TexasCHLforum.com

talltex wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Cops used to roll with 38 revolvers and a shotgun if you were lucky back in the day. With the gangbangers packing AKs that will punch through a patrol car from bumper to bumper you can see why we the police are matching force. I believe most would think different if they had to stand fast outside at the door knowing the bad guy is in the bedroom armed and waiting for you to cross the threshold. You wanna go in old school with just a wheel gun and a koga baton be my guest.

The AK47 has far less power than an old WWI Springfield '03 chambered in .30/06...the standard U.S. military rifle for years, or it's successor the M14 chambered in .308 caliber. The 7.62 x 39mm AK round has similar ballistics to a Winchester 30/30. The only way a gangbanger's AK47 will "punch through a patrol car from bumper to bumper" is if it goes thru the windshield and out the back glass. I think you're hearing alot of police "shoptalk" that simply isnt true, and accepting it as fact. That's just another example of trying to justify militarization by claiming to be "outgunned".

Excaliber wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:In the case of the Va Tech shooter armed students and professors makes more sense than militarized cops who show up after the fact.

Absolutely right! These folks are the first responders and because of absurd state laws, they unarmed first responders. That's a recipe for disaster.

It amazes me that anti-gunners and some COPs can argue for full auto weapons on a school campus, yet argue that an adult student, teacher or professor with a handgun creates too large of a risk of collateral damage. When an argument is so devoid of any connection to reality, it is no longer a rationale for a position, it's a lie.

Chas.

I think it makes sence, a little anyway. A police officer wants to go into a shooting situation with full knowledge the bad person is the only person with a firearm. They don't want the waters muddied by other people having a firearm so they won't have to think about their response. Look at most of the targets they use. If it has a gun you shoot, not is the target pointing the gun. If it doesn't have a gun don't shoot. In a possible shooting situation they don't want to have think.

I disagree.

No responsible agency trains its officers to shoot anyone with a gun because guns are used by criminals, law abiding citizens, and LEO's. There are no shortcuts to using good judgment.

Letting lots of people get killed during the first 5 - 10 minutes of an incident so the responding officers won't be confused instead of allowing someone who is already on the scene solve the problem immediately and make the scene safe before officers can arrive doesn't make any sense at all.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:In the case of the Va Tech shooter armed students and professors makes more sense than militarized cops who show up after the fact.

Absolutely right! These folks are the first responders and because of absurd state laws, they unarmed first responders. That's a recipe for disaster.

It amazes me that anti-gunners and some COPs can argue for full auto weapons on a school campus, yet argue that an adult student, teacher or professor with a handgun creates too large of a risk of collateral damage. When an argument is so devoid of any connection to reality, it is no longer a rationale for a position, it's a lie.

Chas.

gigag04 wrote:If this is the same agency that can't offer you full time employment and benefits due to budget constraints, I'd be mad about them getting an APC or full auto rifles even on grants....both pieces of equipment are costly to use and maintain, and odds are you have a mutual aid agreement with a neighbor that already has them.


Also DOJ grants aren't "free" and I'm not sure my tax dollars should go to that use either. And that is a strange claim for me to make since my agency (holds my reserve commission) has boats, APCs, helicopters, and fixed wing aircraft...