Are Gun Enthusiasts alright with this?

I understand this is not exactly an unbiased source but the relevant facts were taken from credible articles.

AFAICT there is possibly one inaccuracy here in that the TAVOR can't be firing 900 rounds per minute unless it is fully automatic and fully automatic weapons, while not totally illegal, are not readily available either. However, I didn't chase down the original article so will not say anything further on that.

The problem remains, are you guys alright with private citizens outgunning the police? I understand you might not trust he police but why should we trust private citizens, like Vito Genovese, George Lincoln Rockwell or Dylan Roof, more?

 

any style of firearm civilian police officers can carry on our streets, other civilians ought to be able to freely own. People who want to kill cops and are willing to pay the price (almost certain death) are going to get what ever weapons they want. All weapons bans do is guarantee that honest citizens will be outgunned by criminals.

which of course is one of the goals of some of the anti gun groups

 

But how can you guarantee that the "price" will always BE "almost certain death". And how many cops are you willing to sacrifice, and how much comfort do you think their families will take in the fact that their murderers were killed too.

You can't ask cops to take the same risks as soldiers under combat conditions. Soldiers aren't put into combat for more than a few weeks at a time, very few people can take the strain as a daily thing

And yes, some criminals will still be able to outgun civilians, AND cops, but should it be easy to do so?

 

you seem to think banning something is going to prevent criminals from getting it. The people most impacted by gun bans are honest citizens. BTW cops are not outgunned. They routinely have fully automatic firearms.

Besides, the second amendment -if properly enforced-means citizens can own the standard issue firearm of the infantry.

If capital murder charges aren't going to keep cops safe, gun bans won't either

 

which anti-gun groups are those and why do they have this goal?

 

The International Association of Chiefs of Police ( IACP ) is a liberal / politically progressive organization. Who are it's members ? Well mostly police chiefs from high crime cities in very blue cities run by liberals and not to mention sanctuary cities.


Seem to remember the Ferguson's anti police riots and BLM and the Obama White saying that the police were to heavily armed.

 

Like all people breathing recycled air in their foil-lined bunkers, You believe that it is the presence of an inanimate tool that is the problem instead of human nature and the Liberal belief that criminals have rights. If you are so worried about deaths due to hardware, why not start a campaign to ban cars; they were never intended as weapons, but manage to kill 30,000 or so every year.

AR-15 type rifles are used in a tiny number of crimes, statistically speaking, and those occurrences are perpetrated by criminals--there's that word again.

Also, the AR-15 5.56 is hardly a powerful gun. It has a large ammo capacity but the slug can be stopped by a vest under normal conditions. On the other hand, I own a rifle that could drop anyone in any kind of vest within its effective range. The big difference is that I own it, not some criminal.

Also, "Assault Rifle" as used, generally, is a political term designed to project an image of murderous intent. A true assault rifle is capable of selective fire; that is, semi-automatic or full automatic fire. Civilian versions of the AR platform are just semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. And, AR does not mean "Assault Rifle". It stands for Armalite; the company that designed it. Facts are hard.

 

Most of them since they have been educated that gun bans are least likely to be obeyed by the people who are least likely to obey laws against armed robbery, murder, or forcible rape.

 

You seem to think that laws against something have no effect whatsoever, I admitted already that a ban will not make the guns IMPOSSIBLE to get, but it very well might make it more difficult, to the extent that fewer people will be able to get them, yes, that would include civilians too but if it keeps them to a good extent out of the hands of criminals and TERRORISTS is that unreasonable?

I agree that cops routinely have fully automatic weapons and criminals do not but that is only one aspect of their being outgunned. IMO any ammunition that can penetrate a policeman's bulletproof vest should be illegal

 

This is a very serious problem. We can look to the past for answers. In the 1930's, police were frequently outgunned by gangsters who had machine guns. To address this problem the National Firearms Act was passed and now machine guns are rarely used in the commission of crimes. Blue lives do matter (despite what the pro-gun activists here claim).

 

Yep, the IACP is mostly made up of people who are dependent upon Democratic Party Mayors. It has almost no relevance to what most police officers believe

 

In this case, I think the solution would be simple: reclassify assault weapons as NFA weapons. The legislation already exists.

 

that's not true at all. and No one who understands the issue really believes that the gun ban movement is based on a desire to protect police. Machine guns are easily available to criminals-they just aren't particularly useful to them

- - - Updated - - -

yeah how many people are going to voluntarily pay 200 dollars per semi auto rifle? Most of us won't. Its unconstitutional and it would cause massive deaths if some idiot tried to implement such idiocy

 

The prefatory statement connects our right to keep and bear arms to the ability of all able bodied people to be able to quickly pick up their weapons and defend the United States against invasion or insurrection. Therefore this right guarantees us our right to own and carry weapons common to military service.

 

It wouldn't cause massive deaths. It would save lives. The NFA worked because it made it easier for the government to put gangsters in prison. Criminals could be sentenced to five years in prison for merely being caught with an unregistered machine gun. The government didn't have to prove they had done anything else wrong. Catching someone with contraband is easier than proving they've committed a violent crime in the past.

 

And most of these people could have been stopped if our criminal justice system, FBI, and immigration policies prevented them from being here in the first place.

San Bernardino should have never happened. Orlando should have never happened. Chattanooga should have never happened. FT Hood should have never happened. Many mass shootings are failures of the government, not failure of the Constitution.

Many of the above should have been stopped by NICS as they would have not been allowed to purchase had their records been in NICS.

Mentally ill people on SSRI's should be prohibited by NICS.

The methods are in place to prevent these tragedies. Law abiding people should not have their rights infringed because the government fails to do it's job.

If the KKK were having rallies and protests every week in all major cities, do we then regulate free speech?

 

Yes it would cause massive deaths and less than 10% would comply and thus become "criminals". The NFA worked because there were almost no machine guns in circulation at the time. If someone told me I was going to prison for 5 years for merely owning a firearm I have owned for 30 years, I am going to fight back. You want to put lots of people in jail for merely owning firearms. In such a situation, people who pushed for such laws would be seen as legitimate targets in a civil uprising.

but it won't happen. Cops won't enforce it and politicians wouldn't want to die trying to impose such an idiotic scheme. There are millions of weapons that your stupid plans would involve and millions of owners.

 

I did over 30 years on the street as a police officer. At times, I took tremendous risks. It is a dangerous profession. It isn't for everybody.

But I will tell you that the least of my concerns was what types of weapons were out there, including AR-15s, AK-47s, or TAVORS. I went through my entire career knowing that I could easily be taken out any time someone who was intent on killing a police officer wanted to make it happen.

You want to kill me? Call dispatch and tell them your car got broken into while you were shopping at the supermarket. Make it look like it has been broken into. I'll come out there in response to the call, and as I'm looking at your car - maybe taking a picture of it - take a handgun out of your pocket and shoot me in the head. I'm dead, and there wasn't anything I realistically could have done about it.

I always knew that my body armor had no resistance to a typical bolt action deer or elk rifle. The average hunting round can fire right through those things like they weren't even there. A buddy of mine just killed an elk at 460 yards with his rifle. And that's not even an especially long shot for a lot of rifles. Do you realize that? Go to YouTube and put "1000 yard shot with rifle" into the search and see what you get. This type of "cop-killer" firepower, with that type of extended range, is available with a regular ol' bolt-action hunting rifle that holds 4 or 5 rounds.

My police department equipped me with an AR-15 rifle that went out on patrol with me every day. That and my sidearm gave me some options. That is all I could reasonably expect from my agency. But no matter what they equipped me with, it's a dangerous profession. You are not going to make it less dangerous by banning AR-15s and similar weapons. You just aren't going to do it. If you could remove every last military style rifle from the entire U.S., if someone wants to kill a cop face to face, or at extended range, they can.

Our honored dead are the sacrifices. They died for each one of us, police and civilian.

If I thought banning ARs and similar weapons would really make a difference, I would say so.

 

The police are not outgunned by people with AR15s, as they also have them and can call up a lot more cops. The handgun is by far the most common firearm used in felonious police slayings.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2015/officers-feloniously-killed/felonious_topic_page_-2015

 

All you have to do it get it through Congress. Unfortunately, that won't happen. They also is no justification to do so.

 

You are aware that united states police officers ande departments can easily acquire body armor, grenade launchers, machine guns, armored personnel carriers, and even tanks, through government programs that supply military surplus hardware to police departments, correct?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/militarized-police-california_n_5813014.html



According to the inventory published by MuckRock, six California school district police departments received equipment from the Department of Defense Excess Property Program, also known as the 1033 Program. The details:

Baldwin Park School Police Department: 3 M16 assault rifles

Kern High School District Police: 30 magazine pouches for M4 assault rifle ammunition

Los Angeles School Police Department: 61 M16 assault rifles, 3 M79 grenade launchers, 1 mine-resistant vehicle

Oakland Unified School Police: utility truck

San Diego Unified Schools Police: 1 mine-resistant vehicle

The M16s were valued at $499 each, the grenade launchers at $720, and the mine-resistant vehicles, or MRAPs, at $733,000.

The Pentagon has been giving surplus military equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies for more than a decade. The militarized police response in Ferguson, Missouri, to protests over the police killing of teenager Michael Brown has prompted some lawmakers to question the use of the military equipment by police. A recent poll found that 51 percent of Americans think it’s unnecessary for police to use military weapons for law enforcement.

Pray tell, why are school resource officers being supplied with grenade launchers and machine guns?

 

How would it save lives?

 

It's hard to hold both positions that guns are only for the militia and that "assault weapons" should be banned.

 

It is indeed unreasonable, because what you propose is simply not happening, hypothetically. Terrorists in the nation of France have been able to acquire machine guns for the purpose of committing mass killings. Beyond such criminals have given interviews, testifying that they can easily acquire firearms through friends and acquaintances, within six months of being released from prison.

The only reliable way of keeping criminals from gaining access to firearms, is to simply stop releasing them back into society where they can to the most harm. The only way to insure public safety it to keep them locked up for the duration of their lives once they have proven that they cannot and will not abide by the rules.

The standard body armor worn by police officers is intended purely for encounters with relatively slow moving handgun ammunition. They are not designed, nor intended, to be used against rifles of any sort. As a result all rifle ammunition, even that used for harvesting game like deer, will penetrate standard issue kevlar vests.

- - - Updated - - -

And the machine guns that were used were stolen from national guard armories, making them government and military property from the beginning.

 

The mass shooting rate in Australia went way down after semi-auto rifles were banned there. Lives were definitely saved contrary to what Turtledude claims would happen.