Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for clearing it up for us. Now back in the real world if you are paid to carry a gun and protect the public you need to know how to use your gun. Firing more than 2 or 3 shots at close range is not knowing how to use that weapon properly.
And if that's the best they could do they need to be replaced. A gun is not a toy, so you don't just play with it hoping for the best. No second chances once the trigger is pulled.
You shoot to stop the threat, did you even read the thread? How many bullets does it take to stop a bad guy, you tell me.
Here's the point. While police may have had justifiable reasons to shoot the man, did they really need 14 rounds at such a close range? Moreover, they're carrying M4 carbines and all sorts of nasty armament that's more suited to the streets of some war torn city.
If the cops were better trained and less armed, they could have dispatched the man with two or three shots from a pistol caliber rather than spraying him down and injuring bystanders.
These clowns seem to be like 14 year old first person pimply faced kids in a first person shooter game. One starts shooting, so they all spray the target down hootin' and hollerin' because it's so much fun. In just about every incident where police have some type of stand off, they seem to simply pepper the target down with exponentially far more brutal force than's necessary.
As far as a gun control debate, nothing will stop anybody from obtaining a firearm and or improvising a bomb in order to achieve some nefarious goal. For those anti gunners out there, I supposed that you'd have been happier if he'd have jumped into a 1974 F-250 4x4, locked it into 4 wheel drive, and just started plowing down the crowded Manhattan streets killing and maiming along the way because that's ok due to the fact that he didn't use a gun because we all know a gun was only designed to kill and has no useful purpose outside of that unlike the auto which was made for convenience...
As somebody else has already pointed out earlier, it's a shame we're not privy to all the facts due to sensationalism in our media.
the responding Officers in the shooting had M-4's? Where is this coming from? you admittedly don't have all the facts so, how much measure should we give your post, which is a "best guess" at best.
If a non-leo fired that way they'd be facing serious charges.
Which raises the question, if the police are this bad at shooting what does it say for the argument for having dubiously trained civilians as the front line in self defense in the event of an active shooter?
PS - Before my fellow gun owners start to howl over the number of times guns have been used against criminals... yeah mostly against robbers who really aren't interested in going toe to toe with anyone, so I would love to read the stats on how successful civilians have been in stopping highly motivated killers.
Here's the point. While police may have had justifiable reasons to shoot the man, did they really need 14 rounds at such a close range? Moreover, they're carrying M4 carbines and all sorts of nasty armament that's more suited to the streets of some war torn city.
If the cops were better trained and less armed, they could have dispatched the man with two or three shots from a pistol caliber rather than spraying him down and injuring bystanders.
These clowns seem to be like 14 year old first person pimply faced kids in a first person shooter game. One starts shooting, so they all spray the target down hootin' and hollerin' because it's so much fun. In just about every incident where police have some type of stand off, they seem to simply pepper the target down with exponentially far more brutal force than's necessary.
As far as a gun control debate, nothing will stop anybody from obtaining a firearm and or improvising a bomb in order to achieve some nefarious goal. For those anti gunners out there, I supposed that you'd have been happier if he'd have jumped into a 1974 F-250 4x4, locked it into 4 wheel drive, and just started plowing down the crowded Manhattan streets killing and maiming along the way because that's ok due to the fact that he didn't use a gun because we all know a gun was only designed to kill and has no useful purpose outside of that unlike the auto which was made for convenience...
As somebody else has already pointed out earlier, it's a shame we're not privy to all the facts due to sensationalism in our media.
Your lack of understanding about what happens during a gunfight is truly astounding. In fact, uncommonly so.
But, you go ahead, cling to your illusions and pray that you never find yourself in such a situation because I fear you couldn't handle the shattering of your assured "knowledge."
And yes, one must gauge fragments. I went to college in NYC. That area is packed to the gills, and smart cops use tremendous restraint in such situations.
Oh, look.. bobtn is such a terrific internet cowboy that he could even control the trajectory of the ricocheting bullet fragments. What else, walk on water and save 15% on car insurance?
Oh, look.. bobtn is such a terrific internet cowboy that he could even control the trajectory of the ricocheting bullet fragments. What else, walk on water and save 15% on car insurance?
Mr. Johnson was hit only 7 out of the 16 rounds fired.
Three bystanders where hit by direct fire and six were injured due to ricochets.
Which raises the question, if the police are this bad at shooting what does it say for the argument for having dubiously trained civilians as the front line in self defense in the event of an active shooter?
PS - Before my fellow gun owners start to howl over the number of times guns have been used against criminals... yeah mostly against robbers who really aren't interested in going toe to toe with anyone, so I would love to read the stats on how successful civilians have been in stopping highly motivated killers.
Your post reminds me of some of the posts here after the Aurora theater shooting. IIRC, a couple of posters here stated that had a couple of the patrons been armed, they would have been able to bring down Holmes more quickly, possibly even before the poor 7 year old was killed (I think a few responders stated that they themselves could have brought him down). This despite: 1) the near pure darkness that envelops most theaters when movie is on; 2) the tear gas Holmes tossed is; 3) the panicking throngs of people who likely may have been in front of you considering that Holmes was at the front of the theater.
If LEOs can injure 9 people firing on a suspect less than 10ft away on a clear morning, who is to say that the Aurora theater shooting wouldn't have been exponentially worse if patrons had been armed?
I'm not a cop hater or even against CCW, but whenever posts an argument that an armed civilian could have taken down an attacker in a situation like the Aurora shooting, I have to roll my eyes. Still, I'd expect better from trained LEOs. Innocent bystanders are STILL in the hospital due to being shot by cops-that's not okay and should be looked into.
Your post reminds me of some of the posts here after the Aurora theater shooting. IIRC, a couple of posters here stated that had a couple of the patrons been armed, they would have been able to bring down Holmes more quickly, possibly even before the poor 7 year old was killed (I think a few responders stated that they themselves could have brought him down). This despite: 1) the near pure darkness that envelops most theaters when movie is on; 2) the tear gas Holmes tossed is; 3) the panicking throngs of people who likely may have been in front of you considering that Holmes was at the front of the theater.
If LEOs can injure 9 people firing on a suspect less than 10ft away on a clear morning, who is to say that the Aurora theater shooting wouldn't have been exponentially worse if patrons had been armed?
I'm not a cop hater or even against CCW, but whenever posts an argument that an armed civilian could have taken down an attacker in a situation like the Aurora shooting, I have to roll my eyes. Still, I'd expect better from trained LEOs. Innocent bystanders are STILL in the hospital due to being shot by cops-that's not okay and should be looked into.
There are many examples where armed citizens kill, wound, run off an armed intruder.
Cops screwed up. What else is new? They're just doing what they do best.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What else, walk on water and save 15% on car insurance?
