Crossbow with bayonet lugs or adjustable stocks would be military style assault weapons.
ETA: Now I kinda WANT a crossbow with a bayonet lug.
Cool. I can’t wait to purchase my robot and 1 pound block of C4!
Our definitions of ‘regular’ access seems to be very different…
That would be relevant if he posted “regular access”.
And besides, I know what some people here would say “If the cops need it for defense, then why don’t I need it for defense?”
So, apparently cops need C4, so I need C4.
Regular cops don’t have access to C4…it was the specialized bomb squad that did the deed and set it up. So, no…whether we are talking ‘regular access’ or ‘regular cops’, either way your quip doesn’t work.
I recently ran across an interesting article. A woman wrote a book debunking myths about something that many people say is too dangerous for the public to own, and should be categorically banned. I’m referring to…
.
.
.
.
-Pit Bulls. The author in question is Bronwen Dickey, who spent years researching the subject of pit bulls for her book “Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon”. In it, she lays out the case that regarding pit bulls as a “killer breed” is too simplistic a judgment on a complex subject. As a result of her book, she has become the target of vitriolic criticism and even harassment.
The parallels to the gun debate struck me: The [del]gun[/del]dog “designed to kill”. “You don’t need a [del]assault rifle[/del]pit bull.” “You care more about your precious [del]gun[/del]dog than about people getting maimed and killed”.
All things which happen frequently in countries where firearms are banned.
Oh, wait no.
They don’t? How do you know?
Anyway, what is your definition of “regular cops”? Patrolmen? County Sheriffs? State Police? Detectives? Meter Maids? Transit Police? Lieutenants and Captains? Sworn officers who patrol college campuses? Only local law enforcement? What about FBI? DEA?
what is a “regular cop”?
[QUOTE=manson1972]
They don’t? How do you know?
[/QUOTE]
No, they don’t. And even if I didn’t know cops, work with cops and have a father in law a cop I’d know just by actually reading the story this thread is based on, where they say that they had to have the bomb squad make and deploy the weapon, which would kind of indicate that not every cop on a beat has access (nor understands the use of) to C4. Sheesh, what a silly retort you had there. Why didn’t you just admit you were wrong, you were merely telling a joke and didn’t expect to be taken seriously?
None of the above would have regular access to C4. So, regardless of how you define ‘regular cop’, that is not going to be something they are trained in nor would they have official access to it. The people in the bomb squad are, you know, TRAINED TO HANDLE AND USE BOMBS. Why is this so difficult to understand? Again, you were wrong, just admit it, shrug it off as a joke that fell flat and move on.
Well, I guess I’ll take your one anecdote of you “knowing cops” as an authoritative source on whether or not “regular” cops have access to C4 :rolleyes:
There have been several posters, and not just in this thread, who feel citizens should have access to everything that law enforcement has access to. As far as I can tell, the bomb squad is “law enforcement”.
So you believe people should only have access to weapons after they have been TRAINED TO HANDLE AND USE them? Good, then we agree! 
[QUOTE=manson1972]
Well, I guess I’ll take your one anecdote of you “knowing cops” as an authoritative source on whether or not “regular” cops have access to C4
[/QUOTE]
As opposed to your one liner and ZERO FUCKING EVIDENCE? Well, do you what like, chief…you just look sillier and sillier as you keep spinning this out.
I can see that you are going all out in changing the goal posts and trying to make your statements look less stupid. I wish I could say it was working out for you, but really, you should have taken my advice. But, by all means, keep trying to spin this…maybe eventually you’ll be able to do so and come out having your statements look less silly and ridiculous. Or, more likely, maybe everyone will lose interest and forget about all of this, then you can slink out that way.
That’s the way to try and deflect! Keep on spinning, chief.
I don’t know about starving in Alaska (I would think people would just move somewhere else, get food shipped to them or start using less humane traps), but criminal dynamics change when cops don’t carry guns. Running speed becomes more important generally speaking (maybe that’s why Americans are so fat, we all have guns).
And countries that have banned guns also tend to have bans on things like private ownership of swords (with exceptions for collectors etc.). At least that is the case in Asia.
Name a nation where food hunting is necessary yet hunting weapons are banned. Russia? Nope. Sweden? Nope. Finland- they have a shitload of guns. Canada? Nope. Australia? Nope.
Even in Japan, citizens are allowed to own hunting weapons. Even in fucking Communist China they are allowed. In fact the only nation I can see which has banned all civilian use is North Korea. Yeah, let’s emulate fucking North Korea. :rolleyes:All hail the Glorious Leader!
You mean North Korea?
So we BOTH got nothing, I’m cool with that. Oh wait, I saw regular cops once with explosives. There, now we BOTH have an amusing anecdote!
I’m not the one advocating that civilians have access to everything law enforcement has access to. Other people have made this silly statement, one with I guess you agree.
WEEEEEE!
[QUOTE=manson1972]
So we BOTH got nothing, I’m cool with that. Oh wait, I saw regular cops once with explosives. There, now we BOTH have an amusing anecdote!
[/QUOTE]
Probably why police departments don’t need specialized bomb squads is because all their officers are trained and authorized to handle and use explosives…
Oh, wait…
Strawman, since that wasn’t what I was saying, nor did I even mention that. I simply pointed out you were wrong. And continue to be wrong. And continue to write stupid stuff that just makes you look worse as you dig deeper and deeper. And all for a silly one line ‘joke’ you thought was funny but was really a dig at a strawman. But, by all means, keep on with it…if you dig down far enough you are bound to reach the other side eventually.
Specialized bomb squads aren’t law enforcement? SWAT teams aren’t law enforcement? That seems strange to me.
Well, if you weren’t saying that, nor mentioning it, how are you still in this conversation? Just stop saying and or mentioning it. I am not wrong. I am not trying to be funny. People on this message board think everything available to law enforcement should be available to civilians. If you don’t think that, then good for you.
[QUOTE=manson1972]
Specialized bomb squads aren’t law enforcement? SWAT teams aren’t law enforcement? That seems strange to me.
[/QUOTE]
SWAT ARE specialized law enforcement. Mostly trained in CQC and hostage situations. The bomb squad is also specialized…trained in, you know, bombs and such. Recall, you said ‘Cool. I can’t wait to purchase my robot and 1 pound block of C4!’ to Damuri Ajashi’s statement ‘But as things are, I think we should have access to whatever regular police have access to’. SWAT and bomb squad aren’t ‘regular police’ and have access to training and materials that other cops don’t have or aren’t authorized to use. So, your ridiculous anecdote about seeing a cop with C4, even if you weren’t talking out of your ass, doesn’t mean said cop was actually officially authorized or sanctioned to use the stuff.
You are wrong. You’ve been wrong, and continue to be wrong. Regular police don’t have access to explosives. They also don’t have access to everything SWAT has access too. Why am I still participating in this farce? To see how deep you will dig yourself, and because your antics are amusing, that’s why.
As for the argument that citizens should have access to everything ‘regular police’ do, I think it’s similar to whether citizens should have access to everything ‘regular soldiers’ do, in that I think as a society today we have different metrics to what citizens should or shouldn’t have access too. We shouldn’t use some nebulous ‘regular police’ or ‘regular soldier’ to determine what the public should or shouldn’t have access to, instead we should, you know, just decide what they WILL have access to and what they won’t. But if you want to argue against someone who is saying ‘regular police’, it would behoove you to define that BEFORE talking out your ass about C4…or at least to educate yourself first on who, in the police force, would ACTUALLY have such access. Or not, since you seem to just enjoy flapping your gums and are so defensive that, even when you are in the wrong you want to keep on digging.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure swords are illegal there.
You need a permit to own a sword in Korea. I think swords are regulated in other Asian countries as well.
He said " regular police" Not SWAT, Not Bomb Squad, etc. * regular police*
Pistols, shotguns, maybe semi-auto rifles.