Black Jesus

Dev packs? There's a couple. Look into the development resources on modding sites: http://www.lcpdfr.com/downloads/dev-resources/

@MagsJust an FYI, this guy wasn't a volunteer officer who gets qualified through donations and a handshake with the sheriff. He was a state constable. They are supervised by SLED and they get annual in service training. He also had 5 years experience as a patrol officer, and has been serving as a constable for 5 years as well. I agree that the stereotypical volunteer LEO position shouldn't exist, but I see no problem if they're just as qualified as full time LEOs.

It doesn't make him a coward. But just because we won't be mourning for the guy doesn't mean we should let our officers poorly handle situations. If the officer who arrested the Parkland shooter executed the guy, I doubt many would be in mourning, but that doesn't mean we should condone horrible police work.... I saw a video of a cop basically get jumped by a family of mexicans, one of them even slapped his taser out of his hand. Dude didn't fire one shot even though he could've, and should've shot 3 of them. This guy shoots a druggie with his pants around his ankles. That's not acceptable.

This should help

I'm actually surprised it hasn't been in V yet. Someone converted a M&P Pro from Battlefield Hardline to IV, so I find it weird no ones converted it over to V.

If it's locked, you can't.

I agree with the middle ground solution. My argument was more targeted to people who want a ban or want the Australian model in the US. And you pretty much paraphrased the bipartisan gun control bill that was being discussed. So we're on that track, it's just a matter of getting both sides to respect the interests of one another. And the feds have already given grants to departments (Around 550 million went to a select number of Sanctuary cities alone). Departments just can't find enough qualified people who want the job, and won't waste their money by failing FTO or leaving after a year. People want cops to have more training, for the same pay. And the only short term way to consistently increase staffing is to either lower qualifications (which no one wants), or make police salaries comparable to the private sector (which people here don't want to pay for). So even if you throw billions at the police, you still need people who want to be cops. But yes, in theory your idea would work.

But how long until the black market prices rise until the incredible majority of criminals don't want guns? These guys (typically low level drug dealers) on average are making more than minimum wage, and a gun is an investment to them. A gun doesn't have an expiration date either. So it's not like they have to keep on dealing with high prices to get their piece, it's a one time investment (assuming they properly hide and/or ditch the gun). Like I said before, we can't rely on the state to protect us. And the gun is basically the most efficient use of force that a person can legally use against another person who is threatening them. But now you're heavily restricting a citizen's right to self preservation in a worst case scenario. So for some time, maybe years, all that will happen is the criminals with guns will keep on shooting and law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of response times. And guns had that purpose even when the 2nd amendment was created. Like with any technology, it has evolved and gotten more efficient over hundreds of years. But the purpose of firearms has not changed. So heavily restricting them 200 years later, because they're doing the thing that they were always used for, seems kinda "uhm....what?" imo. Before the 90s, there were almost no mass shootings. Today we have the most gun laws and restrictions then we've ever had, yet mass shootings have had a steady trend for years. People only want gun control because of mass shootings. It makes national and international headlines. So I feel more restrictions is just a knee jerk response, like all of the gun restrictions in the last 5+ years

Just a heads up. I'm American, and a libertarian (mostly) . So this gonna be a heavy read lol They're "hiding" behind a 200 year old book, because it's literally the only thing that's stopping the government from taking away their guns. It is "government over reach". The 2nd amendment is part of the bill rights. Those 10 amendments, in theory, are not supposed to be touched. I think the two different society bandwagon is a valid point. I just think it's used poorly in arguments, which is why you probably have that apathy(I think that's the right word) towards it. Unlike Australia, firearms are a big part of our culture. One can surmise that your mandatory buybacks and laws only happened not because you guys listen to voices of reason, but because guns aren't a large part of your culture. At the time of your ban, 16% of your households had firearms, and it was trending down beforehand. And it continued to go down years after the ban. US is currently at about 25%, our all time low. And you guys don't have a bill of rights like us. Even though our firearm ownership is at an all time low, a quarter of the population still owns guns. Banning guns/ or restricting the hell out of them is kinda taking a hot piss on the 80 million or so people who aren't doing much wrong, yet are having a civil liberty taken away from them, because of small and loud minority. In my opinion, banning guns is putting a band-aid on the root causes. Which are much larger and complex issues. Mental health and crime. The 2 largest contributors to the US's gun problem. 60% of our gun violence deaths are simply suicides, and the events sparking all this gun debate are done by crazy people. A large portion of the remainder is simply criminals shooting each other. Many of these criminals get the guns illegally. Ban guns? Cool. Still millions of stolen guns on the streets in the hands of criminals, due to the black market pipeline down south (and irresponsible gun owners who don't lock their shit). We can't rely on the police in most places, because they're understaffed, and people want cops to have more training. Those two issues can't be addressed without money, which people don't want to pay. And there's still the people out there who want to cause mass amounts of damage to other human beings. Those people will simply get the gun illegally, or they'll read a book and learn how to make bombs. The sheer number of gun owners is reason enough to dismiss a complete ban, or heavy restrictions that will ban most guns. It's a shitty world. Shouldn't take away a right because of the crazies. Crazy people spout awful garbage all the time in public, doesn't mean you should take away one's right to free speech (within reason of course lol). We shouldn't throw away the 4th amendment and let police storm into people's houses any time they want because someone is shady. It may turn out they're a serial killer chopping bodies in their basement, but that shouldn't mean we should disregard a civil right. These are obviously extreme examples, but you get my point. I feel the true gun nuts, the ones that want NO gun control at all are the problem. They're clouding the debate. The other side of the spectrum is also clouding the debate. But general guns owners support reasonable laws like the ones that were being discussed in our congress. But too many gun rights (stuff that wouldn't increase violence at all) were being proposed so the bill took a backseat.