At present, I don't see the need for shotguns. however, if the situation were to change and my team was meeting incoming fire on a regular basis when on patrol or dealing with an incident, I would expect that citizens would have the right to acquire shotguns, and use them in accordance with the rules of engagement - Is the threat severe enough to warrant their use? Is this the minimum use of force to meet the needs of the law abiding community?
The whole problem I have with firearms is that I have actually used one myself. Ditto an edged weapon. Only in practice, mind - but often enough to see the limitations of these tools.
I don't want innocent people getting killed by crossfire, I don't want to send people into situations where they are inadequately trained to deal with what comes up.
I reckon that a guy my age, with a helmet, a round riot shield and a baton could take on a thug with a switch-blade or anything else short of a gun or a petrol bomb.
To tackle that sort of a threat, we would need a gunner - but every team could have one.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 12/8/11 09:01 (UTC)Is the threat severe enough to warrant their use?
Is this the minimum use of force to meet the needs of the law abiding community?
The whole problem I have with firearms is that I have actually used one myself. Ditto an edged weapon. Only in practice, mind - but often enough to see the limitations of these tools.
I don't want innocent people getting killed by crossfire, I don't want to send people into situations where they are inadequately trained to deal with what comes up.
I reckon that a guy my age, with a helmet, a round riot shield and a baton could take on a thug with a switch-blade or anything else short of a gun or a petrol bomb.
To tackle that sort of a threat, we would need a gunner - but every team could have one.