Some restaurant owners worry about customers openly carrying guns

seb said:
No, the guns purpose was to kill. It's the gun lovers who have put the "it's to defend" spin on it. Whether you're shooting at game or people you're trying to kill it.
Click to expand...
wrong.
 
Reba said:
Was someone hit by an errant shot?

"Missed"? Depends on what the target was and where the 50 rounds went. If the cops were targeting the car and all their shots hit the car, then those aren't misses.


I'm sure you have a lot more ballistic knowledge and experience than the FBI shooting instructors.


Exposing themselves to gunfire . . .


As has already been mentioned, a shot in a foot or leg doesn't stop someone from being able to shoot a gun.


In your scenario, the shooter ran out of bullets, not the cops.


I have no idea how you came to draw that conclusion.

The reason they don't shoot at the pavement is to avoid needless casualties.
Click to expand...
This is from tactical training..
If someone is heavily armed and full body armor, you find the weak points to shoot at, usually neck, sholders, groin and ankles.
If they are behind something ( lets say a car ) you go at the ankles ( and yes observing the surroundings, whas behind that point ) and if their are some idiots standing around during an all out shootout... well, hate to say.

Anyways, you hit that ankle, what happens, yep they fall, what also happens? Anyone knows?
EXACTLY !!!! You now have a new angle to get a shot under that body armour. You now have lung shots, head shots, bottom of feet up through legs, arms.... the whole new ball game opened up as the body armour is for direct frontal hits, wasnt designed for up and down angles.

So, if youre gonna carry, and you plan to use to protect yourself... you better get some training.

( not directed at Reba, just backing whats posted)
 
You know guns is not the only concern that kills. There is other kinds of weapons that is intended to kill -- bombs, knives, swords or other types of homemade weapons that humans make to kill.

Taser is not always effective, some cases taser did kill someone (by heart attack for one) Police use guns to neutralize a threat, sometime ends up in death. If people cooperated with their order, the higher chances they won't get shot and get to live.

Those who disobey the order or try to run away risk getting shot and puts public in danger.. (ie.. high speed chase, running on foot, or charging at officer with a weapon... putting hand in pocket)
 
you can stab somene many times over with an ice pick, its like a giant mosquito bite, one little drop of blood....so those fights last a long time...lol
 
Reba said:
Was someone hit by an errant shot?
Click to expand...

Not that time, but in Chicago, today, the police accidentally shot and killed a 55 year old woman while shooting at someone else, so yes it does happen.
 
Reba said:
Not true.

They shoot to neutralize the threat. Sometimes that results in death, sometimes not. But killing is not the goal; stopping the threat is.

Of course, not every shooting incident turns out with text book perfection, and there are some people who shouldn't be cops.

Also, they don't always even shoot whenever they take their guns out. Sometimes the gun goes back into the holster unfired.


Obviously that is NOT every cop, every time. :roll:
Click to expand...

A good friend is a retired CHP and he has told me many times that when he was trained they were taught to stop the person, once they were stopped, they stopped shooting, which goes by your statement of stopping the threat, but todays officers are taught to execute them and basically don't stop shooting until they have to reload and that is not my words but a retired CHP officer.

As to not every shooting being a textbook example or done to textbook perfection. It should be because they are trained to do it right and are paid accordingly to do so. Yes, not all people should be cops, but once they are it's tough to get rid of the bad ones because of the brothers in blue and cops protecting cops. Furthermore, to say that most cops shootings are justified insults most peoples intelligence, a good portion of them are probably not justified. Today, in the Bay Area, police shot and killed a man because he had a butter knife and the witnesses and there were many said he was posing no threat to those around him or to the police, but when he didn't drop the butter knife the cops shot and killed him.

Finally, I have only been able to find the number of people shot and killed by police in the US for 2015, is over 1,200 or over three per day! I have been looking but have been unable to find out how many they shot and lived. We do lead the world in the number of police shootings per year and we lead by a wide margin.
 
Lau2046 said:
As I recall from the last incident in Boston, terrorists aren't too concerned with collateral damage either....at least law enforcement isn't trying to kill innocents where that's the exact objective of all terrorists.

Laura
Click to expand...

Very true, but they are okay with taking out innocent people to get the situation resolved. We also aren't talking about terrorists but people the police or FBI shoot and kill and some shouldn't be shot in the first place.
 
If you're talking about Mario Woods... he refused to comply with officer's order to drop the knife. When he started to walk away with a knife in hand, he is still a threat to police and others that's when cops shot him.

When a guy cooperate with hands up, that makes things easier for the guy and the police. Why make it harder when a person ignores the police's commands?

seb said:
Today, in the Bay Area, police shot and killed a man because he had a butter knife and the witnesses and there were many said he was posing no threat to those around him or to the police, but when he didn't drop the butter knife the cops shot and killed him.
Click to expand...
 
the attempt to silence and ban me from the forums has failed - this may be the last time I respond to anything:

The Gun Control agenda of the Obama Administration has failed. Blaming terrorist acts on obscure youtube videos has also failed - and now, you have the same person blaming ISIS violence on a supposed "video" that Trump has made - just another lie - there will be many more to come.
When the FBI director claimed the San Bernardino shooting was terrorism, he received an angry call from Obama dressing him down for making that claim. President Obama had a speech prepared to address the shooting, and he was going to blame our lack of stringent gun laws.

It was terrorism. The shooters were not on any terrorist watch list. They shot all those people in a gun free zone.

even if you were to ban all guns, it would only make the problem worse - all you have to do is rent a 3D printer for a weekend, and you can arm a whole squadron of shooters with AR 15's capable of shooting 650 rounds.
 
Steinhauer said:
the attempt to silence and ban me from the forums has failed - this may be the last time I respond to anything:

The Gun Control agenda of the Obama Administration has failed. Blaming terrorist acts on obscure youtube videos has also failed - and now, you have the same person blaming ISIS violence on a supposed "video" that Trump has made - just another lie - there will be many more to come.
When the FBI director claimed the San Bernardino shooting was terrorism, he received an angry call from Obama dressing him down for making that claim. President Obama had a speech prepared to address the shooting, and he was going to blame our lack of stringent gun laws.

It was terrorism. The shooters were not on any terrorist watch list. They shot all those people in a gun free zone.

even if you were to ban all guns, it would only make the problem worse - all you have to do is rent a 3D printer for a weekend, and you can arm a whole squadron of shooters with AR 15's capable of shooting 650 rounds.
Click to expand...

Obama support gun control laws to satisfy their constituents and majority of them are anti-gun movement.

Citizens could have opportunity to kick anti-gun democrats out in primary election, but majority of gunowners are republican supporters and they don't care about democrat primary anymore, even if democrat president win the election.

It is hard to pass the gun control measurement in federal level so it is state matter nowadays.
 
seb said:
No, the guns purpose was to kill. It's the gun lovers who have put the "it's to defend" spin on it. Whether you're shooting at game or people you're trying to kill it.
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of gun control laws but I do support mandatory permit to weed anyone who are unqualified to be armed anywhere, especially mental illness, ex-convicts (violent crime only), suspicious immigrants (high risk for terrorist plot) and domestic abusers. That's for accountability and statistic purpose - we could know if anyone obtained the guns illegally without permit or failed the background check, but background check has a lot of flaws, also I suffered depression but I could pass the background check.

Some people argued that Second Amendment is only limited to militias but US Supreme Court disagree with those argument so based on court ruling, we assume that Second Amendment is gun rights for everyone but states could pass the gun control laws, apart from complete gun ban.

I have mixed feeling about state rights - rural states like Wyoming should have completely unrestricted gun laws - it means no federal gun regulation. The federal government isn't one fit for all of them - cities traditionally have more restrictive gun laws since rural have less to no restrictive gun laws. For some reason, someone could argue that gay marriage should left to state to make decision so that why I'm not into state rights very much.
 
seb said:
A good friend is a retired CHP and he has told me many times that when he was trained they were taught to stop the person, once they were stopped, they stopped shooting, which goes by your statement of stopping the threat, but todays officers are taught to execute them and basically don't stop shooting until they have to reload and that is not my words but a retired CHP officer.

As to not every shooting being a textbook example or done to textbook perfection. It should be because they are trained to do it right and are paid accordingly to do so. Yes, not all people should be cops, but once they are it's tough to get rid of the bad ones because of the brothers in blue and cops protecting cops. Furthermore, to say that most cops shootings are justified insults most peoples intelligence, a good portion of them are probably not justified. Today, in the Bay Area, police shot and killed a man because he had a butter knife and the witnesses and there were many said he was posing no threat to those around him or to the police, but when he didn't drop the butter knife the cops shot and killed him.

Finally, I have only been able to find the number of people shot and killed by police in the US for 2015, is over 1,200 or over three per day! I have been looking but have been unable to find out how many they shot and lived. We do lead the world in the number of police shootings per year and we lead by a wide margin.
Click to expand...
They are not trained to execute, Man, you are just running at the mouth there. WOW dude.
And the butter knife was here in the Lou, yes they killed him, ONLY because he didnt stop and kept coming after them... called suicide by cops, and its exactly what he wanted, suicide letter and all on his person in the end. They will shoot to eliminate the threat, however far that takes them to eliminate it. Come at me with a paperclip Ill pump all the lead into them until they stop, do you know how much damage they can do to you with a paperclip?
 
seb said:
How is it wrong? In hunting what is the gun used for? In war, what is the gun used for? Basically it has been used for killing more than it has been used for anything else.
Click to expand...

Cops arent hunting, get it right my man.
and if you cant distinguish between hunting and self defense, got some bad news for you.
 
If guns are only for killing then aparently there are millions of broken ones in this country.
 
sonocativo said:
They are not trained to execute, Man, you are just running at the mouth there. WOW dude.
And the butter knife was here in the Lou, yes they killed him, ONLY because he didnt stop and kept coming after them... called suicide by cops, and its exactly what he wanted, suicide letter and all on his person in the end. They will shoot to eliminate the threat, however far that takes them to eliminate it. Come at me with a paperclip Ill pump all the lead into them until they stop, do you know how much damage they can do to you with a paperclip?
Click to expand...

Explain why they keep shooting at the person until they run out of ammunition?
Explain the cops in Kelso, WA shooting the guy over 30 times for throwing rocks at them and then continuing to shoot him in the back as he ran away?

I'm sorry but the butter knife is basically a non lethal weapon and the cops have to sometime resort to using common sense (which I don't think they are capable of). If two cops can't bring a guy down that is holding a butter knife than they need to look for another line of work. I would also not want someone on the force who resorts to shooting someone with a butter knife because their reasoning skills are clearly lacking.

No explain to me how much damage someone can do with a paperclip? I seriously doubt they could kill you with it and it definitely does not warrant the use of deadly force.

Perhaps that should be the gauge by whether deadly force can be used, if it can't kill you easily they can't shoot you and if they do they go up for murder charges. Cops today are too apt to shoot, instead of using their taser or baton.
 
sonocativo said:
Cops arent hunting, get it right my man.
and if you cant distinguish between hunting and self defense, got some bad news for you.
Click to expand...

No, the problem here is cops not being able to distinguish between a non lethal threat and a lethal one. As I said they need to be able to reason out whether something is or isn't a threat.
 
seb said:
No, the problem here is cops not being able to distinguish between a non lethal threat and a lethal one. As I said they need to be able to reason out whether something is or isn't a threat.
Click to expand...

The cops certainly knew who the threat was in California and none of the victims were armed, just as the terrorists expected...in a "gun free zone." More often then not, when responding to a call, the cops get it right. Unfortunately when mistakes happen, and they do, the liberal press draws it out so long, it makes the people forget the good cops doing their job well.

Laura
 
Back
Top