Originally posted by no1marauder Yeah the average armed citizen is a superman.
I guess we could save the $700 billion we spend on the armed forces; our "expert" ordinary citizens can probably shoot better than a Navy Seal according to this "logic".
normbenign is not comparing "well trained police" and ordinary "armed citizens" as his thread title might suggest.
He's comparing "special forces operatives [who have] become ordinary citizens" to some badly trained police.
Originally posted by normbenign The incentives say they wont. Cops operate under a protective shield of legal responsibility much more so than ordinary citizens. Lots of armed citizens spend thousands of their own money to attend schools which make them expert at firearms and the legal aspects of self defense or crime prevention.
To be fair a few cops do as well, but my experience is that veteran cops take great pride in not ever using their gun.
To be fair a few cops do as well, but my experience is that veteran cops take great pride in not ever using their gun.[/b]
Yeah that is why they are better than some itchy fingered wannabe.
It seems a bit odd that norm who is so anti-government is now complaining that cops don't shoot enough people. Firing their gun should be a last resort; I for one think that a cop who's never fired his gun has probably been doing something right.
Originally posted by FMF Well their understanding of your take on the Constitution probably means they are fully aware that there are people with your mindset who reserve the right to kill them for a reason and at a time of your own choosing.
Originally posted by no1marauder It seems a bit odd that norm who is so anti-government is now complaining that cops don't shoot enough people. Firing their gun should be a last resort; I for one think that a cop who's never fired his gun has probably been doing something right.
What is not strange is that you lie.
"norm who is so anti-government is now complaining that cops don't shoot enough people."
Liar! Norm never made anything resembling that complaint.
I applaud cops who avoid shooting people, even suspects, or violent felons. I also applaud every day citizens who carry for years without ever shooting anyone, like me.
Originally posted by normbenign What is not strange is that you lie.
"norm who is so anti-government is now complaining that cops don't shoot enough people."
Liar! Norm never made anything resembling that complaint.
I applaud cops who avoid shooting people, even suspects, or violent felons. I also applaud every day citizens who carry for years without ever shooting anyone, like me.
You complained in the OP about "Veteran cops who admit to never having their gun out of its holster on duty".
Originally posted by normbenign Was that true for the nine New Yorkers who were wounded?
Yes norm if only one of them fired at the 'armed citizen' then there would have been fewer casualties. Imagine the death toll if the bystanders had all been 'armed citizens'.
Your twisted logic does not hold water, what next, more germs = less disease.
Originally posted by normbenign http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/bystanders-wounds-in-new-york-shooting-caused-by-2442495.html
Veteran cops who admit to never having their gun out of its holster on duty, and probably skipped training and qualifying.
The two cops fired 16 shots between them and hit the dude, who, let's not forget, was in the process of trying to kill them on a busy sidewalk, with 10 out of those 16 shots. That's 63%. Of the nine bystanders wounded, only three were struck by whole bullets, the others by fragments. Given that their only other choice appears to be just letting the guy shoot them, I think the cops performed reasonably well. It's unfortunate that others were hurt, but what else would you have had them do?
Officer Craig Matthews shot seven times, and Officer Robert Sinishtaj fired nine times, police say. Neither had ever fired their weapons before on a patrol.
The volley of gunfire felled Jeffrey Johnson, 58, in just a few seconds and left nine other people bleeding on the sidewalk.
In the initial chaos Friday, it wasn't clear whether Johnson or the officers were responsible for the trail of wounded. But based on ballistic and other evidence, "it appears that all nine of the victims were struck either by fragments or by bullets fired by police," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly told reporters Saturday at a community event in Harlem.
Police officials have said the officers appeared to have no choice but to shoot Johnson, whose body had 10 bullet wounds in the chest, arms and legs.
Police determined that three people were struck by whole bullets - two of which were removed from victims at the hospital - and the rest were grazed "by fragments of some sort," Kelly said.
Originally posted by Sleepyguy The two cops fired 16 shots between them and hit the dude, who, let's not forget, was in the process of trying to kill them on a busy sidewalk, with 10 out of those 16 shots. That's 63%. Of the nine bystanders wounded, only three were struck by whole bullets, the others by fragments. Given that their only other choice appears to be just letting the guy ...[text shortened]... news/national/article/199301/142/All-9-Empire-State-Building-Shooting-Injuries-by-Police
It seems if there was one less "armed citizen" there would have been two less dead and nine less injured people.
Originally posted by no1marauder You complained in the OP about "Veteran cops who admit to never having their gun out of its holster on duty".
Who's the liar?
I made no complaint, just a statement of a fact. The OP raised a question regarding whether there was any difference in public safety with cops or armed citizens.
You are the liar, for misrepresenting what I said in the OP. I don't want anyone shot. But I do want cops at least as well trained and restrained as are private citizens who carry.
Originally posted by Sleepyguy The two cops fired 16 shots between them and hit the dude, who, let's not forget, was in the process of trying to kill them on a busy sidewalk, with 10 out of those 16 shots. That's 63%. Of the nine bystanders wounded, only three were struck by whole bullets, the others by fragments. Given that their only other choice appears to be just letting the guy ...[text shortened]... news/national/article/199301/142/All-9-Empire-State-Building-Shooting-Injuries-by-Police
My point wasn't to find fault with the cops, but to make the point that when gunfire happens it isn't antiseptic just because it is cops doing the shooting.
I do think that most cops ought to take carrying more seriously, just as most of the licensed civilian I know who carry do.
Originally posted by normbenign I made no complaint, just a statement of a fact. The OP raised a question regarding whether there was any difference in public safety with cops or armed citizens.
You are the liar, for misrepresenting what I said in the OP. I don't want anyone shot. But I do want cops at least as well trained and restrained as are private citizens who carry.
You are being disingenuous and dishonest. Most reasonable people would consider "well trained police safer than armed citizens" (to themselves and others) so by putting a question mark after the thread title you were clearly suggesting that that isn't true. Thus your "fact" that the cops had never drawn their gun was also meant to suggest that they not doing so made them somehow deficient compared to "armed citizens". That's pretty ridiculous and I was ridiculing it by pointing out that apparently IF these cops had shot a few civilians previously that would hardly make them "safer" even though it would invalidate your "gun out of the holster" point.
It's a little nuanced, so I'm not surprised you didn't get it. Keep trying, norm.
26 Aug '12 15:59
Well trained police are safer than armed citizens, or are they?
Back to Top