Police getting more firepower

Originally posted by Peruvian Monk
reply to post by orange tom 1999

 

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.

Peruvian monk,

Your position is one which is very political. You do not discuss the murder rate with the rest of the world...period. In most countries they do not have easy access to guns. But this does not deter murder at all. Hence your position is political ..not actual. It makes for good emotional politics.
And I am very calm.

I know that the murder rate in the UK is substantial for the size of its population and getting worse as well. It does not do for you to point this out to us in this manner when there are those who know how the body politic works and educates the populace. Some of us here have more than a television eduation Peruvianmonk.

Most people in this country do not die from firearms related causes...they die in much larger numbers from car accidents , infections, heart attacks..etc.

Removing guns does nothing for crime..period

I also know that the French are having problems with crime committed by a large immigrant population. Robberies, theft..assaults even murders etc. There is a significant problem with Immigrants causing problems at the Calais area while waiting to board HGVs to catch a ride on the train to the UK for government handouts. Very similar to the problems from illegal immigrants coming in from south of the border here. THese people are going to cause further problems when they get to your country....including murder.

My point here is that a lot of what you post is dependent on the ignorance of most Americans. You would be correct in this assumption..but not all of us.

We have no wish or desire to follow the British or Continental template in anything. We are Yanks and do not ask....or declare..."by your leave Governor." Yes Governor, Yes Governor."

We are not interested in such Feudal thinking or value systems. We are not interested in becoming subjects or having a subject education.

Also ..there are those of us here who know the history of the British Empire and how they treated their subjects. Also the history of the Crown and its Merchant Crown Colonies.

In knowing this we do not automatically give the British credit..nor the Crown...for giving up slavery before us here in the states. For we know that the Brits and the Crown found a much better way to create slaves across the board. ....It is called Opium....along with all the slavery history and subjection/misery it caused around the world.

You see Peruvian Monk...the British have no claim to the moral high ground. What the British do is have a better way of covering it up in the history books. For you see the British have such a nice delicate way of enslaving the world and making subjects....that Americans are generally so stupid we think it is just wonderful to be a subject. No thanks. Not all of us are that stupid.

The British and their History have no moral high ground on us here in the States. Some of us, Peruvian Monk, do know some world history and the dirt swept under the rug of the Empire and the Crown.

You are wasting your time with such techniques..unless you can only get an audience of recent graduates from public schools where most of the history of this world will be missing form their knowledge/educations.

And once again..I am calm,
Thanks,
Orangetom

reply to post by fmcanarney


OK. Let me make this easy.

Is the .223 round - the bullet - a .22 caliber round - or not?

I reload and I have a couple thousand Nosler ballistic tip bullets in .22 caliber for the .223.

It's STILL a souped up .22. It's not .27 in diameter, it's .22 in diameter.

It's not .30 in diameter, the .223 is .22 in diameter.

It's a hot rod, souped up .22. Just more powder, a more efficient bullet design, and a centerfire round.

A hot rod .22.

With adapter, you can fire .22 Long Rifle through that AR-15, as the bore and the bullets match.

Just like the same barrel will fire the .380, the 9mm, the .38 Special, and the .357 magnum. If you have the different cylinders, all will fire from the same wheelgun.

Like I mentioned earlier the difference between a .22 rimfire and .223 centerfire is substantial. It is not enough however to merit calling the .223 centerfire anything more than a "souped up" .22.

The difference is similar to what Andy Granetelli did with the 289 Studebaker engine which put out 250 BHP stock. He put a supercharger on the engine and got 975 BHP. Enough to race in the Indianapolis 500 for a few years in the 1960's.

.218 Mashburn BEE, .219 Zipper, .17 REM, all are smaller diameter bullet than .22 rimfire, and substantially would they be called a "souped down" .22?

The proper round to identify as a "souped up" .22 is the .22 WMR or Winchester Magnum Rimfire round.



[edit on 2-6-2009 by fmcanarney]

reply to post by orangetom1999


You are massively righteous are you not? ha ha. The British, obviously, have no claim to the moral high ground and i am not looking for it. Just pointing out that clearly the ability to own and purchase arms so easily, clearly leads to a lot of High School and University slaughter which you don't see round the world as often as you do in America. I don't see how you can deny this?

Once again, obviously accidents and disease take more lives than gun murders, as is the case Worldwide. If they didn't i would be fleeing your country if i were you. That point is completly irrelevent.

Yes my feudal lord comes knocking to pick up my rent and quota of turnips. Yours sends you on pointless wars of aggression and sells out the citizen to corporate interets. Anyway i am repeating myself. Obviously my view is political, everything is my friend.

The police i can imagine must be extremly nervous every time they go on duty when you see the weapons that some of the criminals and ordinary citizens are packing. How about that shooting spree in the early 90's where the two perps had automatic weapons and were covered head to toe in body armour, the Police had nothing to match them. The point is there must either be an escalation on the part of the police or a change in the law which makes it harder to purchase firearms.

The End.


[edit on 2-6-2009 by Peruvianmonk]

[edit on 2-6-2009 by Peruvianmonk]

I'm just amazed that the police were denied the ability to arm themselves properly. Absolutely amazed. I think it's completely ridiculous that the police can't be trusted with the same weapons that the rest of us can.

If this was the Boston police being denied these weapons, I can just imagine how poorly armed the cops in my small town must be. Well, if the cops can't have modern weapons to protect me, I'm glad that I can have modern weapons to protect myself.

reply to post by fmcanarney


fm, when that little .22" diameter bullet goes down range, it arrives on target making a little .22"' hole. Whether it's a .22 long rifle, or .223, the hole is the same.

The .17 is smaller in diameter than the .22 by .05".

the .223 is not an ideal hunting round for game in excess of 100 pounds, nor is it a reliable man-stopper. People can talk all the trash they want to, but I note they've usually never used one on a determined foe.

Hell, you can kill a man with a .22 rimfire long rifle at 100 yards. You just can't do it reliably.

I've seen men shot three and four times center mass with a .223, and the SOB still kept coming.

One man's .223 is another man's hot rod .22 as when they punch the paper, you can't tell which is which.

How are the police of america supposed to fight the inevitable invasion of 2012. I think this is a step in the right direction but it is still not enough.

reply to post by electricthought

I think you can get an idea of how the Police will respond if you'll look to the riots of Los Angeles, Liberty City, and New York, and how well they handled the Columbine and other tragedies.

Look, they're underpaid, undertrained, and underarmed.

If the SHTF, as happened in New Orleans, you'll see cops doing the same thing. Going home.

These guys would be completely out of their league, and actually needed at home.

Smart ones fold the tent.

The dumb ones will have a very short half-life.

reply to post by dooper


Yeah they should have Scuba gear in all their trunks. Screw the idea of the side arm, the police should have 2 rifles a big one and a bigger one. As i look at the police men in my city i just see easy targets. They should all be wearing full swat gear at all times. And why do they not drive armored vehicles.

reply to post by jd140

You said :
The M16 cannot be fired in an automatic mode. There are only single shot and semi automatic.

How can people be this misinformed ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1a655c02046d.jpg[/atsimg]
Source : Colt Weapon Systems

With this kind of muzzle velocity and a frangible round, it pretty much doesn't matter where you get hit : you're dead !

Hooray !!

I feel safer already ...

Yes, Dooper we are of approximately the same level of knowledge for weapons. I do believe you are knowledgable and adept with weapons.
Thank you for your service to this country, if I may be so bold to assume that. You are a great asset to freedom and liberty.

reply to post by fmcanarney


Nah, I don't have an equal knowledge as you. I just had a few questionable experiences with the .223.

Don't get me wrong, as one of my collection is a Colt CAR, and I handload to get everything out of it I can.

Your opinion of me is greatly appreciated, but greatly exaggerated. My wife of . . . forever . . . might beg to differ with you!

I swear though, if I was a police officer - and I wouldn't make it a week before getting fired - I'd have a shortened pump .12 guage, and a .308 semiautomatic to accompany my 1911 sidearm.

Thus, you can clear a room, or clear a distant hilltop.

Dooper,

I agree with a .45 sidearm, a 12 guage pump, and a .308 cal. bolt action scpoed or M1 Garand, for short, medium and long range work.

The four biggest allies in WWI and WWII were Australia, Britian, Canada and USA. In the past fifteen years we know what happened to firearms in Australia, Britian and Canada, as well as what has been and is being attempted here in USA.

Many experts feel the current trend of the militarization of the US justice system will open the door to many abuses.

For only a single example of the kinds of degradations we can almost certainly expect to see, I offer the following clip -

alex jones did a show on this on this. And how much of a failure arming the police would be


[edit on 2-6-2009 by electricthought]

I lived in Austin for years and every year would do downtown during Mardi gra and join the celebration. The cops for years wore short sleeve shirts and pants and had their duty weapon on and watched over the revelers to remove anyone that got too rowdy.

Then the FEDS started to militarize them. One year they changed into storm troopers out of Star Wars wearing riot gear, carrying big bottles of pepper spray and looking menacing and were out in about 10 times their usual numbers.

There had not been any trouble to speak of for years. That year was different. They caused a riot when some drunk guy who always caused trouble ran his wheel chair into the cops and they beat him down and pepper sprayed him. Other people in the crowd did not see the drunk run into the cops they just saw the cop escalate to clubbing and pepper spray and moved towards the cops shouting to leave the poor guy alone.

The cops lost it and cleared the whole street beating and pepper spraying people that had no idea of what was going on. No one could get out of the way fast enough and were pushed down and pepper sprayed. Women, old people and babies in their cribs where sprayed and were hit with rubber bullets. They caused a melee all because they were in an aggressive posture and militarized.

That celebration has never been the same. It attracts fewer people every year since. The city by taking that over aggressive stance escalated the situation very quickly. If there were just the normal patrols live every other year there would have been just one drunk guy in a wheel chair going to jail for public intoxication. Instead there were people losing their eyes to rubber bullets that were just innocent by standers. Babies choking on pepper spray and having to be hospitalized.

Keep ratcheting up the police state and they will see more and more violence as a result. That whole us verses them mentality destroys community.

Our local PD made the switch from the shotgun to patrol rifles and cited penetration issues as the reason. Every blast from that shotgun sends 8 .30 cal projectiles flying through drywall, not good. I'm skeptical of claims that the 5.56 loses more energy going through drywall than buckshot or a slug, but quite a few tests seem to show the AR-15 is a safer alternative than a shotgun in an urban environment. The thought of adopting patrol rifles to thwart terrorists seems rather ridiculous, but police do need to be able to combat regular scumbags that get their hands on rifles, shotguns etc.

I would like to submit the hypothesis that maybe things like that occur because the police are given new weapons with a focus on how to use them, but not enough focus on when to use them.

For example, a taser is a great way to get a violent person to stop an assault, or to disable an armed suspect while minimizing the risk of killing anyone. It's a horrible way to deal with somebody who's simply being disrespectful or uncooperative. The cops aren't shown the difference, they're just shown how to use the taser. I'm sure many cops are out on the street who still call it a "non-lethal" weapon.

Or in the case from the previous post, the cops might have been issued the riot gear and then assumed that the beefed up gear meant that their mission was to be more forceful with troublemakers. It's actually pretty easy to see how they would get this idea. If you give them the gear for a riot-quelling mission and fail to successfully explain that their mission is still to simply be on patrol, they're going to hit the streets thinking their mission is to look for a riot to quell.

And in the case of this thread, if the police are going to be given AR15 rifles, they should also be thoroughly trained not only in *how* to use them, but *when.* In addition, the people in charge of the police need to make sure that training is being utilized.

I don't personally believe that we'll be any safer with the average Boston cop armed with an AR pattern rifle.

It is, however, asinine to maintain that an 5.56mm NATO rifle is comparable to a .22 squirrel gun like some folks have pointed out. An AR of any caliber, be it a .223, .308, 6.8mm, or whatever is a modern centerfire rifle firing modern munitions and is a force to be reckoned with in any tactical situation. Run away, run away quickly.

reply to post by orangetom1999


Peruvianmonk.

I posted

You see Peruvian Monk...the British have no claim to the moral high ground. What the British do is have a better way of covering it up in the history books. For you see the British have such a nice delicate way of enslaving the world and making subjects....that Americans are generally so stupid we think it is just wonderful to be a subject. No thanks. Not all of us are that stupid.

And you repled...

Just pointing out that clearly the ability to own and purchase arms so easily, clearly leads to a lot of High School and University slaughter which you don't see round the world as often as you do in America. I don't see how you can deny

I know exactly what you mean here. We should change the status of all Americans because some children got shot in public schools. We should make all Americans subject to "wildlife in its natural habitat" to the point where even our government cannot protect us and we are subject to the same "wildlife in its natural habitat." This includes "government wildlife in its natural habitat." THus we will not be able to protect our children even in our homes and neither will the government. Because the government will be to busy protecting government. Sound familiar to you? It should.

Your position and debate point makes excellent political logic and reason..but it makes lousy pratical and sensible logic and reason. It puts ointment on the "feelings and sentiments" of most television watchers...but will do nothing to protect the ordinary citizen or our children. ZERO.

Your economy is going in the tank faster than ours here. It will be interesting to find out how this is going to protect the average Brit..especially in the cities from "Shopping day" of the average "wildlife" wont to roam your neighborhoods. Particularly in the big cities....where you have the greatest government/police presence.

It is you who are massively righteous Peruvianmonk. You, like many liberals here, are wont to argue away our rights as Americans to the point where we will no longer be able to own any property but be subject to the whims of government wildlife and the other assorted wildlife wont to roam the streets.

We are not Brits here. We are not feudal in nature. Nor that Socialist in our thinking.


Think about what you are saying here Peruvianmonk.

The police i can imagine must be extremly nervous every time they go on duty when you see the weapons that some of the criminals and ordinary citizens are packing.

The very nature of our government is different here. We are not subjects who must prove our innocence as do you Brits. We must not demonstrate good faith in ownership of firearms. This is a RIGHT ...not a privelege as in the UK. We are not under a Sovereign in this.

You Brits have been under the thumb of the sovereign for so long that you cannot think of anything but privileges of the sovereign..and want to make everyone as are you. To make the world England. No thanks.

The police should indeed be wary and nervous when confronting ordinary Americans if they, the government, are breaking or stretching the law. They work for us ..not for the sovereign. You also ...like a good subject seem wont by your quote above to put the ordinary citizen in the same league as the criminal. Typical Brit thinking. Guilty without trial. The citizen must prove their innocence. No Peruvianmonk...this is not how the law works here...we are innocent until proven guilty. This is a very important distinction between the jurisdiction of the law in the UK, the Continent, and here in the States. For I know that the difference is that in the UK and the Continent the citizen must prove thier innocence and the presumption by the government and state is one of guilt not innocence as here in the States.

For all that matter the criminal element should also be nervous when confronting the ordinary citizen here..not look on the ordinary citizen as a meal or opportunity to be preyed upon. This also includes government criminals as outlined in many of the Constitutional support documents and writings such as the Federalist Papers or opinions of the founders of this government charter.

Your emotions, your educational levels, your need for ointment at any cost would totally reverse this government charter and make this country England. No thanks.

And once again ..I am calm.

Orangetom






[edit on 3-6-2009 by orangetom1999]