West Memphis Police Now Using AR's on Traffic Stops

[Disposable Heart]

Just a question I have, and this is off topic.

If hunting with a rifle in Indiana is inherrently dangerous, why is it ok to hunt coyotes and fox and other game with a rifle? For that matter, why is it legal to fire one at all?

I was wondering when someone would find that one! Personally, I believe it's an oversight that should be corrected, a law (or loophole) that COULD get someone killed. A nitwit with a 460 Weatherby trying to shoot a tree rat could have some bad consequences. It's an omission waiting to hurt someone.

 

[machete]

Anarchy is a total absense of government. Holding people accountable when they impact another person is not the absense of government.

Its so funny!!!!! We have all these millions of laws.... BUT! If you talk about shaving off even a couple of laws...they cry ANARCHY!!!! That anarchy must be pretty strong if it can get past a fewmillions laws...

Since we have more laws than any other country,,,every other country must be an anarchy,,,Right???

The same people who dont want to see any laws get removed or well become an anarchy,,,want to see Obamacare repealed... Obamacare is just a law---how come repealing that wont give us anarchy???

 

[ATOMonkey]

I was wondering when someone would find that one! Personally, I believe it's an oversight that should be corrected, a law (or loophole) that COULD get someone killed. A nitwit with a 460 Weatherby trying to shoot a tree rat could have some bad consequences. It's an omission waiting to hurt someone.

Or it's just fear mongering.

Lots of things can get people killed. Where do you want to stop?

 

[Disposable Heart]

Or it's just fear mongering.

Lots of things can get people killed. Where do you want to stop?

A good point. In reality, how many people have been killed with errant rifle fire designated for light bodied animals in this state? None I can think of off top of my head. But, it goes to illustrate there are stupid laws, good laws that potentially save lives and are common sense and laws in the making waiting for some retard to do something REALLY stupid, then kneejerk mandates come of fruition.

Ultimate threadjack though

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Your position assumes no negative consequences for driving outside of the guidelines. That simply isn't the case.

If you crash into someone you are held financially and sometimes criminally accountable.

I believe the fear of crashing keeps people in line more than the fear of a citation.

The only way we'd become "third world" with our motor vehicles would be if there were no consequences for crashing.[/quote]

Hmmm. I wonder how that plays with all the illegal aliens we have who don't carry auto insurance, or the drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked but who continue to drive. My wife was rear-ended five times in five years in Texas. Not one of the drivers responsible had insurance. One of the reasons insurance rates are so high for teen drivers is because they don't have the experience to know when they're exceeding the limits of their vehicle or their own abilities; they demonstrate this by crashing and killing themselves more often (as a group) than other age demographics. They also don't have much of a sense of their own mortality.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Your position assumes no negative consequences for driving outside of the guidelines. That simply isn't the case.

If you crash into someone you are held financially and sometimes criminally accountable.

I believe the fear of crashing keeps people in line more than the fear of a citation.

The only way we'd become "third world" with our motor vehicles would be if there were no consequences for crashing.

Hmmm. I wonder how that plays with all the illegal aliens we have who don't carry auto insurance, or the drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked but who continue to drive. My wife was rear-ended five times in five years in Texas. Not one of the drivers responsible had insurance. One of the reasons insurance rates are so high for teen drivers is because they don't have the experience to know when they're exceeding the limits of their vehicle or their own abilities; they demonstrate this by crashing and killing themselves more often (as a group) than other age demographics. They also don't have much of a sense of their own mortality.

Criminals obviously aren't affected by laws, so that covers illegals and those driving without insruance or licenses. Post whatever limits you want, they won't follow them.

Did you sue the people that crashed into your wife? Did your insurance company sue them? If not, why? Would more laws have helped?

Teen drivers without any driving experience driving by themselves is a parenting problem, not a government problem.

Would you turn your kid loose with a gun by him/herself after passing a one size fits all government multi-choice test?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

One problem with lawmakers is that they tend to see all problems as being "solved" if they just enact another law. The worst argument in the world, IMO, is: "if it saves just one (you pick the object) life, it's worth it". This may sound hypocritical, in view of my feelings about traffic laws, but traffic laws are probably the least offensive laws to me, because, in the main, they are designed to allow massive numbers of drivers with different capabilities, equipment, and experience, to travel with a minimum of danger to themselves, other drivers, and innocent bystanders. They aren't social engineering; they aren't (for the most part) invasive; they merely require you to use common sense and courtesy toward others. If you aren't capable of either a) driving within the statutes, or b) avoiding getting caught, then too bad for you; perhaps you should think about changing something.

 

[jbombelli]

Just a question I have, and this is off topic.

If hunting with a rifle in Indiana is inherrently dangerous, why is it ok to hunt coyotes and fox and other game with a rifle? For that matter, why is it legal to fire one at all?

This one always bugs me, too. I can fire an M1 Garand on my dad's land, unless there's a deer downrange, at which time it suddenly becomes unsafe and illegal.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

This one always bugs me, too. I can fire an M1 Garand on my dad's land, unless there's a deer downrange, at which time it suddenly becomes unsafe and illegal.

An M1 Garand is very unsafe to deer.

 

[firecop9774]

There are millions of large capacity, semi-automatic rifles in the hands of non-LEOs. To demand someone deal with a person intent on doing harm when that person has them outgunned isn't right. Signing up to be an LEO doesn't mean one is signing up for a suicide mission.[/quote]


AMEN BROTHER - well put, indeed!

 

[Love the 1911]

Extreme for Indiana, unless you are in Gary

My question I pose to some of the police here: What ever happened to the good ol' scattergun? Seems to have taken a backseat or a "Well, I have to carry a shotgun because they dont have enough rifles). For shorter ranged precision and short range stopping power, a shotgun with slugs/buck should work. A story from Maine involving an officer shooting a barricaded suspect from 92 yards with a slug, dropping him immediantly really brings to mind how useful a shotgun still is. Even with body armor in play, I still don't see a HUGE difference a rifle plays compared to a shotgun at closer range. I am not saying abandon one for another, I am just wondering why the immediant desire by officer's for rifles? Low recoil? Can't be cost, those ARs are pretty sporty in cost. Magazine capacity?

Rifles, great for police, but what does it offer over a scattergun for reasonable ranges?

My department gave us the option of rifle or shotgun. My decision was based on the rest of my shift taking mostly rifles (66% chose rifles). I feel that the shotgun has a place in law enforcement, as it does in home protection. The intimidation factor alone makes a shotgun extremely useful.

 

[Indy317]

Did you sue the people that crashed into your wife? Did your insurance company sue them? If not, why? Would more laws have helped?

You can't sue someone who has nothing. In the libertarian fantasy world, the person rear ends you, they don't have insurance, you file a lawsuit, you win, they pay. That never happens with these folks who drive around with no insurance, no license, no registration, etc.. They don't have these things because they costs money, and most don't have the money because they would rather spend it on cable TV, etc.. Lots are living on welfare girlfriend, or working side jobs for cash, so no way to garnish their wages or take any property they own.

How would more laws help? We don't need more laws, but we need the laws we have now. They help because when the no license, no insurance, unregistered vehicle runs a red light and gets pulled over, the officer can, and should, remove that vehicle from the public roadway.

Hell, I'm all for doing away with traffic rules/laws. Look at how much money we would save by never having to replace/repair all the speed limits signs, yield signs, stop signs, traffic signals, interstate barrier walls, lane markings, etc.. Just pour some pavement and give people their freedom to determine how they want to drive on it.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Y
Hell, I'm all for doing away with traffic rules/laws. Look at how much money we would save by never having to replace/repair all the speed limits signs, yield signs, stop signs, traffic signals, interstate barrier walls, lane markings, etc.. Just pour some pavement and give people their freedom to determine how they want to drive on it.

Go to India sometime then come back and tell me that's how you want US drivers to drive.

 

[glockednlocked]

I would want blackhawk overwatch to just open my window to spit in west memphis. And I would dang sure not even slow down while I did it