Shoot to wound mentality

[Korietsu]

But you are saying it is, we're taught to shoot center mass because it's by far the largest and most static part of the body. Even then center mass shot is NOT A 100% guaranteed hit and people expect us to hit smaller, more mobile parts of the body in a split second time frame.

Here is a chart of shots fired and accuracy broken down by distance.

[img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.1260.639.jpg[img][/quote]

Also, holy fuck at how inaccurate NYPD is. You couldn't even pass basic with an accuracy rating like that in the military. 43% at point blank? Come on, and 21% at 6 - 21? That's shameful if that's their standard.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I don't want to rehash this whole gun control debate again, but for fuck's sake, it really is this simple. In America, there are so many firearms in circulation that were purchased legitimately over the years that it is impossible to track them all down. Maybe banning guns works in Europe. It won't work here. By making legislation that bans guns, we only prevent people who are inclined to obey the law from owning them. Is that so hard to understand? I know it was brought up in the last huge debate on this issue, but man... it seems pretty simple to me. A person not inclined to obey the law, ie a person intent on using a firearm to commit a crime.

That's basically why I think that banning guns at this point is stupid. I agree with this. Now, I'm still anti-gun, but realistically it just can't happen due to major bullshit in America and how much people love their deadly weapon toys.

If we didn't have as many guns it could be possible, but too many exist already. It's too late.

[Melchiah]

I'm curious Maxx, what is your stance on drugs/controlled substances?

I ask because I happen to enjoy shooting firearms. I don't hunt very much, and never did. I have never actually made a successful kill while hunting, nor have I shot a person or have any intention to do so. My parents taught me that hurting others is wrong and I shouldn't do it. I was also taught to obey the law. I just enjoy the act of shooting a weapon and honing my skill with it.

Given those things, I feel that there is no justification for legislation that would prevent me from owning a weapon, firearm or otherwise. I'm not a criminal, therefore I don't use weapons to break the law.

I use this same argument to bitch about controlled substances. I like to use certain controlled substances for enjoyment on occasions. I don't do them in public, or operate a vehicle, public roadway or otherwise, or otherwise endanger the general public while under the effects of said substances. It's my body, so what justification is there for the laws that prevent me buying these things openly?

Now, in America, convicted felons are banned by law from purchasing firearms. Also, firearms that have been implicated in a crime are destroyed after they serve their purpose as evidence, at least in some regions if not the entire country.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Depends which drugs. Some are instantly dangerous, some are dangerous due to addiction, some aren't really dangerous. It is a case by case basis, though our current policy is retarded.

[Beckwin]

Yeah, there were like, totally no guns in Europe ever and there still aren't Shit has to start somewhere. Don't cop out on the Europe point based on some bullshit that they didn't have many guns to begin with- ask yourself about population density there and how many wars have been fought there. It takes time to bring gun numbers and ownership down but stop this bullshit about getting a handle on it being impossible. And FYI, most European nations still allow for gun ownership for hunters and sport shooters.

problem with the convicted felon thing is the secondhand market, and I think in some states it doesn't apply to single action rifles or collectibles.

[Eaglestrike]

Yeah, there were like, totally no guns in Europe ever and there still aren't Shit has to start somewhere. Don't cop out on the Europe point based on some bullshit that they didn't have many guns to begin with- ask yourself about population density there and how many wars have been fought there. It takes time to bring gun numbers and ownership down but stop this bullshit about getting a handle on it being impossible. And FYI, most European nations still allow for gun ownership for hunters and sport shooters.

problem with the convicted felon thing is the secondhand market, and I think in some states it doesn't apply to single action rifles or collectibles.

Europe also wasn't founded in an era with guns. Most of Europe was already settled and farmland by the times gun were commonplace. Guns were there as a necessary part of the US from the very beginning. And the right to bear arms was put into the constitution because the militia men were a decisive force for the US in the revolutionary war. Hunting has progressed from a necessary food source to a sport only in the last century or so (with industrialization I imagine is when it tapered off mostly).

Also, since so much of the US was unexplored until a century and a half to 200 years ago, there is more wildlife, and more reason for a landowner in the US to own a gun. There have been a variety of reasons for someone from the US to own a gun or rather for their ancestors to have. It's just been part of American life for many within the country. Europe was explored, settled and "protected by the military" since we were in the first millenium, we're now in the 3rd.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Plus, you had to shoot those damn injuns

[archibaldcrane]

problem with the convicted felon thing is the secondhand market

Do you think gun bans will somehow ruin the "second-hand" market, keeping guns out of felons' hands since you admit that the current gun control laws don't prevent felons from buying guns illegally?

[Infiltrator]

Also, isn't New York City understaffed cop wise? I can't imagine this increasing recruiting numbers...

Here's the article where I read this:

*Warning* NSFL- Not Safe For Liberals (the site, not the article)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... bling.html

That site is full of bullshit, assumptions, and complete lack of impartial use of the english language. Let's take this paragraph example:

Besides, suppose a cop only wings a bad guy, and the attacker -- surely shooting to annihilate -- then manages to kill him, his partner or an innocent bystander. Does Paterson actually believe that the life of a criminal with deadly intent is somehow more precious than any of these three thoroughly guiltless individuals?

Firstly they didn't say criminal, they said bad guy, which sets up the cop as the ever good guy. Good guys do good things and bad guys do bad things, so this use of the language is extremely manipulative.

and a criminal generally is the bad guy. A criminal is someone who commits a crime. If you want to get on his case on using words as a setup, explain how the fuck is "criminal" any different?

If a policeman is drawing his gun on you and you suspect your life is in danger, that gun is precisely what people's minds will jump to to defend themselves. Then there is the assumption that police always know if there is deadly intent with the quote "criminal with deadly intent."

How the fuck can you reasonably expect your life is in danger when a cop, in uniform mind you, stops you? There is no REASON whatsoever to expect that. We don't remove our handguns from our holsters just because we feel the need to point guns at people. There is that little thing called force continuum that I mentioned earlier and lethal force is very last one. So if a pistol comes out of the holster then the situation calls for it. Brandishing a firearm and pointing it or attempting to point it (even by raising it to aim) at an officer is considered IMPLIED lethal force.

I remember one case where plain cloths officer served a warrant on an old lady and she shot at them because they weren't in uniform and didn't identify themselves as such.

I suppose if a plain cloths/undercover stopped you, then you'd have a point. I don't know how other departments handle this, but my department policy regarding plains cloths or undercover cops is that they must have a uniformed officer present during arrest.

Criminals don't commit crimes and suddenly become sociopaths. They are not guiltless, though they do often have a fucked up sense of morals.

Now you're a psychologist?

What this doesn't mean though is that they're stupid enough to kill a cop. The cops are far better connected than any of those criminals and the criminals know it (and if not then what the fuck, let's increase government spending on police instead of cut it.) Police should always take lethal force once a criminal has proven himself stupid enough to take it himself.

What does being "better connected" suppose to mean? The majority of the time, they got caught and decided they will attempt to escape capture. It happens over drugs smuggling traffic stops, it happens when a fugitive runs into law enforcement.

I started a semester long shit storm in high school by posing this very question in my American politics class. Infuriating gun toting rednecks has always been a passion of mine. I guess blowing up quails and rabbits with an Assault rifles and fucking hand grenades covers up those pesky inadequacies we are too chickenshit to deal with?

But to answer your question, I guess that takes effort and makes too much sense?

I'm curious, what do you think gives you the right to take away people's guns if they haven't commited a crime yet? Because in the future they might?

Because they're not just fun toys. They actually exist to kill things.

Killing isn't inherently immoral or illegal.

Well, assuming you are somebody who is for allowing all US citizens to be allowed firearms for self defense, aren't there ever cases where people pull guns without the intent to shoot, but rather to show that you are not defenseless?

Let me clear up one thing. First there is the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd amendment plus state amendments that are similar to it. Then there are state conceal carry laws which allows you to carry a conceal handgun in public if you acquire a license with various restrictions depending on the state. Two very different things.

As far as cases goes, there was one case I remember a CHL holder brandished his firearm to scare off some people while he was driving (they followed him and began making finger gestures at him when he accidentally cut them off). He was arrested and charged for failure to conceal. You're not allowed to brandish your firearm to "scare" people and life and limb must be IMMINENT. The legal opinion on that follows the reasoning that if you were in a life and limb situation you'd be in a position that would warrant immediate action. Since there was no immediate action, then the situation wasn't a dire life and limb situation.

[BIGSTIC]

In other news, I'm considering my first pistol purchase, and I'm really leaning towards a Springfield Armory 1911 model, but I'm open to suggestions.

Personaly I have a Colt 1911 that came from WWII handed down from my grandfathers side of the family. The history is enough I will never get rid of it but honestly if you are just gonna hit the range or compete I find the .45 just a little much. I do love my S&W .40 but that is more cause it fits my hand like a glove. Honestly one of the nicest pistols I have shot is a Sig Sauer 9mm. But the $1k price tag was a little much for my pocket book at the time. And if you are just going for balls out show off at the range sohot for a Desert Eagle .50, just be ware cause they kick like a bitch.

And just to let you know. A used to be friend of mine needed some cash so he pawns his 270. Three days later he gets a DUI and being that it was his 4th( i think) he got a felony and sent to prison for a year then rehab for 6 months. He comes home and its hunting season. He goes to get his 270 out of hawk and BAM no go casue he is now a felon. No more guns for him. So yeah the system does work but I find it interesting that he can still drive a car which is how he got his DUI but he cant own a gun.

[layoneil]

Also, holy fuck at how inaccurate NYPD is. You couldn't even pass basic with an accuracy rating like that in the military. 43% at point blank? Come on, and 21% at 6 - 21? That's shameful if that's their standard.

i'm neither in the military nor law enforcement but i think the situation for those % are highly different.

those seem to be actual numbers taken on the job. i'd assume "basic" in the military isn't measured during the battlefield. also i'd assume military personal has a lot more leeway to not allow threat targets to get into point blank range whereas law enforcement permit their targets to get within that range on a daily basis.

[Korietsu]

Also, holy fuck at how inaccurate NYPD is. You couldn't even pass basic with an accuracy rating like that in the military. 43% at point blank? Come on, and 21% at 6 - 21? That's shameful if that's their standard.

i'm neither in the military nor law enforcement but i think the situation for those % are highly different.

those seem to be actual numbers taken on the job. i'd assume "basic" in the military isn't measured during the battlefield. also i'd assume military personal has a lot more leeway to not allow threat targets to get into point blank range whereas law enforcement permit their targets to get within that range on a daily basis.

Still, even with a moving target that's pretty low for how close they were. I could understand at 40+ feet, but from 6 to 40? That's pretty low for what most cops carry. I know some pistols are pretty inaccurate. Even with a pellet pistol you shouldn't be that bad at that range.
Honestly in my opinion, if that's their "on duty" accuracy, against a moving target at point blank range, they need to be re certified on their weapons and retrained.

[Remyo]

Also, holy fuck at how inaccurate NYPD is. You couldn't even pass basic with an accuracy rating like that in the military. 43% at point blank? Come on, and 21% at 6 - 21? That's shameful if that's their standard.

i'm neither in the military nor law enforcement but i think the situation for those % are highly different.

those seem to be actual numbers taken on the job. i'd assume "basic" in the military isn't measured during the battlefield. also i'd assume military personal has a lot more leeway to not allow threat targets to get into point blank range whereas law enforcement permit their targets to get within that range on a daily basis.

Still, even with a moving target that's pretty low for how close they were. I could understand at 40+ feet, but from 6 to 40? That's pretty low for what most cops carry. I know some pistols are pretty inaccurate. Even with a pellet pistol you shouldn't be that bad at that range.
Honestly in my opinion, if that's their "on duty" accuracy, against a moving target at point blank range, they need to be re certified on their weapons and retrained.

there's a huge distance between shooting on the range, and having to shoot when your life depends on it with adrenaline pumping heart and breathing rate up. It's not a fucking video game.

[Shuemue]

I find it interesting that he can still drive a car which is how he got his DUI but he cant own a gun.

Lawmakers have never been good at making the punishment fit the crime.

[Korietsu]

there's a huge distance between shooting on the range, and having to shoot when your life depends on it with adrenaline pumping heart and breathing rate up. It's not a fucking video game.

I realize this as both my uncle who is a cop, as well as my father a former Staff Sergeant, I know that the stress seen in the field accounts for alot of missed shots (Mind you, i'm not trashing 21-40+ feet as much). What i'm saying that even with situation taken in stride, at 6 feet (point blank) you should never have a 50% accuracy rating with any weapon period, and with your adrenaline pumping, you should have nearly half a clip emptied in a suspect before they move more than 10 feet.

My thanks to the people putting their lives on the line for us, but I can also criticize those stats for how amazingly god awful they are.

[Khamsin]

there's a huge distance between shooting on the range, and having to shoot when your life depends on it with adrenaline pumping heart and breathing rate up. It's not a fucking video game.

I realize this as both my uncle who is a cop, as well as my father a former Staff Sergeant, I know that the stress seen in the field accounts for alot of missed shots (Mind you, i'm not trashing 21-40+ feet as much). What i'm saying that even with situation taken in stride, at 6 feet (point blank) you should never have a 50% accuracy rating with any weapon period, and with your adrenaline pumping, you should have nearly half a clip emptied in a suspect before they move more than 10 feet.

My thanks to the people putting their lives on the line for us, but I can also criticize those stats for how amazingly god awful they are.

For comparison, what are the stats in other cities, big or small? Like.. Topeka or Napa.

[Korietsu]

For comparison, what are the stats in other cities, big or small? Like.. Topeka or Napa.

I'd have to take the time to look it up for my local police departments, (Dallas/Richardson, Austin). But for such a large police force as the NYPD to have stats like that is unexplainable. However I know that most of my local police departments have few shots fired / murders to deal with per year.

[Correction]

I'm willing to bet that the accuracy would be explained if they further broke down the 0-6ft accuracy statistics, sorted by # of years on the force. Aim probably gets better the longer you've been a cop being my current theory. New York did get a shitload of new cops in 2006 if I'm reading the records correctly.

[Shuemue]

Aim probably gets better the longer you've been a cop being my current theory.

Sounds logical to me, I bet the first few times I was in a gunfight I'd be less than cool.

It's like the first few times you're in a serious fist fight, you're fighting on instinct and so on. After you know you can take a punch, you keep your head and pick your shots a lot better.

[Metah]

Wait, you're saying that people who repeat a task such as shooting a firearm would gain more skill and get better as time progresses?

Impossible, inconceivable, other words that start with the letter "I" here!