View Single Post
Old March 1, 2012, 02:05 PM   #6
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,147
But the part that makes no sense is that LEO's, while generally good guys, have also been the perpetrators of homicides of spouses and girlfriends. There have even been a number that have killed their families before taking their own lives. Yet, someone thinks it's just dandy that they can have AR's, while the majority of the population cannot? Twisted.
Not sure I get your point here. I'm not sure what ARs have to do with crimes perpetrated by LE. If they are going to go off the rails they can use any of the unlimited other guns they may have available. Using a rifle of any type is relatively rare in domestic violence, let alone so-called AWs.

So I think it IS just dandy that they may have them and it is despicable when the law-abiding public is denied ownership.

You'll find that across the country, there is a disparity between what LEOs can do, and what the average Joe can do.
That's largely true, but not everywhere. As an example: most states allow NFA weapons to citizens who follow federal law.

Here in NV, I may keep a loaded pistol or a loaded (un-chambered) rifle or shotgun in my car, or or a chambered pistol on my person, unconcealed, without a permit. What is considered an assault weapon in CA is just a rifle, pistol or shotgun here.

It would be an interesting study to compile data on places like NV that have virtually un-restricted firearms ownership to show the rate of misuse compared to highly restricted places.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; March 1, 2012 at 02:13 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Page generated in 0.07701 seconds with 7 queries