LogicIsForSquares Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Everyone who has a CCW has had a background check and training on safe firearm use. They are not police or tactically trained, but enough so that they can protect themselves. Most crooks have never had any training whatsoever, and surely have not had a background check. I have had to train officers on shooting technique. We will just say that just because they carry a gun at work does not make them a firearms expert haha. Most lay people have a misconception that the local cops are somehow more qualified to operate a firearm. They have limited budgets and thus limited shooting time. Unless the officer is willing to pay out of pocket to hone their skills, they are likely just as capable of anyone else walking around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 As for crooks being untrained, the guy who shot my friend was pointing the gun and flicking his wrist with each shot. It was like he was trying to get something sticky off of his fingers. I guess that ended up being a good thing for my pal because he was only hit once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 As I've said in the past, my ccw instructor was Special Forces 4 1/2 years. That was great, but we never could get him to tell us any stories... I need to contact him - I'd like to take some legit advanced training - he wasn't doing it last year. If we ever in a conflict with armed thugs, most of the advanced training in how to handle it, I got from watching NCIS on tv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Then there's this: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/16/mom-finds-ar-15-in-back-of-rental-car-and-its-even-a-little-more-surprising-who-left-it-there/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I will say this for Tannehill and his old lady, at least they didn't overspend on something like a Noveske haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 It appears the Tannehills have visited Magpul's website once or twice. Yeesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Very strange. I've posted many, many incidences of people saving their own lives, or other's lives, by ccw. So this one nutjob uses his gun in a criminal manner ...and NOW woody thinks that means gun control is the answer again? I am guessing this is not the ONLY case of someone with a carry permit committing a crime. It is just to point out not everyone that gets a permit will be fantastic crime stoppers. This incident alone is also not what makes me think gun control is a good idea Baloney. I'm not that much an advocate of open carry of weapons in public. That affects others, however unjustified, but worse yet, makes them a target of being overpowered and the crooks getting his gun. Concealed carry is the excellent thing - you have the protection, nobody knows, and all fifty states have concealed carry laws now, allowing it. Every single state. There is solid reason for it. Not being able to see a gun does not mean it is there. Open carry sounds excessive. For someone needing to compensate for something At least we don't have to listen to demands by "viritally all scientists" in "peer reviewed reports" to back up the anti gun crowd. Well it is not a 100% scientific issue. If this were the case, then ur argument would be dead in the water again The benefits don't outweigh the negatives? I think, so far, there are thousands of stories where concealed carry has saved lives, that having a gun in a home has saved lifes. I am not doubting there are cases of conceal carry doing something positive. I am also not talking about guns in someones home I believe that most of this anti gun rhetoric is political by the left. They assume that most folks who own guns are conservative. I don't know about that- maybe. You assume everything you disagree with a political play by the left... You cannot take all peoples' freedoms and rights away from them, because a few are screwed up and commit crimes with whatever objects. Libs have their catchy phrases like "the only thing that guns do is kill". oi. Libs love to claim these phrases as true, only because they are politically expedient in their favor, not that the phrase user has any information or experience to explain why they run with said phrase.. I do not wish to take away anyones rights or freedoms. Guns were built with the purpose of killing or injuring others. They are not cars, knives, etc. Are the background checks a hundred percent foolproof? Nah. You'd have to have a real Spock from Star Trek do a mind meld jobbie on ccw applicants or something. The biggest problem with gun crimes, is UN-authorized access to guns that the criminals don't own. Folks in Australia desperately want their guns back. Crime exploded. Libs don't seem to spend much time in the outdoors, I think. Riiiight. When global warming is false because it is cold in the US, Australia and their record temps dont exist. But now, since I guess they are all fighting for guns or something, they are totally relevant again and it is the OTHER side that doesnt look outside the US... lol I believe that an across the board tax exemption to buy a good gun safe would be a good idea. And criminalize leaving loaded guns, or even ammo next to guns, easily accessed, in a home, where unauthorized persons gained access to the guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Except the numbers demonstrate you're wrong: http://gunssavelives.net/browse-by-state/ A few post back Logic made the point not to post anything from gunsarescary.com or gunsmakemydickstiff.net I think GunsSaveLives.net would fall in that category Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 A few post back Logic made the point not to post anything from gunsarescary.com or gunsmakemydickstiff.net I think GunsSaveLives.net would fall in that category Until you actually read the site.Basically a national crawler that links to stories where guns are used in self defense (and the national media is too pussy to report or deliberately ignoring). Owner of the site does add his own commentary which I'm sure you can guess which side he supports. Basically he takes the sensationalism out of the news (with regards to this topic) in the 24-hr news culture and reports "the news" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I understand however how it's merely easier for you to write off the site and chortle "Merica" out of the side of your mouth instead when confronted with facts that dismantle an ideology you hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Until you actually read the site. Basically a national crawler that links to stories where guns are used in self defense (and the national media is too pussy to report or deliberately ignoring). Owner of the site does add his own commentary which I'm sure you can guess which side he supports. Basically he takes the sensationalism out of the news (with regards to this topic) in the 24-hr news culture and reports "the news" I briefly looked at it (went to Ohio). I saw it was a bunch of stories. I never doubted they existed. A good set of statistics would be the way to go. I'm guessing it would be hard to find an unbiased set of data for either side. Also, another way to look at that list is an I increases number of deaths. It would be dumb for robbers to kill whoever they're robbing all the time. I'm guessing that the victim wasn't in life threatening danger for every incident where they shot and killed a criminal. But like I said, I'm not trying to take a gun out of a persons home. I also saw so e store owners using guns in self defense. No problem there either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I understand however how it's merely easier for you to write off the site and chortle "Merica" out of the side of your mouth instead when confronted with facts that dismantle an ideology you hold. Lol, not at all. That site isn't disproving anything I said. Many instances seem to be homeowners and store owners. I have no problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I briefly looked at it (went to Ohio). I saw it was a bunch of stories. I never doubted they existed. A good set of statistics would be the way to go. I'm guessing it would be hard to find an unbiased set of data for either side. ask and ye shall receive: The Kleck & Gertz study 1995 https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm (Look at footnote #1 - and the attempted opposition to the study) Also, another way to look at that list is an I increases number of deaths. It would be dumb for robbers to kill whoever they're robbing all the time. I'm guessing that the victim wasn't in life threatening danger for every incident where they shot and killed a criminal. Hard to tell, but I bet you look at the percentage of acquittals where "self-defense" was used and you'll find a judge and jury that concludes "life-threatening danger" was most certainly present. I also don't think many "robbers" use the kind of logic you're suggesting. But I wouldn't know. But like I said, I'm not trying to take a gun out of a persons home. I also saw so e store owners using guns in self defense. No problem there either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Lol, not at all. That site isn't disproving anything I said. Many instances seem to be homeowners and store owners. I have no problem with that. It most certainly did. You grouped it with a guns&dicks.com or whatever thereby writing it off as another blaze.com or whatever. It's a news aggregator with a focus on covering a topic the administrator feels goes under-reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 OTOH, here is a very recent video where I think a gun was used rather aggressively. I wasn't in the officer's shoes, nor do we get the complete history of the encounter (or even previous encounters if any)but I think 1 or 2 to the knee/leg would have been sufficient and would have neutralized the threat and allowed the officer to re-assess the situation without taking the man's life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4FU-cSO2j8 To clarify, I find no fault with the officers actions, nor his professionalism. He was backing up, warned the man many times, etc. Again, I just think shot placement could have been different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowe Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 OTOH, here is a very recent video where I think a gun was used rather aggressively. I wasn't in the officer's shoes, nor do we get the complete history of the encounter (or even previous encounters if any)but I think 1 or 2 to the knee/leg would have been sufficient and would have neutralized the threat and allowed the officer to re-assess the situation without taking the man's life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4FU-cSO2j8 To clarify, I find no fault with the officers actions, nor his professionalism. He was backing up, warned the man many times, etc. Again, I just think shot placement could have been different. Seriously, 5 shots? I would've shot him too, but I think one would have sufficed regardless of where it was placed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Jesus christ.... that seemed excessive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Jesus christ.... that seemed excessive This was a training issue. They beat it into police officer's heads that if someone has a knife within 30 feet they are a danger to the officer. This is very true but it puts this horrific fear in their heads so as soon as they are in the situation they get twitchy and end up ripping off 5 rounds into a guy's chest. Step back and fire for the pelvic girdle if you have enough time to repeatedly tell someone to stop. Bear in mind that this is all coaching after the fact. I have never had to be in the situation of having a clearly disturbed person advance on me with a knife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Well, studies have shown, as we were taught in our ccw class, that generally, it takes about 1.5 seconds for someone 20' away to run at you and assault you. The kid was really high on something. Or,. he was flat out suicidal. That seems exactly about 20 '. http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm I watched the video, and I can't believe, although the shooting was justified, that the officer didn't just shoot him in the knee to stop him, render him defenseless to continue his assault. OTH, a sheriff told me, that they dealt with people on whatever drug it was, and they were extremely dangerous, and nearly unstoppable. Every day, or every other day. That's when he advised me to be armed out in our woods.. Especially in case of a stranger trespassing, and coming after me, doped up. The kid was advancing on the officer after seeing? the gun, and being warned. But I believe one shot would have stopped him. Seemed excessive. The officer no doubt was pretty scared, and reacted scared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 If he had rushed the Officer I could see it. He was advancing slowly so I don't think this was justified. However, hindsight is 20/20 and it is impossible to predict how anyone would react in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0a3_1390237830 Old guy wanted suicide by cop and that is what he got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.