| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/24/2012 06:09:37 PM · #801 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Cory:
Honestly, I'm afraid more for others than myself, my 100lb girlfriend comes to mind. |
Come on, Cory. This is America - how hard is it to find a 300lb girlfriend?? |
Well he just got his right eye fixed so give him some time. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 06:10:26 PM · #802 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Cory:
Honestly, I'm afraid more for others than myself, my 100lb girlfriend comes to mind. |
Come on, Cory. This is America - how hard is it to find a 300lb girlfriend?? |
Well he just got his right eye fixed so give him some time. |
LOL! :D
I think I'd prefer to stay afraid for her, rather than be afraid of her. o_O
Message edited by author 2012-08-24 18:14:08. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 07:00:45 PM · #803 |
You know why we can't come to a resolution on the issue of gun control/crime control? Because the availability of guns is not correlated to violence. I am no gun advocate. I live in a country that has gun crime and stricter gun control than the US, by a long shot. It is a crime to carry a concealed weapon unless you are a cop actively on duty.
What we *should* be talking about here is violence prevention, and why a place like the US (and Canada for that matter) has the high crime rates it has. I would venture that the answer, at least partially, comes from studies of gun control laws vs. crime rates. Many of these studies have found that countries with a more homogenous society (read: mostly racially/culturally the same) tend to have much lower crime rates than those where the society is more hetergenous and mixed through extensive and ongoing international immigration. Coupled with that the idea that people don't have to "conform" to their new home (an idea that seems to be immigration policy in North America) and you get pockets of people who never relate to one another because they can stay in their cultural groups through ethnic neighbourhoods and businesses and you get a very fractured society.
Of course, this is my take on things, and while I'm not an expert on this issue, I bring knowledge from sociology and criminology to my thinking on the topic. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 07:04:17 PM · #804 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Liability insurance is interesting, I haven't heard it mentioned before - what would that do to prevent the things you're trying to prevent?
You have to provide proof of safe storage of your vehicle?!? What do you do, take a picture of your garage? |
Obviously I'm talking about having a gun safe or at least a trigger lock. If you leave you gun lying around and it gets stolen, you should be held liable for what's done with it, or if you shoot someone (even by "accident") you should be in position to compensate them -- note that there were something over ten "innocent bystanders" wounded in today's NY shootout -- unknown at this time how many were wounded by the assailant or police.
However, even if you leave your car unlocked with the keys in it (an "attractive nuisance") and someone uses it as a getaway car in a bank robbery, you may be held (partly) responsible -- and I'd hope you'd at least feel responsible. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 07:24:40 PM · #805 |
Originally posted by frisca:
You know why we can't come to a resolution on the issue of gun control/crime control? Because the availability of guns is not correlated to violence. I am no gun advocate. I live in a country that has gun crime and stricter gun control than the US, by a long shot. It is a crime to carry a concealed weapon unless you are a cop actively on duty.
What we *should* be talking about here is violence prevention, and why a place like the US (and Canada for that matter) has the high crime rates it has. I would venture that the answer, at least partially, comes from studies of gun control laws vs. crime rates. Many of these studies have found that countries with a more homogenous society (read: mostly racially/culturally the same) tend to have much lower crime rates than those where the society is more hetergenous and mixed through extensive and ongoing international immigration. Coupled with that the idea that people don't have to "conform" to their new home (an idea that seems to be immigration policy in North America) and you get pockets of people who never relate to one another because they can stay in their cultural groups through ethnic neighbourhoods and businesses and you get a very fractured society.
Of course, this is my take on things, and while I'm not an expert on this issue, I bring knowledge from sociology and criminology to my thinking on the topic. |
So if I am hearing you correctly, you are a gun-hugging xenophobe. At least in today's environment of "open-minded" discussion. ;-)
ps: I do think you are much closer to the real issue. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 07:38:15 PM · #806 |
Originally posted by frisca:
You know why we can't come to a resolution on the issue of gun control/crime control? Because the availability of guns is not correlated to violence. I am no gun advocate. I live in a country that has gun crime and stricter gun control than the US, by a long shot. It is a crime to carry a concealed weapon unless you are a cop actively on duty.
What we *should* be talking about here is violence prevention, and why a place like the US (and Canada for that matter) has the high crime rates it has. I would venture that the answer, at least partially, comes from studies of gun control laws vs. crime rates. Many of these studies have found that countries with a more homogenous society (read: mostly racially/culturally the same) tend to have much lower crime rates than those where the society is more hetergenous and mixed through extensive and ongoing international immigration. Coupled with that the idea that people don't have to "conform" to their new home (an idea that seems to be immigration policy in North America) and you get pockets of people who never relate to one another because they can stay in their cultural groups through ethnic neighbourhoods and businesses and you get a very fractured society.
Of course, this is my take on things, and while I'm not an expert on this issue, I bring knowledge from sociology and criminology to my thinking on the topic. |
Hey, impressive. I think you've demonstrated a fine ability to reason, and reason well. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 08:17:45 PM · #807 |
Originally posted by frisca:
You know why we can't come to a resolution on the issue of gun control/crime control? Because the availability of guns is not correlated to violence. I am no gun advocate. I live in a country that has gun crime and stricter gun control than the US, by a long shot. It is a crime to carry a concealed weapon unless you are a cop actively on duty.
What we *should* be talking about here is violence prevention, and why a place like the US (and Canada for that matter) has the high crime rates it has. I would venture that the answer, at least partially, comes from studies of gun control laws vs. crime rates. Many of these studies have found that countries with a more homogenous society (read: mostly racially/culturally the same) tend to have much lower crime rates than those where the society is more hetergenous and mixed through extensive and ongoing international immigration. Coupled with that the idea that people don't have to "conform" to their new home (an idea that seems to be immigration policy in North America) and you get pockets of people who never relate to one another because they can stay in their cultural groups through ethnic neighbourhoods and businesses and you get a very fractured society.
Of course, this is my take on things, and while I'm not an expert on this issue, I bring knowledge from sociology and criminology to my thinking on the topic. |
Evening Frisca....
I read your submission with great interest and would posit that while the "international immigration" factor most certainly does come into play, one must not overlook the fact that our prisons are replete with a disproportionate amount of "non-white" individuals very much native to the Americas.
Issues of cultural differences do not exclusively relate to international undertakings and it is a sad fact that even in today's society, the police in some instances are woefully misinformed about the very population that they are charged with serving and protecting.
Considering that you are somewhat familiar with my background I remain confident that you have a full appreciation of what exactly it is that I am trying to convey.
PS... I should stress at this juncture that I am in full agreement with your comments in this regard... I just thought I would add my 2 cents worth.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-08-24 20:19:39. |
|
|
|
08/25/2012 08:05:24 PM · #808 |
|
|
|
08/25/2012 08:09:20 PM · #809 |
I saw a bumper sticker the other day. It said: "If guns kill people, do pens mispell words"...
Another one said: "My other car is an auto .45" |
|
|
|
08/25/2012 08:14:35 PM · #810 |
| Paul, if you have another link to the story, that'd be cool. You apparently need to be a member to get the entire story. None of the other stories I saw about it talked about any mental problems. |
|
|
|
08/25/2012 08:41:55 PM · #811 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Paul, if you have another link to the story, that'd be cool. You apparently need to be a member to get the entire story. None of the other stories I saw about it talked about any mental problems. |
I do not have a membership or better link; I will do better "due diligence" next time.
I was kidding about the mentally challenged part. It seems that this week there werw at least two other gun related mishaps listed in the paper.
One was a shop owner too slow on the draw, getting shot in the chest in a cash only package store- another, and then, this one.
I am friends with a whole bunch, (probably too many) responsible, intelligent gun owners.
Seriously, is there a plausible explanation for your seven year old neighbor shooting you in the chest with your own gun?
like a commenter on the story said- "hey kid, can you hold my gun for a minute, how old? seven? perfect... bang!" |
|
|
|
08/26/2012 03:45:44 AM · #812 |
| There doesn't appear to be more of the story at the moment, its is under investigation. |
|
|
|
08/26/2012 07:54:14 AM · #813 |
|
|
|
08/26/2012 11:19:01 AM · #814 |
Do you truly believe your statement?
|
|
|
|
08/26/2012 11:45:54 AM · #815 |
| One officer shot 9 rounds, another shot 7 rounds. THREE of them hit the gunman... All of this in the space of a second or two... NINE passers-by injured... Gives one to wonder how well-trained these officers were, doesn't it? Or something... |
|
|
|
08/26/2012 08:33:35 PM · #816 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
One officer shot 9 rounds, another shot 7 rounds. THREE of them hit the gunman... All of this in the space of a second or two... NINE passers-by injured... Gives one to wonder how well-trained these officers were, doesn't it? Or something... |
+1
That was my first thought. Well, right after "WTF???!" |
|
|
|
08/26/2012 11:22:50 PM · #817 |
| Remember the Diallo shooting? The Guinean guy who was trying to show the NYCPD his wallet and was hit with 19 out of 41 shots they tossed his way. The sad part is that they decided they needed to be racially sensitive, instead of upping the marksmanship. The first rule of gun control, use both hands and hit what you aim at. |
|
|
|
08/27/2012 08:39:12 AM · #818 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Liability insurance is interesting, I haven't heard it mentioned before - what would that do to prevent the things you're trying to prevent?
You have to provide proof of safe storage of your vehicle?!? What do you do, take a picture of your garage? |
Obviously I'm talking about having a gun safe or at least a trigger lock. If you leave you gun lying around and it gets stolen, you should be held liable for what's done with it, or if you shoot someone (even by "accident") you should be in position to compensate them -- note that there were something over ten "innocent bystanders" wounded in today's NY shootout -- unknown at this time how many were wounded by the assailant or police.
However, even if you leave your car unlocked with the keys in it (an "attractive nuisance") and someone uses it as a getaway car in a bank robbery, you may be held (partly) responsible -- and I'd hope you'd at least feel responsible. |
General - I'm pretty sure that gunowners are liable for rounds fired (at least that is what my training has taught me). Obviously Prosecutorial descretion is always at play and prosecutors make calls based on all kinds of reasons (some even political), but for the most part, a firearm owner is responsible for each round fired and in some cases for their firearm when not in their possession - if negilgence can be proven. |
|
|
|
08/27/2012 08:52:04 AM · #819 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
One officer shot 9 rounds, another shot 7 rounds. THREE of them hit the gunman... All of this in the space of a second or two... NINE passers-by injured... Gives one to wonder how well-trained these officers were, doesn't it? Or something... |
Bear - based on my decades old research, the NYPD (circa 1992) were required to qualify 4 times per year. Of some "X" number of police shootings, a full 80% (approximately from memory) of shots fired, missed their intended target from 3 FEET (arms length). As posted previously, under assault induced stress, the heart rate increases as the body prepares for fight or flight and the natural adrenlin dump ocurrs. As the heart rate increases above 125 (bpm) beats per minute, fine motor skill coordination is lost. Functions like auditory exclusion, tunnel vision, and skewed time perception take effect. This leaves only gross motor skills (large muscle groups) operational. There has been much research on this topic.
Based on my training I am not surprised at all by these reports and it confirms what I was being taught 25 years ago. Further, civilians who choose to become licensed and armed in public, carry the burden of legal responsibility for each and every round fired from their weapon. A liability covered in the mandatory training classes required in the 38 states that have licensed carry for civilians. This liability is at the forefront of Massad Ayoob's book In The Gravest Extreme.
Message edited by author 2012-08-27 09:01:28. |
|
|
|
08/27/2012 03:19:57 PM · #820 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
One officer shot 9 rounds, another shot 7 rounds. THREE of them hit the gunman... All of this in the space of a second or two... NINE passers-by injured... Gives one to wonder how well-trained these officers were, doesn't it? Or something... |
Bear - based on my decades old research... |
I hear ya; that's the "or something" part. If highly-trained officers, fully-qualified on their handguns, in a situation like this, essentially end up spraying rounds indiscriminately due to involuntary bodily responses to the stress of the situation they are confronting, doesn't this say something useful about the fallacy of thinking that private ownership of handguns for defensive purposes is a high-percentage solution?
Message edited by author 2012-08-27 15:20:30. |
|
|
|
08/27/2012 03:26:53 PM · #821 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
One officer shot 9 rounds, another shot 7 rounds. THREE of them hit the gunman... All of this in the space of a second or two... NINE passers-by injured... Gives one to wonder how well-trained these officers were, doesn't it? Or something... |
Bear - based on my decades old research... |
I hear ya; that's the "or something" part. If highly-trained officers, fully-qualified on their handguns, in a situation like this, essentially end up spraying rounds indiscriminately due to involuntary bodily responses to the stress of the situation they are confronting, doesn't this say something useful about the fallacy of thinking that private ownership of handguns for defensive purposes is a high-percentage solution? |
I'll disagree and venture to guess that ironically, the number of "hits" of the intended targets by civilian gun owners under the same stress/threat is probably much higher than 20% the cops are showing. But I am just guessing. Where's Flash with the stats on that? :) |
|
|
|
08/27/2012 03:33:48 PM · #822 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
One officer shot 9 rounds, another shot 7 rounds. THREE of them hit the gunman... All of this in the space of a second or two... NINE passers-by injured... Gives one to wonder how well-trained these officers were, doesn't it? Or something... |
Bear - based on my decades old research... |
I hear ya; that's the "or something" part. If highly-trained officers, fully-qualified on their handguns, in a situation like this, essentially end up spraying rounds indiscriminately due to involuntary bodily responses to the stress of the situation they are confronting, doesn't this say something useful about the fallacy of thinking that private ownership of handguns for defensive purposes is a high-percentage solution? |
I'll disagree and venture to guess that ironically, the number of "hits" of the intended targets by civilian gun owners under the same stress/threat is probably much higher than 20% the cops are showing. But I am just guessing. Where's Flash with the stats on that? :) |
I was about to postulate the same guess.
Just another fun one for you to chew on... This particular shooting was a couple of blocks from my place. They not only shot four bystanders, they also shot three cops. I don't remember how many rounds they unloaded, but it was clearly a few more than needed. Oh, and the police here are ... well. You'll see, they're just incredibly aggressive.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2012 08:29:17 PM · #823 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
One officer shot 9 rounds, another shot 7 rounds. THREE of them hit the gunman... All of this in the space of a second or two... NINE passers-by injured... Gives one to wonder how well-trained these officers were, doesn't it? Or something... |
Bear - based on my decades old research... |
I hear ya; that's the "or something" part. If highly-trained officers, fully-qualified on their handguns, in a situation like this, essentially end up spraying rounds indiscriminately due to involuntary bodily responses to the stress of the situation they are confronting, doesn't this say something useful about the fallacy of thinking that private ownership of handguns for defensive purposes is a high-percentage solution? |
The particulars of officer vs civilian is quite a bit different. 1. civilians can disengage and are actually encouraged to so so where officers are sworn to protect the public and thus on duty (as in this case) must stop the threat and secure the area. 2. I would not use the terms "highly trained" to refer to 4x/year qualification nor would I agree they were "spraying rounds indiscriminately". There is much to learn of the scene and the dynamics that unfolded. Who was where when and who moved where when? 3. A large percentage of licensed civilians do not carry very often. Many reason for this - but mostly because it is a pia. A handgun is heavy. Cumbersome. Hard to conceal (harder in summer than winter). And simply after the first few days, weeks, months wear off with nothing happening, many licensed carriers simply choose to leave it home or in the car or in a bag, etc. To give it a try, take a 2 pound weight and put in in your pocket or stick it in your waist band and go about your daily activities. In short order, you'll be done carrying that weight around. 4. Fortunately, a large percentage of civilian encounters are when persons are alone (think a parking garage, or late at night, or in their home/apartment, etc.). The very nature of selecting a target victim moves the assault to a less populated encounter - thus fewer bystanders at risk. |
|
|
|
08/27/2012 08:51:07 PM · #824 |
...and one very important factor that I don't believe anyone has alluded to yet is the fact that there is a monumental amount of difference between shooting at an inanimate object like a target and someone who is armed and shooting at you.
A good number of people in such a situation would, after they s**t themselves, probably be hard pressed to hit the side of the proverbial barn with a shotgun, let alone a 38 or 45.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/27/2012 09:13:30 PM · #825 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
after they s**t themselves, Ray |
Lots and lots of evidence here. Spot on Ray. |
|
