imported post
marshaul wrote:
Viorel wrote:
There's a difference between having access to better firepower, and using it on a regular basis, whether you need it or not.
Then justify the necessity for it.
Things like the Hollywood Shootout are uncommon enough that they don't provide a strong argument for deciding the default behavior of LEOs
What does that have to do with...anything?
I'm really that obtuse?
I find that hard to believe.
And why should I justify the necessity for police having powerful weapons? I'm happy to simply not bother justifying, leaving them with .38 revolvers.
You want them to be so well-armed,
you justify it.
You're the one who brought up the Hollywood Shootout. I'll ask you the same question: what does that have to do with... anything?
Nah, I didn't mean to suggest that you're obtuse. Actually, I was anticipating more than a simple statement to continue the dialog. I mean, you're the one who contested my statement, so all I was suggesting is for you to answer nothing more than a simple
why. I didn't think it was an unreasonable request since most discussions are an exchange of points.
Still, I'll gladly take the burden of dialog off of you and expand my point further...
1997 provided a wake-up call to the law enforcement community because TWO people had outmatched the standard TOE of a typical department. Combating armored individuals utilizing high-velocity weapons in a wide open area with pistols and shotguns isn't impossible but the gunmen kept the LEOs well suppressed. Besides that, the risk to first responders (many who were already injured) as well as the general public was to great with the equipment that they had at the time.
To counter the threat, they determined that they at least had to obtain high-velocity weapons themselves...and did.
Unfortunately too many policies/laws are written in blood...and this was one of them. Because of the lack of ability to "think out of the box",
they grew complacent and found themselves unprepared for an encounter that caused injuries to 10 officers and 7 citizens...a circumstance that temporarily removed their ability to preserve the safety of their community--
the responsibility they are tasked to uphold by the very people who pay their wages.
How does that relate to you? First, I'm responding with the assumption that you are asking in the capacity of a US citizen.
You are
not tasked with anything besides your obligation to the country. I'll note the Oath of Allegiance required by immigrants to become US citizens...
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
You are not obligated to carry a firearm, you have the right to...a world of difference. Since your everyday citizen isn't obligated, they have
no legal responsibility whatsoever to engage in law enforcement practices similar to that of a traditional LEO.
As I said in a different topic, in the forming of this country I firmly believe that the 2A was a well thought out necessity...not just to preserve the safety of each citizen, but to preserve the way of life the founding fathers intended.
With that said, with your legal right to protect your person as well as property, I find it very hard for a citizen to justify the necessity of a larger weapon similar to those carried by a LEO.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm
not against the thought of folks having an M4 or MP5 in their home or vehicle. Hell, I would be one of the first to have an HK stowed away, but what I am stating is with defending you and yours, how can you justify being that powered & against whom?
Honestly, with cities becoming more and more dense, it only makes sense to limit personal protective weaponry usage to low-velocity types. That's not removal of rights, that's ensuring public safety.
Besides, the use of the more powerful weapons (as illustrated in the image) are still limited to high-profile cases, but now more available to officers to fix the hard lessons learned in '97.
The standard LEO agencies still hoof around with low-velocity weapons day in & out while conducting everyday business. So what you want (matching those used), you actually are. They're just more equipped to handle situations they (not you) are responsible for.
As far as the latter comment, I brought up the N Hollywood shootout as an example. What that has to do with
LEO behavior, as you suggested, escapes me.
