Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumNYC: Empire State Shooting: ALL bystanders were shot by police
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/
Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.
The most disturbing detail about Friday's fatal shooting in Midtown Manhattan is the fact that the wounded included bystanders shot by police, and the latest news suggests stray police bullets may account for "most or all" of those wounded. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly confirmed that at least some of the injuries came from stray police bullets as cops opened fire on the gunman who aimed at them, but the police haven't said how many. Rather, that detail comes from the math reporters are doing with the number of rounds police have confirmed were fired.
Fortunately, most of the injuries were minor. As one victim who as hit in the arm told The New York Times: "I guess, you know, stuff happens."
The Times' James Barron and David Halbfinger and William K. Rashbaum introduced the arithmetic reporting: "Some of those injured might have been shot by the two police officers, who fired 16 rounds at the gunman, Jeffrey Johnson 58, said Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly — based on the number of people shot and the fact that Mr. Johnson’s gun held only eight rounds." The New York Times Metro twitter account followed up with this accounting: "Johnson had 8 bullets max. Shot 5 at [victim Steve] Ercolino, 2 left in gun, 1 unfired on ground," suggesting that the only ones Johnson fired were at his intended victim -- although that doesn't necessarily mean all of them found their mark.
The killer didn't shoot at police, but the police shot him and 9 other people. The shooter murdered his old boss and didn't fire at anyone else. It sounds like Bloomberg and the other people running NYC hate guns SO much that they don't even want their officers adequately trained.
The NYPD's handguns have triggers on their guns that are OVER 12 pounds to fire. The most important item for accuracy, after proper grip/purchase, is trigger control. It's very hard to control a sub 2 pound gun with a 13 pound trigger. The hoplophobia rampant in NYC has now almost cost 9 people their lives at the hands of New York's Finest.
I am a certified pistol instructor, and I know poor training when I see it. I've taught 70 year olds how to shoot fist sized groups rapid fire at 20 feet. This is without advanced training, just the fundamentals.
Every article I've read on the subject seems to point to a systemic problem within the NYPD with regards to firearms training. NYC has the seventh largest standing army in the world and quite possibly the poorest firearms curriculum as well.
Here's an exerpt from one such article:
http://www.handgunsmag.com/2012/02/16/the-nypd-and-the-kahr-k-9-no-substitute-for-training/
The NYPD is apparently incapable of training its officers to keep their finger off the trigger, so instead of increasing or improving their training (which would cost the department money, as well as be an acknowledgement that the training was the problem), they mandate that the gun companies provide them modified weapons.
I don’t dislike Glocks, I love Glocks. I carry a Glock every day, and am in fact wearing one right now as I write this. However, Glocks equipped with the 12-lb New York Plus trigger are an abomination. A few years ago at an editorial roundtable, the InterMedia Outdoors staff had a friendly competition involving a Glock with such a trigger. Everyone involved reported that the pistol was nearly impossible to shoot. G&A’s Handgun Editor Pat Sweeney (a veteran pistol competitor and Master-Class USPSA shooter) won the contest, but to do so, he used a technique he wouldn’t recommend anyone use—he was pulling the trigger with both his index fingers. A 12-lb trigger on a Glock only makes it harder to shoot fast and accurately, thereby increasing the chances that an officer’s bullet won’t end up where he or she intended.
One of the most important steps in firearms training is trigger control. The NYPD couldn't keep their recruits fingers off the trigger until ready to fire. If they can't follow basic firearms discipline, how can they be trusted to possess firearms in public? My students master the 4 rules of firearms safety within hours, why can't the NYPD do it? The only mass shooting in NYC yesterday was carried out by those hired to protect it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)I would have never believed it. The stupidity burns.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)are commonly referred to as New York triggers.
Euromutt
(6,506 posts)The NY-1 is made the specs of the New York State Police and comes recommended by Massad Ayoob, if you're going to own a Glock.
The NY-2 is the 12-pound monstrosity.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)When they had revolvers they were taught to start pulling the trigger to take the slack out of the trigger and get the hammer in a position to fire quickly. This training, when they switched over to the semi-auto, led to a large number of negligent discharges. Instead of updating the training, they opted for that horrible trigger.
Ashgrey77
(236 posts)The reset point on most (box stock) Glocks I've fired is about halfway in the trigger pull, so you never let the trigger go back to full extension if you are firing multiple rounds. You kind of rock the trigger back and forth right at the reset point to fire fast and accurately. It's hard enough to do right with a 5.5 pound trigger, I could only imagine a 12+ trigger, it'd be almost impossible to be fast and accurate.
marasinghe
(1,253 posts)for many years now, possibly from Giuliani's mayoral tenure, these clowns have been coasting along mostly on propaganda and the consent of a complacent & compliant public.
if one takes a look at the number of cases where unarmed people got shot, the number of shots these bozos spray around in a shootout, is ridiculous.
many of them appear to have no self-control and strength of mind, or the required courage, and, as you stated, the necessary training, to be allowed to carry guns professionally.
five cases which readily come to mind are:
1. the Amadou Diallo shooting: 41 shots fired at one unarmed man trying to get into his own residence.
result: an innocent African guy shot dead, with no provocation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo_shooting
2. the Sean Bell shooting: 50 shots fired at 3 men in a car.
result: one unarmed African-American guy, Sean Bell, dead, two passengers (also unarmed) severely wounded.
their crime: trying to get away from an undercover cop, who had had two drinks in a bar. Sean Bell, the driver may have been under the influence, since he was leaving his own bachelor party; and the car is supposed to have brushed by the undercover cop. but the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell
3. the Ousmane Zongo shooting: innocent African guy dead, shot 4 times in the back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousmane_Zongo
don't have links for the other two; they happened a while back. but, i remember some details.
4. cop stakeout on Queens Boulevard, in Woodside, NYC: cops across a major 8 lane road from a Chinese restaurant, blindly fired a shitload of artillery at the restaurant & killed the perp they were staking out; as well as an innocent restaurant employee.
5. the last case happened in Manhattan, around office closing time - 5 pm - on Broadway & the lower 50's, near the Sheraton hotel. an ATM robber held his victim hostage & walked out of a Citibank (i believe). despite being surrounded by a plethora of civilians leaving their offices at the time, waiting cops unloaded another shitload of ammo at him, killing both the perp & the woman hostage.
based on these & numbers of others, i totally agree with your conclusions; with the added provision that - plenty of these dumass bullies, are not only woefully under-trained in weaponry, but are also psychologically untested & untrained, in keeping calm & professional in a crisis; which would be the whole point of being employed as a cop.
so, it comes as no surprise that the bystander casualties were from cop bullets; not from the criminal's. in fact, as soon as i got the information of the incident & the casualties, from our office security, i immediately jumped to the, admittedly biased & evidence-less, conclusion, that almost all the shooting victims would be from police fire.
LuvNewcastle
(16,844 posts)for officials to become hyper-defensive and defend the cops no matter what. In the first tragedy you cited, officials acted as if the shooting was little more than a regrettable mistake. I didn't see any mention of discipline or firing of officers. In the second tragedy, the cops involved had their guns taken away and that seems to have been the extent of the discipline. There wasn't enough information about the third tragedy. Powerful people who fuck up in our society often have little or no accountability for their actions. In NYC, at least in the time of Giuliani and Bloomberg, cops have apparently had a very free hand to do as they will. I suppose that should be expected when a city embraces politicians who run their city like a dictatorship.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)We'll wait....
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)These clowns should be FIRED and CHARGED with assault!
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)They're going after what they believe to be an active shooter and they didn't have a choice in the weight of their triggers. If you want to go after anyone, go after the people who set policy.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...and they should have their target clearly defined before discharging it. They are supposed to be PROFESSIONAL.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Much of it is justified, but like many of us have tried to tell you time and time again. Wearing a badge doesn't automatically make you an expert marksmen or a "gun enthusiast". These people were given crappy tools (a 12 lb trigger is a nightmare), put in a situation they didn't fully understand (he wasn't a mass shooter), and expected to deal with it. What would you have had them do?
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)That's what professionals do. They learn how to master their equipment.
And, more importantly, they should have rigorous psych tests before entering the academy. They need to weed out the clowns who are not fit for the job.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)and are more familiar with their weapons than the police could ever be, are professionals? Is that your stand?
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)I can get the crayons out if you need more help....
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Your post
11. Go to the range and get fully acclimated to the firearm.
View profile
That's what professionals do. They learn how to master their equipment.
I asked if CCW holders who go to the range and get fully acclimated to the firearm and master their equipment are also professionals.
Are you now saying the only way they can be a professional is if they're a police officer?
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts) shadowrider
(4,941 posts)The confusion came in with your use of the word "professional". I read it to become professional in the use of a personal/work weapon. Range time, etc.
You are referring to professional as cop, etc.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)
atreides1
(16,072 posts)Probably have more range time then most police officers, and are likely more familiar with their weapons then the police!
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Problem is, most cops would flunk out. Hell, the local PD here had to be threatened by the state with removing their cert to carry firearms if they didn't go qualify before they went. I shoot at a range that is frequented by police, only right before qualifications for the most part. They close the range when they qualify but I get to see them shoot. For the majority, they know next to nothing about weapons in general and once they start shooting past 5 meters they couldn't hit the broadside of a barn. I think you'll find that the majority of those evil "gun nuts" you guys like to lambast here could shoot rings around most cops. It's our hobby, we practice, and we enjoy it. Although there are exceptions, I know of one local officer I've watched shoot who is incredibly accurate with his firearm. Although, he's a gun guy because we've got into conversations about weapons before.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)BTW... who are "you guys?" 
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Just take a stroll through the posts here.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)I am also in favor of effective regulations regarding firearms. Without effective regulation, the 2nd amendment will be repealed by popular outcry.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)But, what do you consider effective and what do you feel is the purpose of the 2nd amendment?
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Effective: ban on large capacity clips.
Effective: regulate assault weapons on a level different than how mere shotguns are regulated (perhaps a different level of licensing for the owner).
I come from a hunting family. Although I personally find the sport of murdering mammals distasteful, I don't believe that others who don't have an issue with the sport shouldn't be allowed to participate in it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Since the "gun show loophole" is not a federal issue how do you plan to handle it? Every state would have to pass legislation.
What is a " large capacity clip"? How many bullets is too many?
Why waste time on semi-auto rifles? They are the least likely of murder weapons. If you are concerned with saving the most lives, why are you starting at the bottom of the list instead of the top when it comes to regulating weapons?
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)2. However many a standard .45 clip holds. Anything more can be considered "large capacity".
3. You've forgotten about Columbine.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)or get it struck down. We are talking about intra state sales between private individuals.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...which makes it an interstate issue.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the issue is not gun sales. It is private sales of guns - whether it be in my house, my driveway, the parking lot or a table at a gun show.
hack89
(39,171 posts)It is a state issue. I cannot sell a gun to someone from another state. I cannot go to another state to sell a gun. That is interstate commerce regulated by federal law. I can sell to a fellow Rhode Islander in Rhode Island - that is intrastate commerce that cannot be regulated by federal law.
2. What is magical about a .45? Looks like a backdoor measure to ban the most popular handguns. Why not say that a oversize mag is one that extends beyond the bottom of the gun butt? Is the difference between 7 and 13 rounds really that significant?
3. One of their four weapons would have been covered by the AWB. Harris used a shotgun and a pistol caliber carbine. Klebold used a shotgun and a semi-auto pistol. Banning AR-15s or AK-47 clones would have had zero effect on Columbine. And lets not forget Va Tech - Cho used handguns with standard mags. He merely reloaded a lot.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)AnJo1
(7 posts)would be a real novelty! I'm not aware of any handguns that have clips; they either have cylinders if they're revolvers or magazines if they're pistols. I'm always amazed at how people who know nothing about a subject can develop such strong opinions about it. But from what I've seen of modern school curricula, forming a strong opinion and expressing it is the primary focus over learning a great deal about a subject before forming an opinion, and then being able to back it up with accurate information and sound logic.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Since private sales inside the same state are intrastate (as opposed to interstate, the fed has no jurisdiction. For a national law to apply to a state there has to be some sort of interstate commerce involved due to the Constitution.
A ban on high capacity magazines would be useless. I am assuming that you want to save lives and not just be a pain-in-the-ass to legal gun owners. In the two recent cases in which a high-capacity magazine was used the magazine jammed, each time. The killer had to stop shooting because his gun didn't work anymore. Other mass shooters, such as the VT shooter and the Luby's shooter and others have used standard magazines for the weapons they had and racked up much higher body counts than Lounger or the Batman killer. They simply reloaded. It takes only a couple of seconds to swap out a magazine, faster if one practices. High capacity magazines are notorious for being unreliable. Your proposed legislation would attempt to force such villains to use reliable magazines that wouldn't jam. Is that what you really want?
"Assault weapons" is just another gun-banner scare phrase. The AWB only banned some cosmetic features on some guns. The internal workings remained the same. Further, murders using hands and feet as weapons exceeds the number of murders from all rifles of all kinds combined. That is a consistent statistic from the FBI's UCR that is published every year. http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/
I do not trust any gun resistration scheme. Twice in the U.S. gun registration list have been used for gun confiscation lists. BTW - Those for whom it is illegal to have a gun do not have to register their illegal guns, even in states that do have registration. They are exempt. 5th Amendment.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Absolutists will be greatly disappointed when their absolutism results in enough gun deaths that the 2nd amendment is pulled by popular outcry.
Forest for the trees, and all that...
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You illustrate one of the reasons why your side has been losing so badly for the past 18 years. You run away from discussion, leaving the field to us.
I listed specific reason why your ideas won't work. Try answering them.
The 2nd won't be repealed. It will be extremely easy to find 13 states that want to keep it.
And gun deaths are declining and have been for the past 18 years. You can check that statistic at the FBI UCR site.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)To repeat them would be insulting to both of our intelligences.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts) GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Your side refuses to debate.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)As cheesy a cop-out is I've ever heard anywhere. Congratulations.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)The term "gun show loophole" refers to the claimed sales between private individuals who reside in the same state and are acting within that state. For instance, I have 10 guns I have accumulated over my lifetime. I have decided to sell them and travel in my retirement. I go to a gun show (or place an ad in the newspaper, or have a garage sale, etc.) and rent a table, or stand in the parking lot with my trunk open. I sell the guns to other residents of my state. I am not required in most states to report or do anything. The Federal government has no jurisdiction over sales or exchanges of legal personal property between two residents of the same state sold within that state. This is a constitutional limitation on the Federal government....the "commerce clause".
Your response in post #30, "1. Make it federal law.", simply isn't an option or it would already be done. It can't and won't happen now or ever. With that in mind start over again and explain how you are going to accomplish your call for "Effective: close gun show loopholes nationally." from your post #23.
There is an answer which would reduce the problem of unregulated intrastate private sales, but alas the gun controllers in Washington prefer to simply bitch about it....and if the problem was curbed the Brady campaign wouldn't have that soapbox to fund raise on any longer...that would be disastrous as they are already on the verge of bankruptcy..
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The federal government can regulate intrastate commerce provided that it affects interstate commerce, and private gun sales affect interstate commerce in several ways. For example, unregulated gun sales affect the flow of trafficked guns across state lines, and even internationally.
The Supreme Court ruled that the banning the private growing and medicinal use of marijuana doesn't violate the commerce clause, so, while I wouldn't put anything past the Scalia gang, there really isn't much grounds for arguing that expanding background checks to private sales is unconstitutional.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Simply a lawyer's opinion. In the medical marijuana case, I'm guessing you agree with Thomas and the Cato institute?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)who has never sent a private sale ncis bill to congress...several have been proposed, none have made it out of committee regardless the party in power. Why? Because of issues of intrastate commerce. This has no relationship to the reefer as weed isn't legal to possess at all at the Federal level and is barely legal at the state level, not to mention there is absolutely no mention of ganja anywhere in the Bill of Rights..it is a bit of a different animal.
Further, there is no limitation on transporting firearms across state lines as long as the owner is abiding by the state laws of the lines they are crossing...Federally, there is no limitation or law prohibiting interstate transportation. I can buy a gun in Colorado but I must have the Colorado FFL ship the gun to a FFL in my state. At the FFL in my state I have to have an NICS check before I can take possession. Once I have done that and take possession, I can put the unloaded gun in my trunk and drive back to Colorado and shoot it all I wish to, put it back in the trunk and drive home....no laws broken. There is no basis for caring if guns cross state lines at the Federal level, therefore no exception to interstate commerce clause..
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Are you a vegan or do you allow someone else to do the murdering for you?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You can easily find 13 gun friendly states that would not ratify your repeal.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)nearly every candidate that runs for election or re-election on a plank of repealing the 2nd Amendment will be defeated don't you? What you are proposing is handing over the U.S. Congress and White House to the Republicans for the foreseeable future.
jbgood1977
(91 posts)in witch you stated: "I am in favor of preservation of the 2nd amendment."
Hummmm. . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=65001
formercia
(18,479 posts)about one of his colleagues who retired. When he turned in his service revolver, the cartridges had corroded into the cylinder chambers to the point where the had to be hammered out. He hadn't fired or cleaned his weapon the whole time he had been a Detective.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...to every situation or B) some sort of gun-hating pussy. 
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)He would regularly check the fire extinguisher in his trunk, and hope he never needed it.
He would keep his gun in proper working condition, and hope he never needed it.
Instead of your A) and B) I will posit C) He was too lazy to do proper maintenance.
You claim to be a pilot. There are a series of checks that you are supposed to do to the plane before you even get in it, then some more checks after you start the engine, then some more quick checks at the end of the runway. Do you do them, or do you treat the plane the way people do cars - hop in, start up, and go? Of course you do the checks because you want to be have a safe flight. For the same reason the cop should have checked his gun regularly.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...of my aircraft.
I don't "claim" to be a pilot. I "am" one. 
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Irrelevant...
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Although I also have a Judge as a home defense weapon.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)I have time in everything from a Cub to a King Air.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)
bakpakr
(168 posts)We as a people have determined that we see a need to have police to enforce the laws of the land and protect us. With that determination we have entrusted those hired as police officers with a great amount of trust. With that trust comes and expectation that they act in a professional manner at all times and be proficient in all the tools of their trade. We expect that they be more proficient in the use and care of their weapon than an average citizen. If in fact the trigger pull is set to 12lbs. then they are duty bound to refuse to accept the issuance of the weapon on the grounds that it is an unsafe weapon. I do not know many individuals that could safely deploy a weapon so modified in the situation that the officers faced here. The outcome that was witnessed in NY only goes to reinforce the knowledge that the weapons issued are unsafe.
I have received extensive close combat training thanks to Uncle Sam. Also I have been able to pass some of that training on. The training if adequate will get you over that "Oh Shit" moment very quickly. In fact close combat training is geared to minimize the "Oh Shit" moment. It sets you up so that when confronted with the "Oh Shit" moment, muscle memory takes over to help you do what needs to be done. The basis is extensive repetition. You repeat the skills over and over again so that they become second nature. Do we want our police trained as extensively as I and many others are? Most likely no. But the same training regimen can be and must be employed in their weapons training. I feel that the training that they receive should be Pass/Fail. They either can do it or they can't period. If they can't then sorry no badge or gun.
As for gun control. Any ban in my opinion is wrong. What I would like seen done is on all weapons sold they must have provisions built in that makes it harder to swap out a magazine thus it takes more time to reload. Not just the simple push of a button as used now. Also all weapons capable of semi-auto fire have provisions built in that slow the rate of fire. Also and this may be a bit harsh but ANY crime committed where a gun is involved in ANY manner if found guilty mandatory life with no chance of parole. No law or ban will eliminate gun violence but we can do things that when it happens gives those targeted and those empowered to enforce the laws and safety of the citizenry a fighting chance.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)All of your proposed mechanical changes could be easily re-modifyed or bypassed by criminals. All would make legitimate self-defense more dificult. So there is no way they could have any effect on crime. (And the touchstone question: Would your restrictions apply to police and government agents? If not... why?)
Why treat a gun differently from any other weapon used in a crime? A weapon is a weapon. All are lethal. All should be treated equally.
bakpakr
(168 posts)First off I am not an engineer thus I have no idea how to implement the required mods, this is just an idea open for discussion and modification. In my idea the modification made would be done in such a manner that if they are bypassed they make the weapon inoperable. With the magazine mod if it is bypassed then the weapon would not retain the magazine. With the rate of fire mod if it is bypassed then the weapon become inoperable. Also make it illegal to manufacture kits that would retain functionality while circumventing the original modifications. If someone is found to have modded the weapon or manufacture a kit that modifies the weapon then the life with no chance prison sentence comes into play.
No the restrictions would not apply to police or government agents. The restrictions apply only to the general pubic. But there can be provisions in place for those that wish to be authorized to obtain and own non-modified weapons. Only after extensive background checks, psychological testing, drug and alcohol testing, and extensive training all at their own expense. Why? Because we want to allow those that we trust to have a leg up on those that would attempt to do harm to others.
The reason that I feel we should treat guns differently is because guns have a greater potential to do a considerable amount of harm in a shorter period of time than other types of weapons. Yes a weapon is a weapon and all can be lethal.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)I'm not trying to be a smart ass, the reason I ask is because the adrenalin dump alone will screw up your ability to aim significantly. It's not like those cops were just standing there on a range shooting targets.
And before you ask, no I have never been in an actual gun fight I have however drawn in self defense twice and have experienced just how strong that adrenalin dump is
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...I know because I'm a pilot.
Why ask less of professionals who use firearms as part of their job?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)to handle an emergency. Or are they trained to ignore that?
Just askin..
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...and that's to FLY the PLANE. All other tasks become secondary.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Have you ever had an actual life or death emergency while flying?
If you did, did you have to overcome that moment of "OMG is this really happening?" before taking action?
Training is one thing but your first "Oh shit" moment is a completely different animal.
I'm not saying that this was the case in this situation, but ,unless you''re insane' there is a mental hurdle to be overcome before you can open fire on another human being.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)2) No, I kept my focus on my job.
3) I was trained well enough that the "oh shit" moment lasted a millisecond. After than, I did my job. Failure to do my job would've resulted in the deaths of myself, my wife and 3 others.
HALO141
(911 posts)do not unfold as quickly as a gunfight. VERY GENERALLY, gunfights last less than 5 seconds, average 3 rounds fired and take place at about 3' distance. Aviation emergencies are rarely as short lived and as explosively violent. Stall/spin on approach accidents might be somewhat comparable but they don't really leave the pilot with any options anyway.
I don't think those types of situations are really comparable.
Ashgrey77
(236 posts)Like the 99% of the rest of us have to everyday. If I shot a bystander on accident in a defensive shootout they'd throw me in jail and make a national scene out of it. I'd have to live with that. Why the hell don't "police officers" who make really bad decisions get the same treatment? Thin blue line? Ends justify means?
HALO141
(911 posts)they took the only option that was really open to them. Sometimes shitty situations turn out shitty.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... any one of these bozos join me on a hunting trip. And these are the people in which we are supposed to depend on to protect us?
I think I'll be much safer protecting myself, thanks all the same.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)As this story shows, in high-pressure situations, even trained professionals make errors, particularly in dense urban areas. The last thing you want is some gun nut trying to play hero on the streets of New York.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Occasionally, very rarely, a CCWer will miss and hit an innocent. You won't find a case where we have mowed down bunches of innocents with misses. There have been numerous cases in which a CCWer has intervened in a crime and it is extremely rare for an innocent to get hit by the CCWer.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and is safer than the average NYPD. It seems that NYPD issue pistols are modified to have a harder trigger pull. A 12 pound trigger pull makes accurate fire almost impossible. The reason for the modification is because NYC cops can't keep their fingers off the trigger until they fire, making the average Montana ten year old safer with a gun. If you read the posts by people who actually know what they are talking about..............
That said, the average CCW would not play hero.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Fortunately, New York City has very tight rules on conceal carry permits, so you don't get a lot of would be gun heros in the crowded streets of Manhattan.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)besides the one guy who hit the human shield?
Actually, cops are more likely. If NYPD didn't have the modified triggers, they likely would not have hit nine other people.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Are you really claiming that CCWers don't shoot people by accident? Chasing criminals is part of a police officer's job, whereas most CCW-ers don't see any action. But that doesn't mean that an amateur gun nut with a CC permit will perform better than a trained police officer.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)However, most of us will not get involved in a gunfight in which we are not personally threatened. I am a Longhorn, NOT a Sheepdog. A personal threat is usually so close that missing isn't a problem as they are at point-blank range. About half of self-defense shootings are so close that they leave powder burns on the perp.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)they don't, that is a cartoon figure created in the imaginations of your side. That said, the average CCW or average hobbyist goes to the range more often than the average cop. Outside of SWAT teams, they learn basic marksmanship then are supposed to qualify once a year.
Point is, out of the 14-16 rounds fired by police, 9 hit bystanders and flower pots. I don't call that highly trained.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Most gun owners are law abiding and an exceedingly small amount of legal guns are ever used for nefarious purposes.
2. If you CCW blood will run in the streets. Permitees will be killing each other every day
CCW licening passes: Blood doesn't run in the streets and violent crime actually goes down a little
3. Well...even with your gun and your permit you could never do ANYTHING to stop a killer.
Old man stops attacker from killing police officers at 160 yards with an old revolver
4. Well......let's ban guns anyway, they're bad!!!!
It's not easy to be on the losing side of history, but that's what we have therapists for.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)while the working man who lives in a rough neighborhood is DENIED.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)than the average cc citizen, however, most cops, other than specialized divisions like ESU, SWAT, only fire their weapons when they have to do their yearly weapons qualifications.
We, on the other hand, regularly go to the range and practice, practice, practice.
I know for a fact that I can out shoot most of the street cops in the nation.
And in that situation in NY yesterday, I certainly wouldn't have drawn and shot, why would I? He was no threat to me.
In a situation like that, my best weapons are my brain and my cell phone.
My gun is to protect me, not the general public.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)One that receives very little attention at other times of the year. For most police officers, their duty weapon is something they're obligated to wear, and they rarely (if ever) discharge it outside of quals. It's a miniscule part of their life, so they don't seek advanced or recurrent training beyond what the department requires of them at their academy. They don't go to the range unless they're ordered to, and don't read books, magazines, or websites about safety and marksmanship. Their gun is just another tool they're required to wear on their belt.
For the average yahoo gun nut, their guns are for frequent recreation and potential protection. They often seek out formal training above and beyond what their state may require. They practice firing their guns on target with live ammunition many times throughout the year, and take personal pride in their marksmanship. This isn't an obligation for them -- it's a valued skill and pastime in its own right.
So yeah, I'd say the average yahoo gun nut is better trained, despite not being trained by The State.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)the average CHL holder spends more hours at the range than the average cop.
Whereas the cop . . . has a fancy uniform that makes him feel special and all sorts of legal protections when he screws up.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)NYPD cops, being generally urban people born, raised, and living in an urban environment, don't. Because, yanno, all those urban citizens are just so civilized that they eschew guns and the gun lifestyle that I've heard so much about.
Face it... you may prefer to live around gun-disliking, civilized people in your day-to-day life. Doubtless you feel safer in a city that does not issue CCW permits than living in a city where 1 or 2 or 5% of the people you're walking with may be carrying concealed.
But when the shit goes down and guns are being fired, you want the cop pulling the trigger to do more than do the bare minimum. You want the cop to practice regularly, on his own time, above and beyond what the department requires. You want the cop shooting to protect the public to be the guy who likes going action pistol shooting like IPSC, IDPA, and CAS. The guy that can disassemble his gun without thinking about it, and reassemble it just as quickly.
Do you think the NYPD rank-and-file spends time going to IDPA shoots? Going cowboy action shooting? Unlikely!
spin
(17,493 posts)I don't have the equipment to measure it but according to this excerpt from a review on this weapon:
Frankly, the trigger of any new Airweight is as stiff as a dead carp and cries out for a power assist. Or at least a windlass. Measuring the pull weight is tough since it exceeds the limit of most truck scales, but 200 kilos sounds about right. That’s a total exaggeration of course. Would you believe more than 12 pounds?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/09/ralph/gun-review-smith-wesson-model-642/
My snubbie is not a easy handgun to shoot and with it's sights it is definitely not a target handgun. But with practice you can rapidly hit a target at a reasonable range such as 21 to 45 feet.
Of course there is a considerable difference between a Glock trigger and the long, heavy but smooth trigger pull on my revolver. The standard Glock trigger was worked fine for me on the weapons I have fired at the range but I only have dry fired a Glock with a New York trigger one time.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Straw Man
(6,622 posts)NYPD are "trained professionals" when it comes to firearms? Please. Their reputation is abysmal. Does the name "Amadou Diallo" ring a bell?
One of my shooting acquaintances is a retired firearms trainer for the NYPD. He makes no secret of the fact that firearms training is a low priority for the brass and the rank-and-file officers alike. I have taken classes with NYPD officers. One in particular stands out: he was incapable of reholstering his pistol without getting his shirt-tail stuck in the holster with it. This is not good for many reasons.
Most NYPD officers have no interest in firearms training. They do the bare minimum, which is fine with the bean-counters, who don't want to mandate more advanced training because it's cheaper to pay off the occasional liability case than it is to take officers off the street and put them on the range.
The Glock "NY Trigger" is an abomination: Rather than giving the officers adequate training with their new firearms, the powers-that-be sought a hardware solution, one that renders the weapon virtually impossible to shoot accurately. Earth to NYPD: the revolver generation is gone. Those guys have all retired or moved to desk jobs by now. Most of the new generation of officers have never touched anything but a striker-fired polymer-framed semi-auto. You can dump the 12-pound triggers now.
Trained professionals? It is to fucking laugh. Cling to your illusions if it makes you feel safer.
Paladin
(28,252 posts)burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)I feel no sympathy.
1. learn to shoot accurately
2. size up the circumstances, or
3. get off the force.
Quote:
If they can't follow basic firearms discipline, how can they be trusted to possess firearms in public?
end
I agree.
They don't know how to handle firearms, period.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)that'll stop this from happening.
BlueNinja
(25 posts)So some guy went on a rant in the New York Times comment section of one of the articles on this shooting that ended with, "Why are folks so quick to accuse those who are there to protect us of wrongdoing all the time?" I decided to reply with the following:
Why would people be dubious of the NYPD? Because the NYPD has a history of not protecting the public. The New York Police Department is one of the few that has earned a separate page for it's own history of corruption and misconduct on Wikipedia. A pattern of brutality, corruption, rape, and murder calls into question this department's stated purpose, "to protect and serve."
My comment was not published - what the hell is up with that? I didn't think it was that hyperbolic considering the fact that if you look at that Wikipedia page there are cases where some officers actually raped women who they were supposed to be helping, then numerous shootings that were questionable if not illegal, then the mafia cops, then questionable surveillance, then, then, then going back virtually to the beginning of the organization. So much for the "liberal" media.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)9 bystanders?? That speaks volumes about their gross incompetence. Lots of people need to loose their jobs, and the NYC PD needs to learn the basic rules of gun handling.
They where a far, FAR larger threat than the shooter.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)a common 60lb compound bow has about a 14 lb let off. You aren't that far off from reality!!
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)are jumping to defend the police. Would all of them do the same had it been a citizen who fired, stopping a murderer at the cost of 9 wounded?
-I am not saying that NYC should have been shall issue and all 500 people on the block opened fire. A responsible CCW holder should have followed the criminal and called 911, only intervening if it appeared the shooter was about to open fire and if safe to do so.
-while the NYPD has a long reputation of having 'mad minutes' and many apologists http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/opinion/odonnell-police-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 a 12 lb. trigger is ridiculous. Any more and they will need two officers to fire one gun. Good accuracy will be nearly impossible with such a heavy pull unless you train extensively. As pointed out by others, most cops are not 'gun nuts' and do not train much beyond the minimum requirement.
-I have heard an anecdote that NYPD training tells officers to expect to hit 1 out of 5 times in a shoot out. They also tell them to not expect the first hit to stop a person. This in effect is telling officers to spray and pray. This incident seems to bear that out.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)resort in NYC. It's the first option and par for the course.
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)I have known some 'gun nut' cops who were very proficient shooters, but the majority of cops consider a gun to be a heavy piece of gear they are required to carry.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)and be glad that the death toll was so small. It should have been zero, but it could have been much worse. Nine wounded is better by far than nine dead. Two funerals are enough.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)I know that the "establishment" from the top down, is very anti gun, this is not a secret. As part of an strong anti gun culture, is the view that guns are "killing machines" and serve no other purpose. So shooting sports are discouraged, and if you participate in them, your "suspect" or some kind of "gun nut"
So poor marksmanship and poor gun handling goes hand in hand with with a very real lack of skills. After all, why would you want too shoot?? (in their eyes)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)They have tasers for situations like this. There should be no guns in the street, including cops, criminals and so-called "law abiding citizens".
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)it would be a cruel joke if the cops were disarmed, also, you would have cops resigning enmasse and trying to recruit new cops would be nearly impossible.
As far as no guns in the streets, that train left the station a long time ago and it's not coming back.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I don't know why you say it would be a cruel joke. Many cops would resign and that would be a good thing. They would replaced by cops who care about community, rather than perpetuating divisiveness. There is no need for cops on routine patrol to carry sidearms. It is offensive and alienating and promotes a culture of "us versus them". The OP illustrates this perfectly.
As for your train analogy, they run on tracks that run in both directions.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Clames
(2,038 posts)...could only imagine the body count had these cops been carrying MP5 SMG's.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Clames
(2,038 posts)Probably why both my cousins want to move here to finish their degrees and earn a much better living for themselves. If you are an example of a product of the education system there then I don't blame them at all...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Plus they'll be able to take guns to class. Whoopee!
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)And I see you're still peddling your "peaceable kingdom" tripe.
Tasers against criminals who are carrying firearms? Is that policy in the UK? Somehow I doubt it.
Or do the UK police only deploy firearms against unarmed suspects?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Straw Man
(6,622 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)what every ten year old in Montana and Wyoming knows, to keep the finger off the trigger, NYPD could use standard triggers instead of the 12 pound ones.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Well that solves the whole fucking problem. Who'd a thunk it?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)If cops are going to be "professional toters", they should act it. They should care for the equipment their department issues them and be more proficient in using it than 40 rounds a year. That is less than what New Zealand requires for a target shooter to keep his possession license. I'm not saying they should be Olympic or ISSF athletes, but at least 100 rounds a week with reoccurring safety training.
Since we are talking about NYPD, they need more training when not to use it as well.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)suggesting that America disarm law enforcement officers? What is the matter with you? If you think there is violence in our cities now, just take away the guns from all the cops and watch the criminals take over. If you have never seen the 1981 movie "Escape from New York" you need to see it because that is the result of what it is that you are proposing.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And yes, I am deadly serious about removing standard handgun carry from LE. I think the UK model is the best out there. Not perfect, but way better than anywhere else, especially the US.
If you understand the average criminal mind, you will realize that he plays by a set of rules. A small percentage of criminals resort to guns, just as a tiny fraction of cops ever fire a weapon in the line of duty.
Usually, to test an idea, we run trial tests. In this case, the UK is the trial test. It works.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)with different cultures and different social problems. How about convincing the rest of Europe first?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)That's how we learn from each other. Especially when the differences are not that great. The US, UK, NZ, Canada and Australia are all very similar societies in terms of social justice and heritage. We all learn from each other every day. Humility helps, while hubris gets in the way.
Clames
(2,038 posts)..to what we have in the US in those that believe the Confederacy didn't really lose and will someday "rise again". Except in his case it is the American Revolutionary War. Never mind the 228 years (229 years this coming Labor Day...
) of cultural change that now exists, because it works in England it must be able to work in the U.S. 
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I have two brothers who are cops. I'm going to see what they think of working a shift unarmed while the criminals out there are fully armed and willing to shoot. Of course a tiny fraction of cops ever fire their weapon. Hell, a tiny fraction of cops ever take their weapon out of their holster with the idea they might have to shoot. What's your point by bringing that up?
What happens in UK law enforcement has absolutely zero impact on what happens in the U.S.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Asking US cops is like asking a junkie what it's like without a daily fix, or asking a mailman what it's like to deliver mail barefoot.
If you read the extremist pro-gun propaganda, they often refer to the UK as having the highest violent crime rates. As a former UK police officer, I agree that the UK is more violent than the US, yet there is no need nor desire for cops on regular patrol to be armed. Go figure.
BTW, even here in the Gungeon, it is frowned upon to fellow members as being crazy, or "out of your mind". Personally, I rarely alert on such things, but as you are fairly new I thought I'd give you a heads up.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)cop ANYTHING help a U.S. cop about enforcing laws here?
You are almost correct about my insult to you. I probably should have chosen my words more carefully, but it actuality, it was a question posed with a touch of hyperbole, but mostly disbelief. (Edit, I just realized I did not pose it as a question, but as a statement). (Oh, and I wonder why it seems to be ok for anti-gun DUers to insult those that support RKBA but not the other way around. I have been called much worse things here than questioning the state of my mind).
I am still amazed that anyone would actually suggest disarming American police officers. The criminals would control the streets of every major American city in about 4 weeks if your idea were implemented nation-wide. That might not be the case in all areas however. I would guess that if the cops stopped carrying guns there would be more gun owners carrying guns to protect themselves.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)and I think you are in the wrong place. Maybe your "brothers" can enlighten you as to what cops actually are supposed to be about. I don't know about where you live but in NYC the motto is "To protect and serve".
Where I come from a cop's priorities are as follows
1. To protect life
2. To protect property
3. To prevent crime
4. To detect crime
5. To apprehend offenders
6. To maintain the peace.
BTW, I am not anti-gun, just anti-carry by anyone, without good cause.
You can go back to your Dirty Harry movies now.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)From the NYPD web page.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/administration/mission.shtml
The MISSION of the New York City Police Department is to enhance the quality of life in our City by working in partnership with the community and in accordance with constitutional rights to enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear, and provide for a safe environment.
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE COMMUNITY, WE PLEDGE TO:
Protect the lives and property of our fellow citizens and impartially enforce the law.
Fight crime both by preventing it and by agressively pursuing violators of the law.
Maintain a higher standard of integrity than is generally expected of others because so much is expected of us.
Value human life, respect the dignity of each individual and render our services with courtesy and civility.
There is no "motto" for the NYPD.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)NYPD has the motto "Fidelis Ad Mortem." (Faith to the death)
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)You say you are not anti-gun, just anti-carry BY ANYONE INCLUDING THE POLICE. That is just unbelievable. Most cops never pull out their weapon. They don't even write all that many speeding tickets. What they mostly do is help people including auto accidents and a lot of medical situations. The dramatic stuff that makes the news is when cops are in fact, enforcing laws such as those against murder, theft, and general mayhem. Those are not legal terms, so don't get upset over my choice of words.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Obviously, officers engaged in tactical operations like SWAT need to be armed. Patrol cars should always have a weapon available (shotgun is best). I'm talking about beat cops on regular patrol carrying sidearms. Pepper spray, tasers and batons are more than sufficient. Believe it or not, I think overall violence would decrease dramatically if cops didn't carry guns.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)but what's to stop the criminals, who will always have access to weapons, from just shooting cops?
Disarmed cops may work in the U.K., but in America, it would be a cruel joke and it will never happen and I would vigorously oppose it.
Now I do oppose the militarization of our police forces, I say get rid of the military style uniforms, get rid of the assault vehicles, better firearms training for the police so they don't wildly spray bullets and wound innocents, better training on the use of pepper spray or stun guns, get cops back to walking beats and get to know the people in their district.
That's just a few suggestions which might start to restore the trust between the police and citizens, but disarm the cops, that's not even negotiable for me and I think most citizens would agree with me.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)However, as has been pointed out many times here, guns can always be found by those who want them, even in the UK. Now, see how many cops are killed with them. The numbers speak for themselves. There is a basic code of human conduct, that you don't shoot an unarmed man. You will also find that an unarmed man garners far more respect, while an armed man is the enemy and fair game.
The fact that few might agree with me, doesn't mean I'm wrong. Doesn't mean I'm right either, but I do speak from some experience.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)you are comparing the U.K. to the U.S., totally different culture, and I too speak from experience.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The entire justice system is based on English common law. Both have a Bill of Rights which originate with Magna Carta. The Founding Fathers were all British. Neither can brag about it's cuisine, though I give America the edge. Are you insinuating that America is less civilized, or more violent? If so, I disagree.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)"...basic code of human conduct, that you don't shoot an unarmed man."?
Where are you getting this stuff? The low-life thugs, hoodlums, dirtbags, and scum-of-the-earth do not conduct their lives by your 'code'. The gangbangers do not resolve their disputes using Queensberry Rules. Unbelievable.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)If the beat cops are not armed then you are just handing over the streets to the hoodlums. If the bad guys know the cop does not have a gun, what do you think will happen? They'll laugh at the cop's orders to stand down.
While many squad cars still have shotguns in locked holders in the front seat area, many have switch over to tactical machine guns. Oh my, now what are you going to do?
I heard a story on the radio about a cop in Arizona who was in a restaurant. One of the other customers asked the manager if the cop would please remove his gun from his holster and put it in his car because it made her feel scared. OF course the cop could not comply, he would have broken all kinds of rules and regulations had he done so. Was that your wife?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)You are even more delusional than I first thought. If you disarm the police chaos will reign over every city in this country. I understand someone not liking guns or being afraid of guns. I cannot understand someone who wishes to hand over our country to the criminals. If you disarm the cops then there are no 'rules'.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)They abuse Tasers all the time, too, sometimes with deadly results. It's their mindset that needs to be fixed. There are too many people wearing badges who are just looking to heads to bust.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)guns kill
bullets kill
the nra kills
a gun never saved anyone
Mike Bloomberg has the money to defeat the NRA and stop things from happening before they do.I wish him well.
the only answer is to get rid of all guns and bullets.(or find a way to like Superman, make them useless.) WHATEVER IT TAKES would be worth it (IMHO, its my opinion, you may have yours).
these two guys should have just stepped in a boxing ring and gotten their agressions and whatever it was out there.
how stupid the gun killed both of them.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)you forgot the sarcasm tag.
Bloomberg has the money to defeat the NRA and stop things from happening before they do. I wish him well.
You forgot the sarcasm tag again.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)live by the gun, die by the gun
guns have saved no one , although the NRA backers will post an article somewhere stating it did.
If it only saves one person a year, it would be worth it
However, it will save thousands and thousands, and we sure could use those people being alive tax money.
as I have said before, if say the Million Man March was redone this year, and moved to Arizona were guns are paraded and wanted all the time...and every single one of the million men marching would have a legal gun and make sure to show it (like the tea party people did in 2010 outside townhalls), like sure, that will be allowed to go on.
you would see the tea party plant a phony incident to start trouble agitating a mess that would end up having all the marchers either arrested or shot
all because of a gun.
Guns do not buy freedom
(go watch an old twilight zone or two for a good analogy, or better yet, during halftime in America, watch UNFORGIVEN or Gran Torino.
and then tax bullets to make each one as expensive as a new car, and audit the NRA.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Ever been to Arizona? Ever meet anyone actually from there? I don't mean colonists from New York, New Jersey, and California. Joey brought his fascistic ass from New Jersey, moved there from California to make a name for herself.
If the Million Man March were to go to Wyoming, where there are a lot more guns and gun owners per capita, what would happen?
Nothing. OK restaurants, bars, and hotels in that area would be making shit loads of money.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)but it didn't help. Google does not translate word salad.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Translation: "I'm an Idiot"
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Go tell the Lybians.
Oh, and the Syrians.
Or, better yet, pick up a feaking history book and actually read it.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)nor do guns have anything to do with the 2nd amendment
facts always ignored by the 2nd amendment fanatics who seem to not understand what the founding fathers were saying
(of course, I wouldn't argue if you want to put a cannon in your front door facing in or out, as that indeed is what the 2nd amendment is talking about).
guns are not glorious. they are weapons of mass destructions.
Guns have killed more than say the entire total that Bush41 and Bush43 saw die on their watch in their wars.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Just scan over the page and you will usually see several stories in which people have used guns to save lives by shooting or scaring off an armed criminal.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)there is almost NO statistical difference (just statistical noise) from having an incidental every so often.
changes nothing.
guns made
guns kill
and legal guns kill more than illegal guns I bet.
like the bartending plying a person who will die of liver disease from that alchohol, a gun dealer/seller is bloodying ones own hands every time a bullet or gun is sold.
everytime someone posts a story, (like the one the other day where a little boy got his dads gun and shot I think it was an uncle)
tit for tat back and forth, guns and bullets are made to kill something, someone, and someone who is loved will be buried and one after another family (including that loving dog waiting by the door waiting for his person to come home and never will) will be changed all thanks to a gun.
Most criminals that rob or steal do not use a gun in states where a gun will get you maximum no questions asked jail time. Most lifetime criminals are not stupid.
People who are desperate (either from drugs or economy) just need a job and a helping hand and they revert from criminal to active great member of society.
(In fact, if there was a national service mandatory rule, it would stop 90% of the kids from lives of crime once they reach the age, and follow that with a guarantee of a good job,
and it takes the crime out of it
but meanwhile, the gun and bullet still lives and kills.
and as the vast majority of people some consider criminals are good human beings, a gun killing that person has also further down the line ruined many families because that person is now dead from a gun.
the bullcrap about criminals is just that.
Get rid of the criminals make them productive citizens, at the same time, get rid of the guns and bullets.
and best suggestion- audit, then get rid of the NRA
AnJo1
(7 posts)but if I understood you correctly, if it saves even one life "it" (presumably a total gun ban) would be worth it, but numerous reports of people using guns to save their own or others' lives is statistical noise. Is that supposed to make sense? And as an NRA member, how exactly do you propose to get rid of us if you've forsworn shooting us? Lethal injection for all of its several million members?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)people with minds don't need to have a Mitt Romney type money lobby corporate group supporting radical rightwing extremist (like those dudes arrested for atttempting to overthrow the government in Georgia)
audit the nra
it certainly is not financed by your 35buck fees
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)It certainly is financed by member's dues.
What reason would you have for an audit of the NRA?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)alot(supposedly) of that money goes to the members rewards for being a member(ala the fan club kit)
so the figure then available for their lobby is much lower, yet they spend much more.
(let alone the daily expenses and salaries of the millionaire runners and staff of the offices, and the cost of toilet paper for each office, which is not cheap).
Why afraid of an audit of the NRA? especially when the fuzzy math just doesn't add up. It reminds me of Mitt not releasing his tax records.
btw-if Trey had a gun instead of being unarmed and killed Zimmerman,(as opposed to the coward Zim killing an unarmed man), would the NRA back him?
The NRA is great when backing someone shooting an unarmed, not doing any harm, person.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)The math does add up despite what you may think.
Do you think that the NRA is doing something illegal? If so, then the onus is on you to prove it. Is this your solution for org. you don't like? Sic the IRS after them?
The fact is that you don't like the NRA and all you're doing is slinging mud hoping something sticks.
For the record, I am not a member of the NRA.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I am not a practicing accountant, but that was my major years ago in school...
I am just giving my opinion that 2 plus 2 don't equal 5
nothing wrong with an audit if there is nothing to hide. I am always amazed people are so afraid of them, because if you have nothing to hide, there won't be anything you need to be afraid of.
and you reminded me of another point-
why in a country of 311, 591, 917 people, (according to the US Census bureau)
does an organization of 4.3 (the NRA number of people signed up) has so much clout???
That is what? 1.5% or less of the population. What about the other 98.5%?
that alone is ridiculous, isn't it? to have an organization of so few, almost mob style exert power and threats over any politician not rich by funding the other candidate?
if it were any other org. I think every single person here would be against it
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)That is what the Brady Campaign claims as members. That is even more ridiculous to let a astro turf group funded by a foundation and a couple of billionaires to exert control over policy that most Americans disagree with.
There are also other gun rights groups, and there are about 80 million gun owners. Are you saying everyone else outside of the NRA agrees with you?
--- William Safire (originally from a New York Times column), Los Angeles Daily News, June 15, 1999, P. 15.
Tricky Dick realized that it wasn't the NRA lobby, which didn't exist when he was president, but pissed off grassroots that would send the Republican Party into oblivion for years to come.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)forget the feelings about Nixon, what he said was correct in the four words above.
(and Nixon would not be in the republican party today, he would be considered a flaming liberal to what the republicans have in 2012 become.)
without a gun, Nixon never would have become President, because JFK would have remained president (possibly with LBJ or RFK following him, were it not for another gun RFK would have possibly won
think about it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I'm not into alternate history. There is no way to guess who would have won.
Of course there is always the list of 99 percenters that would have been dead or seriously injured without a gun to defend themselves.
In Clinton's autobiography, he learned the lesson Nixon already knew with the so called AWB, which did nothing. The AWB was reintroduced in 2007 by two obscure Republicans. It had no co sponsors and went nowhere.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)and that counts for a hell of a lot of clout, and we make sure our voices are heard, like voting.
Are you aware that over 1/2 of the House and 1/2 of the Senate are A rated by the NRA? Why do you think that is?
Because gun owners vote.
I'm quite sure that the NRA has been audited and passed quite handily, that's why their still in business.
AnJo1
(7 posts)Seriously? I've had two IRS audits and one colonoscopy. The IRS ended up owing me money on both audits (a little) so clearly I had nothing to hide, and I had to pay through thru the . . . well, I had to pay quite a bit for the colonoscopy, but I'd rather do another one of those any day than another IRS audit. Takes less preparation, less time, less inconvenience, and far less humiliation. (Seriously, is it really my government's business how much I spend on dry cleaning per month, particularly when I'm not claiming it as a deduction?)
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)some people hate the searches when going into airplanes
me, I love the idea that what happened 9/11 won't happen if there are good security practices in place
same with being frisked going to a concert the last 20 or 25 years at Madison Square Garden
it's my constitutional right to peaceful assembly and my pursuit of happiness that nothing bad happens inside or on a plane
I want equality- that those without guns are not bothered by drunks with guns
the criminals should be trained to not be criminals(schooling, jobs)
after all, majority of crime is because of poverty. Remove the causes, and all gang members would rather work for a living a better.
why are guns allowed in bars in some state? Is there anything more insane?
AnJo1
(7 posts)Personally, I feel safer (because I AM safer) when I know that in any crowd, there are at least a few background-checked licensed individuals carrying firearms, me included. So where's my right to peaceably assemble? And why must I be subjected to humilliating groping by poorly trained and even more poorly background-checked people, which seriously detracts from my "pursuit of happiness" just so that you can "feel" safer, while outside our boarding gate, undocumented immigrants with false IDs load the baggage, stock the food and should they be so inclined, plant their bombs on our airplane?
"majority of crime is because of poverty. Remove the causes, and all gang members would rather work for a living." Well, Bernie Madoff, along with a whole lot of bankers and mortgage lenders will be relieved to hear YOU, at least, don't consider their behavior criminal.
It is not poverty, per se, that causes violent crime, or there would be more female violent offenders than male, while in fact the ratio is about 90% male to 10% female. And plenty of violent criminals have an air conditioned house with a well stocked refrigerator waiting for them when they decide to snuggle in.
Why are car keys allowed in bars in every state? Is there anything more insane? Many thousands more people are killed every year by drunk drivers than by drunken licensed firearms carriers. In fact, in the average year, I doubt if ANYBODY is killed by a drunken CCW permit holder.
AnJo1
(7 posts)I did a search on their website, and the only mentions of the Zimmerman/Martin case were discussions about how the Florida Stand Your Ground Law was irrelevant to the case, since the real question is a factual one of who was attacking whom, not whether anybody had an opportunity to retreat and chose not to take it. It was pretty clear from the summaries of the videos that the NRA was taking no position on whose version of the facts was correct.
The NRA was audited very thoroughly during the Clinton Administration's program of auditing opposition groups. I think it was 1995. IIRC, that fact came to light via an IRS whistleblower. Whether they've been audited since then would not usually be a matter of public record, so I'd be interested to know how you know that they haven't been.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)From your post #111: "...guns have saved no one ...". That is an absolute statement. For me to prove your statement false all I have to do is show one time where a gun has saved someone. We post such stories regularly here on the gungeon, proving that guns do save people. So the question then becomes does legal gun ownership save more people than it kills. Luckily there is some hard data on exactly that quesiton:
Legal concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes.
In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2011 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm
In 2011 there were 512,625 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there were exactly four (4) murder convictions. Out of the general population there were 553 convictions for murder in its various forms.
So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.
The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/10/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:
Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2010, there were 98 justifiable homicides, of
which, 50 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 48 were felons killed by police.
In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 50 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender genuinely and legitimately feared for his life. Since most shootings are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.
Dozens of innocent lives saved versus four innocents killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.
Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)it sends the topic to areas the NRA people love to argue in- as it distorts from the original thought
it's
the total number of people killed or injured by a gun in the usa
vs.
the number of people of people in the entire USA (or world) that are injured or harmed by a gun or a bullet, regardless of circumstances, and regardless if it is one person shooting themselves accidentally or kids or adults or whatnot.
because most shootings have nothing to do with a crime being committed at all
bullets going astray, accidentally firing, thinking there is a crime but it is a relative in the house, etc.
not to mention all the arguments between friends where a gun makes it fatal (or enemies with grudges like the Empire state shooting).
and YES if you add all the states, those wild west states (like Texas or Arizona or others) will indeed distort the entire USA as there are some cities that have zero killings by gunfire in a criminal case in decades.
and as stated earlier, you have in areas where they take using gun harshly- those criminals who are lifetime criminals do not use guns at all, knowing that their petty crimes will become a major crime with zero tolerance if they had a gun on them when arrested.
so it's a bogus shift of hand really because its not the guns save/criminals use ratio, but the entire scope of guns used that injure or harm all across the country in or not in use during a crime on either side. (and that alone can also include someone accidentally wounding themselves when the gun goes off, or fooling around, or not realizing another bullet is in gun, etc.)
AnJo1
(7 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The numbers can be looked up.
You said: because most shootings have nothing to do with a crime being committed at all
Here are the gun death numbers for 2007 for the entire nation, all ages.
Accidental gunshot deaths 613
Suicide 17,350
Homicide 12,623 (That number has dropped markedly in the last five years.)
Killed by police 351
Killed in self-defense 276 (That number appears be growing somewhat since 2007.)
So most gun deaths, after suicide, are due to criminal use. Murders is very, very rarely a first offense crime. Almost always the murderer has a criminal history.
A person who has determined to take their own life can easily find many other ways to do it so banning guns won't help there.
Taking guns away from the law-abiding will have no effect upon criminals as they don't obey laws anyway.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)what do you think it means?
it means killing someone
and can include a million different scenerios
needless to say, the vast majority of those homicide deaths you posted by a gun, might have been avoided have there been no guns
(and if guns were more regulated or taxed or something, those figures would drop...
If the goal is to get that number lower, well, there are plenty of ways to know where guns are but it would mean more of things people don't want. Most criminals do not want to be caught and guns make it easier to catch them(if the right things are in place to stop them).
but I ask-what is the ultimate goal of the gun people? Why do they REALLY want their guns
and hundreds or thousands of rounds of ammo? How many deer can one shoot in a lifetime?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)If the goal is to get that number lower, well, there are plenty of ways to know where guns are but it would mean more of things people don't want. Most criminals do not want to be caught and guns make it easier to catch them(if the right things are in place to stop them).
and hundreds or thousands of rounds of ammo? How many deer can one shoot in a lifetime?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I listed Suicide, Homicide, Killed by police, and Killed in self-defense. That pretty well covers all categories. Homicide, as I used it in the post, was intended to cover unlawful homicide, ie: manslaughter and murder.
Restrictions on law-abiding gun owners has no effect on criminals. Why do you think taking my guns away from me will somehow make a criminal give his up?
Yes, if guns had never been invented there would be no gun deaths. So you would be happier is more people were stabbed or beaten to death? Guns do save lives, lots of them. My own wife is alive because she had a gun to protect herself when she needed it. Otherwise she would have been murdered. Would that have made you happy?
Only about 20% of gun owners are hunters. The rest of us use guns for other, lawful, reasons. Staying proficient in anything takes practice. Practice with a gun means ammo used.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)when a kid says his friend does it why can't he?
and a father says, if your friend jumps off the world trade center, would you?
and well, they got rid of the world trade center, therefore no one can jump off it
(moral of story-
if they got rid of guns, no one would be shot.)
Majority of gun wounds with the bullets those people want to buy kill or wound badly
Majority of knife wounds are not serious and people go on with their daily life (like when I cut myself while slicing a bagel, life went on).
I am not going to comment on your personal situation, as I am happy for you that she had it when she needed it.And that gets into the "Dukakis-Bernie Shaw" question.
but as I said a few weeks ago in the Colorado theater thread, it is my constitutional right to peaceful assembly, or the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness when someone with a gun makes one afraid to go and see a movie, or eat in a restaurant, etc.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Knives are extremely effective weapons.
An Old Hickory brand kitchen butcher knife with a 10" carbon-steel blade, razor sharp is under $20. No serial numbers, can't be traced, anybody can buy, even minors, sold in most supermarkets. One fast slash across the abdomen can disembowel a person, a fast slash across the throat is usually fatal. A knife is near silent in use and doesn't attract attention the way a gunshot does. At that low price the knife is disposable - wear gloves and throw it away after use.
Watch this video of a Cold Steel Bowie (Laredo Style) and learn what a high quality knife can do. It cost a little over $100, much less than most pistols.
Your bagel cut was a very minor cut. A chop with a good Bowie can take off your hand
AnJo1
(7 posts)but I can tell you why I want guns and the thousands of rounds of ammo I have for them.
I want and have a .22LR pistol for practice. The ammo is cheap (and cheaper still if purchased in bulk) so when it's on sale I buy a bunch, and try to keep about 5000 rounds on hand. (I buy rice, beans, flour, etc., in 25 lb. bags, too.) I can go through 100-200 rounds easily in one range session, especially if I take a a niece or nephew (they all shoot and it's a nice bonding activity), or a novice shooter friend along to introduce to the activity. (And every single friend has enjoyed it and come away with a new appreciation both for the sport and for the care that goes into safe firearm handling.)
I want and have a 9mm pistol for home defense. The ammo is more expensive, but I still need to practice with it, so go through about 50 rounds per practice session for me, and about the same for a companion. As always, I buy in bulk on sale, typically 4 boxes at a time of 250 rounds each. I try to keep about 2000-3000 rounds on hand. That gun's standard magazine holds 17 rounds, by the way, so some would consider it a "high capacity" magazine and try to ban it. I like it because I don't have to stop and reload the magazines as often when I'm at the range.
I have but don't much like a .380 pistol. If I can't figure out and fix why it keeps stovepiping, I'm getting rid of it. If it were reliable, I guess it would make an OK carry pistol but I'm not a fan of the caliber. I didn't buy it; got it from a friend in partial payment of a debt. Another thing some people would like to ban: The ability of private parties to buy and sell guns.
I want and am looking for a compact pistol for every-day carry. My current 9mm is just too big and heavy. I might get another 9mm but I might choose a .40 cal instead.
I want and have a .22LR rifle for small game hunting and rifle-shooting practice. It uses the same ammo as the .22LR pistol, so again, it's cheaper to practice with.
I have a couple of .30-30 rifles inherited from a parent. They're collector's items - never been shot, so I want a couple of other rifles for hunting purposes. And in the unlikely event I ever decide to live or work in an area potentially subject to total breakdown of police protection, as happened in LA in 1992 or New Orleans after Katrina.
I want and will probably someday get a revolver, just because I think they're interesting. Oh, and derringers are kind of cute. And 1911s have such historical significance. And then, once you've got a half-dozen or so, some people get bitten by the collector's bug and like a friend of mine, find themselves owning over 100 different guns.
Notice what's NOT on my list of reasons for having my guns: To shoot anybody who's not actively threatening to harm me or someone near me; to overthrow the government; to engage in vigilante actions; to shoot up schools, theaters, military bases, or other "gun-free zones" aka "crazies can shoot with impunity zones."
Response to graham4anything (Reply #111)
Simo 1939_1940 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)I love the way you mock anti-gun extremists.
Welcome to DU!
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Talk to him before you presume to preach your self-righteousness to us.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)See, e.g., FN FNP USGs.
Ashgrey77
(236 posts)Glocks are one of the most widely used hanguns on the market. The 12 pound trigger pull is the problem. A 12 pound trigger pull on any firearm is gonna cause problems.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)The trigger pull for a double-action/single action pistol changes according to whether it is being fired as a double-action pistol or as a single-action pistol.
New York Police Glocks have a consistent 12-pound pull whether the shooter is firing the first round or a subsequent round. The New York mayor wants to avoid accidental discharges by mandating the usage of a semi-automatic with a heavy trigger pull. In a manner consistent with that, if a weapon has already been fired and a cop is pointing at a target to shoot again, the cop needs to have as much accuracy as possible at that time and Bloomberg should not have the same type of concern that he had about accidental discharges.
If Bloomberg wants to avoid the accidental shooting of bystanders when a pistol is too hard to keep on target because of an excessive heavy trigger pull, he should consider giving up the Glocks in favor of a double-action/single action pistol.
The alternative would not have to be a FN FNP USG. However, the trigger pull for a FNP-9 in double action is generally 8 pounds and, in single action, it is generally 3-4 pounds.
I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of the injured bystanders sues the City of New York on the Glocks being used by the cops could not be adequately controlled because the mandated trigger pull was excessively heavy.
So "Glocks are one of the most widely used hanguns on the market." Excuse me, but so what? A number of bystanders were just injured. A sensible mayor would start considering alternatives. One is that the springs on the existing New York police Glocks could be adjusted downward so that the trigger pull is not as heavy. Another alternative is to consider a double-action/single action pistol which will give the mayor what he wanted with a heavier trigger pull, and give him what he should want in order to allow the cops to control their weapons for greater accuracy after the first round is fired.
If an 8 pound trigger pull for a FNP-9 in a double action mode is not heavy enough for the mayor for the first round, he could have that or the trigger pull on other double-action/single action pistol adjusted upwards.
Ashgrey77
(236 posts)So you like FNP's good for you. Most law enforcement use Glocks, 12 pound trigger is excessive and ONLY NYPD uses them. Easy fix, put the 5.5 pound triggers back in. No reason to switch a entire dept's firearms, armorer training, and weapons training just to get a lighter trigger pull. I doubt he'd be receptive to spending that kind of money on lowly handguns. You talk like Bloomberg even knows anything about handguns in the first place. He wants to ban them, thats the reason for the 12 pound pull, supposedly makes it harder for someone without training to use.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)"It sounds like Bloomberg and the other people running NYC hate guns SO much that they don't even want their officers adequately trained. "
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Iggy
(1,418 posts)Bloomberg, who wants stricter gun laws in NYC, now has to explain why his police
department behaves like NYC is the wild, wild, west.
Two, this will cost NYC millions of dollars in lawsuits.. as the victims of the police shootings
will def. sue the police department and NYC in general for damages, pain and suffering,
etc.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)idea I can think of...it can't end well. A person who shoots regularly and under no pressure couldn't accurately, consistently group shots with a 12# trigger.
That said, Glock has to be the #1 ND weapon on the market. There are millions of Glocks out there. The flaw is in the disassembley process requiring the trigger be pulled. Granted a person preparing to disassemble a gun should always check the chamber, the fact remains some people won't or will forget. Glock should have, years ago, developed a decock of some sort which doesn't allow the hammer to impact the firing pin. Instead every time the gun is disassembled the trigger must be pulled resulting in many, many negligent discharges.
HALO141
(911 posts)I'm not a big fan of the police. Still, it should be noted that of the 16 shots fired, 9 of them hit the target. That's a 56% hit rate and far better than the national average we see from the police. NYPD is going to take a lot of flak over this and, no doubt, it'll have to defend itself in some civil suits. Rightly so. I'd love it if LEO's were better trained and I'd love it if they took the "gunman" aspect of their jobs more seriously but I don't see that happening. The vast majority of police officers are far behind the average competitive shooter.
Look at where this happened. Manhattan sidewalk, 09:00. Events unfold in just a few seconds. There are no accessible options for a better firing solution that still allow an immediate response. Considering the circumstances, I just don't believe there is any real possibility for a good outcome, just various flavors of bad.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)if the grudge holder did not have a gun, no other person would have been injured
(especially if they took it to a boxing ring in a gym, or wrestled or something.
also- as the people knew the protagonists, it would seem like the police could have made an arrest at another time, as the one specific person was already dead the perp was going after.
This also was NOT a NY city event because this could have happened in the middle of the desert with no one but the two of them around for 100s of miles
two immature men
two by a gun and bullets
two men dead
isn't it really stupid?
maybe one of them could have apologized years ago and the two could have hugged and gone on with their lives???
Did they think they were the Hatfield and McCoys?
HALO141
(911 posts)There's nothing you can do to guarantee this.
"it would seem like the police could have made an arrest at another time"
Are you really suggesting that the officers on the scene let the shooter just walk away? How would they know that the shooter was finished? When the shooter melts into the crowd and leaves the city, what then?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)he easily could have been arrested (or perhaps he would have done himself in)
he was NOT a mass shooter, he wanted and got the one person so the danger was over
(though the two rightwing NY papers tried to make it more than it was when it happened)
having a shootout on 34th street was insane...and very lucky more weren't hurt...
imagine if there were MORE guns available by the tourists bringing in their "legal" ones from other states
Thank whomever that you can't in NYC
This is actually the perfect example how others carrying a gun would have only made it
worse. Proof actually.
(and I am a fan of 90% of what Bloomberg is(the Boston liberal democrat he is(was) before converting to win his first election), and not a fan of the NY Cops (which in reality, the mayor is not in control of as they are unofficially their own entity).
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)he easily could have been arrested (or perhaps he would have done himself in)
The shooter wasn't a tourist, and his gun was flat-out illegal: no permit to possess or carry. And yet he managed to use it to commit murder. The people who obey the restrictions are not the people who commit the murders. If you think that means the restrictions are working, you need to check your M&M patch to see if there are any elephants in it. (I'll give you a hint: they paint their toenails different colors.)
Explain to me how the cops are supposed to have known that. Then tell me how it would have been so much better to just let him walk away.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word proof. Proof of your concept would require having had an armed citizen intervene with tragic results. Nothing like that happened. Your assertion is just more idle speculation.
Considering that the mayor appoints the police commissioner, in what sense are they "their own entity"? Oh, "unofficially" -- I see. Yes, Bloomie is not an omnipotent being who guides each officer's actions every minute of every shift. But he is most decidedly at the top of that particular administrative food chain.
So ... what are we left with? Not a lot, really.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)the police commisioner is the power behind the cops
and the training is at the beck and call of them, and you need to go back to Rudy Giuliani's time and see how much better it is now under Mike, but not perfect
according to the accounts, a friend/eye witness was right there and could easily have talked
the guy was probably looking for a police suicide death and he got it
but like the cops shoot blacks at will 40,50,60 times, and some proven under steriod rage and other they are certainly not top notch.
(one should raise the cops salaries ten times and get a better crop of police.)
Thank God the two were white, otherwise who knows what would be happening now.
as this is my opinion and not a researched for months post(s),I am offering thoughts, but then again, you still haven't proved it any better than me.
one thing-you misunderstood what I said about tourists- the two guys with the grudge match of course were locals.
I was referring to the 100s or 1000s of tourists in that area as the Empire State building is one of the five biggest tourist attractions in the city (along with the musuem of natural history and the WTC etc.) I was saying if those people all had guns, to quote Apocolypse Now's famous lines "the horror the horror"
HALO141
(911 posts)This is some sort of "free association" method of conversing. The problem is that you bounce around from one point to another so much it's just not worth taking the time to unravel it.
Enjoy your stay here. C-ya.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Most states are shall-issue CCW states and have reciprocity agreements with the other shall-issue states. My state, Texas, is shall issue and has reciprocity agreements with 33 states. There are lots of tourist attractions in that total of 34 states, so there are lots of folks who are carrying guns at those places. The disasters that you have predicted haven't happened despite more than ample opportunity to happen. There have been many cases of CCWers using their guns to stop a deadly crime.
The facts are solidly against your wild speculations.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I've been to Texas about 20 times, and made a special cross country trip, stopping in Dallas (and going out of my way about six hours) just to visit friends and show another friend of ours Deely Plaza
nothing bad to say about Texas except the politicians since Ann Richards and LBJ died, soon it will be back to better.
and I was safe and secure in the knowledge that I and my friends/ family all did not have one gun to any of us...
from the way you talk, I guess we should be suprised to survive texas without a gun.
(btw-without a gun I never had any problem in NYC either.
Free yourself from the addiction of a gun. I think you might have better odds of getting hit by lighting, than protecting yourself with a gun.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It only takes a second to slip the KelTec P3AT into my pocket on the way out the door - just in case.
Based on raw FBI statistics my lifetime probability of being a victim of violent crime is about 30%. Obviously, by being careful, I can reduce that, so I do take reasonable precautions. But just in case things go wrong, I won't be helpless.
I have been in all of the major U.S. cities and many of the minor ones, unarmed. Also some of the world's major cities. I have lots of experience in being unarmed. As I get older, I like being armed better.
The point of my prior post is that tourists with guns haven't caused any problems for us here, so why should they be a problem for NYC?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)you would have the police, who knew that this man had just committed a murder, just let him go and then arrest him later?
Really? How could you even suggest something like that? I know of NO police officer that would do that, can you even imagine the outrage if they had just let him go on his merry way?
Do you realize how outrageous this sounds.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)see my response above yours that I just made.
that no one else died was just luck, and thankfully no one in the crowd had their own gun to make matters worse.
