Firepower

[gekko]

(1) Gun size has little to do with police. A bank robber hopes to be gone before they get there.

(2) No the bank robbers would have been shot dead a lot sooner. You have to be a complete moron or suicidal to rob a bank where everyone is armed. There is a reason the guy who tried to hold up the gun store made it into the Darwin awards. :P

(3) Idealogic drivel. By this logic we should just unarm all police and that will fix all gun problems. Just because you don't like guns don't let that blind you to the fact that the good or evil that comes from a gun depends on who is holding it. <_<

(1) If gun size has nothing to do with it, why do they bother with body armor? A "good" bank robber will be prepared no only for the "best-case" scenario (getting away before cops arrive), they will also be prepared for when the cops show up. So the big guns are meant to outfight the cops as well as frighten to people so they don't resist.

(2) You're assuming every gun owner is well trained. You're assuming every gun owner is an expert marskmen. You're assuming no gun owner will panic under the pressure. You're assuming no gun owner will hit anyone but the bank robber. Guns simply offer too much power with too little control.

(3) My logic doesn't suggest taking guns away from the police at all. I'm a realist in this situation. My logic flat out states that if NO ONE had guns, people would be safer.

Oh, and by the way -- I'm not opposed to guns, or people owning guns. If someone thinks having a small handgun at home will make their family safe, that's fine. If a farmer wants a rifle to hunt deer and keep wolves from attacking his animals, that's fine. My problem is twofold:
1) it's too easy for a poorly trained civilian (particularly in america, but I'm not singling out the states by any means) to get ahold of gns far beyond any reasonable need,
2) it's too easy to obtain weapons far beyond the need posed by hunting or self defence.

Now, a few other things I want to address from earlier posts in this thread.

Doc said "Invading America would be, at best, a dicey proposition, just because of nuts like me."

Doc, do you truly believe this? Invading America would be a dicey proposition because of the army, air force, navy, marines, and other military forces. If someone managed to batter through the military might of the states, do you honestly believe that "nuts like you" would be able to do anything?

Doc also said "I would be willing to pay for out of my own wallet guns for our local Greer officers if it were allowed."

If a bank robber is planning a heist that will net him, say, a billion dollars. If he has to spend 200 million dollars to arm himself appropriately, who cares? Can you afford to spend 200 million dollars to arm each and every police officer in america?

You can't plan on outspending the bad guys. You can't plan on outshooting them. They'll spend and shoot whatever they have to to win.

The answer is not more guns. You have to make it harder for them to get those guns.

<<edit: here to end, forgot one thing I wanted to address
Mithrandir said: "So you're suggesting that if bank robbers could gain access to these things now that they wouldn't use them? Of course they would."

No, they wouldn't use them just because they "could" gain access to them. It depends on the cost versus the benefit, and it depends on the need. As of right now, bank robbers don't need to use nerve gas and missile launchers to outpower the cops. But give the cops bigger and better guns, and they will have to.

gekko