Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi Raptor,

Sure, we could post videos regarding DGU a very large number of times. The issue is, that by the Law of Large Numbers, with very large numbers of examples, "Good DGU" is out-numbered by "Bad DGU". For every single "Good DGU", there are more than 10,000 "Bad DGU's". Therefore, your reasonings and arguments are faulty by using the Law of Large Numbers.

The degree of open-mindedness is also, by frequency counts, very limited with DGU supporters generally, and a quick example is the present, as you refuse to see what you don't find as evidence supporting your stance. Then, particularizing polemics are resorted to, to only focus on rare supporting evidences, as "exclude anything that can be taken as any form of suicide" (suicide by cop too?), "exclude domestic violence", "exclude racially volatile issues", "exclude everything that can be contorted into 'accidental'", etc., to extremes of "exclude daytime events", "exclude nighttime events", and since confusion with changing conditions are "rare", "exclude both dusk & dawn events."

Yeah, after your full set of exclusions are applied, your stance with justified DGU reveals that you are full of something much less valuable than straw, and that your reasoning here with your proclamation of "that we've already won those, too", isn't worth what you are full of.

By the way, if highly skilled professionals (i.e., police officers) make frequent errors, how are blunderous amateurs parroting DGU as an exonerating skill-set (maybe many felons masquerading) going to supersede the level of skill of presumed lawful professionals?

To your words of "while you and you're kind", you justify my strategy of my utilizing frequency counts in trying to stay upwind to your proffered stance and its content.

Tadzio

For argument's sake, exactly how often on average does a LEO undergo a firearms qualification test compared to how often the average citizen practices on a civilian range? How "accurate" are individual LEO's involved in shootings compared to a civilian involved in a self defense scenario?

Furthermore, I also find your condescendsion to be insulting and uncalled for, and this is exactly why I tend to approach "debates" such as this from a philosophical and ethical perspective rather than a political one.

LEO training is more than just plinking at targets. It's about weapon retention in close combat, knowing when to draw, lines of fire, etc.

One of the biggest opponents of these shoot first laws in Minnesota are the local Police Chiefs who know that often civilians don't know what the f they are doing.

Let me make this really simple: Regardless of each state's laws, if you are going to shoot someone in self-defense, the situation better be severe enough that you are better off explaining what happened to a jury and willing to do so than you would be by letting the situation play out how it may. Or how it is commonly summed up, "be tried by twelve or carried by six". Shooting someone is a last resort but a necessary option to have available since criminals prefer to select victims that cannot run faster than them or fight them. They have no code of honor and will not commit crimes based on any guidelines

The info I'm about to present is somewhat dated, but it's relevant to the "LEO's are more professional in the use of firearms than civilians" debate.

Here are some statistics for the NYPD, one of the world's largest metropolitan police forces, taken from the New York Times:



If you notice, of all the shots fired by officers from 1996 to 2006, only a third of those hit their intended target. Something you might find more disturbing, however, is that officers fired on potentially unarmed suspects and/or were the only ones firing their weapons 78% of the time compared to 75% in 1996.

You would also be interested to know that in 2006, 21% of all shots fired by NYPD officers that year were due to negligent discharges. (Source)

Just some food for thought.

Regardless of how you define DGU, where are you getting your numbers?

You mean like this guy?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rcjKB9sE9o[/youtube]

Or this woman?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv89_3rrW8Y[/youtube]

I'm convinced, Simon. Their professional training is clearly superior to that of the average citzen.

Errors of judgement will always happen. If your argument is that the untrained are better off.....well, I find that ridiculuos.

THAK YOU!
What that map also shows is that the shootings are concentrated in areas with well known drug and gang problems, at times of day when drug transactions and gang activity is at it's highest. You typically don't find law abiding family men (regardless of income) with tax paying jobs and can pass a background check involved in that behavior, so there would have to be another root to the problem other than gun owners in general. Law abiding citizens are in bed or getting ready for woek when 1/3 of shootings happen and another 22% while they are at work. They have some free time in the afternoon, but even without detailed records it can be inferred that the law abiding citizens aren't doing the shootings in the afternoon either since they still have obligations and there is nothing preventing the people that are doing the shooting from shooting in the afternoon as well! Someone who spent their life in a all white town getting startled by a black person being the cause of a shooting is an isolated incident. Someone getting shot over a drug deal gone bad is well documented. Gang members getting singled out and shot is well documented. Attempted robbers and rapists, with clear intentions, getting shot in self-defense is well documented. The overwhelming majority of both illegal and justified shootings alike fall into well-defined categories. Percentage wise, lawful gun owners misidentifying someone or getting trigger happy amounts to an isolated incident.

Well, it's their job. They are required to go into situations daily that involve risks. Hobbyist gunslingers will likely never be involved in a single such incident. The world isnt a comic book and most people live peaceful lives. But the ones who do simply won't have the same level of training as a LEO.

Even when charged by someone, police don't automatically shoot someone,. They have several options because they are trained and equipped. A hobbyist will be afraid of losing their weapon and likely not have the training to do anything but shoot, even if the guy is unarmed. As several examples in this thread have highlighted.

Encouraging hobbyists, who are essentially one trick ponies (boom!), to take shots at people who they find threatening or to actively try and prevent property crimes that don't involve them, is just going to lead to problems.

Last edited by simon_says on 10 Mar 2012, 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In the absence of team tactics, training is less useful than simple common sense. Common sense makes the training short and simple enough to do in a day.

1) Bad things still do happen to people that live peaceful lives, and not only can police officers not be there in time to protect you, but they have no legal obligation to either. Additionally, the FBI has gone to prisons before and found overwhelmingly that most criminals really do fear armed citizens and breaking into occupied armed households. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that crime skyrockets when people's guns are taken away.

2) It is even simpler than that: Cops find it more practical to carry a variety of less lethal weapons to stop a charging person, and most cops are in better physical shape than most concealed carry license holders. And if a charging person won't stop and run from someone pointing a gun at them, that's good reason to fear for their life and will have to shoot anyway. There are a few recorded cases of isolated incidents over the years, but according to a reputable study that doesn't count every time a gun was pulled on a criminal, just so far this year alone there have been just shy of 114,000 occasions where a gun was used to defend against a potentially life-threatening situation (including times where the gun was discharged).

I guess we're supposed to start carrying a cop around with us since we have no idea how to defend ourselves without doing more harm, stoopid as we are.

By their logic any time we happen to be first at the site of any kind of medical or other emergency we, not being trained professionals, should always just wait for the fire rescue and/or EMT's to arrive since we, being too inept to do much more than stand there and breath, might possibly do more harm than good by attempting to render CPR, stop profuse bleeding by applying pressure, or pulling someone away from a burning vehicle, etc......
Hey, it happens all the time but I guess now we should always leave everything that could possibly result in unintentional harm to trained professionals no matter how long it takes them to show up.

Hi CoMF,

Don't worry, I won't have Rosencrantz and Guildenstern relay your message to Raptor's Southern Academic Ivoried Towered Castle from my Northern Academic Ivoried Towered Castle, since your Ivoried Towered Castle is entrenched in an impenetrable fog of confusion even for emittance of messages.

If you follow your strategy between the dangers of DGU civilian citizens and forthright police officers, with your elsewise, how did Joe the Pseudo-Plumber wanna-be do at fixing your satellite television???

For your concerns of "Furthermore, I also find your condescendsion to be insulting and uncalled for, and this is exactly why I tend to approach 'debates' such as this from a philosophical and ethical perspective rather than a political one", you failed to fulfill your own prophecy of any approach to the light of reason from your castle's fog bank.

Meanwhile, Oh, Boo-Hoo, Boo-Hoo, as if Aristophanes were still at work making poor little hatchling Tadzio the Starling blatantly condescend to fully mature Raptor The Patriotic Eagle of Prey, resulting in a tweet over spilled poorly-regulated well-armed militias falling from precariously constructed Ivory Tower nests.

BTW, CNN finally took up the previously referenced NWG shooting report.

Tadzio

Incorrect. My argument is that sometimes, even the "professionals" can show a dangerous lack of proper judgment with firearms, i.e. a badge does not magically confer superior abilities or skills to an individual.

Besides, the same training you referred to (weapon retention, justified use of lethal force, etc.) is in fact available to the public and civilians who are students of self defense will educate themselves about these things.



Civilian self defense scenarios also rarely involve multiple perpetrators, the use of cover, or the defender breaching into a home. In truth, weighing the typical law enforcement shooting against your average DGU is an apples to oranges comparison.



I agree, and that is also why I believe that situation avoidance, when it is feasible, is the best initial defense.




Simply not true. See what I stated above about that same level of training being available to the average citizen.



Poppycock. I refer you once again to the statistics I posted from the NY Times; 78% of all NYPD shootings involved officers who were the only ones shooting or perpetrators who were unarmed.



You have yet to prove that the primary motivating factor for these shootings is fear of losing one's weapon, and conflict de-escalation and avoidance techniques do not require any special training beyond self education.



...and individuals such as yourself who project their insecurities on those whom they disagree with will never do anything to get to the root of problem in regards to suspicious or unjustified use of deadly force aside from boring us to death with more condescendsion and engaging in partisan political rhetoric which, frankly, I'm tired of hearing.

ETA: When I speak of "DGU," I'm referring to Defensive Gun Usage as opposed to "Dangerous Gun Usage."

Last edited by CoMF on 10 Mar 2012, 7:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

On my mobile again, so please excuse any spelling, etc.

Since I try not to engage with crazy even when it pursues me, could someone please explain to Tadzio what a naked assertion is and point out the many in his posts. I find condescension and unearned airs of superiority tiresome in the extreme.