Cop accidentally shoots self in elevator.

nogods said:
What if's don't substitute for reducing unnecessary risks. What if you don't have time to get your weapon out of your holster is no reason to be walking around with your firearm in your hands in the ready position.
Click to expand...



712657d1337394705-need-some-help-id.jpg
 
Bullet physics question: I have been told that the lead core will liquify when it hits steel which is why we see the spray in a line about three feet infront of a steel target, so how much mass and velocity do you think was retained by the time the bullet hit the officer after the two ricochets?

Unless he loaded all copper bullets, he may have only been hit with a fragment of the separated jacket at low velocity.
 
Nick Burkhardt said:
Bullet physics question: I have been told that the lead core will liquify when it hits steel which is why we see the spray in a line about three feet infront of a steel target, so how much mass and velocity do you think was retained by the time the bullet hit the officer after the two ricochets?

Unless he loaded all copper bullets, he may have only been hit with a fragment of the separated jacket at low velocity.
Click to expand...
The bullet didnt "liquify" because it didnt hit straight on in this instance..... it bounced off at an angle, twice.
 
Shot himself in the elevator? Where is his elevator?

Kind of reminds me of the story about a woman that got shot last year. The news paper said the bullet is in her yet.
I want to know where her yet is?

Any ideas?

Laugh, it's good for you.
 
NavyLCDR said:
Then why don't police officers carry in condition 3?

1. "Unless there's reasonable expectation of imminent engagement in a close quarter ambush" - are police officers outside of NYC always, 100% of the time under a reasonable expectation of imminent engagement in a close quarters ambush?

2. "anyone who's well practiced, genuinely good with a gun, and KNOWS HOW TO CQB PISTOL GUNFIGHT will be equally effective regardless of whether or not he's got a round chambered. (I don't think this is true, I am 100% positive that it is!)" - aren't police officers praised as being highly trained with firearms? Aren't they trained to so much higher standards than "civilians"?

3. "General civilian C-1 carry of a semiautomatic pistol - especially a striker-fired or 1911 pattern pistol - constitutes a clear and unnecessary risk to everyone with whom the pistol's carrier comes into daily contact - Including the user, himself!" - then why doesn't police officer C-1 carry of a semiautomatic pistol constitute a clear and unnecessary risk to everyone? Is it because they are "highly trained"? But if they are "highly trained", then why don't they fall under point 2 a

4. "I suspect this reluctance to be GENUINELY SAFE is both a training issue, as well as an ill-considered emotional predilection to play, 'cowboy', or be a, 'tough guy'" - ohhhh! So is that the reason police officers carry C-1?

5. "(Please don't give me the usual nonsense about: 'If it ain't got one in the chamber then it's a brick.' Lots and lots of people have been killed with bricks!)" - again, if C-3 is sufficient, then why isn't it good enough for police officers?

6. "I hold 5 NRA Instructor ratings, one Chief Range Safety Officer. I am also Glock Certified Armorer, and have held a CCP over 30 years. In my expirence i feel C3 is way underrated and should be adopted and trained for by most people who carry, including LE" - when the majority of LEOs not only honestly publicly state that C-3 is safer than C-1 and when they practice it themselves, I might consider your opinion. There is a reason why the "professionals" don't carry C-3, although it is the "professionals" who have the majority of negligent discharges and can't seem to hold on their guns, especially in bathrooms. So maybe I should take your word for it over the more than 450,000 law enforcement officers who carry C-1 - for a reason.
Click to expand...

So, you wish to side with the majority? How democratic. That works well until it doesn't, like when two cats and a bird decide on what is for lunch. Or a lynch mob.

My studies have shown me, fine motor skills are suppressed under tension, stress. Gross motor skills, less so. A person who trains to rack a slide on a premium handgun, police rated gun, does similar presentations as someone who trains to drop a thumb safety. On guns with no safety, that easily shoot with only the press of a trigger, presentation times are slower on C3 than C1, but the factor of ND goes up.

Having a choice of ND or working a slide, i see the slide as no serious disadvantage. It is possible the threat could disembark at the sound of a round chambering. Not that i carry C3 for that reason, but the sound of a round chambering is nothing i fear for CC. If i were a SWAT team member, and working offensively, that would be a seperate issue.
 
N R A said:
So, you wish to side with the majority? How democratic. That works well until it doesn't, like when two cats and a bird decide on what is for lunch. Or a lynch mob.

My studies have shown me, fine motor skills are suppressed under tension, stress. Gross motor skills, less so. A person who trains to rack a slide on a premium handgun, police rated gun, does similar presentations as someone who trains to drop a thumb safety. On guns with no safety, that easily shoot with only the press of a trigger, presentation times are slower on C3 than C1, but the factor of ND goes up.

Having a choice of ND or working a slide, i see the slide as no serious disadvantage. It is possible the threat could disembark at the sound of a round chambering. Not that i carry C3 for that reason, but the sound of a round chambering is nothing i fear for CC. If i were a SWAT team member, and working offensively, that would be a seperate issue.
Click to expand...

Link Removed
 
N R A said:
Thank God there is another Range Safety Officer with big enough brass balls to post on a gun forum about the foolishness of C1 carry as a general practice for armed people. Somedays I feel I have been singing to the choir alone. Then when you do point out a safer, just as credible means of carry, C3, some nut job comes unglued and hurls vomit all over you.

I hold 5 NRA Instructor ratings, one Chief Range Safety Officer. I am also Glock Certified Armorer, and have held a CCP over 30 years. In my experience I feel C3 is way underrated and should be adopted and trained for by most people who carry, including LE. However, it ain’t going to happen, in large part, because people use their genitals for brains. Dead woman in Walmart and her traumatized family is just one such example of why C3 is so important.
Click to expand...

In more than 12 years on internet gun forums the above statement is the most succinct, eloquent, and revealing comment I've ever read about public gun safety! I wish I'd expressed my own sentiments as well. The author is obviously an older gunman who's seen some of the same things as I have.

I've, also, been - Thank God! - only grazed by two bullets, one across my right temple and the other across my right ankle, instead of actually shot by them. Both times by an idiot with a gun! When I told the people at Glock Talk about my numerous close calls with guns, Mitch Schrader, one of the finest gentlemen who’s ever graced anyone’s gun forum, replied to me, ‘Arc Angel, your problem is that you’ve loved guns and the people who use them too well, and for too long.’ ‘It’s your Achilles’ heel; and you need to learn to be more careful.’)

Mitch is gone, now; and, albeit reluctantly, I have to admit that he was right. Anyone who, ‘lives’ with a gun needs to learn that it can never be trusted. Guns fail, everyday; and the human heart, mind and body, also, fail too. Anything you can do to make your own life, as well as the lives of others safer while you’re living with your gun is worth, both, the additional effort as well as the occasional degree (a very occasional degree) of increased risk.

THE ONLY RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR CARRYING A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL IN C-1 IS THE IMMINENT EXPECTATION OF A NEED TO USE IT AT INTIMATELY CLOSE QUARTERS.

Is anybody going to listen, and take this advice to heart? In my experience, a few will; but the vast majority will continue to forge blithely ahead into whatever the future holds for them. Why? Because humanity being what it is, a certain amount of personal agony and genuine suffering is required in order for most people to ever actually learn anything. Generally, people don't recognize good advice when it's given to them; instead, they need to learn everything for themselves and, too often, in the hardest way possible. (That's people!)

The possession of a gun tends to make most people feel, 'empowered'; and, again in my experience, that's seldom, if ever, a good thing. When the irrational and, ‘hot’ emotions are taken out of the C-1/C-3 controversy it becomes readily apparent that the biggest threat to everybody’s personal safety isn’t just from armed criminals, or a close quarter ambush, it’s from EVERYBODY WHO CARRIES A GUN!

Some guns are safer to carry than others; some guns are more dangerous to carry than others. Look at the stupid politicians and the crap gun laws they endorse: A bayonet lug, or a detachable magazine on a tactical carbine DOESN’T MEAN DIDDLY-SQUAT to the public’s general safety. Hollow point bullets aren’t more destructive than any other bullet - ALL BULLETS, when fired incorrectly, can maim and kill. However, naive and, perhaps, antithetical socialist politicians go after these gun-related items all of the time. WHAT FOR?

Laws that are written for gun-related items like: bayonet lugs, detachable magazines, ‘high capacity’ magazines, and, ‘evil hollow point bullets’ are,

LAWS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN ORDER TO PROTECT SOCIETY AGAINST A MINORITY OF CRIMINALS AND CRAZY PEOPLE!

GENUINELY USEFUL, GENUINELY PROTECTIVE, GUN LAWS SHOULD BE WRITTEN IN ORDER TO DIRECT THE GUN-HANDLING BEHAVIORS OF THE MAJORITY OF LAW-ABIDING, SANE PEOPLE - WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO MOST OFTEN POSSESS, CARRY, AND USE GUNS - NOT FOR THE LOONIES AND OUTLAWS; AND, THEREAFTER, INCLUDING THE GENERAL GUN-OWNING PUBLIC, 'FOR GOOD MEASURE'!

In the 12 + years that I’ve been on internet gun forums DOZENS OF INNOCENT LIVES would have been spared, and, perhaps hundreds of ND/AD events would NOT HAVE OCCURRED if people didn’t generally carry their semiautomatic pistols in C-1. If you know guns then you, also, know that I’ve just stated THE TRUTH!

As I've already said, 'Listen, or don't'. As long as you're not my neighbor, and we don't share the same firing line or gun club, I truly don't care.

:jester:
 
Thank goodness this was not a Conceal/carry citizen, the media would have had a field day.
 
Arc Angel said:
Just so we're clear: I DON'T CARE IF EVERY, 'GLOCKEROO', 'COWBOY', AND, 'TOUGH GUY' ON THE PLANET ENDS UP SHOOTING HIMSELF. IN FACT I MIGHT EVEN PREFER IT; HOWEVER, CHILDREN AND OTHER INNOCENT BYSTANDERS DESERVE A KINDER BETTER FATE!
Click to expand...

BluesStringer said:
In short, I carry C-1 all the time, every time. Am I a "glockeroo" or a "cowboy" or a "tough guy" and do you prefer that I shoot myself because my tactical decisions don't comport with yours?

Just wondering......
Click to expand...

cricket.gif
cricket1f.gif


Typical of gun-grabber lites to avoid answering direct questions about what they say is their gun-grabber lite positions.

Arc Angel said:
As I've already said, 'Listen, or don't'. As long as you're not my neighbor, and we don't share the same firing line or gun club, I truly don't care.
Click to expand...

I not only wouldn't claim you as my neighbor, I don't claim you as one of my countrymen. You'd be welcomed with open arms in Great Britain or Australia, or any number of other countries where that which shall not be infringed is routinely infringed, if not completely cleansed from the national mindset through FUDD brainwashing and propaganda like the BS you post.

Just to be clear to the entire board, I take the above quotes to mean that Arc Angel would rather see any one of us dead than to accept a simple disagreement on our respective tactical decisions. Any claim by him of loyalty to the precepts of individual liberty that this country was founded upon will stand as a lie until he retracts or at least answers my question of him in a way that fits within the parameters of those same founding principles.

There is a literal FUDD invasion of this website afoot. People should speak out against it as forcefully as the rules and "...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" and to truth allows. I do not take kindly to anyone who says they'd "prefer" I shoot myself for any reason, but least of all when it is said on a gun forum dedicated to promoting and furthering discussion on how to protect and expand our rights, and not to further restrict and inhibit them.

Go away FUDDs.

Blues
 
To me carrying a gun in condition 3 is like not putting on your seat belt until you think you might be in a crash because you think that the seat belt will trap you inside the car if you need to escape because the car catches fire or plunges into the depths of a river or lake. Is there a danger of getting trapped in the car and dying because of the seat belt? Sure there is. Just like there is increased danger in carrying condition 1. However, the increased danger in carrying condition 1 can be mitigated by a proper holster and safe gun handling when it is not in the proper holster to such a low level as to be just as insignificant as the danger of getting trapped in the car by the seat belt.

When the SHTF and I am seconds away from being in a serious car accident, I don't want to have to rely upon getting my seat belt fastened in time to prevent injury. When the SHTF and I have to draw my gun to protect myself or my family, I don't want to have to rely upon loading it with nothing going wrong in time to prevent injury to myself or my family - especially when the chances of my gun discharging are next to zero because it is carried in a proper holster and I have no issues with leaving it in the proper holster in public and when I do need to remove the gun from the holster in a safe location, I have no issues with keeping my finger off the trigger.

The Swiss cheese model of safety applies not only to safely carrying the gun, but it applies equally as much to a situation where the gun is required to be used to protect myself or my family - I am not willing to add another "hole" to line up in the self defense situation by possessing an unloaded gun when there are already all the other "holes" lined up which is the reason I am drawing my firearm in the first place. In the situation of carrying the gun - I am in control of about 99% of the "holes" that could line up to negligently discharge the gun. In the self defense situation, I am in control of very few of the "holes" that could line up to gravely injure me or my family and it makes no sense whatsoever to intentionally allow the additional "hole" of the unloaded gun to be in the situation.

Link Removed

It's called operational risk management. Some risks can be mitigated to such a small level that it becomes safer to accept the mitigated risk rather than eliminating that risk altogether.
 
Arc Angel said:
In more than 12 years on internet gun forums the above statement is the most succinct, eloquent, and revealing comment I've ever read about public gun safety! (I’m going to keep it for as long as I continue to be here. I wish I'd expressed my own sentiments as well. The author is obviously an older gunman who's seen some of the same things as I have.

I've, also, been - Thank God! - only grazed by two bullets, one across my right temple and the other across my right ankle, instead of actually shot by them. Both times by an idiot with a gun! When I told the people at Glock Talk about my numerous close calls with guns, Mitch Schrader, one of the finest gentlemen who’s ever graced anyone’s gun forum, replied to me, ‘Arc Angel, your problem is that you’ve loved guns and the people who use them too well, and for too long.’ ‘It’s your Achilles’ heel; and you need to learn to be more careful.’)

Mitch is gone, now; and, albeit reluctantly, I have to admit that he was right. Anyone who, ‘lives’ with a gun needs to learn that it can never be trusted. Guns fail, everyday; and the human heart, mind and body, also, fail too. Anything you can do to make your own life, as well as the lives of others safer while you’re living with your gun is worth, both, the additional effort as well as the occasional degree (a very occasional degree) of increased risk.

THE ONLY RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR CARRYING A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL IN C-1 IS THE IMMINENT EXPECTATION OF A NEED TO USE IT AT INTIMATELY CLOSE QUARTERS.

Is anybody going to listen, and take this advice to heart? In my experience, a few will; but the vast majority will continue to forge blithely ahead into whatever the future holds for them. Why? Because humanity being what it is, a certain amount of personal agony and genuine suffering is required in order for most people to ever actually learn anything. Generally, people don't recognize good advice when it's given to them; instead, they need to learn everything for themselves and, too often, in the hardest way possible. (That's people!)

The possession of a gun tends to make most people feel, 'empowered'; and, again in my experience, that's seldom, if ever, a good thing. When the irrational and, ‘hot’ emotions are taken out of the C-1/C-3 controversy it becomes readily apparent that the biggest threat to everybody’s personal safety isn’t just from armed criminals, or a close quarter ambush, it’s from EVERYBODY WHO CARRIES A GUN!

Some guns are safer to carry than others; some guns are more dangerous to carry than others. Look at the stupid politicians and the crap gun laws they endorse: A bayonet lug, or a detachable magazine on a tactical carbine DOESN’T MEAN DIDDLY-SQUAT to the public’s general safety. Hollow point bullets aren’t more destructive than any other bullet - ALL BULLETS, when fired incorrectly, can maim and kill. However, naive and, perhaps, antithetical socialist politicians go after these gun-related items all of the time. WHAT FOR?

Laws that are written for gun-related items like: bayonet lugs, detachable magazines, ‘high capacity’ magazines, and, ‘evil hollow point bullets’ are,

LAWS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN ORDER TO PROTECT SOCIETY AGAINST A MINORITY OF CRIMINALS AND CRAZY PEOPLE!

GENUINELY USEFUL, GENUINELY PROTECTIVE, GUN LAWS SHOULD BE WRITTEN IN ORDER TO DIRECT THE GUN-HANDLING BEHAVIORS OF THE MAJORITY OF LAW-ABIDING, SANE PEOPLE - WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO MOST OFTEN POSSESS, CARRY, AND USE GUNS - NOT FOR THE LOONIES AND OUTLAWS; AND, THEREAFTER, INCLUDING THE GENERAL GUN-OWNING PUBLIC, 'FOR GOOD MEASURE'!

In the 12 + years that I’ve been on internet gun forums DOZENS OF INNOCENT LIVES would have been spared, and, perhaps hundreds of ND/AD events would NOT HAVE OCCURRED if people didn’t generally carry their semiautomatic pistols in C-1. If you know guns then you, also, know that I’ve just stated THE TRUTH!

As I've already said, 'Listen, or don't'. As long as you're not my neighbor, and we don't share the same firing line or gun club, I truly don't care.

:jester:
Click to expand...

Link Removed

Link Removed
 
Antis will most likely include this in their statistics as another Cop shot with a handgun and as another victim of "gun violence".
 
I carried C-3 for the first six months until I was confident in my gun handling skills. I now carry C-1 with the manual safety engaged except for in high risk environments such as gas station, ATM, downtown at night, etc. I train to draw with the safety on.
 
Nick Burkhardt said:
I carried C-3 for the first six months until I was confident in my gun handling skills. I now carry C-1 with the manual safety engaged except for in high risk environments such as gas station, ATM, downtown at night, etc. I train to draw with the safety on.
Click to expand...

Do you plan on training until you can confidently carry with the safety engaged during those activities?

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
 
I carry my revolver with a full cylinder. It is double action with no safety. Am I the idiot you "experts" keep referring to in your posts? This is rhetorical as I really don't care what anyone, especially anyone on the Internet, thinks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 517 (members: 0, guests: 517)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,531
Messages
610,692
Members
75,032
Latest member
BLACKROCK6

Share this page

Back
Top