KennethKarl Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I am against the illegal gun trade. I myself am 21 and carry a .38 revolver with me. I haven't gone crazy and killed anyone or myself yet. I am not a maniacal gun nut who will blow someones head off if they insult my girlfriends honor (No offence to you Andrew Jackson). I live in Jacksonville Florida, a lovely town with the charm of a small city, and the murder rate of a metropolis. Because of my line of work I have to go to some unpleasent areas of town. I want to be able to defend my life and possessions. A man who cannot defend his possessions has no possessions.I believe that Jackson shot the insulting party from the veranda of the White House, he took Rachel's (his wife) honor very seriously. When all men were armed it payed to have good manners since a breach of that could be your last 'faux pas'. He was without a doubt the best shot to ever hold the office of president. Off topic history lesson---> He did take his wife's honor very seriously. He killed 13 people in duels (That we know of). My hat goes off to his campaign advisers who must have had to hold the man back many times. The 1828 election was a no-holds-barred Mudfest. His wife was called a prostitute, his mother was accused of being a "working girl" for the British. Jackson hated the British with a passion so that was a double-edged insult. It must have taken some mighty fortitude to keep "Old Hickory" from killing his political opponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzerfong Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 To be honest, who isn't against the illegal gun trade except criminals? Just walk around the harbour ports, you're bound to run across some guys who offer some military-grade rifles to you at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZ1029 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Would you say that keeping a gun at home is the same as having a first aid kit? Yes, yes I would. My first aid kit actually has a .45 in it, but that's the kit I carry hunting/camping/et cetera with me. Also... Jackson's a bit of a nut, regardless of whether he was defending someone's honor or not, man liked to shoot people. But yes, I'm thoroughly against the ILLEGAL gun trade, because... it's illegal. I'm a law-abiding citizen that believes in registering firearms and the lot, as per law, so long as it doesn't encroach upon my basic rights ensured to me by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (mostly the latter, as the first is more governmental framework). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syco21 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Registration? Where do you live, DC? Edited January 27, 2012 by Syco21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZ1029 Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Registration? Where do you live, DC?Well, assuming your state requires it. I live in NC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 I am against the illegal gun trade. I myself am 21 and carry a .38 revolver with me. I haven't gone crazy and killed anyone or myself yet. I am not a maniacal gun nut who will blow someones head off if they insult my girlfriends honor (No offence to you Andrew Jackson). I live in Jacksonville Florida, a lovely town with the charm of a small city, and the murder rate of a metropolis. Because of my line of work I have to go to some unpleasent areas of town. I want to be able to defend my life and possessions. A man who cannot defend his possessions has no possessions.I believe that Jackson shot the insulting party from the veranda of the White House, he took Rachel's (his wife) honor very seriously. When all men were armed it payed to have good manners since a breach of that could be your last 'faux pas'. He was without a doubt the best shot to ever hold the office of president. An armed society is a polite society. :D Is it just me, or are the forums really slow today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Is it just me, or are the forums really slow today?Nope. Too easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginnyfizz Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 @ Ginny: No, 'shooting to stop' is different from 'preparing to kill'. It's the basic maxim of Australian cops here. I don't know how you guys operate in London, but unless your cops are doing Mozambique drills (which I highly doubt), it's shooting to stop. If you were shooting to kill, you would guarantee a kill by firing another shot (most likely to the head) 'just to be sure'. Shooting to stop definitely means shooting more than one shot (after all, you can't be too sure), however, 'shooting to kill' means that you guarantee that 'kill', rather than the incapacitation. You see where the problem is now? And, as you said, 'shoot to kill' is not used since it's politically incorrect, but it is a direct consequence of 'shoot to stop'. I know of your 'Special Operations' friend, but I was skeptical of your account, hence the joke comment (apologies for the lack of smileys and subsequently breaking Poe's law). If they found someone with a suicide pack, they don't use normal rifles: they use marksman rifles instead (don't leave error to the rifle). Oh, and one thing: military conventions != police conventions. I think it's obvious why, so don't pop up Navy SEAL's work (though that shot is remarkable, coming from a target shooting). There's this one case a few weeks ago, of a 15 year old Texan teenager who was shot by police because he was waving and aiming about with what turned out to be an airgun. The police were harassed as using 'excessive force'. 3 shots, one upper torso, one shoulder, and one head. That's not exactly excessive, is it? HeyYou, about shock and loss of consciousness? That's sufficient to stop, hence why more than one bullet is needed. Thank God you are not a cop......... One thing: who here as actually fired a rifle before? Just wanted to know, sorry for the off-topic. You just aren't listening, are you? A trained firearms officer who routinely carries arms told me outright that they do not go for a headshot (or a shot at the legs) except under the Operation Kratos guidelines (who gives a stuff about Mozambique guidelines, we have our own thankyou) when they think someone is carrying a suicide pack and they do not wish to detonate it by firing at the trunk. As a headshot carries the risk of missing and hitting someone else. How come you, being from Australia, claim to know more about UK police policy than a senior UK police officer? It beggars belief. You had the effrontery to accuse me of watching too many movies - well, the Boom!Headshot concept comes from too many movies or FPS games. The tragic case of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot eight times in the head at point blank range, they couldn't miss then) when already in custody was an anomaly. The same officer also told me (once more, with feeling) that shoot to stop is something of a euphemism. You are splitting hairs. Two veterans on here have confirmed the center mass target is also usual in the US. Kindly do not call me a liar, kindly stop trying to label me as stupid, I am far from that, and by the way "he" is actually a Special Branchofficer who really did have a pistol in his pocket and was actually assigned to call chez nous in response to threats made. And yes, I HAVE fired a rifle, at deer that I have stalked rather than at people. I am a rather good shot. In the days when we were allowed to hunt live quarry with dogs, I have also shot a cornered stag at point blank range as in delivering the coup de grâce. Oh my...I found my circumflex too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 @ Ginny:No, 'shooting to stop' is different from 'preparing to kill'. It's the basic maxim of Australian cops here. I don't know how you guys operate in London, but unless your cops are doing Mozambique drills (which I highly doubt), it's shooting to stop. If you were shooting to kill, you would guarantee a kill by firing another shot (most likely to the head) 'just to be sure'. Shooting to stop definitely means shooting more than one shot (after all, you can't be too sure), however, 'shooting to kill' means that you guarantee that 'kill', rather than the incapacitation. You see where the problem is now? And, as you said, 'shoot to kill' is not used since it's politically incorrect, but it is a direct consequence of 'shoot to stop'. I know of your 'Special Operations' friend, but I was skeptical of your account, hence the joke comment (apologies for the lack of smileys and subsequently breaking Poe's law).<snip>There's this one case a few weeks ago, of a 15 year old Texan teenager who was shot by police because he was waving and aiming about with what turned out to be an airgun. The police were harassed as using 'excessive force'. 3 shots, one upper torso, one shoulder, and one head. That's not exactly excessive, is it?HeyYou, about shock and loss of consciousness? That's sufficient to stop, hence why more than one bullet is needed. Thank God you are not a cop.........One thing: who here as actually fired a rifle before? Just wanted to know, sorry for the off-topic.You just aren't listening, are you? A trained firearms officer who routinely carries arms told me outright that they do not go for a headshot (or a shot at the legs) except under the Operation Kratos guidelines (who gives a stuff about Mozambique guidelines, we have our own thankyou) when they think someone is carrying a suicide pack and they do not wish to detonate it by firing at the trunk. As a headshot carries the risk of missing and hitting someone else. <snip>The same officer also told me (once more, with feeling) that shoot to stop is something of a euphemism. You are splitting hairs. Two veterans on here have confirmed the center mass target is also usual in the US.<snip>@DazzerfongOk, am a little late in replying to this sub portion of the debate but none the less I'm going to jump in. 1) Shooting to stop and preparing to kill are very moot terms when a police officer is confronting an armed suspect who he perceives is threatening his or other's lives. In most cases the terms are synonymous. 2) Head shots are the province of SWAT teams and sniper pairs, the fact that a police officer gets one of those is usually coincidental. Having known both snipers and police officers I can assure that the former are practiced at it and the latter are not. 2a) Even the FBI, NSA or the CIA do not train for head shots, the SEALS do train in that fashion but they are the are the most elite of our special ops teams (apologies to any Rangers, Special Forces advocates) , so to suggest that the average beat cop has that level of proficiency is absurd. 3) My brother in law is a Senior Inspector, Special Branch for the Metropolitan Police and we have had many conversations relating to the comparative uses of deadly force between the UK and the US..Ginny is dead right, you are dead wrong. 4) If you have ever been to Texas (which I have had that pleasure many times), you would know that outside of the Texas Rangers their average level of firearm skill is no better than the rest of the country. Even a blind squirrel gathers nuts on occasion..meaning lucky shot. 5) Hey You was with the Air Force Military Police / Base Security and I'm damned glad to have had people of his caliber defending the flight line. 6) I think I can safely say that I am very familiar with a variety of weapons from 20mm cannons down to handguns, so my credentials are somewhat unimpeachable in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 @ Ginny:No, 'shooting to stop' is different from 'preparing to kill'. It's the basic maxim of Australian cops here. I don't know how you guys operate in London, but unless your cops are doing Mozambique drills (which I highly doubt), it's shooting to stop. If you were shooting to kill, you would guarantee a kill by firing another shot (most likely to the head) 'just to be sure'. Shooting to stop definitely means shooting more than one shot (after all, you can't be too sure), however, 'shooting to kill' means that you guarantee that 'kill', rather than the incapacitation. You see where the problem is now? And, as you said, 'shoot to kill' is not used since it's politically incorrect, but it is a direct consequence of 'shoot to stop'. I know of your 'Special Operations' friend, but I was skeptical of your account, hence the joke comment (apologies for the lack of smileys and subsequently breaking Poe's law).<snip>There's this one case a few weeks ago, of a 15 year old Texan teenager who was shot by police because he was waving and aiming about with what turned out to be an airgun. The police were harassed as using 'excessive force'. 3 shots, one upper torso, one shoulder, and one head. That's not exactly excessive, is it?HeyYou, about shock and loss of consciousness? That's sufficient to stop, hence why more than one bullet is needed. Thank God you are not a cop.........One thing: who here as actually fired a rifle before? Just wanted to know, sorry for the off-topic.You just aren't listening, are you? A trained firearms officer who routinely carries arms told me outright that they do not go for a headshot (or a shot at the legs) except under the Operation Kratos guidelines (who gives a stuff about Mozambique guidelines, we have our own thankyou) when they think someone is carrying a suicide pack and they do not wish to detonate it by firing at the trunk. As a headshot carries the risk of missing and hitting someone else. <snip>The same officer also told me (once more, with feeling) that shoot to stop is something of a euphemism. You are splitting hairs. Two veterans on here have confirmed the center mass target is also usual in the US.<snip>@DazzerfongOk, am a little late in replying to this sub portion of the debate but none the less I'm going to jump in. 1) Shooting to stop and preparing to kill are very moot terms when a police officer is confronting an armed suspect who he perceives is threatening his or other's lives. In most cases the terms are synonymous. 2) Head shots are the province of SWAT teams and sniper pairs, the fact that a police officer gets one of those is usually coincidental. Having known both snipers and police officers I can assure that the former are practiced at it and the latter are not. 2a) Even the FBI, NSA or the CIA do not train for head shots, the SEALS do train in that fashion but they are the are the most elite of our special ops teams (apologies to any Rangers, Special Forces advocates) , so to suggest that the average beat cop has that level of proficiency is absurd. 3) My brother in law is a Senior Inspector, Special Branch for the Metropolitan Police and we have had many conversations relating to the comparative uses of deadly force between the UK and the US..Ginny is dead right, you are dead wrong. 4) If you have ever been to Texas (which I have had that pleasure many times), you would know that outside of the Texas Rangers their average level of firearm skill is no better than the rest of the country. Even a blind squirrel gathers nuts on occasion..meaning lucky shot. 5) Hey You was with the Air Force Military Police / Base Security and I'm damned glad to have had people of his caliber defending the flight line. 6) I think I can safely say that I am very familiar with a variety of weapons from 20mm cannons down to handguns, so my credentials are somewhat unimpeachable in that regard. I have a great deal of respect for a man that needs a jet engine or two to carry around his weapons. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts