Can You Imagine?


PDA






SharpsDressedMan
May 6, 2013, 08:51 AM
NY now has a six round limit. Colorado has 15. Some other states are pushing for 10 rounds. Can you imagine laws limiting the POLICE to firing only 10 rounds total at a bad guy, or group of bad guys? There have been SO many police involved shootings that have gone over 50 or 100 rounds (some at unarmed suspects:rolleyes:), that it might be in the public interest to LIMIT the police. It would fall under the same LOGIC that is telling some politicians than a lone civilian trying to protect themselves only needs six, or ten, or.....................

If you enjoyed reading about "Can You Imagine?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Onward Allusion
May 6, 2013, 09:59 AM
SharpsDressedMan
Can You Imagine?
NY now has a six round limit. Colorado has 15. Some other states are pushing for 10 rounds. Can you imagine laws limiting the POLICE to firing only 10 rounds total at a bad guy, or group of bad guys? There have been SO many police involved shootings that have gone over 50 or 100 rounds (some at unarmed suspects), that it might be in the public interest to LIMIT the police. It would fall under the same LOGIC that is telling some politicians than a lone civilian trying to protect themselves only needs six, or ten, or.....................

I don't have to imagine. I would bet some big bucks that there would be A LOT more dead LEO's. A LOT MORE. Even with regular training and annual to quarterly qualification, the average hit-ratio for LE is somewhere between 10% to 30%. (do a 10 sec Google).

Keep in mind, that is HIT-ratio and NOT one-shot stops. Mag limits minimizes survival odds for everyone except for the BG who could give a crap about mag limits. Take out regular training and regular qualifications, 6 or 7 rounds (or even 10) for the typical gun-owner is not enough. Ain't talking about most of us here in this forum.

USSR
May 6, 2013, 10:13 AM
NY now has a six round limit.

It's actually 7. Don't make it any worse than it already is. :banghead:

Don

SharpsDressedMan
May 6, 2013, 09:44 PM
All I'm asking is that politicians reflect on the rationale and logic behind such laws that would limit firearm capacity. If it logical to assume that a citizen with a firearm about to defend themselves is adequately equipped with 7-10 rounds, then it stands to reason that a policeman (who also has the advantage of secondary and tertiary weapons of greater power and range, tasers, bullet resistant equipment, cars with radios to call for other officers, etc) would also be expected to "handle" their armed encounter with 7-10 rounds. Will a regular citizens always be subjected to lesser threats than the police, or possibly even greater danger due to having to act alone? The sad truth is police seldom fire less than 7-10 rounds in a single firefight, and as noted, some encounters are getting into the hundreds of rounds fired BY the police just to stop one offender.

USSR
May 6, 2013, 10:26 PM
Here in NY, police are considered super citizens. Completely different laws and penalties involving murder of law enforcement personnel than murder of a regular citizen. Not right, but that's just the way it is.

Don

JVaughn
May 6, 2013, 11:33 PM
Something interesting about this whole line of reasoning: the statistics of police that commit crimes are about the same as the general population. Most people in general don't wish to harm others; but may be forced into that situation. Magazine limits only endanger good guys.

llwsgn
May 6, 2013, 11:42 PM
Truth enough Sharps. The politicians and the brainwashed are peddling total BS.

Stringfellow
May 7, 2013, 12:20 AM
Sharps--I am not here for a drive-by trolling, so out of respect I ask whether you really do want some alternative viewpoints.

As both a fervent gun enthusiast AND gun control advocate, I am happy to provide some perspective. But if now is not the time or place, I will go back to reading the other posts...

rcmodel
May 7, 2013, 12:26 AM
IMO: Police should be limited to Colt SAA revolvers.

Matt Dillon, Bill Tilghman, and a bunch of those old guys seem to have made due with 5 rounds of 45 Colt.

Course, they hit what that shot too.

rc

jerkface11
May 7, 2013, 12:32 AM
New Yorks law is so poorly written it limits you to 7 rounds UNLESS its a 10 round mag. Then 10 is the limit.

TimboKhan
May 7, 2013, 01:02 AM
I don't have a problem with the police as an societal necessity, but I am wholly opposed to the police having access to any weapon that I cannot have equal access too.

herrwalther
May 7, 2013, 01:52 AM
All I'm asking is that politicians reflect on the rationale and logic behind such laws that would limit firearm capacity

And that is your biggest mistake. You are asking politicians to be rationale and logical. You have a better chance of sweet talking a deer into walking into your house for dinner.

USSR
May 7, 2013, 08:42 AM
New Yorks law is so poorly written it limits you to 7 rounds UNLESS its a 10 round mag. Then 10 is the limit.

No, I'm afraid it's more stupid than that. They originally passed the law stating that you could not possess a magazine that held more than 7 rounds. After they passed the law, they figured out that there were no 7 round magazines made, oh, and they forgot to exclude the police from this draconian law, so they had to go back and pass a revision excluding the police from this madness and stating that you could possess a 10 round magazine, but could only load it with 7 cartridges.:eek:

Don

SharpsDressedMan
May 7, 2013, 08:53 AM
I'm not asking them to be logical as much as I am pointing out that many politicians have failed their constituents by omitting that important detail. It is their job to be careful AND logical when they draft laws. Another point that was made (above, in the thread) is the elevation of penalties when crimes are directed AT police officers. If the police really become "super citizens", and require super privilege and respect, then it stands to reason when one of them goes bad, they ALSO should have special laws that punish THEM at a super level. When a cop commits murder, the penalty should be at a higher level, also, since we ask and expect more of them. The same for DUI, or gun related crimes, or domestic violence, etc. If they are NOT super citizens (and we all know they are not), then they need not be treated differently, but then we need to put the laws back to "equal". I also think it is a truly deplorable and decadent act to have laws on the books that put police dogs above humans with criminal penalties for harming or killing a police DOG that are higher than that for regular citizens (we have that here in Ohio). It is against MY religion to put an animal ABOVE the life of a human.

jerkface11
May 7, 2013, 09:32 AM
so they had to go back and pass a revision excluding the police from this madness and stating that you could possess a 10 round magazine, but could only load it with 7 cartridges.

What I read says you can only have 7 rounds in a magazine with a capacity of less than 10.

USSR
May 7, 2013, 12:49 PM
Like I said, they revised the law when they realized that nobody made 7 round magazines, to allow for 10 round magazines that you can only load with 7 rounds.

Don

armoredman
May 7, 2013, 01:23 PM
7 round magazines have been made for over 100 years - if you carry a 1911. :)

Idiocy, I agree.

skt239
May 7, 2013, 06:36 PM
IMO: Police should be limited to Colt SAA revolvers.

Matt Dillon, Bill Tilghman, and a bunch of those old guys seem to have made due with 5 rounds of 45 Colt.

Course, they hit what that shot too.

rc

Lets get rid of their cars and put them on horseback while we're at it..

:rolleyes:

SharpsDressedMan
May 7, 2013, 07:03 PM
They still DO ride horseback in some places, and bicycles, too.

Bovice
May 8, 2013, 10:50 PM
I agree, police privileges need to go away. What irks me on a daily basis are the "police" parking spots that are at the front of shopping centers near the pregnant woman spots.

Why do they need that spot? They can't write me a ticket for using it, the lot owner can have it towed I suppose. But that's it.

SharpsDressedMan
May 9, 2013, 12:28 AM
Parking spots? Huh. That's a good example of how it is wrong. First, let's give a spot to the disabled. Wait. Let's make the FIRST spot for disabled VETERANS, then the REGULAR disabled, THEN the regular veterans. Next, we can have the spots for pregnant women. Maybe elected officials next, and THEN the police. I'll leave the rest of the reserved parking spots for YOUR imagination. I know MY spot will be somewhere next to the end of the lot, in the back row.

Arkansas Paul
May 9, 2013, 11:11 AM
IMO: Police should be limited to Colt SAA revolvers.

Matt Dillon, Bill Tilghman, and a bunch of those old guys seem to have made due with 5 rounds of 45 Colt.

Course, they hit what that shot too.

rc

Yeah, but if they got ahold of those six shooters they use in the movies, they would never run out of ammo. You can shoot those six guns 30 times without reloading.

Walking Dead
May 9, 2013, 07:17 PM
I don't have a problem with the police as an societal necessity, but I am wholly opposed to the police having access to any weapon that I cannot have equal access too.
Basically what he said.

pbearperry
May 9, 2013, 07:22 PM
Something interesting about this whole line of reasoning: the statistics of police that commit crimes are about the same as the general population. Most people in general don't wish to harm others; but may be forced into that situation. Magazine limits only endanger good guys.

Sorry,without a good viable source on this info,I have to call B.S on this.

pbearperry
May 9, 2013, 07:27 PM
I agree, police privileges need to go away. What irks me on a daily basis are the "police" parking spots that are at the front of shopping centers near the pregnant woman spots.

Why do they need that spot? They can't write me a ticket for using it, the lot owner can have it towed I suppose. But that's it.


If you had a life threatening problem involving your family and the Cop on a call at that Supermarket was the closest to respond,would you prefer he ran out of the store and jump in his cruiser,or would you rather he have a 50-100 yard sprint to the pack of the parking lot?That's why its done,not to give the Cop perks.However,believe whatever you want.

SharpsDressedMan
May 9, 2013, 07:51 PM
Mr Policeman should be cruising IN his police car, not parked at the convenient store buying a coffee or lottery ticket, nor at the dry cleaners, picking up his uniforms, nor at the apartment complex, visiting his girlfriend. Naw, the extra 20-30 seconds it takes him to get back to his police car, in a regular parking place, he can just write off to a little aerobic exercise. :) (I policed for 20 years, so I know that if you give a cop a perk, he'll start forgetting he's a public SERVANT.)

pbearperry
May 9, 2013, 08:01 PM
Mr Policeman should be cruising IN his police car, not parked at the convenient store buying a coffee or lottery ticket, nor at the dry cleaners, picking up his uniforms, nor at the apartment complex, visiting his girlfriend. Naw, the extra 20-30 seconds it takes him to get back to his police car, in a regular parking place, he can just write off to a little aerobic exercise. :) (I policed for 20 years, so I know that if you give a cop a perk, he'll start forgetting he's a public SERVANT.)
On the job for 20 years,so how did you get fired?

easyg
May 10, 2013, 02:37 PM
Magazine limits infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.
It doesn't matter if the citizen is a cop or a plumber or a sales clerk.
The Constitution applies to all of us.

SharpsDressedMan
May 10, 2013, 10:53 PM
"On the job for 20 years,so how did you get fired?"
Funny you should ask. Started in the Army as an MP, Viet Nam era. Then worked a municipal department for five years, got divorced, disillusioned, and quit on my five year anniversary. Moved out to Colorado, and worked on a GREAT department in the NW for two and half years, and got laid off due to a recession. Got remarried, wife wanted to return to Ohio (I knew it was a bad idea), and got stuck working as a cop at the Cleveland Clinic for about 11 years. With no public retirement, the job just got worse and worse, until I refused to enter a building (burglary in progress) without a shotgun (I was going to be the fitrst guy through the broken window to clear the building). My sergeant (younger, college educated guy with little road experience) thought I should not "outgun" the other responding Cleveland Police officers (he was afraid they'd be offended). I got offended, having 20 years of "street" level experience, and being a trainer for auto, revolver, and police rifle, I figured if I didn't know when to employ a shotgun anymore, I may as well go out in style, so I told my sergeant to do something that might be physically impossible to do. Having no civil service protection, I knew the outcome would probably result in a change of careers, but I was ready. Retired, but more like when a boxer no longer steps into the ring. I never looked back, and have never been happier. I have had a second career for 17 years now. I was a good cop, but when you are no longer appreciated, it's time to get out. Too bad more cops don't see the light, or are so heavily invested that they HAVE to stay in when they SHOULD get out. Hope that clarifies my "retirement", since I'm thinking you were trying to discredit me in some way, or implying that it would have been more "noble" to stick out a career that was going nowhere. :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Can You Imagine?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!