The NRA has gone too far

I understand that the NRA has always been unsympathetic to police officers in their line of duty. I have silently weathered the insult of an advocacy of armor piercing rounds, of assault weapons, and concealed carry laws, but this is simply too much.

Good one! :)

-Tom

Hopefully the ones coming out of Krispy Kreme are worth less.

Heh. I missed the ambiguous wording the first time around. But regardless, stay away from that competition. Being a spectator at that event is dangerous because as a general rule, cops can’t shoot for shit.

(Actually, the NRA is quite “pro cop” and its ranks are filled with current and former LEOs.)

It’s still funny, though.

Supporting assault weapons, armor piercing rounds, and concealed carry laws places officers in serious fucking danger, braniac. The rank and file membership may be pro-cop, but the “cold, dead, hands,” leadership is not.

No, it doesn’t. It seems like it would, but outlawing booze and marriage would save a lot more cops than outlawing the weapons/ammo mentioned. Gun control groups mention this crap in roughly the same vein as “won’t somebody think of the children?”; everybody loves children, and everybody loves cops, generally. Usually if this old duck is brought out, it means that the thing in question has nothing to do with children or cops. Simple googling will get the stats on how often cops are attacked/killed with special weapons.

H.

p.s. Oh, and I hate the NRA, although I’m a member.

Maybe they’d do something if we make Children Cops?

Actually, a simple google of “special weapons” and various permutations of attack and or kill, in the same document as police brings up websites about SWAT brutality. I guess now we know how that one guy gets all his stories.

The reason more police aren’t shot to death with ammunition specifically designed to penetrate their vests is because it is not generally available. If it were generally available, it would be used more often and the cops who were already at risk of being shot would have the additional risk of being shot with armor piercing rounds.

There’s no butter in a Chinese restaurant.

You don’t need Google. The DOJ, FBI and BATF keep stats on all this stuff. The cold fact is that “assault weapons” are used in very few crimes. So few, in fact, that getting shot with one is freakishly rare - esp when you consider that “assault weapon” is often defined so broadly as to include something like the M1 Garand from WW2.

The gun control people know this, just like they know that the vast majority of guns of any kind in private hands are never involved with crimes, accidents or suicides. They know; they just don’t talk about that because it doesn’t suit their alarmist agenda.

The other side does the same thing, of course. The anti-drug crusaders on the Right know there is not one instance in medical literature of marijuana killing someone through an acute or cumulative overdose. Again: They know; they just don’t talk about that because it suits their alarmist agenda to portray the Demon Weed as especially dangerous.

(Which is not to say that guns or drugs are nothing to worry about, of course.)

Clearly, the answer is to staff the police force with stoned, armor-piercing children.

That’s a fairly meaningless stat though, since those things are tightly regulated and or outlawed depending on where in the U.S. one is. If they were commonly available then criminals would have easier access to them and the incidents of them being used on police would increase.

Firearms are still the leading cause of police deaths. Making more dangerous firearms commonly available can only worsen things from a police fatality point of view.

Actually, handguns are the most dangerous because of their ease of concealment and the ability to carry large amounts of ammo with little encumbrance. Nobody ever walked into a bank with an M16 tucked in their jacket pocket. Cops don’t body-frisk people under arrest because they’re looking for rifles. At close range, shotguns are also more dangerous than rifles. (At medium to long range, rifles are more deadly of couise.)

Your remark about “tightly regulated” gets things backwards, though. Most American gun laws are enforced at the State level, although there are Federal and in some cases, County and City statutes. In most jurisdictions it is FAR more difficult to get a handgun - let alone a permit to carry - than a rifle or shotgun. When was the last time you heard of a “rifle license?” In New York State, where I live, there isn’t even a special procedure to get one. I picked up a Bushmaster AR15-style “assault rifle” last week and, after a 5 min computer background check, paid cash and walked out of the store with it. No permits, no waiting period, nothing. A handgun purchase would have been impossible without a license to begin with, and even adding another would have required a visit to the Suffolk County Police to have them amend my pistol license. The Bushmaster was mine for the asking - and this is Blue State Democratic New York we’re talking about!

No, “assault rifle” crimes aren’t rare because these things are hard to get.

Oh, also, that “NRA wants armor-piercing bullets” thing is also wrong. But this post is long enough as it is…

Just how are you defining “assault rifle”. The fact that you started with the term “assault weapons” and then went to “assault rifle” makes me wonder if you aren’t playing semantic games.

For the sake of clarity, I was discussing weapons capable of automatic fire. If that’s not how you are defining them (and it appears not after your last post) then feel free to re-read my posts with automatic weapons in mind. Those are tightly regulated everywhere and not very available. If they were commonly available, the incidents of them being used on police would go up.

Nick- He’s using the terms that gun control advocates use. They set the terminology here, and it’s considerably more broad than “fully automatic”.

And he’s right. It’s a hell of a lot easier to buy a semi-auto AK-47 variant(for ~$350, generally no waiting period or license) than it is to buy a Glock(~$600, generally both a waiting period and a license though obviously that varies by jurisdiction).

Obviously, soccer moms are terrified of automatic weapons, but dude, you’ve played Brothers in Arms, right? The primary reason assault rifles are selective fire is for suppression, not lethality.

Anyway, Flowers is obviously trolling this new guy, but you should know better. There would be fewer police fatalities from knife wounds if we all had to eat with sporks, right?

AR-15 will go full auto, Nick. It’s an assault rifle.

Here’s how to do it:
http://www.keepshooting.com/booksandvideos/firearmmanuals/ar15_modification_manual.htm

That page also says it’s illegal. Which was my point.

Outlawing knives would in fact make things safer for police. Come to think of it, there are laws against carrying knives over a certain length in most cities/states aren’t there?

As I recall, New York State law forbids carrying a knife with a fixed or folding blade over 3" outside of your home or other area where such a blade would reasonably be used - “reasonably” includes things like gardeners clearing brush with machetes, hand axes and saws, dressing knives carried by hunters and so forth.

And yes, the term “assault rifle” means those semi-auto variants of military rifles available for civilian ownership. In fact, ever since the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, the BATF has been forbidden to issue any new Class-3 Federal Firearms Licenses - which is the one you need to legally own/sell/transfer a fully-automatic firearm. Pre-1986 ones were grandfather in, which means there ARE private citizens out there with legal machine guns. Weird, eh?

Wrong wrong wrong. Unless you mean to distinguish between ‘specifically designed’ and ‘does’. Even Level III-A won’t hold up to an obscure form of ammunition called a ‘rifle cartridge’. Thankfully the criminal underworld is prevented from gaining access to sporting goods stores.

Of course, when you start wanting to classify things as armor piercing due to the laws of physics versus some sinister design feature…

And I would maintain that police officers are safer in jurisdictions with shall-issue concealed carry laws.

Are police safer in the uk than in the united states?

Cop pulled my buddy David over the other day. As required, he informed the police officer that he is licensed to conceal carry, and that there was a firearm in the glove compartment. The cop asked him to slowly surrender the weapon, which he did. It’s a really nice Kimber .45 1911.

But then, having “disarmed” my friend and written him a speeding ticket, the cop then started giving him attitude. “Why do you feel the need to carry a concealed firearm? Don’t you think we [police officers] do a good enough job protecting you?”

“It’s got nothing to do with whether I think you’re doing a good job. It has to do with the fact that I can place a bullet from my gun to where I need it in less than two seconds. Can you guarantee me the same?”

I thought that was a great response. I had to share.