Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The Gun Control Debate Thread

Dont Taze Me Bro

By Dont Taze Me Bro
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

mcsluggo

mcsluggo

Posted
Posted
On 7/23/2018 at 9:26 AM, tshile said:

 

There was only a second gun pulled and shot fired. Not really enough time to gather your thoughts and re-evaluate after having determined you're being attacked.

 

 

 

yes...if you are a ****ing coward that shouldn't have a gun

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, tshile said:

 

What if they had a bunch of firearms experts testify that the way the sequence of determining to draw, take aim, and fire lines up perfectly with the time gap in the video?

 

The 2-3 seconds you were saying shows the person backing away that should have caused him to not fire?

 

The thing me and buzz have been talking about.

 

Would that weigh on your decision?

For th record, i am a reflective person. i don't just hold onto opinions if new evidence is presented. So of course, if in the hypothetical i was on such a jury, i would listen to all of the witnesses and weigh it off of what I think.. if that changes things, then it changes things. 

It might. It might not.

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mcsluggo

mcsluggo

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, tshile said:

 

Have you been through any training?

 

 

 

 

Not since i was 15.    But i still consider myself qualified enough to identify a POS that shouldn't have a gun.... when they are far enough down the Captain Obvious POS spectrum.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On an unrelated note, i also don't have any nuclear physicist training, but have enough qualifications to get a frowny face when i open my front door to get my morning paper and see.......... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

best_animated_gif_nuclear_explosion.gif

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dont Taze Me Bro

Dont Taze Me Bro

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Are we still debating this? There was zero reason to shoot. The guy's life wasn't in danger. I am 100% confident that any expert or anyone who has been properly trained in the fields of law enforcement or self defense would agree.

 

This guy is quite obviously, at the least, incapable of making sound judgements for when to use deadly force. At worst, he's a nut whose mind has been warped by the gun nuttery going on in America today (guns and warped minds does not sound like a good combination to me) and was just dying for an excuse to shoot someone.  Either way, he should never have been allowed to walk around with a gun in the first place.

 

The problem with this whole issue (and other stand your ground state shootings that involve individuals that are non-law enforcement) is that the people doing the shooting are usually not experts and had minimum training.  They have not been trained thoroughly like law enforcement/military have, they have not been trained in self defense. 

 

So we have created a situation where everyday citizens can take basically an 8 hour concealed carry class and apply for a concealed carry permit (speaking to my state of NC).  Looks like it's similar in Florida (link to site that offers firearm safety class - http://floridafirearmstraining.com/Handgun.html).  Heck, from looking at the link I posted, one could take a 2 hour class, get a certificate and then apply for the CC permit.  

 

Sure, they could seek out more training, take more classes, etc.  But your average person is not going to do that if they don't have to.  Two or three seconds in a confrontation goes extremely fast, especially if you feel that your life may be in danger.  Which makes it more difficult in stand your ground states when these shootings occur.  It really comes down to them proving the shooter did not fear for his life and if they reacted by shooting in a reasonable time frame.  What that time frame is, I have no idea.  But I bet that it being within 2-3 seconds of getting knocked down will most likely be decided that it was a small enough window to justify the shooting, regardless if we agree with that or not.

 

For the record, I think if the guy was backing up, then the shooting could have been avoided, to see if they reached for a gun/weapon of their own or tried to grab one out of the car, etc.  

 

A huge problem with the vast majority of gun laws is they are vague in general, too much is left up to interpretation.  They need to be specific and cut and dry, all gun laws, across the board.

Edited by Dont Taze Me Bro
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

A huge problem with the vast majority of gun laws are vague in general, too much is left up to interpretation. 

 

 

Yup. The key provision in the excuse to use deadly force is fear for ones life - it’s a feeling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nerm

Nerm

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

Yup. The key provision in the excuse to use deadly force is fear for ones life - it’s a feeling. 

 

That is the tough part when it comes to the legal issues in these situations.  When I watch the video, I think that once the guy pulls his gun the person who assaulted him looks like he is backing away.  It looks like there is a good chance the altercation could have ended there.  On the other hand, I can't say that it is unreasonable, for anyone that was just thrown on the ground, to still believe they were in danger 4 seconds later. 

 

When I took a gun safety class (30 years ago), I remember the people teaching the class emphasizing that you never pull a gun to try to de-escalate a situation.  You only pull a gun if you think you have to shoot.  In this situation, I think the shooting was probably unnecessary, but not criminal.

Edited by Nerm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, tshile said:

 

 

Yup. The key provision in the excuse to use deadly force is fear for ones life - it’s a feeling. 

 

reasonable fear

 

certainly best not to give someone reason to reasonably fear great harm from you unless you are protected.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Nerm said:

 

That is the tough part when it comes to the legal issues in these situations.  When I watch the video, I think that once the guy pulls his gun the person who assaulted him looks like he is backing away.  It looks like there is a good chance the altercation could have ended there.  On the other hand, I can't say that it is unreasonable, for anyone that was just thrown on the ground, to still believe they were in danger 4 seconds later. 

 

When I took a gun safety class (30 years ago), I remember the people teaching the class emphasizing that you never pull a gun to try to de-escalate a situation.  You only pull a gun if you think you have to shoot.  In this situation, I think the shooting was probably unnecessary, but not criminal.

 

That's where this stuff usually comes to an impasse - the people on one side are reflecting on actual training, laws, and the ins and outs of actually carrying, drawing, firing a weapon. The people on the other side are simply determining what is just based on a video (and I imagine doing so with the overall national controversy of guns with school shootings and cops hunting black people in the streets.)

 

You can't square those two. It's not possible. We don't have discourse where people who don't have direct knowledge are willing to cede a point on a subject anymore - in this case, people who haven't sat through training classes. Everyone's an expert with no experience. 

 

This article is on the 21 foot rule, which is what everyone has been taught for a long time. I don't know that this particular person is an expert, but at least the way they speak to the subject shows they have some understanding of the complexity - http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/09/revisiting-the-21-foot-rule.aspx

 

Quote

When an officer experiences a threat, it takes on average .58 seconds to experience the threat and determine if it is real. It then takes on average .56 to 1.0 seconds to make a response decision. Humans have five possible responses to threat: defend (fight), disengage (retreat), posture (yell, point a finger, act aggressive), become hypervigilant (panic, confusion, freezing, using force excessively), and submit (surrender).

 

So that's 1.5+ seconds just to make a decision.  For someone that's supposedly trained for such situations, and presumably actually has experience - maybe not pulling the trigger, but drawing the weapon and certainly experience in high stress and tense situations.

 

Quote

However, research of actual OIS incidents has shown that officers can only accurately hit their moving assailants 14% of the time in life-or-death situations from distances of only two to 10 feet. 

 (not related to this particular conversation) Please tell me more about just shooting people in the legs/arms :rolleyes:

(actually related to this conversation) Anyone want to further rail on how many seconds here? You want to completely write off how long it takes to actually take care in aiming?

If not, spare us the complaining about bystanders in the future. You either want people to care about their surroundings and aiming or you don't.

Quote

Once the average officer gets on target, it takes him or her .56 seconds to make a decision to commence shooting. However, it then takes that same officer .25 to .31/100ths of a second per trigger pull to fire. As the deadly force scenario rapidly evolves, it takes that same officer on average .5 to .6 seconds to realize that the threat has passed and to stop shooting. This is because of a psychophysiological dynamic referred to as "perception action-reaction lag time."

 

The reason why some suspects are found to have entry wounds in their sides and backs when the officers who shot them say the suspects were facing them when they fired is often the perception action-reaction lag time and the manner in which information was processed by the officers' brains. This is pretty sophisticated information for a criminal or civil jury to understand and consider.

 

So we're up to 2.25 seconds to actually pull the trigger. On average, for people trained for this stuff. And this completely explains the 'backing up' thing.

 

The point of all of this is not to defend this particular situation, because I'm honestly not sure what I think - The video looks bad, the law in florida is entirely too lax in my opinion... I just know i wouldn't feel comfortable being on the jury, at this point, i'd need more information to feel comfortable and I don't know that more information actually exists.

 

But some people have been real quick to draw an assessment about the timeline here, an they tend to be the people who have demonstrated over the years that they don't know anything about guns. And when you suggest maybe they should reconsider, they just rant about how it's murder. :mellow:

 

I don't know. It's very complicated. If the guy had fired very quickly before the backing up, and hit someone else in the store, they'd all want his head for that too.

 

 

45 minutes ago, twa said:

 

reasonable fear

 

 

I don't see how that really changes anything. When you start dictating legal results on what a person thinks/feels/fears, and you... as a 3rd party who wasn't involved at all, and now is working through the lens of a security camera, with the ability to rewind and reflect and slow down... i think it gets messy.

 

And the problem is in both directions - a person claiming reasonable fear when there should be none, and person's peers claiming there is none where it's absolutely warranted. This thread is a perfect example of it. People with all of zero experience in any of this have drawn a very meaningful dividing line among seconds and feel quite confident in their assessment and would happily dole out punishment if they were allowed.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoDeep81

GoDeep81

Posted
Posted

This whole scenario is just another example of people not knowing how to behave properly.. Don't start berating/yelling at someone in public and you probably don't get shoved to the ground or beat up by a stranger? Don't shove/beat up a stranger in public and you probably don't get shot to death? Some simple common sense is always missing in 99% of these instances.. Then we get to debate how someone else should "feel" from watching a video.. lol 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bearrock

bearrock

Posted
Posted

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/3-d-printed-guns-put-carnage-a-click-away/2018/07/28/3b254a18-91cb-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?utm_term=.9715466c0de5

 

Quote

Plans by a Texas organization to publish, starting Aug. 1, downloadable blueprints for 3-D-printed plastic firearms — so-called ghost guns — have rightly alarmed leading gun safety groups and law enforcement officials. Credit for this dangerous scenario — in which getting an AR-15-style rifle is just a matter of a few computer clicks — goes to the Trump administration for its inexplicable decision to settle a lawsuit it was on the verge of winning.

 

The case involves Cody Wilson, founder of Defense Distributed, who sued the government in 2015 after the State Department under the Obama administration made him take down do-it-yourself gunmaking blueprints he had posted online, saying they violated export regulations governing military hardware and technology. Mr. Wilson, an avowed anarchist who hopes for a world in which governments can’t stop individuals from getting guns, claimed his First Amendment right to free speech was being violated. But he lost at every stage of litigation, including a refusal by the Supreme Court to review a decision that the code could not be published during the course of the lawsuit.

 

So it was stunning — but not surprising, given this administration’s worship at the altar of gun rights — that the State Department elected last month to quietly settle the case. In addition to signing off on the public release of the 3-D printing tutorials, the State Department also agreed to pay nearly $40,000 of Mr. Wilson’s legal fees. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out how this senseless decision was reached, and whether groups such as the National Rifle Association were involved. It, along with Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, tried unsuccessfully Friday to get a federal court in Texas to block what it called a “troubling” and “dangerous” settlement.

 

Now, TBF, 3D printed guns made of thermoplastic are not high quality.  And the cost to pay for a commercial metal 3D print is so high, you might as well just buy one.  But you could see the illegal uses.  Guns to get around metal detectors.  Someone ineligible getting their hands on a gun, etc.  And sometime in the not too distant future, cost will come down on higher quality or metal 3D printing.  

 

We don't let people make functional copies of currency, even if there is no intent to use.  I seriously doubt this case had any chance of success in court.  Why would we even consider letting people print their own guns?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, twa said:

Sean Davis Retweeted AG Josh Shapiro

If computer code is a firearm (“downloadable firearm”), then wouldn’t that make downloading an individual’s genome equivalent to human trafficking, and password protecting the file false imprisonment?

Is this a joke or are people really this stupid?  Oh, I know..........

 

MAGA

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kosher Ham

Kosher Ham

Posted
Posted

I have no problem with the Florida shooting. That is a justified shooting. 

 

The Martin situation is different from what I have read... difference is that this person was attacked physically...reaction is what it is...

 

To me it looked like the guy was pulling his shorts up... again and stepping back for the knockout. 

Over a parking spot though ? Ehh ? 

That is not what happened there. It was more. 

 

 

 

Not to mention he wasn't really walking away...he was stepping back for the set up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
visionary

visionary

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

https://www.wcpo.com/homepage-showcase/active-shooter-reported-at-wright-patterson-air-force-base-hospital-in-ohio


 

Quote

 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base was given an all-clear after it was locked down due to reports of an active shooter situation in a hospital there Thursday afternoon.

The base tweeted that there had never been an active shooter and all personnel were safe.

 

 

Good news...although we seem to be having a few of these false alarms lately.  (obviously better than the real thing of course)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...