This is a discussion on Why should police be exempt from laws, mag limits? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Hopyard If by that you mean that there should be fire-power parity between the police and the rest of us, let me ...
I'm sure I'm about to make people mad. Luckily, I don't care.
First, it is asinine to restrict the magazine capacity for gun owners. Bad guys will still use high capacity magazines as long as they are available. And armed citizens (whether a LEO or not) may well have to face that BG. Not allowing a level playing field doesn't help anyone.
With that said, limiting a LEO's magazine takes an extra special kind of stupid. Yes, an armed individual may come into contact with a bad guy. The cop WILL come into contact with a bad guy. A rookie LEO will be hands on with more felons than the average person will ever meet. The places you avoid are the same places the LEO must go, often several times during the same shift. It doesn't have anything to do with being elite, it has to do with probability. And when the next BG starts shooting in a school, church, mall, or where ever most citizens of the community will be shocked and thankful that they and their loved ones aren't at that location. Meanwhile the police officers are doing everything possible to get to that location to stop the situation. Arguing that they shouldn't have the tools is just ridiculous. Trying to prove a political point at the expense of those that will be facing the evil man is totally unacceptable.
"The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
- Lt. Col. Oliver North
I think anyplace dumb enough to put limits on magazine size should have to live with it for their police force too. Police are not greater citizens under the law than civilians.
Let the consequences happen. For the ultra-stupid, it the only way to get the point across.
Sorry LEOs, I love ya, I really do, but in this case, having a Chief stand in front of a politicians desk and say right into their eyes, "You got my Officer killed." is powerful.
Have him say it to a TV camera if the politician is belligerent, and it's a career-ended for the politician.
I honestly want our LEOs to be safe and have whatever they feel they need to do their duty under the law. But if an municipality wants to play fast and loose with civilians lives, they should be required to make it stick for all citizens equally.
Let them have their cake and eat it too. And see how long you have qualified police academy applicants. Or how much money you have to offer to attract them... along with BUGs.
Yes the cop will come into contact with the BG. Along with 24 other cops dogs, tazers guns etc etc etc. And when will they do that exactly??? AFTER said BG has splattered Joe Citizen individually or in a mass shooting or robbery or rape or murder.
The BG did something to a citizen or citizens or the cops would not be after him now would they???
And that civilian or civilians that faced the BG before the cops is somehow less?? His or her life is less valuable? He/she doesnt deserve the same tools to defend themselves as the cops have or should they as they draw their last breath comfort themselve with Oh well the cops have enough firepower to get the guy that killed raped etc etc??? That comfort for the family of the victim???
Nobody here advocated this lunacy in New York. And Im pretty sure with the number of cops in NY had they known that they would also be forced to knuckle under to this stupidity these laws would never have gotten voted on much less passed.
Cops should have anything and everything they need to do their job. And law abiding civilians should be able to match that firepower at any level. LE has nothing to fear from the citizenry unless they become a tool for government to carry out clearly illegal orders such as disarmament of the population.
Any other course simply guarantees two things. One BGS will be better armed than anyone which likely they will be to a point anyway. And that the temptation for government officials to pass illegal laws counting on their LE to enforce them on a under armed public is simply stronger.
Just an add on here then ive quit this little dance. Fact, every violent felon the cop lays hands on already laid HIS hands gun knife bomb on a civilian or the cop wouldnt be involved. So in the final analysis the cop is as usual in 99 percent of the cases not preventing anything. The victim could probably have had they not been regulated to defending him or her self with a level of weaponry that wasnt up to the task.
Whenever a citizen comes face to face with one of those same violent criminals, the threat of death is just as real.
Sure, I suppose the claim can be put forth that criminals will fight tooth-and-nail when the world's crashing down about their ears in ways the average civilian can only imagine. Perhaps. But that doesn't hold much water.
Situation-specific requirements for specialized gear aside (such as door-breaching equipment, flash-bang stuff, handcuffs, 'sniper' rifles for hostage situations ...
At best, the claim can be made that the probability of such encounters is less likely, with the average citizen. But if attacked with deadly force by a violent criminal, one is at least as likely to be harmed as anyone else in such a situation, though one has to do it without a vest, without other team members there as back-up in the situation.
I agree with the idea that ceasing restriction of civilian-obtainable arms opens up the field to criminals obtaining the same sorts of things. But then, criminals already do obtain such things. Right now, it's citizens who are restricted by these silly laws.
LE is also exempt from Class III stuff.
My guess is they are on the offense with a target on their back. We are just defense and should be off the radar.
To proctect and serve
Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.
Now, with respect to the part I quoted above, the day that the average citizen needs to be curtailed for the protection of the police, we've got a really big problem. This is the same sort of garbage reasoning that I see coming from the antis on the left, that the citizens need to be limited because a few of them might go crazy and shoot up a school but if we pass a law that prohibits them we'll all be safe.
True, the armed citizen normally doesn't go looking for criminals, but that just means that when they confront one it is more likely to be a sudden occurance and there is greater likelyhood they will have to change mental gears to get out from behind the eight ball.
I fail to see the distinction between a civilian fighting for his/her life and a police officer. Per John Farnam, "When it's least expected, you're elected."
At least you can have the comfort of knowing the cop who comes to write the report or your demise will have a fully loaded weapon.
The range of situations runs the gamut. One cannot say (with any real meaning) that merely because the probability of such situations is far lower that a citizen who doesn't work for the city is going to necessarily never need more than X number of rounds or Y features of effectiveness on a firearm.
Think of passenger vehicles. The legitimate and everyday needs of people range from driving singly to a destination, to picking up passengers, to delivering loads of stuff from here to there. With the same vehicle, for most folks, though some definitely have separate vehicles for different situations. Seems to me that situations vary in terms of what comes 'round the bend, as well. And since one can never know what's likely to occur or the degree of the fight one might face, it's hard to claim citizens won't need such things.
Sure, there's a serious difference in frequency, given the dictates of the role they're hired to perform. And, yes, the mere fact LEO's are going looking for such felons means they'll almost certainly encounter a wider range of situations than most anyone else, as well as see a greater percentage of armored felons, multiple felons.
But deadly threat is deadly threat, and when a situation does arise a person who doesn't happen to work for the city is just as likely to find extreme need at that moment to defend his life against those violent armed felons as any LEO caught in the same situation.
Therein lies the ugly, rotting center of such arguments. I'm sure some folks howled about the residents in south Los Angeles in the early 1990's regarding their daring to have AR-15 style (and other similar) weapons for "home defense." And yet when the post-Rodney King riots broke out those folks found them eminently suitable to the situation they were faced with. Or, the recently-posted news report of 5 invading "burglars" into a home, repelled by two residents inside. Or, any number of reports where a firearm was used but the violent felon didn't magically stop the violence on the instant.
Let's keep our eye on the ball ... the real ball. The point being, it cannot be known in advance what a person in a deadly situation is going to encounter. These feel-good limits do little more than curtail the ability of people to respond to violence as needed, if it does come.
I truly do not believe the issue being raised is "Limit the Police", the issue is "Don't Limit Citizens." I can't imagine anyone really wants to limit the police, they just don't want citizens to be limited. We're all walking around on the same streets, allbeit with different levels of responsibility when something happens. I have a duty to go home, police have a duty to go to the aid of others, often into an already escalated and unknown situation. Different responsibilities, same streets. I don't want ANYONE to be at a disadvantage when dealing with the criminal element.
Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.
Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.
We are arguing two different arguments. Say there is an outright ban on civilian firearm ownership. If your stash is confiscated, are you going to tell them about your neighbor's or friend's stash so things are "fair?" What's the point and does it make you safer? No one here has defended limiting the citizen's mag capacity. Some of us just believe that ALSO taking away tools from good men and women who are unarguable at greater risk than the rest of us - whose job it is to intervene on OUR behalf - is ridiculous.
How many civilian confrontations have you heard of where there was a sustained firefight? Bad guys bail as soon as they realize you are armed and willing to use it. It's a different world for LEO's that have to pursue.
Everyone should be exempt.... EVERYONE!
"shall not be infringed."
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
- Roy Batty
Need to start limiting hi-capacity vehicles.
No more high capacity school buses: just in case the bus is involved in a crash, or God forbid, the bus driver is a raving lunatic and decides to take all the "Children" AkA little darlings with him.
Better limit all high capacity airplanes to 10 people; just in case they have a malfunction, or God forbid another terrorist plot, and the pilot cannot land the plane safely.
Those High capacity -speed passenger rails/commuter trains they have need to be limited to 10 passengers as well.
Just looking at things from an anti-gunners perspective.
Oh the insanity of socialism.
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn