3087

They would be lunatics, I don’t know anyone like that and you probably don’t either.

They might not realize it, but they think all weapons should be illegal and only in the hands of the police.

All weapons? Surely you mean all guns?

I do not own a gun, I think basically if you were to fire off a gun in an urban environment unless you were genuinely under imminent threat you would be at best reckless and at worst criminally negligent. I even get pretty goddamn irritated when the police do this; one or two years ago there was an incident here where a deranged homeless man was throwing garbage cans around on a pretty busy street here at about 7am. 4 officers responded, and the man came at them with a knife, and they responded by opening fire… killing him and a young doctor who was cycling to work in the background. That’s the kind of bullshit that happens when you open fire in an urban environment.

I’m not even saying all guns should be illegal, just that when you live in close confines with many other people, the whole shoot first ask questions later philosophy becomes untenable, because Joe Jackass is going to get spooked by a raccoon one night and fire off a bunch of bullets that don’t care where they stop otherwise.

3088

I did some quick searching on the FBI Uniform Crime Report tool. WWW.UCRDATATOOL.GOV I really had hoped to find that violent crime rates were lower today then they were. And in some areas you are right. The UCR tool goes as far back as 1960 and comparing that to 2013 the results are pretty terrible.

…1960…2012
Population…179,323,175…313,914,040
Violent Crime Total…288,460 (160.9 per capita)…1,214,464 (386.9 per capita)
Murder…9,110 (5.1 pc)…14,827 (4.7 pc)
Rape…17,190 (9.6 pc)…84,376 (26.9 pc)
Robery…107,840 (60.1 pc)…354,772 (112.9 pc)
Assault…154,320 (86.1 pc)…760,739 (242.3 pc)

On a per capita basis the murder rate is lower, but all other violent crimes and violent crime as a whole is mor than double what it was in 1960. Your original statement did say when my dad was my age. That would have been around 1970 which the murder rate was 7.9 per capita, rape was 18.7, robery was 172.1 and assault was 164.8. The total per capita violent crime was 363.5.

I’m not trying to point out who’s right or wrong, I was curious about your statement and I’m pretty saddened by the results. While murder is down from both 1960 and 1970 and robery has fluctuated, its disheartening to see that rape almost trippled from 1960 to 2012 and as did assault.

To my original point though what you said about what the media says and how it appears to the layman is my point. What is a rational reasonable person other than the average layman. If there is enough information in the media to make us feel in danger, than it becomes reasonable to respond to force agressively. Of course I don’t mean to hunt someone down, but if you feel threatened and all the reports in the media feed into your mindset, it becomes reasonable to use deadly force when confronted with the threat of violence.

Similarly, my hapkido instructor was showing us various techniques for disarming knife attacks and when asked what he would do if facing a person with a real knife, he responded with “run away!” The best self defense is to first not be in a dangerous situation whenever possible.

3089

So police should have to grapple someone with a deadly weapon?

As far as hitting an innocent bystander, a lot of that comes from the police being some of the worst “gun people” in the country. Most of them can’t hit anything. They fire maybe 20 rounds a year for qualifications and nothing more. Add in that most of them have extremely heavy trigger pulls (which leads to completely missing things a lot) and it’s just a recipe for disaster. That said, a man with a knife is dangerous. Extremely dangerous. I don’t realistically expect anyone to get in close to someone with a knife and disarm them. If they do, more power to them. Just like I say more power to the guy who runs into a burning building to save a cat. Good on him, but I don’t expect everyone to do it as a matter of course.

Also most defense rounds wont pen much of anything. They’re designed to shatter once they hit something. Which isn’t to say you should fire a gun in an urban environment without caution (its one of the basic tenants of firearm safety), but it’s not like you’re talking about a rail gun or anything either.

3090

You realize the reason rape has tripled is because people actually report it now.

3091

Eeeen-correct. http://www.theboxotruth.com/

3092

Well drywall isn’t exactly tough stuff. I can throw a pencil through it. Which is why you always follow the rule of knowing what is behind your target.
And also why firing a weapon is never to be taken lightly. But I don’t think firing a gun inside your own home at an intruder counts as criminal negligence no matter where you are.

And yes I meant guns I guess. Feel free you defend your home with a crossbow and swords! Or whatever.

3093

Maybe the better question is: what do you consider “imminent threat”?

3094

I expect those who volunteer to serve and protect to not be utter craven cowards. I expect them to use their guns as a last resort. Also when they use them I expect them to use them responsibly. Especially nowadays where they have a brace of nonlethal options (which occasionally they manage to use lethally anyway).

As far as hitting an innocent bystander, a lot of that comes from the police being some of the worst “gun people” in the country. Most of them can’t hit anything. They fire maybe 20 rounds a year for qualifications and nothing more. Add in that most of them have extremely heavy trigger pulls (which leads to completely missing things a lot) and it’s just a recipe for disaster. That said, a man with a knife is dangerous. Extremely dangerous. I don’t realistically expect anyone to get in close to someone with a knife and disarm them. If they do, more power to them. Just like I say more power to the guy who runs into a burning building to save a cat. Good on him, but I don’t expect everyone to do it as a matter of course.

That’s a lovely apologia, trivializing the death of an innocent. I would rather a police officer got fatally stabbed in the line of duty than an innocent bystander get shot by said police officer on accident.

Which isn’t to say you should fire a gun in an urban environment without caution (its one of the basic tenants of firearm safety)

Based on your comments so far, I wouldn’t trust you with an air rifle.

3095

3096

So cops are cowards and should die. Gotcha.

I hear they get paid really well and have an easy job, so getting injured and killed more lest they offend your vision of what their job entails should be fine.

As far as my gun safety, go fuck yourself.

3097

Ok, Dawn Falcon.

3098

I deserved that (I just had to re-ignore him and it made me cringe how close to him I got in the last post). And I apologize for losing my cool, though I still think your stated premise is mostly bullshit. :)

I think you’re coming from an idealistic position in many ways. Cops are people, people who do a very dangerous job. Asking them to make their job MORE dangerous is silly. The problem with the scenario where an innocent gets shot is almost always a matter of the police not hitting what they shoot at. Look at the Empire State shootout. 1 target, 2 police officers, 9 innocents hit with 17 rounds (iirc) fired. That is a complete failure of training and equipment. The NYPD is one of the worst when it comes to handling firearms and many have suggested they shouldn’t even be issued them. Considering how badly they use them, I actually agree to an extent. Add in to that they have almost no non-lethal options. The force of 35k officers has about 6k tasers.

I’ve read plenty of stories from NYPD officers about how silly their system is and how poorly they are trained. The problem isn’t that they used lethal force on a man with a knife (no idea where this occurred so hard to comment, just going with a generic police force). Lethal force is justified in that scenario, maybe they had no non-lethal options, maybe those options weren’t readily available. A man with a knife can kill you within 1.5s from 21 feet. Taking time to get out a non-lethal solution might not have been there, assuming it even existed. The problem is that the cops didn’t hit the target (again assuming not over penetration since that’s almost never the case, though it could be). Police in most major cities are not well trained. Most civilians shooters wouldn’t consider them really trained at all. They rarely use their weapons and aren’t familiar with them. Add in things like very heavy trigger pulls and no safeties and things can go badly very quickly.

Now as to home defense, I realized I did shit-poor job of explaining myself. Yes, you always get everyone together, call the police and don’t be a hero. You can’t always do that, which is where it becomes a far more of a gray area. Now the dude shooting the Alzheimers vet outside his house? That fuck should be in prison. Period. There is no scenario where you are justified to wander outside and shoot someone because they don’t respond the way you want them to. The only way I could even imagine that working is you go out to see why there is someone out there and they pull a gun on you or some other movie crap. I can’t fathom how the laws are written in Georgia that this guy isn’t being charged with something, but apparently you can just murder anyone on your property down there and the cops are cool with it. To quote the sheriff:

“In my personal opinion, I believe that he should have stayed inside the house,” Wilson said. “Did he violate any laws by exiting the house? No.”

In most states that would be extremely illegal once the shooting started. I mean going outside? Fine. Going outside armed? Probably also fine. Shooting the fucker? What the hell? Not fine!

I’ll do some snooping into Georgia law, but it wouldn’t pass muster most places. A man on your property isn’t a default imminent threat. Which is why the whole “someone knocked on the door so I shot 'im” is so insane to me. How much fear do you live with daily that someone at your door makes you think you need to kill? I mean, I can get being slightly nervous with a stranger out there. The solution there is don’t answer the fucking door and call the police.

3099

Georgia’s law:

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other´s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

I don’t remotely see how that applies.

Some dude wandering around outside is not a forcible felony anywhere that I’m aware of. Nor is being a confused old man imminent use of unlawful force.

Now the guy advanced on him, so maybe that’s the angle that is being played. It was dark, he didn’t know if he was armed, etc, etc. Which is a big fat maybe in my book. He went outside and created the situation, if he hadn’t been Captain Small Penis With His Gun Cock he would’ve stayed inside and kept and eye on the guy through the windows. Instead he was out there pretending he was John Wayne and shot an old man to death because he’s an idiot. At the very least I would think the state would be pushing for manslaughter or something similar. But when it comes to laws I have yet to understand most of the South.

Maybe GA has a provision that makes being out at night a felony. I know around here if you shoot a prowler you’ll be enjoying a nice long stay in prison if he isn’t armed.

3100

I apologize for the air rifle comment, I am sure you are safe and competant gun owner. I just have trouble keeping my cool when we are talking about innocents who die when they really did not have to. I know cops are just human and they get scared and overreact too… but they really need to be held to a higher standard because they have the power and responsibility.

Secondly, I think you just have to be super careful about when you use a gun even in a home defence situation. I don’t think someone could be faulted for opening fire at an aggressive attacker, but any unnecessary shooting where neighbours or passers by could be harmed should result in reckless endagerment charges.

You can’t “take back” an accidental shooting and it would suck for everyone involved. And to be frank, I don’t really trust the average joe to use a gun safely without some sort of education and licensing framework. Some people wisely self educate, many many more would or do not.

But yeah to be honest I think we agree more than we disagree overall.

3101

Agreed on pretty much all counts (save maybe the gun licensing thing).

And I strongly agree police should be held to a higher standard, which is why it’s so terrifying how poorly trained/apathetic a lot of them are when it comes to firearms (or non-lethal weapons for that matter, how many videos of some cop tasing someone for no reason do we need to see before something gets done?) It’s a huge responsibility and many don’t care because they basically never use the things. Toss in a few penny pinchers and you can just wait for a stray bullet to hit someone. As long as it’s cheaper than proper training and equipment to pay off the family of those killed or injured then nothing changes.

3102

This seems appropriate Link

A SWAT team in upstate New York is being mocked as an example of the difference between military and police training after an officer was captured peering through a backwards sight on his combat rifle.

For the unversed, it’s a blindingly obvious mistake. Even the layman would notice if they shouldered it.

3103

I can only assume that means the sight was installed on the rifle backwards? Because the idea that he was holding the rifle the wrong around way is just too ludicrous to be believed…

3104

Correct. This is the image they’re mocking.

I’m not familiar with the particular sight, but in general these work by projecting either a red dot or a reticle on a glass surface. In either case, it’s only visible from the correct direction, if you have it mounted reversed, it appears to be an unmarked pane of glass.

The implications are severalfold. That’s a SWAT officer, who is supposed to be specifically trained with weapons, where most police officers aren’t. And yet he’s clearly never practiced with the weapon. Even if installed correctly, if you don’t practice with the sight and adjust it, the aim point will be incorrect.

I’ve never used a sight of this type with a weapon, but I have a Telrad telescope sight that works on the same principle, and it’s great. The target star can be way outside the field of the sight and it’s not a problem, because I’m looking at the entire sky, not just the restricted field of view of the sight. I do, however, periodically need to verify the Telrad reticle is aligned with the optical axis of the main telescope, so if a star is centered in the Telrad, it’s also centered in the telescope. The same principle applies to a gun sight and a gun barrel.

3105

Yeah. That’s an odd image. I’ve used similar sights while in the Army and it is very obvious when you have that on backwards. As in, it just doesn’t work the other way.

3106

I have a shitty monitor with terrible color values here at work. So, when I saw that image at the bottom of the page I was like “that’s just glass, how the hell do you use that?” The I scrolled down and the color wasn’t washed out and the red target thingie visible. My mind was totally blown.