Shoot a camera, not a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
frank-grumman said:
Well, Paul, those officers were NOT highly trained, and sadly using ammo that may well have been "round nose" and not hollow point. Reports are that the 9 bystanders were injured by fragments and ricochets - no never mind, they were still injured, though the context suggests that the rounds that missed the target likely hit something else before the fragments struck the bystanders. I don't know. I haven't (yet) seen the AAR. FWIW, SWAT, EMST, CIRT, those guys and gals are highly trained. Street NYPD? likely too much less so.
Click to expand...

All those anecdotes may be true. SWAT teams, I believe you, will do a terrific job.

But the logic in favour of lots of weapons acting as a deterrent to crime, in the hands of teachers etc, dictates that the success rate of the average armed "citizen" will be far less than of those trained NYPD cops. There will therefore be a lot more than 7 innocent civilians injured per "criminal" stopped. And what if those "criminals" turn out to be innocent people, in the wrong part of town?
 
frank-grumman said:
@ a number of ya'll who posted here:

Can some of you please explain to me why you are so comfortable with only Police and Military having firearms? I don't know about other countries, in the USA, and indeed on US military bases throughout the globe, sadly until recently even in combat zones, military personnel are stripped of their weapons except when they are a) Military Police; b) on orders of their commander to be armed; c) at the range or shoot-house while being trained.

So, as the terrorist attack in TX three or so years ago demonstrated:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/gunman-kills-wounds-fort-hood/

Shucks, the military was disarmed, many first responders were civilian LE. I'd be grateful to to those of you in other countries to explain to me what your military does about that kind of issue.

Second: why are you all apparently so comfortable with Police having firearms? Why? What about Police make them so special. I gotta admire England (and perhaps elsewhere in the UK, I don't know), where of course all the Subjects are disarmed (except of course the criminals 😀), in a rare display of non-hypocrisy, even LE on patrol are apparently unarmed with anything other than what appears to be a baton and/or pepper spray. I do know, moreover, that as recently as 5 years ago, body armor was not a part of their load out. I know that because there was a drive afoot here in the US who had serviceable armor and were trading it in, we were being asked to donate it to the London Police.

So why would/should we trust LE?? Why would we ask them to do a job - which in the moment of their greatest need by the disarmed - THEY CAN'T DO, and yet provide them with the weaponry to do it?
Click to expand...

I spent time in the military and was trained on ASSAULT WEAPONS 🙄. Do you think those touchy feely people will want me to own a ASSAULT WEAPON 🙄?

Any object used to attack someone else is an ASSAULT WEAPON (hand, crowbar, bowling pin, car).
 
frank-grumman said:
Gee, Sparrow, what, are trying to start an argument? I don't know about other cultures, I don't prescribe for them what to do or how they should live their lives, or organize their laws with respect to firearms ownership. Do as you want. I may think of what the EU does as nuts so far as firearms ownership is called, or Japan as stupid, or Australia and NZ as idiotic, but, end of the day, it's none of my business. I don't live there, and I'm sure folks who do are quite pleased with the way they find it. I've often invited folks who don't like the US, to leave. I however will be staying 🙂 Not sure who said, but it went something like "you makes your choices and you takes your consequences." I'm fine with that. 🙂
Click to expand...

No I'm happy with things as they are, I feel safe enough going about my business knowing that my police force will be trying to protect me from those pesky Rambo types ... and that all three parties are unarmed.

As Hteasley says you're banging your anecdotal head against a wall of statistics ... stay happy with your choice
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Frank,

You keep conflating ban and control.

I'm more comfortable in a country where ANYONE who carries firearms is trained in their use and safety, whether they're police or not. I'm less comfortable in a country where any Rambo fantasist can buy just about any weapon readily imaginable.

A question: if carrying a gun makes society safer, why are US murder statistics so high? As I said near the beginning of this thread: it ain't the guns (there are plenty of gun-owning countries). It's culture.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

How and why do you equate gun owners being the Rambo type? FYI, Rambo was a Green Beret and trained on how to use ASSAULT WEAPONS 🙄.

The murder rate is high because of culture which falls back onto improper parenting and the lack of supervision and morals.
 
Paul T. said:
I'm interested in the theory that armed civilians, perhaps female teachers tooled up with assault rifles, would cut down crimes, perhaps by mowing down the assailant over the heads of the kids.

My nipper has played out some of these scenarios in arcades, but knows the difference between theory and fantasy.

As for a recent incident, when highly-trained personnel went after a shooter: the outcome was seven hits on the perp, nine hits on innocent bystanders.

Statistics apparently say that trained law officers hit their target 35 per cent of the time.

Of course I'm sure we'll hear from some well-armed people here that they would do better. But if I'm being held up by a burgler or mugger can I just say, please stay well away, Rambo...

Edit. Roger just posted the same time as me, with the same Rambo accusation. Clichéd or not, it will do.
Click to expand...

Being a police officer does not mean they are highly trained. Most cops will just fire the gun enough to pass qualification. A small percentage of cops are serious and will spend time and money getting proficient.
 
E__WOK said:
Being a police officer does not mean they are highly trained. Most cops will just fire the gun enough to pass qualification. A small percentage of cops are serious and will spend time and money getting proficient.
Click to expand...

All true. But they will still have had more training than the average citizen who fancies themselves as a vigilante.

Remember, a few commented that teachers should be armed, to deter armed assailants. Should school principals be trained to SWAT levels? What about supply teachers?
 
wolves3012 said:
Fascinating discussion for a camera site, unlike many another OT thread, this one has remained reasonably calm.

As someone in the UK, where gun crime is relatively low and guns are rarely seen in day-to-day life, I'm intrigued as to why americans are paranoid enough to feel the need to defend a right to carry guns. Is it really so unsafe and is that not actually just linked to the high gun ownership?

I see the idea of some comfort in the perceived ability to defend yourself but why the ready access to weapons far beyond actual need? It's been known for crackpots to go on the rampage with a (military) tank but does anyone advocate the need to own an anti-tank missile launcher in the house, "just in case"? Surely, the removal of overly powerful guns from general society can't be argued to be a Bad Thing. I accept that a small number of people have legitimate reasons to own these things but self-defence is surely not legitimate. Pest-control, people in danger from wild animals etc, yes.

If, as one poster says, you can keep your proficiency by using airsoft pellet guns, paintball guns etc, then why not limit yourselves to such non-lethal machinery for "sport" purposes? You can't legislate the crackpots and criminals out of existence, any more than terrorists and similar threats but surely you *could* legislate to mitigate their acts on society.

I am puzzled by the gun-culture in countries like the US, maybe I just haven't seen enough of the world to understand!
Click to expand...

Pest control? I call them two legged vermin.

Airsoft and paintball guns don't stop people from hurting you.
 
E__WOK said:
The hijackers used razor blades, not guns.
Click to expand...

Which is why I can no longer exercise my right to have them in my hand luggage :angry-face:

However ... on the plus side, since such things have been controlled on airplanes no one has flown them into any buildings :smiley-face:

I expect you oppose such controls, being that it infringes your rights?
 
Paul T. said:
All true. But they will still have had more training than the average citizen who fancies themselves as a vigilante.

Remember, a few (deluded to the point of evil) souls commented that teachers should be armed, to deter armed assailants. Should school principals be trained to SWAT levels? What about supply teachers?
Click to expand...

No, cops get training in use of force, laws and regulation, and marksmanship skills.

So called vigilantes are not required to know laws and regulation but it is best if they learn about it.

If teachers want to be armed, I say let them be. Don't force them to be armed. The ones who choose to be armed will most likely take the proper training.
 
Sparrow said:
Which is why I can no longer exercise my right to have them in my hand luggage :angry-face:

However ... on the plus side, since such things have been controlled on airplanes no one has flown them into any buildings :smiley-face:

I expect you oppose such controls, being that it infringes your rights?
Click to expand...

I use my knives as tools, not to cause harm unto people. I've flown many times with knives pre 9-11 yet my uncontrollable Rambo, vigilante, violent movies, and shoot em up video games personality has not injured anyone.
 
E__WOK said:
No, cops get training in use of force, laws and regulation, and marksmanship skills.

So called vigilantes are not required to know laws and regulation but it is best if they learn about it.

If teachers want to be armed, I say let them be. Don't force them to be armed. The ones who choose to be armed will most likely take the proper training.
Click to expand...

... would you therefore want the kids armed, on the off chance one of those teachers go on a rampage? same logic no?
 
E__WOK said:
I use my knives as tools, not to cause harm unto people. I've flown many times with knives pre 9-11 yet my uncontrollable Rambo, vigilante, violent movies, and shoot em up video games personality has not injured anyone.
Click to expand...

It's not about you personally I'm sure you're quite harmless in the real world, it's those that hijack airplanes I'm talking about
 
Soeren said:
Sorry. Not statistically significant and being a policeofficer that guy doesn't count as an average citicent 😀 Offcource such mrksmen exist but there simply aint enough to cover every movietheater and school acros the nation.
Nice story anyway.
Best regards
Click to expand...

There are more armed citizens than on or off duty cops are able to patrol.

Cops are there to enforce the law, not to prevent bad things from happening even though their presence may be a factor.

Tell me, who is responsible for you and your families' protection?
 
Sparrow said:
... would you therefore want the kids armed, on the off chance one of those teachers go on a rampage? same logic no?
Click to expand...

And would the teacher leave their weapon on the desk? (If locked away, there wouldn't be enough time to access in an emergency. Would all the kindergarten kids who got their hands on the weapon be highly trained, too?

Sadly, experience shows that it's the killers who get to demonstrate how much time they've spent at the shooting range.

Nancy Lanza and her son both spent plenty of time there, by all account. Better for her, her son, and the school children if she'd stayed away from that contradictory argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom