HOME | DD
Reddbecca — Police firepower
Published: 2007-02-24 16:20:22 +0000 UTC; Views: 2016; Favourites: 18; Downloads: 22
Redirect to original
Description
Can't help but wonder can you? Opponents of gun rights are always saying that "assault weapons" have no purpose other than killing people. So why are police given firearms, whose only purpose is "killing people"?Either the anti-gunners and the left-wing liberals are lying, or the order has been handed down for on-duty police officers to start killing people en masse. And personally I don't think it's the latter option.
Related content
Comments: 59
Easy-and-quick explanation: assault weapons offers tactical advantages over smaller, less-powerful firearms law enforcement officers carry often, having in mind that local law-enforcement needs to be prepared for almost any situation (a shootout with the Mob, an aggressive invading force, heavily armed criminals.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
not all law enforcement carry these, it is mostly the big agencies or the ones with big or large crime rates...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mine does and we live in a real small town.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ours is a town of about 500 thought.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My city only has 80000 people living here and the Police here has ten officers the have rifles the rest have small 9mm handguns and the gangs that live here have been mentioned in ganglangs and several federal investigations on drug cartels from Ireland and Mexico.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Supposedly, law enforcement officers are trustable...BUT there have been VERY bad incidents where a cop can "go bad." But yes, police are seldom on a crime scene in the DURING phase; typically AFTER the scene is Already over...THAT point rings valid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Riots that go out of control. And the AR-15 has no auto attachment only semi-auto
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We need and deserve them more than the police do. Because we're always at the scene when the shit goes down, long before the police get there to try and restore order.
And aren't the police supposed to handle riots with nonlethal means, rather than killing people off in an indiscriminate fashion?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree with the whole we can have guns too thing, and civilians can buy AR-15s'
the M-16 and M-4 are military grade. And when there are 60 riot officers with batons and riot shields mostly against 200+ rioters yeah, lethal force is sometimes necessary.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I like you Reddbecca... you hit the nail on the head.
I agree by the way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
All guns were designed for killing. Its what a gun does. My dad's prized hunting rifles are descended, and not too distantly, from the rifles carried by German infantry in WW1. The idea that an assault rifle, or any automatic /semi-automatic weapon, is a valid "hunting weapon" is asinine. My dad has hunted since before I was born. He uses bolt-action rifles. Why? Because he doesn't need armor piercing, semi or full automatic fire to drop a deer. A soldier needs it bacause every bullet downrange is one more chance to hit the enemy. Even dad's trasured Mauser was inteded, and if he wanted, still could, kill a human. Difference between a deer and a human? The deer is less annoying, and the human less tasty in steak form.
Personally, I think if we had to eat what we kill, homicides would fade. Or, given human nature, canibalims would probably come into vogue. Forget I wrote that.
As I recall, the right to bear arms was envisoned as a tool whereby legitimate millitas could be mustered by the US government to fight enemies, like at the time the British. I doubt the founding fathers meant it as liscence to own an M16 to blast wildlife.
Mind you, the rabbits have it coming. Stupid rabbits.
Police keep assault rifles because, as techically legimate agents of the government and social order, of the state, that state has the perceived moral authority to use force. Its a defining charactersitic of the state, the theoretical monopoloy on force. Mind you, any utility the police can get out of an assault rifle shold be able to be met with submachine guns, more useful in urban, close quarters environments, or sniper rifles, which are more accurate and spare the "spray". Assault rifles were designed for war; its why they are temed "assault rifles". They are intended to send as many bullets towards the enemy as an infantryman can; look at the AK-47, considered one of the most pure examples of the type. It is, and nicely, designd to spray rounds, at realtively short range, to kill; the M-16 was designed to be more accurate, but still, to kill, and kill humans. Of course, the submachine gun was designed for "trenchsweeping" in World War 1, mind you, which was, literally, spraying bullets. As was the original intention behind machine guns, which were intended to spray rounds downfield at approaching infantry. World War 1 was brutal testmament to that fact. That most assault rifles are now semiautomatic is a testament to the fact that a trained soldier can do more with a 3 round burst than by spraying ammo downrange, and waste fewer bullets. It isn't to make tem less lethal. Just more efficient.
Of course there are idiots in police; such are human organaizations, and humans tend to spawn idiocy. Not to mention poor judgement. But I would rather have automatic weapons in so-called "legitimate" hands, mistrust for government notwistanding, if only because there are more controls over such hands than private ones. Flaws in the organaizations what they are, police are trained, and held to a higher standard, even if that standard may not be met. But police are standard-issued revolvers or automatic pistols; unless I'm mistaken, automatic weapons are pulled out only in the event that those fail. The fact is, that guns, in the hands of civilians, are one thing; guns in the hans of criminals are another. But what happens when the gun someone bought to defend their home is stolen by the burglar who it was supposed to defend against? Or when tempers flare, and instead of reaching for a bat, or using one's fists, there is a handgun handy, maybe an automatic weapon? Most murders, statistically, are crimes of passion, of the molment. Watch how people drive, and guess how responsible most people are with lethal instruments. It is true' guns don't kill people. People kill people. A great deal can be used to kill with enough creativity and the wrong intentions. Personally, that's all the more reason guns should be restricted. Not banned; restricted. If you need a semiautomatic rifle to hunt, maybe you should work on your marksmanship.
People are bad enough with cars; guns? Oh, joy. I think of the idiots who drive around on a Friday night. Then I imagine them with guns. I already ride my bicycle on the sidewalk; how much to flak jackets cost?
Well, this is what happens when I have an open Saturday afternoon, internet access, and the idle thought of "What will come up if i enter 'firepower' into the Da search engine?". I'm gonna go play Doom 3.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Well, I got news for you. I have used my 50 AE and 12 gauge in self defense twice. If you had your way, I would be underground right now. And why should I give up my arms because some north St. Louis crackhead wants to shoot it out with another and they wont give up their illegal arms like they did not give up on illegal machinguns. If criminals have access to it, legal or not, I should to, too fight them off.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No offense, but I stopped following that post quite some time ago. So, its not news to me; its more of an annoyance.
I will say this, though; just because criminals have access to something doesn't make a good reason for us having it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
uhm, ya it does, because all your hurting is the citizens who DONT COMMIT CRIMES. As far as I am concerned, you can own up to 40 mm. grenade launchers and machineguns. Because we are free and its in our constitution. Example: I own over 50 different guns, but I dont need that many. Why, then you ask? Because I'm free and I can.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Whatever. I'm sure you can find someone who cars]es to argue to argue with you. Do that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Its always a "whatever" you just don't care enough about your socialistic values that you can't even move your fingers to type. Shows how much of a lazy slumbag you are even with your values.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow. Personal attacks. You want a little fight. Nothing more, nothing less. Combine that with your 40 guns, must be overcompensating. You call me a lazy scumbag; I say I have better things to do than to indulge someone with way too much time on his hands.
That would be you.
Happy?
I don't care to indulge YOU. Period. You want a fight for its own sake, and bastardize politics and rights for it. Its the internet; sure you can find someone. This is Deviant Art, not the NRA weboards.
So no, jackass, I am not going to respond. You want a fight, go play somewhere else, with someone else.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You just know that you cant fight the facts, you expect a monologue from your part, but the second facts are presented you dismiss and go back to the monologue fairy world, no wonder you guys cant debate worth of shit w/o a teleprompter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
He uses bolt-action rifles. Why? Because he doesn't need armor piercing, semi or full automatic fire to drop a deer.
So you're saying a .30-06, or a .270, or whatever caliber your father uses for hunting, is incapable of penetrating standard police issue body armor, that was only designed for stopping handgun rounds up to the .357 Magnum?
As I recall, the right to bear arms was envisoned as a tool whereby legitimate millitas could be mustered by the US government to fight enemies, like at the time the British.
Well you recall wrong. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, they're not to empower the government to do anything. Their purpose is to restrict and restrain the powers of the government to keep them from becoming too Orwellian in nature. The Second Amendment is about average people being able to resist threats to our lives, not about the government having troops.
If the Second Amendment were about the government being able to raise the militia, it'd be obsolete because they now have the National Guard.
Assault rifles were designed for war; its why they are temed "assault rifles".
And exactly what is it about the civilian legal semi-automatic rifles that makes them "assault rifles"? Further, why doesn't the military use semi-automatic rifles on the battlefields anymore?
They are intended to send as many bullets towards the enemy as an infantryman can; look at the AK-47, considered one of the most pure examples of the type. It is, and nicely, designd to spray rounds, at realtively short range, to kill; the M-16 was designed to be more accurate, but still, to kill, and kill humans. Of course, the submachine gun was designed for "trenchsweeping" in World War 1, mind you, which was, literally, spraying bullets.
Then how come the military no longer uses fully automatic fire, but rather three round bursts?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, I never said a hunting rifle coudn't penetrate body armor. The critique is that he doesn't need semiautomatic fire. If he misses with the first shot, he misses with the first shot. He doesn't see the need to squeeze off round after round until he hits something, or a 3 round burst.
He also doesn't use dynamite when he fishes, either, but that might be taking the argument a little far.
As for the Constitution, you have me there. Does it say anything about responsibiilities of the people? There is the right to bear arms, but what of the responsibility to bear them responsibly?
Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't the M16 have a semiautomatic setting? Isn't it used on the battlefield? The Chinese still use the Type 56, a derivative of the Russian SKS. Many national armies still ahve large stocks of semi-automatics in reserve in any case. Also, many sniper rifles are semi-automatic. As for designating a weapon an "assault rifle", true; an assault rifle is, by establsihed technical defintion, automatic. So why would I label "civilan legal semi-automatic rifle" an assault rifle? There are several variants of the AK-47 which are semi-automatic; the AK-47 itself can be readily modded to semiautomatic, and back. Its status as an assault rifle is therefore mutable. Despite attempts to ban it, the semi-automatic AK is legal in the United States. The caliber is the same, the only difference is the lack of fully automatic fire. Which can be restored. Admittedly, other semi-automatic rifles are less easily modified. The AR-15 might not technically be an M16, but it comes in semi and full automatic models. Is it an assault rifle? Assault rifle or not, is it any less lethal?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The critique is that he doesn't need semiautomatic fire. If he misses with the first shot, he misses with the first shot. He doesn't see the need to squeeze off round after round until he hits something, or a 3 round burst.
So if he misses with the first shot he shouldn't be able to have an immediate followup shot to get the animal while it's still in his sights?
As for the Constitution, you have me there. Does it say anything about responsibiilities of the people? There is the right to bear arms, but what of the responsibility to bear them responsibly?
No but it doesn't speak of responsibility anywhere. But then again that's not the point.
Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't the M16 have a semiautomatic setting? Isn't it used on the battlefield?
Last I checked, but what's your point? They're selective fire and can be set for three round bursts.
Also, many sniper rifles are semi-automatic.
And snipers usually do a one hit one kill kinda thing. So why wouldn't a semi-automatic be just fine for taking care of deer?
The caliber is the same, the only difference is the lack of fully automatic fire. Which can be restored.
Not without extensive work and machining. Otherwise the BATFE would never allow it to be sold.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If he wanted easy, he'd so what my sister-in-law's uncle did. HE hunted in a fenced in enclosure.
As for the part about the Constitution and responsiblioity, more's the pity. Rights should come with responsibility.
My point about fire selectivity is that the M16 is, technically, also a semiautomaitic, and is used on the battlefield. Hence, a semiautomatic used on the battlefield.
Well, the deer doesn't shoot back. Although, I always wondered if that wouldn't make hunting more interesting...sniper deer...
Whether the BATFE allows it or not is kind of academic. The Federal Assaul Weapon Ban was in place from 1994 to 2004; manufacturers complied with the letter of the law. For example, the AB-10 was a post-ban version of the TEC-9, with barrel threading, and barrel shroud removed; the XM-15 was a legal AR-15 without barrel threading, or a bayonet mounting lug; post-ban semi-automatic AK-47s were also sold without folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and with standard or "thumbhole" stocks instead of pistol-grips. As the production of large-capacity magazines for civilians had also been prohibited, manufacturers sold their post-ban firearms either with newly-manufactured magazines with capacities of ten rounds or less, or with pre-ban manufactured high-capacity magazines, to meet changing legal requirements. Gun laws tend to be like that; for the most part, ineffectualy applied, save in high profile cases. Canada tried a Federal Gun Registry; aside from using up billions, it did nothing. Well, not othing; there have been allegations hackers broke in, and several gun collectors burgled. And then there was the people who, in protest, registed their guns...cap guns, nail guns, glue guns...
Comes right down to it, a government can ban guns, register guns, whatever it wants. It doesn't affect criminals, angers non-criminal gun owners, and consumes resources.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If he wanted easy, he'd so what my sister-in-law's uncle did. HE hunted in a fenced in enclosure.
How about vermin like prairie dogs and gophers? The AR-15 is used extensively for that.
And why not? The .223/5.56 NATO is a sized up version of the .222, which was a varmint cartridge to begin with.
As for the part about the Constitution and responsiblioity, more's the pity. Rights should come with responsibility.
So to enjoy your human rights you should be required to display responsibility? Oh yeah that's a good idea, "You haven't proven yourself to be responsible enough, your rights are hereby revoked." That's not the concept of rights, that's the concept of a privelage. And if you want privelages instead of rights then go to Britain.
My point about fire selectivity is that the M16 is, technically, also a semiautomaitic, and is used on the battlefield. Hence, a semiautomatic used on the battlefield.
And your point is off at an angle and away from the target. The troops don't use the semi-automatic setting on the battlefield, they use the three round burst fire. There's a huge difference.
The Federal Assaul Weapon Ban was in place from 1994 to 2004; manufacturers complied with the letter of the law. For example, the AB-10 was a post-ban version of the TEC-9, with barrel threading, and barrel shroud removed; the XM-15 was a legal AR-15 without barrel threading, or a bayonet mounting lug; post-ban semi-automatic AK-47s were also sold without folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and with standard or "thumbhole" stocks instead of pistol-grips. As the production of large-capacity magazines for civilians had also been prohibited, manufacturers sold their post-ban firearms either with newly-manufactured magazines with capacities of ten rounds or less, or with pre-ban manufactured high-capacity magazines, to meet changing legal requirements.
And during the 94-04 period you could still legally buy a defined "assault weapon" or high capacity magazine from a previous owner and there was nothing in the law against it. So nothing was banned except the new manufacturing of them.
Comes right down to it, a government can ban guns, register guns, whatever it wants.
Maybe in your neck of the woods, but they sure as hell can't do it here in America. They've tried, they've failed, and those who tried lost office and are ridiculed and held up as examples of the true enemy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A semiautomatic rifle to hunt GOPHERS? Just what caliber is needed to kill something that small?
No, rights without responsibility is entitlement, which is more British artistocriatic. European nobility thought they had rights, but no responisbility, and as a result, most lost those rights, to people willing to demand rights. Those who have had to fight for them appreciate them the most. Someone who is willing to do their part for society, to maintain it, instead of sitting back expecting things for free, isn't that person better? "Ask not what my country can do for you" is out of fashon these days, but the idea always seemed at the core of patriotism.
So many people shout about their rights. If more people gave a crap about their responisibilities, then the'd have the governments they want. Instead, they get the ones they deserve.
You have me on the m16 part.
Thanks for the clarification on the ban.
It was more of an exasperated statment, going towards the futility of governments doing so. And in "my neck of the woods", there are more shotguns and bolt action rifles than semiautomatics or their like. I grew up with one by the door.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A semiautomatic rifle to hunt GOPHERS? Just what caliber is needed to kill something that small?
Depends on how far away you're hunting, although usual bullet weight is anywhere between 40 grains and 100 grains. The .223 used by the AR-15 is usually 55 grains in weight, the .22 Magnum and .22 LR are 40 grains.
No, rights without responsibility is entitlement, which is more British artistocriatic.
Having to prove responsibility before you can enjoy something is the concept of a privelage, not a right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then there are not enough privleges.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Priveleges can be revoked at a moment's notice without warning or reason, and they don't have to be given back, ever.
Does that sound like the way life should be?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you're missing my point. What I'm saying is thar rights should come with responsibility. If you want the right to bear arms, you should have the responsibility to do so, well, responsibly. Rights can be revoked too; get declared a "terrorist", and you have no rights, in the US or Canada. Revoked without notice, or legal recourse.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
M16, chosen because of accurate delivery of the 225 round. Current variation features the removal of the automatic setting in favor of the 3 round burst.
Sending "wild sprays" of bullets to kill the masses since the 1960's
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First, it's the .223, not the .225.
Also the military has the M-16 variant, the police have the AR-15 variant, which is semi-automatic and lacks selective fire capabilities due to the nature of the surrounding territory that they're forced to operate in and the nature of their job.
If they're spraying bullets it's because the shooter is being a jackass.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I've been hearing the .224 term thrown around more recently and I just go and scratch my head.
I also ask myself: if the name is .223 remington then where in the world did the .224 designation come from? o.O
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well .224" is the actual bullet diameter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never heard some people call it .224 until last year so every time I hear .224 my eyebrows start raising.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I was being sarcastic. Sorry for any confusion and the typo.
The police here use a mix of ar-15s, m16 and m16a2s(which are being phased out... slowly...)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Um, the original designs were for wartime use, but the police models are usually semi-automatic and for use against up-armored criminals because assault rifles, especially the A15/M16 line were designed with penetration of body armor in mind, which makes them and ideal choice for a high powered police back-up weapon.
Beside that the need for high powered back-ups means that the most common military surplus weapons are going to be a common choice, the M16 being something that the government has in droves, and if you look at the picture you can clearly see that the cop is holding an XM16 or A1- ie something really outdated for war.
Look, I am against a lot of the supressive and hypocritical polices of the government, especially in recent years, but this is just reaching for straws.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's supposed to show that the anti-gunners are talking out of their asses when they say shit like "these guns were designed only for killing" and that "they spray ammunition in an inaccurate manner solely for inflicting the most damage over a given area" and other such stupidity.
If these guns were designed for that, the police would never get them even if criminals were using body armor. You don't give an uncontrollable killing weapon to those that are supposed to protect the populace.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not regular police, but the ATF. Whenever Democrats are in control, they use the ATF as their version of the KGB.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well...*I* "get it.
While the YouTube "Glock Fotay" clip is a great way to "own" people that say 'cops are better trained to handle guns than "civvies" are....
Cops ALSO help make mincemeat of the "guns are only used to kill people" argument. In two big ways that I can see:
1) Even though they carry guns daily, cops are not known to go on sprees of killing random people just because "having the gun makes it easy."
2) More importantly, cops being armed and USING guns in their duties drives home the point: Sometimes good people HAVE to kill bad peope, in order to preserve the lives or health of OTHER good people!
Guns DO "help" kill people, when in the hands of good people that are faced with deadly thread from bad people. But at the same time, the gun is also helping to protect good people.
Now, a gun in the hands of a bad guy - that may help the bad guy MURDER someone.
Since criminals are not known for obeying gun control laws, hopefully they will still allow us "law abiding citizens" parity with the firepower of criminals...!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
but, cops are known to go on sprees where they beat mass crowds of people because someone says so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
$*#!..."thread" = threat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
But...But...there here to protect us.....
we use them on gophers and coyotes
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
good question but poor "answer". These weapons were developed under government contract for military use in war. In other words, the efficient and effective killing of groups of people by soldier. Why are they given to cops? Answer: Poor judgment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Scare tactics- if you were hiding in a building, what would scare you more, a small handgun or a large assault rifle?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's incorrect. What we know as "assault weapons" are SEMI-AUTOMATIC versions of fully-automatic military weapons, they couldn't be sold the general public otherwise. That means the AR-15, the AK-47 and many other defined "assault weapons" operate in much the same way a standard police handgun operates.
The police are being issued AR-15s not because the criminals have access to more guns that most police are issued, or because that the criminals are better skilled than they are. The reason police are getting these is because the criminals have body armor.
Anybody remember the North Hollywood Shootout? Two bank robbers in Level 4 body armor, armed with illegally converted fully-automatic rifles, able to effectively fight against the many police on the scene because even though the police were shooting them and landing solid hits, the body armor effectively neutralized the pistol rounds.
There were reports of police going to a local gun store to get more ammunition and hunting rifles, with ammunition designed for hunting big game which might stand the best chance of punching through such heavy armoring.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your piece argues that these weapons are not for killing large amounts of people and your evidence is that cops are allowed to have them. This is poor argumentation.
My argument is that all guns are designed to kill and military weapons and assault rifles are specifically engineered to do this quickly and efficiently. Sometimes, cops (and soldiers) need to kill - but that is what guns are for!
As for the incident you cite (the North Hollywood shootout), the cops needed armour pearcing bullets, not automatic weapons. A couple of well placed armour pearcing rounds would have ended the tragedy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>