Firearms, NFA specific

[jim]

Indeed. If that had happened here it would have been one or two shots at the most.

Sure thing Doc...whatever you say.

jim

ITN News | August 17 2005

Relatives of the Brazilian man shot dead by anti-terror police on a London Tube train want them to be charged with murder.

Officers mistakenly thought Jean Charles de Menezes was a suicide bomber, but recently leaked documents show he did not try to run away from police or vault the ticket barrier before they gunned the unarmed man down at Stockwell Tube station as initial reports suggested.

Mr de Menezes left his property before taking a bus to Stockwell tube station, where he was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder by armed police.

Three other bullets missed…

[jim]

Oh yea......I forgot to add: reports from witnesses say the police were less than 6ft from the unarned man when they murdered him. jim

[hoverfly]

But in defense of the Cops how do you train to over ride a human instinct of survival? Many cases in Iraq there must have been several all ready happen, let alone in many other wars where one has open fired and every one else did so with out question.

[Dr. Shoe]

Sure thing Doc...whatever you say.

jim

ITN News | August 17 2005

Relatives of the Brazilian man shot dead by anti-terror police on a London Tube train want them to be charged with murder.

Officers mistakenly thought Jean Charles de Menezes was a suicide bomber, but recently leaked documents show he did not try to run away from police or vault the ticket barrier before they gunned the unarmed man down at Stockwell Tube station as initial reports suggested.

Mr de Menezes left his property before taking a bus to Stockwell tube station, where he was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder by armed police.

Three other bullets missed…

I know. I remembered that particular case after I posted the thread above. I wasn't talking about a potential terrorist though, I was talking about a guy leaving a club and getting into a car and then refusing to stop when challenged- just like Brian Stanley except in his case he told police officers that he was prepared to use his "gun" before raisng it as if to shoot.

Whether there is any truth to it or not I have heard that it was meant to send a message that terrorists would be shot on sight. Just a shame they got the wrong man...

[Guy N. Heels]

...I found this, what happened was a case of contagious shooting.

By MICHAEL WILSON

Published: November 27, 2006

It is known in police parlance as “contagious shooting” — gunfire that spreads among officers who believe that they, or their colleagues, are facing a threat. It spreads like germs, like laughter, or fear. An officer fires, so his colleagues do, too.

Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times

From top left, Robert Coombs, Stephon Donaldson and Dewan Seabrooks joined Nicole Paultre, bottom right, whose fiancé was killed, and the Rev. Al Sharpton. The shooting happened early on Saturday, hours before Ms. Paultre was to wed the victim, Sean Bell.

The phenomenon appears to have happened last year, when eight officers fired 43 shots at an armed man in Queens, killing him. In July, three officers fired 26 shots at a pit bull that had bitten a chunk out of an officer’s leg in a Bronx apartment building. And there have been other episodes: in 1995, in the Bronx, officers fired 125 bullets during a bodega robbery, with one officer firing 45 rounds.

Just what happened on Saturday is still being investigated. Police experts, however, suggested in interviews yesterday that contagious shooting played a role in a fatal police shooting in Queens Saturday morning. According to the police account, five officers fired 50 shots at a bridegroom who, leaving his bachelor party at a strip club, twice drove his car into a minivan carrying plainclothes police officers investigating the club.

The bridegroom, Sean Bell, who was to be married hours later, was killed, and two of his friends were wounded, one critically.

The five officers involved in the shooting were placed on administrative duty yesterday — without their guns (but with pay)— as the Police Department and the Queens district attorney investigated the circumstances...

But it is the total number of shots that shook and angered the families of the men and community leaders. “How many shots?” Mr. Sharpton asked yesterday, over and over, in a chant at a rally in a park near Mary Immaculate Hospital, where the wounded men were being treated. The crowd called back, “Fifty!”

But shootings with high numbers of shots fired, however rare, call to mind dark events of the city’s past, like the 1999 killing of Gidone Busch, who was clutching a hammer when officers fired 12 times, and, most notably, the shooting of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed West African immigrant who died in a hail of 41 bullets, also in 1999.

In the 1995 Bronx bodega robbery in which officers fired 125 shots, the suspects did not fire back. “They were shooting to the echo of their own gunfire,” a former police official said at the time...

William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting.

To the gun enthusiest, the police forces are clearly under armed and insufficently trained. Very clearly all police forces should be armed with nothing less than an M4 or a MAC-10 and no less than 200 rounds of amunition. Moreover, they should be trained with hair-trigger reflexes to discharge a minimum of 100 rounds at the slightest provocation.

To the gun-control freaks, all police forces are clearly over-armed and trigger happy and should therefore be disarmed immediately! Even billy clubs and night-sticks should only be issued upon special warrant.

A recent study of the use of deadly force by police revealed some interesting stats. The one that I found most interesting is that the AVERAGE police officer only had to use deadly force 2 times in 25 years (this is the statistical number). Moreover, the average number of rounds that police officers were required to expend in the line of duty in a 25 career was 3; and it is a known fact that many police officers have never even drawn a firearm or fired even one round in the line of duty in their entire career.

My personal feeling is that many of the police officers are indeed trigger happy and that the actual need for the use of firearms is far smaller than the police would have you believe. I would tend to favor disarming all police officers except for stun-guns and other non-lethal weapons that are intended to incapacitate. However, I think that firearms should be available for officers who have a genuine need. These firearms could be carried in a special type of safe in the officer's car that could only be opened by a remote radio signal under a supervisor's approval. Moreover, use of a firearm for any reason should result in automatic suspension from the police force - without pay - until a full investigation is completed. If the shooting was justified, the police officer could then be reinstated with back-pay. If the shooting was not justified the police officer should face criminal charges.

I've said it before and I still maintain - armaments are dangerous things; they should only be used by responsible people.

[hoverfly]

To the gun enthusiest, the police forces are clearly under armed and insufficently trained. Very clearly all police forces should be armed with nothing less than an M4 or a MAC-10 and no less than 200 rounds of amunition. Moreover, they should be trained with hair-trigger reflexes to discharge a minimum of 100 rounds at the slightest provocation.

To the gun-control freaks, all police forces are clearly over-armed and trigger happy and should therefore be disarmed immediately! Even billy clubs and night-sticks should only be issued upon special warrant.

A recent study of the use of deadly force by police revealed some interesting stats. The one that I found most interesting is that the AVERAGE police officer only had to use deadly force 2 times in 25 years (this is the statistical number). Moreover, the average number of rounds that police officers were required to expend in the line of duty in a 25 career was 3; and it is a known fact that many police officers have never even drawn a firearm or fired even one round in the line of duty in their entire career.

My personal feeling is that many of the police officers are indeed trigger happy and that the actual need for the use of firearms is far smaller than the police would have you believe. I would tend to favor disarming all police officers except for stun-guns and other non-lethal weapons that are intended to incapacitate. However, I think that firearms should be available for officers who have a genuine need. These firearms could be carried in a special type of safe in the officer's car that could only be opened by a remote radio signal under a supervisor's approval. Moreover, use of a firearm for any reason should result in automatic suspension from the police force - without pay - until a full investigation is completed. If the shooting was justified, the police officer could then be reinstated with back-pay. If the shooting was not justified the police officer should face criminal charges.

I've said it before and I still maintain - armaments are dangerous things; they should only be used by responsible people.

Problem is it's not the three times that a police officer will discharge on average. It's the other times that a display of a lethal deterrent is called for. An unarmed police officer only armed with a less lethal weapon can be actually be an invitation for the prep to assault the officer than surrender. Also use of less lethal force is much more likely to be abused do to it's ease of use and lesser consequences of it's use. Stun guns for instance can kill some one do to unknown hart conditions or used on a misbehaving children where mussel is adequate to subdue the child. A stun gun would not be able to stop a car, or go through a barrier of some kind to stop an attack. I also point out that London's finest carries fire arms as well, this is a new practice where only billy clubs were only carried 5/10 years ago. This from a "Nanny" state.

[Rockpup]

Wow, I need to keep an eye on this thread more often

guyinheels: I also agree that the police are underarmed, but have an issue with your suggestion of using mac-10's for patrol duty. I have a Mac-10 in 45acp, it is -very- dificult to control, not to mention the wire stock tends to dig in after a while. The 9mm upper shoots alot slower (750 rounds per minute vs 900 with the 45 vs 1200 with the 45/suppressor), but I would still prefer the police choose another weapon. If they want to stay with 9mm they can look into a 9mm M16 style as they are mechanically very similer to the M4, and would reduce the amount of cross weapon training needed for each officer.

Here would be one with a 5" barrel and suppressor under the handguard, it's semi-auto only but it's hearing safe so the officers wouldnt have to worry about going deaf.

(taken moments after the other shot, still in motorcycle gear/thigh boots)

Unfortunatly I have to cut short and leave for work, I'm glad to see a healthy discussion still exists.

Have fun

[Dr. Shoe]

Our boys seem to manage very well with specialist firearm teams in patrol cars with the guns locked in the boot (trunk). They have a maximum of 10 rounds per officer and use either Heckler and Koch or the trusty MilSpec Browning 9mm. If they had been keeping to protocol last summer then perhaps Mr Menedez would still be alive today.

[Rockpup]

My dad has a 9mm Browning Hi-Power, still one of my favorite handguns to shoot. Although even with the best of weapons proper training is key.

[Guy N. Heels]

Wow, I need to keep an eye on this thread more often

guyinheels: I also agree that the police are underarmed, but have an issue with your suggestion of using mac-10's for patrol duty. I have a Mac-10 in 45acp, it is -very- dificult to control, not to mention the wire stock tends to dig in after a while. The 9mm upper shoots alot slower (750 rounds per minute vs 900 with the 45 vs 1200 with the 45/suppressor), but I would still prefer the police choose another weapon. If they want to stay with 9mm they can look into a 9mm M16 style as they are mechanically very similer to the M4, and would reduce the amount of cross weapon training needed for each officer.

Here would be one with a 5" barrel and suppressor under the handguard, it's semi-auto only but it's hearing safe so the officers wouldnt have to worry about going deaf.

Unfortunatly I have to cut short and leave for work, I'm glad to see a healthy discussion still exists.

Have fun

Hey, my remark was supposed to be a bit sarcastic. But the point is that if you want a bunch of trigger happy cops shooting up the whole town, who cares about control? Give the badge-toting murderer in uniform all the ammo he can carry and let him shoot up everything in sight. Then after the smoke clears away, if anything is still moving, reload and go through the next magazine! It's called kill and kill again! They can even come over here to Prince George's County, where they kill with impunity, and get the cops to show 'em how it's done!

My main point is that if we are going to have police forces armed with deadly force, that they need to act responsibly. Nothing will promote that more than the firm sure knowledge that if the cop fires a round for any reason he will be automatically suspended without pay until a full investigation is completed.

As far as cops taking on motor vehicles, I am totally opposed to police forces being armed with: bazookas, flame-throwers, anti-tank weapons, LAW's, tactical nukes, and such-like, which is about the only effective way to deal with a rampaging motor vehicle. Let us try and remember that ROBOCOP movies not withstanding, the police officer in America is supposed to be a peace officer who holds his office and authority as a matter of public trust - not an enforcer who is operating without the approval of the people.

[Rockpup]

I agree about responsibility, but I dissagree about suspending an officer -without- pay every time he has to fire a shot untill the investigation is done. Rather then that, hold them just as legally liable for any shooting as any other citizen. If they were not justified in shooting someone then charge them with murder. Withholding their pay is an insult, as they don't make alot of money as it is, at least in my area.

[Guy N. Heels]

I agree about responsibility, but I dissagree about suspending an officer -without- pay every time he has to fire a shot untill the investigation is done. Rather then that, hold them just as legally liable for any shooting as any other citizen. If they were not justified in shooting someone then charge them with murder. Withholding their pay is an insult, as they don't make alot of money as it is, at least in my area.

In the first place, the sooner we dispel the notion that firearms and the use of lethal force are law enforcement tools, the better off everyone will be. On the contrary, firearms and the use of lethal force are ONLY for purposes of defense and protection - not law enforcement! Moreover, if the cop knows that his pay is on the line every time he yanks out a big bore weapon, it'll give him pause to consider if the next shot is really worth what he will face afterwards. If his life is genuinely at risk, he'll tough out the loss of pay and the investigation. But if this is just another "wild-west" show or a "dirty Harry" scenario, then he knows that his groceries are going to be a bit thin after he pulls the trigger. Besides, every cop in America knows the adage that, "It's better to be tried by 12 than to be carried by 6". So as long as he's got pay coming in, what does he have to lose? You can bet your boots and your arsenal that plenty of trigger-happy cops will shoot first and ask questions later! If you don't believe me, just come here to the county where I live. Here they kill with impunity!

Just by way of a follow-on, MSNBC is now reporting that police in North Carolina have shot to death an 18 yr. old suspected of stealing a video game. While details are sketchy, it would seem that the suspect was unarmed. It sure is looking like another case of "shoot first and ask questions later". So ask the teen's family if the cops ought to be getting paid while this matter is investigated.

[Guy N. Heels]

I agree about responsibility, but I dissagree about suspending an officer -without- pay every time he has to fire a shot untill the investigation is done. Rather then that, hold them just as legally liable for any shooting as any other citizen. If they were not justified in shooting someone then charge them with murder. Withholding their pay is an insult, as they don't make alot of money as it is, at least in my area.

As a further follow-on to my previous follow-on, a Prince George's County cop has just been suspended - with pay - while they investigate why he shot two unarmed men who were delivering furniture to his house. Both of the furniture men are presently in the hospital in ICU. Would you care to ask the family members of the victims if the cop should be drawing pay while he is suspended?

[hoverfly]

As a further follow-on to my previous follow-on, a Prince George's County cop has just been suspended - with pay - while they investigate why he shot two unarmed men who were delivering furniture to his house. Both of the furniture men are presently in the hospital in ICU. Would you care to ask the family members of the victims if the cop should be drawing pay while he is suspended?

Hay if the cop have been cleared, why drag him through financial desiater? If he/she is guilty after the investigation than suspend their pay. We keep forgetting what these guys go through every day.

[Guy N. Heels]

Hay if the cop have been cleared, why drag him through financial desiater? If he/she is guilty after the investigation than suspend their pay. We keep forgetting what these guys go through every day.

If you want to know why? please allow me to draw your attention to my 2 previous posts.

[hoverfly]

If you want to know why? please allow me to draw your attention to my 2 previous posts.

Yes I have read them and reread them and let me be more clear.

The reporter, or you, really have no clue what really happened in either case. There is always two sides of the story and some where in the middle is the truth, that's the job of the investigation. Suspending the officer(s) with pay, helps the investigation, it relieves some pressure off the officer and be up front about the incident. Any sudden move made could produce a weapon so fast you can't jut think about it, you have to react. If it was not having the ability to defend ones self, using lethal force there would be allot more dead Police officers and there would be less of them cuse who would want the job, crime would run rapided, you would be crying fowl any way cuse allot more people would be dead. Many officers have been injured or killed because they hesitate and putting their pay on the line on top of their lives would kill more officers than save people.

Your Dirty Harry imagine to day is nothing but a figment of your and the Movie industry imagination. Police officers go through eminence amount of training for defense and protection as a result of such past incidences. (I know, I worked for a gun mfg. who offers training for law enforcement)

The use of less lethal force, Lets Look at tazers, they have killed people and their use of the have been abused the users have been disciplined/ or fired. They are really classified as less lethal weapons but yet peoples still die There are new tools being developed, but lethal force will always be an option. Both the good and the bad of it will all ways be there.

Oh yeah one other thing, the loss of any human life under a shooting incident is not good, but the victims/criminals parents, friends and /or spouse but people run with emotions for revenge not Justice. They went there, and they are not Police officer,and they have not a clue of his feelings or thoughts. Also lets look at rules of engagement, the officer has to fallow them, but the criminal will not, it's open seasoned on the officer, while they have to treat the criminal with due care, more on the line for the officer's life.

[Rockpup]

Yes, I'd say keep him on the payroll, suspend him from street duty and let him work behind a desk while the investigation procedes. If he is found guilty of committing a crime he should be held criminally and civilly liable. Not only should he be prosecuted like any other person who committed murder, but also be held accountable in civil court for whatever settlement the court deems adaquet. I am in favor of protecting the innocent. There should be no diference in the protection afforded to the police or civilians, and no diference in the punishment handed down to those who wilingly defy the law and take another persons life. Edit: Just thought of a recent case in my area, local guy was charged with resisting arrest, while resisting he was beaten pretty sencless by a cop with a nightstick. Everyone cried fowl but they tried their best to keep it under wraps. Less then a year later the same cop did the same thing, but this time someone video taped as the cop yelled a few unpleasent racial remarks while swinging away. This cop is now in jail awaiting trial for two counts of assult (the original, and the new guy) and every arrest he was involved in is being reviewed to see if more charges will be added. Yes, there are bad cops, sometimes they are protected, same as there are bad McDonalds employee's, bad pilots, bad subway drivers, etc. Yes, the cops are the only ones who are given a gun as part of the uniform, but they don't need to use their gun to ruin other peoples lives. The problem in this case isnt that he killed someone, its that his 'friends' made the mistake of trying to protect him.

[Guy N. Heels]

...Your Dirty Harry imagine to day is nothing but a figment of your and the Movie industry imagination. Police officers go through eminence amount of training for defense and protection as a result of such past incidences. (I know, I worked for a gun mfg. who offers training for law enforcement)

...Oh yeah one other thing, the loss of any human life under a shooting incident is not good, but the victims/criminals parents, friends and /or spouse but people run with emotions for revenge not Justice. They went there, and they are not Police officer,and they have not a clue of his feelings or thoughts. Also lets look at rules of engagement, the officer has to fallow them, but the criminal will not, it's open seasoned on the officer, while they have to treat the criminal with due care, more on the line for the officer's life.

With all due respect for your right to your opinion, I must reject it! Perhaps after I have lived another 1000 years I can erase the memory of a dead teenage girl lying in a pool of blood in a parking lot while a Montgomery County Police officer with a smoking 12 gauge shotgun in his hand is standing over her. Her "crime" was that she dropped the bag of potato chips she had in her hand as she had been ordered to do. The bottom line is that after the parents buried their teenage daughter, a jury found that the police officer had acted "in the line of duty" and that it was a "justifiable homocide" to gun down an unarmed teenager.

Then there is the case now pending in California where a unarmed US airman was deliberately shot 3 times in the chest by a policeman for standing up as he had been ordered. The jury found the police officer had not attempted to murder the Iraq war veteran.

Did I mention the guy in Anne Arundel County who was shot in the face by an FBI agent armed with an MP4? The agent had ordered the man to step out of the car and so when the man reached to unfasten his seatbelt (which is required by law to be worn) the FBI agent dutifully shot him in the face with an automatic weapon. The FBI agent was, of course, found not guilty of any wrong-doing, but then he didn't have to have his whole face reconstructed.

Then there is the 15 year veteran US Marshal who shot a young, also unarmed, US sailor to death at a shopping center on Rockville Pike. Nothing like our well trained police forces exercising proper rules of engagement while gunning down unarmed citizens from coast-to-coast! Yer right! In comparison Dirty Harry comes off looking like the nice guy.

Therefore, I reject all notions that the police exercise any sort of "rules of engagement" training whatsoever! Once they get a weapon in their hands and a target in their sights it is literally Open Season! So naturally they need to go on receiving their regular pay while they clean their weapon(s) and everyone else gets through burying the bodies.

I had far and away more weapons training in the Army where we employed the term "lock and load". The weapon was to be kept clear of all ammo until a real threat was revealed. Even then, the piece was to be locked while the ammo was loaded and a round chambered and still kept locked until a target was acquired. Then the threat had to be re-evaluated. Under no circumstances was the piece to be unlocked unless it was deemed necessary to fire.

I fired EXPERT with my weapons and I knew only too well that anything within my sights would have FMJ rounds in it when I unlocked my piece. I give great praise to Almighty God that I have never fired a single round in anger!

[hoverfly]

With all due respect for your right to your opinion, I must reject it! Perhaps after I have lived another 1000 years I can erase the memory of a dead teenage girl lying in a pool of blood in a parking lot while a Montgomery County Police officer with a smoking 12 gauge shotgun in his hand is standing over her. Her "crime" was that she dropped the bag of potato chips she had in her hand as she had been ordered to do. The bottom line is that after the parents buried their teenage daughter, a jury found that the police officer had acted "in the line of duty" and that it was a "justifiable homocide" to gun down an unarmed teenager.

Then there is the case now pending in California where a unarmed US airman was deliberately shot 3 times in the chest by a policeman for standing up as he had been ordered. The jury found the police officer had not attempted to murder the Iraq war veteran.

Did I mention the guy in Anne Arundel County who was shot in the face by an FBI agent armed with an MP4? The agent had ordered the man to step out of the car and so when the man reached to unfasten his seatbelt (which is required by law to be worn) the FBI agent dutifully shot him in the face with an automatic weapon. The FBI agent was, of course, found not guilty of any wrong-doing, but then he didn't have to have his whole face reconstructed.

Then there is the 15 year veteran US Marshal who shot a young, also unarmed, US sailor to death at a shopping center on Rockville Pike. Nothing like our well trained police forces exercising proper rules of engagement while gunning down unarmed citizens from coast-to-coast! Yer right! In comparison Dirty Harry comes off looking like the nice guy.

Therefore, I reject all notions that the police exercise any sort of "rules of engagement" training whatsoever! Once they get a weapon in their hands and a target in their sights it is literally Open Season! So naturally they need to go on receiving their regular pay while they clean their weapon(s) and everyone else gets through burying the bodies.

I had far and away more weapons training in the Army where we employed the term "lock and load". The weapon was to be kept clear of all ammo until a real threat was revealed. Even then, the piece was to be locked while the ammo was loaded and a round chambered and still kept locked until a target was acquired. Then the threat had to be re-evaluated. Under no circumstances was the piece to be unlocked unless it was deemed necessary to fire.

I fired EXPERT with my weapons and I knew only too well that anything within my sights would have FMJ rounds in it when I unlocked my piece. I give great praise to Almighty God that I have never fired a single round in anger!

The Army way is totally different, most likely you are in numbers and in military doctrine you are considered expendable, so the consequences of the extra safety measures taken are nill. Where an officer could be alone and are not so much expendable. As much as we all think that we are experts, it's not until we actually go under trial by fire that we have understanding what really happens. Sounds like these officers need more training, sounds like some of these people who been shot may halved jerked and suddenly moved, I mean if I jerked or suddenly move and you had the gun what would you do? Instinct says pull the trigger!! What ever the reasoned, $h!+ happens they were cleared of any wrong doing, they have to live with their actions and none the wiser on the next time around. Until some one invents a Phase Pistol with a stun setting on it lethal force is a fact of life and no officer is going to surrender their gun until then.

[Guy N. Heels]

The Army way is totally different, most likely you are in numbers and in military doctrine you are considered expendable, so the consequences of the extra safety measures taken are nill. Where an officer could be alone and are not so much expendable. As much as we all think that we are experts, it's not until we actually go under trial by fire that we have understanding what really happens. Sounds like these officers need more training, sounds like some of these people who been shot may halved jerked and suddenly moved, I mean if I jerked or suddenly move and you had the gun what would you do? Instinct says pull the trigger!! What ever the reasoned, $h!+ happens they were cleared of any wrong doing, they have to live with their actions and none the wiser on the next time around. Until some one invents a Phase Pistol with a stun setting on it lethal force is a fact of life and no officer is going to surrender their gun until then.

First of all, I want to thank you for some sensible comments.

Secondly, I have been under live fire (not a drill or training exercise) on more than one occasion.

In the third place, the teenager was stopped on a "lookout" because the car resmbled a description given at a totally different incident at a totally different location. There were not less than 3 police officers who had the girl surrounded and in their sights. She was being yelled-at from 3 different directions. When one cop ordered her to drop what she was holding (a bag of potato chips) another blasted her with his 12 gauge. Mercifully, she died instantly, and yer absolutely right about the cop having to live with the outcome. As a statistical group, cops have one of the highest incidents of suicide on record.

In the fourth place, the cops will surrender their weapons when the law requires them to.

In the fifth place, my argument is really about cops being placed on paid suspension after a shooting incident. My argument is that depriving the police officer his pay while the investigation of the shooting is being conducted might be an incentive for the police officer to consider more carefully whether the use of the firearm is really necessary. If the shooting is justified then the pay should be reinstated.

[Rockpup]

Hijacking my thread back to its original topic, here is my latest toy, a remington 700p with AWC Spectrum-90 suppressor in .308.

Using custom handloads I make I've gotten as low as 3/8" 5 round groups at 100yards, and hit an 8" gong at 1000yards several times a week ago.

Since that photo I've also added a HS-Precision 10 round detachable mag.

GNH: With suspension without pay I'd be afraid the police would hesitate more in patroling the areas where they are more likely to draw their weapon. Which could result in emboldened criminals. But thats theoretical..

I'm actually amazed that with my history I'm defending the police to this extent. oh well

[Rockpup]

I'm in southwest Florida. I've yet to be to Knob Creek, furthest north I've been was just northeast of Atlanta last spring for the silencertests.com shoot.

[Rockpup]

Well, I've been up to Sturgeon Bay for work, but it was before I had any of my newer toys.

[Dr. Shoe]

Thereby is the exact problem that I have with guns and the people who own them. Get this guys: THESE ARE VERY VERY LETHAL WEAPONS, THEY ARE NOT TOYS!!!! I know it's a figure of speech but this is the bit that gets me angry...

[Rockpup]

I appologise, I tend to joke about guy things falling into two catagories for simplification, tools and toys. Denise14 uses firearms for work, therefore they are tools. I use mine for enjoyment, therefor toys. Much like the sportbike I had they -are- very dangerous when used improperly, not only for myself and others. I'll try to avoid using the term again here

[Dr. Shoe]

Thanks. I tend to get angry because guns are neither tools or toys they are weapons, they are designed to kill in the most efficient way possible. All the advances in firearm technology have had the purpose of making them better at killing. Whether you use a gun for profession or for recreation, they must be treated with respect.

[hoverfly]

Thanks.

I tend to get angry because guns are neither tools or toys they are weapons, they are designed to kill in the most efficient way possible. All the advances in firearm technology have had the purpose of making them better at killing.

Whether you use a gun for profession or for recreation, they must be treated with respect.

What are you saying? That my sports car is not a toy? JK

[Guy N. Heels]

What are you saying? That my sports car is not a toy? JK

Unless you are using it strictly for recreational purposes on your own property, NO! Your sports car is NOT a TOY! Neither are firearms. In both cases, the only thing necessary for someone to be killed or seriously injured is to lose respect for it!

[Dr. Shoe]

What are you saying? That my sports car is not a toy? JK

No it isn't. Unless of course you're talking about a 1/16th scale model...

Even then though...

A toy is an item played with by small children and are usually harmless no matter how they're used.

[hoverfly]

Unless you are using it strictly for recreational purposes on your own property, NO! Your sports car is NOT a TOY! Neither are firearms. In both cases, the only thing necessary for someone to be killed or seriously injured is to lose respect for it!

No it isn't. Unless of course you're talking about a 1/16th scale model...

Even then though...

A toy is an item played with by small children and are usually harmless no matter how they're used.

Gee.....No sense for the ironery........please note for those who did not notice that in my previous posting that JK is Joking.