Guns aren't magic after all

[corplinx]

14 shots fired to bring down naked guy with sword (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/143868p-127319c.html)

Some people on this forum post stories about people saving their lifes by using a gun in self-defense, this isn't one of them.

The story I posted a link to (from nydailynews) is just tragic for many reasons.

"She was still alive, she looked at me like she wanted help but at the time I could not do nothing," said the neighbor, who didn't want his name used. "I was just terrified and afraid for her and afraid for my life, too."

Tragic, sad. However, I am not posting this to advocate gun ownership by implying the neighbor may have been able to save the womans life.

The sad thing here is that one of the cops that responded used 14 shots to bring the man down, 2 of which hit her own partner!

One shot hit her partner's leg. Go figure.

I really think American cities need to take guns away from the Barneys. We should really give the meter maids and the patrolmen a stick and their mace. For a call like this, an armed response unit should have been called in.

Cops spend too little time at the gun range practicing to be effective. Not to mention the gun a traffic cop carries is a symbol of authority. The gun transforms a beat cop from a public servant to a frightening authority figure.

Do you think beat cops should be armed? If they are armed, should they be require to hit the gun range and practice regularly and pass skill evaluations based on simulations yearly? Should armed response units be used?

What do you think?

[corplinx]

By the way, I realize someone will make a "ban swords" comment pointing out the obvious; however I would like to focus this thread on police.

[Zep]

You know my views on guns, Corplinx. So let me say that (a) I agree with your views on this, (b) I have no issues with the police trying to stop such a crim by using an issued weapon, and (c) on the face of the report, they could have used some weapons training of some sort. Although it could have been while they were struggling with the guy...dunno.

Ban swords? Not really. They are dangerous, yes, but they have a lot shorter lethal radius than a gun. Maybe some control (against known lunatics) possibly...

[shanek]

This is a very good point. If a police officer, trained in the use of a gun, has difficulty using a police-issue handgun to bring down a suspect, that pokes a gigantic hole in the arguments of many gun control advocates.

[Suddenly]

I always liked Hunter S. Thompson's idea from his campaign when he ran for Sheriff of whatever county Aspen is in.

The idea was that no police would be armed with anything more than a tear gas bomb. The idea being that the purpose of police would be to lower the level of violence, not raise it. The guns would be back at the station, and would be brought out readily in case of any violence problem not handled by the first not armed cop.

This way the police never fire the first shot, and if there is less a chance of the bad guy shooting first just because he thinks if he doesn't the cop will shoot first. If someone does shoot an unarmed cop, then the calvary is called and that's where the show of force comes in. I believe Thompson said something on the order of "to bring terrible vengence on anyone stupid enough to commit violence against an unarmed officer." I'm not big on vigilianteism, but he may be being a bit bombastic.

This is only going to work in places that aren't already de facto war zones, of course. Cops shouldn't be sent on suicide missions.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
This is a very good point. If a police officer, trained in the use of a gun, has difficulty using a police-issue handgun to bring down a suspect, that pokes a gigantic hole in the arguments of many gun control advocates.

?
Which argument is that? Anyway....

Sounds the other way around to my ear.

Suggests to me that if a pro can't get it right, what chance does an amateur have?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Suddenly

Suggests to me that if a pro can't get it right, what chance does an amateur have?

Well, I don't want to get between you and shanek on this. I would contend however (from LEO postings on other message boards) that most cops are not "professionals" with guns.

[peptoabysmal]

In defense of the cop who shot her partner, the story doesn't say whether or not her partner was following protocol, i.e.; was he where he was supposed to be?

Spend all the hours at a range you want, it won't prepare you for someone lunging at you with a sword. It has a psychological impact, especially if you see someone recently chopped up by the sword holder.

I think the article speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the flak jackets more than anything else in terms of safety. I am all for a well trained police force carrying firearms. It is a necessity in a society which has a second amendment protecting firearm ownership.

As to the question of whether or not meter maids should carry a sidearm, it depends on the location. In L.A., definately. In Idaho, i doubt it would be a necessity.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
In defense of the cop who shot her partner, the story doesn't say whether or not her partner was following protocol, i.e.; was he where he was supposed to be?


Usually you don't fire unless you have a clear sight picture of your target. In the case of the cop that goofed, they not only shot their partner in their flak jacket but also in the leg. A leg shot doesnt even sound like aiming. With shots that wild, the cop was a danger to themself, their partner, and the neighbors.

[corplinx]

By the way, the cop was using a "hi cap" magazine for those 14 shots. You see how much safer we civillians are since the government told us we can't carry more than 10.

After all, if you are defending yourself from a robber in the middle night, you will have much better control than that cop, right?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by corplinx


Usually you don't fire unless you have a clear sight picture of your target. In the case of the cop that goofed, they not only shot their partner in their flak jacket but also in the leg. A leg shot doesnt even sound like aiming. With shots that wild, the cop was a danger to themself, their partner, and the neighbors.

Good point. Did the officer have a clear line of vision to the other officer? I don't know from the article. That's one thing about news articles that just tick me off. Rarely do they include enough information to make any sort of judgement. Usually you are left with what has gone through the writer's and editor's pshycological filters. Journalistic ethics... bah! Just give me the facts.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek
This is a very good point. If a police officer, trained in the use of a gun, has difficulty using a police-issue handgun to bring down a suspect, that pokes a gigantic hole in the arguments of many gun control advocates.

Earth to planet Shanek.....anyone receiving?

[epepke]

In the US, at least, cops are almost preternaturally poorly trained in using firearms.

I remember reading some bits in the Washington Post about all the handgun "accidents" that happened when the Washington Police went to the Glock. One choice quote "They didn't tell us not to put our finger on the trigger unless we were going to shoot the gun."

I know a fair number of private owners of handguns, and all of them are quite simply apalled at that level of stupidtiy.

When I took pistol lessons at MIT, I noticed that there were bullet holes in the supporting beams, the ceiling, the walls, and even the mats on which one is supposed to rest one's weapons. This kind of thing is pretty close to impossible for anyone poperly trained in the use of firearms to do. The instructor explained that the reason for the holes was that the Boston police, lacking a range of their own, came to the MIT range. They were responsible for the wayward holes.

This experience has led me to the conclusion that the police are generally inferior to private citizens with an interest in sidearms.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by epepke
I remember reading some bits in the Washington Post about all the handgun "accidents" that happened when the Washington Police went to the Glock. One choice quote "They didn't tell us not to put our finger on the trigger unless we were going to shoot the gun."


That is really sad since one of the basic rules of handgun safety is to not even put your finger in the trigger guard until you are ready to fire.

NYPD has special trigger springs on their glocks to make it harder to pull the trigger because apparently they can't train them to not put their finger on the trigger. The flipside to that is that the heavier trigger makes for less accurate shooting.

[Ove]

I always liked Hunter S. Thompson's idea from his campaign when he ran for Sheriff of whatever county Aspen is in.

The idea was that no police would be armed with anything more than a tear gas bomb. The idea being that the purpose of police would be to lower the level of violence, not raise it. The guns would be back at the station, and would be brought out readily in case of any violence problem not handled by the first not armed cop.

This way the police never fire the first shot, and if there is less a chance of the bad guy shooting first just because he thinks if he doesn't the cop will shoot first. If someone does shoot an unarmed cop, then the calvary is called and that's where the show of force comes in. I believe Thompson said something on the order of "to bring terrible vengence on anyone stupid enough to commit violence against an unarmed officer." I'm not big on vigilianteism, but he may be being a bit bombastic.

You know, that is more or less the way it has been working in England, and working fine i might say. Off course you escalate things if the cops are armed allways. It WILL make criminals, or at least the deranged ones, shoot first in order to be safe.

BUT YOU'LL NEVER GET THE GUN NUT LOBBY TO UNDERSTAND THAT so stop wasting your breath. :D ;) :D

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by corplinx
By the way, the cop was using a "hi cap" magazine for those 14 shots. You see how much safer we civillians are since the government told us we can't carry more than 10.

After all, if you are defending yourself from a robber in the middle night, you will have much better control than that cop, right?

You mean 15, counting the one that's chambered?

You never really know how you will react to a situation until it happens. I've already been tested in other situations, so I am fairly certain I would keep a relatively cool head. Using me as an example is not a fair comparison to the general populace.

This story is an example of why police need not only target practice, but also combat practice at regular intervals.

I see with what you are saying, there have been people who have killed their own loved ones, or come close to it in a moment of panic, but this has nothing to do with an officer who is supposed to be trained to handle combat situations.

FWIW, I don't use a handgun for home defense. I have a 12 ga. full choke with a riot extension that I keep loaded with high base 4B. It has a cycle lock that I leave in the single position, and no shell in the chamber. To fire, I have to turn the cycle lock and cycle a shell into the magazine. Takes away the element of surprise, I suppose, but I have never felt comfortable leaving a round or shell in any chamber of any firearm. Providing the poor bastard made it past my dogs, the surprise would be mostly gone by that time, anyway.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by The Fool


Earth to planet Shanek.....anyone receiving?

I think he's making a case for more firepower.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
This is a very good point. If a police officer, trained in the use of a gun, has difficulty using a police-issue handgun to bring down a suspect, that pokes a gigantic hole in the arguments of many gun control advocates.

This made perfect sense to me until I reached The Fool's post. Then I realised I'd misread it, and overlooked the word 'control'...

[Zero]

Ummm....how do you 'squeeze off' the entire magazine? I wonder how many more times she pulled the trigger after she ran out of ammo?

Has this moron been suspended yet? Or, hey, better yet, kicked off the force for being apparently ill suited for police work? That sort of panic reaction could have easily killed her partner, and any civilians within range.

[Zero]

Also nice to note that the other 12 rounds failed to kill the suspect...wow.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Zero
Also nice to note that the other 12 rounds failed to kill the suspect...wow.

Actually, I believe that she did roughly about average for the number of hits to the number of shots fired. I haven't been able to track down any first-hand sources, but I've seen numbers for the hit percentage of police in "live" encounters ranging from 12% to 25%.

One might bemoan that the police isn't overall better trained for gunfights but remember that most police officers very rarely get involved in gunfights. Their job really doesn't contain a lot of "gunwork" - somewhat flippant one might say that their job is really to not fire their gun.

The time and resources used to improve their responses in such situations would cut into either their actual police work, or their training in other skills which they actually need more in their day-to-day duties.

[Darat]

I think guns are magic.

The way any discussion about guns instantly turns normally reasonable posters into snarling, raving lunatics truly is magical.

[Hexxenhammer]

This story reminds of a passage from Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon where Ronald Reagan is interviewing a young marine fresh from Guanacanal.

Paraphrasing:
"What advise do you have for any other young marines on their way to Guanacanal?"
"Shoot the one with the sword first."
"Smmmart. That's how you know they're officers right?"
"NO, motherf***er! Because he's got a f***ing sword! You ever had anyone running at you waving a f***ing sword?"

I think this pretty much sums up what was going through the officers mind. This was in an apartment building and must have been very close quarters. I'm imagineing the shooting officer standing slightly behind her partner with her gun drawn. The guy lunges, or makes a move and bang, bang, bang. She empties her clip, maybe jumping back while firing because the guy keeps coming.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Which argument is that?

That it's an unreasonable use of force to use a gun against someone not armed with one.

Sounds the other way around to my ear.

Suggests to me that if a pro can't get it right, what chance does an amateur have?

It isn't a question of "getting it right." It's a question of what guns are capable of doing and how the human body reacts to having a piece of metal thrust into it. Look over the gun threads and tell me that people on the gun control side don't have completely unrealistic expectations about the damage bullets cause to bodies. And this is someone who "apparently wasn't on drugs."

In fact, you've done that here to a small extent; you've immediately leapt to the conclusion that the officer did something wrong, when there's nothing in the story to suggest that.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek


That it's an unreasonable use of force to use a gun against someone not armed with one.


I haven't seen anyone here make that argument.


It isn't a question of "getting it right." It's a question of what guns are capable of doing and how the human body reacts to having a piece of metal thrust into it. Look over the gun threads and tell me that people on the gun control side don't have completely unrealistic expectations about the damage bullets cause to bodies. And this is someone who "apparently wasn't on drugs."


Actually, I'd say that there are people on both sides of the argument that have unrealistic expectations about what damage bullets can do.


In fact, you've done that here to a small extent; you've immediately leapt to the conclusion that the officer did something wrong, when there's nothing in the story to suggest that.

She missed the target with several bullets, she hit her partner with two bullets. Both of those are "wrong" in the meaning "not good", even if they're not necessarily "wrong" in the meaning "not satisfactory."

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I haven't seen anyone here make that argument.

Then I can only conclude you haven't been paying attention. How many times has the "what do you need a gun for" card been played here?

She missed the target with several bullets, she hit her partner with two bullets.

Where does it say how many of here shots missed? We don't know her hit/miss ratio and we don't know how much of a moving target he was. It does say she hit him "multiple times," and it also says he was in a violent rage and therefore probably wasn't the easiest target to hit. So you have no data to conclude anything about her skills with a firearm or how well she reacted to this situation.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek


Then I can only conclude you haven't been paying attention. How many times has the "what do you need a gun for" card been played here?


I fail to see the connection. Who here has actually made the argument that "it's an unreasonable use of force to use a gun against someone not armed with one"?


Where does it say how many of here shots missed? We don't know her hit/miss ratio and we don't know how much of a moving target he was. It does say she hit him "multiple times," and it also says he was in a violent rage and therefore probably wasn't the easiest target to hit. So you have no data to conclude anything about her skills with a firearm or how well she reacted to this situation.

I don't think it's mentioned in the story linked to here, but the man with the sword was hit twice in the legs according to New York Times. I have also not concluded anything about her skills with a firearm or how well she reacted to the situation - except that I have made a comment that her hit percentage seems to be about typical for real life situations. I merely pointed out that her hitting her partner twice and missing the target with several shots were "wrong" in the meaning "not good" - I explicitly stated that this was not necessarily the same as "not satisfactory."

[zakur]

When the madman lunged at police, one cop fired 14 shots - bringing down the suspect but also hitting her partner twice.14 shots. At one guy "lunging" at you. 14 shots. 2 of which hit your partner in the chest and leg.

Has this officer had ANY marksmanship training, at all?The bloodshed erupted around 5 a.m., when Ivor Forbes, 32, allegedly butchered his wife in their Pelham Parkway apartment, using two ceremonial Japanese swords.

[...]

I noticed his wife was on the floor covered in blood," said a neighbor who went to the first-floor apartment at 2199 Holland Ave. after the noise woke him up. "He was naked."

"She was still alive, she looked at me like she wanted help but at the time I could not do nothing," said the neighbor, who didn't want his name used. "I was just terrified and afraid for her and afraid for my life, too."

The neighbor ran back to his apartment and called 911. About 5:15 a.m., the two cops knocked on the door and were greeted by the blood-stained, naked swordsman, police said.A neighbour sees a naked man butchering his wife with samuria swords and phones the police . . . they arrive FIFTEEN MINUTES LATER? An armed assault with possible murder...and 2 officers respond 15 minutes later? And one of the officers shoots the other?

WTF?A naked, samurai sword-wielding martial arts expert [Forbes] screaming, "I'm God! I'm immortal!"

[...]

[After being shot twice] Forbes was in stable condition at St. Barnabas Hospital.Wow! He IS immortal! ;)"My brother was a wonderful person; he just had some emotional problems that we're still trying to sort out," Nicole Forbes said.Emotional problems? Really?

[plindboe]

Originally posted by shanek
It isn't a question of "getting it right." It's a question of what guns are capable of doing and how the human body reacts to having a piece of metal thrust into it. Look over the gun threads and tell me that people on the gun control side don't have completely unrealistic expectations about the damage bullets cause to bodies. And this is someone who "apparently wasn't on drugs."

No, but he was clearly insane. He hacked his wife to death with a samurai sword and yelled "I'm God! I'm immortal".

Like Ian Osborne, your first post in this thread made perfect sense to me, until I noticed the word "control". If a veteran on the police force can shoot her partner twice in a stressful situation, what does that tell us if the gun is in the hand of an untrained civilian instead?

[zakur]

Description of the event from Newsday (http://www.nynewsday.com/nyc-nyshot083575578dec08,0,5771428.story?coll=nyc-topheadlines-left):When they got to Forbes' apartment, they heard screams, Kelly said. The officers, whom police would not identify yesterday, pounded on the door.

The female officer, 46, a 17-year veteran, stood to the right of the doorway. The male officer, 27, a seven-year veteran, stood off to the left.

Forbes opened the door with blood smeared over his body, wielded an object and charged the male officer, according to police. Forbes said: "I'm God. Kill me."

Once in the hall he turned on the female officer, police said.

She fired. Two of the shots struck the suspect in the legs, felling him. Her partner was also hit by friendly fire.14 shots. 2 hit the suspect. 2 hit her partner.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by zakur
A neighbour sees a naked man butchering his wife with samuria swords and phones the police . . . they arrive FIFTEEN MINUTES LATER?

Well duh, do you think they use personal teleporters?

Police respond to crimes after they have been reported, they don't have 3 bald psychics who tell them before crimes occur so they can go prevent them.

The only person who can defend you is the guy looking at you in the mirror.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by zakur
14 shots. At one guy "lunging" at you. 14 shots. 2 of which hit your partner in the chest and leg.

Has this officer had ANY marksmanship training, at all? Reminds me of the recent caught-on-video episode of the kook who emptied his handgun in the direction of a lawyer outside a courthouse in L.A. Standing not 6-10' away and barely able to wing the man (who, I should add, was partially standing behind a small tree).

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Reminds me of the recent caught-on-video episode of the kook who emptied his handgun in the direction of a lawyer outside a courthouse in L.A. Standing not 6-10' away and barely able to wing the man (who, I should add, was partially standing behind a small tree).

The look on the attackers face when he realizes he hasn't killed the guy was priceless.

For the most part, my guess is that negligent discharges go unreported unless someone gets hurt. I've been on gun forums where some fool accidentally shot a wall or tv in his home. Of course, you never see the story about it in the news.

As for assaults, here the local trauma center has an over 99 percent chance of keeping you alive if you are brought into the trauma center alive. Of course, only gun fatalities make the news. There are many more people shot/stabbed/etc but by far and large people survive.

Of course, more people getting shot is not a positive thing. I just wish there was more perspective on the lethal nature of guns. If the only stories you hear on the news are the ones where stray shot hits a child in the head, you pretty much become convinced that guns work like they do in movies where the cowboys kill everyone in one hit.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted in "Newsday"
The female officer, 46, a 17-year veteran, stood to the right of the doorway. The male officer, 27, a seven-year veteran, stood off to the left.

Forbes opened the door with blood smeared over his body, wielded an object and charged the male officer, according to police. Forbes said: "I'm God. Kill me."

Once in the hall he turned on the female officer, police said.

She fired. Two of the shots struck the suspect in the legs, felling him. Her partner was also hit by friendly fire.So we have a hallway containing a door which is bracketed by two officers. The suspect enters the scene by way of the door and is now between the cops. No wonder one of the uniforms was hit. He was directly in the line of fire!

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Reminds me of the recent caught-on-video episode of the kook who emptied his handgun in the direction of a lawyer outside a courthouse in L.A. Standing not 6-10' away and barely able to wing the man (who, I should add, was partially standing behind a small tree). That video was completely insane. It reminded me of on "Police Squad" when they would show Leslie Nielsen and the bad guy shooting at each in close ups and then go to a wide shot where they're about 2 feet apart.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Reminds me of the recent caught-on-video episode of the kook who emptied his handgun in the direction of a lawyer outside a courthouse in L.A. Standing not 6-10' away and barely able to wing the man (who, I should add, was partially standing behind a small tree).

This isn't as atypical as you might believe. Most shooting incidents happen at less than 2 yards, and even at such short ranges most shots fired miss the target. This document has some interesting numbers: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS-%20What%20We%20Didn't%20Know%20Hurt%20Us.pdf

[Troll]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I always liked Hunter S. Thompson's idea from his campaign when he ran for Sheriff of whatever county Aspen is in.

The idea was that no police would be armed with anything more than a tear gas bomb. The idea being that the purpose of police would be to lower the level of violence, not raise it. The guns would be back at the station, and would be brought out readily in case of any violence problem not handled by the first not armed cop.

This way the police never fire the first shot, and if there is less a chance of the bad guy shooting first just because he thinks if he doesn't the cop will shoot first. If someone does shoot an unarmed cop, then the calvary is called and that's where the show of force comes in. I believe Thompson said something on the order of "to bring terrible vengence on anyone stupid enough to commit violence against an unarmed officer." I'm not big on vigilianteism, but he may be being a bit bombastic.

This is only going to work in places that aren't already de facto war zones, of course. Cops shouldn't be sent on suicide missions.

The idea is great for borderline utopias, but given that you can never predict what a person unkown to you is going to do, I'd have to say I'll stay at the station and you can be the one walking the beat

[zakur]

Originally posted by zakur
A neighbour sees a naked man butchering his wife with samuria swords and phones the police . . . they arrive FIFTEEN MINUTES LATER? An armed assault with possible murder...and 2 officers respond 15 minutes later? And one of the officers shoots the other?

WTF? More info. According to a NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/08/nyregion/08SWOR.html?ex=1071550800&en=3e513dc58485e8c3&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE), the neighbor called police at 4:50 a.m., so make that a 25-minute response.

On the other hand, from the description in the NYT article, it appears the neighbor did not see or report any weapons, just the woman bleeding on the floor. The officers were responding to a "domestic disturbance call," which normally does not require the haste of a "shots fired" or "crime in progress" call.

[Luke T.]

Why oh why are narrowly applicable anecdotal stories used so often to support or condemn a very wide position? A cop screws up shooting a suspect and therefore ALL cops should have their guns taken away? Come on! This is like someone posting a link to a story about a homeowner killing a rabid burglar with a handgun to support the gun advocacy.

Geez. A misanthrope could use the same story in the opening post to say women shouldn't be cops...

[Khonshu]

25 minute response time desn't surprise me. Police are loathe to show up for domestics, if that's the way it was reported to them. It's the most dangerous situation for an officer to enter, and generally, at least one of the following happens:

1) "nothing happened here. No, I don't want my S.O. arrested" so there's not much of a case

2) They both gang up on the officer

3) The reporting member encourages the police to haul the other one off to jail, then refuses to cooperate in an investigation, and lets the offender come right back home

4) Repeat same call at same house sometime in the near future, with same result

Sometimes, they get both. It's actually rare that police show up for a domestic, make an arrest, press charges, and have their S.O. show up for court and testify against them.

It's just human nature not to rush into what your experience has told is going to be, from the officer's point of view, a complete waste of time & effort.

[c0rbin]

Takes away the element of surprise, I suppose, but I have never felt comfortable leaving a round or shell in any chamber of any firearm. Providing the poor bastard made it past my dogs, the surprise would be mostly gone by that time, anyway.

For any rational person the very sound of a shot-gun shell being pumped into the ready should be enough deterence.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Khonshu
It's the most dangerous situation for an officer to enter, and generally, at least one of the following happens:

1) "nothing happened here. No, I don't want my S.O. arrested" so there's not much of a case

2) They both gang up on the officer

3) The reporting member encourages the police to haul the other one off to jail, then refuses to cooperate in an investigation, and lets the offender come right back home

4) Repeat same call at same house sometime in the near future, with same result

Sometimes, they get both. It's actually rare that police show up for a domestic, make an arrest, press charges, and have their S.O. show up for court and testify against them.


That is exactly what happened every time I responded to a domestic abuse call with base police as the Officer of the Day when I was in the Navy. Every time.

It was always the same couples. Over and over.

I can't remember who, but someone explained to me after I was complaining about this that you can graph a domestic abuse situation. You have a buildup, followed by a sharp spike (the incident that prompts the call), followed immediately by a deep trough of remorse on the part of both parties. (edited to add: it is during the trough period that the police show up and why things go the way they do in Khonshu's description). I found that the abused and the abusers were in some weird symbiotic, twisted relationship.

[Troll]

Originally posted by plindboe


No, but he was clearly insane. He hacked his wife to death with a samurai sword and yelled "I'm God! I'm immortal".

Like Ian Osborne, your first post in this thread made perfect sense to me, until I noticed the word "control". If a veteran on the police force can shoot her partner twice in a stressful situation, what does that tell us if the gun is in the hand of an untrained civilian instead?

Not all civilians are untrained. Most that buy their guns legally have quite a bit of experience (military service, hunting since childhood, retired cops and security guards etc.), so I guess you're real question is about guns in the hands of irresponsible or negligent morons. Unfortuantely we have no control over them. Just like Darwin surmised, we just gotta let them weed themselves out through time.

And as shanek proved, obviously not all cops are the best shots in the world, there's roughly 90 million gun owners out there that have more experience because they shoot more often than cops do either for recreation or hunting and many have been around them all their lives. So we can't expect cops that take so long to get there and sometimes miss the target to be our first line of defense when we are being attacked. I'd much rather have myself shooting at someone in my home than a cop or anyone else. I'm more familiar with who is supposed to be there and who isn't, and I know my abilities and limitations with my guns.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Luke T.


That is exactly what happened every time I responded to a domestic abuse call with base police as the Officer of the Day when I was in the Navy. Every time.

It was always the same couples. Over and over.

I can't remember who, but someone explained to me after I was complaining about this that you can graph a domestic abuse situation. You have a buildup, followed by a sharp spike (the incident that prompts the call), followed immediately by a deep trough of remorse on the part of both parties. (edited to add: it is during the trough period that the police show up and why things go the way they do in Khonshu's description). I found that the abused and the abusers were in some weird symbiotic, twisted relationship.

sad but true, I work with victims so I will make the plea for sympathy,
-somebody else calls the police, they know that if thier perpetrator gets arrested they are in really deep crap
-victims are very much brainwashed, if there has been an ongoing cycle of violence, they beleive all the crap the perp says
-perps are very good cons, they con the victim as well
-victims often do try to leave but return for a wide variety of reasons

The two do ofetn have that wierd symbiotic thing going, it is wierd that perps are cointrolling but very dependant.

That is why the point I was going to make is that
SHOOTING is just one of many skills that officers must have, most of the skills are the same ones that social workers use, poor officers. They want to stop crime but end up doing social work!

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Luke T.
A misanthrope could use the same story in the opening post to say women shouldn't be cops... That's insane. No one today could think that women shouldn't be cops.

It's just that women shouldn't have guns.

[Aoidoi]

Hey, my +2 magic submachine gun of vampire slaying says different! ;)

I don't think that extremely short range vs. a sword is really the optimal circumstances for accuracy, and frankly I'm not inclined to argue marksmenship in a case like this. A police sniper or swat team sure, but a regular cop attacked with a sword gets a lot of leeway from me. Even well trained and experienced people can make mistakes, and aside from the poor accuracy is anyone even complaining about her reaction? And what if she hadn't been armed with a gun? Do you think she could have taken the guy with pepper spray and a night stick (billy club)? Personally I think she and her partner would be dead, along with "god."

Should there be more firearm training? Probably. But I think that's true for almost everything.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
That's insane. No one today could think that women shouldn't be cops.

It's just that women shouldn't have guns.

Especially Suezoled. :D

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by c0rbin


For any rational person the very sound of a shot-gun shell being pumped into the ready should be enough deterence.

It scares the hell out of quail, too. :D