The Idiotic rants about magazine capacity

[TurtleDude]

The following facts are not subject to reasonable dispute

1) Police officers and federal law enforcement agents employed by civilian Law Enforcement organizations are CIVILIANS not members of the military

2) CIVILIAN law enforcement officers have no greater right to deploy deadly force against criminals than do OTHER CIVILIANS. In some cases their ability is even less-for example, in your own home if you see someone sneaking around with a knife or a weapon you have no duty to challenge them but you may engage them. A police officer normally cannot

3) EVERY major municipal, state and federal law enforcement agency has determined that SUITABLE weapons for their CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES to use for SELF DEFENSE INCLUDE

15-17 shot semi automatic Pistols (Glock 17, Smith and Wesson MP, Sig Sauer 226 and the Beretta 92 make up 95% of the sidearms of such organizations)

SEMI AUTOMATIC or select fire carbines chambered in 5.56 NATO with 20-30 round magazines


Given those facts, such weapons are EQUALLY SUITABLE FOR OTHER civilians to use in the same environments as civilian LEOS


the ten round limit was not based on any studies or any expertise. It was an arbitrary number that the clinton administration pulled out of its collective ass. As soon as it passed, Chuck Schumer and other anti gun politicians were suggesting that a 6 round limit should be imposed.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to limit one group of law abiding civilians to magazine restriction that the governments do not impose for their own employees and which criminals will not abide by

Furthermore there are millions upon millions of magazines available. All a ban does is drive the cost up for law abiding citizens.

 

[hikari]

Your premise is terrible, of course Leo can do things other civilians are not allowed to do, and they should. I can't put lights on my car and blow thru stoplights now can i?

I would agree magazine capacity has little to do with the danger of a firearm, and that reducing capacity has no measurable impact on crime, but those ideas have merit alone, to tie them to some fanciful idea that normal civilians and law enforcement are somehow bound by the same rules is just laughable to me though.

 

[Goshin]

Your premise is terrible, of course Leo can do things other civilians are not allowed to do, and they should. I can't put lights on my car and blow thru stoplights now can i?

I would agree magazine capacity has little to do with the danger of a firearm, and that reducing capacity has no measurable impact on crime, but those ideas have merit alone, to tie them to some fanciful idea that normal civilians and law enforcement are somehow bound by the same rules is just laughable to me though.

Maybe you have a point, since half the cops I knew when I was in LE were crappy gunhandlers, mediocre marksmen, and not exactly tactical geniuses either, and since many of the CCW'ers I've trained over the years were far better trained and better shooters.

 

[Jafne]

I agree with hikari. The police have more rights then the average civilian in the use of force, as they should.

In addition, I'm all for limiting the firepower the police carry with them too.

I like my guns, but America is way over armed.

 

[specklebang]

How many crimes or arrests are settled in a shoot-out? Why do we hear that most LEOs never draw their gun throughout their career?

Before I get beat up here - I SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT TO GIGANTIC MAGAZINES - but I wonder what situation would call for 17 shots to settle.

Maybe you have a point, since half the cops I knew when I was in LE were crappy gunhandlers, mediocre marksmen, and not exactly tactical geniuses either, and since many of the CCW'ers I've trained over the years were far better trained and better shooters.

 

[Goshin]

How many crimes or arrests are settled in a shoot-out? Why do we hear that most LEOs never draw their gun throughout their career?

Before I get beat up here - I SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT TO GIGANTIC MAGAZINES - but I wonder what situation would call for 17 shots to settle.

An exchange of fire with an armed perp who is making effective use of cover.

 

[Jafne]

An exchange of fire with an armed perp who is making effective use of cover.

Is the guy exchanging fire with the "perp" a policeman or the average Joe citizen, in this scenario?

 

[TurtleDude]

Your premise is terrible, of course Leo can do things other civilians are not allowed to do, and they should. I can't put lights on my car and blow thru stoplights now can i?

I would agree magazine capacity has little to do with the danger of a firearm, and that reducing capacity has no measurable impact on crime, but those ideas have merit alone, to tie them to some fanciful idea that normal civilians and law enforcement are somehow bound by the same rules is just laughable to me though.

I spent many years defending police officers in wrongful shooting lawsuits. tell me what can police do to use lethal force that a homeowner cannot do.

 

[TurtleDude]

How many crimes or arrests are settled in a shoot-out? Why do we hear that most LEOs never draw their gun throughout their career?

Before I get beat up here - I SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT TO GIGANTIC MAGAZINES - but I wonder what situation would call for 17 shots to settle.

well if all the governmental experts have decreed that a high capacity 9mm Auto is preferable for SELF DEFENSE than say a more powerful but lower capacity 357 mag revolver or a Colt 1911 45 ACP, then the rest of us civilians might well conclude that was the best choice for us.

 

[TurtleDude]

I agree with hikari. The police have more rights then the average civilian in the use of force, as they should.

In addition, I'm all for limiting the firepower the police carry with them too.

I like my guns, but America is way over armed.

No they don't-you are completely wrong about that

 

[Goshin]

Is the guy exchanging fire with the "perp" a policeman or the average Joe citizen, in this scenario?

Could be either. Could be a cop in the street... could be an armed citizen in their home dealing with an armed invader.

Not saying it is commonplace, just that it could happen. It's also pretty much a given that a 10 round mag limit isn't going to have any really significant effects on mass murders.

 

[Jafne]

I spent many years defending police officers in wrongful shooting lawsuits. tell me what can police do to use lethal force that a homeowner cannot do.

You changed from "civilian" to "homeowner". Is that intentional or an oversight?

 

[Jafne]

Hmmmm, You've both retreated back to your house. A police officer can use force outside of his house, therefore making the OP's original post incorrect.

 

[TurtleDude]

You changed from "civilian" to "homeowner". Is that intentional or an oversight?

not at all-home defense is where most people are going to use a high capacity rifle. its hard to go about one's business at work or shopping toting around an M4

 

[TurtleDude]

Hmmmm, You've both retreated back to your house. A police officer can use force outside of his house, therefore making the OP's original post incorrect.

You are lying-- a police officer has no greater right to USE DEADLY force than any other civilians. I am not talking about a LEO telling someone to DO something-clearly a cop has authority (and arrest powers for misdemeanors) that other civilians do not have

I am talking about USING A LETHAL weapon against another person

a cop cannot shoot UNLESS he has a reasonable belief that shooting is to stop an IMMINENT THREAT OF DEATH OR SEVERE BODILY HARM

 

[Goshin]

You are lying-- a police officer has no greater right to USE DEADLY force than any other civilians. I am not talking about a LEO telling someone to DO something-clearly a cop has authority (and arrest powers for misdemeanors) that other civilians do not have

I am talking about USING A LETHAL weapon against another person

a cop cannot shoot UNLESS he has a reasonable belief that shooting is to stop an IMMINENT THREAT OF DEATH OR SEVERE BODILY HARM

As a former LEO, I vouch that this is true in every jurisdiction I am familiar with.

The only major variation that I know anything of, involves rules about shooting fleeing fugitives. That's changed since I left LE and I'm not sure what rules are currently in place, and how they may vary by jurisdiction anymore.

 

[Jafne]

not at all-home defense is where most people are going to use a high capacity rifle. its hard to go about one's business at work or shopping toting around an M4

Uh-huh, and while at work or out shopping I don't think your well advised in getting involved with a "perp" hiding behind cover. Where as a police officer can. I don't know all the legalities involved, and I suppose state laws come into play, but I suspect I'm more right then wrong.

If I'm wrong, I think I have reason to write my congressmen and expect an explanation to this over sight. Clearly it defies common sense.

 

[TurtleDude]

As a former LEO, I vouch that this is true in every jurisdiction I am familiar with.

The only major variation that I know anything of, involves rules about shooting fleeing fugitives. That's changed since I left LE and I'm not sure what rules are currently in place, and how they may vary by jurisdiction anymore.

If you have reason to believe that a person fleeing will engage in dangerous activities you can shoot them

for example you see a guy stabbing people and you intervene and he starts running holding his knife you almost always will be exonerated or justified in shooting him

 

[TurtleDude]

Uh-huh, and while at work or out shopping I don't think your well advised in getting involved with a "perp" hiding behind cover. Where as a police officer can. I don't know all the legalities involved, and I suppose state laws come into play, but I suspect I'm more right then wrong.

If I'm wrong, I think I have reason to write my congressmen and expect an explanation to this over sight. Clearly it defies common sense.

YOu are changing the issue because you have been proven wrong on the subject I was talking about

we are talking about deploying deadly force against another human being in a civilian environment. You have not been on this forum very long-what is your profession? I am an attorney who -in my almost three decades of practice-has represented a county sheriff's department, a major insurance carrier for police departments and has served as a city prosecutor and solicitor.

 

[specklebang]

My question that follows has NOTHING to do with rights of gun ownership.

I have had exactly one experience with someone forcing their way into my house. I believe they were unarmed and as soon as I came at him/them with my stun baton crackling, they ran. I kind of brought the event on myself by kicking some hooker out when she tried to upsell. Her pimp was the agressor, I didn't call the cops for obvious reasons.

Have any of you ever had an armed confrontation in your home? Your Iraq or Vietnam or LEO experiences aren't the subject. I just want to know if anybody ever got to use one of these guns you all own. Its not a trick question and no sarcasm intended. If yes, please share a few details.

 

[Lutherf]

Uh-huh, and while at work or out shopping I don't think your well advised in getting involved with a "perp" hiding behind cover. Where as a police officer can. I don't know all the legalities involved, and I suppose state laws come into play, but I suspect I'm more right then wrong.

If I'm wrong, I think I have reason to write my congressmen and expect an explanation to this over sight. Clearly it defies common sense.

It's really pretty simple. If it's likely that a bad guy is carrying a pistol with a 15 round magazine and you are carrying one with a 7 round magazine then you are at a disadvantage from the standpoint of having to reload sooner than he will. Personally, I carry a weapon with a 7 round magazine but that's my choice and I really don't want someone to tell me that's what I'll be limited to no matter what the circumstances.

 

[Jafne]

You are lying-- a police officer has no greater right to USE DEADLY force than any other civilians. I am not talking about a LEO telling someone to DO something-clearly a cop has authority (and arrest powers for misdemeanors) that other civilians do not have

I am talking about USING A LETHAL weapon against another person

a cop cannot shoot UNLESS he has a reasonable belief that shooting is to stop an IMMINENT THREAT OF DEATH OR SEVERE BODILY HARM

Lying is stating something I know to be false. Though it's possible I'm wrong, that doesn't mean I'm lying.

I realize some states have a "stand your ground law", which is a bad law, imo. Most states expect you to retreat if given the opportunity. The officer isn't expected to retreat, nor would most people expect him to. Joe citizen, should go about his business, and preferably call the professionals if he thinks deadly force is needed.

 

[Jafne]

YOu are changing the issue because you have been proven wrong on the subject I was talking about

we are talking about deploying deadly force against another human being in a civilian environment. You have not been on this forum very long-what is your profession? I am an attorney who -in my almost three decades of practice-has represented a county sheriff's department, a major insurance carrier for police departments and has served as a city prosecutor and solicitor.

Good for you. I don't care a hoot-nanny. Attorney's are good at making things up.

 

[Manc Skipper]

It's really pretty simple. If it's likely that a bad guy is carrying a pistol with a 15 round magazine and you are carrying one with a 7 round magazine then you are at a disadvantage from the standpoint of having to reload sooner than he will. Personally, I carry a weapon with a 7 round magazine but that's my choice and I really don't want someone to tell me that's what I'll be limited to no matter what the circumstances.

If he didn't kill you first, then not being able to kill him with seven shots means you might as well not have a gun, since you're only irritating him.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Good for you. I don't care a hoot-nanny. Attorney's are good at making things up.

He's a really really good attorney then.