Gun Control Necessary: For Police!!!

Police should have a limit to the type of ammunition, and the number of rounds they can carry. A six shot clip would be enough, in the rare situation they need more, they should be able to call in reinforcements for these situations. Their is no reason for a peace office to carry so much firepower, when time and time again, they abuse it, and someone unjustly dies. This is how i propose that we reduce police on civilian crime. Police Clips and ammunition and what they can carry needs to be drastically reduced. They should have to prove why they need so much firepower, not us prove why they do not.

originally posted by: Vaedur
Police should have a limit to the type of ammunition, and the number of rounds they can carry. A six shot clip would be enough, in the rare situation they need more, they should be able to call in reinforcements for these situations. Their is no reason for a peace office to carry so much firepower, when time and time again, they abuse it, and someone unjustly dies. This is how i propose that we reduce police on civilian crime. Police Clips and ammunition and what they can carry needs to be drastically reduced. They should have to prove why they need so much firepower, not us prove why they do not.

Excellent post. s&f.

originally posted by: Vaedur
Police should have a limit to the type of ammunition, and the number of rounds they can carry. A six shot clip would be enough, in the rare situation they need more, they should be able to call in reinforcements for these situations. Their is no reason for a peace office to carry so much firepower, when time and time again, they abuse it, and someone unjustly dies. This is how i propose that we reduce police on civilian crime. Police Clips and ammunition and what they can carry needs to be drastically reduced. They should have to prove why they need so much firepower, not us prove why they do not.

Prosecute homicides committed by cops. That would solve the problem.

It's a magazine not a clip

a reply to: Vaedur

Bet their shot accuracy would go through the roof. If I had 6 bullets to rely on, I'd be damn sure to practice until 6 shots are 6 kills. Give them 1 bullet with which to protect their life and they will become crack shot snipers.

I'd guess the 'hail of bullets' and 'collateral damage' incidents would become rarer too.

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: Vaedur
Police should have a limit to the type of ammunition, and the number of rounds they can carry. A six shot clip would be enough, in the rare situation they need more, they should be able to call in reinforcements for these situations. Their is no reason for a peace office to carry so much firepower, when time and time again, they abuse it, and someone unjustly dies. This is how i propose that we reduce police on civilian crime. Police Clips and ammunition and what they can carry needs to be drastically reduced. They should have to prove why they need so much firepower, not us prove why they do not.

Prosecute homicides committed by cops. That would solve the problem.

I agree. The problem has nothing to do with how many bullets they carry. It's about them feeling like they are above the people they are meant to police because they are trained that they will be protected when they break the rules.

Stop letting them get away with abuse and they won't feel like they can get away with murder.

It's not all cops. I would not want a good cop to run out of bullets at a bad time. It also has nothing to do with the guns.

a reply to: Vaedur

They need to control that itch on their trigger finger.

Just chop it off.

ON the surface your idea is good. But I can think of too many situations where a police officer might need more than six shots including a real criminal with an assault rifle, multiple criminals all armed with guns and a prolonged gun fight all where the initial officer is alone, without backup for several minutes.

I don't think limiting shots to six fixes cop homicide, I think it's, as was posted earlier, prosecution and conviction of police murderers.

a reply to: Vaedur

I agree with all that you say and the consequent poster who says prosecute police homicides.

I've always believed that tougher prosecution of police and a change of what types of force that are being used (i.e. fire-power) would solve the problem.

Leave death and destruction to the Military. Neutralization should be for the police force and domestic para-military agencies.

We need more effective methods of neutralization and less deadly ammunition and less dangerous forms of weaponry.

Of course, the counter-argument is just do away with all criminals. Kill them all - more economically efficient, but more room for error in civil justice.

Obviously you are going to implement the same limitation on criminals?

Since you cant do that why not take the logical approach and press charges or hold accountable the small % of cops that commit crimes.

a reply to: Vaedur

Obviously, you do not know much about firearms and self defense. What you propose would make police handicapped vs criminal who would not play by any rules. There should be no limit, Police and civilian alike should be able to carry as much or as little as they think they need for the situations they may encounter. Prosecute those bad apples and they will be less police who abuse their powers.

originally posted by: Vaedur
Police should have a limit to the type of ammunition, and the number of rounds they can carry. A six shot clip would be enough, in the rare situation they need more, they should be able to call in reinforcements for these situations. Their is no reason for a peace office to carry so much firepower, when time and time again, they abuse it, and someone unjustly dies. This is how i propose that we reduce police on civilian crime. Police Clips and ammunition and what they can carry needs to be drastically reduced. They should have to prove why they need so much firepower, not us prove why they do not.

Typically, when taking advice on how things should be (process, function, etc), i try to stick to people who seem to know that which they are dealing with. For example, gun laws coming from law makers are typically asinine as they have no clue about firearms.

I don't mean to come off as rude....but using terms like "clip" shows a very low level of understanding of firearms that, in all likelyhood, arises from a slew of pop culture references. People educated in firearms usually use the correct term, "magazines" or "mag" for short.

It may seem trivial. but a "clip" references a different device. For reference: www.minutemanreview.com...

With that said, Ill only point out that 1 bullet or 18.....magazine capacity doesn't matter. It only takes a single shot to kill you. i fail to see how your suggestion does anything.

a reply to: Vaedur

How much or how little weapon capacity they have equipped I think has very little to do with fundamental effects of police brutality.

I say police should be held at higher standard. They break the rule of law than their punishments should be harsher. It seems only fair. So lets say they unintentionally discharge their firearm at an innocent, they should be charged to the fullest extent of the law like any other person would. I'm sick of people putting cops in the lime light as a shining example of valor,honor and courage because of the occupational hazards they have to endure. When quite obviously theirs evidence to the contrary.

Thankfully the police will be replaced by security robots in the future so they'll be out of a job soon.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

With that said, Ill only point out that 1 bullet or 18.....magazine capacity doesn't matter. It only takes a single shot to kill you. i fail to see how your suggestion does anything.

I have to disagree here ....the human equation comes into play...fear,speed,reaction time etc all play a part....1 size does not fit all...

How many times have we heard size does not matter it is how you use it

I have no issue if LEOs use firearms where it's called for, can't be avoided, is absolutely necessary.

Where I have an issue is the ollie-ollie-outsinfree thing about being able to say (essentially) "he was coming right for me" and then the blue shield goes over it and all is a-ok. "you can't monday morning quarterback". Well, if the LEO's judgement was criminally poor, then I don't care WHAT he perceived. You CAN monday morning quarterback. People's lives and freedom are at stake. If a LEO performs with execrable stupidity, then I don't care what he perceived. He's too dangerous to have a firearm and should have to pay for his poor judgement. This entire legal fiction lets LEOs gloss over pretty much any behavior. If there was no immediate threat I don't care if he "thought" the remote in the guy's hand was an M16 or whatever other crap they spout. If you can't tell the difference in a split second it's clear you don't need to ever be a LEO again.

To that end, it's human nature that your buddies are going to cover for you. Thus I also don't give two hoots what IA finds. They have no legal weight and if you see a DA "waiting for IA" they're waiting for plausible deniability to nol pros. IA is never going to be impartial.

The same goes for local prosecutors.

The certification of LEOs needs to be hiked to the federal level, all deployed firearms fired or not and every fatal encounter between LEOs and civilians should be elevated to a federal investigation, and moved out of the reach of local politics, the local prosecutor and the local IA. And the minimum upon determining the cop was at fault is that he/she is permanently decertified.

I also think said certification board should deploy "secret testers" without warning into pretty much any domestic disturbance and randomly among local precincts. And when any LEO screws up, bang, no cert. The thought that the very next bum, hipster, person of color or cop-blocky guy they molest or dog they shoot could end their career right then and there would put the fear of unemployment into them. And it ought to be a spectacular felony sentence - say a 20 year mandatory minimum - to assault an auditor, and maybe a 5 year mandatory minimum if you fail to intervene. That would start breaking that blue line - you screw up and your partner gets 5 for sitting there.

a reply to: Vaedur

In my country mother Sweden. They have hollow bullets, you die When the police shoot you..

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The 40 cal is desired for its ability to stop a human in a single shot. The 9mm....not heralded like that.

But honestly....9mm, .45, .40, .38....you are rarely going to need more than 1, maybe 2 rounds to stop someone. Needless to say, the magazine capacity discussed in the OP would make a great example of laws passed. Ineffective at stopping anything more than liberty.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I guess for one thing less bullets would force officers to be a lot more accurate and less spray and pray....

And you are right most people would stop after a bullet maybe 2 but every now and again there is a freakazoid who takes a little more to take down

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

That's why .40 is considered to be THE caliber that LEO should use. It is the most effective weapon for bringing down a human target, which is the only purpose of firing your weapon in the line of duty.

But if having less rounds available (AKA, "the Barney Fife method") is the only way to ensure that an officer isn't going to cause other death/damage, then that officer absolutely has no place possessing a firearm. The way to address that is training, standards, and testing. Not restricting. Fire bad cops and cops who are prone to crapping their pants and emptying their weapon when they use it. Especially cops that shoot at the back of fleeing suspects.

LEO is not the kind of job we should idiot proof. We don't want idiots able to do the job.

Up here, they used to all carry six round revolvers.

357mag- so they were dangerous. But you had six shots before you had to reload, and maybe a dozen more on you.

I wonder how many times a few officers shot 100+ rounds at a "suspect" back then.