Guns

[Michael88]

I kind of think it was a nervous twitch.

First time I ever heard this phrase, does it describe accidental firing a shot by pulling the trigger from tensing up (frightened etc.) ?

If so, I find that kind of weird - training doctrine of pretty much every police agency I know is that the finger is off the trigger until you are about to shoot a clearly identified threat. Part of that training is to AVOID accidentally firing a shot when you fall, get scared or something else happens to cause you clench your hand / make a fist or move your trigger finger etc.

 

[PocketZeven]

Also, saying "it makes sense if both parties didn't have guns" makes no sense, because that only really works if crime doesn't exist.

Its a reality in many, many other countries. Europe has crime and so does China. Crime does not automatically equal the neccessity of guns.

First time I ever heard this phrase, does it describe accidental firing a shot by pulling the trigger from tensing up (frightened etc.) ?

If so, I find that kind of weird - training doctrine of pretty much every police agency I know is that the finger is off the trigger until you are about to shoot a clearly identified threat. Part of that training is to AVOID accidentally firing a shot when you fall, get scared or something else happens to cause you clench your hand / make a fist or move your trigger finger etc.

The problem is much more complicated I learned. It is training, accountability.

*Below links may contain profanity*

 

[Imari]

The one odd thing in the Fort Worth shooting...

The cop only fired one shot. Cops never fire one shot.

I kind of think it was a nervous twitch.

Maybe, but standard trigger discipline sort of removes that as a valid excuse. You don't point your gun at someone without intending to shoot them, and you definitely don't have your finger on the trigger unless you intend to fire. If that means that an adversary gets off the first shot because you're half a second slower to fire, then that's the difficulty of working safely with firearms in a populated area.

The exception is Hollywood movies, which apparently some police forces view more as aspirational training material than anything else.

 

[Biggles]

Nah. Estimated* firearm numbers in the UK are above 3 million (that's about one for every 20 people; just over 2.1m legally registered), while Japan has roughly 400,000 (one for every 330 people; just about half legally registered).

Compared to Japan, the UK is awash with firearms, with more illegal guns alone than Japan's total firearm count and half the population. The highest count per capita is in Northern Ireland. I think we can possibly just leave the next sentence unspoken.
.

...and the homicide rate (& of course gun homicide rate) is much lower in Japan than the UK ... & in Canada which has many more guns than the UK the homicide rate (& of course gun homicide rate) is significantly higher than in the UK.

I

Sorry, but that guy just did everything wrong the moment police came up on him. Assuming it was a pull over, the guy should've just stayed in his car and waited for the officer. Instead, he gets out, and then dives head-first into his car. He also didn't let the officer know that he was going back into his car to grab his ID. To any cop, the first thing they'd think, rightfully so, is that this guy was diving for a gun of his own.

If anything, that is much, much more of a people problem than a gun problem.

You are weirdly putting the onus on an ordinary citizen to do everything exactly right to avoid being shot & don't seem to have any sense that there's something wrong about that. I can pretty much guarantee that no cop in the UK (who wouldn't actually have a gun), or most other European countries, would think "this guy was diving for a gun of his own." This is what I'm trying to explain: when guns are so ever-present it tends to lead to outcomes like this.

 

[Swagger897]

...and the homicide rate (& of course gun homicide rate) is much lower in Japan than the UK ... & in Canada which has many more guns than the UK the homicide rate (& of course gun homicide rate) is significantly higher than in the UK.



You are weirdly putting the onus on an ordinary citizen to do everything exactly right to avoid being shot & don't seem to have any sense that there's something wrong about that. I can pretty much guarantee that no cop in the UK (who wouldn't actually have a gun), or most other European countries, would think "this guy was diving for a gun of his own." This is what I'm trying to explain: when guns are so ever-present it tends to lead to outcomes like this.

If a cop in the UK came to the US and pulled over a vehicle in say, rural Tennessee, do you think he would act the same or no?

 

[UKMikey]

If a cop in the UK came to the US and pulled over a vehicle in say, rural Tennessee, do you think he would act the same or no?

I'm not sure how this doesn't prove @Biggles's point that the prevalence of guns causes people to act differently. I wonder how a US cop would react in rural Brixton.

 

[ryzno]

I'm not sure how this doesn't prove @Biggles's point that the prevalence of guns causes people to act differently. I wonder how a US cop would react in rural Brixton.

In our rural areas the Sheriffs do the "police work" and our State Patrol deals with "traffic incidents".
Unlike our metropolitan area where the local police do pretty much everything unless it's serving a warrant, then you'll see the Sheriff.

 

[PocketZeven]

In our rural areas the Sheriffs do the "police work" and our State Patrol deals with "traffic incidents".
Unlike our metropolitan area where the local police do pretty much everything unless it's serving a warrant, then you'll see the Sheriff.

Not exactly what he meant. He was referring if an US cop would fear someone being armed in the UK as he has been trained in the USA. The majority of UK police do not carry guns. Something unimaginable in the USA

 

[NotThePrez]

You are weirdly putting the onus on an ordinary citizen to do everything exactly right to avoid being shot...

Did you miss my response to two of your articles where I said the police messed up, in particular the Fort Worth incident?

Actually, I know you didn't, because you edited out the part where I said that "fear does not excuse negligence."

...& don't seem to have any sense that there's something wrong about that.

The guy, immediately after being confronted by police, goes into his car with no warning, and didn't let the officer know that he was going back into his car to grab his ID. That's How-To-Put-Police-On-Edge 101.

Once again, I did also say that there was a case here for the cop being trigger-happy. I do think the driver should've been more communicative, but the officer definitely shouldn't have opened up on him either. While I understand why the officer did what he did, he could've handled that situation miles better.

And it's actually pretty hard to get yourself shot by police in the US, because the officer is accountable for every round fired. That's why the Fort Worth officer has been busted for murder, why Amber Guyger will be spending the next 10 years of her life behind bars, and why Trooper Sean Groubert lost his job...



...and is currently serving 5 years behind bars.

Once again:

Fear does not excuse negligence here.

I can pretty much guarantee that no cop in the UK (who wouldn't actually have a gun), or most other European countries, would think "this guy was diving for a gun of his own."

I'm not going to comment on UK police or their procedures, mostly because I don't live in the UK, but I have a very hard time believing that the officer on scene wouldn't be at least a little suspicious if a similar situation played out in front of him/her.

This is what I'm trying to explain: when guns are so ever-present it tends to lead to outcomes like this.

I can promise you that situations like the ones you picked out are definitely not as commonplace as you think, although the media may make you believe otherwise. In 2018, 992 people were killed by American police, according to the Washington Post (You will use up a free daily article if you click this link). Now, obviously it sucks that that many people died, but considering that the US is home to over 300 million citizens, that's really not bad. Your chances of being "accidentally" shot and killed by US police are actually pretty low, all things considered.

I myself have had a few encounters with police, a couple which I could consider less than pleasant. At no point was I fearful for my life, let alone fearful of being cuffed or whatnot. US citizens, African-Americans especially, are also much more aware of police misconduct, and are more willing to call out law officers when they mess up. This is great, because it holds our officers at a higher standard, which gives the public better protection, and the police are now more forward when it comes to showing the public why they make their decisions.

I'm not sure how this doesn't prove @Biggles's point that the prevalence of guns causes people to act differently. I wonder how a US cop would react in rural Brixton.

And most reasonable people would agree with that, myself included. That's why police carry firearms and why we (both citizens and agencies) try our best to hold officers under higher scrutiny when shots are fired.

Saying "Other European countries don't have as much of a gun problem" is literally stating the obvious, ignores several reasons why (hint: culture differences) and is a topic that has been covered multiple times in this thread. It doesn't add anything of value, other than being a bit of a flex on the US.

Saying "The US should just be like the rest of the world on guns" ignores several key factors on why this is not easy/100% realistic by itself and has, once again, been covered multiple times in this thread.

But since that's all a part of the "tired American perspective," that's apparently not good enough. (Not referring to you directly @UKMikey )

Also, I think if you put a Florida cop in rural Brixton, I think they'll want to stay due to the lack of heat and humidity. At least, that was my reaction visiting London.

 

[PocketZeven]

Saying "Other European countries don't have as much of a gun problem" is literally stating the obvious, ignores several reasons why (hint: culture differences) and is a topic that has been covered multiple times in this thread. It doesn't add anything of value, other than being a bit of a flex on the US.

Saying "The US should just be like the rest of the world on guns" ignores several key factors on why this is not easy/100% realistic by itself and has, once again, been covered multiple times in this thread.

But since that's all a part of the "tired American perspective," that's apparently not good enough. (Not referring to you directly @UKMikey )

Also, I think if you put a Florida cop in rural Brixton, I think they'll want to stay due to the lack of heat and humidity. At least, that was my reaction visiting London.

Which situation would you prefer? Police that is triggerhappy because of training and the current Gun situation in the USA or Police that dont even carry guns, because guns are not prevelant.

 

[Northstar]

Which situation would you prefer? Police that is triggerhappy because of training and the current Gun situation in the USA or Police that dont even carry guns, because guns are not prevelant.

If we are going to hypothetical route, I choose one where the police aren't even necessary in the first place.

Unfortunatly reality isn't a hypothetical situation and the problem and solution are far more complex than just banning guns.

 

[PocketZeven]

If we are going to hypothetical route, I choose one where the police aren't even necessary in the first place.

Unfortunatly reality isn't a hypothetical situation and the problem and solution are far more complex than just banning guns.

The hyptheticals I am using are reallife situations prevelant througout many countries and not fairytale Utopia's. I purposefully do not mention banning guns. There are other solutions like how switzerland handles gunownership.

edit: hence I voted for strict control in the poll of this thread. In many discussions with Danoff I realised that in the USA it would mean criminalizing law abiding citizens, which I do not support.

 

[Biggles]

If a cop in the UK came to the US and pulled over a vehicle in say, rural Tennessee, do you think he would act the same or no?

I'm not sure how this doesn't prove my point that the prevalence of guns causes people to act differently.

The guy, immediately after being confronted by police, goes into his car with no warning, and didn't let the officer know that he was going back into his car to grab his ID. That's How-To-Put-Police-On-Edge 101.

Actually, the guy, after being explicitly asked by the cop for his license & registration reached into his car to retrieve them. Apparently, US citizens need to attend classes to learn how to avoid being shot by police during a routine traffic stop.

In 2018, 992 people were killed by American police, according to the Washington Post (You will use up a free daily article if you click this link). Now, obviously it sucks that that many people died, but considering that the US is home to over 300 million citizens, that's really not bad. Your chances of being "accidentally" shot and killed by US police are actually pretty low, all things considered.

I would say that your comment also illustrates the ingrained difference in attitudes to gun violence in the US & elsewhere. From the Independent newspaper:

US police shot more people dead last month than British officers did in 95 years


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ritish-officers-did-in-95-years-a6769316.html

 

[Northstar]

The hyptheticals I am using are reallife situations prevelant througout many countries and not fairytale Utopia's. I purposefully do not mention banning guns. There are other solutions like how switzerland handles gunownership.

And all those countries have different cultures than the U.S. A lot of people here don't trust the government to keep them safe so they take matters into their own hands with legal firearms. A large portion also enjoy hunting or just target shooting for sport.

In many discussions with Danoff I realised that in the USA it would mean criminalizing law abiding citizens, which I do not support.

So how do you propose we remove all the illegal guns from the streets? Because I can pretty much guarantee the people that cause a big chunk of our gun crime won't be participating in any buyback program.

 

[PocketZeven]

And all those countries have different cultures than the U.S. A lot of people here don't trust the government to keep them safe so they take matters into their own hands with legal firearms. A large portion also enjoy hunting or just target shooting for sport.



So how do you propose we remove all the illegal guns from the streets? Because I can pretty much guarantee the people that cause a big chunk of our gun crime won't be participating in any buyback program.

I am going to sound like a broken record, but you overestimate the “difference of culture” as explained to other members, the majority of us citizens do not own guns. It’s only a minority.

that said I already addressed I am against criminalizing law abiding citizens. I did not propose a buyback. I again refer to Switzerland who have more expansive background checks, training and licensing. That has nothing to do with banning or a buyback.

Not making an effort to fight illegal arms, just because they are not going to comply is like saying we are not going to fight illegal drugs, because the dealers are not just going to give them up anyways.

Making it illegal and punishable to sell or change ownership of guns without proper background checks and registration of sale federally is a start. As I more and more discord it is the vastly differently state rules that work against proper gun regulation.

 

[Northstar]

Not making an effort to fight illegal arms, just because they are not going to comply is like saying we are not going to fight illegal drugs, because the dealers are not just going to give them up anyways.

Not really sure where you got the idea I was implying that. My point was it will be very difficult to actually remove the guns that need removing without going to lengths that you've said you are against.

Making it illegal and punishable to sell or change ownership of guns without proper background checks and registration of sale federally is a start.

And I agree, there's also a few loopholes that need closing. But again, that doesn't really do much when it comes to the guns already out there that the government doesn't even know about. How are they supposed to go about taking those off the streets? How will they prevent the countless number of guns that have found their way to Mexico from returning?

 

[PocketZeven]

And I agree, there's also a few loopholes that need closing. But again, that doesn't really do much when it comes to the DRUGS already out there that the government doesn't even know about. How are they supposed to go about taking those off the streets? How will they prevent the countless number of DRUGS that have found their way to Mexico from returning?

I replaced the word "guns" with"drugs" to show how I have diffictulty to respond to that question, which I already answered.

 

[Northstar]

I replaced the word "guns" with"drugs" to show how I have diffictulty to respond to that question, which I already answered.

I'm of the opinion that most drugs should be legal (with regulations), so yeah.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm of the opinion that most drugs should be legal (with regulations), so yeah.

Replace guns with illegals aliens. Or are you also for open borders?

I am for decriminalizing recreational use (not dealing) of most drugs (excluding heroine and opioids alike).

 

[Northstar]

Or are you also for open borders?

As long as you have a valid passport, yes.

 

[PocketZeven]

As long as you have a valid passport, yes.

I agree with that sense. Guns should have "passports" or federally registered numbers to be legally owned in the US. But what are you going to do about all the illegal aliens? How are you going to take them out of the streets and how do you prevent all the illegal aliens from entering the US?

See what I did there?

 

[Northstar]

I agree with that sense. Guns should have "passports" or federally registered numbers to be legally owned in the US. But what are you going to do about all the illegal aliens? How are you going to take them out of the streets and how do you prevent all the illegal aliens from entering the US?

See what I did there?

It's much easier to hide a pistol than a fully grown migrant worker, so that really doesn't work.

 

[Famine]

See what I did there?

Yes, you equated guns with people. Perhaps you're coming around to the idea that it's the wielder and not the tool that causes the problem after all.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's much easier to hide a pistol than a fully grown migrant worker, so that really doesn't work.

Not really the point. The point was that the presence of illegal firearms is not a reason to not reform gun regulation. Stricter gunregulation should be enacted wether there are illegal guns or not.

Yes, you equated guns with people. Perhaps you're coming around to the idea that it's the wielder and not the tool that causes the problem after all.

Did you read the previous posts? We weren’t discussing the cause of violence, but gunregulation. I proposed some regulations and the reaction was that doesn’t do anything about illegal guns already out there. I equated this by implying that a strong border does nothing against illegal aliens already out there. It wasn’t the point I was making. The regulations I proposed were intended to reduce misuse of guns, just like strong border probably reduce illegal immigration.

I don’t claim guns are the cause of violence. If I did so in the past it was probably implied by mistake.

 

[Northstar]

Not really the point. The point was that the presence of illegal firearms is not a reason to not reform gun regulation. Stricter gunregulation should be enacted wether there are illegal guns or not.

And I've already said I agreed with that. What I want to know and you keep avoiding, is how you think we should address all the guns that are already out there?

 

[Famine]

Did you read the previous posts?

Yes. You first of all tried to equate tools with narcotics, and then tools to humans. I was amused.

I equated this by implying that a strong border does nothing against illegal aliens already out there. It wasn’t the point I was making. The regulations I proposed were intended to reduce misuse of guns, just like strong border probably reduce illegal immigration.

The fun thing about illegal immigrants is that they're made outside the borders and try to come in, illegally. It's kinda in the name... Guns, meanwhile, are also made inside the borders (Colt, Smith & Wesson, Browning, Armalite...), legally.

 

[PocketZeven]

And I've already said I agreed with that. What I want to know and you keep avoiding, is how you think we should address all the guns that are already out there?

How is the US adressing that now?

edit:

Yes. You first of all tried to equate tools with narcotics, and then tools to humans. I was amused.

The fun thing about illegal immigrants is that they're made outside the borders and try to come in, illegally. It's kinda in the name... Guns, meanwhile, are also made inside the borders (Colt, Smith & Wesson, Browning, Armalite...), legally.

Northstar specifically adressed guns that come back over the border

How will they prevent the countless number of guns that have found their way to Mexico from returning?

 

[Swagger897]

How is the US adressing that now?

Wow... If you were air density you'd be great for flying weather. I'm not sure how you managed to quote that and once again avoid it.

 

[Rallywagon]

How is the US adressing that now?

Look at those jukes!

 

[PocketZeven]

Wow... If you were air density you'd be great for flying weather. I'm not sure how you managed to quote that and once again avoid it.

? I dont get it.

edit:

I am confused, because Northstar first reacted by adressing guns coming back from mexico and now suddenly its about guns : "that are already out there"? I already adressed that I proposed a law that in one part makes gunregistration federally mandatory and one part require licenses to own a gun.