The Right Way to Keep Bare Gubs

[kladner]

But the words "trained professionals" must be put in the scare quotes.

who are who are supposed to be proficient supposedly/allegedly proficient in the use of firearms

These guys were sh**ting bricks, and "Fearing For Their Lives®", and so, were justified in sh**ting up their entire vicinity.

Criminally negligent on many counts, incompetent, undisciplined, untrained, pants-wetting cowards.
one or two rounds should have been adequate for incapacitation. These are Tamir Rice-grade cops.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

Another problem with "good guys with guns" stopping bad guys with guns...

Exactly my thinking. I was one of the best in handling different types of guns in the army, but that was about 30 years ago, and in all this time I never touched a gun. I was not interested in them, and unless you were policeman, or something, you could not own one, or wear one, in my country. Moreover, my reflexes are not the same anymore (my eyes, however, were same bad at that time as they are now, I was wearing the same number for the glasses, it didn't change much in all these years). Assume I would be teaching in a class, and have a gun in the holster (I won't take one with me, but say I would be forced by the law to have one, or scared by the environment, whatever). Assume a student came in the class with a gun and points it to someone (me included). Would I fire at him/her? I am freaking sure I wont. I may not have enough time, or I may freeze with fear, or I may try to talk him out of it. Maybe having a gun would help me to say "see, I have a gun too, but I am not pointing to the people". But that is all. I am sure I will not fire at him/her. Think about how this can result in a lot of abuses from the good guys with guns. Think that I fire at him and kill him. Would they give me a medal or put me in the jail? What the hack, they will say, who was the adult there? Just thinking about it... this idea to let the teachers wear guns in schools is a complete idiocy. On the funny side, think to that guy who shot himself in the balls by accident... haha... well... it is funny... but it is not funny.. if you know what I mean...

And say I am a guy "trained" with the guns...

[schickel]

I don't know if this story was posted in the thread yet, but back in November there was a shooting in a Walmart in Colorado. Apparently there were "good guys with guns" in the store in this case, so many in fact that after local law enforcement entered the store it took them 5 hours to review the video to find out exactly who the actual shooter was since they had to backtrack all the citizens who had their firearms* drawn and make sure they weren't the shooter.

One person who was in the store, upon hearing there were armed citizens on the premises, asked why wouldn't they draw and shoot him? I don't know, maybe because when they drew and started running around they could not locate the shooter or something silly like that?

When I read this story my first reaction was that there were however many very, very lucky people in the store that day. What would have happened if one of those armed folks had been shot by the police or worse yet shot at someone, the shooter or otherwise, and injured or killed them? Some lawyers would be running up some billable hours in those cases. Of course, the police would have a greater probability to escape prosecution than the citizens. But the citizens would also face the possibility of civil suits from victims/families.

I also assume that people who think they would go after an active shooter with their gun blazing are a lot more proficient in their own mind than they actually would be under stress.

*I have heard several pro 2nd Amendment people say that they don't carry "weapons", they carry "firearms"; the real difference escapes me: somehow a weapon is only used to kill people but a firearm is used for self-defense?

[kladner]

.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by kladner

.

+1

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

I know that I will now come across as pretty arrogant, as well as foolish, to express an opinion over United States culture when I am a complete outsider, but I'm still going to.
The culture change which needs to sweep the USA in order to be able to modify the Constitution may, in my opinion, be just around the corner - say 5 years away or thereabouts. During recent years I have been astonished at how fast attitudes on a completely different issue - same sex marriage coupled with acceptance of same sex relationships in general - have swung around in many parts of the democratic world. I think the issue of free gun ownership could be facing a similar about-turn in the attitudes of US citizens. There may be some "tipping point" which has to be crossed, perhaps best seen as a moment when a significant proportion of the population suddenly stops being "in denial" about the reality of a situation, and when that happens public opinion can transform very quickly.

It's precisely 5 years ago that I made the above prediction of a culture change "just around the corner - say 5 years away or thereabouts". I'm now hoping that I may have fortuitously got the timing dead on and that recent developments really are turning the tide. Maybe a constitutional change removing the right to bear arms completely is too much to ask and was too optimistic, but we do seem to be finally now seeing the necessary change of attitude in the USA.

[bgbeuning]

I strongly support the 2nd amendment.
Everyone should be able to bear the same arms as George Washington.

Most of the original 10 amendments say we can not do things the
British tried to do to us before the revolution. And not all of them
have aged well with evolving technology.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by bgbeuning

I strongly support the 2nd amendment.
Everyone should be able to bear the same arms as George Washington.

+1!
Except I've never seen George depicted with a gun. Guns were for the rank and file. But running around with large cutlery (swords) in public would probably get you busted or dead in today's USA. (Certainly dead if you are other than lily white.)

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by schickel

I don't know if this story was posted in the thread yet, but back in November there was a shooting in a Walmart in Colorado. [snip!]

Yessirree! Post #369 to this thread, right here.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

But the words "trained professionals" must be put in the scare quotes.
These guys were sh**ting bricks, and "Fearing For Their Lives®", and so, were justified in sh**ting up their entire vicinity.

Criminally negligent on many counts, incompetent, undisciplined, untrained, pants-wetting cowards.
one or two rounds should have been adequate for incapacitation. These are Tamir Rice-grade cops.

Yes, the cops were obviously nervous. I suppose having a guy raise a .45 pistol at you might have that effect. And the multiple shots were from multiple cops, independently making the same decision that this guy had to be taken out. I don't know whether to attribute the inaccurate shooting to inadequate training, or the cops being decent enough folks to have qualms about killing a total stranger. (More on this later.)

But police are not supposed to fire "warning shots" or try to "incapacitate" a suspect. They are only supposed to fire their weapons when they or someone else is in imminent danger of death or serious injury. And, when they do shoot, they are supposed to shoot to kill.

I know, "person contacted was black" isn't actually in the legal definition of self-defense or police policy guidelines, though it does seem to be enough to sway a jury considering a case, where, say, a policeman shoots a fleeing man eight times in the back when he's 20 feet away. But hey, at least he got the "shoot to kill" part right!

But the admonition "shoot to kill" (rather than to incapacitate) is also based on the principle of protecting the innocent. If you shoot to kill, you aim at places where the bullets you fire will either stop or their momentum will be greatly reduced, thereby reducing the chances of injuring an innocent party. Aiming at a vital spot also reduces the chances of missing altogether. The consequences of not hitting a thick part of the body, or of missing altogether, are illustrated by the 2012 incident. It is fortunate that none of the bystanders were seriously injured.

Another aspect of the admonition is, it underscores the seriousness of making the decision to fire. You are likely going to kill someone.

Now, as promised, more on the topic of having qualms about shooting a total stranger. Once upon a time, long long ago, I was listening to a policeman being interviewed on the radio. He was talking about a woman who had asked about buying a gun to protect her family. He said he had asked the woman, if she had a gun and encountered an intruder in her home, would she warn him she was armed? Being a decent person, she had said, of course she would. And he had told her, "You'd be dead." Because the intruder would likely start shooting upon the realization of being detected.

The upshot is, if you decide to keep a firearm to protect your home, you have to be prepared -- literally -- to shoot first and ask questions later. This can result in tragedy -- there are cases in which parents have mistakenly shot their own children dead, thinking they were intruders. But such tragedies are usually not deemed crimes.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

... a firearm to protect ...

Guns, firearms, weapons, whatever you call them, don't protect anything. They are offensive devices, not defensive devices. The rhetoric about defence is deliberate misdirection.