Right to bear arms except when armed cop around?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Xeven

" If you have a fire arm on you, a cop can just kill you dead. "


You are talking about a Legal Registered Firearm as opposed to an Illegal Unregistered one , Right ?

Gun registration isn't mandatory in all states.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

That is a pretty general situation isn't it? How about narrowing it down for us all?
Is this carrying at a firing range?
Is it in the presence of an officer that knows you personally?
Is is during a hunting trip?
Is it on the street during a crime in progress?
Is it when the police are serving a warrant?

Each of these situations requires a differing response based upon the environment in which it occurs.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I am a very experienced shooter of various types of firearms. Line of sight is important. No argument there. But we are talking about a potential risk compared to almost a certain death. You are justifying the death to avoid potential litigation. Nice priorities. edit: if there are bystanders that close then you go for a larger non-lethal target. A hip or a shoulder. You don't have to aim center man every time you fire, especially at close range for supposedly experienced and well practiced shooters.

Another problem here . . . You never shoot to injure. You shoot something to stop it. And you are not going to stop anything by shooting it in the leg, you will more than likely make it more angry and thus more dangerous to yourself and those around you. At which time, the cop also becomes liable for the damage caused by the guy that he just shot in the leg because he was being nice. But the cop in this scenario wouldn't have to worry about any liability at this point because he would likely be dead.

No, you shoot to stop the threat, which means center mass. I don't care how good of a marksman you are. If you are that good, then aim for the heart not the leg or arm.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Vroomfondel

That is a pretty general situation isn't it? How about narrowing it down for us all?
Is this carrying at a firing range?
Is it in the presence of an officer that knows you personally?
Is is during a hunting trip?
Is it on the street during a crime in progress?
Is it when the police are serving a warrant?

Each of these situations requires a differing response based upon the environment in which it occurs.

How about you read the OP before shooting your mouth off?

It is not my thread to clear up. Most people here understood it though...

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Vroomfondel

That is a pretty general situation isn't it? How about narrowing it down for us all?
Is this carrying at a firing range?
Is it in the presence of an officer that knows you personally?
Is is during a hunting trip?
Is it on the street during a crime in progress?
Is it when the police are serving a warrant?

Each of these situations requires a differing response based upon the environment in which it occurs.

How about you read the OP before shooting your mouth off?

It is not my thread to clear up. Most people here understood it though...

Perhaps you need to read the OP again? I was originally responding to the comments within the context of the thread conversation at the time. You stuck your nose in and decided to take it upon yourself to butt into our conversation. I was asking YOU to then clarify the position....considering you have made the lone decision to the the thread moderator. For convenience, here is the OP again...

originally posted by: Xeven
Right to bear arms except when armed officer around? Not about NC but related.

If you have a fire arm on you, a cop can just kill you dead.

Even if your white.

Tranquilizer guns might help...Seriously cops should just chill a bit before going all kill you.

Why do they always shoot to kill anyway?

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
a reply to: Vroomfondel

I am a very experienced shooter of various types of firearms. Line of sight is important. No argument there. But we are talking about a potential risk compared to almost a certain death. You are justifying the death to avoid potential litigation. Nice priorities. edit: if there are bystanders that close then you go for a larger non-lethal target. A hip or a shoulder. You don't have to aim center man every time you fire, especially at close range for supposedly experienced and well practiced shooters.

Another problem here . . . You never shoot to injure. You shoot something to stop it. And you are not going to stop anything by shooting it in the leg, you will more than likely make it more angry and thus more dangerous to yourself and those around you. At which time, the cop also becomes liable for the damage caused by the guy that he just shot in the leg because he was being nice. But the cop in this scenario wouldn't have to worry about any liability at this point because he would likely be dead.

No, you shoot to stop the threat, which means center mass. I don't care how good of a marksman you are. If you are that good, then aim for the heart not the leg or arm.

There are far too many examples of law enforcement shooting a leg or shoulder to stop a threat for that argument to hold up at all. Getting shot has a pretty big affect on your attitude, but as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, this isnt the movies. "Don't shoot him, you will only make him mad" is a great line from a Mel Brooks movie but in real life getting shot has a way of taking the wind out of you. If that doesn't work you can still aim center man. The problem is people who automatically think threat - kill. That person should never be allowed to be a police officer under any circumstances. Ever. If your answer to a threat is to kill it you have made yourself judge jury and executioner all in one. There is no provision for that in our constitution or in law enforcement. Stopping a threat can be done a myriad of ways that do not involve death.

a reply to: Vroomfondel
And how do you, in the instant of decision, know that a shot to the leg or shoulder will be effective? There is a pretty good chance the person is on drugs and will not even feel that shot much. At that point, you now are faced with a person that is armed, shot, and very likely enraged with beyond normal strength and endurance.

Good decision. Especially if that person then shoots bystanders or the officer. That is a brilliant strategy.

Well done.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Vroomfondel

That is a pretty general situation isn't it? How about narrowing it down for us all?
Is this carrying at a firing range?
Is it in the presence of an officer that knows you personally?
Is is during a hunting trip?
Is it on the street during a crime in progress?
Is it when the police are serving a warrant?

Each of these situations requires a differing response based upon the environment in which it occurs.

How about you read the OP before shooting your mouth off?

It is not my thread to clear up. Most people here understood it though...

Perhaps you need to read the OP again? I was originally responding to the comments within the context of the thread conversation at the time. You stuck your nose in and decided to take it upon yourself to butt into our conversation. I was asking YOU to then clarify the position....considering you have made the lone decision to the the thread moderator. For convenience, here is the OP again...

originally posted by: Xeven
Right to bear arms except when armed officer around? Not about NC but related.

If you have a fire arm on you, a cop can just kill you dead.

Even if your white.

Tranquilizer guns might help...Seriously cops should just chill a bit before going all kill you.

Why do they always shoot to kill anyway?

Your conversation? You do know this is a public forum? For multiple posts you keep going on about whether "his" finger was on the trigger. There is no "he".

If you have a fire arm on you, a cop can just kill you dead.

There is no weapon drawn or brandished, no finger on the trigger, nothing but a legally carried firearm. What more is there to clarify?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Yes, this is a public forum. And you are not a forum moderator, now are you? If you feel the conversation is straying from the thread, then report it to the mods. Without any clarification of the situation form the OP, it provides ample room to discuss differing scenarios and possibilities on why a LEO would feel the need to shoot an armed person. That, IMO, is not straying from the thread topic.

Read the OP again pleas.e No where in the OP does it mention it being a legally carried firearm does it? What if the person is a convicted felon? Then carrying any firearm is illegal.

Try again "self appointed moderator".

In an actual firefight, the maximum effective range of a semiautomatic pistol is about 10 meters.

Even center of mass, any gun smaller than .45 will not reliably down an assailant with one bullet. Almost all urban police departments carry 9mm. It takes a minimum of 2 shots, spaced at least a second apart, to stop an assailant. Oftentimes, a combatant doesn't even realize he's hit for 5 or 10 seconds....

"Shoot to wound" is for TV movies. "Shoot to hit" is the only cogent directive; and it goes without saying.

Lot of "theoretical experts" don't know crap about an actual firefight.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Vroomfondel
And how do you, in the instant of decision, know that a shot to the leg or shoulder will be effective? There is a pretty good chance the person is on drugs and will not even feel that shot much. At that point, you now are faced with a person that is armed, shot, and very likely enraged with beyond normal strength and endurance.

Good decision. Especially if that person then shoots bystanders or the officer. That is a brilliant strategy.

Well done.

Oh, now he is armed and on drugs... The situation keeps conveniently changing for you. The OP didnt mention any of that.

Also, again this is not the movies. Getting shot hurts. A lot. Drugs or not. The pcp crazed guy who gets shot multiple times and keeps going like the villain in a cheesy horror flick is rare to non-existent. How good a chance is "pretty good".

you now are faced with a person that is armed, shot, and very likely enraged with beyond normal strength and endurance

No. You are now faced with a guy who is more pain than he has ever been in before. He is scared to death, and probably bleeding profusely. He may no longer be able to stand, especially if the bullet hit the femur. If it his the femoral artery he is bleeding out and quickly. And guess what, you still have time for a center man shot if you really need to kill someone that badly,.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Talk about movie fantasy??? HAHAHAA.... You must be joking. How many PCP addicts have you been around? I have personally seen, with my own eyes, such a situation in front of my house growing up. The kid, yes kid about 17 was high on something, was shot by someone he was fighting with and did not stop. He beat the pulp out of the person with the gun that hot him, took the gun, and killed him dead. It was a drug deal gone bad. He took off, and the police tracked him down from the blood trail.

originally posted by: redempsh
In an actual firefight, the maximum effective range of a semiautomatic pistol is about 10 meters.

Even center of mass, any gun smaller than .45 will not reliably down an assailant with one bullet. Almost all urban police departments carry 9mm. It takes a minimum of 2 shots, spaced at least a second apart, to stop an assailant. Oftentimes, a combatant doesn't even realize he's hit for 5 or 10 seconds....

"Shoot to wound" is for TV movies. "Shoot to hit" is the only cogent directive; and it goes without saying.

Lot of "theoretical experts" don't know crap about an actual firefight.

I agree with you on the theoretical experts. Like people who think after 10 meters handguns aren't effective. I have a .357 that will put a hole in an engine block at that range. It is a sad state when the idea of shooting to wound is not a realistic option for police. If that is the case, then please explain excessive force. Police in danger of losing their jobs for firing too many times at a suspect. If the idea is to kill every time they fire then they should empty their clips every time. Why take a chance, right?

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Talk about movie fantasy??? HAHAHAA.... You must be joking. How many PCP addicts have you been around? I have personally seen, with my own eyes, such a situation in front of my house growing up. The kid, yes kid about 17 was high on something, was shot by someone he was fighting with and did not stop. He beat the pulp out of the person with the gun that hot him, took the gun, and killed him dead. It was a drug deal gone bad. He took off, and the police tracked him down from the blood trail.

Ok, if that is true, that is one case. You justify shooting to kill every time because of that one? Had this not been drug dealers or addicts, would a skilled trained shooter have had a chance for a second shot? What kind of variables are going to come in this time?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

There is no "if his finger was on the trigger". The thread is not about a specific event, just carrying a firearm in the presence of a police officer.

I carry everywhere I go.

It isn't the act of legally carrying that gets people shot.


Also, cops don't go through the level of training most people believe they do. They study procedure and usually only unholster their weapon long enough to qualify every 6 months.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The OP used a simplistic post to open discussion on a very complex topic with numerous variables. That, in effect, leave it open to all sorts of discussion around a police officer and a person carrying a firearm. Including all the scenarios discussed to date here.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Vroomfondel

There is no "if his finger was on the trigger". The thread is not about a specific event, just carrying a firearm in the presence of a police officer.

I carry everywhere I go.

It isn't the act of legally carrying that gets people shot.


Also, cops don't go through the level of training most people believe they do. They study procedure and usually only unholster their weapon long enough to qualify every 6 months.

The OP suggest that legally carrying in the presence of a police officer can get you killed. That is what I was referring to.

I don't know where you are from, but in this area police spend a fair amount of time on the range. I can't / won't quantify that because it varies of course. But the people I know visit the range far more often than once every six months to re-qualify.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Vroomfondel

There is no "if his finger was on the trigger". The thread is not about a specific event, just carrying a firearm in the presence of a police officer.

I carry everywhere I go.

It isn't the act of legally carrying that gets people shot.


Also, cops don't go through the level of training most people believe they do. They study procedure and usually only unholster their weapon long enough to qualify every 6 months.

The OP suggest that legally carrying in the presence of a police officer can get you killed. That is what I was referring to.

I don't know where you are from, but in this area police spend a fair amount of time on the range. I can't / won't quantify that because it varies of course. But the people I know visit the range far more often than once every six months to re-qualify.

Please show us where in the OP the clarification of carrying "legally" was mentioned. I can;t seem to find that. Without it, you are assuming a variable is set to a value that was not in the OP.

a reply to: Krakatoa

So the discussion if open to all sorts of discussion...

That is a pretty general situation isn't it? How about narrowing it down for us all? Is this carrying at a firing range? Is it in the presence of an officer that knows you personally? Is is during a hunting trip? Is it on the street during a crime in progress? Is it when the police are serving a warrant?

And you follow with these demands for specifics? I was being general, as the Op intended. Anyone can create a set of specific variables that require a specific outcome. That was not the purpose of the thread. It is disingenuous to suggest it was.