321 replies to this topic

[aztek]

DieChecker, on 18 January 2013 - 02:51 AM, said:

I'd rather the FedGov paid the guy like 15,000 dollars a year,

no, buddy, you will be paying him, and a lot more than that, when he sues you.

[Yamato]

DieChecker, on 18 January 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

I don't know how it goes in real life, but in the ARMY we always had weapons out when entering a suspected bad situation. And on TV, the cops always pull their guns before going into a suspected criminal situation, to... what kill everyone inside? Or, to try to prevent themselves from being shot by preventing others from shooting? It is defensive, not offensive, right?

I had a college campus security guard (who was also a cop) pull a gun on me when I was 19.   The reason he did it is because I put my hand in my pocket to grab my car keys.  He probably didn't know I was standing right next to my car and didn't know that I was preparing to get in with my g/f and go.   I was completely surprised by it and he kept the gun pointed at me even after he saw my keys in my hand, although he held it near his body rather than extend his arm at me, I presume so onlookers from a dorm balcony above us didn't see.  Or he calculated that I wasn't a threat after he saw my keys and thus didn't extend his arm.  But the gun was pointing at me and it was a surreal feeling even looking back at it.   His action was defensive in nature.  This kind of thing probably happens many times in a police officer's career.   I think the training we get for gun usage as civilians is far less comprehensive and so the "shoot to kill" is deferred to as the best 101 training, although as Sky Scanner and I were trying to point out, the rhetoric is flawed and it creates the misinterpretation.   We don't get the training for those intermediate scenarios for why/how it's a good idea to draw our weapons but only aim and not shoot.  Or even keep the gun pointed to the earth and not even aim.  It's simpler to just teach the average gun owner that if we need to pull our weapon we better be prepared and willing to shoot and possibly kill our target.   Which is good advice, but doesn't account for more advanced gun usage that a cop would need to know.

[HerNibs]

DieChecker, on 18 January 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

How does that apply to tasers, pepper spray, mace, or even just martial arts? If you employ martial arts do you intend to kill? Or can these objects be used with intent to Stop? Is it the lethalness of a gun that requires shooting to kill? Or, is it chiefly legal and insurance reasons?

Don't know how it applies to those.  I am pretty sure I can spray you with mace all day long and it won't kill you.  It will really suck but not kill you.

The "shoot to kill" bit is a mindset the teachers really wanted us to have.  That we needed to grasp the responsibility and power that is involved with using a gun.  We needed to understand that when we shoot some one it's to stop the attacker the quickest and surest way possible.  It's a concept that terrifies me in the finality of what it could be but it is a concept that I know and understand and accept.  I never want to kill anyone but I will if I have to in order to protect myself and those I love.

So it isn't due to insurance and legal reasons (not 100%) but the "shoot to kill" thought process is (IMO) a state of mind to grasp the seriousness of the situation.

DieChecker, on 18 January 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

Did they also teach to empty the weapon, or only to shoot as many shots as needed to stop your target? Some places teach to shoot all your rounds, I believe.

Just Curious...

Nope, didn't teach us that.  If the danger is gone in one shot, you stop shooting, yell for or call for police and stay right where you are.

Nibs

[AsteroidX]

Quote

I had a college campus security guard (who was also a cop) pull a gun on me when I was 19.   The reason he did it is because I put my hand in my pocket to grab my car keys.  He probably didn't know I was standing right next to my car and didn't know that I was preparing to get in with my g/f and go.   I was completely surprised by it and he kept the gun pointed at me even after he saw my keys in my hand, although he held it near his body rather than extend his arm at me, I presume so onlookers from a dorm balcony above us didn't see.  Or he calculated that I wasn't a threat after he saw my keys and thus didn't extend his arm.  But the gun was pointing at me and it was a surreal feeling even looking back at it.   His action was defensive in nature.  This kind of thing probably happens many times in a police officer's career.   I think the training we get for gun usage as civilians is far less comprehensive and so the "shoot to kill" is deferred to as the best 101 training, although as Sky Scanner and I were trying to point out, the rhetoric is flawed and it creates the misinterpretation.   We don't get the training for those intermediate scenarios for why/how it's a good idea to draw our weapons but only aim and not shoot.  Or even keep the gun pointed to the earth and not even aim.  It's simpler to just teach the average gun owner that if we need to pull our weapon we better be prepared and willing to shoot and possibly kill our target.   Which is good advice, but doesn't account for more advanced gun usage that a cop would need to know.

From my reading/media experience when a LEO fires his gun its to kill not stop. LEO's generally pull guns first. Id like to see some statistics on non lethal vs lethal use in stopping individuals. Statistically.

In reality LEO's pull guns often and do not use them. That is the training you are speaking of Yamato. In general a citizen should not need to pull a gun unless there is an immediate and real threat to there life. So they need to be prepared for that. These types of events happen so fast your not going to have alot of time to "think". But should they be knowledgeable of the "intimidation" factor of a gun. Im on the fence. Would it save innocent lives or cost innocent lives because they hesitated in a deadly situation.

[Yamato]

AsteroidX, on 18 January 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

From my reading/media experience when a LEO fires his gun its to kill not stop. LEO's generally pull guns first. Id like to see some statistics on non lethal vs lethal use in stopping individuals. Statistically.

In reality LEO's pull guns often and do not use them. That is the training you are speaking of Yamato. In general a citizen should not need to pull a gun unless there is an immediate and real threat to there life. So they need to be prepared for that. These types of events happen so fast your not going to have alot of time to "think". But should they be knowledgeable of the "intimidation" factor of a gun. Im on the fence. Would it save innocent lives or cost innocent lives because they hesitated in a deadly situation.

I can say the same about police if I accept that statement.   A police officer shouldn't need to pull a gun unless there is an immediate and real threat to their life.

Death is incidental.  It doesn't matter whether you kill someone using a firearm in self defense or not.  Death is not the purpose.  Nobody is legislating around who's dying from acts of self defense.   That is not even on the battlefield here.   If the purpose of cops carrying guns was to pull their guns and kill people, I would be about 1000% more against the cops than I am right now.   I would be about 1000% more in favor of the 2nd Amendment than I am now.   And if we fall into another protracted discussion about training, then again, it's not about the gun it's about the gun handler.   This mountain of misplaced rhetoric about the gun needs to go to bed.  

It's not about the gun, it's about the person behind it.   The problem here as Julie Borowski correctly identified, is people.   Again, for the 3rd time now, If the problem is guns, why aren't the cops a problem?

[Hasina]

Yamato, on 18 January 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

  Again, for the 3rd time now, If the problem is guns, why aren't the cops a problem?

Their guns are better trained? -ba-dum-tsh-

[Beckys_Mom]

The British bobbys don't carry guns


Why British police don’t have guns

It's the single most obvious feature that sets the British bobby apart from their counterparts overseas.Tourists and visitors regularly express surprise at the absence of firearms from the waists of officers patrolling the streets.   But to most inhabitants of the UK - with the notable exception of Northern Ireland - it is a normal, unremarkable state of affairs that most front-line officers do not carry guns.

"We are passionate that the British style of policing is routinely unarmed policing.   ..Sadly we know from the experience in America and other countries that having armed officers certainly does not mean, sadly, that police officers do not end up getting shot."

But to most inhabitants of the UK - with the notable exception of Northern Ireland - it is a normal, unremarkable state of affairs that most front-line officers do not carry guns.
But one thing is clear. When asked, police officers say overwhelmingly that they wish to remain unarmed.

A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82%did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years.
It is a position shared by the Police Superintendents' Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers
More on that - http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-19641398

However our own police officers were I live are armed

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 18 January 2013 - 08:04 PM.

[Yamato]

Why does anyone need an assault rifle?

Julie nails it as usual.



But what happened to my Barry Cooper 'Never Ever Open Your Door" thread?

[docyabut2]

They are saying that all these older kids were constantly playing the violent vidio games before the shootings. Parents just have to wake up and don`nt allow these games in their homes with children growing up,and lock up the darn guns.

[HerNibs]

I heard/read this someplace and I wish I could remember where so I could give proper credit but (IMO) this is pretty close -

Blaming video games for shootings is like blaming MatchBox for drunk driving.

Nibs

[Beckys_Mom]

HerNibs, on 28 January 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

I heard/read this someplace and I wish I could remember where so I could give proper credit but (IMO) this is pretty close -

Blaming video games for shootings is like blaming MatchBox for drunk driving.

Nibs

You have to admit Nibs, before these mad video games were around, people never killed each other with guns, it was unheard of .. Becky is one for playing angry birds, I best keep an eye on her   lol

[HerNibs]

Beckys_Mom, on 28 January 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

You have to admit Nibs, before these mad video games were around, people never killed each other with guns, it was unheard of .. Becky is one for playing angry birds, I best keep an eye on her   lol

LOL

Yeah, watch her!  If you don't she will be dive bombing the neighbors houses!

  Nibs

[DieChecker]

docyabut2, on 28 January 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

They are saying that all these older kids were constantly playing the violent vidio games before the shootings. Parents just have to wake up and don`nt allow these games in their homes with children growing up,and lock up the darn guns.

Hummm..... It is only a matter of time before the other 100 million video game players go nuts and kill us all.

Lock the guns I will agree with. Ban video games.... that is ridiculous. May as well ban kitchen knives and squirt guns and sticks (they can be guns and swords).

[Gummug]

aztek, on 17 January 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

you just don't fire unless you believe you are (or someone next to you )in danger to be maimed or killed. period.
doen't matter where the bullet lands.

I thought that in some localities you can use lethal force to stop theft of some types of property. Maybe it goes back to the old days of stopping a horse thief, 'cuz back then, if someone stole your horse and you were in the desert, you could die. Does anyone know anything about this? The legality of lethal force to stop property theft I mean?
-Ignorant

[Yamato]

DieChecker, on 28 January 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

Hummm..... It is only a matter of time before the other 100 million video game players go nuts and kill us all.

Lock the guns I will agree with. Ban video games.... that is ridiculous. May as well ban kitchen knives and squirt guns and sticks (they can be guns and swords).

They're using violent video games to treat PTSD in veterans.   The idea is reliving their worst experiences in a safe comfortable environment.  It appears to be having good results according to the documentary.