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.