Important Links

Hock's Blog

Hock's Downloads

CQC-Facebook

Hock's Facebook

Hock's Seminars

Hock's Shopsite

Hock's Web Page


New Products

Combat Kicks VID

Critical Contact VID

Death Grip of Knife VID

Dominant/Counter VID

First Contact VID

Impact Weapons Book

Knife Book

The Other Hand VID


Lauric Enterprises, Inc.
1314 W. McDermott
Ste 106-811
Allen, TX 75013
972-390-1777

 

 

 


W. Hock Hochheim's

           Combat Centric

Talk Forum for Military, Police, Martial Artists and Aware Citizenry



Hock Hochheim's Combat Talk Forum

  • September 23, 2018, 09:57:09 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: When civilians would shoot...  (Read 12384 times)

Hock

  • Administrator
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 6324
    • www.HocksCQC.com
When civilians would shoot...
« on: March 02, 2009, 07:23:18 PM »

Force Science news...

I. New study: When civilians would shoot...and when they think you should

Fascinating experiments by 2 California researchers show that young civilians who might someday be on an OIS jury overwhelmingly disagree with veteran officers about when police are justified in shooting armed, threatening perpetrators.

Interestingly, tests also reveal that when facing shoot/don't shoot decisions of their own, civilians tend to be quick on the trigger--and often wrong in their perceptions. Even in ideal lighting conditions, civilian test subjects show "a very low capacity for distinguishing" a handgun from an innocuous object, such as a power tool. Forced to make a time-pressured decision, the vast majority would shoot a "suspect" who is, in fact, unarmed.

"On one hand," says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, "this research should make civilians more sympathetic to officers who mistakenly shoot unarmed subjects under high-stress, real-world conditions.

"But on the other hand, the study shows the woeful lack of understanding most non-cops have about the larger legality and appropriateness of using deadly force. And this can result in serious ramifications in the courtroom."

The findings, by Dr. Matthew Sharps, an expert on eye-witness identification and a psychology professor at California State University-Fresno, and Adam Hess, a lecturer in criminology at the school, are reported in The Forensic Examiner [12/22/08], published by the American College of Forensic Examiners. Their paper, "To shoot or not to shoot: Response and interpretation of response to armed assailants," can be read in full by clicking here.

In their experiments, Sharps and Hess report, they first addressed "how untrained people would react if placed in the position of police officers confronting a situation potentially involving firearms and firearm violence."

Eighty-seven female and 38 male college student volunteers of various races were each shown 1 of 4 high-quality digital photos of simulated "crime scenes." The settings were stage-set with the guidance of veteran FTOs from the Fresno PD, "all highly experienced in tactical realities and the sorts of situations encountered by witnesses and officers on the street."

Three photos showed a lone M/W subject, holding a Beretta 9mm pistol in profile: one depicted a "simple" scene, "sparse in terms of potentially distracting objects"; another a "complex" scene, "including street clutter, garbage cans, and other potentially distracting items"; the third a complex scene that included several bystanders and a young, female "victim" being threatened by the armed perpetrator pointing the gun at her in a 1-handed grip.

In a fourth photo, the scene was the same as the third--except that the Beretta was replaced with a power screwdriver.

Before any pictures were shown, each volunteer was told that a scene "which may or may not involve a crime or sources of danger" would be flashed for 2 seconds or less on a movie screen. "You may intervene" by shooting at the perpetrator "to protect yourself or others if you see an individual holding a weapon," the researchers explained. Participants could "shoot" either by pressing a button or by firing a suction-tipped dart from a toy gun.

"The conditions for all 4 scenes involved uniformly excellent lighting (strong sunlight), and the relative comfort of witnesses being seated," Sharps and Hess write. "There was no movement or occlusion of important elements of the scenes, and of course there was no personal danger for the respondents in the experiment."

The smallest number of individuals decided to shoot at the lone subject holding a gun in the simple environment with no victim. Yet "even under these circumstances, in which no crime was depicted," a strong majority--64%--decided to fire. This despite the fact that the "perpetrator" as depicted could have as easily been target-shooting as committing a crime, the researchers note.

In the complex but victimless scene, 67% chose to shoot. When a victim and bystanders were added, the proportion of shooters rose significantly, to 88%--nearly 9 out of 10.

But most revealingly, when the suspect pointed a power screwdriver instead of a gun, some 85% "shot" him. "In other words," Sharps and Hess write, "respondents were equally likely to shoot the perpetrator whether he was armed or unarmed, as long as there was a potential 'victim' in the scene. It made no [statistically significant] difference whether the perpetrator held a gun or a power tool."

Across the range of scenes, "when untrained people...'confronted' a suspect, the majority decided to shoot him under all conditions....[The] very high number of those who decided to shoot the unarmed suspect under ideal conditions might be inflated even further under the rapidly changing and visually confusing circumstances of a typical police emergency."

The challenge the volunteers faced in distinguishing between the gun and the power tool was relatively easy, compared to officers making split-second decisions in the field. Cops frequently have to employ "rapid cognitive processing" in darkness or semidarkness, often deciding in less than a second whether to shoot, the researchers observe.

"During that time, many factors in a scene must be evaluated: the suspect's motions; where the weapon is aimed; the presence of other people, including other potential suspects, and whether they are in the officer's probable field of fire; other potential sources of hazard, to self, to others, and to the suspect, in the immediate environment....

"In view of these extensive processing demands, errors in perception or cognitive processing are likely to be relatively frequent....

"[E]xtraordinary demands are placed on the cognitive and perceptual abilities of police officers in cases of gun violence. Public perception of these incidents, however, typically does not center on the cognitive or perceptual issues involved."

Instead, officers' errors in shooting suspects brandishing innocuous objects rather than guns are "attributed, in many sources, to racism...and failures of integrity." It seems "incomprehensible, to many people, that officers could possibly mistake a [non-weapon] for a real firearm in the dark."

Among several instances the researchers cite in which officers have been pilloried by the press and public for mistaken perceptions is the infamous case of Amadou Diallo, who was shot and killed by NYPD personnel in 1999 when he abruptly pulled a black wallet from his pocket during a confrontation. More recently, a subject was shot dead in Tacoma, WA, when he pointed a small, black cordless drill directly at officers.

"It should be noted that the situation in which most people [in the experiment] effectively decided to kill an unarmed suspect was similar to the circumstances surrounding" these 2 cases, the researchers state.

The intensely negative reactions of civilians toward officers involved in such incidents may, in reality, "have more to do with highly unrealistic public and mass-media expectations, and with popular ideas about deadly force, than with putative racism or integrity issues on the part of police," Sharps and Hess suggest.

A disturbing insight into the public mind-set regarding police use of deadly force surfaced through a companion experiment conducted by the research team.

Again using digital photography projected onto a screen, 33 females and 11 males recruited from freshman psychology classes were asked to view scenes in which a male or female Caucasian perpetrator, positioned "among typical street clutter," pointed a pistol in a 1-handed grip at a young, female "victim."

After viewing the scene for a full 5 seconds ("far more than ample observation and processing time"), each subject was asked "what a police officer should do on encountering the situation depicted"...and why.

Previously, 3 senior FTOs and a senior police commander had evaluated the proper police response. All concluded that "there was no question that this situation absolutely required a shooting response for both the male and female perpetrator.... [A]ny police officer encountering this situation must fire [immediately] on the perpetrator...in order to prevent the probable imminent death of the victim."

To the researchers' surprise, the civilian volunteers overwhelmingly rated this a no-shoot situation. Only 11.36%--roughly 1 out of 10--"felt that a shooting response was called for," the researchers report. "[A]pproximately 9 out of 10...were of the opinion that an officer should not fire...although all of the senior police officers consulted stated that the situation depicted absolutely required a shooting response.

"This result may have important implications for situations in which 12-person juries must evaluate a given police shooting....In any given, randomly selected jury of 12 citizens, these results suggest that on average, 1 or at most 2 jurors out of 12 would be likely to see an officer on trial in an officer-involved shooting situation as justified in shooting a perpetrator, even under the clearest and most appropriate of circumstances."

Sharps and Hess want to conduct further research before drawing any solid gender conclusions. However, "no male respondent felt that a shooting response was justified with a female perpetrator," and only 1 in 16 female respondents favored shooting the male gunman.

The reasons the respondents gave overall for their negative views on shooting graphically illustrate the cop-civilian disconnect. Some thought the suspect wouldn't really fire because of "the daylight, public conditions of the situation." Others "concocted elaborate rules of engagement" under which an officer might shoot: if the suspect fired first, or if the suspect had already committed murder, or if the officer had first tried to "convince" the suspect to drop the gun.

Still others "literally invoked the need for clairvoyance on the part of the police, saying that an officer should not fire...because the suspect 'did not look like she wanted to kill.' Several qualified their responses with the idea that if the police had to fire, they should shoot the perpetrator's leg or arm, because...'a shot to the leg is relatively harmless....' "

The researchers speculate that "many of these unrealistic responses may have derived from confusion of media depictions of police work with the real thing on the part of the public...and probably from unrealistic expectations concerning the workings and capabilities of the human nervous system...."

They conclude: "f these ideas and attitudes are as widespread as the results of this initial research effort suggest, there is substantial need for better education in the realities of crime and police work for the public from which, of course, all jurors are selected....This extreme discrepancy between public perception and actual police policy and operations warrants further attention, both in future research and in the modern criminal justice system....

"t is clear that these [findings] assume special significance for the real-world courtroom circumstances under which actual witnesses, jurors, and public constituencies consider and testify as to the actions of law enforcement personnel in application to real-world violent crime."

"Although this research is a welcome first step in helping to bridge the gap of understanding between many civilians and law enforcement, it's important to remember that the exploration doesn't stop here," says Dr. Lewinski. "Force Science Research Center Advisor Tom Aveni's work on contextual cues makes clear that in order to facilitate a more thorough understanding of these issues, this study should expand beyond static settings and expand into fluid and dynamic scenarios that better reflect issues of threat recognition and response in regard to human movement. Although we're supportive of and grateful for the work that's been done to date, we're hopeful that the focus will move in this direction."

[Our thanks to Wayne Schmidt, executive director of Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, for alerting us to this study. Reminder: register now for AELE's unique workshop on Lethal and Less-Lethal Force, Mar. 9-11 or Oct. 26-28 in Las Vegas. Go to www.aele.org for more information and online sign-up.]

Kentbob

  • JOAT
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 2107
  • Sound the horn and call the cry
    • Antrim Self-Protection
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2009, 10:16:36 AM »

But, the education won't happen, and the vast majority of people (90%) won't take it upon themselves to get educated, because that's what we have police officers for.  They don't have to be responsible for it, so why should they care? 

This reinforces my belief that 90% of people are crud.


Kent
Logged
"Specialization is for insects."-Robert A. Heinlein

http://antrimmasp.blogspot.com/

arnold

  • the king of cool
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 3183
  • oh that will get you killed
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2009, 06:39:28 PM »

The actual number is 96.735. Obama voters moved the number up exponentially. :P
Logged
I leave you idiots alone for 5 minutes and I come back and you're all dancing around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots
you're all a bunch of slack jawed faggots around here, this stuff will make you a sexual tyrannosaurus, just like me!

whitewolf

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 4680
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2009, 08:39:30 PM »

Kentbob-Good number...........
Arnold-Question -what in the hell is that word you used ??-expedionalllly or what ever.heheh
Remember you are talking to a old Whitewolf who learned to speak at P.I.
South Carolina-words like magget/Tird/Boot/house mouse-just rolled off the DI's tongue-
but expedionllllllllly -I dont think so--
stay  safe- WW (ELB)
Logged

Benjamin Liu

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 487
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2009, 09:12:02 PM »

From my reading of the article, the civilians were random college students, not people trained in firearms.  If this is the case, then it does not show how armed civilians would decide when to shoot or not.  Untrained and unarmed people who choose to shoot in a scenario would not necessarily choose to shoot in a real-life scenario.  They would probably not be armed so shooting would be difficult  :D and they would probably not know how to shoot.  Whether the guy with the gun is target shooting or shooting at you would be obvious from the context.  It is unlikely that someone would be target shooting in a grocery store parking lot, for example.

As for judging officer shootings, most people don't know the law in regards to the justified use of deadly force and get their information from TV and movies.  Interestingly, in most high-profile police shootings I've seen debated on the news, most were justified IMO judging from the information given in the media, the exact information the protesters were using. 

Years ago, there was a drugged-up punk in Phoenix who cut a bystander and charged  the police with a large butcher's knife, and they shot him.  This was after pepper spray failed to put him down.  The shooting was pretty clear-cut, a guy charges with a knife and they did what they needed to do to stop him.  People whined and said that he should have been shot in the leg or arm instead, that police needed to be more sensitive to minority "youth," and other issues that had nothing to do with stopping an immediate deadly threat.  I even had an argument with a friend who had not take any firearms classes and was ignorant on the justified use of deadly force.  His opinion was that I was brainwashed by the police and he brought up irrelevant issues regarding minority relations and "youths."

These people are not only a danger to police officers, but also to any private citizen who defends himself.  There was a case in Arizona where the moronic jurors decided that the defendant was "guilty" because he used hollow points.  I don't know if that was brought up in court, but on a news program an idiotic woman on the jury said something along the lines that the hollow points were what made her decide he was guilty.   
Logged

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2009, 06:54:33 AM »

Albeit this clip is primarily about the training of police officers, they do use untrained journalists to emphasis how difficult the decision making process is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7739869.stm

As regards training?  It has to be effective training.  Merely learning how to handle a weapon on a firing range is not enough but, as far as my understanding goes, many civilians limit their training to this level.
Logged

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2009, 12:30:15 PM »

Now, if they picked a well-rounded group of civilians that had some kind of firearms knowledge, those numbers would change.  College kids are basically a fraction group of young Americans, and don't represent the majority, so this study should clarify these results are specific to a group only.  Now what about your typical hunter family?  Probably would be different. 

And, lots of "simulated training" is available for younger generation Americans...video games, paint ball, airsoft.   Not to mention street knowledge and experience from survivors of gang activity or living and working in areas that are gang-infested.  You don't need a lot of training to pull a trigger, ask a 10y old "lil G" and he'll show you how he does it...with lethal results. 

It is the POs that need to make those split-decisions (shoot or not) on a regular basis, and they should be burdened with that requirement, after all they are using a firearm as a tool in their "job tool kit".  It's a job and although they do risk their lives (thanks guys!), it is very different from the civilian just reacting to an attack maybe only once in their lives.

The stances on protecting criminals makes my stomach turn, by B&E, assault, etc, they are committing felonies and waive their right to protection under the law, at least in my book.  And until you've been robbed, raped, kidnapped, assaulted, threatened-life you probably can't relate to that. Shoot the MFer if you feel your life is threatened.  And if they are in your house, it is pretty easy to argue that point...you and your family are under attack and the MFer deserves to die!

Best civilian policy...Shoot First, Ask Questions Later.  Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6....the criminal has a 40% chance of survival (knife only have 30% chance survival). 

my 0.02
Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2009, 05:05:18 PM »



Best civilian policy...Shoot First, Ask Questions Later.  Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6....the criminal has a 40% chance of survival (knife only have 30% chance survival). 

my 0.02

I hope they don't kill too many innocent people with this terrible advice.

Mind you, maybe some people are so paranoid they can just shoot each other?
Logged

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2009, 05:34:39 PM »

I don't know how this is hard to understand... justified in shooting armed, threatening perpetrators...it says nothing about "innocent people".  READ REPORT CAREFULLY.

And as for the "terrible advice"..... ::) :-\ :'(
Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2009, 07:12:56 AM »

Ridiculous.  This "better be judged by 12 than carried by 6" nonsense is appalling.  Isn't it better to be right?  Doesn't good and consistent training give you the best chance of making sound judgements?

The whole "if in doubt, shoot" tone of the argument is murderously stupid, and is as strong evidence as anything that there should not be an armed populace.
Logged

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2009, 01:46:39 PM »


In the situation described above where one is approached with an ARMED THREATENING PERPETRATOR, the use of lethal force is justifiable.  In this study, the majority of UNTRAINED citizens generally chose to shoot at armed threatening perp,  which by definition, they are taking the chance of being tried by 12 jury because they perceive an imminent threat.  Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6, means simply if your life is in danger, don't hesitate to save yourself as the law clearly allows you to do so.

In this study and any comments I've made about it, I've been very clear that the decision to use lethal force (in this study and case a firearm) brings responsibility.  I'd much rather have a jury decide if the perp was truly an imminent threat to life, then hesitate and get killed, then let the perp do whatever he wishes to my wife and family.  No Sir, that won't happen!  One dead perp, one ALIVE family.

It is the hesitation that allows the armed perp (who is usually armed with an illegaly purchased or stolen firearm) to fire first or disarm the innocent citizen and either kill or permanently maim, etc the innocent.  I am on the side of the innocent citizen, and so is the law in the US in many many cases. 

Now, it is better to be trained, of coarse!  But this study and topic is about UNTRAINED citizens, which make up the majority.  Am I trained, yes.  Would I be able to make a better split second decision on whether there was imminent threat as defined by the law, in comparison with an untrained citizen, possibly.  Do I know the laws in my state, yes.  Would I do the best I could to prevent a perp from continuing to pursue his criminal act with a firearm, whether that is just yelling and showing my firearm, firing a warning shot, or even lethal force, yes. 

In the US, self defense and lethal force laws are interpreted differently (slightly) in each state.  In the most stringent states, a self defense lethal force scenario includes three basic factors: distance to threat, unarmed vs armed, and immanent threat to life or life of another.  In other states with more leniency toward lethal force, a citizen is allowed to use lethal force to protect life and property. Most American lawyers can clearly describe the law and that is what my lawyer has told me in the past.  So, NO, it is not "nonsense" it is LAW, in fact, under Federal and state constitution, US citizens have the responsibility to use force and in some cases lethal force to preserve their own lives and lives of others. 

Our US courts handle these situations, the 90lb mother that shoots a rapist, the 75year old grandma that shoots armed robbers in her home, the 16 year old son who saves his father being stabbed to death, etc etc etc.  The option would be to stand back or ball up into the fetal position and doing nothing and allow a "murdering criminal" to complete his task.  And that is clearly NOT what the US laws state.  And as a US citizen, I will do my part to uphold that law and anyone who stands against the law or the US constitution is my enemy.  And...I'm not alone. >:(
Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2009, 02:03:47 PM »

Lastly, it never ceases to amaze me how the attention-getting, fear mongering anti-gun, pacifists are very quick to jump all over the innocent citizen that had an accident with a firearm, but totally ignore the untold successes the American firearm has played in saving innocent lives.  It is just too convenient to waive a finger at the accident story and declare all guns bad, but when asked how they feel about the more than 19,000 to 25,000 recorded lives saved in a given year by using firearms in the hands of citizens, they tumble and mumble about how guns are bad.  So then, saving American citizen lives is bad? 

And it is always interesting that studies are almost always set up and interpreted in such a way to bring a negative tone or irresponsible and ignorant behavior of innocent citizens. 

The bottom line?  People are afraid of armed criminals in all societies and that fear clouds their judgment, such that it can be manipulated by those in gvt who have other agendas to support disarmament.  This is an oxymoron, "you will be safer if you are disarmed".  Now that is nonsense!
 ;D
Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

Dawg

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 721
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2009, 02:14:22 PM »

And as a US citizen, I will do my part to uphold that law and anyone who stands against the law or the US constitution is my enemy.  And...I'm not alone. >:(

You are not alone...not by a long shot! ;)

Shoot the MFer if you feel your life is threatened. 

For what it's worth, I thought that was some pretty good advice.
What's the problem?
Logged
"Whether you're paranoid or not, they're coming for you."  - Dawg

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2009, 03:57:02 PM »

Here's an interesting question - which do you hold dearest.... the law, or your understanding of the 2nd Ammendment?

Logged

Dawg

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 721
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2009, 09:13:48 PM »

Wow! That's a tough question!  :-\
I do my best to be a law abiding citizen, so I would say that "the law" is dear to me, but I can also honestly say that not only is the second amendment dear to me, but that all of the amendments to the Bill of Rights, as well as the Constitution of the United States is dear to me as well. I also thought that laws couldn't contradict any of the amendments, but were used to enforce the intent of the amendments (I admit I could be wrong here!). I'm not meaning to be difficult, but I don't see how I could hold one more dear then the other. Without laws to enforce them, the amendments are just another bunch of written words. With laws, the Bill of Rights and its amendments offer the hope of justice to every citizen.
Can you offer a different analogy? Feel free to use the one you had in mind; I'd be interested to see where you're going with this.
Logged
"Whether you're paranoid or not, they're coming for you."  - Dawg

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2009, 10:46:43 AM »

Well, what can be best described as an aquaintance of a friend of mine is also into the law and the 2nd Ammendment.  Yet he breaks firearms laws.  For example, when entering premises were firearms are not allowed, he conceals them and takes them in any way.

He still wants to call himself law abiding though, which he clearly isn't.

Also, on another forum, I saw guys ranting about what they would do if the government passed too many firearms restrictions.  To them this would be an example of an unjust Government.... so they would rise up to defeat it.  The counter view, of course, is that they would be violent fanatics and murderers.

I have no axe to grind one way or the other.  But who are people here?  Are tey law abiding...... or do they only obey the laws that they like and excuse themselves the rest?
Logged

Benjamin Liu

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 487
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2009, 06:19:49 PM »

There is also the question of whether a law is Constitutional or not, by the intent of the Founding Fathers, not the "interpretation" of judges with an agenda.
Logged

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2009, 09:41:48 PM »

To my knowledge there are no contradictions in US laws and US Constitution, only restrictions to it. It is what it is, and no "law" can supersede the US Constitution, and if it does it is not aligned with the Constitution therefore it is "unconstitutional" and is always over-ruled by a challenging judgment. The argument of what to choose to follow "law or Constitution" is a mute question/point due to this fact.  You really have to understand the origin of the Bill of Rights and see how those rights are protected in order to understand the "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment. So, we now look to the authors of our US Constitution to understand how to "interpret" it....

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
         ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
  Co-Author of Declaration of Independence and US Constitution.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington First President of the United States

And as far as "a well-regulated militia"....

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin American Statesman


    "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."
George Mason from the Virginia convention


http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

So it is very clear what the intention of arming US citizens was for...not for "hunting", hell every establishment already depended on hunting.  Not hunting, security, that is security to protect not only their families but the very establishment of the US Constitution. 

Any other interpretation is just not aligned with the constitutional drafters and therefore is "unconstitutional".  Without the US Constitution, the US government ceases to exist...as a federal republic.  It may become something else, there is no guarantee it won't. 

But the very fact that over 200 million "registered" firearms are in private circulation, and over 20 million hunting licenses are issued on average every year, you can calculated that the US "militia" is about 20 to 50 million strong!  Now that is an army to be reckoned with...and those elements in the gvt that aim to disarm the population are faced with quite a task....Good luck trying to "disarm" every US city by force... :D
Hell one, ONE city (Baghdad) has taken all they can throw at it to "disarm" the militias and over seven years and mission still not accomplished. 

That is why the disarm 'em crew try to use lawyers and fear instead...but they don't succeed because of our patriotic watchdogs, like the NRA!  And about 50 or so other watchdogs.  Or...they could declare martial law and try it that way, but then we go back to the "Baghdad" scenario, and nobody wins in a civil war.

That's about all I have to say about this, good topic, interesting problem, its a chess game, check... 
Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

Karl

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #18 on: March 07, 2009, 03:35:18 AM »

Lets sum it up:

I will do what ever it takes to keep myself and my Family save.

I will do it in such a way that i don't end up in Prison, whilst homeboy and his friends come around to visit my family whilst i am inside.

Everything has to be Situational.

Just my 1 1/2 Cents as the Aussie Dollar is pretty low at the moment.
Logged

Professor

  • In your house drinking your coffee
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 1818
  • The Warlord
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2009, 04:32:27 PM »

Well, what can be best described as an aquaintance of a friend of mine is also into the law and the 2nd Ammendment.  Yet he breaks firearms laws.  For example, when entering premises were firearms are not allowed, he conceals them and takes them in any way.

He still wants to call himself law abiding though, which he clearly isn't.

Also, on another forum, I saw guys ranting about what they would do if the government passed too many firearms restrictions.  To them this would be an example of an unjust Government.... so they would rise up to defeat it.  The counter view, of course, is that they would be violent fanatics and murderers.

I have no axe to grind one way or the other.  But who are people here?  Are tey law abiding...... or do they only obey the laws that they like and excuse themselves the rest?


Go away troll.  You have no opinion on firearms and guns control.    Your friend is just another way to argue.   Post up your opinion trollboy.
Logged
  'Advanced' is being able to do the basics, despite what else is happening. 

Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!"  --- Chesty Puller, USMC

arnold

  • the king of cool
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 3183
  • oh that will get you killed
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #20 on: March 08, 2009, 05:54:10 AM »

Wolfie,
Here is the term in plain old jar head, exponentially would mean a shitload
I'm here for ya!
Logged
I leave you idiots alone for 5 minutes and I come back and you're all dancing around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots
you're all a bunch of slack jawed faggots around here, this stuff will make you a sexual tyrannosaurus, just like me!

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2009, 02:24:48 PM »

Thanks arnold! -  ;D

Looks like the poor Prof has yet another question he cannot answer...... He reverts to trolling and, of course, convinces himself that he is not the troll.

Prof - It is a serious question.  Once again you refuse to answer... because it is a little too hard for you... You've decided what you "want" to believe.  You cannt justify it.... so you pretend that it needs no justification.
Logged

arnold

  • the king of cool
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 3183
  • oh that will get you killed
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #22 on: March 08, 2009, 07:54:47 PM »

I believe in miracles... where you from you sexy thing, you sexy thing you ( put your mind back into the 70's, if you were around then
Logged
I leave you idiots alone for 5 minutes and I come back and you're all dancing around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots
you're all a bunch of slack jawed faggots around here, this stuff will make you a sexual tyrannosaurus, just like me!

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #23 on: March 08, 2009, 08:32:28 PM »

Here's another load to put in...

Civilian Concealed Carry Facts....

Presently, 40 out of 50 states have laws that allow “concealed carry” of firearms for self-defense, up from a mere six states in 1982. Passage of concealed carry laws was not accompanied by increases in gun violence, as projected by anti-gun organizations. In fact, we have enjoyed continued decreases in violent crime, especially where concealed carry is allowed.

According to those statistics, Arm us all to the teeth and pretty soon crime and tyranny will be just a distant memory!  Roll over and let me insert my GUN!  This one's for fighting and this one's for fun! ;D
Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

Benjamin Liu

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 487
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #24 on: March 09, 2009, 04:42:07 AM »

To my knowledge there are no contradictions in US laws and US Constitution, only restrictions to it. It is what it is, and no "law" can supersede the US Constitution, and if it does it is not aligned with the Constitution therefore it is "unconstitutional" and is always over-ruled by a challenging judgment. The argument of what to choose to follow "law or Constitution" is a mute question/point due to this fact.


That all assumes the courts are filled with judges who really want to follow the Constitution and not judges who have a political agenda.  That is a very big assumption.
Logged

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2009, 04:36:47 PM »


That all assumes the courts are filled with judges who really want to follow the Constitution and not judges who have a political agenda.  That is a very big assumption.

Yes and no, appeals courts are full of over-ruled cases, what one giveth the other taketh away.  But yeah, you can see that there always will be a legal battle over the Bill of Rights.  And the legislature...these shitbags that think we need to be micro-mangaged are usually old farts that need to be put out to pasture. 

And politics is run by money.  Who's behind the agendas?  Look at the pork barrel projects and the lobbyists, now at the exec lists, now there's your source of pain.  But, the "silent majority" is stewing, pressure building, calculating their next move, hopefully the political process will work like is supposed to...

Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2009, 05:13:55 PM »

I seriously doubt that you represent the silent majority.  Check the latest election result.
Logged

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2009, 12:11:41 AM »

Election platform was on three things: 1-economy, 2-Iraq war, 3-gvt accountability

Nowhere in the election did anyone use anti-gun platform, in fact Biden was quoted "nobody's going to take my guns". 

Get clued in...
Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2009, 04:32:39 AM »

But where is the proof you are part of the silent majority?  You sound desperate, hopping between whimpering about a "liberal media" and claiming the majority.

The media will reflect the majority, you dim wit.  They are in the process of selling papers after all.

Get clued in.
Logged

Benjamin Liu

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 487
Re: When civilians would shoot...
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2009, 09:04:52 AM »

But where is the proof you are part of the silent majority?  You sound desperate, hopping between whimpering about a "liberal media" and claiming the majority.

The media will reflect the majority, you dim wit.  They are in the process of selling papers after all.

Get clued in.

I'm not claiming to be in the majority, in fact I know I'm not since my leanings are more towards the Libertarian side than the typical conservative or the RINO sides.

Even so, assuming that the other poster is not in the majority because of the media is erroneous.  He might be, or he might not.  The media manipulates public opinion rather than reflect it, and if the go too far people will stop listening. 

That is what the thread on the media losing readers is about.  The thread isn't so much complaining that the media does not reflect the views of the majority, whatever those views are, but that the media is out of touch and people are buying their products less and less.  That thread does not contradict the views on this one.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
 

Download