Oversight in upcoming New York gun control law: Law Enforcement is not exempt from "high-capacity ma - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;39286146]What? You're gonna use a taser on a possibly dangerous suspect who is fleeing from you? You sound like you play too much GTA where cops pull out the guns and shoot you till your dead, and resume their walk along the sidewalk. [URL]http://www.lvrj.com/news/deadly-force/always-justified/FAQ-on-Deadly-Force-134255538.html[/URL] Here. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] Uhm... You actually shoot center mass to be sure you don't miss, not to maximize damage to the body... Hence why cops don't shoot guns out of someone's hand or legs.[/QUOTE] The point we are making has to do with the mindset of the shooter. The shooter should have to be willing to destroy their target in order to pull the trigger, any mindset that is less is extremely unsafe.

[QUOTE=Jsm;39286199]The entire idea of shooting to wound is a dangerous concept that goes against a main principle of gun safety. You cannot use a lethal weapon to 'just' wound someone. Once the gun has been fired the person firing it has no control over what that round does and where it hits the person. A nice "wounding" shot could easily turn into a fatal headshot. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] Shooting to stop or neutralise isn't the same as shooting to wound. If you shoot someone and they die you have stopped them. From what I understand, if you shoot to stop someone you acknowledge you might kill them.[/QUOTE] Doesn't means officers "shoot to kill". It isn't called shooting to wound because theres high probability of being a fatal shot.

[QUOTE=Jsm;39286199]The entire idea of shooting to wound is a dangerous concept that goes against a main principle of gun safety. You cannot use a lethal weapon to 'just' wound someone. Once the gun has been fired the person firing it has no control over what that round does and where it hits the person. A nice "wounding" shot could easily turn into a fatal headshot. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] Shooting to stop or neutralise isn't the same as shooting to wound. If you shoot someone and they die you have stopped them. From what I understand, if you shoot to stop someone you acknowledge you might kill them.[/QUOTE] I was never talking about shooting to wound.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39286174]nice dumb and stupid assumption. I'm the one who's saying a gun is a lethal tool designed to kill people and should ONLY be pulled out to kill people, and I'm the fucking immature one? Are you kidding me? Shooting centre mass puts a target down, it's also an easy way to kill someone because of the close proximity of organs. It is used to put a target down quickly to stop them from firing back. This is shooting to kill. Yes, I read the article. [editline]19th January 2013[/editline] As even your own link says, a shot centre mass is to stop a target. Why does it stop a target? Because it does more damage and it's easy to hit. You don't shoot the head and you should really stop being such a condescending dick because I'm not fucking trivializing anything like you would like to imply.[/QUOTE] Who the hell said anything about you being imature, and why am I a condescending dick? Get off your high horse there, you're the one talking like the jack of all trades and master of none. And nice of you to ignore the part where it says "shoot to incapacitate, not just kill" No cop pulls a gun with the thought of killing someone. That's the last thing anyone wants to do.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;39286262]I was never talking about shooting to wound.[/QUOTE] So "shooting to stop" is just some halfway point between shooting to kill and shooting to wound?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39286174]nice dumb and stupid assumption. I'm the one who's saying a gun is a lethal tool designed to kill people and should ONLY be pulled out to kill people, and I'm the fucking immature one? Are you kidding me? Shooting centre mass puts a target down, it's also an easy way to kill someone because of the close proximity of organs. It is used to put a target down quickly to stop them from firing back. This is shooting to kill. Yes, I read the article. [editline]19th January 2013[/editline] As even your own link says, a shot centre mass is to stop a target. Why does it stop a target? [B]Because it does more damage and it's easy to hit.[/B] You don't shoot the head and you should really stop being such a condescending dick because I'm not fucking trivializing anything like you would like to imply.[/QUOTE] You're half right. Your average hollow point needs to hit a vital organ to kill. It's not uncommon for them to bounce off ribs, get embedded in muscle, or stop just short of a vital organ. Police are instructed to shoot until the target no longer poses a threat. Of course, you [I]never[/I] use a firearm against another person unless they pose an immediate threat to your life, at which point killing them is the least of your worries.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;39286162]This article, and most of the comments from both police officers and firearms instructors seem to support "shoot to stop": [URL]http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/3468112-Shooting-center-mass-Shooting-to-kill-or-to-stop/[/URL] They probably just tell "shoot to kill" in basic gun safety to drill in the idea that you only use it as a last resort, and that even a shot to "wound" can be fatal.[/QUOTE] I'd say it's more of a way of saying "shoot to neutralize" with, as you said, the added fact that it can be a fatal incapacitation.

Now that's just fucking stupid, why would you inhibit the police from being able to defend themselves or civilians.

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;39286299]Who the hell said anything about you being imature, and why am I a condescending dick? Get off your high horse there, you're the one talking like the jack of all trades and master of none. And nice of you to ignore the part where it says "shoot to incapacitate, not just kill" No cop pulls a gun with the thought of killing someone. That's the last thing anyone wants to do.[/QUOTE] Oh so the GTA quip wasn't condescending or trying to make it seem like I'm too young to talk about this? How am I doing that at all? I'm acknowledging a gun is a tool used to kill and if pointed at someone is primarily being used to kill them, the result not always being death. I didn't ignore that.

I dont get the deal with trying to ban guns. It takes it out of civilian's hands where they cant protect them self. If a criminal wants to buy a gun, hes most likely not going to buy the gun where he has id and stuff. Most criminals guns aren't even registered usually.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39286300]So "shooting to stop" is just some halfway point between shooting to kill and shooting to wound?[/QUOTE] They shoot with the intention of incapacitation/wounding/neutralizing the target, not with the straight up thought of killing. They aim for center mass because it gives them less chance to miss.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39286300]So "shooting to stop" is just some halfway point between shooting to kill and shooting to wound?[/QUOTE] Probably more like just splitting hairs, actually.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39286323]Oh so the GTA quip wasn't condescending or trying to make it seem like I'm too young to talk about this? How am I doing that at all? I'm acknowledging a gun is a tool used to kill and if pointed at someone is primarily being used to kill them, the result not always being death. I didn't ignore that.[/QUOTE] The GTA comment I made was only to compare your idea of why an officer shoots a gun to the reality, comparing a game where most likely corrupt officers shoot a hail of bullets at you till you're dead, to 1 or 2 shots to the chest of reality. You're missing the point. Officers don't shoot with the intention of killing, they shoot with the intention of incapacitating the target before it poses a danger to himself or anyone else. It's their best tool. If I recall, tasers can fail, pepper spray onto someone charging at you with a knife is highly impractical, so the best is actual stopping power. If the target dies, it was a non-intended fatal shot.

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;39286413]The GTA comment I made was only to compare your idea of why an officer shoots a gun to the reality, comparing a game where most likely corrupt officers shoot a hail of bullets at you till you're dead, to 1 or 2 shots to the chest of reality. You're missing the point. Officers don't shoot with the intention of killing, they shoot with the intention of incapacitating the target before it poses a danger to himself or anyone else. It's their best tool. If I recall, tasers can fail, pepper spray onto someone charging at you with a knife is highly impractical, so the best is actual stopping power. If the target dies, it was a non-intended fatal shot.[/QUOTE] Your GTA comment had NOTHING to do with my view. You're just taking my view and fucking trivializing it in a way that had nothing to do with how I see these things. Nothing about what I said lines up with a fucking stupid "gta" like world. I'm not missing the point, I get it. I also understand that if they're pointing their gun at a target, they know they can kill it, they may not choose to, but if they fire they're acknowledging that they may kill with that shot. [QUOTE]want to find some proof of that? Cops who get in fire fights empty their weapons out of a few reasons. 1) They're panicked, you don't unload a whole magazine into a person if you're calm. 2) They want to make sure they've been lethal because they're only supposed to use their gun to BE lethal. In a combat situation, seeing someone fire 2-3 well grouped shots and that's it should be a lot more terrifying than a guy who unloads his weapon. The former shows that the person is calm and experienced, the latter shows fear and panicked reactions.[/QUOTE] Like I had just said this. How the fuck do you get what you got out of this.

[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;39286325]I dont get the deal with trying to ban guns. It takes it out of civilian's hands where they cant protect them self. If a criminal wants to buy a gun, hes most likely not going to buy the gun where he has id and stuff. Most criminals guns aren't even registered usually.[/QUOTE] Theres people blaming these shootings on movies and videogames. You really think they care about that? On top of that, homicide rates are also getting lower and lower, but whenever something like a shooting happens, people go batshit crazy putting the blame on things they don't quite understand expecting things to get better. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39286447]Your GTA comment had NOTHING to do with my view. You're just taking my view and fucking trivializing it in a way that had nothing to do with how I see these things. Nothing about what I said lines up with a fucking stupid "gta" like world. I'm not missing the point, I get it. I also understand that if they're pointing their gun at a target, they know they can kill it, they may not choose to, but if they fire they're acknowledging that they may kill with that shot.[/QUOTE] It had. You basically assumed that "if a gun is made for killing, killing is all it does, and if an officer pulls his gun, it's just to kill", despite the fact that they get scared on the inside when that happens, while in the game, cops just pull the gun and just start shooting till someone drops dead. You got to the point now. They know they can kill whoever they point and shoot at, but most times it's just a gamble. What matters is that the target poses no danger. Oh, and rating me dumb doesn't makes you right.

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;39286451]Theres people blaming these shootings on movies and videogames. You really think they care about that? On top of that, homicide rates are also getting lower and lower, but whenever something like a shooting happens, people go batshit crazy putting the blame on things they don't quite understand expecting things to get better. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] It had. You basically assumed that "if a gun is made for killing, killing is all it does, and if an officer pulls his gun, it's just to kill", despite the fact that they get scared on the inside when that happens, while in the game, cops just pull the gun and just start shooting till someone drops dead. You got to the point now. They know they can kill whoever they point and shoot at, but most times it's just a gamble. What matters is that the target poses no danger. Oh, and rating me dumb doesn't makes you right.[/QUOTE] I'm rating you dumb because you're purposely missing the point with the GTA thing and I don't give a shit you won't see my point of view on it. So whatever. I always, and only, ever tried to imply it was a serious deal if a gun is being pulled out. You trivialized that and called yourself fucking witty for it. That's fucking dumb to me. I always got the point that a gun out means stopping the person. In my opinion, that generally means that the person can or will die in that situation. Misconstrue that however the fuck you will. You're not even arguing at this point. Just ragging on me.

iirc, here in canada, if a police officer shoots, they have to file a report on why they shot.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39286548]I'm rating you dumb because you're purposely missing the point with the GTA thing and I don't give a shit you won't see my point of view on it. So whatever. I always, and only, ever tried to imply it was a serious deal if a gun is being pulled out. You trivialized that and called yourself fucking witty for it. That's fucking dumb to me. I always got the point that a gun out means stopping the person. In my opinion, that generally means that the person can or will die in that situation. Misconstrue that however the fuck you will. You're not even arguing at this point. Just ragging on me.[/QUOTE] You're just assuming a lot of things about me with some kind of snarkyness. You're the one who's actually raging lol... You said a bunch of times that they shoot to kill and only now you followed my words to finally say that they in fact shoot to stop with the possibility of killing the target. There was never any argument. You just acted like you know everything and got pissed by yourself for what I said.

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;39286342]They shoot with the intention of incapacitation/wounding/neutralizing the target, not with the straight up thought of killing. They aim for center mass because it gives them less chance to miss.[/QUOTE] Au contraire, police are trained not to shoot unless prepared to kill, therefore they are always shooting with the "thought" of killing. This does not mean they like doing it or would ever want to, but saying that they don't shoot with the thought of killing is absurd.

Who's going to arrest them? the police...

[QUOTE=MEOWTFLOL;39286567]iirc, here in canada, if a police officer shoots, they have to file a report on why they shot.[/QUOTE] Actually I had met some self defense instructor months ago who has trained police officers in ontario in dealing with aggresive people and I asked him, "wouldn't brandishing a weapon is usually enough to ward off people who want to do harm to the person?" and he just shook his head annoyed like i'm some sort of idiot for a second and he said; "The only reason why you will unholster your firearm is to shoot to kill, you hit them once here, and then here." The part where he said "here and then here" he pointed to his chest and then his forehead. They do not shoot to wound, atleast not here in Canada.

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;39286619]You're just assuming a lot of things about me with some kind of snarkyness. You're the one who's actually raging lol... You said a bunch of times that they shoot to kill and only now you followed my words to finally say that they in fact shoot to stop with the possibility of killing the target. There was never any argument. You just acted like you know everything and got pissed by yourself for what I said.[/QUOTE] A cop shoots at centre mass, with the intent that if he fires his gun, he's going to have to kill the person. If a cop shoots someone in the arm or leg, a blatant attempt to wound them, they can get in serious shit, including being sued. Cops shoot as a last resort, and they aim at centre mass, with the intent that if they have to shoot someone, they're expecting to kill them.

You don't use a gun unless you intend to kill. You never use it to scare someone, nor do you shoot to wound, or to stop someone from running, or because they looked at you funny. It's a weapon designed to end life, and using it for any other purpose is mistreatment. This goes the same for police.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39284362]Police usually don't shoot to kill. Most times they shoot to neutralize. It helps avoid wrongful death law suits and allows the police to take the criminal into custody and press charges on them.[/QUOTE] Can people please stopping making this post? You NEVER shoot to disable. That isn't even a thing legally. If you are in a position where disabling someone is a viable option then you are absolutely unjustified in using a gun. Shooting someone with a gun is always shooting to kill.

You shoot until they're unable to shoot back.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39287058]Can people please stopping making this post? You NEVER shoot to disable. That isn't even a thing legally. If you are in a position where disabling someone is a viable option then you are absolutely unjustified in using a gun. Shooting someone with a gun is always shooting to kill.[/QUOTE] It is if you're playing True Crime: Streets of LA or True Crime: New York City.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39283948]So if 12 gunman storm to rob a bank and open fire on a police officer, he should only be allowed to have 7 bullets in his magazine?[/QUOTE] If 12 gunmen storm a bank and open fire on a police officer, will this law have had any effect?