42 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Correction...2 days later
RE: Drops him with one bullet.....Bragging?
Drops him?? Wounded him?
If it bleeds it leads?
Update: WOAI now reports it was an off-duty sergeant who fired a total of four shots, wounding the shooter. An Initial report by 1200 WOAI news said that an off-duty sheriff's deputy shot the suspect one time.
Wounded him with 4 bullets more truthful?
At least the website
updated and corrected the story.......too many times websites leave an incorrect version stand.
Figures you wouldn't commend her fast action to stop a mass murder though.............
What about the first headline...trying to sensationalize shooting someone?
Not dead...and more than one bullet fired....Of Course that's from a blog....NRA Member Blog?
commend her fast action to stop a mass murder though
Wait till the facts come out about how many time the suspect was hit...she fired 4 rounds...She's lucky there were no innocent bystanders.
There were plenty of innocent bystanders
but none were hit. She did waste 3 bullets...maybe needs remedial marksmanship training? I do believe that if all the bullets in all the wars had taken a life, our planet would have few if any humans remaining.
in battle, the purpose of most shots is to spoil
the enemies aim. At least in the older wars like WW 1 &2.
From what I've read in WW2 accounts
not that many US solders were able to easily pull the trigger if a human was in their gun sights. They would fire in the general direction of where fire was coming from or enemy was suspected of being. They didn't want to know they'd actually killed someone.
She's not NYC police, that's why
She's in the South, obviously has learned proper gun control there.
So she drew her pistol and said
"Hey Bubba! Watch this!.
naw, if she had, she would have shot her own foot
off duty cop... so, not a civilian nor a teacher... right?
"An off-duty sheriff's deputy working security then shot the gunman."
Some one hired to be an armed security guard... did their job.
You find this remarkable, how?
doesn't matter if it's an off-duty cop or not......someone with the same type of shooting training would do just as well (ex-vet, teacher, principal, janitor, volunteer parent).
one training shouldn't equal what a cop gets
There are probably a lot of cops, esp small town ones, that don't get as much training as regularly as they should. But I hope they get more than most private citizens would.
Unless we're willing to foot the bill an require all the volunteers to do a minimum refresher training on a regular basis.
it does matter if they were hired to be there.
The message to be learned here is that it is good when a hired gun does their job. It is bad when there is no hired gun.
I find it interesting that you point out that people with police training (but not necessarily an actual cop) would do just as well in this type of situation. I agree with this very idea. When I argued about the fact that George Zimmerman had no such training, and thus had no business carrying a gun (licensed or not) I was shot down by the "everyone should own a gun" advocates on the forum.
The average gun proponent tells us that we need to have more guns to protect us from guns. I view this as similar to the idea of drinking more alcohol to sober up.
that's why you should drink
There are no laws on the books in any state requiring private citizens to undergo anything approaching the level and frequency of training that police officers get.
Good idea though. However often cops are required to report to the practice range -- require any civilian gun owner to do the same.
maybe good, but too expensive
at least by hearsay, those gun ranges are expensive.
And some are for pistol or shotgun only, can't handle the ricochet of high power rifles, so don't allow any rifles.
Of course, out in the rural areas, people shoot cans in the back yard, on the ground or on a stand. The bad part is sometimes they target shoot without proper precautions for the full potential range of the round nor any safeguards against ricochets.
The really bad part is back yard target shooting often is after a outdoor cookout with alcohol.
Gun purchasers can pay for the training
The ranges will make money, the gun owners will be properly trained, it's a win-win. The only real expense to government would be in enforcement.
And before anyone says making people pay for training is infringement, I say too bad. If it isn't infringement to make them pay for the gun then it isn't infringement to make them pay for training. The financial argument would mean the government would have to issue a gun to anyone who wants but can't afford one.
I fully agree and
what you suggest is part of what I posted about what I'm for..........
For initial training ok
but I can't agree to individuals being require to pay for the level of training of police officiers every year.
You want to require every individual that drives to undergo supervised refresher driver education every year? or even every license renewal? And driving isn't even considered a right, it's been rule a privileged revokeable at any time without even a magistrate hearing.
The NRA can offer subsidized training.
Just like the AMA offers subsidized training in the form of motorcycle safety courses.
Oh, and I refuse to recognize any comparison of gun training to drivers ed, or guns to cars for that matter, simply because the sole purpose of a gun is to kill. A car can kill when misused but it is not designed nor intended to be a lethal weapon.
What's that old saying?
Something about 'good intentions'........and the actual results?
I'll agree that cars and guns are not the same.
And accept the basic purpose both as you propose, although it was pointed out rather strongly to me at work that rounds used in target practice are an order of magnitude at least more than rounds used in hunting animals and humans.
The point about training was requiring individuals to get and pay for the level of training the police get every year.
And as I noted, courts have long ruled driving is not a right, it's a privilege revokeable at any time by the state, with no right to a hearing first.
So far, while people argue how far it should cover, the right to own guns is still a right legally.
Now as far as gun training vs driving training, I'm not so sure you should be so dogmatically opposed. Surely you see drivers ever day that need retraining? based on how they are driving anyway.
Didn't notice either I guess that elsewhere I point out there are laws against drunk driving, there are not laws specifically against drunk gun use.
I know a lot of people with guns, and most of them don't bother me a bit. Others even though they're not convicted of any crimes make me nervous thinking about a gun in their hands. I've seen more than once guys standing around shooting at cans in a backyard, a piston in one hand and a beer in the other. Not really a good combination, I generally left if and when that started.
But is motorcycle training required now? I'm not sure here, I've had a motorcycle endorsement on my NC drivers license since the 70's and probably it was at least 1980 the last time I owned one and sometime in the 80's the last time I rode one. As long as I pass the standard renewal testing, and pay the fee, I get to keep my motorcycle endorsement.
I don't buy the equating guns and cars. I'm not so sure about training requirements being totally irrelevant. Of course, as far as I know in NC, you're only require to have training for concealed carry. As far as I know I can tote a rifle or shotgun even a pistol openly anywhere without training someone with training can carry concealed. I haven't verified that, but it use to be that way. Theoritically a pistol in a holster outside your clothing is not concealed so the extra requirements don't apply. You do have to get background check for the permit to buy a pistol and the permit to carry concealed is entirely different and additional permit.
The guns people have in their home doesn't bother me much, I'm not going to be breaking in. It's some of the people that have on them all the time that bother me. I'm not even sure I care what kind of gun you have in your house, as long as it stays there, or at least the gun, and the bullets (even when fired) stay inside your property lines.
Use of roads is a right
"And as I noted, courts have long ruled driving is not a right, it's a privilege revokeable at any time by the state, with no right to a hearing first. "
I still feel we have gone astray on driving being a "privilege" since long before cars came along, humans rode horses and carriages and didn't put tags on them or require licenses to do so, except inside some large city areas, and even those were limited areas. I think we've gone over the line on this "privilege" interpretation.
Just stating the results of several rulings
mostly challeges to things like suspension of your license on being charged with a DUI, no hearing, usually for a few days, then after conviction for a longer time.
Or the suspension for nonpayment of fines I believe has happened in some states too.
Not sure if drivers license is included in the list of privileges, such as business licenses, that can be suspended for being in default of child support.
.....but if we're not going to require the same level of training, then we can't point to an off-duty cop preventing a shooting as an example of why private citizens should be armed.
I'm not arguing against a private citizen being armed
and not even arguing for self protection armed citizens being trained as well as police. Many should have more training than they do probably at least once. Or at least need more target practice than many ever do. People buy a gun after a rash of home robberies in a neighborhood, or a rash of muggings, then things get better and the gun lays in a nightstand drawer until someone gets hurt with it.
I am doubtful about private armed citizens volunteering to serve as armed guards at school or elsewhere without extensive training.
All teachers required to take firearms training....
I think they should be paid extra..for multitasking...Security AND teaching....
they could shoot the perp and use their chalk to draw the outline the body on the floor.
While really uncomfortable with putting guns in schools
if teachers or anyone else in the school was going to be allowed to carry, they should have to pass rigorous training in both shooting accuracy and when to shoot and when not to shoot.
However, there is a reason guards in prisions don't normally carry guns inside the cell area itself, it's to keep prisoners from taking them away and using them.
Some don't want children exposed to the word "divorced"....
Yet are willing to make schools an armed camp.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)