Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





What a preposterous thread. Why would I NOT want a policeman to have an edge in a possible confrontation with an active shooter? Seriously?


If all the guns are banned , why would he have to worry about it?




posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 

Have you ever read the Constitution? Do you know what the Second Amendment says?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Isn't it a little too late, to try and control guns? Talk about working @ss backwards. They should have had these laws and regulations in place, BEFORE they allowed citizens to buy guns and assault weapons. They armed the population FOR A REASON! Why else would you allow someone to purchase a M-16? Live by the sword; Die by the sword.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
It is called "backup."



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Snsoc
 


Around here the county law keeps and automatic assult weapon on board all cruisers.....as well they should.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I am not a gun supporter. I don't own one, never have shot one and unless something drastically changes in the world I plan on never shooting or owning one.

What I don't get though is the thought that making something illegal will prevent it from happening.. People are still dumb enough to drink and drive ( i am sure their are idiots on this website with at least one DUI on their record) ..People still do drugs..people still rape.. people still rob... Beyond that what realistic way is there to remove all guns from the circulation? It can't be done. If this was a new country and the rules were just being established you could make a case to disarm everyone, govt and people, but that is not the case here.

I am a firm believer that people are accountable for their actions. I do not believe that Sandy Hook was a conspiracy but rather a random act of violence by 1 person. That person was responsible for the violence. The guns made that violence worse for sure but that person made the choices to follow that course of action. He was responsible. Not the NRA or some gun company. He was.

Maybe that's a naive way to look at it but I just dont see making guns illegal doing anything but making more people want them.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Obsrvr
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 

Have you ever read the Constitution? Do you know what the Second Amendment says?


If you have read any of my previous posts in any of my threads you probably wouldnt ask that question my friend



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
I imagine events like the North Hollywood shootout and similar events are a major factor.

Can also simply be answered by asking ... if you had to risk your life, would you want to do it with Gun A or slightly better Gun B. Police will always support having the second gun for themselves. As buddhasystem said, they want to be superior to the public in capability.


How many north hollywood shootout like events have we had? Probably just north hollywood shootout!

How many times do cops need .38special rather than .380acp hollow points? Probably rare because I am not aware of bad guys wearing bullet proof vests that often when commiting crimes; the smart ones wear a ski mask, gloves and .22lr with a silencer.

But lets not let logic get in the way of cops edging their way towards military status hardware and putting a bigger and bigger dent on the local township budget. Give them the biggest and the best!



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Why does the number of bullets that they carry matter at all?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Snsoc
 


Around here the county law keeps and automatic assult weapon on board all cruisers.....as well they should.


Probably not, unless they are expecting the canadians to invade. Next thing you know they all are going to have armored personel carriers. Talk about military-industrial complex overkill while obama and company has no problem severly compromising civilian capabilities. So many semis have the potential to get banned.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
Why does the number of bullets that they carry matter at all?


Ask "the communist" obama why. If cops can have 100 round magazines when why not civilians? Oh I forgot its because the government is expecting a police state soon and cops plus military are going to need every single bullet and gun and courage they can get their hands on IF those traitors in washington decide to ban what feinstein wants.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

Versus Body Armor they just need better Marksmanship (the body armor did not cover the head).



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by BobSwagger
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.


Erm, not the criminal citizens. Not even in theory.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 

Barney Fife only had six and never used even one.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Snsoc
 


Here in northern Ontario, in the city I'm from, during the 90s a cop was killed. He was gunned down doing a random traffic stop, something unheard of in Canada. He did manage to draw his six shot police issued revolver and get a few shots off but he was facing two armed suspects with semi automatic handguns.

This was the straw that broke the camels back and now police all carry semi autos with more than one shot.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





What a preposterous thread. Why would I NOT want a policeman to have an edge in a possible confrontation with an active shooter? Seriously?


If all the guns are banned, why would he have to worry about it?


Facetious are we?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
reply to post by Snsoc
 


Here in northern Ontario, in the city I'm from, during the 90s a cop was killed. He was gunned down doing a random traffic stop, something unheard of in Canada. He did manage to draw his six shot police issued revolver and get a few shots off but he was facing two armed suspects with semi automatic handguns.

This was the straw that broke the camels back and now police all carry semi autos with more than one shot.


Thank you.

I think I saw this quote in "Call of Duty":

whoever said that the pen is mightier than the sword obviously has never faced automatic weapons.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
But lets not let logic get in the way of cops edging their way towards military status hardware and putting a bigger and bigger dent on the local township budget. Give them the biggest and the best!


This is a stinky straw man argument. The hardware is nothing compared to compensation and benefits. If you think people here are idiots, go post some place else.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Snsoc
 


Around here the county law keeps and automatic assult weapon on board all cruisers.....as well they should.


Probably not, unless they are expecting the canadians to invade. Next thing you know they all are going to have armored personel carriers. Talk about military-industrial complex overkill while obama and company has no problem severly compromising civilian capabilities. So many semis have the potential to get banned.


They have them because there are a lot of them around here. They just dont want to pull up on a call and have only a side arm when someone might have an AK going to town. They keep them in the trunk.
edit on 13-1-2013 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





What a preposterous thread. Why would I NOT want a policeman to have an edge in a possible confrontation with an active shooter? Seriously?


If all the guns are banned, why would he have to worry about it?


Facetious are we?


We would have to worry about the unknow millions that would still be out there. If you think our worry would be over if guns were banned???/What could you be thinking.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join