Norco shootout11/23/2023 ![]() ![]() citizens to own, but lawful ownership is very, very strictly regulated, to the point that they might as well be banned to those without a lot of money and a very high tolerance for miles of red tape. Other times it can seem like a critique against the United States' Second Amendment why do we let the public gain such dangerous weapons legally? note In reality, military-grade ordnance like fully automatic weapons and explosives are not outright impossible for U.S. Another situation might be that while in theory the police force as a whole might outgun the criminals in question, it's small comfort to the lightly-armed and entirely outmatched beat cops who're forced to wait for backup from said better-equipped units. Police might also be restrained by the increased risk of collateral damage to innocent bystanders if they resort to high-powered or rapid-fire weaponry, while crooks are only bound by their personal opinions on the matter (and it's safe to assume that a criminal wouldn't go to the effort of acquiring high-powered weaponry if they weren't willing to use it). Sometimes it implies that the law enforcement is held back by Honor Before Reason they could do better against crooks if they'd use more deadly guns, but at the cost of looking like an occupying army. Sometimes it's because it's based on historical times when crooks were better armed than police or when criminal organizations like Mexican Cartels started hiring ex-special forces for muscle like Los Zetas. As for the cops, they'll be forced to fight back with pistols. They'll be wielding automatic weapons, sometimes even explosive ones, and on the extreme end, get access to military hardware. ![]() ![]() Often in fiction and even sometimes in nonfiction when the police and crooks start a firefight, the criminals will have more powerful guns. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |