Shooting at the Empire State Building

the assumption i made was that it made sense in a police situation to minimize the times you fire, not only because of the amount of ammunition you carry but also in order to minimize collateral damage. i like that term "collateral damage" don't you? so...sanitary. obviously the people around a someone else with one of those freedom-inducing symbols of self-reliance and manly virtue are not in a combat zone. they might be, o i dunno, going to get a sandwich. so it would follow that the context of a shooting is not the same as in a war zone. the l.a. darryl gates police-as-paramilitary "thinking" notwithstanding.

god(tm) help us if the idea is abroad in police world that there is no such distinction. that'd mean the police were in a little war on everyone else.

 

The same policymakers who oppose stricter gun control are generally not supporters of a reasonable and necessary level of government funding for any of the above.

And my post was ignore as well....re: the existing 1980s law on reporting of multiple sales of handguns to ATF and extending it to all firearms and some agreed up quantity of ammo.

 

Fuck education and women's rights... we've got ammo to track.

 

Yup, we can't do two things at the same time. And if we created a new database, even a small one like this, we would have no cash left for education.

 

how does that trade-off work again?
methinks you are just making shit up.

 

You know what I like more than your playful jabs at today's politically-correct fumble terms? Police officers that carry a gun they actually know how to use. In a perfect world where only the cops and military have guns and ammunition is dispensed one shot at a time from city hall, it would make sense that they actually know how to use them better than, say, a dumpy John Smith who shoots paper targets on the weekend. If you want to prevent collateral damage, focus on training those task fundamentals instead of accounting. I know that's a foreign concept to all you politicos out there. Police officers benefit more from foreign language training and learning how to use their tools than lawsuit prevention fear tactics.

 

so you're saying that you see no distinction between the situation in which a cop might shoot and one in a war zone? seriously?

 

On an individual level? As a part of a "someone's trying to kill me, I need to defend myself" scenario?

Not really. But I was a part of the GWoT nation-building police action crusade, not World War 2.

I'm talking defensive action... you know... what 90% of the last 10 years of "war" have been for Joe.

 

Well I fail to see why you can't do both. Have good marksmanship/firearm skills and knowing how many rounds you fired. When working in law enforcement a ton of shit is bureaucratic, political and or legal. What may make zero tactical sense may make sense when trying to put together a case or recreate the events. I've sat in court more then once and listened to defense attorney grill an officer on how many rounds they fired and in what direction. Anything that makes a jury question your professionalism is fair game, including whether you slept well the night before or ate a healthy breakfast. You mentioned "picking up revolver brass." No place I worked for would have done this. A group of six spent .38 shells would be circled and photo'ed to show the exact spot officer "A" reloaded. The rounds would be collected by another officer and sent to the lab to to verify they were in fact from his/her weapon. Every spent casing is left exactly where it's found until it's documented and photographed. The last thing you want in a major case is for a defense attorney to say "how do you know these shells came from that weapon?" And not have a solid "we know because we collected them and tested them."

 

less obesity = less incidence of mass shootings? Surely not. I suspect you're intentionally avoiding the main premise by drifting off into where a reallocation of government manpower and budget dollars would serve the country best. Great topic, but how does it fit into the discussion we're having on this thread which has been mostly focused on law-abiding citizens with guns who shoot people? If we're changing the subject now, I suppose it might be time.

I'll agree that there are no easy answers but I refuse to believe that there are no answers at all or that the status quo is acceptable until solutions are found that satisfy the NRA.

I've been and still am a US citizen (58 years) and only recently moved to the UK to live with my SO. I can't tell you yet whether the attitude of a non-gunning owning society with socialized medicine is as you portray it. So far, I haven't seen it.

I took this somewhat derogatory comment of yours to insinuate that countries where guns are banned are at the mercy of the "state" for protection which led me to the idea that you believe all citizens should be responsible for protecting themselves, their families and their neighbors. I made the assumption that this protection involved putting more guns in hands of average citizens. I may have taken that assumption too far.[/quote]

 

Hey, it happens.

I don't have a lot of answers to the gun problem because I think guns are everywhere in the US... and because I think its mostly a people problem.

The issue with that, however, is protecting the rights of the individual. Nobody wants to get labeled crazy by the government for something they did when they were 16. The problem with our precious civil rights/Big Brother bad person labels is that they're nearly impossible to get back/remove.

 

Gun news of the day

 

C'mon, Redux. Sensational cat is sensational. If you're gonna twist the Glock in our backs, keep it real.

A bunch of dipshits are really going to take over a US Army base with a couple of ARs and pipe bombs?

 

Just pointing out an anti-government plot.

Such plots exist, despite the right wing outrage over a DHS report suggesting that these extremists militia type groups have been on the rise in recent years.

And, two innocent folks were murdered in this case (according to the prosecutor) because one may have known about the plot.
--- merged: Aug 27, 2012 at 1:43 PM ---
Perhaps part of the solution to gun violence, particularly those cases with a political message, is enabling the government to track these groups in a manner that balances public safety and the protected rights of these groups.

But again, that is a non-starter with the right.

 

Well, it's a non-starter for the "right" because it would make sense that all extremist-extremist groups have firearms.

I mean, you're not really an extremist group without some type of mechanism with which to kill people, right?

Without guns and bombs, these groups would basically be like a weird, angry sect of the Amish.

Ya know, like the entire population of Montana.

 

Is it just me or does the media play a "name that group" game? I mean here we have a group of people who are "extremists" but I'll bet hard cash if they were Muslims they'd called "terrorists."

Whole situation reminds me of the white folks who were photographed while "searching for food" during Katrina. The black people pictured doing the same thing were "looting."

 

I'm confused I guess about a policeman's role vs that of a soldier.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

It's a soldier's job to kill an enemy unless he's got bars and such and can order others to do it. In the process, the soldier's other main concern, from a reasonable and human point of view, is to do what he can to make sure he keeps himself (and his buddies) alive while well aware of the fact that their safety and life is not the main objective. It is not his duty to make sure no civilians are killed by his actions because it ain't about them. Morally a soldier can take it upon himself to consider civilians, if the situation allows for it, but it's not in his job description to do so.

On the other hand, the policeman's job is to protect and serve the public (which last time I checked had a lot civilians in it). Seems to me, based on this job description, that because the objectives are different the priorities should be as well. The lives of innocent bystanders (the public) should take priority over the life of the civil servant who signed up for the job to protect them. He didn't sign up for the job so he could chase after confrontations that could get him killed then worry about his own life over that of "civilians."

Maybe police don't get paid enough to actually consider their innocent charges when a perp pulls a gun on them. The Secret Service gets the big bucks to do that.

Maybe they should have signed up for military service where they aren't expected to put their own life on the line to protect the public.

Having said that, I'm still of the mind that no one knows how they will react in that situation until the situation is presented to them. That includes the conceal carry types who, though they've never experienced it, are convinced that they will keep a cool head and take down the nutjob in a dark theatre filled with people, with more expertise than law enforcement officials. Why? Don't ask, just accept.

Because guns are everywhere means it's impossible to keep them away from certain individuals? It's a people problem? So is it the challenge of figuring out who the people with the problems are or the perception that to do so requires another hit on the 4th amendment?

The data on you is already in the hands of the federal government. Your privacy has already been invaded and your life's history carted out in official boxes and punched into databanks. Is the addition of your ammo buying habits and the fact that someone might be paying attention to them really the straw that's going to break your back?

 

I'm not going to argue with you about the differences between a 2000-era US military service member and a NYC police officer since it's pretty clear you've received your education from Platoon and NYPD Blue. That and the concealed carry hero thing? Dead horse. Trayvon thread. Sikh thread.

Frankly, your perverted hippie misconception of the US military service member as shown above disgusts me.

So, basically:

 

I'd say they have over laps but are different careers completely. But I say that after cleaning toilets in the Navy and working parole and some traffic duty in very small rural areas.

Many people get their idea of both the military and LEO from movies, TeeVee and books