If people are allowed to carry firearms the wild west will happen....errr if cops are

[JimTh]

Just another example of why cops should be disarmed and the citizens should be the only persons allowed to carry firearms.

2 bystanders wounded in police shooting on crowded street in midtown Manhattan | Fox News

 

[wolf_fire]

This has been posted before, almost immediately when it came out. I have to agree, these particular cops suck at shooting and its inconceivable that they shoot bystanders.

However with your logic, since some of the citizenry have committed egregious murder, than none of the citizenry should have guns either. Watch what you ask for and how you ask for it.

 

[JimTh]

This has been posted before, almost immediately when it came out. I have to agree, these particular cops suck at shooting and its inconceivable that they shoot bystanders.

However with your logic, since some of the citizenry have committed egregious murder, than none of the citizenry should have guns either. Watch what you ask for and how you ask for it.

The point was that if citizens are armed then we will be shooting each other up. The cops have a history of trying to shoot the bad guy and famously missing their intended targets and shooting the innocent. When a bad guy goes on a shooting spree his hits are intentional...not unintended. Of course if you mean to say that when innocent citizens are sprayed with bullets by cops that is just acceptable collateral damage, well that is another discussion. Law abiding citizens, when using their firearms in defense of self or others are not shooting everything that gets in the way of their bullets.

 

[Itstjs]

I disagree with Police being disarmed and only civilians being armed, defeats the purpose of "Public Safety" but this point and "shoot" thing needs to be stopped, I dont understand how an officer, assuming hes within 5 feet can miss a man, let alone shoot at a person without confirming there is or isnt a weapon. I think the Police dodged a bullet on this one [lol] and thank god noone was seriously hurt.
Im sure the officers who fired will receive some sort of punishment. Shooting an unarmed man seems to be a big thing lol

 

[Nightmare45]

Some folks assume you can't miss with a shotgun and this is far from the truth.

 

[wolf_fire]

The point was that if citizens are armed then we will be shooting each other up. The cops have a history of trying to shoot the bad guy and famously missing their intended targets and shooting the innocent. When a bad guy goes on a shooting spree his hits are intentional...not unintended. Of course if you mean to say that when innocent citizens are sprayed with bullets by cops that is just acceptable collateral damage, well that is another discussion. Law abiding citizens, when using their firearms in defense of self or others are not shooting everything that gets in the way of their bullets.

Actually my point is if a handful of cops shoot irregularly and you wish all cops be disarmed (your statement) then the same logic should apply to everyone (my statement)... if just a handful of the citizenry shoot irregularly then all of them should be disarmed (according to your logic). I then went on to say, watch what you ask for. I get your point, it's not that hard to understand. But don't wish one demographic to be disarmed unless you want all of them to be.

And the only reason why cops get the spotlight on missing their intended target is because they are cops... you don't get reports of citizenry doing that (not because they haven't done it, they certainly have) but more so because it's not as newsworthy.

 

[JimTh]

Actually my point is if a handful of cops shoot irregularly and you wish all cops be disarmed (your statement) then the same logic should apply to everyone (my statement)... if just a handful of the citizenry shoot irregularly then all of them should be disarmed (according to your logic). I then went on to say, watch what you ask for. I get your point, it's not that hard to understand. But don't wish one demographic to be disarmed unless you want all of them to be.

And the only reason why cops get the spotlight on missing their intended target is because they are cops... you don't get reports of citizenry doing that (not because they haven't done it, they certainly have) but more so because it's not as newsworthy.

If a handful...well let's say the same percentage of civilians were using "justified deadly force" as the percentage of cops (per capita) and missing their intended targets at the same frequency do you really think we would be allowed to carry firearms. I personally think not. Civilians do not use deadly force nearly as frequently as cops do. Now I suppose if civilians were just shooting barking dogs then maybe the outcry wouldn't be so loud.

 

[maybejim]

If a handful...well let's say the same percentage of civilians were using "justified deadly force" as the percentage of cops (per capita) and missing their intended targets at the same frequency do you really think we would be allowed to carry firearms. I personally think not. Civilians do not use deadly force nearly as frequently as cops do. Now I suppose if civilians were just shooting barking dogs then maybe the outcry wouldn't be so loud.

Actually as a group, "civilians" shoot more bad guys than do cops and make fewer mistakes shooting good guys. Read Lott's books and the statistics and catch up on the real facts. Now that isn't "percentages" but actual numbers and there are a lot more "civilians" than cops.

 

[Chris Rakes]

Actually as a group, "civilians" shoot more bad guys than do cops and make fewer mistakes shooting good guys. Read Lott's books and the statistics and catch up on the real facts. Now that isn't "percentages" but actual numbers and there are a lot more "civilians" than cops.

i have seen stats on this. seems like it was a John Lott study. but i can't remember.

the main thing is this "NO GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL" should be armed with lethal force. especially not Homeland security, the IRS, or SS.
LEs are already protected by the law. you can' t even touch one with out being busted. they should only carry non lethal arms. a citizen has the right to carry period, end of story. you would not have any tyranny, if they were not armed

 

[wolf_fire]

If a handful...well let's say the same percentage of civilians were using "justified deadly force" as the percentage of cops (per capita) and missing their intended targets at the same frequency do you really think we would be allowed to carry firearms. I personally think not. Civilians do not use deadly force nearly as frequently as cops do. Now I suppose if civilians were just shooting barking dogs then maybe the outcry wouldn't be so loud.

I'm not arguing with you anymore... all my point was is that you shouldn't go around and say these people should carry and those shouldn't because we will wind up with no one being able to carry if you give anyone an excuse to keep someone from carrying. Not sure why that is difficult to digest... but if you want to ban cops from carrying, get on the wagon train and start talking to your legislators to get it done.

 

[wolf_fire]

i have seen stats on this. seems like it was a John Lott study. but i can't remember.

the main thing is this "NO GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL" should be armed with lethal force. especially not Homeland security, the IRS, or SS.
LEs are already protected by the law. you can' t even touch one with out being busted. they should only carry non lethal arms. a citizen has the right to carry period, end of story. you would not have any tyranny, if they were not armed

Then no military, no teachers, that office worker at his federal job, or the secretary at her state level job according to your logic should also be disarmed. Let's just disarm anyone who works for any government position. There goes the school council too, get them disarmed, they're government as well.

Did you feel that??? Did you?


There went the 2nd Amendment out the window.

 

[Chris Rakes]

Then no military, no teachers, that office worker at his federal job, or the secretary at her state level job according to your logic should also be disarmed. Let's just disarm anyone who works for any government position. There goes the school council too, get them disarmed, they're government as well.

Did you feel that??? Did you?


There went the 2nd Amendment out the window.

wolf you really need to think about what you are saying. teachers and the military are already dis armed. believe me check into this.

the second amendment is to make sure that we don't have a tyranny. if everybody in the government is armed and none of the citizens are then you have tyranny. if the citizenry is armed and the government is not then you have liberty. are you a eleutherophobe, and hate liberty?

 

[wolf_fire]

wolf you really need to think about what you are saying. teachers and the military are already dis armed. believe me check into this.

the second amendment is to make sure that we don't have a tyranny. if everybody in the government is armed and none of the citizens are then you have tyranny. if the citizenry is armed and the government is not then you have liberty. are you a eleutherophobe, and hate liberty?

I know exactly what I'm saying.... I was responding to this of yours:

i have seen stats on this. seems like it was a John Lott study. but i can't remember.

the main thing is this "NO GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL" should be armed with lethal force. especially not Homeland security, the IRS, or SS.
LEs are already protected by the law. you can' t even touch one with out being busted. they should only carry non lethal arms. a citizen has the right to carry period, end of story. you would not have any tyranny, if they were not armed

Your advocating an entire sector of the population to never be armed. Government personnel come in many shapes and sizes.... you honed in on two. Government workers can be federal agents, they can be teachers (some can be armed some cannot, believe me check into this), they can be secretaries, they can be scientists.... you generally sweep across all of them and say none should be armed.

Who's the eleutherophobe? I say they all should be allowed to be armed. Who hates liberty? I want them all to be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. You want them stripped.

 

[GunnyGene]

The Second Amendment gives the citizens of this nation the right to "keep and bear arms" which "shall not be infringed". All gun control laws are therefore un-Constitutional. When I joined the Marines
I raised my right hand, as did all the rest of the "boots", and took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution "from all enemys, both foriegn and domestic". All elected officials take a similar oath, but many of them seem to think that they are above that oath. They are not. And we should vote all of those politicians out of office. We may not have the money of Bloomberg or Soros, but if we
stand together they will see they can not take us all down. I believe we are in a fight for our freedoms, and the only way we can win is the stand united. No matter our race or color we must stand as one.

 

[JimTh]

Actually as a group, "civilians" shoot more bad guys than do cops and make fewer mistakes shooting good guys. Read Lott's books and the statistics and catch up on the real facts. Now that isn't "percentages" but actual numbers and there are a lot more "civilians" than cops.

You continue to make my point!

 

[JimTh]

I know exactly what I'm saying.... I was responding to this of yours:


Your advocating an entire sector of the population to never be armed. Government personnel come in many shapes and sizes.... you honed in on two. Government workers can be federal agents, they can be teachers (some can be armed some cannot, believe me check into this), they can be secretaries, they can be scientists.... you generally sweep across all of them and say none should be armed.

Who's the eleutherophobe? I say they all should be allowed to be armed. Who hates liberty? I want them all to be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. You want them stripped.

It sounds good to me...disarm the government officials. They are causing far too much damage under color of authority. They should be treated just like all other citizens...they can lawfully carry while off duty just like the rest of us. Why is that hard to understand?

 

[wolf_fire]

It sounds good to me...disarm the government officials. They are causing far too much damage under color of authority. They should be treated just like all other citizens...they can lawfully carry while off duty just like the rest of us. Why is that hard to understand?

How is a government employee that is employed as a secretary, or the janitor at a federal building, or a teacher causing "too much damage under the color of authority"? That's what's difficult to understand. The original argument stated disarming "all government personnel", not officials, not federal agents, just "all government personnel".

Regardless, how is disarming one demographic in support of the 2nd Amendment? We go after one group, who's to say you or I are not next on the hit list of who is to be disarmed?

No matter how shady a person or group of persons is I cannot support the disarming of them. The only people disarmed are those that broke the law, were convicted and are in prison. They have their rights temporarily removed for what the did. The 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" for a reason. Any infringement, no matter how justified you think it may be is taking away from our rights.

 

[Chris Rakes]

WOLF your straw argument of the janitor, and head cook is a bad position. you seem to just want to argue.

the point is the 2ndA is protection from the government and it's agents. do you really think that the young man, in Charlotte, NC, that was looking for help. would care right now if the secretary was armed or not. as JIM said, if they are off duty then they can carry

as a civilian, i just want to go home at night at the end of my work day

 

[wolf_fire]

WOLF your straw argument of the janitor, and head cook is a bad position. you seem to just want to argue.

the point is the 2ndA is protection from the government and it's agents. do you really think that the young man, in Charlotte, NC, that was looking for help. would care right now if the secretary was armed or not. as JIM said, if they are off duty then they can carry

as a civilian, i just want to go home at night at the end of my work day

i have seen stats on this. seems like it was a John Lott study. but i can't remember.

the main thing is this "NO GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL" should be armed with lethal force. especially not Homeland security, the IRS, or SS.
LEs are already protected by the law. you can' t even touch one with out being busted. they should only carry non lethal arms. a citizen has the right to carry period, end of story. you would not have any tyranny, if they were not armed

How can my argument be a straw man argument when I use the basis of the original position and not one that I created on my own? Read Chris Rakes original statement that I'm arguing about. He clearly states he wants "NO GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL" to be armed with lethal force. I'm gov't personnel. I teach. The janitors in my school are gov't personnel. Regardless of who is gov't personnel, anyone who is a citizen of the US has the rights guaranteed unto them by their Creator and as written in the Constitution. That means all citizens, regardless of the their job, have the right to keep and bear arms. Once we decide which demographic we choose to disarm this is the end of the 2nd Amendment as we know it. Please tell me how this is a straw man argument again?

 

[kelcarry]

If a handful...well let's say the same percentage of civilians were using "justified deadly force" as the percentage of cops (per capita) and missing their intended targets at the same frequency do you really think we would be allowed to carry firearms. I personally think not. Civilians do not use deadly force nearly as frequently as cops do. Now I suppose if civilians were just shooting barking dogs then maybe the outcry wouldn't be so loud.

A big "duh" Jim. "civilians do not use deadly force nearly as frequently as cops do"? Huh? Last I looked, 'civilians" were not being called out any time of day to deal with BGs and miscreants and just crazy people--LEOs are. As someone said in a reply and something that has been railed upon in these forums, once someone raises the issue, is the fact that publicity via media will always go after the "bleeds it leads stories" and the high profile LEOs and that is what we are fed. That does not change the fact that there are poorly trained and even miscreant LEOs out there, but there probably and most likely are a heck of a lot more crazy civilians out there--it is just that they are not "on duty" and are not expected to protect whoever from whatever. If it was all up to a vigilante force of poorly trained civilians we would have blood everywhere on bad shoots.