Right to bear arms except when armed cop around?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
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.

You still have not shown where the clarification of legal carry was mentioned in the OP. By not setting that clarification the OP also includes cases of people that have been convicted of a felony that CANNOT legally possess a firearm. Does it not?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

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.

Right to bear arm

Reading comprehension. Try it some time.

That quote refers to the constitutional right to bear arms, in other words, legally. The right to bear arms does not apply to criminals or criminal activity.

When the conversation drops to this level of absurdity, I tend to excuse myself and find something more interesting.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The OP stated,

Right to bear arms except when armed officer around?

No, except when that right has been stripped due to a felony conviction. Sorry to comprehend it more than you in this case.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Vroomfondel

The OP stated,

Right to bear arms except when armed officer around?

No, except when that right has been stripped due to a felony conviction. Sorry to comprehend it more than you in this case.

There is absolutely no mention of a felony conviction... This is pathetic.

/walks away singing, "Go away, little girl..."

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I see, resorting to personal attacks now? Great debating skills.

Well done.

a reply to: redempsh

Even center of mass, any gun smaller than .45 will not reliably down an assailant with one bullet.

There is no "One shot man stopper"... even the .45.
9 mm, .40 and .45, with modern hollow points, cause very similar wound channels. It is shot placement that is important, not the size of the bullet. I don't care if you have a .50 BMG, if you can't hit your target, you may as well be throwing rocks.

WTH makes you think a handgun is not effective beyond 10 meters and where did you get such misinformation?
A 9 mm round is still moving at around 1,000 feet per second at that distance, so, please explain why you think it won't work beyond that range.

I carry. I talk to police officers on a fairly regular basis. I do both at the same time, and not a bullet wound to be found.

You are overstating the case by several orders of magnitude.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
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?

A gun should almost never be deployed to injure. That's what non-lethal weapons are for. A gun should be deployed when there is an immediately lethal threat and in those cases shooting to immediately kill or incapacitate is the correct response.

Are we next going to suggest shooting the gun out of their hands?

Aside from that. How many of these cases where you say they were shot in an arm or leg were actually just center mass shots that missed? Probably most of them when a sharpshooter wasn't involved or very particular circumstances were involved.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I know there are plenty of cops who personally take time to shoot when they can. That is great for fundamentals training. But cops need more than that.

Where's the regular tactical driving course? Where is time spent at shoot houses and courses where shooting and moving are essential? What cop gets this kind of training outside of SWAT?

Very few. Those skills are perishable if not regularly honed. Shooting a few hundred rounds at the range, even if you are seriously training, is not the same thing as training as you fight.

a reply to: projectvxn

That's it in a nutshell.

They have training. Just not enough of the right training. Mere yearly qualifying isn't, in any shape, fashion, or form, near enough. I probably shoot as much as many cops, and I make no pretense of being well trained enough for that job.

It comes down to the voter being willing to make it happen. That only comes with getting off our asses and making it happen. City council meetings. Town hall meetings. Even letters to the editor help, or would help, if we could be bothered.

Being in a position to possibly, at some point in your career, having to shoot someone...it would behoove society to make sure that those people are as well trained as is humanly possible.

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?

Some people are just like that.

I recently worked in a workplace where there was a bloke who was trained a sniper. The blokes only ambition was to go to Afghanistan and shoot people, that's all he wanted to do.

They would not send him there so he left the millit-tree.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Xeven
Even if your white.

I've seen waaaaaaay too much evidence to the contrary.

It's like a thing they do.


edit ps - I agree with the rest of what you said, though.

open carry demonstrations are biracial, for you to imply only whites do it is very racist of you

originally posted by: Krakatoa
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".

Puzzled, maybe because I'm not American. If the LEO is faced with someone holding a gun, how on Earth would the LEO know at that point in time if it's a legal firearm, as in the firearm is legally registered or (unless the situation dictated the LEO SHOULD know) that they are a convicted felon? I'm not aware that firearms are colour coded so wouldn't the assumption be that if you are holding the gun and refuse to comply with the LEO's request then you have at least a possible intention of using the firearm?

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krakatoa
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".

Puzzled, maybe because I'm not American. If the LEO is faced with someone holding a gun, how on Earth would the LEO know at that point in time if it's a legal firearm, as in the firearm is legally registered or (unless the situation dictated the LEO SHOULD know) that they are a convicted felon? I'm not aware that firearms are colour coded so wouldn't the assumption be that if you are holding the gun and refuse to comply with the LEO's request then you have at least a possible intention of using the firearm?

there is no way to know, thats why the Op pointed out even legally carried weapons can get you dead....the member you posted too is just a little confused....

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krakatoa
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".

Puzzled, maybe because I'm not American. If the LEO is faced with someone holding a gun, how on Earth would the LEO know at that point in time if it's a legal firearm, as in the firearm is legally registered or (unless the situation dictated the LEO SHOULD know) that they are a convicted felon? I'm not aware that firearms are colour coded so wouldn't the assumption be that if you are holding the gun and refuse to comply with the LEO's request then you have at least a possible intention of using the firearm?

there is no way to know, thats why the Op pointed out even legally carried weapons can get you dead....the member you posted too is just a little confused....

Thanks, that helps. If you are holding a gun in your hand and an LEO requests you place it on the floor and you refuse to do so then whether it's legally owned or not, whether you are a convicted felon or not, then I can understand why that might in almost all circumstances come under the umbrella of suicide by cop.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JDeLattre89

A cop doesn't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop the threat.

Perceived threat.
Just to clarify.

When your target is stationary and standing ten feet away from you, and you aim at the head or chest - you are shooting to kill. A shot to the leg will stop most unarmed people well enough.

And if you miss that leg and hit whatever is behind it, perhaps a bystander? Then what? Pistols do not shoot magical limb seeking projectiles. The least risk is in shooting the largest and most immovable target. Legs or arms are a lot smaller, and (surprise) they move a LOT. Unless you have fired at a moving target, you cannot logically make that statement. Unless you care less for anyone or anything beyond that leg or arm in the higher probability you missed.

Good luck explaining that in court. The movies don't cover aspect that much do they?

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.

You may have pulled a trigger a lot but your answer screams that you have absolutely zero experience or training outside of paper targets. Or maybe you plink cans off a dead tree. Who knows.

What I do know is that anybody who hasn't garnered the overwhelming bulk of their shooting education from movies knows that "shoot to wound" makes absolutely zero sense from either a practical or legal sense.

a reply to: Xeven

Always so funny, bear arms...

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
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?

A gun should almost never be deployed to injure. That's what non-lethal weapons are for. A gun should be deployed when there is an immediately lethal threat and in those cases shooting to immediately kill or incapacitate is the correct response.

Are we next going to suggest shooting the gun out of their hands?

Aside from that. How many of these cases where you say they were shot in an arm or leg were actually just center mass shots that missed? Probably most of them when a sharpshooter wasn't involved or very particular circumstances were involved.

I get what you are saying. I do not agree that every time a gun is used the result should be a death. The first and often only go-to weapon for most cops is the hand gun. What you are saying is in most cases there is no alternative to lethal force. Even when a taser is used, as in recent events, it is followed within seconds by gun fire. There must be a level of intervention that does not include death. Most of the police involved shootings are at very close range with multiple officers on site. Think about Laquan McDonald, the teen from Chicago who was shot holding a knife. There were multiple officers there and he was holding a knife. There was time to aim for a leg or a shoulder. He was fifteen feet away from the nearest officer. If that shot failed to stop him there were enough officers there to shoot to kill. That does NOT have to be the first and only response.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JDeLattre89

A cop doesn't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop the threat.

Perceived threat.
Just to clarify.

When your target is stationary and standing ten feet away from you, and you aim at the head or chest - you are shooting to kill. A shot to the leg will stop most unarmed people well enough.

And if you miss that leg and hit whatever is behind it, perhaps a bystander? Then what? Pistols do not shoot magical limb seeking projectiles. The least risk is in shooting the largest and most immovable target. Legs or arms are a lot smaller, and (surprise) they move a LOT. Unless you have fired at a moving target, you cannot logically make that statement. Unless you care less for anyone or anything beyond that leg or arm in the higher probability you missed.

Good luck explaining that in court. The movies don't cover aspect that much do they?

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.

You may have pulled a trigger a lot but your answer screams that you have absolutely zero experience or training outside of paper targets. Or maybe you plink cans off a dead tree. Who knows.

What I do know is that anybody who hasn't garnered the overwhelming bulk of their shooting education from movies knows that "shoot to wound" makes absolutely zero sense from either a practical or legal sense.

You are making assumptions you shouldn't make. You have no idea what my background/training is.

What I do know is that a great majority of the police involved shootings we have seen recently did not have to end in death. Laquaan McDonald for example. He was holding a knife, was fifteen feet away from police, and there were multiple officers on site. Any one of them had time to aim for a non-lethal shot leaving the remainder of the officers to aim center man if the non lethal shot failed to stop the threat. Instead he was shot multiple times and died and now the lawsuits are flying. How is that legal sense now?

I am not expecting move style antics or sharp shooter tricks. When a person is standing ten to fifteen feet away from me and not holding a gun I KNOW I can hit a non-lethal target on his body. I also know I can put a shot dead center between his eyes if I need to. If he is pointing a gun at me - he is dead. Period. Not every scenario was as "imminent" as police have claimed them to be.

I am not advocating stupidity or self sacrifice. I am simply stating a fact. Not every shooting needed to end with a death. These police are emptying clips into people like its sunday at the carnival. Yet the terror suspect in New Jersey gets away with minor injuries. Why didn't they keep shooting? This was a serious threat who killed people and had a gun who was shooting at police. Why isn't he dead? Because of hollywood? Really?

To vroom:

I have the solution for you. Go to the Police Academy and train on Use of Deadly Force. Here is the description, if you have to draw your primary weapon (your gun), then things have already escalated. If you must use your gun, it is a deadly force situation. The only time you do not aim center mass of the body is when you cannot see the body, and then you aim center mass of the target (which is typically the head).

If you truly want to understand this, go down to your local police department or look up a nearby one and see if they have a citizens police training program or something similar. One of my departments did. They will typically give you the training that you are searching for. Because several of us have already answered your question. You are just not willing to listen, probably due to what others (also without knowledge) have put in your head. Whether these 'others' are liberal hippie love everyone but the cop types, or simply bad movies, I couldn't decide for you.