RE: New York Shootings

RE: New York Shootings (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aswad -> RE: New York Shootings (8/26/2012 6:53:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD They fire 50 rds some 6 at 5 yds 6 at 7 yds etc out to 25 yds 50 need to hit a standard FBI silhouette . So you're telling me they only need to actually hit a standard silhouette 35 out of 50 times? Please tell me this is after a few miles at a dead run, at least? I thought we were talking about 35 hits to vital organs and no misses, out of 50 rounds, at 25 yards. That would equate to some basic competency with a firearm. quote: They are provided one box (50 rds) per month. 600 rounds per year is barely enough to maintain the skills to hunt with a rifle at close range (under 100 yards). quote: As for time spent It is whatever they need. I hope you mean they get paid for whatever amount of training they need, not that they get unlimited time when taking the qualifying tests? It's widely recognized that the 60 hrs a regular cop here gets as a minimum is way too low for up to one encounter per year. IWYW, — Aswad.

BamaD -> RE: New York Shootings (8/26/2012 8:11:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD They fire 50 rds some 6 at 5 yds 6 at 7 yds etc out to 25 yds 50 need to hit a standard FBI silhouette . So you're telling me they only need to actually hit a standard silhouette 35 out of 50 times? Yes Please tell me this is after a few miles at a dead run, at least? No I thought we were talking about 35 hits to vital organs and no misses, out of 50 rounds, at 25 yards. That would equate to some basic competency with a firearm. Hits on the arm don't count quote: They are provided one box (50 rds) per month. 600 rounds per year is barely enough to maintain the skills to hunt with a rifle at close range (under 100 yards). quote: As for time spent It is whatever they need. I hope you mean they get paid for whatever amount of training they need, No they are allowed to use thae range whenever they wish but have to pay for anything over 50 rds a month not that they get unlimited time when taking the qualifying tests? The test is timed It's widely recognized that the 60 hrs a regular cop here gets as a minimum is way too low for up to one encounter per year. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 12:13:26 AM)
Wow, that's really abysmal. I've heard people say it's bad, but never imagined it would be that bad. Glad to hear you scored well yourself. [:)] IWYW, — Aswad.

BamaD -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 10:28:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Wow, that's really abysmal. I've heard people say it's bad, but never imagined it would be that bad. Glad to hear you scored well yourself. [:)] IWYW, — Aswad. It enraged the range master, he didn't think any admin guy should be able to outshoot any officer. (he was upset with the 90% of the officers I outshot not with me.) Not all departments are at this level but this may help you understand why many of us feel safer with a cwp and protecting ourselves than counting on the police to do it. Having said that I have enourmous respect for the vast majority of law enforcement. Often undertrained always unapreciated they put themselves on the line to protect people like farglebargle who hate them.

OsideGirl -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 10:49:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: I'm torn on what to think of the New York police because with the crowded sidewalks in NYC, it can't be easy. But part of me also thinks that had this situation been engaged differently, it might have ended differently. In all fairness to the police, they were alerted by a citizen who witnessed the killing, they had no cover when he drew the gun, they had no knowledge of his intent, nor of how many rounds were in the weapon. I wonder how it could have been engaged differently. He drew his weapon when confronted with uniformed, armed police until then the gun was not out. My point was that confrontation was what prompted him to draw his weapon which then became a no win situation for the police or the civilians. I don't know what they could have done differently, but it was their actions that escalated the situation.

OsideGirl -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 10:55:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam They don't know he's done killing but I just think this is ironic just after one poster harped on "the only ones who should be allowed to carry are HIGHLY TRAINED police". Im sorry but these guys are 15 year vets and werent showing that they wre highly trained. Hindsight is 20/20 but follow someone until bystanders arent at risk. You KNOW he is willing to shoot so surveilance until you can confront him without endangering citizens (yaknow those you are suppose dto protect and serve). I keep hearing that noone should be able to carry because the police are "TRAINED PROFESSIONALS". Im sorry but a lot of civilians would have done a better job. Im just glad none of the innocents were killed by those who were supposed to protect them. This is a perfect example. Handguns have been banned in NYC for 100 years. So, clearly, bans work amazingly well. The police, whom some people think should be the only people with guns, failed miserably. They created a haphazard shoot out. (They're currently adding up the number of rounds fired by police and it's not looking like it will be a number that makes them look good.) The anti's side of the fence sounds like chirping crickets right now.

BamaD -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 2:00:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam They don't know he's done killing but I just think this is ironic just after one poster harped on "the only ones who should be allowed to carry are HIGHLY TRAINED police". Im sorry but these guys are 15 year vets and werent showing that they wre highly trained. Hindsight is 20/20 but follow someone until bystanders arent at risk. You KNOW he is willing to shoot so surveilance until you can confront him without endangering citizens (yaknow those you are suppose dto protect and serve). I keep hearing that noone should be able to carry because the police are "TRAINED PROFESSIONALS". Im sorry but a lot of civilians would have done a better job. Im just glad none of the innocents were killed by those who were supposed to protect them. This is a perfect example. Handguns have been banned in NYC for 100 years. So, clearly, bans work amazingly well. The police, whom some people think should be the only people with guns, failed miserably. They created a haphazard shoot out. (They're currently adding up the number of rounds fired by police and it's not looking like it will be a number that makes them look good.) The anti's side of the fence sounds like chirping crickets right now. If you have seen the tape the officers clearly thought the shooter was further down the street. Also most of the wounded bystanders were struck by fragments meaning they had shatered either on bone or the cement fixtures that were behind the gunman. The police fired 16 rds, 9 of which struck the killer. One was moving getting an angle that was safer for the bystanders the other was firing with a sapling between him and the shooter. Altogether not bad when looking down the barrel of a 45.

Musicmystery -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 2:30:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam They don't know he's done killing but I just think this is ironic just after one poster harped on "the only ones who should be allowed to carry are HIGHLY TRAINED police". Im sorry but these guys are 15 year vets and werent showing that they wre highly trained. Hindsight is 20/20 but follow someone until bystanders arent at risk. You KNOW he is willing to shoot so surveilance until you can confront him without endangering citizens (yaknow those you are suppose dto protect and serve). I keep hearing that noone should be able to carry because the police are "TRAINED PROFESSIONALS". Im sorry but a lot of civilians would have done a better job. Im just glad none of the innocents were killed by those who were supposed to protect them. This is a perfect example. Handguns have been banned in NYC for 100 years. So, clearly, bans work amazingly well. The police, whom some people think should be the only people with guns, failed miserably. They created a haphazard shoot out. (They're currently adding up the number of rounds fired by police and it's not looking like it will be a number that makes them look good.) The anti's side of the fence sounds like chirping crickets right now. And you figure more guns would reduce the shootout. You have no idea what NYC is like.

slvemike4u -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 2:34:51 PM)
Naturally Tim more guns = less violence any idiot will tell you that [:D]

OsideGirl -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 2:40:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam They don't know he's done killing but I just think this is ironic just after one poster harped on "the only ones who should be allowed to carry are HIGHLY TRAINED police". Im sorry but these guys are 15 year vets and werent showing that they wre highly trained. Hindsight is 20/20 but follow someone until bystanders arent at risk. You KNOW he is willing to shoot so surveilance until you can confront him without endangering citizens (yaknow those you are suppose dto protect and serve). I keep hearing that noone should be able to carry because the police are "TRAINED PROFESSIONALS". Im sorry but a lot of civilians would have done a better job. Im just glad none of the innocents were killed by those who were supposed to protect them. This is a perfect example. Handguns have been banned in NYC for 100 years. So, clearly, bans work amazingly well. The police, whom some people think should be the only people with guns, failed miserably. They created a haphazard shoot out. (They're currently adding up the number of rounds fired by police and it's not looking like it will be a number that makes them look good.) The anti's side of the fence sounds like chirping crickets right now. And you figure more guns would reduce the shootout. You have no idea what NYC is like. At any point did I say that more guns would have reduced the shoot out? No. What I pointed out that banning things doesn't work. If people want them they figure out a way to get them. Banning drugs doesn't work. Prohibition didn't work.

Musicmystery -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 2:47:10 PM)
quote: What I pointed out that banning things doesn't work. If people want them they figure out a way to get them. Banning drugs doesn't work. Prohibition didn't work. Banning rape doesn't work, people still do it. Banning murder by any means doesn't work. Banning theft doesn't work. Banning corruption doesn't work. That's why these things should be legal, because banning them doesn't work. People figure out a way to get them.

slvemike4u -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 2:48:03 PM)
"If people want them they figure out a way to get them." Yes,and if they get caught carrying at a traffic stop or during one of the NYPD's famous stop and frisk's they get arrested for the violation. Removing the law against their possession would serve what purpose ? Do you have any idea how many illegal handguns the NYPD removes from the street on a yearly basis ? Would the city be a safer place were those guns still floating around ?

lovmuffin -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 6:00:34 PM)
If those guns were floating around in the hands of law abiding citizens then yes, the city would be a safer place. At least those citizens with the guns and their families would be safer.

pyschosubmission -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 6:30:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin If those guns were floating around in the hands of law abiding citizens then yes, the city would be a safer place. At least those citizens with the guns and their families would be safer. Firearms can only be used to kill. That is there sole purpose. Perhaps this is just "European Socialist" ideas coming through, but, the idea that more people carrying instruments of death seems incongruous with my idea of "safer"

stef -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 6:40:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyschosubmission Firearms can only be used to kill. That is there sole purpose. Really? How may people were killed during all the shooting events at the Olympics? Why weren't all those shootings covered by the media? Was there some grand coverup in place?

lovmuffin -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 6:50:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyschosubmission quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin If those guns were floating around in the hands of law abiding citizens then yes, the city would be a safer place. At least those citizens with the guns and their families would be safer. Firearms can only be used to kill. That is there sole purpose. Perhaps this is just "European Socialist" ideas coming through, but, the idea that more people carrying instruments of death seems incongruous with my idea of "safer" Yeah it must be. We rejected those European socialist ideas over 200 years ago.

slvemike4u -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 7:38:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyschosubmission quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin If those guns were floating around in the hands of law abiding citizens then yes, the city would be a safer place. At least those citizens with the guns and their families would be safer. Firearms can only be used to kill. That is there sole purpose. Perhaps this is just "European Socialist" ideas coming through, but, the idea that more people carrying instruments of death seems incongruous with my idea of "safer" This...in spades

lovmuffin -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 8:41:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: pyschosubmission quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin If those guns were floating around in the hands of law abiding citizens then yes, the city would be a safer place. At least those citizens with the guns and their families would be safer. Firearms can only be used to kill. That is there sole purpose. Perhaps this is just "European Socialist" ideas coming through, but, the idea that more people carrying instruments of death seems incongruous with my idea of "safer" This...in spades It seems to me you guys have a pretty narrow view on guns. I refer you to post #89. Yes they're leathal but they save lives too which in fact would make us safer. Guns in the hands of peaceable citizens is good, bad guys will obtain them regardless of the law or bans, restrictions or whatever. Bad guys won't comply with gun laws which only serve to impede the good guys.

slvemike4u -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 8:44:11 PM)
Yeah we get it muffin....guns are good it's the bullets that suck.

BamaD -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 10:55:24 PM)
Guns are neutral some people are bad.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.736328E-02