Guns or not Guns

[Aurielius]

Wow, defending a break-in with a sword, talk about excessive force............

Since it was a clear 'touch' without a riproste I believe that was worth a regulation point, though if we are going to be picky it was outside of the standard competition target area but well within legal dueling limits, though if memory serves I did bypass the formality of announcing 'en garde'. :whistling:

[SubjectProphet]

"Guns, guns, guns." *Pumps his shotgun*

 

 

Yes anyone should be allowed to own a gun, as many of the police forces should be trained in riot control to counter a civie on the loose with a firearm.

 

If that made no sense, a cop is trained to be able to counter someone with a gun.

[dazzerfong]

Wow, defending a break-in with a sword, talk about excessive force............

Since it was a clear 'touch' without a riproste I believe that was worth a regulation point, though if we are going to be picky it was outside of the standard competition target area but well within legal dueling limits, though if memory serves I did bypass the formality of announcing 'en garde'. :whistling:

 

No, I understand the necessity of your actions; after all, you don't know if he's armed or not.

Yes anyone should be allowed to own a gun, as many of the police forces should be trained in riot control to counter a civie on the loose with a firearm.

 

That statement is just full of fail:

 

1. Just because you're trained for an emergency does not mean you want one.

2. Riot control != controlling a crazy guy guy with a firearm(s).

3. Riot control is a special division within the police force.

Edited January 24, 2012 by dazzerfong

[antonkr]

Wow, defending a break-in with a sword, talk about excessive force............

Since it was a clear 'touch' without a riproste I believe that was worth a regulation point, though if we are going to be picky it was outside of the standard competition target area but well within legal dueling limits, though if memory serves I did bypass the formality of announcing 'en garde'. :whistling:

 

No, I understand the necessity of your actions; after all, you don't know if he's armed or not.

Yes anyone should be allowed to own a gun, as many of the police forces should be trained in riot control to counter a civie on the loose with a firearm.

 

That statement is just full of fail:

 

1. Just because you're trained for an emergency does not mean you want one.

2. Riot control != controlling a crazy guy guy with a firearm(s).

3. Riot control is a special division within the police force.

I think the term used might be not correct it gets the point across. Picking on it is the fail here.

Police in United States are trained with their weapons and shoot to like someone said before stop their targets.

As for weapon ownership, yes. It should be allowed. Not only does it teach people how to use a firearm which is the weapon of the 21st century. (who knows when that might come in handy), it is also a great hobby, great way to protect yourself and a great investment.

[ginnyfizz]

Wow, defending a break-in with a sword, talk about excessive force............

 

Ginnyfizz, police sharpshooters don't aim for chests unless they have to: they aim for heads. Or more specifically, the brain stem. Hit anywhere else, and if the person holding the weapon had his finger on the trigger, well, you know what happens next.

 

Oh, and I forgot something: HeyBlue, M16's have a semi-auto safety. No cop in their right minds would use anything more than that. And cops (at least in the USA) are armed with AR-15/M16's after the Hollywood Shootout in 1997 after officers failed to reliably hit two perps who had body armor.

 

It's not 'shoot to kill' (contrary to public belief), it's 'shoot to stop'. Too many movies, eh, Ginny?

 

No, dazzerfong, DO try reading my post properly. If you had, you would have discovered that my information came from a Special Branch Officer who routinely carried arms (normal officers don't over here) as he worked on protecting politicians. He happened to be in my house because there was an election campaign going on and a prominent politician had been to my house, and we had received threats. They soon stopped after the big guys with bulges in their coats started turning up for tea and cakes. His exact words were "We shoot in effect to kill, or be prepared to kill. The official term is shoot to stop, because shoot to kill is sensitive politically (he was referring to alleged policies in Northern Ireland)." When I then said "What, in the head?" He then replied "Almost never, unless at point blank range, it is much more difficult to hit and easier for it to hit someone else. The torso is the biggest target. Believe me, bullets to the torso WILL stop someone, causing massive internal damage."

 

He then explained that there is an exception in the case of a person known to be carrying a suicide bomb pack, and in imminent danger of detonating it, in which case they will aim at the legs or head so as to avoid exploding the bomb pack anyway.

 

Stop being so condescending, Dazzer, I don't actually watch many movies. This was a guy who had actually been there and done it.

[Lisnpuppy]

Wow, defending a break-in with a sword, talk about excessive force............

Since it was a clear 'touch' without a riproste I believe that was worth a regulation point, though if we are going to be picky it was outside of the standard competition target area but well within legal dueling limits, though if memory serves I did bypass the formality of announcing 'en garde'. :whistling:

 

I would think the 'en garde" was the sound of your lock tumblers? LOL

[HeyYou]

When I was in the service, (security specialist in the Air Force, basically, a HEAVILY armed security guard....) we were taught to "aim for center mass". If you are going to pull the trigger, shoot to kill. A wounded enemy can still shoot back, a dead one cannot.

 

The cops around here DO indeed have M-16's. BUT, they are usually locked in the trunk of the patrol car... not readily available.

[SinglePumpaction]

A wounded enemy can still shoot back, a dead one cannot.

Maybee they teach you such things for Guard Duty, but the real soldiers know that a wounded enemy will bound a few more enemy soldiers which must treat him. Also, a wounded enemy which bleeds and cries and screams for mommy as a downing effect on their moral.

 

 

But Back to topic,

 

Police can't protect you, Police will show up to late. Regulations and Gun controll always disarm victims.

[Aurielius]

A wounded enemy can still shoot back, a dead one cannot.

Maybee they teach you such things for Guard Duty, but the real soldiers know that a wounded enemy will bound a few more enemy soldiers which must treat him. Also, a wounded enemy which bleeds and cries and screams for mommy as a downing effect on their moral.

 

 

FYI....HeyYou was a 'real' soldier and if you were a vet then you be a little less snide and slightly more appreciative of his contribution and his expertise because he is dead right..you aim for the center mass until they stop moving.

 

Edit Post Script: Talking to a banned ghost.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Aurielius

[ginnyfizz]

Good to have it confirmed by some real vets that I was NOT imagining things when I heard the Special Branch Officer tell me that the usual protocol is aim for the trunk (ie center mass, biggest target) and be prepared to kill, or in effect fire until they stop moving. Seems like the US protocols are much the same as ours then. Makes sense.

 

I have done some shooting but not in those sort of circumstances, of course. Birds, vermin and deerstalking. In the UK, pistols may only be carried by police firearms officers, armed services personnel (and then not routinely) or licensed slaughtermen (which includes hunt staff, a friend of mine who was a hunt master had such a permit)or indeed a veterinary surgeon. The licensed slaughterers and veterinarians are the only regular users of the headshot as well, since they operate at point blank range and in very particular circumstances.