Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

yes it was removed.

For those who read it just don't forget it's one man's opinion and it's not typical for most cops. The notion you strap on a gun and you have an answer to a mugging is folly in most cases.

And yes, the reason for the move was the language, not the content or the message.

And lets not forget to answer the nice mans question,With all the shootings as of late,I cant help wondering if there was an armed citizen there maybe there wouldn't have been so many dead. Also remember there has never been a crime committed with a legally owned automatic wepon

Originally Posted by Grizzley1

And lets not forget to answer the nice mans question,With all the shootings as of late,I cant help wondering if there was an armed citizen there maybe there wouldn't have been so many dead. Also remember there has never been a crime committed with a legally owned automatic wepon

That could be in part because there are almost no legally owned full autos. Or at least that is my perception (I could be wrong of course).

I'm not entirely sure where people get the idea that if there was an armed member of the public in that theatre it would have saved lives.

As well as the fact that the attacker was well armed, he also threw gas into that theatre. Being gassed in that type of situation would have tested the resolve amd ability of a trained individual. To be honest I would think that an armed civilian in that theatre in a moment of panick, huffing in teargas would have just as likely posed a threat to other innocent people in that theatre and possibly have caused a higher body count.

Geek

Originally Posted by Bruno

(I could be wrong of course).

Impossible!

But wait... if you're always right, that means what you said about possibly being wrong must be right too- but if you're possibly wrong how can you always be right; whoa, that bends my brain

Originally Posted by TheGeek

As well as the fact that the attacker was well armed

He was well armored too. Even so, I think I'd rather have a gun than not have a gun in that situation if those were my only two options

edit: actually I have no idea since I've never been in a situation anything like that. it just seems like the less powerless I would be, the better my chances

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

He was well armored too. Even so, I think I'd rather have a gun than not have a gun in that situation if those were my only two options

edit: actually I have no idea since I've never been in a situation anything like that. it just seems like the less powerless I would be, the better my chances

Well with the greatest respect, in a situation where he is armed, armoured and has limited your capability to react through the use of a debilitating gas, carrying a weapon provides you little to no power. Firing that weapon does two things, makes you a danger to others and a percieved threat and target to him, and in your flailing and firing if you hit and killed one of my loved ones the fact that you may or may not have hit him will be of no solice to me.

Geek

There are plenty of Full Auto weapons in the U.S. You have to go through the legal hoops and red tape to get them though. In fact where I sit (on a Govt. Installation) there are 2 dealers wthing 6 miles of me that sell Full Auto and suppressed weapons. I am talking M16s, AK-47s, belt fed M249s, M2 Browing etc.

Originally Posted by TheGeek

Firing that weapon does two things, makes you a danger to others and a percieved threat and target to him, and in your flailing and firing if you hit and killed one of my loved ones the fact that you may or may not have hit him will be of no solice to me.

Geek

Very well could be. Still, in this terrible hypothetical situation I'm in, I think I'd rather have the option than not