Retired cop shoots man in movie theater — over textin
-
Very strange. I've posted many, many incidences of people saving their own lives, or other's lives,
by ccw.
So this one nutjob uses his gun in a criminal manner ...and NOW woody thinks that means gun control is the answer again?
Baloney. I'm not that much an advocate of open carry of weapons in public. That affects others, however unjustified,
but worse yet, makes them a target of being overpowered and the crooks getting his gun.
Concealed carry is the excellent thing - you have the protection, nobody knows, and all fifty states
have concealed carry laws now, allowing it. Every single state. There is solid reason for it.
At least we don't have to listen to demands by "viritally all scientists" in "peer reviewed reports" to back up
the anti gun crowd.
The benefits don't outweigh the negatives? I think, so far, there are thousands of stories where concealed carry
has saved lives, that having a gun in a home has saved lifes.
I believe that most of this anti gun rhetoric is political by the left. They assume that most folks who
own guns are conservative. I don't know about that- maybe.
You cannot take all peoples' freedoms and rights away from them, because a few are screwed up and commit crimes
with whatever objects. Libs have their catchy phrases like "the only thing that guns do is kill". oi. Libs love to
claim these phrases as true, only because they are politically expedient in their favor, not that the
phrase user has any information or experience to explain why they run with said phrase..
Are the background checks a hundred percent foolproof? Nah. You'd have to have a real Spock
from Star Trek do a mind meld jobbie on ccw applicants or something.
The biggest problem with gun crimes, is UN-authorized access to guns that the criminals don't own.
Folks in Australia desperately want their guns back. Crime exploded. Libs don't seem to spend
much time in the outdoors, I think.
I believe that an across the board tax exemption to buy a good gun safe would be a good idea.
And criminalize leaving loaded guns, or even ammo next to guns, easily accessed, in a home,
where unauthorized persons gained access to the guns.
-
First, Shootout at the "scrip club" stopped by a bystander with a legal CCW just 3 days ago:
If the "small number of shootings that take place" are really in fact a small number, what's the problem with having more lawful citizens carrying weapons concealed legally? Because they aren't the ones committing the "small number of shootings", limiting their ability to own firearms isn't going to affect the "small number of shootings" in either direction. So....
You are assuming that everyone that has and everyone from here on out that gets a carry permit, and then takes their firearms into public places like theaters, will be 100% responsible and law abiding with them. The story in the OP here shows that isnt always that case. If you want to use one off stories of how Im sure every holder will stop crime, will the OP story is an example of the opposite. Those that use it irresponsibly will be a small portion of the overall, but perhaps a portion that doest need to exist to begin with. I am just not sure that supposed benefits outweigh the negatives. From actually injury/death numbers to just setting a dangerous precedent for society.
Except the numbers demonstrate you're wrong:You are assuming that everyone that has and everyone from here on out that gets a carry permit, and then takes their firearms into public places like theaters, will be 100% responsible and law abiding with them. The story in the OP here shows that isnt always that case. If you want to use one off stories of how Im sure every holder will stop crime, will the OP story is an example of the opposite. Those that use it irresponsibly will be a small portion of the overall, but perhaps a portion that doest need to exist to begin with. I am just not sure that supposed benefits outweigh the negatives. From actually injury/death numbers to just setting a dangerous precedent for society.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
Everyone who has a CCW has had a background check and training on safe firearm use. They are not police or tactically trained, but enough so that they can protect themselves. Most crooks have never had any training whatsoever, and surely have not had a background check.
-
Everyone who has a CCW has had a background check and training on safe firearm use. They are not police or tactically trained, but enough so that they can protect themselves. Most crooks have never had any training whatsoever, and surely have not had a background check.
Everyone who has a CCW has had a background check and training on safe firearm use. They are not police or tactically trained, but enough so that they can protect themselves. Most crooks have never had any training whatsoever, and surely have not had a background check.
I have had to train officers on shooting technique. We will just say that just because they carry a gun at work does not make them a firearms expert haha. Most lay people have a misconception that the local cops are somehow more qualified to operate a firearm. They have limited budgets and thus limited shooting time. Unless the officer is willing to pay out of pocket to hone their skills, they are likely just as capable of anyone else walking around.
-
As for crooks being untrained, the guy who shot my friend was pointing the gun and flicking his wrist with each shot. It was like he was trying to get something sticky off of his fingers. I guess that ended up being a good thing for my pal because he was only hit once.
-
As I've said in the past, my ccw instructor was Special Forces 4 1/2 years. That was great, but we never could
get him to tell us any stories...
I need to contact him - I'd like to take some legit advanced training - he wasn't doing it last year.
If we ever in a conflict with armed thugs, most of the advanced training in how to handle it, I got from watching
NCIS on tv.
-
-
I will say this for Tannehill and his old lady, at least they didn't overspend on something like a Noveske haha.
-
It appears the Tannehills have visited Magpul's website once or twice. Yeesh.
-
Very strange. I've posted many, many incidences of people saving their own lives, or other's lives,
by ccw.
So this one nutjob uses his gun in a criminal manner ...and NOW woody thinks that means gun control is the answer again?
Baloney. I'm not that much an advocate of open carry of weapons in public. That affects others, however unjustified,
but worse yet, makes them a target of being overpowered and the crooks getting his gun.
Concealed carry is the excellent thing - you have the protection, nobody knows, and all fifty states
have concealed carry laws now, allowing it. Every single state. There is solid reason for it.
At least we don't have to listen to demands by "viritally all scientists" in "peer reviewed reports" to back up
the anti gun crowd.
The benefits don't outweigh the negatives? I think, so far, there are thousands of stories where concealed carry
has saved lives, that having a gun in a home has saved lifes.
I believe that most of this anti gun rhetoric is political by the left. They assume that most folks who
own guns are conservative. I don't know about that- maybe.
You cannot take all peoples' freedoms and rights away from them, because a few are screwed up and commit crimes
with whatever objects. Libs have their catchy phrases like "the only thing that guns do is kill". oi. Libs love to
claim these phrases as true, only because they are politically expedient in their favor, not that the
phrase user has any information or experience to explain why they run with said phrase..
Are the background checks a hundred percent foolproof? Nah. You'd have to have a real Spock
from Star Trek do a mind meld jobbie on ccw applicants or something.
The biggest problem with gun crimes, is UN-authorized access to guns that the criminals don't own.
Folks in Australia desperately want their guns back. Crime exploded. Libs don't seem to spend
much time in the outdoors, I think.
I believe that an across the board tax exemption to buy a good gun safe would be a good idea.
And criminalize leaving loaded guns, or even ammo next to guns, easily accessed, in a home,
where unauthorized persons gained access to the guns.
Very strange. I've posted many, many incidences of people saving their own lives, or other's lives,
by ccw.
So this one nutjob uses his gun in a criminal manner ...and NOW woody thinks that means gun control is the answer again?
I am guessing this is not the ONLY case of someone with a carry permit committing a crime. It is just to point out not everyone that gets a permit will be fantastic crime stoppers. This incident alone is also not what makes me think gun control is a good idea
Baloney. I'm not that much an advocate of open carry of weapons in public. That affects others, however unjustified,
but worse yet, makes them a target of being overpowered and the crooks getting his gun.
Concealed carry is the excellent thing - you have the protection, nobody knows, and all fifty states
have concealed carry laws now, allowing it. Every single state. There is solid reason for it.
Not being able to see a gun does not mean it is there. Open carry sounds excessive. For someone needing to compensate for something
At least we don't have to listen to demands by "viritally all scientists" in "peer reviewed reports" to back up
the anti gun crowd.
Well it is not a 100% scientific issue. If this were the case, then ur argument would be dead in the water again
The benefits don't outweigh the negatives? I think, so far, there are thousands of stories where concealed carry
has saved lives, that having a gun in a home has saved lifes.
I am not doubting there are cases of conceal carry doing something positive. I am also not talking about guns in someones home
I believe that most of this anti gun rhetoric is political by the left. They assume that most folks who
own guns are conservative. I don't know about that- maybe.
You assume everything you disagree with a political play by the left...
You cannot take all peoples' freedoms and rights away from them, because a few are screwed up and commit crimes
with whatever objects. Libs have their catchy phrases like "the only thing that guns do is kill". oi. Libs love to
claim these phrases as true, only because they are politically expedient in their favor, not that the
phrase user has any information or experience to explain why they run with said phrase..
I do not wish to take away anyones rights or freedoms.
Guns were built with the purpose of killing or injuring others. They are not cars, knives, etc.
Are the background checks a hundred percent foolproof? Nah. You'd have to have a real Spock
from Star Trek do a mind meld jobbie on ccw applicants or something.
The biggest problem with gun crimes, is UN-authorized access to guns that the criminals don't own.
Folks in Australia desperately want their guns back. Crime exploded. Libs don't seem to spend
much time in the outdoors, I think.
Riiiight. When global warming is false because it is cold in the US, Australia and their record temps dont exist. But now, since I guess they are all fighting for guns or something, they are totally relevant again and it is the OTHER side that doesnt look outside the US... lol
I believe that an across the board tax exemption to buy a good gun safe would be a good idea.
And criminalize leaving loaded guns, or even ammo next to guns, easily accessed, in a home,
where unauthorized persons gained access to the guns.
-
Except the numbers demonstrate you're wrong:You are assuming that everyone that has and everyone from here on out that gets a carry permit, and then takes their firearms into public places like theaters, will be 100% responsible and law abiding with them. The story in the OP here shows that isnt always that case. If you want to use one off stories of how Im sure every holder will stop crime, will the OP story is an example of the opposite. Those that use it irresponsibly will be a small portion of the overall, but perhaps a portion that doest need to exist to begin with. I am just not sure that supposed benefits outweigh the negatives. From actually injury/death numbers to just setting a dangerous precedent for society.
Except the numbers demonstrate you're wrong:
A few post back Logic made the point not to post anything from gunsarescary.com or gunsmakemydickstiff.net
I think GunsSaveLives.net would fall in that category
-
Except the numbers demonstrate you're wrong:
A few post back Logic made the point not to post anything from gunsarescary.com or gunsmakemydickstiff.net
I think GunsSaveLives.net would fall in that category
Until you actually read the site.A few post back Logic made the point not to post anything from gunsarescary.com or gunsmakemydickstiff.net
I think GunsSaveLives.net would fall in that category
Basically a national crawler that links to stories where guns are used in self defense (and the national media is too pussy to report or deliberately ignoring). Owner of the site does add his own commentary which I'm sure you can guess which side he supports.
Basically he takes the sensationalism out of the news (with regards to this topic) in the 24-hr news culture and reports "the news"
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
I understand however how it's merely easier for you to write off the site and chortle "Merica" out of the side of your mouth instead when confronted with facts that dismantle an ideology you hold.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
Until you actually read the site.A few post back Logic made the point not to post anything from gunsarescary.com or gunsmakemydickstiff.net
I think GunsSaveLives.net would fall in that category
Basically a national crawler that links to stories where guns are used in self defense (and the national media is too pussy to report or deliberately ignoring). Owner of the site does add his own commentary which I'm sure you can guess which side he supports.
Basically he takes the sensationalism out of the news (with regards to this topic) in the 24-hr news culture and reports "the news"
Until you actually read the site.
Basically a national crawler that links to stories where guns are used in self defense (and the national media is too pussy to report or deliberately ignoring). Owner of the site does add his own commentary which I'm sure you can guess which side he supports.
Basically he takes the sensationalism out of the news (with regards to this topic) in the 24-hr news culture and reports "the news"
I briefly looked at it (went to Ohio). I saw it was a bunch of stories. I never doubted they existed. A good set of statistics would be the way to go. I'm guessing it would be hard to find an unbiased set of data for either side.
Also, another way to look at that list is an I increases number of deaths. It would be dumb for robbers to kill whoever they're robbing all the time. I'm guessing that the victim wasn't in life threatening danger for every incident where they shot and killed a criminal.
But like I said, I'm not trying to take a gun out of a persons home. I also saw so e store owners using guns in self defense. No problem there either.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
I understand however how it's merely easier for you to write off the site and chortle "Merica" out of the side of your mouth instead when confronted with facts that dismantle an ideology you hold.
I understand however how it's merely easier for you to write off the site and chortle "Merica" out of the side of your mouth instead when confronted with facts that dismantle an ideology you hold.
Lol, not at all. That site isn't disproving anything I said. Many instances seem to be homeowners and store owners. I have no problem with that.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Until you actually read the site.
Basically a national crawler that links to stories where guns are used in self defense (and the national media is too pussy to report or deliberately ignoring). Owner of the site does add his own commentary which I'm sure you can guess which side he supports.
Basically he takes the sensationalism out of the news (with regards to this topic) in the 24-hr news culture and reports "the news"
I briefly looked at it (went to Ohio). I saw it was a bunch of stories. I never doubted they existed. A good set of statistics would be the way to go. I'm guessing it would be hard to find an unbiased set of data for either side.
Also, another way to look at that list is an I increases number of deaths. It would be dumb for robbers to kill whoever they're robbing all the time. I'm guessing that the victim wasn't in life threatening danger for every incident where they shot and killed a criminal.
But like I said, I'm not trying to take a gun out of a persons home. I also saw so e store owners using guns in self defense. No problem there either.
I briefly looked at it (went to Ohio). I saw it was a bunch of stories. I never doubted they existed. A good set of statistics would be the way to go. I'm guessing it would be hard to find an unbiased set of data for either side.
ask and ye shall receive: The Kleck & Gertz study 1995
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
(Look at footnote #1 - and the attempted opposition to the study)
Also, another way to look at that list is an I increases number of deaths. It would be dumb for robbers to kill whoever they're robbing all the time. I'm guessing that the victim wasn't in life threatening danger for every incident where they shot and killed a criminal.
Hard to tell, but I bet you look at the percentage of acquittals where "self-defense" was used and you'll find a judge and jury that concludes "life-threatening danger" was most certainly present.
I also don't think many "robbers" use the kind of logic you're suggesting. But I wouldn't know.
But like I said, I'm not trying to take a gun out of a persons home. I also saw so e store owners using guns in self defense. No problem there either.
-
I understand however how it's merely easier for you to write off the site and chortle "Merica" out of the side of your mouth instead when confronted with facts that dismantle an ideology you hold.
Lol, not at all. That site isn't disproving anything I said. Many instances seem to be homeowners and store owners. I have no problem with that.
Lol, not at all. That site isn't disproving anything I said. Many instances seem to be homeowners and store owners. I have no problem with that.
It most certainly did. You grouped it with a guns&dicks.com or whatever thereby writing it off as another blaze.com or whatever.
It's a news aggregator with a focus on covering a topic the administrator feels goes under-reported.
-
OTOH, here is a very recent video where I think a gun was used rather aggressively. I wasn't in the officer's shoes, nor do we get the complete history of the encounter (or even previous encounters if any)but I think 1 or 2 to the knee/leg would have been sufficient and would have neutralized the threat and allowed the officer to re-assess the situation without taking the man's life.
To clarify, I find no fault with the officers actions, nor his professionalism. He was backing up, warned the man many times, etc. Again, I just think shot placement could have been different.
-
OTOH, here is a very recent video where I think a gun was used rather aggressively. I wasn't in the officer's shoes, nor do we get the complete history of the encounter (or even previous encounters if any)but I think 1 or 2 to the knee/leg would have been sufficient and would have neutralized the threat and allowed the officer to re-assess the situation without taking the man's life.
To clarify, I find no fault with the officers actions, nor his professionalism. He was backing up, warned the man many times, etc. Again, I just think shot placement could have been different.
OTOH, here is a very recent video where I think a gun was used rather aggressively. I wasn't in the officer's shoes, nor do we get the complete history of the encounter (or even previous encounters if any)but I think 1 or 2 to the knee/leg would have been sufficient and would have neutralized the threat and allowed the officer to re-assess the situation without taking the man's life.
To clarify, I find no fault with the officers actions, nor his professionalism. He was backing up, warned the man many times, etc. Again, I just think shot placement could have been different.
Seriously, 5 shots? I would've shot him too, but I think one would have sufficed regardless of where it was placed.
-
Jesus christ.... that seemed excessive
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login