And Dems still think a 7 round magazine is enough

[Keeper]

Police are civilians. Also, I'm sure I can find some for you tomorrow; I need to get my beauty sleep.

The Anti's don't care about semantics. I imagine they view it as a supporting argument that pro-2A can't make their case. In any case, I'd appreciate anything you can find.

 

[hminsky]

The Anti's don't care about semantics. I imagine they view it as a supporting argument that pro-2A can't make their case. In any case, I'd appreciate anything you can find.

At a shopping center several miles north of Koreatown, Jay Rhee, who estimated that he and others fired five hundred shots into the ground and air, said, "We have lost our faith in the police. Where were you when we needed you?" Korean Americans were ignored. Koreatown was isolated from South Central Los Angeles, yet despite such exclusion it was the heaviest hit.[48]

1992 Los Angeles riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nickle]

Well, we don't grab for handguns here. Rifles. One is 223 caliber, and we use a 30 round mag. The other is 30-06 and uses 8 round enbloc clips. I think you can figure out what they are. Town PD knows what we use, so does the county sheriff himself. They hve no issue with it. Boys, it sure isn't like Mass or NY up here.

 

[Keeper]

1992 Los Angeles riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Excellent, thank you.

 

[shamrockjr]

Well, police ARE civilians... the average citizen is more likely to happen upon an armed criminal before the police are.

Any situation that a LEO would face that would require them to legitimately defend themselves is a situation that a non-LEO is more likely to face first. Like I said above, if LEOs are justified in having the SD tools they have, non-LEOs are even more justification.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but if "police are civilians" (i.e. citizens) then "the average citizen is more likely to happen upon an armed criminal before the police are" is contradictory because police are the citizenry (when off duty). To wit, if police are civilians then as civilians they are subject to the same statistics that we are.

The premise that "a non-LEO is more likely to face (a dangerous situation)" than a LEO is not verifiable. A better contention is it should not be the % of danger that I'm subjected to (as a civilian) that matters. It's the fact that I could be subjected to any danger at all. Regardless of where you live, your profession or the color of your skin, anyone can become a victim of violent crime.

Danger also includes revocation of rights and freedoms by a tyrannical government. It is for these reasons that we pro 2A'ers are so passionate about our right to bear arms. As a community we would be wise to build bridges with all professions. It's the anti 2A legislators that we have our beef with, not the police: the legislators that write the laws. I have LEO friends that are staunchly 2A: having them as allies by advancing an argument that we can ALL use is better than arguing that one group needs (high-cap mags) more than another. Does that make sense?

 

[namedpipes]

There are 700k to 800k law enforcement officers in the United States (*)

The US population is about 316m (**) although I suspect they are not counting "undocumented" residents.

That is one LEO per 395 non-LEO.

The odds of the first person encountering a crime, being an LEO are quite slim.

(*) How many police officers are employed in the United states
(**) Population Clock

 

[Keeper]

There are 700k to 800k law enforcement officers in the United States (*)

The US population is about 316m (**) although I suspect they are not counting "undocumented" residents.

That is one LEO per 395 non-LEO.

The odds of the first person encountering a crime, being an LEO are quite slim.

(*) How many police officers are employed in the United states
(**) Population Clock

Except non-LEO don't perform traffic stops, security details, respond to silent alarms, etc. Also, I've seen many crimes and went the other way. LEO's engage when criminal activity is seen.

 

[seth72]

LEO's engage when criminal activity is seen.

A lot of times that criminal activity is of the violent nature against another citizen. Which is why you hear the argument that of course non-LEOs need to keep and carry the same arms as the police, because those non-LEOs are the victims of the criminals who commit the crimes that require police involvement. So, if someone is arguing that a policeman needs an AR in the trunk because he will encounter a well armed criminal, then it must be so that everyone else needs an AR in the trunk because those are the people who are victimized by those same criminals.

 

[namedpipes]

Except non-LEO don't perform traffic stops, security details, respond to silent alarms, etc. Also, I've seen many crimes and went the other way. LEO's engage when criminal activity is seen.

Non-LEO are present when the activity leading to the traffic stop occurs. Generally before the LEO (and not counting the perpetrator)

Security details are generally performed in public areas where non-LEOs are present.

Unless the building sounding the silent alarm happens to be unoccupied, there is probably a non-LEO in it.

If you saw a crime and went the other way, you (presumably a non-LEO) were present before a LEO.

Law Enforcement is not (yet) all pervasive. It's just idiotic to say the first people on scene are LE.

Now if you want to talk about the incidence of being present during the aftermath of a crime (responding to an alarm, pulling over a speeder, etc), that is a different statistic with different meaning.

The only factors increasing the likelihood of a LEO being first on scene (that I can think of off hand) are they tend to be out and about more than most and perhaps they tend to patrol in higher crime areas than an average person would pass through. I doubt that increases their risk factor by 400 though...

 

[seth72]

You guys are making assumptions. I'm not nor do I need to make any case to have your rights taken away from you. That work is already in progress. 10 in MA. 7 in NY.

If I lived in MA or NY, I'd start drinking the water straight out of the Charles and get it over with. Fortunately, I got the heck out of there.

I'm just trying to get you to see that the burden of proof in this argument should lie with the person who is arguing to take away your resources to defend your life. If you are a peaceful man, you have the right to defend your life. If you've committed no crime doesn't it follow logic that the burden should lie on the person who suddenly wants to strip your rights?

And the reason I'm framing it this way is to flip it back on you. So, the question is: Has it been demonstrated to you that it is not a violation of human rights, and that it is an effective way to make the country safer, to limit the capacity of a firearm owned by a non-LEO? Has anyone proven that to you?

Frankly, the stats are out there and they come up for me pretty quickly on a google search. There are FBI stats that back up what I stated to you and its been cited quite a few times on the first few hits I found.

 

[Keeper]

If I lived in MA or NY, I'd start drinking the water straight out of the Charles and get it over with. Fortunately, I got the heck out of there.

I'm just trying to get you to see that the burden of proof in this argument should lie with the person who is arguing to take away your resources to defend your life. If you are a peaceful man, you have the right to defend your life. If you've committed no crime doesn't it follow logic that the burden should lie on the person who suddenly wants to strip your rights?

And the reason I'm framing it this way is to flip it back on you. So, the question is: Has it been demonstrated to you that it is not a violation of human rights, and that it is an effective way to make the country safer, to limit the capacity of a firearm owned by a non-LEO? Has anyone proven that to you?

Frankly, the stats are out there and they come up for me pretty quickly on a google search. There are FBI stats that back up what I stated to you and its been cited quite a few times on the first few hits I found.

You're preaching to the choir.

 

[Keeper]

Non-LEO are present when the activity leading to the traffic stop occurs. Generally before the LEO (and not counting the perpetrator)

Security details are generally performed in public areas where non-LEOs are present.

Unless the building sounding the silent alarm happens to be unoccupied, there is probably a non-LEO in it.

If you saw a crime and went the other way, you (presumably a non-LEO) were present before a LEO.

Law Enforcement is not (yet) all pervasive. It's just idiotic to say the first people on scene are LE.

Now if you want to talk about the incidence of being present during the aftermath of a crime (responding to an alarm, pulling over a speeder, etc), that is a different statistic with different meaning.

The only factors increasing the likelihood of a LEO being first on scene (that I can think of off hand) are they tend to be out and about more than most and perhaps they tend to patrol in higher crime areas than an average person would pass through. I doubt that increases their risk factor by 400 though...

But, in all of the cases in is the LEO is both the person who is most likely to engage in armed conflict and most likely to draw it. The fact that non-LEO's might be present isn't necessarily relevant. For example, I've witnessed crimes. It doesn't matter that I was there first, since I wasn't in harms way. The LEO on the other hand will often engage in conflict in the same situation, which I have also been witness to.

I guess we can debate it but if non-LEO's were 395 times more likely to _be_impacted_ by criminal activity, I would have more stories about my non-LEO friends' close calls than my LEO friends' close calls and that just isn't my observation.

 

[Keeper]

A lot of times that criminal activity is of the violent nature against another citizen. Which is why you hear the argument that of course non-LEOs need to keep and carry the same arms as the police, because those non-LEOs are the victims of the criminals who commit the crimes that require police involvement. So, if someone is arguing that a policeman needs an AR in the trunk because he will encounter a well armed criminal, then it must be so that everyone else needs an AR in the trunk because those are the people who are victimized by those same criminals.

I get it, but we're better off with more examples and less hypothetical. There should be a collection of cases where an armed non-LEO was unable to defend themselves because they didn't have enough rounds in the magazine. I still haven't seen one. The riot case above is good because it shows there are extreme cases where you want all the ammo you can get, but that doesn't paint the same picture as an innocent victim with an empty gun.

Now, it could just be that there hasn't been enough time. As more people get the CCW in areas with magazine limits there may be more cases of self defense failure.

 

[seth72]

I get it, but we're better off with more examples and less hypothetical. There should be a collection of cases where an armed non-LEO was unable to defend themselves because they didn't have enough rounds in the magazine. I still haven't seen one. The riot case above is good because it shows there are extreme cases where you want all the ammo you can get, but that doesn't paint the same picture as an innocent victim with an empty gun.

Now, it could just be that there hasn't been enough time. As more people get the CCW in areas with magazine limits there may be more cases of self defense failure.

It would be convenient for us if these cases happen all of the time. They don't. Thats the facts. But, that doesn't change things.

This is a matter of simple logic, and examining the facts. The simple logic is that people have the right to defend their own lives, and they have the same rights as everyone else to have the best tools to do so. And, the simple facts are that taking away those tools does not reduce mass murders or violent crime.

 

[Keeper]

Well said.