If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PoliceOne)   Police chief wants officers armed with AR-15s. Why? Because fark you, that's why   (policeone.com) divider line 378
    More: Obvious, police chiefs, officer of arms, Iowa, mass shooting, pocket  
•       •       •

8260 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2013 at 2:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



378 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-25 08:42:14 AM  
If people need them for militias to overthrow the government then cops need them to stop the militias.
 
2013-01-25 08:44:34 AM  

Braggi: If people need them for militias to overthrow the government then cops need them to stop the militias.


State and local police are the only real organized militia we've got.
 
2013-01-25 08:45:02 AM  

MassAsster: Some how, two guys
for giggles, lets say these two

were able able to out gun multiple officers with weapons that were better capable for a shootout at a distance then the standard issued hand gun and could simply just out do, out perform and out shoot what every officer had on scene making it so dire that police officers had to literally go to the gun store in order to compete.


Wait, you're saying that rifles are more capable than pistols? I'm *SHOCKED*.
 
2013-01-25 08:46:51 AM  

Fark It: patrol rifles

LOL. When a sniveling citizen wants one they're "military-style assault weapons." When cops want them they're "patrol rifles." Bunch of Orwellian horseshiat.


I also like the provision of Feinstein's new "assault weapons" bill that government officials will be exempt from the bill.

Some animals are more equal than others.

Head down and keep working, Citizen!
/Seriously, at what point does the average frog get worried about the water temperature?
//Seriously, at what point does the average follower Leftie wake up and take off the rose-colored glasses?

t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-25 08:48:06 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Frank N Stein: But Fark told me that AR-15s were designed for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in the quickest amount of time.

Because that is entirely accurate. The AR-15 is designed to put down human beings in short fashion. That is exactly what it was designed for.

Your point?


Are we next going to ban swords, since they actually have no purpose other than killing other human beings as well?

Actually the AR-15 and similar are extremely good at taking out smaller mammals and provide many people with an excellent quality, general purpose hunting rifle that doesn't need to be reloaded every couple of minutes. Do people NEED one? No. But do people NEED a vehicle that can go over 65-70 mph? No. Do you NEED to indulge in a package of Oreos? No. Do you NEED a latte in the morning? No. Yet, vehicles, fatty fast food, and caffeine contribute directly or indirectly to more health problems and deaths in the US than "assault" rifles and we're not banning those things either.

Stop the whole "it looks mean!" bullshiat. You really want to stop mass killings, go to the source, not a tool.
 
2013-01-25 08:48:32 AM  

Braggi: If people need them for militias to overthrow the government then cops need them to stop the militias.


And vice-versa. It's a nice little balance-of-power there. You know what you have when the police have a monopoly on the use of force? A police state.
 
2013-01-25 08:49:35 AM  
Homeland security posted a recieving bids blurb on a government contract eebsite for AR15 patterned personal defense weapons. They really make a case as to how well suited the AR platform is for personal defense due to the ARs size, modability, and reliability.

Cant link on mobile but if interested google homeland security AR personal defense weapon.

Of course the authoritarians here think only government should be able to defend themselves.....against dogs and OWS types.
 
2013-01-25 08:52:03 AM  

hdhale: NewportBarGuy: Frank N Stein: RIFLE! WE'RE DOOMED

I love how you've excluded those with a 30 round clip.

That's not very 'well regulated' of you.

If you want to start that argument, a proper militia in the modern context would have gun storage safes in their homes in which there would be not a semiautomatic rifle, but a fully selective fire M-16A2 or similar rifle along with a quantity of 30 round clips, ammunition, a combat vest, and other military gear. Members of the militia would be required to meet at least every few months for rifle practice and training, and Congress would be appointing officers to lead them...oh by the way, service would be mandatory unless you have some sort of physical or mental disability or were under or over a certain age. No women allowed, though under current law I think we can now make an exception. Hope you are ready.


This is true. Except for appointing officers. That was reserved to the States. And although not spelled out, was understood that the militia themselves would be voting their own officers. Though congress could outline training standards. When called upon, you could possibly pay a fee to have someone else stand in for you.

Since modern states are much larger than their colonial counterparts. It may be understood to have county or municipal militias. Otherwise you'll probably just wind up with State armies.
 
2013-01-25 08:53:18 AM  
Cole Phelps keeps a full auto in his auto.
media.rockstargames.com
 
2013-01-25 08:53:27 AM  

Tymast: [images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 180x297]
We need to have these through out our towns and cities, there is no other way to keep safe from all the people with guns.


Win.
 
2013-01-25 08:55:02 AM  

Giltric: Homeland security posted a recieving bids blurb on a government contract eebsite for AR15 patterned personal defense weapons. They really make a case as to how well suited the AR platform is for personal defense due to the ARs size, modability, and reliability.

Cant link on mobile but if interested google homeland security AR personal defense weapon.

Of course the authoritarians here think only government should be able to defend themselves.....against dogs and OWS types.


I posted the link upthread a bit.
 
2013-01-25 08:55:41 AM  

BronyMedic: Public Savant: FTA: The officers would be allowed to carry these weapons in their police vehicles once properly trained, and would be only used to neutralize a potential threat, according to Daugherty.

So what the hell have they been using their sidearm for all these years?!

Yeah, why would patrolmen need assault rifles, anyway? (Video NSFW, shows cops getting ambushed and murdered) I mean, they'd never need a reason to use them, right? (Video NSFW, shows cops getting ambushed and shot, and bad-ass gamewarden fu with an M4 rifle.)

/West Memphis, 2010.


Goddamn, game warden guy, the fark! Talk about a saving throw. Hardcore.
 
2013-01-25 08:56:25 AM  

hdhale: NewportBarGuy: Frank N Stein: But Fark told me that AR-15s were designed for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in the quickest amount of time.

Because that is entirely accurate. The AR-15 is designed to put down human beings in short fashion. That is exactly what it was designed for.

Your point?

Are we next going to ban swords, since they actually have no purpose other than killing other human beings as well?

Actually the AR-15 and similar are extremely good at taking out smaller mammals and provide many people with an excellent quality, general purpose hunting rifle that doesn't need to be reloaded every couple of minutes. Do people NEED one? No. But do people NEED a vehicle that can go over 65-70 mph? No. Do you NEED to indulge in a package of Oreos? No. Do you NEED a latte in the morning? No. Yet, vehicles, fatty fast food, and caffeine contribute directly or indirectly to more health problems and deaths in the US than "assault" rifles and we're not banning those things either.

Stop the whole "it looks mean!" bullshiat. You really want to stop mass killings, go to the source, not a tool.


Most "assault weapons ban" advocates are tools themselves, thus "going after tools" is the most familiar method for them.
 
2013-01-25 08:56:32 AM  
it's looking more and more like Mexico every day
 
2013-01-25 09:04:43 AM  

hdhale: Actually the AR-15 and similar are extremely good at taking out smaller mammals and provide many people with an excellent quality, general purpose hunting rifle that doesn't need to be reloaded every couple of minutes.


One of the things people also don't generally recognize is the difference between the AR-15 of 1994 and the AR-15 of today: Today, you can swap the upper receiver/barrel assembly for a bunch of different calibers for different purposes. You might have a standard AR-15 upper in .223 Remington for self-defense use, another in the same caliber but with a heavy barrel and scope for varmint hunting or target shooting, another in a larger caliber like 6.8mm SPC or 7.62x39mm for deer hunting, and a *BIG* caliber like .50 Beowulf or .450 Bushmaster for things like bears.

All of those cartridges fit in a standard AR-15 magazine, and because you use the same basic design for the upper receiver/barrel assembly, and you use the same exact lower receiver/stock assembly, you don't have to get used to handling multiple rifles.

You can even get AR-15 uppers in .22 LR, though you can't use the same magazines with them, obviously.

The AR-15 has become the "Swiss Army Knife" of the gun world because it is so flexible and extendable, and with proper tuning, it's about as accurate as you can make a semi-automatic rifle. It's useful for home defense use, hunting of just about any game animal you will find in North America including large, dangerous game like brown bears, and down to squirrels and rabbits (using different calibers, of course), and it's accurate enough that it's commonly used for target shooting.

In fact, it's common enough, and flexible enough, that there is zero way a ban on AR-15s can be either constitutional or effective.
 
2013-01-25 09:05:01 AM  

Frank N Stein: NewportBarGuy: Frank N Stein: constitutional implications.

Blacks were 3/5ths a person. Women had no vote.

Preach to me again about the import of that f*cking piece of paper.

"There was slavery 150 years ago, therefore the federal government should be able to institute an official religion"

Cool argument, bro.


Love it when people pick and choose parts of the Constitution.

It's sooooooooo creative.
 
2013-01-25 09:05:01 AM  
i.imgur.com

oblig
 
2013-01-25 09:06:15 AM  

Frank N Stein: NewportBarGuy: Semi/Burst.

Jesus.

NewportBarGuy: Nope. I'm just a sh*t talker.

Carry on like you own the place.

Don't get your Jamies Wrangled. I understand you fear black rifles. It's because their black, isn't it?


The whole 2nd amendment is racist.
 
2013-01-25 09:07:22 AM  

ChuDogg: Giltric: Homeland security posted a recieving bids blurb on a government contract eebsite for AR15 patterned personal defense weapons. They really make a case as to how well suited the AR platform is for personal defense due to the ARs size, modability, and reliability.

Cant link on mobile but if interested google homeland security AR personal defense weapon.

Of course the authoritarians here think only government should be able to defend themselves.....against dogs and OWS types.

I posted the link upthread a bit.


ah awesome just clicking headlines without reading the thread so far.
 
2013-01-25 09:12:15 AM  

violentsalvation: NewportBarGuy: violentsalvation: ut frankly, I'm sick of the ignorance that we see in these debates.

I don't even share my own opinions. I would like to keep my AR-15, but Cletus here is making absurd arguments. I resign myself to the lowest point, and am surprised when they don't come knocking at my door.

I know that I'll be able to keep what I own currently. I remember, and the politicians remember what happened the last time they 'took' guns. This is a ridiculous argument.

All sales, private and public should be run through NICS. If they do just that, I'm happy. Any responsible gun owner should want that,

I could get on board with that, as long as the expanded NICS isn't going to be some ridiculous hindrance to private party sales with a 30 day backlog or anything.

There are other ideas but they are shouted down, I guess for simply accepting the reality of the situation and not being idealistic enough. I'd like a tax credit considered for purchasers of approved and properly installed gun safes. Or at least I'd like to talk about it and hear other ideas other than my penis is small. But that's how these debates go.


I've always wondered why so few people get the idea of ginormous "penis by proxy" that lovers of big government get off on. If some guy loves his Hummer and therefore is compensating for a small penis, then someone who loves Big Government is compensating for an even small penis.
 
2013-01-25 09:14:06 AM  
Now that mass shootings kill ALMOST as many people as dog bites, I think it's high time that Congress act on the Obama administrations 28-point plan for "doing something" about the Dog Bite Menace.

I mean, Senator Feinstein held that big press conference about Dog Bite Menace, and yet Congress still hasn't done anything. Obama himself issued his 137 Executive Action Orders a few weeks ago, but I don't see where Congress has fully funded the federal Bureau of Dog Bite Menace Reduction.

CAN'T YOU SEE HOW CONCERNED THE LEFT IS???? DON'T YOU SEE HOW MUCH THEY CARE ABOUT CHILDREN??? CAN'T YOU SEE HOW THEY ARE APPLYING THEIR POLITICAL POWER WHERE IT WILL DO THE MOST GOOD -- BY ADDRESSING THE MOST EASILY-PREVENTED, NEEDLESS DEATHS -- DOG BITES!!1!

NO MORE DOG BITES!!!!

Besides, does anyone really need a dog, anyway? It's not like there's a Constitutional Amendment protecting your right to keep and bear dogs.
 
2013-01-25 09:19:59 AM  

MassAsster: NewportBarGuy: A rifle that fires 5.56mm, even in single-shot iterations, with a 30-round clip? No f*cking need in the world that a beat cop needs that sh*t.

I'd like to prohibit them from even being allowed to buy surplus military equipment.

This is ridiculous.

"If the police department and the police officers think it's necessary I would defer to their judgment," Kim Teneick said.

Go f*ck yourself, Kim.

Nope, not a reason at ALL that patrol officers would need them...

unless.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Some how, two guys
for giggles, lets say these two
[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]
were able able to out gun multiple officers with weapons that were better capable for a shootout at a distance then the standard issued hand gun and could simply just out do, out perform and out shoot what every officer had on scene making it so dire that police officers had to literally go to the gun store in order to compete.

But.... that would never happen....

/I for one, would like to welcome this PD to today's day and age were most police departments have been carrying this rifle for quite some time already.
//The action and decision to carry them was for the most part based upon the north Hollywood shootout when police departments across the country realized that they could easily be out gunned on the street and another tool was needed to be able to compete against those who chose to do harm with bigger and better weaponry then a pistol.


And if any of those cops knew how to shoot, they could have dropped the suspects. Remember, the average cop takes what, 17 shots to hit the target with a pistol? Did the suspects faces have body armor? Shoot em in the face.
 
2013-01-25 09:23:23 AM  

Thunderpipes: MassAsster: NewportBarGuy: A rifle that fires 5.56mm, even in single-shot iterations, with a 30-round clip? No f*cking need in the world that a beat cop needs that sh*t.

I'd like to prohibit them from even being allowed to buy surplus military equipment.

This is ridiculous.

"If the police department and the police officers think it's necessary I would defer to their judgment," Kim Teneick said.

Go f*ck yourself, Kim.

Nope, not a reason at ALL that patrol officers would need them...

unless.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Some how, two guys
for giggles, lets say these two
[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]
were able able to out gun multiple officers with weapons that were better capable for a shootout at a distance then the standard issued hand gun and could simply just out do, out perform and out shoot what every officer had on scene making it so dire that police officers had to literally go to the gun store in order to compete.

But.... that would never happen....

/I for one, would like to welcome this PD to today's day and age were most police departments have been carrying this rifle for quite some time already.
//The action and decision to carry them was for the most part based upon the north Hollywood shootout when police departments across the country realized that they could easily be out gunned on the street and another tool was needed to be able to compete against those who chose to do harm with bigger and better weaponry then a pistol.

And if any of those cops knew how to shoot, they could have dropped the suspects. Remember, the average cop takes what, 17 shots to hit the target with a pistol? Did the suspects faces have body armor? Shoot em in the face.


SWAT teams did that. They took them down with headshots. Your average Patrol officer couldn't hit a headshot if you paid 'em and put 'em point blank.
 
2013-01-25 09:25:06 AM  
i50.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-25 09:25:57 AM  
 
2013-01-25 09:27:51 AM  
cdn.ammoland.com
 
2013-01-25 09:29:04 AM  

Thunderpipes: And if any of those cops knew how to shoot, they could have dropped the suspects. Remember, the average cop takes what, 17 shots to hit the target with a pistol? Did the suspects faces have body armor? Shoot em in the face.


You know how I know that you've never, ever fired a pistol at any sort of distance.... ever?
 
2013-01-25 09:29:20 AM  
I admittedly didn't read the whole thread, because most of it is herpity derpity on both sides of the argument, especially the bits between NewportBarGuy and Frank N Stein.

I just came in to see why there were so many posts. This is not news. Every department I know of here permits officers to purchase an AR-15 or even an AK-47 and carry it in their patrol vehicle as long as they are department certified to use it. SWAT is issued M16's, and patrol seargents are issued AR's. I'm failing to see the big deal. They aren't using taxpayer money on the weapons, they're making the officers pay for it themselves.
 
2013-01-25 09:30:38 AM  

Kit Fister: SWAT teams did that. They took them down with headshots. Your average Patrol officer couldn't hit a headshot if you paid 'em and put 'em point blank.


Actually, they both bled to death of minor wounds to their hands and feet. Well, one guy shot himself in the head after he was shot in his hand and could no longer mount an appropriate fight. The other guy bled to death.
 
2013-01-25 09:32:24 AM  
Something to think about

A pistol or shotgun is not accurate enough outside of relatively close range. If a cop dealing with a situation with an armed suspect that is wearing body armor a rifle such as the AR15 will provide the range and accuracy to effectively deal with the threat.

It is not fair to ask or officers who are putting there lives on the line and have the responsibility to protect us to be limited to a pistol or a shotgun in those situations.

Training and regulations regarding the use of any weapon is key to insure everyone's safety.

As to the clip size I think that the cops do not necessarily need large capacity clips. They should be taking a relatively low number of shots since there goal is to end a conflict not hold off an army...
 
2013-01-25 09:32:32 AM  

jso2897: in my mind, they all look like this:


You have a strange mind.
 
2013-01-25 09:32:52 AM  

Farce-Side: I admittedly didn't read the whole thread, because most of it is herpity derpity on both sides of the argument, especially the bits between NewportBarGuy and Frank N Stein.

I just came in to see why there were so many posts. This is not news. Every department I know of here permits officers to purchase an AR-15 or even an AK-47 and carry it in their patrol vehicle as long as they are department certified to use it. SWAT is issued M16's, and patrol seargents are issued AR's. I'm failing to see the big deal. They aren't using taxpayer money on the weapons, they're making the officers pay for it themselves.


The "big deal" relates to the claim that such firearms are suitable only for "killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible". The implication of that claim with police officers possessing them is either that police officers are tasked with "killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible" or that advocates of prohibiting civilian ownership of such firearms are liars. Based upon my own experiences, both with rifles and with advocates of prohibiting ownership of such rifles, I tend to accept the latter implication.
 
2013-01-25 09:33:22 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Frank N Stein: NewportBarGuy: Frank N Stein: constitutional implications.

Blacks were 3/5ths a person. Women had no vote.

Preach to me again about the import of that f*cking piece of paper.

"There was slavery 150 years ago, therefore the federal government should be able to institute an official religion"

Cool argument, bro.

Love it when people pick and choose parts of the Constitution.

It's sooooooooo creative.


There is a process to fix the Constitution if it is indeed found to be wanting. The founding fathers weren't fools, they knew that times change and the Constitution would have to be "adjusted" to those times. We've done it to fix the problem of slavery, for example.

So, if the people owning arms is such a bad thing, pass an amendment repealing the Second Amendment.
 
2013-01-25 09:33:51 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Fark It: You tell us, soldier, you're the one who swore an oath to protect and defend it with your life.

Unless you're lying about that too.

What the f*ck? I now work for the Veterans Administration making sure vets get their medications. Disabled vets like myself. Making sure we take care of those we sent into battle, their widow, orphans...

Go f*ck yourself.



Awesome. That's one way to hide behind wounded vets and orphans.

/did one have anything to do with the other?
 
2013-01-25 09:34:04 AM  

dr_blasto: jso2897: in my mind, they all look like this:

You have a strange mind.


Perhaps he suffers from colour-blindness and untreated astigmatism.
 
2013-01-25 09:34:52 AM  

Frank N Stein: borg: Oh, my God! self-loading rifles are sooooo scary.

Sounds too close to self-aware rifles. Better not chance it.


Self aware weapons? That would be .... interesting.
www.whkeith.com
 
2013-01-25 09:35:18 AM  
Of course the police are going to want barbie guns. They are meant for looks, and for guys who want to go out and pretend that they are important and in the military. (applies both to police and even moreso to the civilians with barbie guns...)

Myself, I've got a couple AK47's/WASR's. They don't look quite as threatening, and I can't play dress up with them like the AR girls can. But as far as name recognition, pretty sure the AK47 wins, even after the recent events! Durability? Not even a question. And yes, the Ak47 might not quite as accurate, but nobody actually shoots for maximum accuracy with either one, there are guns that are much, much better for that.

(ohh, and there is the fact that the armourers tool kit for an AR 15 involves a couple hundred tiny little tools and gadgets. The armourers toolkit for an ak47? Can of wd-40 and a couple rocks.)
 
2013-01-25 09:35:33 AM  

way south: liam76: violentsalvation: The backdoor registration bothers me, because that has a hint of "oh hey we changed our minds, fork it over". I'd hope legislation allowing private parties to access the NICS would understand that a private sale is not the same as someone who is explicitly in the business of selling firearms

In terms of preventing criminals or mentally unstable from getting guns there is no difference.

In terms of your privacy, there is a big difference.

You are effectively making public an instant access list of "untrustworthy persons", which is as bad as publicizing the no-fly list depending on how its handled.
Quite a few people will end up having a problem with this when they realize what it could mean.

/and it still doesn't answer the question of why we have a growing problem with mentally unstable people.
/keeping weapons out of their hands may prove to be a poor exchange when compared to what we have to give up.


That list has already been made. 99% of people are fine with felons, and mentally unstable not having guns.

The problem now is you can get around having to check that list with private sales.

I don't think we have a huge problem with keeping guns from mentally unstable. Most of our gun crime comes frompeopel getting uns illegally, not nuts "slipping througth the cracks".
 
2013-01-25 09:35:40 AM  

Alonjar: Kit Fister: SWAT teams did that. They took them down with headshots. Your average Patrol officer couldn't hit a headshot if you paid 'em and put 'em point blank.

Actually, they both bled to death of minor wounds to their hands and feet. Well, one guy shot himself in the head after he was shot in his hand and could no longer mount an appropriate fight. The other guy bled to death.


Really? i thought they took headshots. Oh well. must be wrong.
 
2013-01-25 09:36:14 AM  

dittybopper: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Frank N Stein: NewportBarGuy: Frank N Stein: constitutional implications.

Blacks were 3/5ths a person. Women had no vote.

Preach to me again about the import of that f*cking piece of paper.

"There was slavery 150 years ago, therefore the federal government should be able to institute an official religion"

Cool argument, bro.

Love it when people pick and choose parts of the Constitution.

It's sooooooooo creative.

There is a process to fix the Constitution if it is indeed found to be wanting. The founding fathers weren't fools, they knew that times change and the Constitution would have to be "adjusted" to those times. We've done it to fix the problem of slavery, for example.

So, if the people owning arms is such a bad thing, pass an amendment repealing the Second Amendment.


Passage of a Constitutional Amendment is a difficult procedure, requiring attaining of substantially more support than is typically available. Merely lying about the implications of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, or simply advocating ignoring sections of the Constitution that are arbitrarily declared to be "obsolete" or "outdated" enables advocates of unreasonable restrictions upon firearm ownership to more effectively attain support for their position.
 
2013-01-25 09:37:16 AM  
i have no problem with the marion pd, properly trained, carrying AR15s.
 
2013-01-25 09:38:42 AM  
OBammy wantz to take er gunz and give them to the cops!z
 
2013-01-25 09:41:05 AM  

MassAsster: NewportBarGuy: A rifle that fires 5.56mm, even in single-shot iterations, with a 30-round clip? No f*cking need in the world that a beat cop needs that sh*t.

I'd like to prohibit them from even being allowed to buy surplus military equipment.

This is ridiculous.

"If the police department and the police officers think it's necessary I would defer to their judgment," Kim Teneick said.

Go f*ck yourself, Kim.

Nope, not a reason at ALL that patrol officers would need them...

unless.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Some how, two guys
for giggles, lets say these two
[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]
were able able to out gun multiple officers with weapons that were better capable for a shootout at a distance then the standard issued hand gun and could simply just out do, out perform and out shoot what every officer had on scene making it so dire that police officers had to literally go to the gun store in order to compete.

But.... that would never happen....

/I for one, would like to welcome this PD to today's day and age were most police departments have been carrying this rifle for quite some time already.
//The action and decision to carry them was for the most part based upon the north Hollywood shootout when police departments across the country realized that they could easily be out gunned on the street and another tool was needed to be able to compete against those who chose to do harm with bigger and better weaponry then a pistol.


What I find interesting is this isn't the first instance of police being outgunned.
We had this problem in the 1800's, in the 1920's, and in the 1980's. many departments experienced the issue time and time again.
It's like some bean counter shows up in low crime intervals and declares peace to have broken out before grabbing the cops guns. Then all hell breaks loose and the cops rush to buy new guns like everyone else.

This cyclical disarming of the public and law enforcement is more likely to cause a problem than solve it.
Someone should just write a law so government leaves people alone to own their weapons, rather than suffer this insanity every generation.
 
2013-01-25 09:41:56 AM  

Kit Fister: Alonjar: Kit Fister: SWAT teams did that. They took them down with headshots. Your average Patrol officer couldn't hit a headshot if you paid 'em and put 'em point blank.

Actually, they both bled to death of minor wounds to their hands and feet. Well, one guy shot himself in the head after he was shot in his hand and could no longer mount an appropriate fight. The other guy bled to death.

Really? i thought they took headshots. Oh well. must be wrong.


Yeah... and if you want to get really technical, the main thing that stopped these guys was the fact that they had illegally converted standard civilian guns into fully automatics... and thus when subjected to an actual sustained firefight, the weapons kept jamming and malfunctioning. They were really only taken down when their weapons stopped working.
 
2013-01-25 09:41:58 AM  

Dimensio: Farce-Side: I admittedly didn't read the whole thread, because most of it is herpity derpity on both sides of the argument, especially the bits between NewportBarGuy and Frank N Stein.

I just came in to see why there were so many posts. This is not news. Every department I know of here permits officers to purchase an AR-15 or even an AK-47 and carry it in their patrol vehicle as long as they are department certified to use it. SWAT is issued M16's, and patrol seargents are issued AR's. I'm failing to see the big deal. They aren't using taxpayer money on the weapons, they're making the officers pay for it themselves.

The "big deal" relates to the claim that such firearms are suitable only for "killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible". The implication of that claim with police officers possessing them is either that police officers are tasked with "killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible" or that advocates of prohibiting civilian ownership of such firearms are liars. Based upon my own experiences, both with rifles and with advocates of prohibiting ownership of such rifles, I tend to accept the latter implication.


OHHHHHHH i get it now, so it's one big trolling exercise. Got it.

To clarify my position before I get derped on, I think cops should be able to have AR-15's. I think I should be able to have AR-15's too. I don't think EVERYONE should have AR-15's, because those convicted of violent crimes and those who are mentally unstable are known to be quite dangerous. Hey, isn't there already a law against those people owning guns?

/Now herp-a-derp in 3....2....
 
2013-01-25 09:43:01 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

The thing about this is that no one got killed by these guys. Despite the thousand rounds and body armor and high-powered rifles no one got killed (except the two gunmen themselves).

So explain to me why this one-time incident is used as proof we need military-grade peace officers at all times?
 
2013-01-25 09:43:11 AM  
Using media over-hyped emotionally charged events to spread fear and get legislation passed? Thumbs up!
Using media over-hyped emotionally charged events to spread fear and equip police departments? Thumbs up!

It's a when win situation
 
2013-01-25 09:45:07 AM  

Alonjar: Kit Fister: Alonjar: Kit Fister: SWAT teams did that. They took them down with headshots. Your average Patrol officer couldn't hit a headshot if you paid 'em and put 'em point blank.

Actually, they both bled to death of minor wounds to their hands and feet. Well, one guy shot himself in the head after he was shot in his hand and could no longer mount an appropriate fight. The other guy bled to death.

Really? i thought they took headshots. Oh well. must be wrong.

Yeah... and if you want to get really technical, the main thing that stopped these guys was the fact that they had illegally converted standard civilian guns into fully automatics... and thus when subjected to an actual sustained firefight, the weapons kept jamming and malfunctioning. They were really only taken down when their weapons stopped working.


My understanding -- which may be inaccurate -- is that the converted firearms were themselves smuggled into the country and that they were not actually legally available to civilians in the United States of America specifically because they could be so easily converted to fully automatic operation.
 
2013-01-25 09:45:55 AM  
Big deal police forces in Canada use them. I didn't even know about it until we had a shooting a couple of years back and the suspect was on the run and the police were out bridges and intersections with their rifles out looking for him. I kind of agree with the article anyway as long as these type of rifles are going to be owned by the public they police should have the ability to counter them.
 
2013-01-25 09:48:37 AM  

Rich Cream: [upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

The thing about this is that no one got killed by these guys. Despite the thousand rounds and body armor and high-powered rifles no one got killed (except the two gunmen themselves).

So explain to me why this one-time incident is used as proof we need military-grade peace officers at all times?


Because THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
 
Displayed 50 of 378 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report