Police getting more firepower

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Good God

And our UK police have truncheons

I suppose shooting individual protesters can get tiresome, just spray them with a clip instead, problem solved.

What kind of truncheon did they shoot Jean Charles de Menezes with then?

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Surely if the citizens of the U.S are allowed automatic weapons then it would be sensible to give the Police the same firepower. I for one would like to see the outlawing of all guns in your wonderful country.

Why would you be so interested in what happens in our country? I'd be more concerned about the state your own is in based on my last visit to that socialist paradise.

It's always ironic when Brits see fit to pontificate on how we Americans really shouldn't be allowed to own firearms, ironic because we needed them to boot you people out during the Revolution.

More Police departments getting AR-15 rifles seems like a good idea if there is to be an exchange of fire with criminals. Many PD's have rifles and shotguns in squad cars, already. Historically, Winchester rifles and shotguns were preferred weapons for gunfights in the 1800's because they had more punch and the rifles had greater accuracy than the Colt pistols. One could accurately shoot one's opponent from the safety of cover. Bonnie and Clyde were laid low by shotguns and BAR's in the hands of law enforcement. The AR-15/M-16/Stoner-type rifles do not fire as powerful a round as M-14/M-1/BAR's, but they beat any combat pistol when in the crap and are not a bad option given costs, availability, training, weight, rate-of-fire and handling advantages.

reply to post by orangetom1999


Calm down. Well done for you being proud of being a yank, i am very happy for you. I would just like to point out the murder rate in your country with guns compared to the rest of the world, and then rest my case.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.neahin.org...

And i will discuss anything i please.

reply to post by Retseh


Well as my parents live in your country, i am concerned with what happens in regards to gun violence, so i will say what i please. Just as you are free to say what you please on other issuse concerning other countries.

reply to post by Retseh


And as for the American revolution i think you will find that you never actually defeated us on the battlefield. We just had enough of you and let you have it.

And your American governments have treated your people so much better than the English did right? Nice bit of slavery going on, nice bit of racisim installed in law with the Jim Crowe laws, nice little bit of cozying up to corporate interests at the expense of citizen rights, destruction of the unions, a health system out of the reach of millions of Americans, a military which continues to send young men and women to their death for monetary and imperial reasons.

Yeh you (the people) have really reaped the benefits since the revolution.

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


Firstly don't cite Wikipedia, its famously inaccurate. Secondly according to the Center for Disease Control firearms do not even enter the top 10 causes of death in America. More people died of Septicemia in 2006 than firearms, and heart disease took the lives of over half a million Americans the same year. More people die in a year from Influenza and Pneumonia than firearms.

Pointing to racism and repressive laws which have long since been struck down does nothing for the discussion at hand, just as proclaiming that we were given the country rather is honestly insulting to the people who fought tooth and nail for both sides. Going on about ancient history and the affairs of countries other than the US (seeing as this is a US related story) really do nothing for discussion and only derail the thread into the seemingly inevitable mud slinging and venomous exchanges which kill threads.

reply to post by Helig



Yes obviously diseases take more lives in every country worldwide than crime does, but that cannot be helped. We are talking about legal and illegal guns being used on Human beings by other Human beings. Yes Wikipedia is also famously accurate on basic facts, and did you bother to check the second source on how many kids in your country are killed by firearms?

As for mudslinging, i had an opinion on your countries gunlaws (which are ridiculous) and was massively attacked for not being from the U.S, so had no right to voice an opinion, so i replied strongly. I notice how no-one has tried to argue back.

Mabye you should take some constructive criticism of your country? Mine is no where near perfect and i would like to see many changes made to our laws. But they do not include making handguns and automatic weapons legal.

My point from the beggining was that if these weapons are legal to the citizens of the U.S then it makes sense that the Police would have the same kind of resources. Not because of some massive conspiracy, but to prevent the deaths of Policeman and women and to counteract crime...

The reason you were massively attacked is because you're telling us how to live our lives. We don't tell you to stop putting CCTV cameras all over your god forsaken little island, we don't tell you to ban knives because you can barely walk down the street in London without getting stabbed, we don't demand that you all start carrying guns just because we carry them here, so we expect you not to tell us what to do with our country in return.

No. Actually.

The reason you got "attacked" is because you took something which many of us Americans consider one of our most basic, most important rights and you told us that you want us to be stripped of it. You got singled out because you didn't think before you spoke. Bottom line, it wasn't you that we were attacking. It was your lack of respect for our rights.

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk

My point from the beggining was that if these weapons are legal to the citizens of the U.S then it makes sense that the Police would have the same kind of resources. Not because of some massive conspiracy, but to prevent the deaths of Policeman and women and to counteract crime...

This part of your post, I'm totally on board with. The police should not be restricted in their access to the same tools and equipment that civilians have. And I think we should resolve ourselves to discussing that instead of "gun banning" since this is the topic at hand here.

reply to post by mattifikation


I thought and continue to do so long and deeply my friend. As for my country, most of the knife crime is gang related and innocent bystanders are rarley stabbed, you should look into that. As for CCTV i agree, all it does is record crime not prevent it. It may be your right to carry arms, but can you not see the harm it does to do so?

I hear alot of this that it was enshrined in the constitution to protect you all against the tyranny of governments. Have you looked at yours over the last century? Some of the most tyrannical the world has ever seen, cloaked in a flag of 'freedom'. And when anyone lifts a violent hand against them like the weather undeground did they are dissmissed as terrorists by the media with no legitimate grievence.

I am happy to be singled out. If you can see the nuance of my argument, it is not against Americans it is against your government and the violence it breeds. Is it really ok to have as a right, for an American to be sent on yet another crusade of violence around the world, become traumatised, and enter the real world again with access to leathal weapons that they have a skilled knowledge of?

reply to post by Peruvianmonk

Peru, I'm afraid that most foreigners have an entirely wrong picture of the United States. We do in fact have a significant number of lethal shootings here in the US.

What the stats don't tell you is that the vast, vast bulk of those lethal shootings originate in larger cities, in certain neighborhoods, of ethnic division, and it's usually drug-related, punk against punk. Personally, I don't give a **** if they completely kill each other off.

Sometimes, it includes people who are shot while the drug-dealing target is missed, or the girlfriend is killed by a stray bullet while her boyfriend tried to rip off a drug dealer, and a gunfight breaks out.

There are parts of cities that one does not go into during the daytime, and especially at night. The lawlessness is isolated, concentrated and mostly segregated.

If you go to Miami, the vast amount of shootings originate in just a few neighborhoods. Same thing in Memphis, Chicago, LA, and Atlanta.

We Americans have a hard enough time fighting off the girly-men who don't like firearms without foreigners putting in their two cents worth.

So we generally find it irritating. We don't criticize Britain or Australia, or other countries decisions, until we are attacked on our gun laws.

If you or others don't like our gun laws, fine. Stay home.

If one doesn't live here, then your opinion means nothing to us, as you have no basis for comparison.

It was in 1939 and 1940 that the British Government was running ads in American newspapers begging American citizens to send firearms to Britain so that Britain could defend herself in the event of an anticipated invasion.

Oddly, they asked for anything and everything. Rifles - any caliber, pistols - any caliber, and shotguns - any caliber.

That my friend, is desperation.

So you're disarmed again.

And if and when militant Muslims start to kick up, what are you going to do?

Because that stiff upper lip isn't going to be sufficient.

The thing is, everything on occasion is a necessity. Wait long enough, and it will again be a necessity.

Here in America - we don't have to wait.


[edit on 1-6-2009 by dooper]

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by mattifikation

 

I thought and continue to do so long and deeply my friend. As for my country, most of the knife crime is gang related and innocent bystanders are rarley stabbed, you should look into that. As for CCTV i agree, all it does is record crime not prevent it. It may be your right to carry arms, but can you not see the harm it does to do so?

Simply carrying a gun doesn't harm people. What harms people is the cruel intent within the hearts of the criminal element. It's already illegal to attack somebody with a firearm, so anyone who would do such a thing is likely not to care if carrying the gun in the first place was illegal or not.

Rather than taking guns off the street, I think criminals should be taken off the street. It's repulsive that in this country, there are rapists, armed robbers, gangsters, and murderers who get offered "plea bargains" for "lesser charges" so that prosecutors have more time to go after people who didn't pay a fine on time, or people who smoke a few plants in their own living room, or 18 year olds with 17 year old girlfriends and other such asinine crap.

Guns aren't what cause problems in America, criminals are. Violent offenders get too many opportunities to keep offending. Assault is a misdemeanor, owning certain types of plants is a felony. Our violent crime rate is so high because the system is after the wrong people.

In fact, the areas of our country with the highest per-capita rates of gun ownership are actually the safest in terms of violent crime.

I hear alot of this that it was enshrined in the constitution to protect you all against the tyranny of governments. Have you looked at yours over the last century? Some of the most tyrannical the world has ever seen, cloaked in a flag of 'freedom'. And when anyone lifts a violent hand against them like the weather undeground did they are dissmissed as terrorists by the media with no legitimate grievence.

This is precisely why the pro-gun movement has become so empowered lately. Most of us are well-aware that our government is up to no good around the world, and now we have an administration that wants to make us powerless to stop it from happening here. If anything, the oppressions of the U.S. government should make the world glad that the U.S. citizens are armed. Someday there will be a clash, and the citizens outnumber the military 40 to 1.

I am happy to be singled out. If you can see the nuance of my argument, it is not against Americans it is against your government and the violence it breeds. Is it really ok to have as a right, for an American to be sent on yet another crusade of violence around the world, become traumatised, and enter the real world again with access to leathal weapons that they have a skilled knowledge of?

Then hope for the government to be disarmed, or at least for it to be brought back into the reigns of us citizens. The U.S. military doesn't have the right to impose its will on the world, but that doesn't mean the world should have the right to take our Second Amendment away.

The criminals have a wide array of high caliber firearms to choose from on the black market, why wouldn't the police be able to use the same style weapons for their protection.

We saw how a police department is when they are out-gunned with that shootout in Los Angeles years ago. The incident involved two men armed to the teeth with high caliber assault weapons as well as full body armor. The police where equipped with side arms and shotguns. It was a slaughterhouse until order was eventually restored.

So I don't knock the police for wanting to arm themselves with state of the art weaponry, because we all know the criminals know how to get them.

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


Peruvian,
In your revisionist history you might have neglected several battles during our revolution and in the War of 1812. As an example, the British were soundly defeated at New Orleans on Jan 8, 1815.
As to US firearms laws, they suit us. Hunters hunt public and private lands and the Lairds of the castles and Her Majesty's own game keepers don't hinder us. While you believe that we would be better off without firearms there is really no way to put the genie back in the bottle and no one to even attempt it. Of course, you may continue to postulate and suggest improvements to our laws and legal system.

My $0.02.
The difference between the cases of a .22 rifle, and a .223 M16 is that the .22 rifle is a rim fire meaning the primer is around the inside of the rim and the firing pin must hit the rim to cause the round to work propwely. In the .223 M16 the case is a center fire, which means that the primer is in the center of the bottom of the caes and the firing pin must hit the primer in order to activate the round.

Next the bullet weight in grains for a .22 rim fire is 23 grains heavy, and the bullet is a single piece of lead sometimes with a copper coating, and sometines the .22 rimfire round can be hollowpoint. The bullet weight by comparison of a .223 center fire round can be anywhere from 45 grains to 60 grains with the most popular at about 52-55 grains. So the bullet (projectile) is twice to three times as heavy in the .223 center fire rifle.
Plus the bullet in the .223 is a metal (usually copper) jacketed bullet, and the tip of the bullet can be hollow point, soft point or fully metal jacketed.

With the fully metal jacketed version the round, at the point of terminal ballistics, generally drills a round .223 diameter through the person, which is a quarter inch hole. FMJ is (full metal jacket) the only approved round used in war under the Geneva Convention. Any soldier caught with altered, hollow point or soft point rounds by the enemy is subject to field execution immediately without trial.

The .223 center fire soft point and hollow point however due to the fact that the bullet is doing about a quarter of a million RPM and when it begins terminal ballistics it immediately becomes out of balance and begins disintegrating.
The .22 rimfire will be pushing in the neighborhood of 40000 RPM.

The entry hole will again be .223 or one quarter of one inch in diameter. Not so with the exit wound which will be up to and above one inch in diameter due to the disintegration and "mushrooming" of this high speed bullet. Additionally, pieces and particles of the disintegrating bullet will veer off and cut individual paths sometimes at right angles to the path of the original bullet. This creates a larger hydrostatic shock wave in the target, as well as much collateral damage due to fragmentation of the bullet.

Next is the velocity of the different rounds. The .22 rimfire will be lucky to travel at over 1200 FPS. The .223 center fire on the other hand can be made to travel up to 3800 feet per second. The velocity and mass of the .22 rimfire as compared to the velocity and mass of the .223 center fire can be compared in mathametical calculations.

The .22 rimfire is like being hit with a mans fist.
The .223 center fire is like being hit with a sledge hammer.

The .223 centerfire is accurate and fatal out to 500 yards, the .22 rim fire maximum is 150 yards.

That being said, the .223 center fire is much more fatal and lethal than the .22 rimfire.

This is for the man who said a .223 center fire is nothing more than a .22 rimfire.

Good job on the member who posted the pictures of the rimfire short, long, and long rifle cases, and the .223 centerfire and NATO centerfire rounds.

If they need this to protect and serve the innocent, then by all means they should have this...


What gets me is, we all see those caught on tape/police chase video shows...how many times have some of you here...seen the clip where they're chasing some gun wielding drug crazed lunatic down the freeway, and up ahead we see deputy dip# standing in the middle of the road ready to dive out of the way...

then the commentator always says.."wow did you see him try to assult that officer with his car?"

my point is some officers arent too brite..

Well guess what the governer said "No" to the new firepower. See link below for additional information.

ATS Thread : Boston Mayor says NO

reply to post by fmcanarney


You used a number of dissimilar comparisons between the .22 rimfire and the .223.

I assume to address my assertion that the .223 was in essence a hotrod .22.

So, you mentioned exit wound sizes.

How do the entry wounds compare.

What is the diameter of the .22 rimfire, and the .223?

So in essence, they are both .22's, with one being a souped up version of the old standby rimfire version.

reply to post by dooper


You used a number of dissimilar comparisons between the .22 rimfire and the .223.

I used a number of dissimilar comparisons between a .22 rimfire and a .223 centerfire to explain to you that they are very dissimilar.

I assume to address my assertion that the .223 was in essence a hotrod .22.

So, you mentioned exit wound sizes.

How do the entry wounds compare. Entry wound size identical.

What is the diameter of the .22 rimfire, and the .223? Projectile diameter identical.

So in essence, they are both .22's, with one being a souped up version of the old standby rimfire version.

.22 rimfire bullet weight 23 grains. .223 centerfire bullet weight 45-60 gn.
.22 rimfire velocity 1200 fps. .223 centerfire velocity 3800 fps.
.22 rimfire 40000 rpm. .223 centerfire 200000 rpm.
.22 rimfire no disintegration during terminal ballistics.
.223 centerfire much disintegration during terminal ballistics in soft and hollow point round.

If the .223 centerfire is a souped up .22 rimfire in your mind and thinking that is okay. I put the information out there, not for you, but rather for the openminded persons who would read your simplistic dissertation and conclude that you are right. In my mind the word/explaination "souped up" does not do justice to the very real and true differences between these two rounds.

Go out and purchase a box of .22 rimfire. You can get 50 rounds for $1.50. $0.03 per round. Next go buy a box of .223 and you get 20 rounds for $10.00. $0.50 per round. The free market speaks to the difference between these two rounds.

Better yet purchase the firearm. A .22 rimfire will cost less than $100.00 and a .223 centerfire will cost from $500.00 up to $1500.00.

So I want you to not forget that you are right, the rest of the readers can make up their own minds about the differences between these weapons.

My theme is to deny the ignorance (to not ignore) that there is no difference between .22 rim fire and .223 centerfire.



[edit on 2-6-2009 by fmcanarney]

[edit on 2-6-2009 by fmcanarney]