Revolver or tupper ware

Kanewpadle said:
People complain that cops are too militarized. Well.....The bad guys started it. There are many documented incidents where cops were out gunned and lost their lives. Law enforcement simply upped their game so they could go home at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Okay, fine. I'm with you. I don't want to see any dead cops. But the next logical question is: How much militarization of the police is appropriate... i.e., how much is enough? How much is too much? Is there a logical limit or is the sky the limit, meaning no limit at all? :confused:

Honestly, I don't have the answer. I certainly don't mind them carrying plastic wonder guns with hi-cap mags. But I've seen a few cases (I won't say where) that approached extreme and definitely raised an eyebrow... and I am a guy very comfortable being around heavy artillery. ;)

I only wish that us licensed civilians could also own and carry modern hi-caps mags 'cause I still don't understand why a cop's life is somehow more important than mine. :cool:
 
TTSH said:
Okay, fine. I'm with you. I don't want to see any dead cops. But the next logical question is: How much militarization of the police is appropriate... i.e., how much is enough? How much is too much? Is there a logical limit or is the sky the limit, meaning no limit at all? :confused:

Honestly, I don't have the answer. I certainly don't mind them carrying plastic wonder guns with hi-cap mags. But I've seen a few cases (I won't say where) that approached extreme and definitely raised an eyebrow... and I am a guy very comfortable being around heavy artillery. ;)

I only wish that us licensed civilians could also own and carry modern hi-caps mags 'cause I still don't understand why a cop's life is somehow more important than mine. :cool:
Click to expand...

I don't know what the answer is either. But if cops don't use greater force, some of them don't go home. We ask them to do a dangerous job with one hand tied behind their back. Maybe more or better training is needed?

And bad guys don't care. A cops life means nothing to them. They don't have to play by the rules.

You and I? Our lives are no more or less important. But we are not tasked with protecting the public.
 
TTSH said:
Okay, fine. I'm with you. I don't want to see any dead cops. But the next logical question is: How much militarization of the police is appropriate... i.e., how much is enough? How much is too much? Is there a logical limit or is the sky the limit, meaning no limit at all? :confused:

Honestly, I don't have the answer. I certainly don't mind them carrying plastic wonder guns with hi-cap mags. But I've seen a few cases (I won't say where) that approached extreme and definitely raised an eyebrow... and I am a guy very comfortable being around heavy artillery. ;)

I only wish that us licensed civilians could also own and carry modern hi-caps mags 'cause I still don't understand why a cop's life is somehow more important than mine. :cool:
Click to expand...
*
They are not hi-cap. They are standard capacity. Your state legislature has engaged in pretty clear misconduct in passing such garbage, which is based on intentional fabrications by the moonbats. There have been attempts here; I work very hard to communicate the truth about it. Fortunately, most of the LE and prosecution has taken a sound stance on what garbage this is.

"Militarization" is a fabrication from known crazies like Radley Balko, who is well on the wrong side of Dunning-Kruger. He has completely ignored the reality of policing 100 or so years ago, which was a LOT more militarized. I have pictures and some discussion somewhere of large urban police agencies that had squads of motorcycles with sidecars, trikes, and cars with mounted water cooled Browning 30 caliber machine guns. What the average window licker and moonbat calls "militarized" is purely cosmetic.

LE also does not have "rules of engagement" - is has constitutional use of force pursuant to the 4th amendment. (Undoing the training scars for most military personnel who come into LE is a major issue. Pat Rogers wrote about this several times.) SCOTUS has generally come down completely on the correct side of the priority of life assessment. Offender safety is and must be the lowest priority. Compliance is not a discretionary choice, but a mandate of both Constitutional and statutory law. The Courts of Appeals, especially the 9th Circuit, do get it wrong, but the overall picture is pretty solid.

One has to remember that the development of modern SWAT came about directly as a result of the actions of the violent terrorists of the late 60s and early 70s, who are the foundation of those inflicted their conduct on us now. Go find the book "Days of Rage" and give it a good read. SWAT and patrol tactics have had to evolve to address the criminal violence of offenders. American LE kills a tiny percentage of those who present risks of death or great bodily harm to cops (and innocent parties), and need to be a LOT more aggressive. The entire set of assertions about "de-escalation" is based on a mix of knowing falsehoods about the law and the nature of offenders, and some pretty great ignorance.
 
I agree with the above. I started in LE in 1969 carrying a S&W 38/44 then progressed to a Mod 27 and then made Sgt. Inv. and carried a Mod 19 until I retired in 1998. I saw the beginning of Swat and how they progressed over the years. At first they were seldom used and only for very few incidents but over the years the progressed to being used for everything from a barricaded suspect to serving felony warrants. With the current climate of hate and lawlessness I foresee them being utilized a lot more.
 
To the OPs question, and the majority of responses; I don't like plastic guns, but agree with the need for a hi-capacity auto in todays climate. So I stay true to the Belgian ( Browning et-al)
Hi-Power design. Blued steel, wood, and hi-capacity:D

 
ladder13 said:
We can't? ;)
Click to expand...
Not in my loony moonbat state... :( ... and it seems that more states want to join us. :o

To be clear, I wasn't talking about old pre-1994 "pre-ban" magazines, which are still marginally legal here as of this writing. I'm talking about magazines for today's modern plastic wonder guns, ones designed and in production since the Federal AWB ended. :( Totally illegal in MA... and a felony, of course. :mad:
 
Doug M. said:
They are not hi-cap. They are standard capacity.
Click to expand...
That's great if you are talking about ARs & AKs. I agree with you. But what is "standard capacity" for a pistol? :confused:

That's right! It's different for each and every pistol. :) Standard capacity for some modern pistols are as few as 5 or 6 rounds. Those magazines are still legal here. :)

So in order to differentiate between what's legal and illegal in my loony moonbat state... and so that people will understand me... I choose to use the shortcut term "hi-cap" because those are the ones that the moonbats made illegal and most folks usually know what I mean. :cool:

Yes, I could say "post-ban magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds" are the illegal ones here, but that's kind of wordy. ;)
 
TTSH said:
Not in my loony moonbat state... :( ... and it seems that more states want to join us. :o

To be clear, I wasn't talking about old pre-1994 "pre-ban" magazines, which are still marginally legal here as of this writing. I'm talking about magazines for today's modern plastic wonder guns, ones designed and in production since the Federal AWB ended. :( Totally illegal in MA... and a felony, of course. :mad:
Click to expand...

And many "gun owners" will go right along. I am not one of them, I am a no compromise , 2A as written, American.
 
ladder13 said:
And many "gun owners" will go right along. I am not one of them, I am a no compromise , 2A as written, American.
Click to expand...
The problem in a place like MA is that it is a felony and, if they make it stick, you end up a PP. And even if it doesn't go that far, you will lose your license under "suitability" and there goes your gun collection. :(
 
Kurusu said:
"That guy" was essentially outnumbered. Not outgunned. The gatlings would have not saved him. Unless you consider they would delay him so much he wouldn't have had the chance to engage.
Click to expand...

They would have delayed him yes and maybe the battle would not have been fought, but I am not sure that the effect the gatlings would have been as limited as you suggest. I know this, it certainly wouldn't have hurt to have them. There might have still been a massacre, but I'll bet it would have made the enemy think long and hard about charging with those guns in operation.
 
llowry61 said:
They would have delayed him yes and maybe the battle would not have been fought, but I am not sure that the effect the gatlings would have been as limited as you suggest. I know this, it certainly wouldn't have hurt to have them. There might have still been a massacre, but I'll bet it would have made the enemy think long and hard about charging with those guns in operation.
Click to expand...

Gatlings had no transverse movement and were as cumbersome as artillery. Custer comand was trying to get into the village but met overwhelming numbers. they would have no use for the gatlings on the attack and would not have enough time to deploy them on the defense, and the highly mobile indian atackers could easily avoid the line of fire of the gatlings.
 
Custer fought a very poor battle, underestimated the enemy, poor reconaissance, divided his forces, they were not mutually supporting, etc.
Getting back to the original question, the late great Bill Jordan said the 38 Special was the most powerful round the average man could be expected to master, I have always considered the 9MMP to be the 38 Special of the semiauto world. And in how many states are equipment decisions made at the state as opposed to the local level ? As a member of SNM-Sons of Neanderthal Man-I prefer the recoil dampening effects of steel and I often wonder if there aren't training problems from using calibers too powerful for leightweight frames.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

8shot
What's the truth: Revolvers and suppressors?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
65-2x2
65-2x2
L
S&W 22mag revolver
Replies
10
Views
638
cowboy94916
C
K
How to bring revolver shooters back to IPSC?
2
Replies
20
Views
590
mc1911
M
Smoke
What Constitutes "Reasonable Preparedness" ?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
2K
old bear
old bear
Miami_JBT
Well, I went and purchased a 916A.
Replies
7
Views
1K
charlie sherrill
C

Latest posts

Back
Top