Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Gunman tries to open fire at movie theater and off duty cop drops him
  • Subject: Gunman tries to open fire at movie theater and off duty cop drops him
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Gunman tries to open fire at movie theater and off duty cop drops him

What's the point of this thread?

  • 12.17.2012 10:53 PM PDT

It's not my fault, I was just trying to tie my shoe!

Join TFS, the grooviest private group on bungie.net! We r cewl gaiz who dun fraid of nething. Join for heated debates, game nights, and lols. We're waiting! (Be a man) We must be swift as the coursing river. (Be a man), With all the force of a great typhoon. (Be a man), With all the strength of a raging fire. Mysterious as the dark side of the moon!


Posted by: Cheeto666
Same could happen if you shoot him.
Rubber bullets/other nonlethal rounds/tazers are the best thing for civilians to have. They can stop the threat and not kill them. Win-win.

The notion that the only way to stop a gunman is to kill him is childish and uneducated.
Posted by: deadlyfluffball

Posted by: Cheeto666

Stupid. A tazer would have stopped him and left him alive to face trial and be punished for his crimes. The dead don't suffer.
Hopefully, anti-gun control people will open their eyes and see that you don't need guns to stop crimes from becoming much more serious. This is a perfect example.
Posted by: HundredJono
Well hopefully the gun-control people will open their eyes and see that guns can stop crimes from becoming much more serious. This is a perfect example.


His body would have locked up and he would have squeezed off multiple rounds while being tazed.

Sorry to break it to you, but we're not looking for the gunman to live. We're looking for the most effective way to end the threat. He's in the wrong, not innocent civilians. I'm not going to regard his safety if he were trying to kill me.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 10:54 PM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 10:54 PM PDT

The Spartan Special Ops - Now with more LOLgasms!

Posted by: EnragedElite67
"The problem with quotes on the internet is 95% are made up." - Socrates


Posted by: King Warpig

Posted by: SpartanMk18

Posted by: EnragedAUSTIN11
I have no problem with a basic hunting rifle and a basic self defense pistol.

everyone should have the right to these two guns.

HOWEVER we do need to ban the selling of automatic and highpowered weapons all together. Those weapons were never designed for collecting or admiration, they are designed and made to kill people.

gun shows are where most of the killers get their crap anyway.


There have been a grand total of 2 murders with an National Firearms act registered item.

That means, short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, suppressors, and automatic weapons.

NFA was created in 1923.


Didn't like the Mafia and stuff kill people with automatic weapons mid 20th century?

srs


Which is why the NFA was passed. This required you to pay a 200 dollar tax stamp on an NFA classified item. 200 dollars in the 30's was a lot of money.

However, all it did was make it incredibly hard for your average citizen to acquire a NFA item.

It didn't stop killings with automatic weapons one bit. Which really were not all that frequent. Only a few people used automatic weapons, two of which were Clyde Barrow and Machine Gun Kelly. Clyde Barrow acquired his signature m1918 BAR by looting a national guard armor.

How does a tax stamp prevent that?

  • 12.17.2012 10:55 PM PDT

It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.

Posted by: chickenlittle
Cheeto is the only one among you that doesn't suck.

So, killing them is the only possible way to effectively end the threat? No. Go learn some things and then come back when you know something.

Non-lethal rounds/weapons will stop him, and let him live so we can punish him by the laws of the land.

Lethal force should only be used if nothing else works. Stop pretending that the only way to end a threat is to kill someone. Do police kill every suspect with a gun? No, because they use nonlethal measures to take them into custody.

And if you're going to talk about rights, it is the gunman's right to stand trial for his crimes just as much as you have the right to bear arms. So no, you don't have the right to kill someone just because they're attacking you. Only if it's absolutely necessary to end the threat to your life. And once again, non-lethal measures work just as well as lethal ones do.
Posted by: Edmi Wohusee

Posted by: Cheeto666
Same could happen if you shoot him.
Rubber bullets/other nonlethal rounds/tazers are the best thing for civilians to have. They can stop the threat and not kill them. Win-win.

The notion that the only way to stop a gunman is to kill him is childish and uneducated.
Posted by: deadlyfluffball

Posted by: Cheeto666

Stupid. A tazer would have stopped him and left him alive to face trial and be punished for his crimes. The dead don't suffer.
Hopefully, anti-gun control people will open their eyes and see that you don't need guns to stop crimes from becoming much more serious. This is a perfect example.
Posted by: HundredJono
Well hopefully the gun-control people will open their eyes and see that guns can stop crimes from becoming much more serious. This is a perfect example.


His body would have locked up and he would have squeezed off multiple rounds while being tazed.

Sorry to break it to you, but we're not looking for the gunman to live. We're looking for the most effective way to end the threat. He's in the wrong, not innocent civilians. I'm not going to regard his safety if he were trying to kill me.


[Edited on 12.17.2012 10:59 PM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 10:57 PM PDT

Message Me Here
Don't be afraid, I don't bite.

Check My Groups Here
Relax, they aren't all pony related.

...which can't really be said about my Deviant Art Page however.


Posted by: SpartanMk18

Posted by: King Warpig

Posted by: SpartanMk18

Posted by: EnragedAUSTIN11
I have no problem with a basic hunting rifle and a basic self defense pistol.

everyone should have the right to these two guns.

HOWEVER we do need to ban the selling of automatic and highpowered weapons all together. Those weapons were never designed for collecting or admiration, they are designed and made to kill people.

gun shows are where most of the killers get their crap anyway.


There have been a grand total of 2 murders with an National Firearms act registered item.

That means, short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, suppressors, and automatic weapons.

NFA was created in 1923.


Didn't like the Mafia and stuff kill people with automatic weapons mid 20th century?

srs


Which is why the NFA was passed. This required you to pay a 200 dollar tax stamp on an NFA classified item. 200 dollars in the 30's was a lot of money.

However, all it did was make it incredibly hard for your average citizen to acquire a NFA item.

It didn't stop killings with automatic weapons one bit. Which really were not all that frequent. Only a few people used automatic weapons, two of which were Clyde Barrow and Machine Gun Kelly. Clyde Barrow acquired his signature m1918 BAR by looting a national guard armor.

How does a tax stamp prevent that?
In a way that's what I was saying on the previous page. Regulations have really only shown evidence that suggests they only stop sane, good people from getting the guns.

  • 12.17.2012 10:58 PM PDT

Stop your arguing. The only thing that matters is that no innocent people were killed and the shooter was stopped. It doesn't matter how it gets done.

  • 12.17.2012 10:59 PM PDT

Charlie you're being stupid.

  • 12.17.2012 10:59 PM PDT


Posted by: King Warpig


THIS IS WHY WE DONT BAN GUNS. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SOMEBODY HAVING A CONCEAL AND CARRY. ONE PERSON CAN SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY.


He was a cop. Not some normal stranger off the street having dinner. He earned the respect and responsibility to hold that gun. There's a big diffrence.

  • 12.17.2012 11:02 PM PDT


Posted by: falcon8134

Posted by: King Warpig


THIS IS WHY WE DONT BAN GUNS. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SOMEBODY HAVING A CONCEAL AND CARRY. ONE PERSON CAN SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY.


He was a cop. Not some normal stranger off the street having dinner. He earned the respect and responsibility to hold that gun. There's a big diffrence.

And so would anyone with a concealed carry license. You can't just get one in 15 minutes you know. You have to take a lot of classes and such.

  • 12.17.2012 11:04 PM PDT

Perpetual Ninja in training.

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

DMH

Los Paranoias

>Off Duty Cop
>Gun Control



OP, gun control would affect civilians, not Officers of the Law.

Not that I care, I'm so over this whole debate.

  • 12.17.2012 11:05 PM PDT

Posted by: Dropship dude
No, acnboy. Spartain Ken 15 is a lesser being. Much like the bacteria that lives in your shi­t.
Posted by: mike120593
My shi­t bacteria takes offense to that comparison.

Don't make me lel. You won't like me when I lel.

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Charlie you're being stupid.
but that's wrong

  • 12.17.2012 11:05 PM PDT

The Spartan Special Ops - Now with more LOLgasms!

Posted by: EnragedElite67
"The problem with quotes on the internet is 95% are made up." - Socrates


Posted by: Cheeto666
So, killing them is the only possible way to effectively end the threat? No. Go learn some things and then come back when you know something.

Non-lethal rounds/weapons will stop him, and let him live so we can punish him by the laws of the land.

Lethal force should only be used if nothing else works. Stop pretending that the only way to end a threat is to kill someone. Do police kill every suspect with a gun? No, because they use nonlethal measures to take them into custody.


Let me tell you an anecdotal story.

One of our family friends is an officer with LAPD. One one instance, he was called to a suburban neighborhood for a domestic violence case.

Well, an aggravated woman came running out of the house wielding a knife, heading right for my friend. He had his trusty 12 gauge shotgun, and had bean bag rounds loaded up. He had to hit her 3 times before she stopped in here tracks.

this is what is shot out of a 12 gauge bean bag round

This was an instance where Lethal force would be authorized. The woman was directly threatening the life of an officer. Rather than use lethal force, he used less than lethal. Instead of dropping the aggressor in the first shot, he had to fire 3 rounds to neutralize the threat. He was actually chastised for not using lethal force, he put his life at risk by using less than lethal.



On that note, Bean bag rounds, rubber bullets, and tasers are not, "Non lethal." People have died from them. They are less than lethal, but still very dangerous.

The thing is, if you are in a scenario where it is literally you or them, do you want to take the chance that your attempts to immobilize them fail? The point of self defense is to stop a n aggressor before the aggressor has time to cause harm to you. There are to many variables in less than lethal, adrenalin is a helluva' drug. There is nothing that will neutralize a threat quite like a .45 expanding hollow-point. Whether the target dies or not is not your concern, all that you need to worry about is that the target will not be causing you harm.

  • 12.17.2012 11:05 PM PDT

What a waste....

While it was a cop, and he was working security and thus prepared to do something like this, I think the point still stands.

Good on him, I guess.

  • 12.17.2012 11:08 PM PDT

Message Me Here
Don't be afraid, I don't bite.

Check My Groups Here
Relax, they aren't all pony related.

...which can't really be said about my Deviant Art Page however.


Posted by: Cheeto666
So, killing them is the only possible way to effectively end the threat? No. Go learn some things and then come back when you know something.
Fallacy.

Non-lethal rounds/weapons will stop him, and let him live so we can punish him by the laws of the land.Assumption.

Lethal force should only be used if nothing else works.In a morally perfect world, yes. But in a morally perfect world there wouldn't be murder.

Stop pretending that the only way to end a threat is to kill someone.Now you are putting words into his mouth. I believe a more accurate counter argument would be to oppose his true suggestion that the most EFFICIENT way to stop a deadly thread is to kill it. Not leave it alive to possibly continue fighting, not interrogate it, not intimidate it, not stun it. Killing with bullets is faster, and leaves no chance for the predatory subject to react.
Bullets can also get the same genuine "don't kill" effect if you shoot a limb, albeit you risk him dying anyway. Unless you are really close with a tazer and the gunman is not drugged, hitting him in the necessary area (head, groin, knee, or neck) with rubber bullets or bean bags to drop him may be a hard task to accomplish for many civilians. And even then it still may kill the aggressor.
Is it a morally right way to do things? Probably not. But efficient? Yes. Just like fossil fuels. They may not be the most morally correct way of powering cars or cities, but pound for pound they are the most efficient source of energy we have out there. You don't have to like it, it just has to work; at least in the eyes of the social[ly acceptable] media.

Do police kill every suspect with a gun? No, because they use nonlethal measures to take them into custody.Actually, in most cases where innocent life is threatened with deadly force (e.g.- gunmen in shootings), equally deadly force is necessary to stop the harm to innocent civilians and other potential victims... it is also often used.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 11:13 PM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 11:09 PM PDT


Posted by: RockdaleRooster

Posted by: falcon8134

Posted by: King Warpig


THIS IS WHY WE DONT BAN GUNS. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SOMEBODY HAVING A CONCEAL AND CARRY. ONE PERSON CAN SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY.


He was a cop. Not some normal stranger off the street having dinner. He earned the respect and responsibility to hold that gun. There's a big diffrence.

And so would anyone with a concealed carry license. You can't just get one in 15 minutes you know. You have to take a lot of classes and such.


Stop with that BS. HE WAS A COP. You have no reason to walk into a theater with a gun. He does. Even if he was off duty, he still has the responsibility to carry it as an officer of the law.
Tell me. What's your reason? To shoot the first guy who stole some old ladys purse?

  • 12.17.2012 11:13 PM PDT

It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.

Posted by: chickenlittle
Cheeto is the only one among you that doesn't suck.

Because for the most part, they do work. Saying it took 3 shots from his nonlethal round to neutralize the threat could mean anything. But that's not the point.

The point is, protecting all life is of paramount importance. I can honestly say that if someone was attacking me, you bet your ass I want to kill them. But that defeats the point of our justice system, and circumvents the authority of the people.

So, unless there is no other, humanly possible way to remove the danger to one's own life except lethal force, you should use non-lethal force.

And as you said, with something like a rubber bullet, a shot to the head would kill/render unconscious pretty damned quick. And if you can't aim and place rounds that accurately, you have no business wielding any kind of firearm or other weapon.

Nonlethal rounds are still my method of choice.
Posted by: SpartanMk18

  • 12.17.2012 11:14 PM PDT

Owning Noobs Since 05

"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers."

Jim Harkins

Another shooting.......*facepalm*

  • 12.17.2012 11:15 PM PDT


Posted by: Cheeto666


I like your notion of aiming to neutralize and not kill and I most wholly agree. But you have to look at the practicality of something like a tazer... It has far less range than that of a gun and requires you to be closer to the gunman and in much more threat to yourself. If you're nowhere near him you'd have to risk getting closer and getting spotted, and the area the shooting is occurring could affect that significantly. If a gun is to your disposal it's a much smarter idea to use that instead and employ lethal force from a distance in regards to your own safety. Should you aim to kill? Of course not, just stop the perpetrator from harming others. If that results in their death, oh well, but your intent shouldn't be to kill. Though quite frankly, if some cold blooded gunman is shooting into crowds of innocents I wouldn't much care whether or not he lived from the initial neutralization.

  • 12.17.2012 11:16 PM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith


Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Charlie you're being stupid.
why?

It is a bad example. He is using this as a reason why guns should not be banned. But the guy with a gun would have had one regardless.

  • 12.17.2012 11:18 PM PDT

Message Me Here
Don't be afraid, I don't bite.

Check My Groups Here
Relax, they aren't all pony related.

...which can't really be said about my Deviant Art Page however.


Posted by: Cheeto666
The point is, protecting all life is of paramount importance. I can honestly say that if someone was attacking me, you bet your ass I want to kill them. But that defeats the point of our justice system, and circumvents the authority of the people.
Hah, while I respect your opinion I do have to state the first thought to pop into my head when I read this: "If someone started spraying my row of seats with an automatic weapon, my first thought would not be 'I hope he gets taken alive to await a court date to be upheld to the fullest extent of the law!' I'd probably be 'Make the shooting stop, someone please. I don't care how, just make it stop!'" Just saying.

  • 12.17.2012 11:18 PM PDT

The Spartan Special Ops - Now with more LOLgasms!

Posted by: EnragedElite67
"The problem with quotes on the internet is 95% are made up." - Socrates


Posted by: Cheeto666
Because for the most part, they do work. Saying it took 3 shots from his nonlethal round to neutralize the threat could mean anything. But that's not the point.

The point is, protecting all life is of paramount importance. I can honestly say that if someone was attacking me, you bet your ass I want to kill them. But that defeats the point of our justice system, and circumvents the authority of the people.

So, unless there is no other, humanly possible way to remove the danger to one's own life except lethal force, you should use non-lethal force.

And as you said, with something like a rubber bullet, a shot to the head would kill/render unconscious pretty damned quick. And if you can't aim and place rounds that accurately, you have no business wielding any kind of firearm or other weapon.

Nonlethal rounds are still my method of choice.
Posted by: SpartanMk18


Then understand that using less than lethal can land you in trouble.

Using a firearm on a person in self is considered by law as using lethal force. If you use a particular load that may not cause Death with the application of lethal force, you can indeed face prosecution, or at least extreme scrutiny by the DA. Questions like, "If you were carrying a firearm, and had to use it in a lethal force scenario, why did you not have a lethal round?" In many cases you are safer from the law by killing the attacker then wounding him.


One thing that is always taught in Conceal carry courses is that you use force till the threat ins neutralized. Should that cause the death of the threat, then so be it. But the primary goal of self defense is to defend your self. Ask your self, is prosecution of the attacker really worth more than your life? Would you be willing to give up your life to see that person imprisoned? Is your life really worth so little?


Another thing to be conscious of is adrenalin. Adrenalin can cause a numbing of pain, and an enhancing of physical abilities. If someone with a lot of mass comes after you, and are in a adrenalin high state, I can assure you rubber bullets, pepper spray, and tasers will not stop them.

  • 12.17.2012 11:22 PM PDT


Posted by: falcon8134

Posted by: RockdaleRooster

Posted by: falcon8134

Posted by: King Warpig


THIS IS WHY WE DONT BAN GUNS. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SOMEBODY HAVING A CONCEAL AND CARRY. ONE PERSON CAN SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY.


He was a cop. Not some normal stranger off the street having dinner. He earned the respect and responsibility to hold that gun. There's a big diffrence.

And so would anyone with a concealed carry license. You can't just get one in 15 minutes you know. You have to take a lot of classes and such.


Stop with that BS. HE WAS A COP. You have no reason to walk into a theater with a gun. He does. Even if he was off duty, he still has the responsibility to carry it as an officer of the law.
Tell me. What's your reason? To shoot the first guy who stole some old ladys purse?

What's my reason for what? And no I wouldn't shoot someone who stole a womans purse. That is not a situation in which lethal force is usable. I have a small amount of Law Enforcement training. I took a year of it in HS taught by an 18 year veteran cop and he taught us a lot about use of force and other things. I know a bit about how Law Enforcement works and use that when I look at any situation involving police. But had this been an individual with a conceal carry license he likely could have made a kill shot on a person with intention to kill others. As I said, to get a conceal carry license you have to go through a fair amount of training. It's also likely that they would practice with the gun frequently. They would know they can't just shoot someone who stole someone's purse because a law enforcement officer couldn't.

  • 12.17.2012 11:23 PM PDT

The Spartan Special Ops - Now with more LOLgasms!

Posted by: EnragedElite67
"The problem with quotes on the internet is 95% are made up." - Socrates


Posted by: aTALLmidget

Posted by: Cheeto666

Should you aim to kill? Of course not,


This is wrong. If you are in a scenario where you must employ force, you shoot to kill, period.

Firearms are considered lethal force, and to use them against someone in any less capacity can land you in trouble.

You do not shoot to wound
you do not shoot to scare
you shoot to kill, period.

  • 12.17.2012 11:24 PM PDT

It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.

Posted by: chickenlittle
Cheeto is the only one among you that doesn't suck.

I wouldn't be thinking that either. But, if I had a gun with rubber bullets, for example, you'd be I'd try to take the bastard alive so we can put him to justice by American standards.

Besides, for the most part, there is nothing a gunman loves more than being killed during the shooting, whether it be by his own hand or at another's hand, there is a long running theme of shooters killing themselves after inflicting considerable damage.

Why? Probably because they won't have to live with what they've done, or, more likely, so they don't have to live with the punishment.

My motives for wanting them to live is so they can suffer as much as possible. The dead don't suffer.

And as someone (not sure who) tried to say above, if a civilian is having a hard time placing shots properly, they have no business using a gun. And before you try to say "it's an unstable situation, they had to act fast", if you are going to start shooting wildly or in any way not have complete control over where your bullets are going, rubber or otherwise, you definitely don't have any business owning a gun.
Posted by: Rainbow A Dash

Posted by: Cheeto666
The point is, protecting all life is of paramount importance. I can honestly say that if someone was attacking me, you bet your ass I want to kill them. But that defeats the point of our justice system, and circumvents the authority of the people.
Hah, while I respect your opinion I do have to state the first thought to pop into my head when I read this: "If someone started spraying my row of seats with an automatic weapon, my first thought would not be 'I hope he gets taken alive to await a court date to be upheld to the fullest extent of the law!' I'd probably be 'Make the shooting stop, someone please. I don't care how, just make it stop!'" Just saying.

  • 12.17.2012 11:25 PM PDT

It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.

Posted by: chickenlittle
Cheeto is the only one among you that doesn't suck.

Okay, I'll yield that to you. Always shoot to kill, but "shooting to kill", even with non-lethal rounds, would still have the effect of neutralizing a target.

Keep in mind, that even if you shoot someone with a lethal round, it's not guaranteed that it will kill them, or even slow them down.

In a firefight, nothing is certain until the other guy stops firing and you know he's not going to start firing again, whether he be dead or unconscious.
Posted by: SpartanMk18

Posted by: aTALLmidget

Posted by: Cheeto666

Should you aim to kill? Of course not,


This is wrong. If you are in a scenario where you must employ force, you shoot to kill, period.

Firearms are considered lethal force, and to use them against someone in any less capacity can land you in trouble.

You do not shoot to wound
you do not shoot to scare
you shoot to kill, period.

  • 12.17.2012 11:29 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4