DescentBB

This wasn't how it was supposed to work out:
http://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/vio ... ry-states/

it was always the contention that right to carry was all about public safety.....you know, intervening in an armed robbery here, chasing away rapists there, plugging people who were black, etc. Some of us wondered how adding fuel to a fire of violent culture would achieve that. Turns out, it didn't, and doesn't

Oh, is that the rest of the world I hear? I think it is. It sounds a little bit like... "DUHHHHHHH!"

This Canadian man tried to buy a gun while he was in the U.S. for 5 days, but he was stopped because he wasn't a U.S. citizen. So instead, he uses a readily available knife and attacked an airport cop. Despite our current gun laws, he still attacked someone with a weapon.

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2017/The-F ... 3e6443b9e7

Now we just wait for the inevitable "but the good guy with a gun would have stopped it!" line.

A good guy with a gun did stop it.

nooooo that didn't happen.

An officer did his job. That's different.

This officer did his job and shot a fellow cop.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-st-lo ... k-officer/

Ferno wrote:nooooo that didn't happen.

An officer did his job. That's different.

How ?

Grendel wrote:

Ferno wrote:nooooo that didn't happen.

An officer did his job. That's different.

How ?

Well, a police officer is trained in how to use a firearm in situations requiring defusing, de-escalation or neutralization. The 'good guy with a gun' refers to a civilian who carries and has zero training in anything other than shooting at a static target.

Training doesn't always assure the proper response in a tense situation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/invest ... rosecuted/

Tunnelcat wrote:Training doesn't always assure the proper response in a tense situation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/invest ... rosecuted/

That was kind of my point actually.

And this: Good guy with a gun claim tested

I love how in part 2 of that video they have to use a seriously bogus scenario to make their piss poor point.

Spidey wrote:I love how in part 2 of that video they have to use a seriously bogus scenario to make their piss poor point.

You're going to actually disagree with an actual law enforcement training scenario? I'm sure they would want your feedback on how bogus it is, seeing as you're such an expert.

If someone takes you by surprise, and fires at point blank range, even mister super trained police officer is a dead man.

As far as “actual training scenario” I doubt that…seeing how the entire story was staged by a comedy writer.

If you listen carefully, you will hear the fact that the “trainee” is setting up the scenario, and if you believe that was a real training event…I have a bridge to sell.

Love how your beliefs are overriding facts. That's okay - fight your little fight.

Perhaps your own preconceived notions are helping you avoid the “fact” that Mr. Trainee was deliberately acting like a buffoon as to insure the most possible negative outcomes.

Even if the scenario was legit, the outcome can be planned.

You know, I get that people don’t get the whole “good guy” thing, but when you use bull★■◆● to make your arguments…well…

Classic propaganda...mix a little truth with some lies.

For the curious: Link to study co-authored by J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Executive Director of ALERRT (From video). See page 11.

Spidey wrote:Perhaps your own preconceived notions are helping you avoid the “fact” that Mr. Trainee was deliberately acting like a buffoon as to insure the most possible negative outcomes.

Even if the scenario was legit, the outcome can be planned.

You know, I get that people don’t get the whole “good guy” thing, but when you use bull★■◆● to make your arguments…well…

Classic propaganda...mix a little truth with some lies.

My preconceived notion is interest in fact.

Problem is, you seem to think the situation will play out like a videogame. It doesn't.

Maybe you should pay a visit to ALERRT yourself and ask them. I'm sure they'd be willing to let you play the 'good guy with a gun'. Because that's the only way you'll change your opinion is when you go through it yourself.

No facts being challenged here by me…only motives, actions and opinions.

Spidey wrote:No facts being challenged here by me…only motives, actions and opinions.

they have to use a seriously bogus scenario

“actual training scenario” I doubt that

insure the most possible negative outcomes

Your own words contradict each other.

You make a claim, I dispute it, then you start throwing out stuff in the hopes something will stick.

Now run along, since I know this is about the time you throw your hands up in a huff.

they have to use a seriously bogus scenario (created by the trainee acting like a buffoon, fictional scenarios don’t count as facts)

“actual training scenario” I doubt that (I already conceded the scenario may have been real, but made into a joke by acting like a buffoon)

insure the most possible negative outcomes (absolutely the intent of the buffoon, and his producers)

So after reviewing that video, I could see that there is no actual training instruction shown…only demonstrations of worst case scenarios.

Where was the training…where was the instruction?

So what is the proper response to being taken by surprise and shot at point blank range?

I stand by my original statement.

Dude really?

Doubling down? Being intentionally obtuse and dishonest? It even shows you both addresses in the video.

This is why no one takes you seriously.

I was referring only to part 2, yes the first part shows some actual training.

Learn the difference between training and testing.

He received 4 hours of training at the school, we got to see none of that, what we did get to see was a failed test.

So what does failing a test at the end of an instruction cycle with the instructions fresh in your mind prove…that the training is difficult…perhaps…or it proves nothing because he probably failed the test on purpose.

If you can't figure out there is an agenda behind this video, then I don't know what to say.

Still, even with training, any sane officer with an itchy trigger finger and a desire for self-preservation in a volatile and heated situation can easily screw up and shoot someone at the wrong time and place. However, lying about making that mistake and then trying to cover it up is a deliberate act and only compounds the mistrust that many in the public have now come to see as an epidemic of poor conduct or worse, intentional acts of shootings by the local police. It's always the coverup that gets them in trouble too.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... s_und.html

Spidey wrote:I was referring only to part 2, yes the first part shows some actual training.

Learn the difference between training and testing.

He received 4 hours of training at the school, we got to see none of that, what we did get to see was a failed test.

So what does failing a test at the end of an instruction cycle with the instructions fresh in your mind prove…that the training is difficult…perhaps…or it proves nothing because he probably failed the test on purpose.

If you can't figure out there is an agenda behind this video, then I don't know what to say.

You called doubt on part 2, I addressed that. Stop pointing the finger. Stop being obtuse. And for the love of everything, stop pretending it's someone else's fault.

I'd tell you what it proves, but you wouldn't believe me if I did. So I wont. Because you don't listen, and dismiss points contrary to your view.

Yea yea I know....I'm such a terrible person...how dare I have my own opinions.