Why do cops need guns that have more than six bullets?

I feel like the New York Times sympathizes with people when it's appropriate to their firm's agenda. In this case, limiting magazine ammunition, while allowing the police to be privatized and act in the best interest of the corporation.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
stupidity

the argument going on is about someone trying to take out as many people as possible in a crowded public place in the shortest amount of time

with no fear of the police because they have no intention of surviving the event

wtf do police stats have to do with anything ?

I'm glad you asked that.

You're somewhat correct-that IS the argument, however, the anti-gun crowd's response is: "Let's punish law-abiding citizens because of the one-in-a-million gun person who kills innocents."

It's as absurd as saying "let's make cops get rid of thier semi-auto pistols with big clips because of the small percentage of cops who kill innocents."

You see, a certain percentage of police shootings every year are considered "non-justifable." That means a cop killed or wounded an inncoent person. It's not a large number (5%) but tell that to the friends and families.

No one on the Left is clamoring for cops to reign in their big clips-which lead to more bullets being fired, and more people being killed. They are comfortable with the servants of the state having as much firepower as they, the state, decides.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Because when they have more bullets, they abuse thier power more, just like a mass killer.

In the extremely rare scenario (and i'm sure if you look, you will find a couple) that a cop needs more than six bullets, I believe there's a such thing as a speed reloader for revolvers.

You can then ask yourselves, "Why does a citizen need to carry a gun?"

The answer is almost the same - to thwart the evil doers from achieving their goals. To protect the ones without adequate protection. To ensure the law Abide'rs are still doing what is right.

Why do cops need to carry more than six bullets - to ensure they are adequately equipped to handle those who do the same. Which is the reason why law abiding citizens need the same.

The cops need guns because we have them. And we need guns because the cops have them.


If we disarmed (and I don't think we should, but let's say we did), can we be absolutely certain the cops would give up thier AR-15's and tactical shotguns and armored cars?

I don't think so.

And God forbid, should history repeat itself and tyranny ever rear its ugly head again, the police will be the instruments to carry out the first wave of oppression.

People like Piers Morgan ask the question: why does a civilian need an AR-15? The answer is: to ensure that people have the freedom to ask that question in the first place.

You need to be able to match whatever the aggressor might have...be that an enemy, a tyrannical government or other threat. It is you right to have the same power and technology as any one else. No one is above the law or below it. I do not think it is even limited to guns. Justice Scalia even speculated that "bearing arms" might be much broader than just guns.(see article in link)..to include other weaponry, Interesting philosophical idea.

www.economist.com...

Why do they make cars that can go above the speed limit? because its a choice that we are allowed to make. You know, free will.

Cops have more than six bullets because they can have more than six bullets

Firearms owner from (unfortunately) Massachusetts here, just to let you know magazine bans are already in effect here and have bee for sometime. No magazine of any kind, regardless of caliber, over 10 rounds is allowed to be purchased, owned, or used, in MA.

Originally posted by tkwasny
The .30 cal M1 used in WWII, "the finest infantry rifle in military history" (at the time) holds 8 rounds.

The AK47, the most popular assault weapon in military history, comes with a standard mag of 30 rounds and there are extended capacity magazines as well.

Your point??????

Originally posted by Snsoc
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Because when they have more bullets, they abuse thier power more, just like a mass killer.

Wait, this is reductio ad Hitlerum. A mass killer, for the most part, plans his actions, stocks up on ammo and weapons and only then goes postal. The cops REACT to the active shooter scenario. It is stupid to want them to be handicapped when confronting lethal force.

In the extremely rare scenario (and i'm sure if you look, you will find a couple) that a cop needs more than six bullets, I believe there's a such thing as a speed reloader for revolvers.

You may believe in a speed reloader. Someone else may believe in martial arts, and that the cops need to go Bruce Lee on the perps, empty handed. Some others will extoll the virtues of archery, and that properly trained cops just need to use a couple of expert arrow shots to take down the assailant. In practice, it's no more silly than saying that the cops just must learn to quickly reload their ANTIQUATED weapon system such as revolver.

It's damn stupid that a citizen may carry a Desert Eagle, yet you demand that the cops must use pea shooters just for you to feel more comfortable.

Originally posted by asinapi1
Why do they make cars that can go above the speed limit? because its a choice that we are allowed to make. You know, free will.

Can you drive those vehicles at their max speeds at any place your free will sees fit? No, you can't - you have to take them to specialist race-tracks if you really want to put your freely chosen super vehicle through its paces.

As to the OP, here in the UK, the public has never clamoured for every single one of our police officers to be issued a firearm, and we rely on small, (supposedly)highly trained units to deal with incidents where gun expertise is needed. Personally, I'd rather have one team of 30 cops per reasonable sized city who did nothing but training and responding to gun or other deadly weapon based scenarios, than have a 1,000 cops who spent a hour a day down at the range shooting at paper targets.

reply to post by cybro

Originally posted by cybro
Completely agree, it's the police that should be disarmed. I made that thread before but the hacks here only ridiculed me.

You dont say?

Here let me put you in a room with a rapist, a torturer, a gang member with a gun, and a mugger with a knife. Lets see if you survive without a weapon and lets see if the police officer survives with only his nightstick.

*Start the story*

You walk into a room not knowing what is there. You see three men standing, waiting for their victim. The rapist, the torturer, and the mugger with a knife. The gang member is behind you with the gun pointed at the back of your head. You start to scream! A cop hears a rushes in there, the gang member doesn't see him or hear him over your screams. He has the jump on the guy with the gun, smacks him on the shoulder with his nightstick, barely even phases him. A few shots to the chest and the cop is dead. They tell you to get on your knees...each of them do to you what is in their title.

You are left lying in a pool of blood, grasping for life the very few seconds left of a horrible death.

Now, lets see if the cop had a gun himself.

*Start the story*

You walk into a room not knowing what is there. You see three men standing, waiting for their victim. The rapist, the torturer, and the mugger with a knife. The gang member is behind you with the gun pointed at the back of your head. You start to scream! A cop hears a rushes in there, the gang member doesn't see him or hear him over your screams. Quickly the cop shoots the gun man in the back of the head instantly killing him. Couple of quick reaction shots to the other 3 men and them too are either dead or dying. You come out with only emotional damage.


You want the first story? By all means go live on Mars because that is INHUMANE to want the proper authorities to save your life. Yes, there is dirty cops out there, but dirty cops are NO DIFFERENT than the people want to strip the guns from everyone.

There will always be killings and you never know when it will be you involved just.............like................the....................first..................story.

Think before you just start putting up not so smart stuff.

Wow, people are really missing the point of this thread. It was a theoretical argument that if a citizen doesn't need more than 10 rounds in their guns, then cops don't need more than 6. There was also an implied thesis that cops who use lower capacity weapons don't waste as many shots and are less likely to injure someone innocent, but it wasn't the main point.

I'm pretty sure the police need more than six bullets because the bad guys have more than six bullets. Is that okay with you or do you like the fact that the police are outgunned?

reply to post by Snsoc


Just become better shots huh? That requires shooting often...which costs money....we went from shooting every month to shooting once a year cause we are broke. Every department is broke and ammo seems to be the first thing they cut.

Why would I go into battle with an opponent that is allowed to have a better weapon system than me? I have a family...friends...responsibilities...it is nonsense to think that I would go into work with a primitive weapon system.

I understand the point you are trying to make...but cops win most battles through psychology...there is a certain effect we can put on the public...they know we are better trained and have top of the line equipment which pushes people away from wanting conflict. If we now had worse equipment..and they don't we dont train as much...it just makes them that more confident.

I and even if it is 1 in 100 cases or even 1 in 1000....guess what...that is the incident that im training for....the really messy one...where I may need 50 bullets.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I didn't compare cops to Hitler. That would be redcuctio ad Hitlerum.

Cops are not like mass killers in thier intent. Mass killers do plan ahead to kill, cops (I assume) do not. But the end result is sometimes the same. (I could argue that cops failing to train properly and carrying too many bullets is a form of premeditation, but that's pushing it.)

The argument is that taking guns with lots of bullets away from killers will stop the death of innocents. And so would reducing the number of bullets that cops carry. So why the double standard?

Obviously my hypothetical scenario won't work if bad guys have better guns or shoot better than the cops. But again, the thing I want to ask the gun haters is-if we disarm, will cops go back to six-shooters?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
stupidity

the argument going on is about someone trying to take out as many people as possible in a crowded public place in the shortest amount of time

with no fear of the police because they have no intention of surviving the event

wtf do police stats have to do with anything ?

Then by that argument get rid of gasoline, fertilizer and other things that can make homemade bombs that can take out large amounts of people in a very short time.

On topic, they need the extra clips because they never know what situation they are going to be in. As much as I hate defending the cops(there are a few good ones left) I would rather they be prepared then not.

Originally posted by Obsrvr
I'm pretty sure the police need more than six bullets because the bad guys have more than six bullets. Is that okay with you or do you like the fact that the police are outgunned?

The police aren't outgunned.

Of course I don't want them to be outgunned.

But what happens when the gun control people get thier way and make it so bad guys and everyone else only has guns with a few bullets. Are cops going to keep thier assault rifles and armored cars?

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer
reply to post by Snsoc

 

Just become better shots huh? That requires shooting often...which costs money....we went from shooting every month to shooting once a year cause we are broke. Every department is broke and ammo seems to be the first thing they cut.

Why would I go into battle with an opponent that is allowed to have a better weapon system than me? I have a family...friends...responsibilities...it is nonsense to think that I would go into work with a primitive weapon system.

I understand the point you are trying to make...but cops win most battles through psychology...there is a certain effect we can put on the public...they know we are better trained and have top of the line equipment which pushes people away from wanting conflict. If we now had worse equipment..and they don't we dont train as much...it just makes them that more confident.

I and even if it is 1 in 100 cases or even 1 in 1000....guess what...that is the incident that im training for....the really messy one...where I may need 50 bullets.

I didn't know that, sir, about the budget cuts. That's rough. The gov't has plenty of ammo for DHS but not for you.

You guys have the hardest job in the world and I respect it. Please don't take my posts as being anti-police.

Of course you should be able to match or beat the firepower of outlaws. But I'm concerned that gun controllers also want to disarm non-law breakers at a time when the economy and the social fabric are worn thin.

Seems like a foolish question with an obvious answer. Welcome to ats

reply to post by Snsoc

What are you so afraid of? I mind my own business and respect the law of the land. My interaction with the police is minimal.

What is the big deal? Why do you care so much what the police equip themselves with? I'd rather have them armed to the teeth than undergunned and unprepared.

And the police are outgunned. Gangs run around with guns all over them. You don't see a policeman in a squad car armed like that.