Gun laws do they work

[Bladerunner]

Oh, I don't disagree; I was just answering our British compatriots' question.

The fact that Wilson shot at a fleeing individual is enough to indicate training had been left by the wayside; in fact, these days, shooting at a fleeing suspect is never considered justified.

From all indications, he did not shoot at a Fleeing Mr. Brown. Officer Wilson did say in an interview that after his altercation with Mr. Brown in his car (where Mr. Brown was trying to either get his gun or fire it), he was just trying to keep Mr. Brown in sight until backup arrive and had not tried to stop him again. This is when Mr. Brown turned on him. Rem, Mr. Brown is caught on tape stealing, I think cigars from a convenience store and when confronted by the owner, he threw him(the owner---Assault) back into the store. Officer Wilson is a small dude when compared to Mr. Browns 200+ status. I can also tell you that when people are on drugs, it is hard to stop them even with a gun. How do I know, have fooled with enough of these druggies in the emergency room over the years. I say druggy, the autopsy showed Mr. Brown had cannabis in his system. The fact that he was shot at least three times and still did not stop should tell you something. Someone said at an interview (yes they were black) that it is very easy NOT to get shot by the police, but it was far easier to get shot by the local black Bad Guy.

And yes, this fits in somewhat with gun control.

p.s. in Tennessee now they have passed a law allowing a law abiding citizen to carry a loaded firearm (short or long gun) in their vehicle. It seems to keep down the number of car-jackings and kidnappings.

 

[Bladerunner]

Guess what? Our President has proposed getting 50,000 cameras for various police departments at a cost of $200,000,000.00... A little over the $200 each, we spoke about earlier in this thread. This is why body cams are not available everywhere.

Anyways, the shooting of Mr. Brown has now drifted rather quickly into the political realm and for me has left the purpose of this thread.

On track, Has anyone seen the new four barrel pistol that is (from what I have heard) a big hit. It has numerous other calibers available. All of these cal.(s) can be used on the same frame. Simply take one off and put another on. Don't know if I could hit any thing with a four barrel pistol.I wonder is it accurate enough for tournaments.

Dick7Access, have you heard anything about it?

I think Jim Bowie reportedly used a four barrel weapon at 'The Alamo'.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Oh, I don't disagree; I was just answering our British compatriots' question.

The fact that Wilson shot at a fleeing individual is enough to indicate training had been left by the wayside; in fact, these days, shooting at a fleeing suspect is never considered justified.

Quite like that title

The buddy system shouldn't have been cut back.

As could have been the case here. It could have saved lives. But yet again that is another threads topic

 

[Dick7Access]

Oh, I don't disagree; I was just answering our British compatriots' question.

The fact that Wilson shot at a fleeing individual is enough to indicate training had been left by the wayside; in fact, these days, shooting at a fleeing suspect is never considered justified.

where did you get the idea that he was fleeing. Eye witlessness said he was charging football style. Secondly, if a suspect just committed a crime, such as assaulting a person, (but not limited to) and is fleeing, and told to haul, then deadly force is justifiable.

 

[Dick7Access]

Guess what? Our President has proposed getting 50,000 cameras for various police departments at a cost of $200,000,000.00... A little over the $200 each, we spoke about earlier in this thread. This is why body cams are not available everywhere.

Anyways, the shooting of Mr. Brown has now drifted rather quickly into the political realm and for me has left the purpose of this thread.

On track, Has anyone seen the new four barrel pistol that is (from what I have heard) a big hit. It has numerous other calibers available. All of these cal.(s) can be used on the same frame. Simply take one off and put another on. Don't know if I could hit any thing with a four barrel pistol.I wonder is it accurate enough for tournaments.

Dick7Access, have you heard anything about it?

I think Jim Bowie reportedly used a four barrel weapon at 'The Alamo'.

Never heard of it. Back in the 60's when I was a police officer all we had were 38 police specials. I have an acquaintance that is far right of me that I am sure he has. I will ask him.
D7A

 

[Dick7Access]

I agree with you about the cameras.

?

I have mixed emotions about body cams. I haven't made up my mind. Will those for and those against give me opinions both for and against.

 

[Dick7Access]

Well done Connor, Dick and Blade frequently play the "knives Kill", "cars Kill" etc " lets ban everything" card, they don't realise how pathetically childish that sounds when we are talking about gun control.
As has been said many times only guns are designed with the specific aim of causing harm/killing.

Brian

No Brian,
You can't get away with that Scenario. Guns are not just for causing harm. While that is there main intent, but not always. Secondly many times harm is justified. Thirdly if harm is justified, why would I want to use the second or third best method?

 

[Dick7Access]

I don't usually have this much time to go over this forum, however very usually circumstance has me stranded at my computer. I have search unsucessfully for the post that mention that GR streets are safer than US. Does anybody remember if that was on this thread, and if so what number.

 

[ConnorGiles]

No Brian,
You can't get away with that Scenario. Guns are not just for causing harm. While that is there main intent, but not always. Secondly many times harm is justified. Thirdly if harm is justified, why would I want to use the second or third best method?

FrothingSlosh says on the contrary, Guns ARE for causing harm. A police officer should only draw his weapon in the case he intends to kill the suspect (for whatever reason). By the way, you never said what other purpose they are used for other than harm because having a mechanical device that can shoot a deadly projectile with enough force to enter and exit the human body with ease, Seems a little hell bent on harm to me. I think you are missing the point here Dick/Blade what you were quoting on here Dick was that Brian said that we were saying that you think we want to take away your weapons. (We don't) The topic of the thread as you made it, is Gun control! Not Gun Bans. Does it really do you any wrong to be more safe with your firearms?

where did you get the idea that he was fleeing. Eye witlessness said he was charging football style. Secondly, if a suspect just committed a crime, such as assaulting a person, (but not limited to) and is fleeing, and told to haul, then deadly force is justifiable.

We seem to manage just fine here in the UK without guns having to be used on a fleeing suspect. Taser guns are used to stun the suspect then can be easily apprehended. No need for "Deadly Force". Fleeing in the UK is usually a sign of surrender or the person being unarmed (or too scared) to defend themselves so using a gun in my mind is out of the question.

But that is as you say "If" he was fleeing. Charging an armed police officer seems too far fetched for my liking. Also what do you think about my comment on the police buddy system? Surely is Wilson had a partner this wouldn't of happened.

I don't usually have this much time to go over this forum, however very usually circumstance has me stranded at my computer. I have searched (unsuccessfully) for the post that mention that GR streets are safer than US. Does anybody remember if that was on this thread, and if so what number.

I don't remember seeing anyone say GR (If this means GB - Great Britain) are safer than the US. But i have said on this thread that the US seems to rely too much on their firearms to apprehend suspects, whereas here in the UK we take the old fashioned take down or as said before we also use the Taser guns to stun the suspect and apprehend them without the need for as said above "Deadly Force".

I have mixed emotions about body cams. I haven't made up my mind. Will those for and those against give me opinions both for and against.

Another threads topic my friend. The same as this Wilson case.

 

[Dick7Access]

Since I can't find the post please forgive me if I mis quote it. Also forgive me for the GB mid quote. Someone said somewhere that without everybody running around with guns in GB he feels safer on the streets. If my memory serves me correct there has been several cases of people in GB who have defended themselves in there own home and have ended up with life imprisonment for having a gun. (If that is false please inform) If that is what I have to have to feel safer on the street then I don't want it. The day I would let one little scratch come to one of my love one because I didn't have suffice means (maybe a gun) to protect them, I would consider myself a coward, and no better than the coward that is trying to do us in. That doesn't mean I would kill at the least provocation, but as a last resort I would not hesitate. While I have doubts that background checks would make much of a difference, I am not against them. I have an acquaintance who I don't think should have a CWP or any guns. he has both. He has passed a background check, and has so many guns that, I think he bought on the black market that I don't see what difference a background check did. In the mean time I will continue to fight to not let that happened in US.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Since I can't find the post please forgive me if I mis quote it. Also forgive me for the GB mid quote. Someone said somewhere that without everybody running around with guns in GB he feels safer on the streets. If my memory serves me correct there has been several cases of people in GB who have defended themselves in there own home and have ended up with life imprisonment for having a gun. (If that is false please inform) If that is what I have to have to feel safer on the street then I don't want it. The day I would let one little scratch come to one of my love one because I didn't have suffice means (maybe a gun) to protect them, I would consider myself a coward, and no better than the coward that is trying to do us in. That doesn't mean I would kill at the least provocation, but as a last resort I would not hesitate. While I have doubts that background checks would make much of a difference, I am not against them. I have an acquaintance who I don't think should have a CWP or any guns. he has both. He has passed a background check, and has so many guns that, I think he bought on the black market that I don't see what difference a background check did. In the mean time I will continue to fight to not let that happened in US.

I think the problem yet again is that you are mind set that the words Gun Control means that we are trying to take them away from you.

We aren't.

We simply are trying to make the holder of the firearm more responsible for their weapons by maybe putting a lock on the guns cabinet or putting them out of sight and reach of young children.

Its not about obtaining weapons, No matter where in the world people may and can obtain any weapon they choose. Be it from the black market or in america from the local.

Personally I do think that over there guns have become too much of a reliable factor in keeping yourself "safe" which I don't have a problem with. But its when people use there means of being "safe" to threaten people without provocation. That's when I have a problem with guns.

Yes over here we often don't have robbers armed with firearms. Due to their near impossibility to obtain legally. (I also hear of people on the black market offering guns and when they meet, they then rob the buyer at their own gun point .) This doesn't mean robberies happen less, they are just at a lower fatality rate (Yes I know it is a much smaller country but I don't doubt that the fatality rate is a high percentage of firearm deaths over there) that of course is what happens when you are "defending" yourself.

Since we seem to be asking questions that do not address gun control. Why not, I shall ask my own.

Do you class a robber stealing items from your house as a justifiable offence to fire your firearm or "defending yourself"?

 

[adrianscotter]

I really need to poke my nose in here. This is a universal statement that applies to every country in the world that I have visited. If a police officer tells you to stand still, get on the ground, show him your hands or what ever, why would you not do it? I know police officers in the UK and the US and I can tell you that they all have concern for their lives when they make a stop for whatever reason. Yes, I know this off topic. I also still think that the UK gun laws are Draconian and prefer the gun laws in Florida and Texas to anywhere else in the US. I also tend to lean toward open carry rather than concealed carry because than everyone knows not to screw with anyone else.

 

[adrianscotter]

Break into a home in Florida or Texas and they will put holes in you, especially Florida with the 'Stand your ground' laws in place here.

I think the problem yet again is that you are mind set that the words Gun Control means that we are trying to take them away from you.

We aren't.

We simply are trying to make the holder of the firearm more responsible for their weapons by maybe putting a lock on the guns cabinet or putting them out of sight and reach of young children.

Its not about obtaining weapons, No matter where in the world people may and can obtain any weapon they choose. Be it from the black market or in america from the local.

Personally I do think that over there guns have become too much of a reliable factor in keeping yourself "safe" which I don't have a problem with. But its when people use there means of being "safe" to threaten people without provocation. That's when I have a problem with guns.

Yes over here we often don't have robbers armed with firearms. Due to their near impossibility to obtain legally. (I also hear of people on the black market offering guns and when they meet, they then rob the buyer at their own gun point .) This doesn't mean robberies happen less, they are just at a lower fatality rate (Yes I know it is a much smaller country but I don't doubt that the fatality rate is a high percentage of firearm deaths over there) that of course is what happens when you are "defending" yourself.

Since we seem to be asking questions that do not address gun control. Why not, I shall ask my own.

Do you class a robber stealing items from your house as a justifiable offence to fire your firearm or "defending yourself"?

 

[ConnorGiles]

Break into a home in Florida or Texas and they will put holes in you, especially Florida with the 'Stand your ground' laws in place here.

Have you lived anywhere else but Florida Adrian?

 

[adrianscotter]

Have you lived anywhere else but Florida Adrian?

I have spent time in Texas too but none of the other states I'm afraid.

 

[dan-cat]

I have an acquaintance who I don't think should have a CWP or any guns. he has both.

So do you think that guns should be banned for certain cases?

 

[Frothingslosh]

So do you think that guns should be banned for certain cases?

They already are. If you've already served prison time for holding up a store at gunpoint, you're rather unlikely to ever again be allowed a legal gun.

 

[adrianscotter]

FrothingSlosh says on the contrary, Guns ARE for causing harm. A police officer should only draw his weapon in the case he intends to kill the suspect (for whatever reason).

Nearly ConnorGiles, a police officer is only justified in drawing his weapon if he believes that his or another persons life is in danger - also, the officer must be able to show that he was justified in the course of action he chose. In other words, should a perpetrator close up to an officer when he's naked and obviously has no offensive weapon on his person (keep it clean), the officer would not be justified in shooting the perp dead, he would however, be justified in using his baton or gas depending on the risk assessment of the officer at that point in time. Obviously, the level of risk felt is extremely subjective and that's where the problems begin. What I may perceive to be a minor threat, to my wife could seem like a life threatening situation. Who would be right and who would be wrong under those circumstances? Cameras may well help.

 

[Dick7Access]

I think the problem yet again is that you are "?

We simply are trying to make the holder of the firearm more responsible for their weapons by maybe putting a lock on the guns cabinet or putting them out of sight and reach of young children.

I can’t argue with that, and I think that those on the right that do, is because they are so use to other rights being taken away little by little.

Personally I do think that over there guns have become too much of a reliable factor in keeping yourself "safe" which I don't have a problem with. But its when people use there means of being "safe" to threaten people without provocation. That's when I have a problem with guns.

Your right, but I see it has a cultural problem, not a weapons problem. I know of cases where a person gets in a traffic problem and issues an obscene jester and the other person says I’ll show him and takes his gun out and blows him away. I don’t get upset with things like obscene jester, but jerks do. They probable not satisfied with their life and have to make them self feel important.

Do you class a robber stealing items from your house as a justifiable offence to fire your firearm or "defending yourself"?

Comes close. Why should I deprive my love ones or myself of a way of life because this jerk thinks he is entitled to it? If he gets killed he brought it on himself. If he doesn’t come into my house he doesn’t have to worry about getting killed. I would have to take each situation on its own merits. I do think a persons life is more valuable that material thinks, but then again HE is the one that made a decision that material things were more important than his life.

 

[adrianscotter]

I'm 100% for responsible gun ownership, perhaps gun owners should have to qualify annually as the police officers do. If I were allowed to own a gun here of the UK, I would happily go qualify once (or more if needed) per year for that privilege. As for the person that enters my home, Florida or UK, as far as I'm concerned his rights stay out on the pavement (sidewalk) and his ass is mine, gun or no gun.