RE: Breaking News in Dallas

RE: Breaking News in Dallas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Greta75 -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 10:03:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now, since the shooter did not have a neon arrow pointing to him indicating he was the shooter, how would these individuals know who was not shooting at them or the police? This is besides the point, because my point was, if they saw a shooter shooting the police, and they were within range, they should shoot the shooter. Your point is, even IF they saw the shooter shooting the police, the specific shooter who is blatantly shooting the police dead! They are to stand by and do nothing until every single police officer dies, and then they are allowed to use their guns to shoot. To me, this is terrible. I don't really differentiate the difference between civilian lives or police lives. To me, they are both human beings who are dying. The law forbids civilians to save the lives of policemen. That is what is terrible to me.

jlf1961 -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 10:09:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 FR I am still trying to understand the whole logic of carrying a big ass rifle without bullets, to make a statement? What statement? I thought guns are self-defense? Not statements! You carry them because you want protection for yourself. Now you carry them without ammo, whatever for? Decorative? Fashion statement? First the AR15 is not a big ass rifle. Secondly, carrying the damn thing at a peaceful march as a statement was stupid in more ways than one. The only smart thing was to not have ammo, then if the police had detained him for whatever reason, they would not have just cause. FYI, this has happened within the military. During the 'peacekeeping' operation in Lebanon, the US forces deployed were not allowed to have magazines with ammo in their weapons while on patrol. The loaded magazines were to be left in their ammo pouches and only used IF they came under fire and AFTER the commander of the patrol had contacted command who then had to clear it with the state department for the troops to return fire. That is the primary reason that marine barracks got blown, the men at the gate had to drop empty mags and load live rounds.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 10:10:50 AM)
quote: Finally, untrained individuals trying to do the right thing usually results in the untrained individuals ending up as DEAD untrained individuals Actually most police are barely trained themselves.

jlf1961 -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 10:14:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now, since the shooter did not have a neon arrow pointing to him indicating he was the shooter, how would these individuals know who was not shooting at them or the police? This is besides the point, because my point was, if they saw a shooter shooting the police, and they were within range, they should shoot the shooter. Your point is, even IF they saw the shooter shooting the police, the specific shooter who is blatantly shooting the police dead! They are to stand by and do nothing until every single police officer dies, and then they are allowed to use their guns to shoot. To me, this is terrible. I don't really differentiate the difference between civilian lives or police lives. To me, they are both human beings who are dying. The law forbids civilians to save the lives of policemen. That is what is terrible to me. Did you even read the statements? The witnesses for the most part did not see much, they were too fucking busy trying to get someplace so they would not be shot. Greta, you do not pull the trigger on a gun with the idea of "to whom it may concern" you pull when you have a damn target. Use your brain for a bit more than keeping your ears separated, please.

jlf1961 -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 10:16:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Finally, untrained individuals trying to do the right thing usually results in the untrained individuals ending up as DEAD untrained individuals Actually most police are barely trained themselves. Actually, most police are well trained in theory, and respond accordingly. Unfortunately the news is full of well trained police reacting and performing their duties as if they were in some Hollywood movie OR do not have the common sense to go inside in a hail storm.

Greta75 -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 10:16:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Did you even read the statements? The witnesses for the most part did not see much, they were too fucking busy trying to get someplace so they would not be shot. Greta, you do not pull the trigger on a gun with the idea of "to whom it may concern" you pull when you have a damn target. Use your brain for a bit more than keeping your ears separated, please. I think you are the one with comprehension problems. You clearly said that even if they saw the shooter, it would be illegal to shoot the shooter. That's what you specifically said. So I am saying according to your information, that, people are not allowed to do anything to save the police from dying until all the police are dead, then they can interfere. Doesn't matter whether they saw the shooter or not in this situation, since EVEN if they did, it is illegal to shoot the shooter to save the police. And how do you know nobody with guns saw the shooter? If the law is that, they can't interfere? If they don't interfere, then they are just a ghost standing there watching.

Greta75 -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 10:22:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 During the 'peacekeeping' operation in Lebanon, the US forces deployed were not allowed to have magazines with ammo in their weapons while on patrol. This is crazy. I hope all the military patrolling our subways actually have ammos in their Rifles. Incase of terrorist attacks! I should ask one of them patrolling when I see them one day. Really, don't understand the logic of bother bringing a gun out of your home, if you have no ammo for self-defense.

jlf1961 -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 10:34:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Did you even read the statements? The witnesses for the most part did not see much, they were too fucking busy trying to get someplace so they would not be shot. Greta, you do not pull the trigger on a gun with the idea of "to whom it may concern" you pull when you have a damn target. Use your brain for a bit more than keeping your ears separated, please. I think you are the one with comprehension problems. You clearly said that even if they saw the shooter, it would be illegal to shoot the shooter. That's what you specifically said. So I am saying according to your information, that, people are not allowed to do anything to save the police from dying until all the police are dead, then they can interfere. Doesn't matter whether they saw the shooter or not in this situation, since EVEN if they did, it is illegal to shoot the shooter to save the police. I was responding to how you worded the statement. However, unless directed by a police officer with the authority to do so, private citizens are not legally allowed to do anything in the situation such as Dallas. There are a number of reasons: 1) As I stated, in that situation, the odds are the innocent people would have been injured or killed 2) If they had acted and the District Attorney declined to prosecute, those individuals would still be open to civil court proceedings. In other words, if they had misidentified someone as the shooter and wounded or killed him, they could have been sued for a shit ton of cash. 3) If they had fired and wounded or killed the wrong person, they would then face charges ranging from attempted murder to manslaughter, all of which means prison. All of these are the reasons the law is the way it is. You seem to be operating under the misguided delusion that gun owners today can act like gun owners of the old west. I have a license to carry a concealed weapon. To get that license I had to take specific classes over and above the standard firearm safety class. That license does have with it certain legal responsibilities, the first of which is to not, unless requested, get involved in an active police operation. The second of which is do not do something stupid. I have a number of firearms in my personal collection, all for specific uses, however, 3 are set up exactly like the sniper rifles I carried in the Army. While perfect for hunting animals, to be honest, they are set up as though I were going to go out, find a spot and kill humans. I am on the range at least 5 times a week, and fire at human silhouette targets. I have my reasons, the primary one is that I personally feel, with everything going on in this country as well as the world in general, civilization is going down the toilet at warp speed. The range where I am a member is the same one used by local swat teams, and the owner does have an outdoor long range area for shots out to 700 meters. And yes, I can still hit man sized targets at that range with perfect kill shots. In fact, I am often asked to help with officers who are trying to perfect long range kill shots.

Greta75 -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 10:39:51 AM)
So there are alot of limitations to having guns for safety. And this is a situation where having a gun is useless. Despite the bad guy having guns.

BamaD -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 11:24:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now, since the shooter did not have a neon arrow pointing to him indicating he was the shooter, how would these individuals know who was not shooting at them or the police? This is besides the point, because my point was, if they saw a shooter shooting the police, and they were within range, they should shoot the shooter. Your point is, even IF they saw the shooter shooting the police, the specific shooter who is blatantly shooting the police dead! They are to stand by and do nothing until every single police officer dies, and then they are allowed to use their guns to shoot. To me, this is terrible. I don't really differentiate the difference between civilian lives or police lives. To me, they are both human beings who are dying. The law forbids civilians to save the lives of policemen. That is what is terrible to me. He was not in plain site.

jlf1961 -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 11:33:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 So there are alot of limitations to having guns for safety. And this is a situation where having a gun is useless. Despite the bad guy having guns. No, this was primarily a situation of "If you dont know exactly who you need to shoot at, dont shoot." Greta, answer this simple question, and try and put yourself in the mind of one of those people with a gun at that march. How would you feel at this moment, if you had opened fire and killed the wrong person? Or You opened fire and accidentally hit some kid? Let me explain something to you, in simple terms. Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, a rifle bullet, even a little .22 will go through a car door. They will go in one side of a car and all the way through, unless stopped by the engine or something like a body. Hell, some rifles will go through brick walls. Do you know what ER doctors do with gun shot wounds, they count the number of holes, hoping for an even number, that means the bullet punched through the body. The typical bullet wound is a through and through. So, you could shoot one person and the bullet go through them and hit and possibly kill yet a second individual. Now are you getting an idea about just how lethal a gun can be? Sure those civilians could have aimed at one person, but there is no way to be sure the bullet would not continue on after going through them and hitting someone else. I have a hard time believing that someone cannot grasp the complexity of the situation in Dallas. Far from helping, those people with guns could and probably would have made the situation many times worse. You had police looking for one shooter, that is bad enough. Add to that a bunch of civilians who attended the protest with guns under the misguided notion of making a statement who open fire trying to help. Okay, now the police have to figure out, and fast, who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. So, some cop or more likely, cops, make the wrong call and suddenly you have a few African American males who were trying to help ending up with police bullets in them. IN the military, I worked with 'local' guerilla fighters. We made damn sure they were wearing a common article so we would know who was friendly and who wasn't. It kept us from killing the good guys. The cops had no such system to identify the people who were not trying to kill them. The mess would have been presented in the media as: "Armed Protest Marchers killed by police while trying to help stop cop killer." And done in a way that makes the cops look like they fucked up. In truth the headline should, in that situation, like this "Armed protestors killed for being terminally stupid." There are times when, yes, a person with a gun should or could be a hero. This was not one of them. Legal aspects aside, would you really want to be someone that tried to help the police and accidentally killed a 6 year old? I cannot understand how you cannot grasp the realities of what people are trying to tell you, understand there is more to it than pointing a gun and pulling the trigger and that everything you have seen in the movies and tv concerning guns, gun fights etc is nothing more than cinematic bullshit. Or to put it another way, from the military perspective. If you do not know where the son of a bitch is that is shooting at you, un ass the area and be somewhere else or call in lots and lots and lots of arty. If you know where the son of a bitch is and cant get a clear shot, and you are in a bad spot to do anything, let some other grunt get him. Finally, if arty dont get him, call in air support and napalm and roast his/her ass. But in the case of Dallas, let the guys paid to get shot at do their job and cover your own ass. The common thought is "DONT DO SOMETHING STUPID DUMBASS!" By the way, heroes more often than not end up in a grave.

BamaD -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 11:36:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 During the 'peacekeeping' operation in Lebanon, the US forces deployed were not allowed to have magazines with ammo in their weapons while on patrol. This is crazy. I hope all the military patrolling our subways actually have ammos in their Rifles. Incase of terrorist attacks! I should ask one of them patrolling when I see them one day. Really, don't understand the logic of bother bringing a gun out of your home, if you have no ammo for self-defense. By carrying the rifle he was making a politcical statement about individual rights. He was not carrying for self-defense.

Greta75 -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 6:22:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 How would you feel at this moment, if you had opened fire and killed the wrong person? You opened fire and accidentally hit some kid? I personally don't believe I will open fire and kill the wrong person. In this case, the shooter was just attacking the police. So if I saw a guy shooting at the police, I don't see how it could be mistaken identity. I never once suggested blindly spraying bullets into the crowd. That would be intentionally shooting innocent people. quote: Now are you getting an idea about just how lethal a gun can be? Sure those civilians could have aimed at one person, but there is no way to be sure the bullet would not continue on after going through them and hitting someone else. So it's back to, you have a gun for protection or suppose to prevent crime and a crime is going on, and you cannot use the gun for protection or to defend against crime, because the gun is too lethal and dangerous to use. That's basically what you are saying. So what's the use of the gun again? This scenerio can apply to any situations. Like if you were being robbed in public, what if you shot the guy to stop him, and bullet went through and hit a kid? quote: The cops had no such system to identify the people who were not trying to kill them. The mess would have been presented in the media as: "Armed Protest Marchers killed by police while trying to help stop cop killer." And done in a way that makes the cops look like they fucked up. In conclusion, guns in ordinary people hands is useless in this situation. There is no difference having a gun or not having a gun. I mean, I am thinking now, Orlando case, where the killer and the 3 policemen were having a shoot out with each other, then wouldn't it be illegal for another bystander with a gun to join in and help kill the killer? Wow, the gun laws are nuts! Now I believe for sure guns can't protect people, because you can't even use them for protection in sooo many situations!

Greta75 -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 6:26:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD He was not in plain site. The point JF was making is that. EVEN if he was in plain sight. As long as any policemen are still alive and fighting for their own lives. A civilian cannot interfere and try to come to rescue and just let the policemen do their jobs. So it makes no difference whether the shooter is in plain sight or not. With this specific law.

BamaD -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 7:30:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Finally, untrained individuals trying to do the right thing usually results in the untrained individuals ending up as DEAD untrained individuals Actually most police are barely trained themselves. While most ccw owners are better trained and better shots that many officers, to say they are barely trained is an exageration.

BamaD -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 7:31:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Finally, untrained individuals trying to do the right thing usually results in the untrained individuals ending up as DEAD untrained individuals Actually most police are barely trained themselves. Actually, most police are well trained in theory, and respond accordingly. Unfortunately the news is full of well trained police reacting and performing their duties as if they were in some Hollywood movie OR do not have the common sense to go inside in a hail storm. That is in part because the news dwells on those officers.

BamaD -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 7:35:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 So there are alot of limitations to having guns for safety. And this is a situation where having a gun is useless. Despite the bad guy having guns. No, this was primarily a situation of "If you dont know exactly who you need to shoot at, dont shoot." Greta, answer this simple question, and try and put yourself in the mind of one of those people with a gun at that march. How would you feel at this moment, if you had opened fire and killed the wrong person? Or You opened fire and accidentally hit some kid? Let me explain something to you, in simple terms. Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, a rifle bullet, even a little .22 will go through a car door. They will go in one side of a car and all the way through, unless stopped by the engine or something like a body. Hell, some rifles will go through brick walls. Do you know what ER doctors do with gun shot wounds, they count the number of holes, hoping for an even number, that means the bullet punched through the body. The typical bullet wound is a through and through. So, you could shoot one person and the bullet go through them and hit and possibly kill yet a second individual. Now are you getting an idea about just how lethal a gun can be? Sure those civilians could have aimed at one person, but there is no way to be sure the bullet would not continue on after going through them and hitting someone else. I have a hard time believing that someone cannot grasp the complexity of the situation in Dallas. Far from helping, those people with guns could and probably would have made the situation many times worse. You had police looking for one shooter, that is bad enough. Add to that a bunch of civilians who attended the protest with guns under the misguided notion of making a statement who open fire trying to help. Okay, now the police have to figure out, and fast, who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. So, some cop or more likely, cops, make the wrong call and suddenly you have a few African American males who were trying to help ending up with police bullets in them. IN the military, I worked with 'local' guerilla fighters. We made damn sure they were wearing a common article so we would know who was friendly and who wasn't. It kept us from killing the good guys. The cops had no such system to identify the people who were not trying to kill them. The mess would have been presented in the media as: "Armed Protest Marchers killed by police while trying to help stop cop killer." And done in a way that makes the cops look like they fucked up. In truth the headline should, in that situation, like this "Armed protestors killed for being terminally stupid." There are times when, yes, a person with a gun should or could be a hero. This was not one of them. Legal aspects aside, would you really want to be someone that tried to help the police and accidentally killed a 6 year old? I cannot understand how you cannot grasp the realities of what people are trying to tell you, understand there is more to it than pointing a gun and pulling the trigger and that everything you have seen in the movies and tv concerning guns, gun fights etc is nothing more than cinematic bullshit. Or to put it another way, from the military perspective. If you do not know where the son of a bitch is that is shooting at you, un ass the area and be somewhere else or call in lots and lots and lots of arty. If you know where the son of a bitch is and cant get a clear shot, and you are in a bad spot to do anything, let some other grunt get him. Finally, if arty dont get him, call in air support and napalm and roast his/her ass. But in the case of Dallas, let the guys paid to get shot at do their job and cover your own ass. The common thought is "DONT DO SOMETHING STUPID DUMBASS!" By the way, heroes more often than not end up in a grave. Another point you don't mentioned. These people where there to protest what they viewed as trigger happy cops, does anyone think they would voulunteer to be a target.

BamaD -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 7:41:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 How would you feel at this moment, if you had opened fire and killed the wrong person? You opened fire and accidentally hit some kid? I personally don't believe I will open fire and kill the wrong person. In this case, the shooter was just attacking the police. So if I saw a guy shooting at the police, I don't see how it could be mistaken identity. I never once suggested blindly spraying bullets into the crowd. That would be intentionally shooting innocent people. quote: Now are you getting an idea about just how lethal a gun can be? Sure those civilians could have aimed at one person, but there is no way to be sure the bullet would not continue on after going through them and hitting someone else. So it's back to, you have a gun for protection or suppose to prevent crime and a crime is going on, and you cannot use the gun for protection or to defend against crime, because the gun is too lethal and dangerous to use. That's basically what you are saying. So what's the use of the gun again? This scenerio can apply to any situations. Like if you were being robbed in public, what if you shot the guy to stop him, and bullet went through and hit a kid? quote: The cops had no such system to identify the people who were not trying to kill them. The mess would have been presented in the media as: "Armed Protest Marchers killed by police while trying to help stop cop killer." And done in a way that makes the cops look like they fucked up. In conclusion, guns in ordinary people hands is useless in this situation. There is no difference having a gun or not having a gun. I mean, I am thinking now, Orlando case, where the killer and the 3 policemen were having a shoot out with each other, then wouldn't it be illegal for another bystander with a gun to join in and help kill the killer? Wow, the gun laws are nuts! Now I believe for sure guns can't protect people, because you can't even use them for protection in sooo many situations! In Orlando the first cop was a sitting duck for a surprise attack. Two more officers showed up later and the shooter retreated to the bathroom and the killing stopped. And you forget about Lyman SC where one ccw holder stopped the shooter before anyone was killed. In Orlando it was a gun free zone. In Dallas they would have violated rule one, if the police are handleing it get out of the way. In Lyman he did what he was supposed to do. No cops present, shooter cuts loose, ccw holder stops him. See the difference?

BamaD -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 7:45:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD He was not in plain site. The point JF was making is that. EVEN if he was in plain sight. As long as any policemen are still alive and fighting for their own lives. A civilian cannot interfere and try to come to rescue and just let the policemen do their jobs. So it makes no difference whether the shooter is in plain sight or not. With this specific law. As I said if the cops are already there you don't complecate things by getting in the way. If people from the crowd had started shooting the cops could have believed that the whole crowd was shooting at them.

Greta75 -> RE: Breaking News in Dallas (7/13/2016 8:50:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD No cops present, shooter cuts loose, ccw holder stops him. See the difference? Which adds to my argument that civilians can help the cops if they are allowed to, they got man power and fire power! But they aren't allowed to if cops were present. So in Dallas situations, the victims were the cops getting shoot at! In SC, civilians were the victims getting shoot at and it's okay to interfere to save their lives because cops weren't around. But if cops are the victims, or if cops were present, it's not okay to interfere and help save their lives, until all the cops are down, then it becomes legal to step in. That is exactly how that law works. It's terrible. But over all, it shocks me that a gun country does not have better training for their cops at shooting. I mean in a gun filled country, if you are the person keeping law and order, technically, it is their duty to be better shots than civilians or the criminals. So they can actually defend.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875