Glock compact or sub compact?

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: FXjohn
Originally Posted By: hatt
Law enforcement bias. "I need it, you don't." The notion that the police need 18 rounds and 3 reloads and body armor and backup and a carbine but Joe Citizen needs 5-6 rounds and a cell phone that'll get the police there in 5 to 30 minutes is ludicrous. Joe walks the same streets as LEO.



yes that's right, and the situations are exactly the same.

Please explain? You're aware of what's going to happen before it happens? If that's the case you absolutely do not need to carry. Just call the police and tell them when, where, how many, details and I'm sure they'll be able to handle it. Everyone else has to plan for what might happen.

 

[Garak]

Remember that police are required to go into certain situations that the general public doesn't see or can intentionally avoid. If the police get called to a domestic, a robbery, a carjacking, or anything else, they must attend. If a private citizen hears on the radio that there's a hostage taking at Branch X of Bank Y, I suspect he's not going to grab his pistol and try to do some banking.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: CourierDriver
Please let us know if you get into a gun fight in a crowd. Would like to know how many rounds spent, did target fall, and how you and your lawyer are doing in regards to fees. Even when your right,,,it is still expensive.



None of that matters if you are dead and had no ability whatsoever to preserve your gift of life.

 

[Robenstein]

The average person does not know who is going to come breaking through his door at 4am, in what number, and carrying what for arms. The same criminals the police catch are the ones that first victimize a citizen. Police are overwhelmingly there to clean up the mess after a crime has been committed, and only partially able to deter crime before it happens.

I will always defend the ability of the average law abiding citizen to have the same magazine capacity as a LEO for the same firearm should he/she wish it and be able to handle it. I was a victim of a violent assault when I was a teen and am thankful I live in a state that allows me to have the equal ability to defend myself against any future aggressor that the police have in dealing with the same criminals that would assault me.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
I will always defend the ability of the average law abiding citizen to have the same magazine capacity as a LEO for the same firearm should he/she wish it and be able to handle it.

That I absolutely agree with and should be the case here. Obviously, though, the point is that sometimes LEO has more of a "need" for a certain piece of equipment whereas a private citizen has a "want." That doesn't mean their want is invalid or shouldn't be satisfied.

Magazine restrictions have been very costly to collectors and shooters up here, I tell you.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Remember that police are required to go into certain situations that the general public doesn't see or can intentionally avoid. If the police get called to a domestic, a robbery, a carjacking, or anything else, they must attend. If a private citizen hears on the radio that there's a hostage taking at Branch X of Bank Y, I suspect he's not going to grab his pistol and try to do some banking.


"If I was expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle"...I don't recall who said that, but it's still true. A handgun is great for keeping around, but it's no substitute for a proper rifle...just look at our troops...

So, the handgun is for contingency, for the unexpected. LE going into known trouble, where they anticipate armed resistance, always have multiple officers and more serious arms than handguns.

Departments vary, of course, but most LE now have a carbine or shotgun in the car...for those types of situations. Which makes me think that I should have a carbine or shotgun by the nightstand, instead of a pistol...

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Garak

That I absolutely agree with and should be the case here. Obviously, though, the point is that sometimes LEO has more of a "need" for a certain piece of equipment whereas a private citizen has a "want." That doesn't mean their want is invalid or shouldn't be satisfied.

Magazine restrictions have been very costly to collectors and shooters up here, I tell you.
Civilians and police NEED the same gear since they both deal with the SAME threats. The police NEED IT MORE OFTEN is the difference.

 

[strat81]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Remember that police are required to go into certain situations that the general public doesn't see or can intentionally avoid. If the police get called to a domestic, a robbery, a carjacking, or anything else, they must attend. If a private citizen hears on the radio that there's a hostage taking at Branch X of Bank Y, I suspect he's not going to grab his pistol and try to do some banking.


Maybe that's the situation in Canada, but not in the US.

The police have no duty to protect you. This has been upheld by courts over and over again. Please see cases such as Warren v. DC and Castle Rock v. Gonzalez.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: Astro14


"If I was expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle"...I don't recall who said that, but it's still true. A handgun is great for keeping around, but it's no substitute for a proper rifle...just look at our troops...



Someone else said this but a handgun is for fighting your way back to your long gun!

 

[Astro14]

Sounds like the late Colonel Jeff Cooper....

 

[Robenstein]

In the U.S. the whole "need" and "want" argument should be invalid given the second amendment granting us a right to defend ourselves.

And yes, the late Jeff Cooper did say the only time you should use a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should have never put down in the first place. Of course there are times and situations a pistol might be better such as in tight quarters.

 

[strat81]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
In the U.S. the whole "need" and "want" argument should be invalid given the second amendment granting us a right to defend ourselves.

The 2A (and entire Bill of Rights) does not grant rights, it enumerates them.

 

[Robenstein]

I disagree. It guarantees those rights by the very act of enumerating them in a fashion where they cannot be repealed. That is granting them. For if we did not have those rights listed in the way they are, they would have gone "poof" a long time ago.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Civilians and police NEED the same gear since they both deal with the SAME threats. The police NEED IT MORE OFTEN is the difference.

Yes, but they don't have to deal with the same threats. When a shooting happens, the police are quickly dispatched to the scene, and the public is told to stay away. A civilian on the scene need only concern himself with himself (although many go above and beyond that), while an officer should not be trying to slip out the back unnoticed.

Personally, I like bigger magazines for reasons other than the potential for dealing with trouble. I don't like to modify factory original equipment (be it a firearm or a vehicle). I don't like relentless reloads when target practicing.

Even with a sniper rifle, I tend to go through a fair number of rounds in a fairly short time. At least our bolt action rifle magazines aren't limited in capacity.

Originally Posted By: strat81
The police have no duty to protect you. This has been upheld by courts over and over again. Please see cases such as Warren v. DC and Castle Rock v. Gonzalez.

That's not exactly the point I was making. I'm not meaning that the police must always attend without backup or without appropriate equipment (though that does, of course, happen). What I'm saying is that the police don't take a phone call about an incident and tell the caller it's too dangerous and they can handle it themselves.

When an incident occurs, the police are called, and dispatched to the scene. The general public are encouraged to leave, or stay away if they're already not near it.

Originally Posted By: Astro14
"If I was expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle"...I don't recall who said that, but it's still true. A handgun is great for keeping around, but it's no substitute for a proper rifle...just look at our troops...

For sure. Also, a pistol on the hip is better than the shotgun left in the patrol car.

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
In the U.S. the whole "need" and "want" argument should be invalid given the second amendment granting us a right to defend ourselves.

Without getting political, that, too, was my point (aside from the distinction that strat81 made about from where those rights actually originate). If I want or need a high capacity magazine isn't relevant, in my view. My concern should be limited to whether I can afford it and whether or not its useful and reliable in the firearm.

As for your point about where the rights come from, while staying out of the political side of things, read the Federalist Papers on why some Founding Fathers didn't want to list rights and what pitfalls they feared about enumerating them.

Up here, when it came to magazine restrictions, it was a while before we could actually get sensible, OEM type magazines with reduced capacity. Until such things were available, we were saddled with a lot of poorly modified garbage.

 

[hatt]

Quote:
Yes, but they don't have to deal with the same threats. When a shooting happens, the police are quickly dispatched to the scene, and the public is told to stay away. A civilian on the scene need only concern himself with himself (although many go above and beyond that), while an officer should not be trying to slip out the back unnoticed.

They do when the crime is happening to them. Right now. When the police get there, after some amount of time that'll seem like a million years, the event, for you, is already over. You're either shot, stabbed, head caved in, etc, or in one piece.

 

[Astro14]

I think it's precisely because a civilian does have to deal with the same threats as a police officer that the right to self defense exists in the first place. The police can't be everywhere, and in the US, the police have no duty to protect citizens from crime, only to serve the public good and solve crime.

As a practical matter, this is true everywhere in the world. The cops simply can't be everywhere to stop crimes in progress...but most people believe that to be the case because they've been told that, even though it's not physically possible, so they accept the notion that only the police "need" arms or weapons.

Want protection from crime? Then that's your individual responsibility. Individual responsibility seems to be missing from the current public discourse, but that's a topic for another time...

Now, a cautious, reasonable person won't face those threats as often as a police officer. But those threats come to the cautious reasonable person just the same, often when they are at home...so, sure, a civilian isn't going to go rushing into a bank hostage situation...but most police officers won't either...that's why departments have developed SWAT and special response teams.

So, since the regular beat cop, and the average Joe face the same threats, they should be equally prepared, even if average Joe isn't as likely to face the threat, the set of threats remains substantially similar. So, it's my contention that Joe should be able to avail himself of the same tools, capacity, capability as the police officer.

The Second Amendment was written about muskets...that was state of the art at the time. The British regulars had the Brown Bess...but the Americans had developed hunting rifles of greater accuracy and range. Those revolutionaries out-gunned the military at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment...so, yes, the Second Amendment was written about muskets...and the citizens keeping better arms than the professionals at the time...

 

[strat81]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: strat81
The police have no duty to protect you. This has been upheld by courts over and over again. Please see cases such as Warren v. DC and Castle Rock v. Gonzalez.

That's not exactly the point I was making. I'm not meaning that the police must always attend without backup or without appropriate equipment (though that does, of course, happen). What I'm saying is that the police don't take a phone call about an incident and tell the caller it's too dangerous and they can handle it themselves.

When an incident occurs, the police are called, and dispatched to the scene. The general public are encouraged to leave, or stay away if they're already not near it.

Not always. While violent encounters usually receive priority from LE, there are instances where police are NOT dispatched, even though a crime has been committed or is in progress.

"Come down and file a report" is often the response, usually to property crimes, particularly in areas with poor police coverage.

In rural areas, even a high priority call may not see LE respond for 20 minutes or more.

Your safety is your responsibility.


Originally Posted By: Robenstein
I disagree. It guarantees those rights by the very act of enumerating them in a fashion where they cannot be repealed. That is granting them. For if we did not have those rights listed in the way they are, they would have gone "poof" a long time ago.

The BoR disagrees with you. Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That tells us two things: 1) Rights are enumerated, not granted by the government. 2) We have other rights that are not listed in the Constitution or BoR.

I'm going to guess you do not subscribe to the idea of natural rights.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: hatt
They do when the crime is happening to them. Right now. When the police get there, after some amount of time that'll seem like a million years, the event, for you, is already over. You're either shot, stabbed, head caved in, etc, or in one piece.

Of course, that's absolutely true. I wasn't referring so much to the victims involved in such a thing, but to the average passerby, as I was trying to compare a police officer who is tasked to go to the situation (in which he was never involved in the first place) to a private citizen who was never involved in the situation and would have the opportunity to avoid it.

As has been pointed out in this thread, if you know you're going to war, you gear up for it. If you're simply going out and about your daily life and want to defend yourself, your kit is going to be a lot different, even though the actual threat one could encounter could be the same in either case.

Originally Posted By: strat81
Not always. While violent encounters usually receive priority from LE, there are instances where police are NOT dispatched, even though a crime has been committed or is in progress.

"Come down and file a report" is often the response, usually to property crimes, particularly in areas with poor police coverage.

In rural areas, even a high priority call may not see LE respond for 20 minutes or more.

Of course. But, we're talking about situations where lethal force is involved or is likely to be involved. We're not talking about gas siphoning or a house getting egged. You and I both live in jurisdictions with large rural areas, and both are aware that law enforcement response times are slower.

No, a police officer may not physically attend when you report your gas was siphoned. His attendance likely won't help much. But this is hardly an incident requiring armed force, be it military, police, or civilian.

No, a police officer won't waste his time coming out immediately if you report someone stole four gallons of your gas. The average private citizen may not even report it. That has nothing to do with self defence issues.

Now, if you call the police that thugs are at your farm and threatening to shoot you if you don't unlock the slip tank, the police will attend. They'll also block off the area (time permitting), so that innocent bystander Joe Citizen, armed or not, stays the heck out of the way.

 

[hatt]

Quote:
Of course, that's absolutely true. I wasn't referring so much to the victims involved in such a thing, but to the average passerby, as I was trying to compare a police officer who is tasked to go to the situation (in which he was never involved in the first place) to a private citizen who was never involved in the situation and would have the opportunity to avoid it.
If you see a couple criminals boot stomping a old man you're going to keep walking?

 

[Garak]

As I already hinted at in this thread, there are plenty of people who would help such a person.