Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

As do I. See my response to Simon.

Thanks for sharing. Now how exactly is this diatribe relevant to our discussion?

Ok, well, I find your arguments completely unconvincing. You seem to believe that the average gun owner is just as well trained as a LEO, which really already ended the conversation as far as I'm concerned. Many police and prosecutors don't seem to like these laws and find them dangerous. I agree with them.



That says nothing about how many times they refrained from shooting someone in a scuffle. Citing statistics and correctly applying them to an argument are entirely different things. Are you actually trying to pretend that cops shoot every aggressor rather than wrestle them down, pepper spray them or otherwise subdue and cuff them? They are trained in the use of non-lethal force for a reason. They have options when confronting a threat. And they also have extensive gun training on top of that.

Why are we even arguing about demonstrable facts like that?

A civilian has the option to pursue additional training, it's a requirement for police to be extensively trained. That is the obvious difference.



Well, I'm fine with that. If you're inside someone's house uninvited at night, you should be in trouble. But it's the taking of that premise out into the streets, under a wider range of circumstances that I have a problem with.

Hi Raptor,

I've never seen a non-crime accident scene that had victims that needed the victims of the accident to be immediately shot for the sake of self-defense (maybe a few times in wild action movies). During my medical emergencies in public, I've been robbed at about the same number times than only aided (people tend to take all types of items, like in the closing scenes in "My Own Private Idaho").

Fire Fighters tend to keep more distant from fires with firearms within, so stretching to extremes both ways works, but somewhat irrelevant in the main subject.

Three decades ago in Central California, the remark was often made of "Call A Cop, and Double Your Chances of Being Shot", as rapid response teams tended to shoot at anyone with anything suspiciously being with an appearance of a firearm or weapon, and taking oral alerts only deadly minutes later. False Alarms also had a high police shots fired rate, and many arrests for interfering with police officers for any minor fluctuation from police forceful instructions. Not reporting a crime in a timely manner is also often a crime, so "peaceful" success with a gun still triggered many over reponses from officers with guns drawn.

When two mutually suspicious pedestrians meet and attempt to restrain each other until the both called police arrive, does the one firing the first fatal shot have the greater self-defense claim?

Tadzio

So we're now up to 10 (ten) pages certain people making fools of themselves......

Funny thing is that I've known at least four people (that I can think of off hand) that used to be like them with all the same bleating rhetoric.
Then all the sudden they were asking what kind of gun to buy, where to go shooting, how to get a CCW, etc..... and they're all the sudden damned eager to be able to defend themselves and theirs against the kind of people that, in their minds, didn't exist the week before. In other words they got their wake-up call and the voice at the other end scared the b'jeezus out of them....

That's a nice straw man you've constructed there. Nowhere did I state or even imply that the average gun owner has the same level or degree of training as a LEO. You asserted that it is impossible for the average citizen to achieve any level of proficiency and training with firearms necessary for their safe and lawful use, and I asserted that not only is that line of reasoning fallacious, but that such training is in fact available to private citizens and that they can achieve a level of proficiency and training that has at least some parity with that of a police officer; in my mind some education is better than no education whatsoever.



I find it amusing how you attempt to trivialize the statistics I cited and rationalize the police shootings I referred to when, by and far, the biggest point of contention I have seen thus far with the defensive shootings described in the Tampa Bay Times article involved perpetrators who were either unarmed or did not fire any shots themselves. How is it morally reprehensible when a private citizen shoots an unarmed perpetrator regardless of the circumstances, but acceptable and even perfectly justified when a police officer does it? Why the double standard?

Also, nice straw man. I never once stated or implied that LEO's shoot everyone they come across in the line of duty. I merely demonstrated that it is not an uncommon occurence for a police officer to shoot an unarmed perpetrator despite their "superior" training which you're always touting.



Because you have yet to demonstrate them and, as a result, are your own personal conceits until proven otherwise.



Be that as it may, I believe I have presented sufficient evidence that, despite extensive training, LEO's can be just as irresponsible with firearms as you purport private citizens to be.

Hi Dox47,

A few posts back, you were the self-proclaimed know-it-all amateur gun expert condescendingly dealing with those you assumed lacking such gun smarts. I go by actuary tables and such. Sorry if you find anything not smelling of gun powder tiresome, but books soaked in gun oil are not more informative. The main info is from FBI reports that might be incompatible with the world view from "Naked Gun" and to those who mistakenly don't appreciate the values of such satire to exemplify facts.





Hi CoMF,

It's unfortunate that you find indirect hints, in your apparent argument that the unprofessional are better than the professional, of that that is not the results "from a philosophical and ethical perspective", nor political, but just that from elements of perspective that are ridiculous, insulting. "Ridiculous" mixed with "firearms" is best not mixed in reality.
The continuance of the ridiculous elements necessitates the otherwise worry of "uncalled for".

Tadzio

Dear Tadzio,

In light of you citing Simon's straw man (which I ceremoniously debunked) as the basis for your jejune polemic of rapidly diminishing consequence, I've concluded that we'll just have to agree to disagree before this "discussion" of ours degenerates any further.

I'm also bringing our exchange to the attention of the WP moderators, so if you want to roll the dice by continuing to behave in a boorish manner, be my guest. 7 or 11. Snake eyes watching you.

Regards,
CoMF

I disagree. Gun owners usually go shooting more than twice a year. Are you familiar with some of the LAPD's epic fails? On several occasions they fired as many as 120 shots at a car while standing in a circle, and either miss completely or only get a couple non-critical hits. They epitomize the term "spry and pray". They once even hit each other this way. They are notorious for bad marksmanship and bad tactics. I believe the "highly trained" London PD gun unit had this problem recently as well. About a year ago the Miami PD had a shootout and hit a bystander a block away. A couple years ago a San Francisco transit cop got trigger happy. Or how about that infamous Kehoe brothers shootout. How the hell did that Ohio state trooper miss multiple times at powder burn range and let the brothers flee? Or how about the infamous pepper spray incident at UC Berkley last fall? No consensus has ever come on the professionalism of that. Police fail and do stupid things, and both police and prosecutors simply say what they think is in their personal interest. Individual major city police officers tend to frown on concealed carry but that is not absolutely true for all of them, and lots of small departments and CLEOS are indifferent or favor it.

Doesn't matter.
They're convinced that 2+2=3 and no one is going to tell them otherwise.

Hi CoMF,

Your biased & flagrant denigration of policing agents of all tiers of governments in the U.S.A. involving deadly force is ridiculous. You go well beyond expressing mere opinions, and despite your edits, artifacts of your calls to action of private citizens to resort to deadly force remain.

You certainly sound experienced in repeatedly crapping-out with inferential probabilities and statistics. For myself, I'm going to continue utilizing critical thinking in challenging fallacious conclusions, especially instances involving great dangers. If advanced levels of metaphors are limiting, try improving your Canon of Knowledge.

For better phrases, try Leonard Cohen.

Tadzio

Hi Raptor,

I'm still trying to illustrate to DGU's proponents that the number 2,500,000 is much bigger than the number 215. In the gun-toting-bubble, numbers must be limited to the count of ten, and lower after hapless discharges, yet still not bubble popping.

Tadzio

The more concise trio of web-links are already listed:

The very concise FBI Table (too concise???):
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offens ... le_15.html

The "WE HAVE 2.5 MILLION DEFENSIVE USES OF GUNS PER YEAR!" pages (full of critical errors):
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html

The "Statistics, Gun Control Issues, and Safety" (incorrectly weighted counts???):
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUT ... NSTAT.html

Many of the actuary tables I checked are "protected/forbidden" for public viewing, and often involve also putting direct dollar values on Human life (hence, much of the "restrictions"). The oil company BP experienced the "controversy" with their pricing of "little piggies" that I have cited previously as at sites such as: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... p_memo.php

Safety questions quickly become numerically complex, as just try to justify seat-belts as actually saving "lifes", versus Human time manufacturing costs and the Human time to utilize the belts as "life-length of time lost" versus "life-length of time saved".

And, book & "legal cases" sources more limited to the thread here of the "Castle Doctrine":




Do you care about how "loaded" some of your sentences are in the second posting??? Such as just the phrase "Law abiding citizens are in bed"??? Which law dictates bed times for "law abiding citizens"? Do shift-workers have to get a court order when they pull the graveyard shift??? That's asking for questions involving knowing which end the bullets fly out of the Glock for Glocked Clock-Watchers. Then the pseudo-KKK pseudo-logic phrases......

Tadzio

Lock removed, with the expectation that things will improve.

It's as well this is occurring on a forum and not in some parking lot because I think blood would have been spilled by now - there are far too many sharply barbed comments aimed not at the topic, but at scoring points over other posters.
Please discuss this issue without the attitude and condescension, otherwise this thread will be locked permanently.

Thanks Cornflake. Considering the seriousness of the issues being discussed, I'd hate to see the thread perma-locked due to a lack of civility.

What you see as "biased & flagrant denigration," I see as holding law enforcement personnel to the same standard which you apply to private citizens. Is it only "ridiculous" because those videos of negligent discharges and the shooting statistics of the NYPD from 1996 to 2006 strip away the illusion that law enforcement is less capable of grievous error with a dangerous weapon by virtue of their rigorous training? The NYPD is one of the largest, most well-trained metropolitan police agencies in the world, and yet the facts are as stated.

The point I am trying to make is that the issue which sits at the core of irresponsible firearms use is a human one. Firearms are dangerous and unforgiving when used carelessly, regardless of whether the person using one is an average joe or a police officer. The most logical solution is to stress proper education in their use and hold the irresponsible accountable for their actions rather than protect them from the consequences or collectively punish everyone for the indiscretions of a few.



Nonsense. I think you're reading too far between the lines, Tadzio. I view the defense of one's self as a tremendous responsibility and something which should not be taken lightly. I do not encourage anyone to own a firearm unless they're willing to educate themselves about the safe and proper use of it. If someone is not confident in their ability to safely use a firearm and is unwilling to take the time and effort to educate themselves or achieve a modicum of proficiency with it, the only responsible thing to do would be to show better judgment and not purchase one in the first place.

Conflict de-escalation techniques and situational awareness are just as important if not more so than being armed, and these are things which anyone can learn outside of a police academy. A firearm is nothing more than a tool to be used as an absolute last resort, when all other options are either infeasible or have already been exhausted.



Ad hominem and irrelevant.