Three more Police Officers Killed (1 Viewer)

[1879fanatic]

Sorry there is NO reason for anyone to own an AK-47. I can see owning a rifle for hunting but there's no reason for a civilian to own assault rifles. You want to fire assault rifles, have some guts and join the military. Most of the people who own these things are gun nut cowards, like the wacko in Pittsburgh.

You're calling me a coward, and I don't even know your name! Not that it matters . If I met you I wouldn't have any weapons on me, except brain, mouth and appendages.
Mike

 

[1879fanatic]

.
I hate to say this but I believe officers killed in the line of duty is just gonna go up. Its a shame but more and more officers are more afraid of the legality of the incident and fail to act and that quick second where they stop and think to themselves am I gonna get sued will get them killed. Every time you turn around someone is take some officer to ct. for something.

Indeed! The lawsuits, the over zealous DA's the cowtowing to certain off-limits groups, the preaching in some "churches" of civil disobedience and how to file complaints, and the addition of undesirables to the blue line, all do not bode well for the future. It used to be that police work was a vocation, like firefighting, the priesthood, fighter pilot, etc. You knew what you wanted to do from avery early age. Now its turning into a job to do. "Big cases, big problems, little cases, little problems, no cases, no problems". It's why I left!
Too many "folks" getting promoted that never did S^&t on the street. Sorry, my rants only.
Mike

 

[OzDigger]

Sadly that is completely wrong. First off, there is little difference between an semi automatic rifle and a pistol of any kind; they both fire their next shot without cocking. Even revolvers can do that and there are few bolt action pistols. Of course a rifle gives more range but pistols can be retrofited with barrel extensions to partial make up for that. A ban on higher calibers might be helpful, especially those that defeat body armor but even that is a slippery slope. The simple truth is that if there is a will, the so-called average Joe that goes nuts will find a way and the experience here has been that those nut cases are not so average in their gun collecting. Such a ban would make it more difficult for the non nut cases to legitimately obtain weapons for collection or otherwise but have little effect of averting mass killings.

Oz wrong? Note that I said semi/automatic weapons which includes revolvers, pistols, shotguns and rifles that are self loading.

As for your comments regarding there being very little difference between a self loading rifle and a pistol of any kind.

You should note that semi-automatic rifles, unlike assault rifles that usually have shorter cartridges, often have a near full load of propellant compared to a bolt action version. However a pistol of a similar caliber will have a reduced load otherwise the firer will get one hell of a kick and very likely suffer some injury. Compare for example the ammo of a .50 Desert Eagle pistol against the ammo for a .50 rifle. Clearly this difference makes a semi automatic rifle more lethal than a pistol especially if the rifle is based on a military caliber such as a .308.

You will never stop a nut killing people if they get that idea into there head, but by limiting their capacity to kill you can significantly reduce the number of lives taken.

 

[OzDigger]

I find that folks arguments from other countries debating my rights, to be...boring. You're already clamped down, Little too political to be discussing on the forum for me, but I won't %itch.
Mike

Anything but boring Mike

Imo military and law enforcement officers are the only people that need semi/automatic weapons, with appropriate training of course. Australian police were very happy when the stricter gun laws were introduced downunder and I would be surprised if US police, as a group, did not support stricter gun control in the US.

 

[jazzeum]

Let's try to avoid getting into a political discussion about the right to bear arms, etc.

 

[OzDigger]

Let's try to avoid getting into a political discussion about the right to bear arms, etc.

Yeah sure, the right for everyone to bear arms is as plausible as the right for everyone to borrow money. Hey wait a minute, the latter didn't work out to well did it

 

[Nathan]

I agree with the comments of OzDigger, but on a different note.

How many more tragedies have to occur in the USA before someone is going to take a proactive approach against firearms?

I have seen two comments in this thread - one making reference to 'our socialist governments taking our arms', another stating words to the effect of: 'you'd have to be an American to understand the 2nd amendment.'

As for the first comment, i really do not see what is wrong with socialism, but I won't go down that road. To keep things on track - if you look at the basic fundamentals of any law it is the protection of society for the surrender of some freedoms.

Whether the American people are ready or not to surrender their freedoms in relation to firearms is entirely a debate for its own people. However, I would assume the other 'western' nations have, over the last decade, witnessed a disproportional number of firearm related homicide coming from the USA. And we cannot make sense of it - that is the gist of the argument.

I believe all documents should be read in the context of the time, age, meaning and language relating to their construction, in this case:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The essence of Militia being armed citizenry (in a centralised body) - why can't every state simply have an armoury? If things go pear shaped, load up?

My personal belief is, at this time of writing, weapons were muskets, who could have ever envisioned repeating action weapons, let alone the ballistic capabilities of todays modern weapons. The essence of law is that it must move with society - and on this premise, it is my belief that this amendment needs to be ratified to fit into context of 21st century America.


The second statement relating to mistrust of government, needing to be an American to understand, please...?
I too live in a country founded by rebellion and anti-government sentiment, which most Australians would agree continues to this day. There are many more examples in point, but the connotation of my argument is that statement is completely arrogant, America was founded on great ideals - as were many other nations at and around the same period of history, No other first world country is anywhere NEAR the amount of firearms deaths per capita.

 

[Cardigan600]

I agree with the comments of OzDigger, but on a different note.

How many more tragedies have to occur in the USA before someone is going to take a proactive approach against firearms?

I have seen two comments in this thread - one making reference to 'our socialist governments taking our arms', another stating words to the effect of: 'you'd have to be an American to understand the 2nd amendment.'

As for the first comment, i really do not see what is wrong with socialism, but I won't go down that road. To keep things on track - if you look at the basic fundamentals of any law it is the protection of society for the surrender of some freedoms.

Whether the American people are ready or not to surrender their freedoms in relation to firearms is entirely a debate for its own people. However, I would assume the other 'western' nations have, over the last decade, witnessed a disproportional number of firearm related homicide coming from the USA. And we cannot make sense of it - that is the gist of the argument.

I believe all documents should be read in the context of the time, age, meaning and language relating to their construction, in this case:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The essence of Militia being armed citizenry (in a centralised body) - why can't every state simply have an armoury? If things go pear shaped, load up?

My personal belief is, at this time of writing, weapons were muskets, who could have ever envisioned repeating action weapons, let alone the ballistic capabilities of todays modern weapons. The essence of law is that it must move with society - and on this premise, it is my belief that this amendment needs to be ratified to fit into context of 21st century America.


The second statement relating to mistrust of government, needing to be an American to understand, please...?
I too live in a country founded by rebellion and anti-government sentiment, which most Australians would agree continues to this day. There are many more examples in point, but the connotation of my argument is that statement is completely arrogant, America was founded on great ideals - as were many other nations at and around the same period of history, No other first world country is anywhere NEAR the amount of firearms deaths per capita.

Yo Cobber, very nicely put. The Americans are and have always been our biggest Alia's & friends in time of need. But we look on with horror as to what has gone wrong with the weapons issue. America's enemies must really chuckle every time they see a slaughter like this. Someone has got to stand up over there and say enough is enough. Its not the criminal element that is the issue, we all have that problem. Its the ordinary Joe Blog thats the problem with these weapons. Lose your job or get miffed with the teachers, or Mum & Dad so lets take them all out.
Bernard.

 

[Fusilier]

Well, as a law enforcement officer in the midwest United States, I would have to say that the most important thing to me is that seven fellow officers have died in the last few weeks. Between the Oakland and Pittsburg incidents, all seven officers were killed with 'assault rifles' (an AR-15 type and the aformentioned AK-47).

Does this mean all weapons of this type should be banned? I would say no, but then, my opinion doesn't matter. What does matter is what the U.S. Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment. All other arguments aside, what the high court decides is law.

Just last year, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court found the following:

[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

That is it. Now, while that decision might put all of us with a badge in some danger, that is what we have to deal with. Still, my chances of being killed by some drunk idiot behind the wheel of a car is still a lot higher than being killed by someone with a semi-auto rifle.

One last thing. A number of posts have said something like 'when will they wake up' or something to that effect. While I see an outsiders view when they say that, it will never happen. First, because most citizens here are very protective of thier rights, and the Supreme Coury allows us the right to own guns. Secondly, any politician who would advocate such a policy of removing guns from the home is committing political suicide. And we all know they like thier jobs too much for that to happen......

Noah

 

[Wraith]

Well, as a law enforcement officer in the midwest United States, I would have to say that the most important thing to me is that seven fellow officers have died in the last few weeks. Between the Oakland and Pittsburg incidents, all seven officers were killed with 'assault rifles' (an AR-15 type and the aformentioned AK-47).

Does this mean all weapons of this type should be banned? I would say no, but then, my opinion doesn't matter. What does matter is what the U.S. Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment. All other arguments aside, what the high court decides is law.

Just last year, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court found the following:



That is it. Now, while that decision might put all of us with a badge in some danger, that is what we have to deal with. Still, my chances of being killed by some drunk idiot behind the wheel of a car is still a lot higher than being killed by someone with a semi-auto rifle.

One last thing. A number of posts have said something like 'when will they wake up' or something to that effect. While I see an outsiders view when they say that, it will never happen. First, because most citizens here are very protective of thier rights, and the Supreme Coury allows us the right to own guns. Secondly, any politician who would advocate such a policy of removing guns from the home is committing political suicide. And we all know they like thier jobs too much for that to happen......

Noah

And that, sums it up pretty accurately, IMHO.

I don't ususally bother getting in to e-scraps, especially when they are based on opposing points of view and opinions, as it is rare for someone to change their stance based on a few postings, and all that tends to happen, is people will wind each other up, on what is a particularly emotive subject, to the point of posts or threads being deleted and a sour taste being left in peoples mouths.

Bottom line is this.
1) The laws of a land are individual to that country
2) What works for one country, may very well not work for another
3) Cops are paid to uphold the laws of the country which they serve, irrespective as to whether they believe all of those laws to be right
4) 7 Cops have died over recent weeks and my thoughts are with their families, colleagues and friends.

My thoughts,

Simon

 

[Nathan]

Text...

Noah

I was a Constable in the Queensland Police Service for 2 years, I understand what the officers have to face - it was a most terrible feeling to have to put bullet resistant (you learn nothing is bullet-proof!) clothing on, knowing that the plate will generally only stop one .308 projectile at a near straight angle.

Its terrible that someone should die upholding the law, and like Wraith said, thoughts are with the families.

It is an interesting topic though - extremely passionate area - I think if personal criticisms are left out, it could be very enlightening to have some international perspective on the issue.

 

[Currahee Chris]

Lord knows I have been in more scraps with police and law enforcement types (most were my fault ) but there isn't a day that goes by that I am not thankful for everything they do- police and firefighters are true heroes that just haven't received the recognition they should. They are the heroes who defend my liberties here at home and I thank God they do such a bangup job.

I hope these fine examples of humanity rest eternally in peace.

 

[kilted vampire]

I read all this with interest. I can appreciate both sides of the arguement. I was a FFL gundealer. My family has cops all over it. Nancy is an ex-cop. My question is how did well seasoned cops get killed in the first place? Were they overly confident in their numbers? Training and better equipment has to be the answer. I am not sure of the details of the PA shooting. My guess is probably the same here as well.

In the 30's Hitler registered firearms in Germany and then took them all away. The world lived happily ever after. Not!

Doesn't Israel require their citizens to carry firearms? So the bad guys use bombs.

What is the answer? It is plain to see I do not know.

My thoughts, as always, are with the cops and their families

Please try to remember this as this thread continues.

 

[Sahara]

KV I am currently an FTO (Field Training Officer) and the one major thing we always hammer down on is the officer safety. In fact I am working with a rookie right now that has major problems in this area and if he doesn't catch on quick he is gonna get himself or someone else killed. As far as a seasoned veterans go your right it shouldn't happen but the fact of the matter is sometimes seasoned officers are so use to what they do and develop a routine and don't always use PAFI when they should. In this case I don't think this was the case though from what I have heard and read the first 2 didn't really stand a chance and were ambushed the third was simply trying to help his fallen comrades and he was killed in the process.

 

[1879fanatic]

KV I am currently an FTO (Field Training Officer) and the one major thing we always hammer down on is the officer safety. In fact I am working with a rookie right now that has major problems in this area and if he doesn't catch on quick he is gonna get himself or someone else killed. As far as a seasoned veterans go your right it shouldn't happen but the fact of the matter is sometimes seasoned officers are so use to what they do and develop a routine and don't always use PAFI when they should. In this case I don't think this was the case though from what I have heard and read the first 2 didn't really stand a chance and were ambushed the third was simply trying to help his fallen comrades and he was killed in the process.

Sahara,
Good for you being an FTI...someone has to do it. I lacked the patience after getting ex jarhead recruits during the "Stress card" days. Both were #1, one female on male, no passion, no common sense... Got out of that real quick.
Mike

 

[kilted vampire]

Wow how many cops are there on this forum anyway?. There is bad luck involved and that maybe the case, but this is just not good. I wish it would end here. Not that I think it will . It is my earnest desire that it should end here. Way too many cops killed. Too many families destroyed by people who don't care.

 

[gk5717]

The bad guys will always get guns if they want them, to me that is a mute point.
Guns are not the only way officers are killed in the line of duty.
One of my police academy classmates was killed in the 80,s. He was riding a tricar (3 wheeled motorcycle), and had just wrote a $2 parking ticket and while driving away the guy whose car he had just ticketed got in the car and drove it into the officer killing him.
All over a $2 parking tag.
Gary