Gun Control vs. Trust in Police

[Trout]

If a professionally trained police officer on scene isn't enough of a good guy with a gun to prevent a tragedy like this I think the argument needs to be retired. It's gotten too old for this.

Having taught gun safety and marksmanship for many years I've noticed a common theme: cops are notoriously poor marksmen. Rarely is there a cop who can shoot his way out of a paper bag. No disrespect intended, just stating a fact.

I would not trust/expect a cop to be able to shoot well enough to keep himself or anyone else safe.

[rogue06]

Having taught gun safety and marksmanship for many years I've noticed a common theme: cops are notoriously poor marksmen. Rarely is there a cop who can shoot his way out of a paper bag. No disrespect intended, just stating a fact.

I would not trust/expect a cop to be able to shoot well enough to keep himself or anyone else safe.

The exceptions are generally those with military training, but you are right it is not uncommon for police officers who are shot in shoot outs to be hit by friendly fire.

[seanD]

I don't think it's so much the ability to shoot the suspect than to serve as a deterrent. If the dude had gay tendencies (or we at least know he hung out in gay clubs), then it's reasonable to assume he had scoped out the place beforehand. He probably knew there was one armed guard he could take. But would he have shot up the place if he knew a lot more people were packing that he didn't know of? If he had scoped it out prior, I doubt it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Hell is freezing over... Fox News is coming out swinging in favor of stricter gun controls and an assault weapons ban.

Bill O'Reilly takes stunning stance on guns after Orlando massacre:

the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety. Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale.

Meanwhile, GOP nominee, Donald Trump has likewise

Why do so many people not know that an AR is no different than the non AR models, but just 'look scary' and doesn't stand for 'assault rifle'? An AR-15 just looks like a 'military style assault rifle' but isn't. Do you even know what an assault rifle is, Starlight or have you never actually handled a gun and just go off from the stuff people tell you?

[lilpixieofterror]

Limiting capacity doesn't render the weapon useless by any stretch of the imagination.

Have you ever gone shooting Carr?

[lilpixieofterror]

You could eliminate whole types of guns and still be in compliance. Automatics and semi-autos could be prohibited, for example. Revolvers for everyone would still be in compliance. Even a break-action side-by-side shotgun would get you there.

Semi auto's have been around since the late 19th century Carr and are much of the common standard used by many different types of guns that are not AR style rifles. Although bolt actions, lever actions, and pump actions are still popular, they can still be charged quite rapidly by somebody who has spent the time training how to do it. I've seen people who can shoot a pump action almost as fast as a semi auto.

[lilpixieofterror]

Having taught gun safety and marksmanship for many years I've noticed a common theme: cops are notoriously poor marksmen. Rarely is there a cop who can shoot his way out of a paper bag. No disrespect intended, just stating a fact.

I would not trust/expect a cop to be able to shoot well enough to keep himself or anyone else safe.

I'm actually a better shot than some police I've seen at the range. My last military qualification was 44/50 because of that stupid gas mask shooting you have to do because it's rather awkward to shoot while wearing one of those mask.

[Trout]

The exceptions are generally those with military training, but you are right it is not uncommon for police officers who are shot in shoot outs to be hit by friendly fire.

Military training seems to exacerbate marksmanship issues. Military training may help a little in a shootout. Give me an NRA trained civilian any old day.

[Trout]

I'm actually a better shot than some police I've seen at the range. My last military qualification was 44/50 because of that stupid gas mask shooting you have to do because it's rather awkward to shoot while wearing one of those mask.

If there are bullet holes in the floor, walls and ceiling; you know cops have been using the range .

[Carrikature]

Have you ever gone shooting Carr?

Most of it's been killing not shooting, but I've shot most types a fair bit. I generally find shooting targets to be boring, though clay pigeons can be fun.

Semi auto's have been around since the late 19th century Carr and are much of the common standard used by many different types of guns that are not AR style rifles. Although bolt actions, lever actions, and pump actions are still popular, they can still be charged quite rapidly by somebody who has spent the time training how to do it. I've seen people who can shoot a pump action almost as fast as a semi auto.

So? This isn't at all relevant to my point that eliminating certain types from circulation isn't a violation of the 2nd.

[lilpixieofterror]

If there are bullet holes in the floor, walls and ceiling; you know cops have been using the range .

That would be funny, if these were not the people trusted with our lives. How hard is it to hit a big paper target, 10-20 yards down the range?

[lilpixieofterror]

Most of it's been killing not shooting, but I've shot most types a fair bit. I generally find shooting targets to be boring, though clay pigeons can be fun.

If you're just talking about shooting at a big paper target, I'd have to agree with you. It's a little boring. That is why we make a game of it such as who can make the most head shots or who can get the most shots closest to center.

So? This isn't at all relevant to my point that eliminating certain types from circulation isn't a violation of the 2nd.

Unless you ignore the original intentions of the 2nd amendment and pretend it's about a hobby vs a very important issue, to those who wrote it. In Federalist Number 46, James Madison makes the case that the intentions of having the right to bear arms has to do with protecting the US from tyranny from both within and outside. Taking this logic into mind, banning modern firearms or severely limiting their abilities doesn't at all match up to the intentions of the second amendment. Now, unlike some I don't think Democrats or anti gun lobbyist are evil or intent on setting up their own dictatorship, but do have good intentions in mind. However; the road to hell is paved with good intentions because remember... tyrants have not been too much of a fan of civilian ownership of firearms and have done everything they can to limit the abilities of the people to carry arms. Sure, you could argue that governments have tanks, planes, nukes, etc but despite people thinking these things are the ultimate weapon, they are not and have their own advantages and disadvantages (after all, there's little point in nuking something if you want what it has). If they were, we should of had no problem overrunning the enemies we've been facing for the past half century, but have we had an easy time dealing with any of them? No we haven't, so clearly, just having nice toys doesn't mean you'll win or it will be easy. Facing down millions of armed people, that can appear and disappear, at will, isn't easy for any modern army to take on. Beating a standing army is actually easier vs beating a bunch of armed rebels. So taking the intentions of the amendment in mind, yeah, it would be a violation of the 2nd amendment and this isn't even getting into the fact that criminals don't care what laws are passed and will be the ones with them while you do not have them.

[Carrikature]

If you're just talking about shooting at a big paper target, I'd have to agree with you. It's a little boring. That is why we make a game of it such as who can make the most head shots or who can get the most shots closest to center.

Yeah, I know there are games to be played. I'd much rather spend a few hours at a creek trying to shoot turtle heads.

Unless you ignore the original intentions of the 2nd amendment and pretend it's about a hobby vs a very important issue, to those who wrote it. In Federalist Number 46, James Madison makes the case that the intentions of having the right to bear arms has to do with protecting the US from tyranny from both within and outside. Taking this logic into mind, banning modern firearms or severely limiting their abilities doesn't at all match up to the intentions of the second amendment. Now, unlike some I don't think Democrats or anti gun lobbyist are evil or intent on setting up their own dictatorship, but do have good intentions in mind. However; the road to hell is paved with good intentions because remember... tyrants have not been too much of a fan of civilian ownership of firearms and have done everything they can to limit the abilities of the people to carry arms. Sure, you could argue that governments have tanks, planes, nukes, etc but despite people thinking these things are the ultimate weapon, they are not and have their own advantages and disadvantages (after all, there's little point in nuking something if you want what it has). If they were, we should of had no problem overrunning the enemies we've been facing for the past half century, but have we had an easy time dealing with any of them? No we haven't, so clearly, just having nice toys doesn't mean you'll win or it will be easy. Facing down millions of armed people, that can appear and disappear, at will, isn't easy for any modern army to take on. Beating a standing army is actually easier vs beating a bunch of armed rebels. So taking the intentions of the amendment in mind, yeah, it would be a violation of the 2nd amendment and this isn't even getting into the fact that criminals don't care what laws are passed and will be the ones with them while you do not have them.

When you're done with your soapbox, do you think you'll interact with what I've actually been saying? It's not a violation to limit how many rounds any given weapon can fire before needing to reload. That's the discussion into which you inserted yourself.

[Sparko]

That would be funny, if these were not the people trusted with our lives. How hard is it to hit a big paper target, 10-20 yards down the range?

ed9144472afc2c7cc57c5df49fbf0cc4.jpg

[rogue06]

If you're just talking about shooting at a big paper target, I'd have to agree with you. It's a little boring. That is why we make a game of it such as who can make the most head shots or who can get the most shots closest to center.

When I was first learning to shoot, I'd take small chunks of woods from where new houses were being built and drop them off in a stream that had a large U-shaped curve in it and then run over the small hill (the cause of the bend) and wait for the pieces of wood to come bobbing along in the stream. Was pretty good practice for hitting moving targets that were bouncing around.

As for paper targets, when I got older I would get human silhouette targets and take a piece of chalk and draw a line where the eyes would be and a line down the middle of the body sort of representing the spine. Those were my targets.

In indoor ranges, when it was just myself and a couple friends, I'd set up three to four targets in the firing lanes that I wouldn't be standing in, turn off all the lights except for the booth I was in (which I would direct into my eyes as much as possible), have my friends start moving the targets (which were at varying distances) either forward or backwards (and sometimes make them bounce by rapidly switching between going forward and backwards) and then draw and quickly fire until all rounds were shot. Sometimes I'd have two handguns which I'd fire simultaneously at different targets. I usually shocked people at how I consistently hit center mass of my targets under those conditions which were essentially meant to be as bad as I could make them.