Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Yamato

Guns Do Not Kill People

322 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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-

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does anyone need an assault rifle?

Julie nails it as usual.

[media=]

[/media]

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

well after any shooting you will be asked questions, back in a days you might get away with killing someone that stole your horse, or something else, but now, i doubt you will. unless you were in immediate danger, i doubt you will be let go with no charges

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Not sure about how the laws may vary but I suppose they will take it on a case by case basis. If you shoot someone in the back after they're running away with your purse, that's probably not going to cut it. If grandma shoots them at point blank range while they're in the process of mugging her, that very well might hold up in court. Castle laws are a legal example of lethal force to stop property crime too. If you live in a castle state and someone has broken into your house, they better say their prayers first if they know what's likely to happen next. Even in cases where castle laws were stretched, the vigilante shooter was vindicated in court.

Take Joe Horn, who defended his neighbor's house after the thieves were already making their way out the window with the loot. Horn's not in jail; he's a free man and widely regarded as a hero by his peers. This kind of legality would probably befuddle a poor UK bureaucrat.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually cops have their fair share of problems with guns. There have been lots of unfair shootings by cops which started riots. Perhaps no one should carry guns. Cops don't carry them in England and they don't have problems with guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree cops weaponry needs to be evaluated and according to international law is one of the reasons the american people need to stay armed.

I have a phone number herfe you can call if youd like to help out.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/about_us/odavisio.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about how the laws may vary but I suppose they will take it on a case by case basis. If you shoot someone in the back after they're running away with your purse, that's probably not going to cut it. If grandma shoots them at point blank range while they're in the process of mugging her, that very well might hold up in court. Castle laws are a legal example of lethal force to stop property crime too. If you live in a castle state and someone has broken into your house, they better say their prayers first if they know what's likely to happen next. Even in cases where castle laws were stretched, the vigilante shooter was vindicated in court.

Take Joe Horn, who defended his neighbor's house after the thieves were already making their way out the window with the loot. Horn's not in jail; he's a free man and widely regarded as a hero by his peers. This kind of legality would probably befuddle a poor UK bureaucrat.

[media=]

[/media]

That is an interesting phone call, thanks. I wonder why the dispatcher wanted to him to lay down on the ground when he was unarmed? They were robbing in broad daylight, how brazen is that?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Yeah. I read about that. Good stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually cops have their fair share of problems with guns. There have been lots of unfair shootings by cops which started riots. Perhaps no one should carry guns. Cops don't carry them in England and they don't have problems with guns.

We've had a lot of issues with the City (Portland) going after cops that have shot people. Most of the cops have been cleared, but the Liberal Elite that run Portland love to make a Circus of any cop that shoots at anything. One cop was attacked by a Homeless, Mentally unstable man in a park, when the homeless man charged out of public restroom with a large cleaver. So when the fellow got within 10 feet and kept charging the cop shot him. Another case was were a 18 year old came charging out of a house with a long knife and shrugged off one officers tazer and jumped at another. And he got shot just before stabbing the officer. And several other incidents where people refused to follow officer commands and presented themselves as holding a concealed gun, forcing officers to shoot them. But, naturally when it comes out the shooting victim is mentally unstable, or a teen, or homeless, city hall turns on the officers and makes it a case of Public Opinion.

Should the police be required to actually receive a wound before firing their weapon? Should they only be allowed tazers? The new shotgun load tazers have quite a good range.

What would an English cop do it he was charged by a fellow with a long knife? Beat him down with his club? Might indeed result in less fatalities then a gun, but involves a lot more risk to the officer. Maybe the healthcare system and such in England allows for more cops to be on Down Time for injuries recieved in fighting with dangerous individuals??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.