I am sorry that my ability to gift this article is no longer available; I have gifted it in the past, and am currently arguing with The Atlantic about my subscription status. It is an amazing article that details a lot of what went on during Vietnam and the M-16 debacles along with how and why the AR-15 was developed.
I am sorry that my ability to gift this article is no longer available; I have gifted it in the past, and am currently arguing with The Atlantic about my subscription status. It is an amazing article that details a lot of what went on during Vietnam and the M-16 debacles along with how and why the AR-15 was developed.
The AR-15 does not belong in civilian hands. The only reason it belongs in Law Enforcement hands at the moment is because of the AR-15's that are already in civilian hands.
Honestly - I have never been law enforcement nor military but I've always read a lot which I guess has made me less naive.(sp?) I just am not that surprised at this article. Bureaucracy in action. Remember the huge costs to hammers, toilets etc. years ago - stuff we the taxpayers paid hugh amounts for?? Like I said bureaucracy - military, of course governmental, corporate & elsewhere. Look at the current hospital corporations! And its worse than ever today.
The shame is: in this case (and likely many others) the human tragedy.
Which means that if you are going to clear weapons of war off the streets, you have to clear them from police and keep them only in the military. If the police are justified to keep a weapon of war because the "bad guys" now have them, then your argument supports that a person who owns a single weapon for home defense should be at a disadvantage to the "bad guys." That argument is easy to object to. Technically those charged with domestic violence are not allowed to possess firearms. Like red flag laws, that law is not enforced by those charged with law enforcement. The profession where the highest rate of domestic violence occurs is police. If the law were enforced equally for all a sizable portion of the police force at every level would be disarmed and out of a job. No, I don't want weapons of war in the hands of domestic abusers, even if a political party does.
My opinion here is based upon having been “outgunned” by someone who was trying to kill me. Please excuse me if the argument isn’t as reasoned as you might wish.
The Swiss have already addressed the problem for both their public and their police successfully. We know how they do it, we know what they do not do, and we know what the outcomes are.
I am sorry that my ability to gift this article is no longer available; I have gifted it in the past, and am currently arguing with The Atlantic about my subscription status. It is an amazing article that details a lot of what went on during Vietnam and the M-16 debacles along with how and why the AR-15 was developed.
The AR-15 does not belong in civilian hands. The only reason it belongs in Law Enforcement hands at the moment is because of the AR-15's that are already in civilian hands.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-bureaucratic-horror-story/545153/
OMG. This article makes my heart hurt. It also is enraging. Thank you for sharing.
I was stunned when I read it. The hubris!
Thanks Ally
Honestly - I have never been law enforcement nor military but I've always read a lot which I guess has made me less naive.(sp?) I just am not that surprised at this article. Bureaucracy in action. Remember the huge costs to hammers, toilets etc. years ago - stuff we the taxpayers paid hugh amounts for?? Like I said bureaucracy - military, of course governmental, corporate & elsewhere. Look at the current hospital corporations! And its worse than ever today.
The shame is: in this case (and likely many others) the human tragedy.
Which means that if you are going to clear weapons of war off the streets, you have to clear them from police and keep them only in the military. If the police are justified to keep a weapon of war because the "bad guys" now have them, then your argument supports that a person who owns a single weapon for home defense should be at a disadvantage to the "bad guys." That argument is easy to object to. Technically those charged with domestic violence are not allowed to possess firearms. Like red flag laws, that law is not enforced by those charged with law enforcement. The profession where the highest rate of domestic violence occurs is police. If the law were enforced equally for all a sizable portion of the police force at every level would be disarmed and out of a job. No, I don't want weapons of war in the hands of domestic abusers, even if a political party does.
My opinion here is based upon having been “outgunned” by someone who was trying to kill me. Please excuse me if the argument isn’t as reasoned as you might wish.
The Swiss have already addressed the problem for both their public and their police successfully. We know how they do it, we know what they do not do, and we know what the outcomes are.
I know that it could work, it just hasn't yet. I'm all for it.