Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Can You Imagine?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by SharpsDressedMan, May 6, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,957
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    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.....................
     
  2. Onward Allusion

    Onward Allusion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,388
    Location:
    IN between
    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.
     
  3. USSR

    USSR Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,516
    Location:
    Finger Lakes Region of NY
    It's actually 7. Don't make it any worse than it already is. :banghead:

    Don
     
  4. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,957
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    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.
     
  5. USSR

    USSR Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,516
    Location:
    Finger Lakes Region of NY
    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
     
  6. JVaughn

    JVaughn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    Northeast TN
    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.
     
  7. llwsgn

    llwsgn Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    rural Kalirado
    Truth enough Sharps. The politicians and the brainwashed are peddling total BS.
     
  8. Stringfellow

    Stringfellow Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    359
    Location:
    the Bay Area
    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...
     
  9. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    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
     
  10. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,499
    Location:
    Arkansas
    New Yorks law is so poorly written it limits you to 7 rounds UNLESS its a 10 round mag. Then 10 is the limit.
     
  11. TimboKhan

    TimboKhan Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Messages:
    8,108
    Location:
    Greeley, CO
    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.
     
  12. herrwalther

    herrwalther Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    3,364
    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.
     
  13. USSR

    USSR Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,516
    Location:
    Finger Lakes Region of NY
    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
     
  14. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,957
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    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.
     
  15. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,499
    Location:
    Arkansas
    What I read says you can only have 7 rounds in a magazine with a capacity of less than 10.
     
  16. USSR

    USSR Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,516
    Location:
    Finger Lakes Region of NY
    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
     
  17. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,584
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    7 round magazines have been made for over 100 years - if you carry a 1911. :)

    Idiocy, I agree.
     
  18. skt239

    skt239 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    734
    Lets get rid of their cars and put them on horseback while we're at it..

    :rolleyes:
     
  19. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,957
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    They still DO ride horseback in some places, and bicycles, too.
     
  20. Bovice

    Bovice Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,593
    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.
     
  21. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,957
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    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.
     
  22. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,397
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    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.
     
  23. Walking Dead

    Walking Dead Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    North Texas
    Basically what he said.
     
  24. pbearperry

    pbearperry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    865
    Location:
    The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
    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.
     
  25. pbearperry

    pbearperry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    865
    Location:
    The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page