Frederick: I agree. I also cannot support thinking that suggests somehow cops are more responsible gun owners and therefor should have special rights.

What a responsible cop may look like

Do cops on average have smaller penises than the general public?

My dick is above average, so I have no dog in this fight, ban them all. I could care less. The only people I know who rant about guns are right wing whackjobs who would be precluded from owning a firearm in any sensible society, based on the deep and far ranging disorders they suffer from.

Has anyone ever wondered who all the gun owners and anti-firearms people who hook up man-on-man style are? I know it seems like an odd couple kind of thing, but there are a lot of anti-firearms guys who have apparently sucked a lot of gun owner dick. They're always talking about it...the size, their feelings about it, etc. Always when people are talking about firearms, these guys come in and start talking about other guys' junk, and to listen to them, they've obviously had a pretty large sample size.

Obviously, I'm not painting either gun-owners or anti-firearms people as closeted homosexuals...that would be silly...but these guys who really have nothing to add to a discussion about weapons other than talking about all the gun-owner dick they've experienced...they're pretty weird.

dittybopper: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

This.

This, again.

justtray: I really want to hear someone successfully argue why police shouldnt be better armed than civilians without using petty semantic arguments. (the gun nut favorite go-to)

Is this because you're incapable of explaining why police should be better-armed than other civilians without resorting to breathless hyperbole? Also, you're going to have a very difficult time hearing anything people post on this website unless you use Narrator.

/there's your petty semantic argument

Apik0r0s: My dick is above average, so I have no dog in this fight, ban them all. I could care less. The only people I know who rant about guns are right wing whackjobs who would be precluded from owning a firearm in any sensible society, based on the deep and far ranging disorders they suffer from.

That's so sweet how you call your boyfriend your dick.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Two gun threads in a row now where the gun nut I was talking to just gave up and bugged out with his tail between his legs.

Huh.... one more and I think I have a trend.

They finally figured out you're an idiot who doesn't have a valid point so they stop responding to your childish rants?

Wayne 985:
Bad. Still not as bad as a black man having his nuts clipped like a steer.

If you're going to be disingenuous, fine. If that isn't actually your intention, then try not comparing the banal letter of historical law on one side with the honest (but anecdotal) actions committed by the other. The 3rd amendment did not come out of a void, it came in response to the behavior of quartered soldiers during and after the 7 years war. Of course their behavior in the myriad wars throughout human history also indicated that allowing this was a bad idea.

Most quartered soldiers weren't abusive jackwagons, but most slaves weren't treated as badly as you mention either. Sometimes though, a slave got clipped, and sometimes hosts were raped or worse.

Saying one of those is more or less wrong than the other is a peculiar brand of moral relativism I do not subscribe to. In for a penny, in for a pound, as the saying goes.

justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: Big Man On Campus: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

They've tried this, with mixed results.
[www.seeing-stars.com image 500x211]

Criminals will just be better armed and organized.

You mean criminals will ignore not only gun control laws and illegally modify weapons into contraband machine guns, but will also ignore laws prohibiting armed robbery, attempted murder, and a whole slew of other laws barring violent criminal acts?

Seriously? Criminals ignored laws and broke them anyway? Gun control laws didn't stop them?


WOW. I need to rethink things after that revelation...

Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Are people really so dense that they still think this is a valid line of thought? I mean jesus, get some new stupid talking points already.

Murder is an action. A rifle is simply an object.

BGates: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Two gun threads in a row now where the gun nut I was talking to just gave up and bugged out with his tail between his legs.

Huh.... one more and I think I have a trend.

They finally figured out you're an idiot who doesn't have a valid point so they stop responding to your childish rants?

It's why I have him in Derp Grey 1

drop: Wayne 985:
Bad. Still not as bad as a black man having his nuts clipped like a steer.

If you're going to be disingenuous, fine. If that isn't actually your intention, then try not comparing the banal letter of historical law on one side with the honest (but anecdotal) actions committed by the other. The 3rd amendment did not come out of a void, it came in response to the behavior of quartered soldiers during and after the 7 years war. Of course their behavior in the myriad wars throughout human history also indicated that allowing this was a bad idea.

Most quartered soldiers weren't abusive jackwagons, but most slaves weren't treated as badly as you mention either. Sometimes though, a slave got clipped, and sometimes hosts were raped or worse.

Saying one of those is more or less wrong than the other is a peculiar brand of moral relativism I do not subscribe to. In for a penny, in for a pound, as the saying goes.

You're right. Most slaves were just beaten and whipped into submission, just like most home owners just had a packed house and high food bills.

Bottom line: law and morality aren't black and white. Some crimes are worse than others. Get over it.

Wayne 985: drop: Wayne 985:
Bad. Still not as bad as a black man having his nuts clipped like a steer.

If you're going to be disingenuous, fine. If that isn't actually your intention, then try not comparing the banal letter of historical law on one side with the honest (but anecdotal) actions committed by the other. The 3rd amendment did not come out of a void, it came in response to the behavior of quartered soldiers during and after the 7 years war. Of course their behavior in the myriad wars throughout human history also indicated that allowing this was a bad idea.

Most quartered soldiers weren't abusive jackwagons, but most slaves weren't treated as badly as you mention either. Sometimes though, a slave got clipped, and sometimes hosts were raped or worse.

Saying one of those is more or less wrong than the other is a peculiar brand of moral relativism I do not subscribe to. In for a penny, in for a pound, as the saying goes.

You're right. Most slaves were just beaten and whipped into submission, just like most home owners just had a packed house and high food bills.

Bottom line: law and morality aren't black and white. Some crimes are worse than others. Get over it.

I'm sure the Irish would agree with you there.

Can we not argue about whether castration or rape is worse? They're both bad. Evil. Wrong.

No need to piss at each other over which is "worse." Ffs.

GUTSU: I'm sure the Irish would agree with you there.

I don't know what that means.

guns

yawns

Loving this article... wonder how far they will have to go to practice to keep their badges legal... or if they'll just fake the paperwork and be illegal like 99% of their other shiat? "Well, technically, we practiced when we shot those dogs in the back of that man's truck today..."

TheMega: Loving this article... wonder how far they will have to go to practice to keep their badges legal... or if they'll just fake the paperwork and be illegal like 99% of their other shiat? "Well, technically, we practiced when we shot those dogs in the back of that man's truck today..."

Would be an interesting question if all ranges took up a similar policy.
I figure the commercial operations would be tempted by the business, but those are mostly indoor. To properly qualify with a rifle you'll at least need a hundred meters (preferably three hundred or more if you use a 25 meter zero).

So they would keep their handgun and shotgun qualification for a price, but be out of practice on those spiffy black rifles.

/I'll go with "what is forgery?" For a hundred, Alex.
/a cops job is paperwork, not gunplay. It could be years before the issue is questioned.
/especially if the public is convinced that having a badge gives you magic cop powers to use guns better.
/they'll qualify because they'll say they qualified.

craig328: "What condition exists in the UK that makes criminals more likely to commit a violent crime against another person than here in the United States?"

Damn near the highest population density in the world, most likely. 673/sq.mi. The US, meanwhile, is about 89/sq.mi. I'm not going to look up the numbers, but what's the ratio to deadly crimes between the UK and the US? If you take population density into account, do firearms make more crimes deadly in the US? This is way too much math for me, but looking at statistics like "how many people get assaulted in these two widely varying areas" compared to "how many guns do they have" isn't really an effective way of making an argument. The world just ain't that simple.

phyrkrakr: craig328: "What condition exists in the UK that makes criminals more likely to commit a violent crime against another person than here in the United States?"

Damn near the highest population density in the world, most likely. 673/sq.mi. The US, meanwhile, is about 89/sq.mi. I'm not going to look up the numbers, but what's the ratio to deadly crimes between the UK and the US? If you take population density into account, do firearms make more crimes deadly in the US? This is way too much math for me, but looking at statistics like "how many people get assaulted in these two widely varying areas" compared to "how many guns do they have" isn't really an effective way of making an argument. The world just ain't that simple.

I think the entire population density excuse was fairly debunked upthread. Check it out if you have time.

Thanks for playing though. We have some lovely parting gifts.

dittybopper: way south: TheMega: Loving this article... wonder how far they will have to go to practice to keep their badges legal... or if they'll just fake the paperwork and be illegal like 99% of their other shiat? "Well, technically, we practiced when we shot those dogs in the back of that man's truck today..."

Would be an interesting question if all ranges took up a similar policy.
I figure the commercial operations would be tempted by the business, but those are mostly indoor. To properly qualify with a rifle you'll at least need a hundred meters (preferably three hundred or more if you use a 25 meter zero).

So they would keep their handgun and shotgun qualification for a price, but be out of practice on those spiffy black rifles.

/I'll go with "what is forgery?" For a hundred, Alex.
/a cops job is paperwork, not gunplay. It could be years before the issue is questioned.
/especially if the public is convinced that having a badge gives you magic cop powers to use guns better.
/they'll qualify because they'll say they qualified.

Actually, if you use a 25 meter zero, you don't need a 300 meter range, as you can use reduced size targets at 25 meters.

I actually qualified once in the Army that way: Due to some scheduling issue with the regular range, we had to qualify on the "practice/zero range", which was 25 meters. We shot not at pop-up targets, but at reduced sized paper targets. As I recall, the 25th ID was going on their annual field exercise to South Korea, and they had to cram in a bunch of units through the regular range before they left, and since we weren't infantry, and we weren't tactical MI, we were strategic pukes sitting in comfy chairs with conditioned air, we qualified at 25m.

The other two times we got the regular pop-up range.

I qualified expert both ways*, so there isn't much of a functional difference.

*I always shot either low expert or high sharpshooter. The difference between the two usually was something silly, like getting a bunch of jams ...

Technically true.
But if your using a 25 meter zero then your next zero (depending on grain) should be at the 200-250 mark.
Making officers use the a 25m zero to hit a target at one hundred and three hundred meters lets them get a feel for how the ballistics work out in practice.

/So they'd understand why aiming directly at a man a hundred meters away might be a good thing for him and a bad thing for the family living in a house at the end of the block.

Wayne 985:
You're right. Most slaves were just beaten and whipped into submission, just like most home owners just had a packed house and high food bills.

Substantiate both claims.


Bottom line: law and morality aren't black and white. Some crimes are worse than others. Get over it.
Get over what exactly? You pushing your opinion as fact backed by baseless claims?

dittybopper: way south: Technically true.
But if your using a 25 meter zero then your next zero (depending on grain) should be at the 200-250 mark.
Making officers use the a 25m zero to hit a target at one hundred and three hundred meters lets them get a feel for how the ballistics work out in practice.

/So they'd understand why aiming directly at a man a hundred meters away might be a good thing for him and a bad thing for the family living in a house at the end of the block.

Actually, I can't imagine a scenario where the average police officer should have to shoot at a person more than 100 meters away. If you absolutely have to do that, say in some sort of hostage scenario, you'd be better off with a trained police sniper using a specialized bolt-action rifle.

Pinning down a sniper, possibly in the right kind of riot or shoot out, or even animal control. Shootings over twenty meters are rare but do happen.
The point is qualifying to use the thing and a major strength of the small caliber AR is its ability to deal with targets at almost any range with decent accuracy.

/I would say the hundred meter shot is the problem tho, especially for beginners.
/bullet could be flying several inches high, which is a thing to remember with a short range zero.

dittybopper: way south: Pinning down a sniper, possibly in the right kind of riot or shoot out, or even animal control. Shootings over twenty meters are rare but do happen.
The point is qualifying to use the thing and a major strength of the small caliber AR is its ability to deal with targets at almost any range with decent accuracy.

/I would say the hundred meter shot is the problem tho, especially for beginners.
/bullet could be flying several inches high, which is a thing to remember with a short range zero.

I think in those situations that you specify, pulling back and calling in the specialists is most appropriate.

Also, the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO round* shot with a 25 yard zero is going to be about 3.3 inches high at its maximum point, 150 meters, and 3.6 inches low at 300 meters. You can see for yourself here at the Winchester Ammunition Ballistics caligulator.


*Yes, I know there is a slight difference, but ballistically they are identical

Waiting may not be prudent.
The stated purpose for officers needing these rifles is because they want the capability on hand. Otherwise they could have kept the pistols and called a specialist for everything.

The AR is an accurate platform and achieving its trademark performance takes practice.

I know we'll both quibble about the details of what it should be used for till the sun sets, but we can agree that if someone wants to use this on duty they should be familiar with its full performance range. If only so they understand their limits.

drop: Wayne 985:
You're right. Most slaves were just beaten and whipped into submission, just like most home owners just had a packed house and high food bills.

Substantiate both claims.


Bottom line: law and morality aren't black and white. Some crimes are worse than others. Get over it.
Get over what exactly? You pushing your opinion as fact backed by baseless claims?

Substantiate that slaves were routinely beaten? Are you high?

I've also already provided the background on why the 3rd Amendment was implemented, and it was done so explicitly because British troops were using homes and food of colonists when their options were sparse. (Another case of someone demanding I do their homework, being shown the data, and then getting upset.)

Wayne 985: Substantiate that slaves were routinely beaten? Are you high?

You said "Most slaves were just beaten and whipped into submission". Now you are trying to move the goalposts from "most slaves" to "slaves". Nice try. Where is the proof that "most slaves" were just beaten and whipped into submission?

craig328: I think the entire population density excuse was fairly debunked upthread. Check it out if you have time.

Thanks for playing though. We have some lovely parting gifts.

You know how it is - 300 posts, and there's only so much derp I can wade through.

PsiChick: Okay, at least you two read what I said. If you don't want to define the police as paramilitary, that's fine; but we can all agree a police officer will require different tools to do their job (NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE EVER) than, say, your IT guy, right? Because yes, I'm willing to grant there is a lot of wiggle room here; my point about police v. IT guy is the big one, whether it's called paramilitary or Barney Special Hug Squadrons.

Depends on the cop and the area.  It wouldn't surprise me to learn that a tiny percentage of cops ever draw their sidearm in the course of their public duties.  They do so when they are threatened in certain ways or to defend another.  Much like the IT guy might; hence, my Robert Peel quote above.  So long as they are mentally stable non-felons, I have no problem with either having "assault weapons", but I distinguish that from "assault rifles", a different category of firearms.