Brimstone
Regular Member
imported post
So I was on the Brady Campaign website this morning and I read this:
This made me think. Why does Brady seek legislation that does not include LEOs? If they ban "assault rifles" then the police shouldn't need them anymore since no one will have them. If they ban handguns then why would LEOs need them? I would think that pepper spray would be enough to subdue an unruly bad guy. I don't understand why they would allow our children to be put at risk by LEOs with firearms when they would no longer be necessary. :banghead:
Is it that LEOs are better than the American public? Are they more safety concious than us? As a percentage, you are much more likely to be accidentally shot by a LEO than a neighbor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoD-PbbUPYQ&feature=related ). In Utah we had a LEO leave his M4 on the ground in front of someone's home and it was later found by the homeowner ( http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum52/18718.html ).
If LEOs need a firearm for protection, then so do I. Why is this so difficult to understand? Unless we are creating a society where one life is worth more than another, this should be obvious. :cuss:
So I was on the Brady Campaign website this morning and I read this:
Q. Does Brady work with Law Enforcement?
Yes! We have worked closely with law enforcement allies for the past 25 years to reduce gun related injuries and deaths in America. Our Law Enforcement Relations (LER) Department works diligently with local, state and federal lawmakers to strengthen existing laws, close loopholes and pass new laws designed to reduce the number of illegal guns on our streets and keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
When lethal new weapons come on the market, LER issues officer alerts and provide vital information police can use to educate the public and keep communities safer. LER works closely with law enforcement throughout the country, implementing programs to reduce gun violence in schools and communities.
This made me think. Why does Brady seek legislation that does not include LEOs? If they ban "assault rifles" then the police shouldn't need them anymore since no one will have them. If they ban handguns then why would LEOs need them? I would think that pepper spray would be enough to subdue an unruly bad guy. I don't understand why they would allow our children to be put at risk by LEOs with firearms when they would no longer be necessary. :banghead:
Is it that LEOs are better than the American public? Are they more safety concious than us? As a percentage, you are much more likely to be accidentally shot by a LEO than a neighbor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoD-PbbUPYQ&feature=related ). In Utah we had a LEO leave his M4 on the ground in front of someone's home and it was later found by the homeowner ( http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum52/18718.html ).
If LEOs need a firearm for protection, then so do I. Why is this so difficult to understand? Unless we are creating a society where one life is worth more than another, this should be obvious. :cuss: