accidentally killing undercover cop while secret search?

Discuss the news, current events, politics, celebrity gossip, etc.

Re: accidentally killing undercover cop while secret search?

Unread postby Jan101 » 25 December 2018, 14:43

Tommiebee wrote:
mxguy01 wrote:The more people running around with guns equates to more violence. You have seen the statistics of major gun violence by country and seen that the US is at the top of the charts while Nations that don't permit "concealed weapons" are way lower that the US..

Oh and your prior comment about a permit being difficult to get, you're referring to a "concealed weapon" permit? Yes, I hope they are really hard to obtain. It's called reasonable gun controls.

I think you're conflating two different things here.
Chicago and Washington DC both have rigorous gun control and restrictive permitting while managing an awful lot of murders by firearm every year.
While places with more gun ownership have a lot less firearm deaths.
However, I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree.
:D


Out of interest, is the violence in Washington DC limited to DC itself, or the outlying areas within Virginia and Maryland, as that may have something to do with it as different restrictions apply? I’m also guessing that some of DC’s problem is down to the fact that neighbouring states may have different laws, making it much easier to bypass the restrictions. That could also be the case with Chicago, with the nearby states of Indiana and Wisconsin having lower restrictions which would basically reduce the power of Chicago’s own laws. If it is the case, then I don’t know how you would reduce the problem without maybe federal restrictions.

My problem is that I don’t quite understand all the attention over possible restrictions in the U.S., or at least some stronger regulation. From what I understand back in the U.K., our regulation is that you need a licence, must register the weapon, and keep it locked up securely (with the police doing a free yearly checkup to check the security of the building and the weapon). I don’t get how regulation like that can possibly be a violation of the Second Amendment as it does not reduce anyone’s right to bear arms, so long as they are compliant. I mean if we start to say only people of a certain type or political stance can have guns, then that is a restriction, and I would be against that. But I do believe that safety should come before gun ownership, and there needs to be proper checks to make sure people are safe within their homes.
User avatar
Jan101
 
Posts: 12
+1s received: 6
Joined: 18 December 2018, 01:21
Location: Houston, Tx / Staffordshire, England / Wales, United Kingdom
Country: United States (us)

Re: accidentally killing undercover cop while secret search?

Unread postby Tommiebee » 25 December 2018, 15:04

Jan101 wrote:
Tommiebee wrote:
mxguy01 wrote:The more people running around with guns equates to more violence. You have seen the statistics of major gun violence by country and seen that the US is at the top of the charts while Nations that don't permit "concealed weapons" are way lower that the US..

Oh and your prior comment about a permit being difficult to get, you're referring to a "concealed weapon" permit? Yes, I hope they are really hard to obtain. It's called reasonable gun controls.

I think you're conflating two different things here.
Chicago and Washington DC both have rigorous gun control and restrictive permitting while managing an awful lot of murders by firearm every year.
While places with more gun ownership have a lot less firearm deaths.
However, I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree.
:D


Out of interest, is the violence in Washington DC limited to DC itself, or the outlying areas within Virginia and Maryland, as that may have something to do with it as different restrictions apply? I’m also guessing that some of DC’s problem is down to the fact that neighbouring states may have different laws, making it much easier to bypass the restrictions. That could also be the case with Chicago, with the nearby states of Indiana and Wisconsin having lower restrictions which would basically reduce the power of Chicago’s own laws. If it is the case, then I don’t know how you would reduce the problem without maybe federal restrictions.

My problem is that I don’t quite understand all the attention over possible restrictions in the U.S., or at least some stronger regulation. From what I understand back in the U.K., our regulation is that you need a licence, must register the weapon, and keep it locked up securely (with the police doing a free yearly checkup to check the security of the building and the weapon). I don’t get how regulation like that can possibly be a violation of the Second Amendment as it does not reduce anyone’s right to bear arms, so long as they are compliant. I mean if we start to say only people of a certain type or political stance can have guns, then that is a restriction, and I would be against that. But I do believe that safety should come before gun ownership, and there needs to be proper checks to make sure people are safe within their homes.

You are picking up on some things in this issue. Washington DC borders Maryland and Virginia. Maryland is highly restrictive, Virginia is not.
Similarly Chicago (in Illinois) is highly restricted while Illinois and neighboring states are less so.
But New York City is also highly restrictive, but surrounded by highly restrictive states.
As for restrictions compared to the UK. It's difficult to compare. Analogies don't quite apply. But as the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution were intended to enshrine rights deemed as "natural" and not granted by the government, religion, speech, assembly and association, and yes firearms are considered fundamental.
So if your ability to speak were subject to government restriction, kept locked away and subject to inspection would that feel better? Even though speech unrestrained can be highly offensive or incitement to violence?
Or freedom of association? Forced to invite the intrusive anti-gay religious police to your birthday party?
:wide-eyed:
The point to all this was to keep government out of our lives, our bedrooms, our minds and our personal business. Firearms as a part of our culture was onice commonplace, no one thought anything of kids driving to school with hunting rifles in their truck. And parts of the country, people still casually go shopping in town with a firearm on their hip while no one bats an eye.
Culture, especially in parts of the country, has changed to suit the need (large cities for instance) while many other parts of the country maintain the old "prairie" mentality. Both are appropriate in their place. I don't take firearms to Boston, Chicago, New York, etc. But in the backwoods they are a functional and necessary tool - it's not a solution to everything, but the only good solution for some problems (rabid animals for instance).
I am a work in progress. I am so thankful for the opportunity to live my live my own way.
User avatar
Tommiebee
 
Posts: 204
+1s received: 148
Joined: 30 September 2018, 18:34
Country: United States (us)

Re: accidentally killing undercover cop while secret search?

Unread postby Jan101 » 25 December 2018, 15:36

Tommiebee wrote:
Jan101 wrote:
Tommiebee wrote:
mxguy01 wrote:The more people running around with guns equates to more violence. You have seen the statistics of major gun violence by country and seen that the US is at the top of the charts while Nations that don't permit "concealed weapons" are way lower that the US..

Oh and your prior comment about a permit being difficult to get, you're referring to a "concealed weapon" permit? Yes, I hope they are really hard to obtain. It's called reasonable gun controls.

I think you're conflating two different things here.
Chicago and Washington DC both have rigorous gun control and restrictive permitting while managing an awful lot of murders by firearm every year.
While places with more gun ownership have a lot less firearm deaths.
However, I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree.
:D


Out of interest, is the violence in Washington DC limited to DC itself, or the outlying areas within Virginia and Maryland, as that may have something to do with it as different restrictions apply? I’m also guessing that some of DC’s problem is down to the fact that neighbouring states may have different laws, making it much easier to bypass the restrictions. That could also be the case with Chicago, with the nearby states of Indiana and Wisconsin having lower restrictions which would basically reduce the power of Chicago’s own laws. If it is the case, then I don’t know how you would reduce the problem without maybe federal restrictions.

My problem is that I don’t quite understand all the attention over possible restrictions in the U.S., or at least some stronger regulation. From what I understand back in the U.K., our regulation is that you need a licence, must register the weapon, and keep it locked up securely (with the police doing a free yearly checkup to check the security of the building and the weapon). I don’t get how regulation like that can possibly be a violation of the Second Amendment as it does not reduce anyone’s right to bear arms, so long as they are compliant. I mean if we start to say only people of a certain type or political stance can have guns, then that is a restriction, and I would be against that. But I do believe that safety should come before gun ownership, and there needs to be proper checks to make sure people are safe within their homes.

You are picking up on some things in this issue. Washington DC borders Maryland and Virginia. Maryland is highly restrictive, Virginia is not.
Similarly Chicago (in Illinois) is highly restricted while Illinois and neighboring states are less so.
But New York City is also highly restrictive, but surrounded by highly restrictive states.
As for restrictions compared to the UK. It's difficult to compare. Analogies don't quite apply. But as the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution were intended to enshrine rights deemed as "natural" and not granted by the government, religion, speech, assembly and association, and yes firearms are considered fundamental.
So if your ability to speak were subject to government restriction, kept locked away and subject to inspection would that feel better? Even though speech unrestrained can be highly offensive or incitement to violence?
Or freedom of association? Forced to invite the intrusive anti-gay religious police to your birthday party?
:wide-eyed:
The point to all this was to keep government out of our lives, our bedrooms, our minds and our personal business. Firearms as a part of our culture was onice commonplace, no one thought anything of kids driving to school with hunting rifles in their truck. And parts of the country, people still casually go shopping in town with a firearm on their hip while no one bats an eye.
Culture, especially in parts of the country, has changed to suit the need (large cities for instance) while many other parts of the country maintain the old "prairie" mentality. Both are appropriate in their place. I don't take firearms to Boston, Chicago, New York, etc. But in the backwoods they are a functional and necessary tool - it's not a solution to everything, but the only good solution for some problems (rabid animals for instance).


But freedom of speech for instance is restricted by government in some aspects, and so can be said for firearms (if you look for my earlier post, I quote Scalia J from the US Supreme Court where it was deemed the Second Amendment is not unlimited). I know things change, that’s what Constitutional Amendments are there for (and the United States is lucky to be able to have (a) A Constitution, (b) the ability to make amendments, not all countries have that, including the UK), and I get in rural instances there is a need for them, but locking them away is safer than leaving them on display. You’re not forfeiting your home to the government, you’re allowing them to carry out an inspection once a year. They have the right to enter your home (in the form of police) anyway, yes with the appropriate legal requirements and cause, and I fail to understand the difference there. I’m actually for people having guns in their homes as a form of protection, just under the right circumstances and with relevant safety measures.
User avatar
Jan101
 
Posts: 12
+1s received: 6
Joined: 18 December 2018, 01:21
Location: Houston, Tx / Staffordshire, England / Wales, United Kingdom
Country: United States (us)

Re: accidentally killing undercover cop while secret search?

Unread postby Gay-paul » 25 December 2018, 23:07

mxguy01 wrote:
Gay-paul wrote:What would happen if someone shot an undercover cop if they, for example, breaking into someone house without caus? I know that American had the right to bear arms? But that not in case of EU and certainly not cause of Poland :(

In my country of Poland, it is very difficult to get a gun permit, one man once shot a thief with a gun for which he had permission, and he was convicted. It's a fucking scandal so that the fucking thief has more rights than the owner!
In addition, the police in my country are abusing secret search warrants that allow them to secretly enter someone's property and search. I once read that our Polish police, secretly searched the apartment of a guy who was suspected of producing methamphetamine, a glorious goal, unfortunately, those morons broke into the wrong house because they had bad intel data and did not check that someone was in the apartment :)

And the idiots could simply ask the prosecutor and the judge for a normal regular search warrant :D

When I watch American films, I like the fact that the owner can shoot a burglar like a dog! :madred:


So what you're saying is you have a desire to shoot and kill another person?


No just shot home invader :D
Gay-paul
 
Posts: 120
+1s received: 19
Joined: 3 November 2018, 13:26
Country: Poland (pl)

Re: accidentally killing undercover cop while secret search?

Unread postby Gay-paul » 25 December 2018, 23:12

Victor_Laszlo wrote:Kinda off topic but I swear I remember seeing an infomercial about a rack that slid in between your mattress and boxspring. Just so you could have your shot gun ready to go when you need it. :lol:



Only in Merica :lol:

On a more serious note. The laws vary from state to state on how much force can be used in a dangerous situation. And usually each case is looked at case by case.

I'll second Tommiebee and say that alot of the guns doing killings and harm are owned by people who by law shouldn't have them. Not all but most.

And i will add that most of the legal responsible gun owners never have to use them in a life or death situation.

A crossbow would not due?


Crossbows can be deadly to though.


LOL
Gay-paul
 
Posts: 120
+1s received: 19
Joined: 3 November 2018, 13:26
Country: Poland (pl)

Re: accidentally killing undercover cop while secret search?

Unread postby Gay-paul » 25 December 2018, 23:18

Tommiebee wrote:BTW for the purposes of "civilians" involved in self defense, even pointing a firearm at someone equals assault with a deadly weapon, there is no shoot to wound, if you shoot you shoot to make the attacker stop.
As someone who was trained by the Army in shooting, I have thousands and thousands of rounds fired in pistol and rifle, consistently shoot above 95% with a pistol at self defense ranges but would never shoot trying just "wound" an attacker - the odds of doing that causing a miss are too great and "wounding" as depicted in movies (in the leg for instance) are often fatal due to hitting the femoral artery.


femoral artery.?
Gay-paul
 
Posts: 120
+1s received: 19
Joined: 3 November 2018, 13:26
Country: Poland (pl)

Re: accidentally killing undercover cop while secret search?

Unread postby mxguy01 » 26 December 2018, 00:37

No one willing to recognize the rather large concentration of impoverished on DC as the leading contributor to the violence?

Baltimore has a large concentration of blacks and high violence. Should we attribute it to the black population or to the fact that same population is impoverished?
---
I love to travel but hate to arrive -- Albert Einstein
---
The only thing worse than an Did Not Finish (DNF) is an Did Not Start (DNS). ~~ Me
---
It is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness. ~~ Chinese fortune cookie
User avatar
mxguy01
 
Posts: 3709
+1s received: 1811
Joined: 23 October 2017, 23:12
Location: NorCal
Country: United States (us)

Re: accidentally killing undercover cop while secret search?

Unread postby Jan101 » 26 December 2018, 00:48

mxguy01 wrote:No one willing to recognize the rather large concentration of impoverished on DC as the leading contributor to the violence?

Baltimore has a large concentration of blacks and high violence. Should we attribute it to the black population or to the fact that same population is impoverished?


Not really, because neither race nor wealth necessarily lead to violence in my opinion or expoerences (unless we’re talking about the Empires ;) ). Basically, before I came to the US to study, and where I’ll return to when my studies is over, Wales, is the 3rd poorest country in Europe. And in Wales, there is little violence, even in the cities like Swansea, Bangor, Newport and Cardiff. In England, there are also many impoverished, and although there is violence in cities, it doesn’t strongly correlate to areas of low affluence. Yeah there are sometimes correlations, but these tend to be weak, and the ones that are noted in the news are always in the areas where it is not a surprise for there to be a violent attack, not because of race, but more so because somewhere like Bethnal Green or Hackney is much closer to Central London than Hounslow or Erith are. Maybe things are different in the US, hence I’m here to learn, not just educationally but culturally, but I don’t think they do really have as much of a connection as one might expect
User avatar
Jan101
 
Posts: 12
+1s received: 6
Joined: 18 December 2018, 01:21
Location: Houston, Tx / Staffordshire, England / Wales, United Kingdom
Country: United States (us)

Re: accidentally killing undercover cop while secret search?

Unread postby Tommiebee » 28 December 2018, 23:22

Gay-paul wrote:
Tommiebee wrote:BTW for the purposes of "civilians" involved in self defense, even pointing a firearm at someone equals assault with a deadly weapon, there is no shoot to wound, if you shoot you shoot to make the attacker stop.
As someone who was trained by the Army in shooting, I have thousands and thousands of rounds fired in pistol and rifle, consistently shoot above 95% with a pistol at self defense ranges but would never shoot trying just "wound" an attacker - the odds of doing that causing a miss are too great and "wounding" as depicted in movies (in the leg for instance) are often fatal due to hitting the femoral artery.


femoral artery.?

Exactly.
They'll bleed out so fast they loose consciousness in a short time.
Not pretty.
And when you do shoot someone, he prepared for them to go from threatening and scary to whimpering and crying while they're on the floor. You'll need to be prepared to do first aid before the police and ambulance get there.
I am a work in progress. I am so thankful for the opportunity to live my live my own way.
User avatar
Tommiebee
 
Posts: 204
+1s received: 148
Joined: 30 September 2018, 18:34
Country: United States (us)

Previous

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Mojeek [Bot] and 14 guests