Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[Artema]

And your opinion is based on.....what actual experience? How much actual research have you done? And what proof is staring me in the face as you claim? Unfortunately, this time my signature does apply to you.

You're overly presumptuous. That's one thing that annoys me about conversation here. People make claims out of their rears rather than simply asking a question of someone else.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/ap-impact-years-trillion-war-drugs-failed-meet-goals/

http://www.druglawreform.info/en/home/tag/1-argentina

http://world.time.com/2012/10/09/how-latin-america-may-lead-the-world-in-decriminalizing-drug-use/

http://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/debating-decriminalization-in-argentina-past-present-future/

http://www.druglawreform.info/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=84%3Apublications&id=212%3Adrug-policy-reform-in-practice-&Itemid=7&lang=en

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

http://www.druglawreform.info/index.php?fid=45&cid=574&ord=1&task=weblink&option=com_flexicontent&Itemid=37&lang=en

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/03/drugs-prohibition-latin-america

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/budgetary-impact-ending-drug-prohibition

[glockman19]

If law enforcement was restricted to having access to the same equipment as everyone else (police are regular citizens, they're not supposed to be a special class) firearms laws would not be so restrictive today.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

And this is good because Heller says that the 2A covers firearms, "In Common Use", so let them use it in "common use of policing" and guarantee us all the use of semi auto weapons.

[five.five-six]

Did any of the men responsible for these even lose a day's pay? So long as indiscriminately firing on everyday citizens just going about their business is treated as no big deal, I am actually a proponent of LEOs being restricted to less than lethal munitions and weapons.

While I think a lot of cops are trigger happy:

[IrishJoe3]

You're overly presumptuous. That's one thing that annoys me about conversation here. People make claims out of their rears rather than simply asking a question of someone else.

I did ask a simple question. And that was that your opinion was based on what experience? A simple question that was not answered. Duly noted.

I am more than familiar with the examples of your quick google search. Again, that wasn't in the scope of my question.

[Artema]

I did ask a simple question. And that was that your opinion was based on what experience? A simple question that was not answered. Duly noted.

I am more than familiar with the examples of your quick google search. Again, that wasn't in the scope of my question.

However, you didn't simply ask me a question, you referred me to your signature, which states things that allows you to pretend you didn't apparently. Other than the links, I have simply studied it a great deal over the last decade+

[IrishJoe3]

However, you didn't simply ask me a question, you referred me to your signature, which states things that allows you to pretend you didn't apparently. Other than the links, I have simply studied it a great deal over the last decade+

You are right, that was presumptuous of me, and I apologize.

I too have studied it greatly, and this issue has been the topic of a number of college classes that I've taken. I do find the dynamics of the whole trade as quite interesting, and quite complicated. Its also far more complicated real world than in a classroom. Which is why I asked about your real world experience.

In turn, however, don't you be presumptuous of me. When you stated

Someone who has spent a significant portion of their lives violently battling something will not be able to accept, in the face of proof, that the thousands of deaths were a result of escalation of violence, rather than a necessity of the situation.

Is very presumptions, especially when you in fact offer no proof whatsoever. If you remain civil with me and open to a real discussion, I am more than happy to oblige (and up until now I think it has been a remarkably civil conversation by Calguns standards). Become presumptuous and dismissive and clearly have a closed mind, my patience or willingness to engage in what is clearly a one sided debate dwindles to nothing.

[mage]

If citizens in California were allowed to drive around with loaded rifles in their vehicles, or even just an empty rifle with a loaded magazine next to the rifle, I imagine the North Hollywood Shootout would have involved far less shooting than it did.

We can carry a rifle and a loaded mag in the trunk, even now.

At the time of the north hollywood shootout, open carry was still legal.

[Artema]

Is very presumptions, especially when you in fact offer no proof whatsoever. If you remain civil with me and open to a real discussion, I am more than happy to oblige (and up until now I think it has been a remarkably civil conversation by Calguns standards). Become presumptuous and dismissive and clearly have a closed mind, my patience or willingness to engage in what is clearly a one sided debate dwindles to nothing.

Without a doubt. I play the game. When I get certain responses I escalate to their level. I'm only occasionally one of the people who tries to be the bigger person, lol.

[IrishJoe3]

Without a doubt. I play the game. When I get certain responses I escalate to their level. I'm only occasionally one of the people who tries to be the bigger person, lol.

LOL

[desrt2]

The Whitmen incident wasn't exactly ideal for citizens or regular beat-cops; what comes up comes down. It wasn't as dangerous since any misses were likely hitting the wall of the tower or ringing the bell. Although it might have been tempting to run an M2 at the bell and make music.

When Charles Whitman opened fire from the clock tower at the University of Texas in Austin, regular citizens returned fire with their rifles and helped suppress him. After his initial attack, he began receiving large amounts of return fire from citizens who had realized what was going on and had been able to retrieve their rifles from their vehicles and respond.

He was also no longer able to lean over the edge on the tower and take well-aimed shots at people below. He would only pop up for a second or two and take a quick shot.

If I remember the article properly, after the citizens began to fire at him, he was unable to kill anybody else, although he tried.


If citizens in California were allowed to drive around with loaded rifles in their vehicles, or even just an empty rifle with a loaded magazine next to the rifle, I imagine the North Hollywood Shootout would have involved far less shooting than it did.

[omgwtfbbq]

Yessir! Though I think law enforcement and the courts understands that though. Arrests for simply possession of narcotics is pretty universally considered 'small fish'. Likewise, the penalties for possession are insignificant. Contrary to popular belief, in todays post AB109 era, you won't get prison time, and any country time will be very brief, if any at all.

I think a lot of people get confused between state and federal laws in regards to possession and even possession for sale. A lot of people hear all the stink about federal manditory minimum sentences and think that applies to everyone ever accused of possession or possession for sale, which just isn't true.

In the state of CA, we do more drug and felony diversion than quite possibly any other state in the nation, which tries to do the exact opposite, prevent individuals who are prosecuted for simple possession, even for hard drugs like heroin and methamphetamine, don't even get extended jail sentences, let alone prison time.

Now will 1170(h) many of the more serious offenders who were originally sentences to probation or diversion programs, end up doing their "prison" time in local jail custody.

This is where I think people get confused. Individuals assume because they hear about people in other states who get sentences to multiple year sentences for things like crack cocaine possession, and assume it's the same here.

[Artema]

Back when I was a civilian I knew a lot of people who smoked marijuana, and I tried it a few times. These people, however, are like us with ammo. They buy it in bulk in order to save money. They weren't buying pounds of it for the purpose of sale, but the law would declare them dealers because they were being frugal. Imagine how you feel when people say "what do you need with 1,000 rounds of 10mm? You must be trying to overthrow the government or go on a shooting rampage!" If you don't like rules like that being applied to you, why support rules like that against other people?

[IrishJoe3]

Back when I was a civilian I knew a lot of people who smoked marijuana, and I tried it a few times. These people, however, are like us with ammo. They buy it in bulk in order to save money. They weren't buying pounds of it for the purpose of sale, but the law would declare them dealers because they were being frugal. Imagine how you feel when people say "what do you need with 1,000 rounds of 10mm? You must be trying to overthrow the government or go on a shooting rampage!" If you don't like rules like that being applied to you, why support rules like that against other people?

No, we're not talking about a pound or two for 'personal use'.

1 Blunt = .5 gram (+/-) X 3 blunts a day
1 pound = 453 grams
1 pound = 906 blunts / 3 blunts a day = 302 days worth of MJ for personal use.

Once you start getting into the guy with 5 lbs (over four years worth) claiming personal use, clearly a health dose of skepticism is appropriate. I doubt the MJ, unlike ammo, will store for 4+ years.

Having said that, 5 lbs is nothing. This is california. Many counties allow ballpark that much for medical purposes anyway. We're talking about trafficking a moving truck full. That will get me interested. That coupled with evidence of sales is where you get people charged with possession for sales and where you start nibbling at the bottom of the trafficking network.

[IrishJoe3]

And OMGWTFBBQ, good point, I didn't even think of that and you're probably very right about that.

[Artema]

No, we're not talking about a pound or two for 'personal use'.

1 Blunt = .5 gram (+/-) X 3 blunts a day
1 pound = 453 grams
1 pound = 906 blunts / 3 blunts a day = 302 days worth of MJ for personal use.

Once you start getting into the guy with 5 lbs (over four years worth) claiming personal use, clearly a health dose of skepticism is appropriate. I doubt the MJ, unlike ammo, will store for 4+ years.

Having said that, 5 lbs is nothing. This is california. Many counties allow ballpark that much for medical purposes anyway. We're talking about trafficking a moving truck full. That will get me interested. That coupled with evidence of sales is where you get people charged with possession for sales and where you start nibbling at the bottom of the trafficking network.

I guess I never weighed it, but they would keep humidors and all kinds of intricate things sometimes. I've lost touch with them, otherwise I'd ask them for updates.