Good ol' USA

[RockerGuy]

Forum Sponsor

the LGR is pretty much gone.


now here's something that blew some one else away


http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jan/05/navy-seal-shoots-kills-self-accidentally/


I have doubts on being a navy seal, one would expect that some one that trained in fire arms would remember the first rule is that you always treat the gun is if it is loaded even if you're sure it's not.

I have no problems with the general public owning guns, but the courses and tests should be harder. education is the key here.

I think it was posted earlier or somewhere else on the forum that those in the Canadian forces are not trained as much as civilians in terms of safety. Meaning, even an ex-soldier has to go thru the safety course to acquire his license.

About the LGR, quebec insists on keeping it, even though the gov't as a whole wants it gone. Look it up

 

[RockerGuy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4571160...woman-burned-death-owed-suspect/#.TwX6bXqJDIM

 

[mmmnaked]

I think it was posted earlier or somewhere else on the forum that those in the Canadian forces are not trained as much as civilians in terms of safety. Meaning, even an ex-soldier has to go thru the safety course to acquire his license.

About the LGR, quebec insists on keeping it, even though the gov't as a whole wants it gone. Look it up

Quebec can eat a big one.

They won't get the database, and even if they do itll be outdated by then. Furthermore, residents would still be able to buy/sell firearms from out of province so a new registry will be a complete waste of money.

 

[BusaBob]

I think it was posted earlier or somewhere else on the forum that those in the Canadian forces are not trained as much as civilians in terms of safety. Meaning, even an ex-soldier has to go thru the safety course to acquire his license.

the Canadian forces train extensively on safety. The major difference is that soldiers get to run around with automatic weapons that are loaded (with blanks or live rounds) as the need arises, as compared to civilians who do not.

the fact that canadian forces members still need to take the civilian safety course when getting their civilian licence has more to do with goverment bureaucracy than level of training

 

[CruisnGrrl]

I think it was posted earlier or somewhere else on the forum that those in the Canadian forces are not trained as much as civilians in terms of safety. Meaning, even an ex-soldier has to go thru the safety course to acquire his license.

About the LGR, quebec insists on keeping it, even though the gov't as a whole wants it gone. Look it up

I am not sure what the civilian course is like but the one I was provided by the military via cadets was very thorough, had to do the course before i could touch a firearm at the rifle range, but that was back when you did not need any training to get your FAC. the number one thing that was drummed into me was always treat the firearm as if it was loaded even if you were sure it was not. in the states firearms education seems to be lacking in most states and rarely a requirement to being able to plunk down your $$$ to buy a pistol. with that attitude it is no surprise how many americans treat firearms as toys.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

the LGR is pretty much gone.


now here's something that blew some one else away


http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jan/05/navy-seal-shoots-kills-self-accidentally/


I have doubts on being a navy seal, one would expect that some one that trained in fire arms would remember the first rule is that you always treat the gun is if it is loaded even if you're sure it's not.

I have no problems with the general public owning guns, but the courses and tests should be harder. education is the key here.

article updated since i originally posted, he's not dead (yet), still a darwin candidate and is/was a navy seal.

 

[OpenGambit]

I am not sure what the civilian course is like but the one I was provided by the military via cadets was very thorough, had to do the course before i could touch a firearm at the rifle range, but that was back when you did not need any training to get your FAC. the number one thing that was drummed into me was always treat the firearm as if it was loaded even if you were sure it was not. in the states firearms education seems to be lacking in most states and rarely a requirement to being able to plunk down your $$$ to buy a pistol. with that attitude it is no surprise how many americans treat firearms as toys.

Standard course is a day and a half with a test. But you can just challenge the test.

its pretty much just "proving" firearms safe and never point it anywhere but the safe direction.
and there is a multiple choice exam

 

[RockerGuy]

article updated since i originally posted, he's not dead (yet), still a darwin candidate and is/was a navy seal.

I've had cops who are friends and they show their GF their gun all the time. They show it to their GFs to try to impress them.

A while ago a cop from another country had showed me his gun. Accidents like that happen alot

 

[mmmnaked]

I've had cops who are friends and they show their GF their gun all the time. They show it to their GFs to try to impress them.

A while ago a cop from another country had showed me his gun. Accidents like that happen alot

There are no accidents when it comes to firearms. If there's an unwanted discharge it's purely because of negligence.

Any gun owner worth a penny will verify that the firearm is unloaded, it takes 2 seconds.

 

[BLUE_KAWI]

DEBT LIMIT - A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0no7O9zmE

 

[EngineerJoe]

Lol.. Lesson learned. I bet he'll twice before breaking into people's stuff again or move to a no castle doctrine state

"The next place he robs better have a wheelchair ramp..."
- moe szyslak

 

[suprPHREAK]

Getting into the conversation late...

My comment is shaped from instances such as the Chinatown storekeeper who was arrested for assault and kidnapping for capturing the person who came back to shoplift from his store.

The problem here wasn't that he used force to arrest the shoplifter, but that he hogtied him and then kept him for hours. The criminal code allows anyone to arrest (within certain guidelines), using as much force as is reasonably necessary, but the offender must be delivered "FORTHWITH" (immediately!) to police. The shop owner had lots of time to make the delivery, or to call police to come after apprehending the shoplifter, but he did not.

If someone breaks into your house, how will you shoot them without a gun?

WHy are you shooting so soon? The law allows you to use deadly force only when you or others are in imminent risk of grievous harm/death. A guy who picks your lock and snoops in does not immediately pose such a threat. If you can see that the intruder is holding a gun, then you have reasonable grounds to use such force, but even then, you must be able to articulate that the person intended to use it to kill, not just intimidation.

or we could throw those billions into prisons

AKA Criminal re-training. A cop I know insists that it is only the stupid criminals that get caught. Then they go to prison and figure out how to be smart(er) criminals. You are better to find a way to keep certain kinds of offenders out of prison.

I feel sorry that he was shot so many times and even in the head, but with all the shooting in their schools, you have to put yourself in the cop's shoes.

When shot, the body succumbs to gravity very quickly, not at all a movie death. Firing at centre mass (chest area), and the head will find itself at that level pretty quickly. I feel bad for the kid's parents, but also that cop, who now has to live with killing, as you accurately put it, a misguided kid.

I have doubts on being a navy seal, one would expect that some one that trained in fire arms would remember the first rule is that you always treat the gun is if it is loaded even if you're sure it's not.

Don't forget they are also trained that they are "the best" and completely infallible, near invincible. Couple that with the fact he is only 22 (when guys tend to think they are invincible anyway), and you have a cocktail for carelessness.

 

[RockerGuy]

When shot, the body succumbs to gravity very quickly, not at all a movie death. Firing at centre mass (chest area), and the head will find itself at that level pretty quickly. I feel bad for the kid's parents, but also that cop, who now has to live with killing, as you accurately put it, a misguided kid.
.

Shot in the head, yes, body drops like a sack of potatoes.

Shot in the torso, it depends a lot, but the body is not guaranteed to fall as you described. If u got the heart or major arteries, that might be a different scenario

 

[mmmnaked]

WHy are you shooting so soon? The law allows you to use deadly force only when you or others are in imminent risk of grievous harm/death. A guy who picks your lock and snoops in does not immediately pose such a threat. If you can see that the intruder is holding a gun, then you have reasonable grounds to use such force, but even then, you must be able to articulate that the person intended to use it to kill, not just intimidation.

Liberal hog-wash.

A guy breaks into your house with a gun and you STILL have to determine whether he's just holding it for intimidation? Are you dense?

Jesus Christ, people like you are the reason we have all these retarded self-defense laws.

"Mr Robber, are you gonna shoot with that gun or just use it to scare me?!"

f*** me

To set the record straight for anyone reading this nonsense; you DON'T have to make any other determination besides being scared for your (or your family's) well-being. It doesn't matter what kind of weapon (if any at all) the perp has... if you're scared for your well-being because the perp is advancing on you (or family), you SHOOT. That's the end of that discussion. No sane prosecutor will pursue charges, and NO judge will convict.

 

[BusaBob]

Getting into the conversation late...

The problem here wasn't that he used force to arrest the shoplifter, but that he hogtied him and then kept him for hours. The criminal code allows anyone to arrest (within certain guidelines), using as much force as is reasonably necessary, but the offender must be delivered "FORTHWITH" (immediately!) to police. The shop owner had lots of time to make the delivery, or to call police to come after apprehending the shoplifter, but he did not.



WHy are you shooting so soon? The law allows you to use deadly force only when you or others are in imminent risk of grievous harm/death. A guy who picks your lock and snoops in does not immediately pose such a threat. If you can see that the intruder is holding a gun, then you have reasonable grounds to use such force, but even then, you must be able to articulate that the person intended to use it to kill, not just intimidation.

The police were called right away. I'm not sure of the timeframe between apprehension and when the police showed up, but they only held him until the police showed up. They didn't hold him deliberately for hours just for the sake of holding him. In fact that the kidnapping charge was thrown out by the Crown. The shopkeeper was also dismissed of the forcible confinement and assault charges.

Again, the fact that the shopkeeper had to go through all this (be thrown to the ground, handcuffed, spend the night in jail, pay bail) for just defending his property and catching a criminal is, IMHO, a huge flaw in our "Justice" system.

As for your second point, if the intruder is holding a gun (or a knife or a baseball bat for that matter, or they advance on you and you're smaller, etc.) you should be able to justifiably shoot them. Holding any weapon at the ready is grounds enough. Holding any weapon at the ready, or just being larger, etc. goes well beyond "intimidation"

 

[BusaBob]

Shot in the head, yes, body drops like a sack of potatoes.

Shot in the torso, it depends a lot, but the body is not guaranteed to fall as you described. If u got the heart or major arteries, that might be a different scenario

The head shot was likely a fluke. Service handguns are notoriously inaccurate at any significant distance.

 

[OpenGambit]

Liberal hog-wash.

A guy breaks into your house with a gun and you STILL have to determine whether he's just holding it for intimidation? Are you dense?

Jesus Christ, people like you are the reason we have all these retarded self-defense laws.

"Mr Robber, are you gonna shoot with that gun or just use it to scare me?!"

f*** me

To set the record straight for anyone reading this nonsense; you DON'T have to make any other determination besides being scared for your (or your family's) well-being. It doesn't matter what kind of weapon (if any at all) the perp has... if you're scared for your well-being because the perp is advancing on you (or family), you SHOOT. That's the end of that discussion. No sane prosecutor will pursue charges, and NO judge will convict.

if no prosecutor will pursue charges and no judge will convict ( not saying thats wrong)... then why are our self defense laws retarded? that sounds like they work.

 

[OpenGambit]

Getting into the conversation late...



The problem here wasn't that he used force to arrest the shoplifter, but that he hogtied him and then kept him for hours. The criminal code allows anyone to arrest (within certain guidelines), using as much force as is reasonably necessary, but the offender must be delivered "FORTHWITH" (immediately!) to police. The shop owner had lots of time to make the delivery, or to call police to come after apprehending the shoplifter, but he did not.

This is incorrect. The problem was that the arrest was made not while he was in the act of stealing, he stole something eariler in the day but came back and they grabbed him.
Citizens can only arrest if a perseon is in the act of the crime, while cops can arrest if they have probable cause that you committed one ( some differences for summary and indictable offences)

So the charge stems from the fact that they did not have authority to arrest.

I agree that the cops actually using the theif as a crown witness to arrest the shopkeeper was on a whole new level of retarded.


PS. you can use deadly force if you reasonably believe that you are in danger of serious bodily harm or death. This is not a legal opinion but in my view, if someone is in your house with a gun, its reasonable to assume they brought it to shoot you with...

 

[mmmnaked]

if no prosecutor will pursue charges and no judge will convict ( not saying thats wrong)... then why are our self defense laws retarded? that sounds like they work.

I said no SANE prosecutor will pursue charges... unfortunately we seem short of those.

The laws are retarded because we're sitting here arguing about whether or not we're allowed to harm an INTRUDER IN OUR HOME. There should be no argument. The rights of the criminal should end at my doorstep. The laws are also retarded because those of us who are legal and law-abiding gun owners actually have to fear being prosecuted and jailed on bogus storage charges if we ever use a firearm to fend off an invader. And keeping your guns afterwards? Forget about it... no matter what, the gun owner is looking at a serious hassle and a lot of wasted money in court after the fact.

 

[mmmnaked]

The head shot was likely a fluke. Service handguns are notoriously inaccurate at any significant distance.

Service handguns are just as accurate as any other production handgun... which is only as accurate as the person squeezing the trigger. Cops (or any competent shooter) should have no problem shooting a melon from 10-15 meters away. Most encounters are much closer than that anyway.

Forum Sponsor