Cops in the District of Criminals Get Semi-Auto Carbines

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Ajetpilot wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

It is the simple fact that if an Officer is qualified to carry a weapon on and off duty in a specific area, why should they not be able to do so in another state or area.

Click to expand...

Let's just rephrase this a little bit:

If a civilian is qualified to carry a weapon in a specific area, why shouldthat personnot be able to do so in another state or area?

OR:

If I'm licensed to carry a weapon concealed (or open)in Washington State, why should I not be able to do so in another state?

Click to expand...

I mean neither you nor anyone on this forum any disrespect, but not all who are licensed to carry, are truly qualified to carry. Let me go on to say that in my opinion the folks on this board are likely more qualified to carry than joe average citizen.

Personally I have no problem with extending that privelige to non LE, but I don't see the Govt. ever taking it there. The reason that they allowed LE to carry nationally is because these are people who carry every day, and earn their living with a gun on their hip. Most of them carry off duty anyway, and as I stated it provides a free layer of security (not just to themsellves but to others as well). It is not a citizens job to provide protection to others, and most agree that they carry for personal defense. This is the primary reason Cops carry off duty, but they also have the training and experience to deal with deadly situations that may not even involve them. It greatly increases the odds that an armed/trained (off duty) Officer will be in the area when the SHTF.

Click to expand...

If one were reasonable and holding to the position that it's good for LE to carry everywhere to add that extra layer of protection, they would add another layer of protection that is actually statistically far more likely to be used ... and to be successful ... the citizen him/herself. But of course we both know that it isn't about being reasonable as much as it is about creating a class of citizens that are really "citizens plus." There are "comrades" and then there are "Comrades."

I agree with you that what you said is the way it is. But this leads me to two points. One, we already know, that one does not need to earn a right, but that is how it is being treated.
Second is that if we are objective I would put the average civilian up against the average LE any day in shooting. I train people professionally in firearm use, and the LE that attends the courses I teach are on average far below the students. Also, if you go to a local range and ask the range master or owener how LE officers shoot, they'll usually laugh and tell you to pick out the worst shooter there and it's probably LE. This isn't said to bash LE, but rather to point out that the notion that 1. you have to be trained to be trusted to carry is pure BS since the LE training quite frankly sucks wind, (sad) and 2. LE isn't really the super cops the Hollywod portrays, (which we all know on here, but your average Joe doesn't) and 3. that very conservatively there are 2-3 million defensive uses of firearms every year (most of which do not involve shots fired), by largely untrained citizens, and they are virtually no mistakes or accidents, while the LE rate of accidental shootings is many times higher.

Also, why is a citizen trusted to carry in his home state (most states allow for CC now), but once he leaves his home state's boundaries, he's somehow unfit or unsafe and a threat to society so he should be disarmed? It makes no reasonable sense. So to say only LE is qualified to be trusted to carry nationally is a pile of camel crap.

All said, whoever promoted the national LE carry (which I support, as do I support civilian national carry... without a permit for both I might add) was either grossly misinformed or trying to place even more distance between LE and civilians or both.

imported post

IdahoCorsair wrote:

If one were reasonable and holding to the position that it's good for LE to carry everywhere to add that extra layer of protection, they would add another layer of protection that is actually statistically far more likely to be used ... and to be successful ... the citizen him/herself. But of course we both know that it isn't about being reasonable as much as it is about creating a class of citizens that are really "citizens plus." There are "comrades" and then there are "Comrades."

I agree with you that what you said is the way it is. But this leads me to two points. One, we already know, that one does not need to earn a right, but that is how it is being treated.
Second is that if we are objective I would put the average civilian up against the average LE any day in shooting. I train people professionally in firearm use, and the LE that attends the courses I teach are on average far below the students. Also, if you go to a local range and ask the range master or owener how LE officers shoot, they'll usually laugh and tell you to pick out the worst shooter there and it's probably LE. This isn't said to bash LE, but rather to point out that the notion that 1. you have to be trained to be trusted to carry is pure BS since the LE training quite frankly sucks wind, (sad) and 2. LE isn't really the super cops the Hollywod portrays, (which we all know on here, but your average Joe doesn't) and 3. that very conservatively there are 2-3 million defensive uses of firearms every year (most of which do not involve shots fired), by largely untrained citizens, and they are virtually no mistakes or accidents, while the LE rate of accidental shootings is many times higher.

Also, why is a citizen trusted to carry in his home state (most states allow for CC now), but once he leaves his home state's boundaries, he's somehow unfit or unsafe and a threat to society so he should be disarmed? It makes no reasonable sense. So to say only LE is qualified to be trusted to carry nationally is a pile of camel crap.

All said, whoever promoted the national LE carry (which I support, as do I support civilian national carry... without a permit for both I might add) was either grossly misinformed or trying to place even more distance between LE and civilians or both.

Click to expand...

The police must pass state mandated criteria to include shooting standards.

Most cops are top notch shooters and a few others just make the grade. But this, in no way, means that because a cop only shoots one a year is somehow not as good or better than the averagecitizen.

Most cops go their entire career never having to shoot someone. Being a cop is not all about being able to kill people with the first shot. More to the job than that.

I submit that most citizens in a crisis situation would not be on the mark. Shooting at the range and getting to take your time to line up the sights is far different.

Most police shootings result in no initial hits due to having to draw, look for a cover, avoid being shot, getting on the radio, and keeping your eye on the bad guy as you shoot back.

The adrenalin dump and the shock involved is tremendous and cops can only hope their training will kick in and help them hit their target.

imported post

I don't see a problem with the police having rifles/semi auto carbines.

The problem is D.C. copsdon't need guns!
D.C. residents are unarmed by law and thus the police aren't out gunned.

Has there been any incidents in DC in the last 5yrs where the police got involved in a fire fight with heavily armed (rifles/carbines) criminals and out gunned?

The money would be better spent hiring more officers, hopefully competent ones.

The police in any jurisdiction shouldn't have weapons if the law abiding citizens can not have them.

Before someone states the police have a dangerous job.

It is a choice they make and they are usually responding after the fact in a violent incident.
The criminal and victim are already one scene, and in D.C. the victim is guaranteed to be unarmed unless they happen to be LEO.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The police must pass state mandated criteria to include shooting standards.

Most cops are top notch shooters and a few others just make the grade. But this, in no way, means that because a cop only shoots one a year is somehow not as good or better than the averagecitizen.

^ This is BS. Go to any local range or shooting school. They'll tell you the truth. Top notch is for sure a joke. Passing is more like it... on an easy test.

Most cops go their entire career never having to shoot someone. Being a cop is not all about being able to kill people with the first shot. More to the job than that.

Definately more to the job, thank God. My hat's off to you who put yourself in a job where you routinely get spit on, stabbed, and shot at... all for an average paycheck. Thanks for those of you who uphold the law!

I submit that most citizens in a crisis situation would not be on the mark. Shooting at the range and getting to take your time to line up the sights is far different.

LEOs have the advantage over civys here in regards to the stress innoculation but again, stats say civilians are plenty effective.

Most police shootings result in no initial hits due to having to draw, look for a cover, avoid being shot, getting on the radio, and keeping your eye on the bad guy as you shoot back.

So, going for the radio when you should be shooting back is maybe the hangup here... that's a stupid tactical decision, not a "LE has more issues to deal with" (to which I say 'so what' that's not the point) other than that... civys have the same factors to deal with.

The adrenalin dump and the shock involved is tremendous and cops can only hope their training will kick in and help them hit their target.

It is indeed. LE has the advantage here, as they are likely more innoculated to the stress, but yet again, statistics show civys hit the BG more and do less collaterale damage in shooting.

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is not that cops don't do their job well, that's a whole nuther discussion. I'm saying that to say that cops are better shots and better prepared to deal with violent situations is to ignore facts. Sure, circumstances differ in LE v. civilian confrontations, but that's part of what makes civilians better at what they do than what LE does. If you look at shots missing the target LE misses roughly twice as much as civilians do.. they also shoot the wrong person roughly 2 times as often as civilians do. YES... this is partly due to the nature of their jobs, the uncertainties that face them and such... I'm NOT bagging on them for this. What I'm trying to point out that it is statistically SAFER (less missed shots flying around, and less innocents getting shot) for the citizens of this country to let people carry and deal with their own situations that for cops to show up not necessarily knowing who is good and bad and being further away from the theat decreasing hit ratios and the like.

Second, I for one, don't give a rat's a$$ if civilians are or are not more qualified (which I firmly believe they are) that LE to carry firearms... what matters is rights, the Constitution and responsibility.
We the PEOPLE have a RIGHT (not a priviledge) to carry to protect outselves. It is NOT contingent on passing some course or making sure that granny can shoot and confront at well as a LEO before she's allowed to carry for protection.
The Constitution says that every person has the right to be armed... it mentions NOWHERE "if xyz." This alone should end the discussion.
When a LEO shoots someone he/she has the cloak of the department or agency to absorb most of the negatives a civilian would face whether it be a justified shooting or not. This isn't to say that LEOs are immune from prosectution, but if you're honest, they mostly are... even when in the wrong.... they get fired without pension, rather than jailed for life. (I know, it's a generalization, but it's accurate)

All in all, it seems it's more beneficial for society to "let" civilians carry than maybe even LEOs.

imported post

How often is the average police officer put in a situation where he/she is in dire need of an AR15? Does this not increase the chances of collateral damage? Are the costs justifiable (equipment and training alone would be ridiculous)? Is a police officer's life more valuable than a DC citizen's?

My grandfather was a damned good cop, and I in no way hold any contempt for the police. There are factors here that the politicians are not taking into account that actually do have some bearing on the situation. Why would they need more than a 12 gauge000 buck?

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

In regards to DC getting rifles.... I truly fail to understand why this is a big deal.

This has NOTHING to do with being equal or having unnecessary firepower against the citizens.

For the past 50+ years cops have been issued a handgun and if they are lucky... a shared shotgun in the cruiser.

They can carry only what the department approves them to carry.

But a citizen (or criminal) can own and carry anything up to and including a .50 cal rifle.

SNIP

Click to expand...

As you always rightfully point out, keep it on topic and don't paint with a broad brush. This is not about LA cops having rifles or Denver or Philly or St. Louis cops having rifles. This is about DC cops getting yet more powerful weapons to use on the streets around and perhaps against an almost wholly unarmed law abiding population.

Agent19 wrote:

The police in any jurisdiction shouldn't have weapons [that] law abiding citizens can not have...

Click to expand...

*Quote edited slightly to more exactly match my position*

I absolutely oppose LE in DC, NY, LA, Chicago, to name a few, having anything more than a basic sidearm. That already gives them an advantage over the disarmed population (and obviously they are disarmed because by law pretty much no one except for LE can carry) AND the population is disarmed at the full encouragement and political participation of the civilian police forces in those cities. That is what this is about.

We recently had a hostage situation at a business near my house. Police had the area cordoned off and were running around with their SBRs, to the delight of the young un's, the horror of the women-folk and the shrugs of us men-folk. Two of my neighbors standing there with me watching things unfold were commenting that their AR-15 and AR-10 respecitively, were nicer and better set up than the ARs carried by the LEOs (and others jumped in with speculation about the effectiveness of various hunting rifles in the sitution) and speculated on the reaction if they would go home and get them to help out (said tongue in cheek obviously). Then some lady near us quieried outloud as what would happen if there were mutiple BGs and one of them got past the cops and over to the parking lot where we were standing to try to steal a car or take a hostage. Another of my neighbors suggested that one or more of about 6-7 of us standing there at the moment carrying would probably shoot him before that happened.

We had no problem with our LEOs having rifles and shotguns. Why? Because we have rifles and shotguns too. We have no problem with them carrying a pistol. Why? Because many of us are also carrying a pistol.

In DC, citizens' rights to keep and bear arms has been infringed to the point of elimination. Since such infringement, with the full support and complicity of the civilian police force, has continued for in excess of 30 years expressly supported because it makes the city safer and removes guns making it safer for officers as well as citizens, after these 30+ years there should be little to no danger to LEOs. Either they admit failure and begin supporting at least CC for LAC OR they deal with having only pistols and suck up the results of their politics and being equal under the law.

So yes, this is a big deal. This is a big hairy deal. This is the sort of deal where the citizens again scream "elitist" and "we are equal or we are not". This is the sort of deal where people suddenly notice that LE now looks more like a US Soldier than like a US civilian citizen. This is the sort of deal that makes citizens question the motives of LE and the State and try to figure out if it this is all a matter of a nefarious plot or simply an issue of small penis syndrome.

imported post

Legba wrote:

You would think that the "full faith and credit" clause would cover that, but not necessarily so. They'll recognize your wife or your drivers license, but not your gun permit, without a formal reciprocity agreement. I don't get it either.

-ljp

Click to expand...

And it took a while to get there. Some marriagesmay still not be recognized everywhere; the age of consent differs between states (for instance it's 17 in Texas, but other states make it 16 or 18), and that differs from the marriageable age. A marriage license for a 14-year-old girl, legal in New York of all places, may be held null and void somewhere like Nebraska (where you have to be 19 to marry without parental consent, 17 with, and no provisions for judicial consent).

Non-commercial driver licensesare recognized everywhere in the U.S., and inCanada on a provisional basis,however commercial driver licenses, like CCW permits, still do not have full reciprocity amongst all states or in Canada or Mexico, NAFTA notwithstanding.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

"we are equal or we are not"

Click to expand...

OK, Doug.

Aren't these politicians the same ones that would keep us from having firearms in the event that one of us loses his mind and goes on a rampage? To use liberal, anti-gun ideology: won't it be more dangerous now when a police office loses it and decides he needs an outlet? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article682643.ece

And yes, it is a UK site for a reason.

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

I don't see a problem with the police having rifles/semi auto carbines.

The problem is D.C. copsdon't need guns!
D.C. residents are unarmed by law and thus the police aren't out gunned.

Has there been any incidents in DC in the last 5yrs where the police got involved in a fire fight with heavily armed (rifles/carbines) criminals and out gunned?

The money would be better spent hiring more officers, hopefully competent ones.

The police in any jurisdiction shouldn't have weapons if the law abiding citizens can not have them.

Before someone states the police have a dangerous job.

It is a choice they make and they are usually responding after the fact in a violent incident.
The criminal and victim are already one scene, and in D.C. the victim is guaranteed to be unarmed unless they happen to be LEO.

Click to expand...

I am guessing you forgot about the criminals in DC that have the guns and commit the crimes.... :uhoh:

Knowing that criminals are now using high power rifles.... you say DC should not be allowed to have access to rifles until they have had a few incidents under their belt first where they actually need them?

If this is true.....nobody should be allowed to CC or OC in Virginia either until theyhave been muggedand prove they actually need a gun.

http://www.amw.com/fugitives/case.cfm?id=27248

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0508/517962.html

"Arguments for increasing police firepower began more than10 years ago, when two bank robbers outgunned and overpowered police in north Hollywood, California. Fast forwardto 2004 in downtown D.C.,whentwo heavily armed men robbed a series of bankswhere again the bad guys had the kinds of weapons patrol officers couldn't match."

Well, it looks like DC has actually had their first incident involving guys with guns they could not match!!!

These rifles are available to EVERYONE. Any DC Resident can ownan AR-15 as these rifles are available all over the US.If you want a full auto M-16 you can have that too. You may not be able to keepit in DC but you can own it and store it out of state if you really reallywanted one.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Snipped.....
I absolutely oppose LE in DC, NY, LA, Chicago, to name a few, having anything more than a basic sidearm. That already gives them an advantage over the disarmed population (and obviously they are disarmed because by law pretty much no one except for LE can carry) AND the population is disarmed at the full encouragement and political participation of the civilian police forces in those cities. That is what this is about.

...Snipped....

We had no problem with our LEOs having rifles and shotguns. Why? Because we have rifles and shotguns too. We have no problem with them carrying a pistol. Why? Because many of us are also carrying a pistol.

... Snipped...

So yes, this is a big deal. This is a big hairy deal. This is the sort of deal where the citizens again scream "elitist" and "we are equal or we are not". This is the sort of deal where people suddenly notice that LE now looks more like a US Soldier than like a US civilian citizen. This is the sort of deal that makes citizens question the motives of LE and the State and try to figure out if it this is all a matter of a nefarious plot or simply an issue of small penis syndrome.

Click to expand...

So a LEO should NEVER have a riflejust because of restrictive state gun laws? Even though we know the criminal can have any gun he wants...

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard here today! :banghead:

So let's punish the LEO and not let him have the tools he needs to use against the criminals that understand they need to be better armed to fight off the police who may chaseafter them.

So then... why let the police have gun at all. Let's give them billy clubs instead in those location where guns are restricted. When a criminal pulls a gun... the bobbies can throw their clubs and run!! Then you can nail the them for being cowards too. Maybe even rant about how a cop is "paid to take a bullet" :X

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

So yes, this is a big deal. This is a big hairy deal. This is the sort of deal where the citizens again scream "elitist" and "we are equal or we are not". This is the sort of deal where people suddenly notice that LE now looks more like a US Soldier than like a US civilian citizen. This is the sort of deal that makes citizens question the motives of LE and the State and try to figure out if it this is all a matter of a nefarious plot or simply an issue of small penis syndrome.

Click to expand...

Don't you know that we are all equal,

inspite of only having been created equal,

and the only way to ensure that is to keep our genes zipped and up - else damage the lessers self-esteem? That's egalitarianism and the root of democracy, the rule of fools by fool LEOs.

The 'members' amongst us think that's enough to prove their superiority as CQB warriors but when someone wants to drop trou' and compare experience - no one else's counts! PHAUGH.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

We are all created equal, but inequality sets in the day we're born.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

So yes, this is a big deal. This is a big hairy deal. This is the sort of deal where the citizens again scream "elitist" and "we are equal or we are not". This is the sort of deal where people suddenly notice that LE now looks more like a US Soldier than like a US civilian citizen. This is the sort of deal that makes citizens question the motives of LE and the State and try to figure out if it this is all a matter of a nefarious plot or simply an issue of small penis syndrome.

Click to expand...

Don't you know that we are all equal,

inspite of only having been created equal,

and the only way to ensure that is to keep our genes zipped and up - else damage the lessers self-esteem? That's egalitarianism and the root of democracy, the rule of fools by fool LEOs.

The 'members' amongst us think that's enough to prove their superiority as CQB warriors but when someone wants to drop trou' and compare experience - no one else's counts! PHAUGH.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

Click to expand...

If we are all equal... why do you pay me so much attention. I think it is unfair to everyone else. And you werealways correct when you said "It's not always about LEO 299" :lol:


In spite of what you think... some ofour brightest members here cannot spell.

imported post

I have to wonder what gives the governmentthe abilityto guns the citizens have no ability to possess. What gives an officer, who is a citizen, more rights than an individual just because they are employed by the government?

imported post

Pointman wrote:

I have to wonder what gives the governmentthe abilityto guns the citizens have no ability to possess. What gives an officer, who is a citizen, more rights than an individual just because they are employed by the government?

If citizens can't have certain guns, the same goes for citizens that are law enforcement officers. Period.

Officers always want special gun privileges. They're citizens, just like everyone else. Let them fight the gun laws like everyone else, and let everyone carry, or no-one carry. If an officer can open carry in a car, so can everyone else. Conceal carry? Same for everyone. Otherwise disarm them all. If citizens have no ability to protect themselves, neither should officers, who are citizens who work for a government entity.

The fact is that officers, and citizens, should not be disarmed.

Click to expand...

It is called a "law" and to any law there can be exemptions.


Your argument that an officer who is a "citizen" of a location that does not allow a citizen to do something should carry over to him as well. Ridiculous!! :banghead:


In Virginia, there is a code that allows the police to basicallynot obey certain traffic laws.

Pointman wrote: "Officers always want special gun privileges"

What in the hell does that mean? I have never asked for special privileges nor any of the people I work with. What privilege could I even request?

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

In DC, citizens' rights to keep and bear arms has been infringed to the point of elimination. Since such infringement, with the full support and complicity of the civilian police force, has continued for in excess of 30 years expressly supported because it makes the city safer and removes guns making it safer for officers as well as citizens, after these 30+ years there should be little to no danger to LEOs. Either they admit failure and begin supporting at least CC for LAC OR they deal with having only pistols and suck up the results of their politics and being equal under the law.

Click to expand...

Well DD, I gotta hand it to you, through your post, and specifically this paragraph, you've changed my mind on the issues.

No SBRs for DC LEOs :X

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

In DC, citizens' rights to keep and bear arms has been infringed to the point of elimination. Since such infringement, with the full support and complicity of the civilian police force, has continued for in excess of 30 years expressly supported because it makes the city safer and removes guns making it safer for officers as well as citizens, after these 30+ years there should be little to no danger to LEOs. Either they admit failure and begin supporting at least CC for LAC OR they deal with having only pistols and suck up the results of their politics and being equal under the law.

Click to expand...

Well DD, I gotta hand it to you, through your post, and specifically this paragraph, you've changed my mind on the issues.

No SBRs for DC LEOs :X

Click to expand...

A SBR is just easier to get out of the car. It has not other benefit of accuracy or destructive power.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

In DC, citizens' rights to keep and bear arms has been infringed to the point of elimination. Since such infringement, with the full support and complicity of the civilian police force, has continued for in excess of 30 years expressly supported because it makes the city safer and removes guns making it safer for officers as well as citizens, after these 30+ years there should be little to no danger to LEOs. Either they admit failure and begin supporting at least CC for LAC OR they deal with having only pistols and suck up the results of their politics and being equal under the law.

Click to expand...

Well DD, I gotta hand it to you, through your post, and specifically this paragraph, you've changed my mind on the issues.

No SBRs for DC LEOs :X

Click to expand...

A SBR is just easier to get out of the car. It has not other benefit of accuracy or destructive power.

Click to expand...

Ah, I was referring to "SBR" in the sense of "Scary Black Rifle". Inclusive of true SBRs, carbines, and other guns referred to as "assault weapons".

imported post

.40 Cal wrote:

How often is the average police officer put in a situation where he/she is in dire need of an AR15? Does this not increase the chances of collateral damage? Are the costs justifiable (equipment and training alone would be ridiculous)? Is a police officer's life more valuable than a DC citizen's?

My grandfather was a damned good cop, and I in no way hold any contempt for the police. There are factors here that the politicians are not taking into account that actually do have some bearing on the situation. Why would they need more than a 12 gauge000 buck?

Click to expand...

I choose to carry a .45 and an ar-15 because thay arehighly effective tools that help me accomplish my job. I also have the good fortune to work for an agency that recognizes the value of good tools. I have been on countless calls with my rifle and I can tell you that an assault rifle has saved my life at least once.

Here is the deal; the Police do not have to play "fair". Bg brings a knife, we bring a pistol. Bg brings a pistol, we bring a rifle. Bg brings a rifle, we bring every Cop in the vicinity and their rifles.

We do not respond to calls hoping to win a gunfight. We go in with the upper hand, and usuallysuperior firepower. This is what gets the job done, and you home safe at the end of shift.

It's not the Police's job toensure a fair fight, it's our job to shut down the bg no matter what.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

I choose to carry a .45 and an ar-15 because thay arehighly effective tools that help me accomplish my job. I also have the good fortune to work for an agency that recognizes the value of good tools. I have been on countless calls with my rifle and I can tell you that an assault rifle has saved my life at least once.

Here is the deal; the Police do not have to play "fair". Bg brings a knife, we bring a pistol. Bg brings a pistol, we bring a rifle. Bg brings a rifle, we bring every Cop in the vicinity and their rifles.

We do not respond to calls hoping to win a gunfight. We go in with the upper hand, and usuallysuperior firepower. This is what gets the job done, and you home safe at the end of shift.

It's not the Police's job toensure a fair fight, it's our job to shut down the bg no matter what.

Click to expand...

Granted that what you have said is 100% accurate... some do not like that YOU have a rifle at all. You have to justify that you even need it and this means your department must have first fallen victim to something first in the past 5 years.

You are not allowed to plan ahead and your department is just power hungry withofficers wanting rifles for the fun of it.

If the citizens cannot have one than why should the police!? What's good for the goose is good for the gander!! :uhoh:

So in a sense..members here want to disarm the police so the policetoo can fall victim to criminalacts. This way there is no "privileged class" of citizen out there.

The solution? Allow all citizensto be armed with the same firepower first.