LogFAQs > #891188258

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Reading about a police officer trying to get suppressors allowed in department.
StucklnMyPants 11/28/17 2:25:07 AM #26:	Nomadic View posted... Law enforcement use firearms so rarely I dont see a viable reason for it. This. I'm not opposed to it, per se, but it's really not necessary. The overwhelming and vast majority of police officers will never fire their gun in the line of duty. From a statistical standpoint, the cost likely wouldn't outweigh the benefit. But if a department wants to spring for outfitting their employees with suppressors with their allotted funds, then more power to them. Suppressors should already be legal in the US. The idea that people will start committing more crimes because a gun shot is reduced in sound, is quite frankly laughable. --- Rage, rage against the dying of the light. <cite>StucklnMyPants posted [p:891188258] in Reading ab... [t:76034070]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nomadic View posted...</cite> <quote>Law enforcement use firearms so rarely I dont see a viable reason for it.</quote> This. I'm not opposed to it, per se, but it's really not necessary. The overwhelming and vast majority of police officers will never fire their gun in the line of duty. From a statistical standpoint, the cost likely wouldn't outweigh the benefit. But if a department wants to spring for outfitting their employees with suppressors with their allotted funds, then more power to them. Suppressors should already be legal in the US. The idea that people will start committing more crimes because a gun shot is reduced in sound, is quite frankly laughable. --- Rage, rage against the dying of the light.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1