take away peoples guns or ammo and if you don't like it move to Europe.
Discussion over. You're welcome.
Well, the way we could do this is by banning guns. (Not that I agree with this, but you raised the point.) And then anytime someone was caught with a gun, they'd go to jail. And they'd ask who sold them their gun, and they'd go to jail. And eventually there would be no guns, just like in some other countries. Is this so hard to understand?
True. OT isn't ignorant at all.wow...lots of ignorance here. Why is this in OT and not in P&N?
It has been said that a well armed citizenry helps ensure our freedom. It doesn't really help if there they have nothing to run through their firearms.
Not saying it is going to happen, just that it is the far more likely scenario than confiscation.
The percentage of people who have ammo set back is probably pretty small. When the shtf they are probably unlikely to freely distribute it. Probably see some bartering.
Both are unlikely scenarios, but hope for the best and prepare for the worst I guess.