"Only the police should have firearms"

[Fritz]

"Only the police should have firearms"
OK, so how many times have we heard that one thrown at us by some mis-informed anti gun-nut??

If you see some nincompoop post this again on a comments section, refer them to this:
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/11/03/07/10/murder-weapon-seized-by-police-more-than-a-decade-ago-found-in-hands-of-criminals

.......makes you wonder how often this happens actually, considering it was 2 years ago and only just reported.

[Chronos]

Hope the local constable can spare a few hours to come around and take the ute and spotlight and pick of a few fixes with his .40cal glock

Chronos

[deye243]

yes and then there would be no reason for them to have fire arms

but even now there is no reason for a general duties cop to have a

firearm poms and KIWIS don't carry .

[bretty1307]

Bet most cops would love to go for a shot if they could lol

[Die Judicii]

Bet most cops would love to go for a shot if they could lol

Oh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but they do. (not saying they all do, but quite a lot do.)

Some years back I was invited out for a spotting night by a mate, on his Fatherinlaws property.
I had never met the old fella before, and while we were getting aquainted another car pulled into the property.
I got the shock of my life when it turned out to be the local copper.

I thought it was gonna be a rather awkward and stuffy night,,,,,, till the local copper said "Righto lads, lets get stuck into those crop eating roos."

Wow,

[Title_II]

Do they shoot dogs in Australia?

[Xerox]

Do they shoot dogs in Australia?

You mean like if they turn up to a house and there is a dog guarding?

I don't believe it has happened, not that I've seen reported anywhere.

Definitely not standard protocol if there is a dog.

[Xerox]

As for the article

The NSW Police Integrity Commission (PIC) are investigating how the weapon managed to end up back in the hands of civilians after being placed into police possession.

Obviously a cop was responsible, what other sensible possibilities are there to look at

Feeling safe with all our details in their firearms registry now aren't we

[Title_II]

Do they shoot dogs in Australia?

You mean like if they turn up to a house and there is a dog guarding?

I don't believe it has happened, not that I've seen reported anywhere.

Definitely not standard protocol if there is a dog.

They shoot them here. Certainly not always, but a lot. Often they shoot dogs on chains.

[<<Genesis93>>]

YES.
They shoot dogs.... very recently, maybe a week or so ago in PERTH - a cop shot a dog (a Staffie) in the street, claimed it was aggressive / about to attack....
Little did the cop know there was footage....
Dog was wagging its tail and NO threat.

This is very quiet

And the cop shooting on a public road at a fleeing car

Yet the civilian firearm owners are on crimtrac and are classed with the terrorists.....

Should the Police have guns?

Of course they should, only a retard would however suggest that ONLY police (and the military) have guns... these people come from the some school that produced S.Lee, D. Shiithead and co.... outlaw guns, so only the police have them, there will be no crime!!! apart from the glaring fact that crims wil not voluntarily hand over their guns.... there are plenty of police who actually do the wrong thing; corruption, drugs, assault, drink driving, INTIMIDATION (no as if they would abuse their position)..... of course I'd like to think theyre the minority, but it causes many people question the trust they place upon the whole of the 'force'....

HOWEVER

I find the concept that only Police (and now Border farce officers) are permitted to carry firearms for THEIR personal security/defence as highly objectionable, placing them in a class separate and superior to 'civilians' who do not have this right. Everyone should have the right to possess the means to defend themselves....with clear exemptions where they can lose that right.

[brett1868]

If only cops could have guns I suspect many others like myself would join up tomorrow providing we could have all the guns

[deye243]

YES.
They shoot dogs.... very recently, maybe a week or so ago in PERTH - a cop shot a dog (a Staffie) in the street, claimed it was aggressive / about to attack....
Little did the cop know there was footage....
Dog was wagging its tail and NO threat.

This is very quiet

And the cop shooting on a public road at a fleeing car

Yet the civilian firearm owners are on crimtrac and are classed with the terrorists.....

Should the Police have guns?

Of course they should, only a retard would however suggest that ONLY police (and the military) have guns... these people come from the some school that produced S.Lee, D. Shiithead and co.... outlaw guns, so only the police have them, there will be no crime!!! apart from the glaring fact that crims wil not voluntarily hand over their guns.... there are plenty of police who actually do the wrong thing; corruption, drugs, assault, drink driving, INTIMIDATION (no as if they would abuse their position)..... of course I'd like to think theyre the minority, but it causes many people question the trust they place upon the whole of the 'force'....

HOWEVER

I find the concept that only Police (and now Border farce officers) are permitted to carry firearms for THEIR personal security/defence as highly objectionable, placing them in a class separate and superior to 'civilians' who do not have this right. Everyone should have the right to possess the means to defend themselves....with clear exemptions where they can lose that right.

if you seen how pathetic they are with them in their once a year training as i have you would not say this

[<<Genesis93>>]

YES.
They shoot dogs.... very recently, maybe a week or so ago in PERTH - a cop shot a dog (a Staffie) in the street, claimed it was aggressive / about to attack....
Little did the cop know there was footage....
Dog was wagging its tail and NO threat.

This is very quiet

And the cop shooting on a public road at a fleeing car

Yet the civilian firearm owners are on crimtrac and are classed with the terrorists.....

Should the Police have guns?

Of course they should, only a retard would however suggest that ONLY police (and the military) have guns... these people come from the some school that produced S.Lee, D. Shiithead and co.... outlaw guns, so only the police have them, there will be no crime!!! apart from the glaring fact that crims wil not voluntarily hand over their guns.... there are plenty of police who actually do the wrong thing; corruption, drugs, assault, drink driving, INTIMIDATION (no as if they would abuse their position)..... of course I'd like to think theyre the minority, but it causes many people question the trust they place upon the whole of the 'force'....

HOWEVER

I find the concept that only Police (and now Border farce officers) are permitted to carry firearms for THEIR personal security/defence as highly objectionable, placing them in a class separate and superior to 'civilians' who do not have this right. Everyone should have the right to possess the means to defend themselves....with clear exemptions where they can lose that right.

if you seen how pathetic they are with them in their once a year training as i have you would not say this

Just imagine how tuesday would transpire if on monday it was announced no more guns for cops....

[Gwion]

Because obviously police are all really well balanced individuals who would never strike out with unnecessary violence....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrFDYtQs_dk

[Combat_Wombat]

Do they shoot dogs in Australia?

There was a case here where a blokes two pig dogs escaped his yard and attacked and old woman and a kid. Neither of them have a taser so they were forced to shoot them.

[deye243]

YES.
They shoot dogs.... very recently, maybe a week or so ago in PERTH - a cop shot a dog (a Staffie) in the street, claimed it was aggressive / about to attack....
Little did the cop know there was footage....
Dog was wagging its tail and NO threat.

This is very quiet

And the cop shooting on a public road at a fleeing car

Yet the civilian firearm owners are on crimtrac and are classed with the terrorists.....

Should the Police have guns?

Of course they should, only a retard would however suggest that ONLY police (and the military) have guns... these people come from the some school that produced S.Lee, D. Shiithead and co.... outlaw guns, so only the police have them, there will be no crime!!! apart from the glaring fact that crims wil not voluntarily hand over their guns.... there are plenty of police who actually do the wrong thing; corruption, drugs, assault, drink driving, INTIMIDATION (no as if they would abuse their position)..... of course I'd like to think theyre the minority, but it causes many people question the trust they place upon the whole of the 'force'....

HOWEVER

I find the concept that only Police (and now Border farce officers) are permitted to carry firearms for THEIR personal security/defence as highly objectionable, placing them in a class separate and superior to 'civilians' who do not have this right. Everyone should have the right to possess the means to defend themselves....with clear exemptions where they can lose that right.

if you seen how pathetic they are with them in their once a year training as i have you would not say this

Just imagine how tuesday would transpire if on monday it was announced no more guns for cops....

i'm not advocating "NO" guns for cops what i'm saying is the average general duty cops should not carry

if you seen the targets and watched them practice you would understand where i'm coming from .

[happyhunter]

.

[adam]

i'm not advocating "NO" guns for cops what i'm saying is the average general duty cops should not carry

if you seen the targets and watched them practice you would understand where i'm coming from .

I couldn't disagree with you more. With the change in society we live in, and terrorism actively wanting to behead police officers, disarming police would be walking into their hands.

If you're worried about the training then the better answer would be to improve training, not remove their weapons.

In fact - I believe we should be going in the opposite direction. Not only having police keep their sidearms, but also start introducing CC for citizens that undergo scenario training and have a clean past.

[deye243]

cc for us will never happen no matter how bad things get

[Title_II]

i'm not advocating "NO" guns for cops what i'm saying is the average general duty cops should not carry

if you seen the targets and watched them practice you would understand where i'm coming from .

I couldn't disagree with you more. With the change in society we live in, and terrorism actively wanting to behead police officers, disarming police would be walking into their hands.

What happens when you walk into their hands?

I mean, seriously, your life is not worth any less. Not to you, not to me, and not to a crazed Jihadi, either. The cop might disagree.

[adam]

What happens when you walk into their hands?

I mean, seriously, your life is not worth any less. Not to you, not to me, and not to a crazed Jihadi, either. The cop might disagree.

1) Hence why I suggested we should be going the other way

2) I'm not expected to put my life on the line. I have the choice to flee, or not get involved - police have no choice - they have to get in the middle of the action.

[David Brown]

As for the article

The NSW Police Integrity Commission (PIC) are investigating how the weapon managed to end up back in the hands of civilians after being placed into police possession.

Obviously a cop was responsible, what other sensible possibilities are there to look at

Feeling safe with all our details in their firearms registry now aren't we

Ahhh yes, the registry, officially known to have been leaked to criminal gangs in at least 4 of the easterns states. Hang on that is ALL the eastern states. I wonder about the middle and western ones?

The registry is a dangerous misconception…..It needs to be stopped, and not just long arms, handguns also. There is no justification for either. None whatsoever, and even my police friends can't explain it.

[<<Genesis93>>]

As for the article

The NSW Police Integrity Commission (PIC) are investigating how the weapon managed to end up back in the hands of civilians after being placed into police possession.

Obviously a cop was responsible, what other sensible possibilities are there to look at

Feeling safe with all our details in their firearms registry now aren't we

Ahhh yes, the registry, officially known to have been leaked to criminal gangs in at least 4 of the easterns states. Hang on that is ALL the eastern states. I wonder about the middle and western ones?

The registry is a dangerous misconception…..It needs to be stopped, and not just long arms, handguns also. There is no justification for either. None whatsoever, and even my police friends can't explain it.

Firstly responsibility for licensing must be taken away from the police / DOJ.... there is a huge conflict of interest and bias, this has been declared over and over again "we want less guns..." that apparently we are only aware of.... and take note of.

PTAs gone

Registry gone.

[Baronvonrort]

In a Police state only the Police and criminals will have firearms.

[sandgroperbill]

Ahhh yes, the registry, officially known to have been leaked to criminal gangs in at least 4 of the easterns states. Hang on that is ALL the eastern states. I wonder about the middle and western ones?

Well, in WA we didn't really have a registry until very very recently, and even now, it's still in the stages of being built.

Well, we did have a registry, or so people were told, until wapol came clean and admitted that it had stopped working years ago, and that they didn't know who did or didn't have licenses (seriously, they had no idea who had or hadn't renewed their licenses), they didn't know who owned what (they had to write letters to everyone asking them to please renew their licenses if they weren't current, and tell them if what was on their licenses was correct, or if their were firearms missing from their licenses, or if there were firearms on their licenses that shouldn't be on there. Oh, and please tell us the serial numbers? We need to put all the details into a new registry).

So...the question has to be asked. Given the registry was just plain broken and they had no idea who had what, where were all the mass killings and gun crimes? Why weren't all our banks robbed and the streets shot up? Could it possibly be that, although the registry for all intents and purposes didn't exist, the fact that you had to be issued with a license and deemed to be a fit and proper person meant that only law abiding, safe, responsible persons could own firearms meant that we were still safe without a registry?

No. That would be silly talk.

Edit: typos

[adam]

There is no justification for either. None whatsoever, and even my police friends can't explain it.

Let me explain the reasons for having one:

1) Control: It's so that when the authorities decide to take firearms away from LFO's, they know exactly who has what and what should be handed in so no one buries theirs down the back yard, or keeps hanging onto them.

2) For statistics. This way they know how many firearms are out there, and if the decide to, they can use that information to scare the public. (As has been done recently with a TV station showing the most popular 'gun' suburbs - completely neglecting that those are the suburbs with LFO's -and not illegal ones.

There's certainly justification - you just need to have the right agenda, and be anti guns...

[bluerob]

i'm not advocating "NO" guns for cops what i'm saying is the average general duty cops should not carry

if you seen the targets and watched them practice you would understand where i'm coming from .

I couldn't disagree with you more. With the change in society we live in, and terrorism actively wanting to behead police officers, disarming police would be walking into their hands.

If you're worried about the training then the better answer would be to improve training, not remove their weapons.

In fact - I believe we should be going in the opposite direction. Not only having police keep their sidearms, but also start introducing CC for citizens that undergo scenario training and have a clean past.

In NSW, at one point, we had regional tactical blokes driving around.

Now, its centralized in Sydney. Public Order cars don't carry rifles.

Say a loony goes berko in Dubbo or on the North Coast.

1st to arrive are GD police, with sidearms only. Loony is carrying alot more.

Guess who wins this one.

In the times in which we now live, GD police must be trained and issued with rifles (training needs to be implemented) and citizens who are experienced and trained (6 months, at a minimum) allowed to carry.

A mate of mine returned last week from Europe. He couldn't believe the amount of police and military on the streets of Paris and look what's happened.

[adam]

In the times in which we now live, GD police must be trained and issued with rifles (training needs to be implemented) and citizens who are experienced and trained (6 months, at a minimum) allowed to carry.

A mate of mine returned last week from Europe. He couldn't believe the amount of police and military on the streets of Paris and look what's happened.

Agreed. Ain't it strange that you don't see these sorts of massacres in places like Texas. Police are easy to see. That means that terrorists can choose when and where to pull their stunts. I remember back in the 2nd world war one of the greatest threats were not knowing who was armed and who wasn't. Soldiers were easy - it was the farmers and civilians of the countries that had the greatest unknown for the enemy.

[Wobble]

If you're worried about the training then the better answer would be to improve training, not remove their weapons.

Removing them would be the nanny state getting nanny on itself.