i see a bleak future for gun rights up here
- Thread starter Old_Me
- Start date
Old_Me
Emissary
yeah, and that woman she hired moved out of state, as things got really hot for her too.
Old_Me
Emissary
i would hope so....i am dying to get my large capacity mags back from FL.
MistaKwick
Alpha
Couple of thoughts on the thread
1. pro-anti cameras:
just watch this
Once you start installing cameras, the end is near
2. you get what you vote for
sure, but also your kids become what YOU raise them to be. A lot of parents have not been good mentors to their kids. This culture of "everyone is a winner" every kid should do what they want to express themselves and find their own freaking voice is the worst crime ever. Ever wonder why Asian American kids represent a huge majority of engineer, doctor, etc... students in US colleges? Because white parents are too lazy and permissive
We need more tiger moms, more helicopter parents. I got slapped when I got B's and let me tell you I got tired of getting Bs and Cs very quickly. I am freaking grateful that my mom and my dad were all over my case. And my own kids never ever thought of getting pierced noses and blue hair because they knew the consequences, and they got As. We didnt slap them, but the pressure to excel in school, to be honest, to help others, etc... was there nonfreakingstop. And guess what, they now thank me and dont say they been traumatized, that they got smothered by nazi parents!!!
The entire West needs a total control alt delete from a moral, a spiritual, a financial and attitude standpoint
1. pro-anti cameras:
just watch this
Once you start installing cameras, the end is near
2. you get what you vote for
sure, but also your kids become what YOU raise them to be. A lot of parents have not been good mentors to their kids. This culture of "everyone is a winner" every kid should do what they want to express themselves and find their own freaking voice is the worst crime ever. Ever wonder why Asian American kids represent a huge majority of engineer, doctor, etc... students in US colleges? Because white parents are too lazy and permissive
We need more tiger moms, more helicopter parents. I got slapped when I got B's and let me tell you I got tired of getting Bs and Cs very quickly. I am freaking grateful that my mom and my dad were all over my case. And my own kids never ever thought of getting pierced noses and blue hair because they knew the consequences, and they got As. We didnt slap them, but the pressure to excel in school, to be honest, to help others, etc... was there nonfreakingstop. And guess what, they now thank me and dont say they been traumatized, that they got smothered by nazi parents!!!
The entire West needs a total control alt delete from a moral, a spiritual, a financial and attitude standpoint
Sounds like target practice to me.....
Belt Fed
SAINT
That was a pretty good show.
Bear103
Elite
So this is a dicey topic. It’s hard to reason logic with emotional based thinkers. When things like this happen it’s easier to blame the object than reflect upon the cause such as liberal judges and a weak criminal justice system or lack of mental health options. Or bringing light onto a certain group that says they are peaceful when the core of their belief system isn’t so much if this was like or similar to Bondi.
People also don’t understand violent people only understand violence and it takes violence to stop it. Those who think we can just hug it out live in a fantasy world or are surrounded by people able to commit violence on their behalf or transfer it by calling people who can and with the legal authority to do so if needed.
People also don’t understand violent people only understand violence and it takes violence to stop it. Those who think we can just hug it out live in a fantasy world or are surrounded by people able to commit violence on their behalf or transfer it by calling people who can and with the legal authority to do so if needed.
Didn't really understand what you said here; "Those who think we can just hug it out live in a fantasy world or are surrounded by people able to commit violence on their behalf or transfer it by calling people who can and with the legal authority to do so if needed."
I was in a bar in the early 70's, a fight broke out, 2 stabbed, others cut, the knife dude got behind tables and fended others off with his knife. My uncle shows up, Chief Detective, ordered the guy to drop the knife 3 times, then approached him tossing a table off to the side, the guy raised his knife, and my uncle shot him in the ***, he dropped the knife, arrest was made, no one seriously hurt.
That wouldn't happen today, no officer would ever get that close to such a suspect, if they used their gun, it would be a center mass shot to kill, no one gets shot in the *** to comply.
The moral decay of society knows no political party.
PAGunGuy
Custom
No officer shoots center mass to kill, they shoot center mass as it's the biggest, easiest target. And they're not shooting to kill, they're shooting to stop the threat. If the bad guys goes down and is still alive, but out of the fight, perfect. They're not continuing to shoot to make sure he's dead.
Lab4Us
Custom
While I’d like to agree with you 100%, this position seems to neglect the fact that a lot of today’s police shootings seem to involve complete magazine dumps (sometimes by many officers at the same time) which allows very little, if any, time between rounds to assess if the perp is still “in the fight”.
For me, it’s hard to imagine that a 15-20 round mag dump (or more, if multiple officers firing) at a person isn’t intended to kill, poor shooting skills notwithstanding.
This comment is meant specifically about shooting to kill, vice stopping the threat. As far as I’m concerned, perps who play stupid games should win stupid prizes and get what they deserve, surviving or not.
Bear103
Elite
I was referring to people who are unable to grasp the concept of violent crime/people. Even the apostles were armed because Jesus knew you couldn’t fight evil with peace and understanding.
As far as shooting a person in the butt, well maybe back then but not now. Then they didn’t have the tech like bean bags, pepper balls and Tasers, which still have a high failure rate.
Anchorite
Master Class
You raise a good point.
HayesGreener
Ronin
Signing a porn movie. I love that!I think the old gal doing the "signing" for the Providence, RI Brown Univ. incident meetings is describing a porn movie with all her gyrations & facial expressions vs. what the authorities are saying.
Just saying
Although facial expressions are an important component of ASL.
PAGunGuy
Custom
But they aren't doing mag dumps to shoot to kill. They're doing mag dumps becuase they are human beings. They are reacting to a perceived fear, and we critters act irrationally out of fear.
If you ask most people who have discharged their firearm after a critical incident, they can't tell you how many rounds they fired. They will severely underreport the amount. Not to CYA but becuase of adrenaline.
And it's dangerous to just fire a few rounds and check to see if the perp is down. If you're in a gunfight, your only goal is to win that gunfight.
Lab4Us
Custom
Which would seem to imply that one is “shooting to kill”… at least to me.
HayesGreener
Ronin
Don't get hung up on semantics. Shoot someone intentionally, whether one round or 18, shows intent to inflict death or great bodily harm. Arguments over whether you shot to stop or shot to kill is academic. I don't ever want to have to shoot anyone but if I do, I want them to stay shot so they can't harm me or others.
PAGunGuy
Custom
But it's not shooting to kill and it's not semantics.
I have been through the trainings.
I can't say much becuase it's an ongoing cases, but I have a friend facing charges right now and I guarantee you that how he testifies will not be semantics.
Are there people with badges and firearms that shouldn't have them? Absolutely
Is it fair to say that the amount of shots fired by police in a situation where they have to use their weapon is intending to kill or excessive...definitely not.
Most law enforcement never discharge their weapons in their career. Most never want to. Most actually go in to the profession to make a difference in their communities. They just want to go home to their families.
In a perfect scenario, there would be much more training. Better training. Training in stress inducing scenarios. That would probably make the biggest impact on these situations. But the unfortunate reality is those things cost time and money.
I have been through the trainings.
I can't say much becuase it's an ongoing cases, but I have a friend facing charges right now and I guarantee you that how he testifies will not be semantics.
Are there people with badges and firearms that shouldn't have them? Absolutely
Is it fair to say that the amount of shots fired by police in a situation where they have to use their weapon is intending to kill or excessive...definitely not.
Most law enforcement never discharge their weapons in their career. Most never want to. Most actually go in to the profession to make a difference in their communities. They just want to go home to their families.
In a perfect scenario, there would be much more training. Better training. Training in stress inducing scenarios. That would probably make the biggest impact on these situations. But the unfortunate reality is those things cost time and money.
HayesGreener
Ronin
Deadly force is justified when one is in fear of death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. It should be noted that most LEO'S in a 25 year career will have multiple occasions where deadly force is legally justifiable, but will choose not to use deadly force if they can find another way. I agree that most officers will never fire shots in combat, but most have come close a few times.
Use of force cases are decided on the "Reasonable Man" standard. That is, would a reasonable man believe force was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances?
Most LEO firearms training today is done at close ranges by comparison to 55 years ago when I received my first handgun training. We were shooting out to 50 yards, until we realized most lethal encounters were happening at less than 7.
Officers today are taught to fire multiple shots up close when hostilities arise. The qualification course in Florida starts at 1 yard, draw and 3 shots fired from the hip, take one step back, fire 3 shots aimed fire. That's 6 shots in stage one. Pull on an officer thusly trained, and you are getting 6 rounds in about 4 seconds. Then some double taps at the 7, then 12 rounds at the 7, and finish with 6 rounds from the 15. What I am saying here is that officers are being trained to draw and fire multiple shots. Accuracy of those rounds will depend upon training and practice. Officers who train a lot who follow this drill know full well the person shot is unlikely to survive. Is this excessive? Statistically, it's what it takes to end the fight. But once the threat is gone, you stop shooting.
Back in the 60's and 70's, many agencies were required to carry round nose lead bullets in their revolvers, because hollow points were excesdive and discriminatory. Many agencies had to hide their shotguns in the trunk because it scared people to see it next to the officer. When we transitioned to semi autos there was much handwringing that we were going to spray the community with 9mm. When we started SWAT teams, and equipped them with automatic weapons, it was armageddon. Same when agencies started putting AR rifles in the cruiser gun rack. All worries that excessive force was being brought down on the community. In truth, we were arming for parity with the crooks and need for tactical capability.
But justification for use of deadly force is always judged with the reasonable man standard
Use of force cases are decided on the "Reasonable Man" standard. That is, would a reasonable man believe force was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances?
Most LEO firearms training today is done at close ranges by comparison to 55 years ago when I received my first handgun training. We were shooting out to 50 yards, until we realized most lethal encounters were happening at less than 7.
Officers today are taught to fire multiple shots up close when hostilities arise. The qualification course in Florida starts at 1 yard, draw and 3 shots fired from the hip, take one step back, fire 3 shots aimed fire. That's 6 shots in stage one. Pull on an officer thusly trained, and you are getting 6 rounds in about 4 seconds. Then some double taps at the 7, then 12 rounds at the 7, and finish with 6 rounds from the 15. What I am saying here is that officers are being trained to draw and fire multiple shots. Accuracy of those rounds will depend upon training and practice. Officers who train a lot who follow this drill know full well the person shot is unlikely to survive. Is this excessive? Statistically, it's what it takes to end the fight. But once the threat is gone, you stop shooting.
Back in the 60's and 70's, many agencies were required to carry round nose lead bullets in their revolvers, because hollow points were excesdive and discriminatory. Many agencies had to hide their shotguns in the trunk because it scared people to see it next to the officer. When we transitioned to semi autos there was much handwringing that we were going to spray the community with 9mm. When we started SWAT teams, and equipped them with automatic weapons, it was armageddon. Same when agencies started putting AR rifles in the cruiser gun rack. All worries that excessive force was being brought down on the community. In truth, we were arming for parity with the crooks and need for tactical capability.
But justification for use of deadly force is always judged with the reasonable man standard