KD in CA Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 It's like something you'd expect to read in The Onion: Bad guy trying to kill you? Just shoot him in the arm!
drnykterstein Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 It's like something you'd expect to read in The Onion: Bad guy trying to kill you? Just shoot him in the arm! The onion is far too intelligent for the likes of you. Anyways, while we're here.. why don't you post some of those statistics on how many officers were killed by guns in NY the last few years. I mean they must be getting killed in droves. You are such a smart chap.. lets have those numbers.
Chef Jim Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 The onion is far too intelligent for the likes of you. Anyways, while we're here.. why don't you post some of those statistics on how many officers were killed by guns in NY the last few years. I mean they must be getting killed in droves. You are such a smart chap.. lets have those numbers. Maybe they're not killed in droves because they're allowed to take the criminals out before they themselves get taken out. But anyway what number is acceptable to you?
kegtapr Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 Maybe they're not killed in droves because they're allowed to take the criminals out before they themselves get taken out. But anyway what number is acceptable to you? Lets just get it out of the way. 3.5
John Adams Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 The onion is far too intelligent for the likes of you. Anyways, while we're here.. why don't you post some of those statistics on how many officers were killed by guns in NY the last few years. I mean they must be getting killed in droves. You are such a smart chap.. lets have those numbers. When an officer pulls his gun--a rare occasion--and when they fire it--an even rarer occasion--they are doing so to stop a suspected dangerous criminal. They stop that person by aiming at the biggest part of the person they can see, ie, the torso. That's all the rule should be. When a cop fires his gun, his job should be to hit his target. That's it. "Aim for the arm or leg" is absurd.
KD in CA Posted May 26, 2010 Author Posted May 26, 2010 Maybe they're not killed in droves because they're allowed to take the criminals out before they themselves get taken out. But anyway what number is acceptable to you? Woah....careful using that fancy logic stuff. You don't want connertard to hurt himself. The onion is far too intelligent for the likes of you. Anyways, while we're here.. why don't you post some of those statistics on how many officers were killed by guns in NY the last few years. I mean they must be getting killed in droves. You are such a smart chap.. lets have those numbers. Still searching for Exxon's "real financials"?
drnykterstein Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 Still searching for Exxon's "real financials"? I knew a simple request of some numbers would be too complicated for you. Next time I'll stick to only asking you about colors of fruits and the sounds that farm animals make. What does the cow say?
DC Tom Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 I knew a simple request of some numbers would be too complicated for you. Next time I'll stick to only asking you about colors of fruits and the sounds than farm animals make. What does the cow say? You wouldn't have believed him anyway, nitwit.
KD in CA Posted May 26, 2010 Author Posted May 26, 2010 You wouldn't have believed him anyway, nitwit. Actually, I provided him with the numbers from the SEC database of public companies (that he didn't know existed -- lol) and as you correctly guessed, he didn't believe them. But Mother Jones should be taken at face value.
drnykterstein Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 Actually, I provided him with the numbers from the SEC database of public companies (that he didn't know existed -- lol) and as you correctly guessed, he didn't believe them. But Mother Jones should be taken at face value. Yes, you have proven to be such an impeccable source of information Here is a partial statement from the Exxon rep. The amount stated in our 10-K filing with the SEC, which Chris told me he based his story on, includes expenses or credits recorded during 2009, and can represent items from previous years or expectations for subsequent years. It is not our actual tax bill. Just accept now that you have mental deficiencies. You will be better in the long run for it. And where are those numbers on all those cops that died? There must have been hundreds of them.
Chef Jim Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 Yes, you have proven to be such an impeccable source of information Here is a partial statement from the Exxon rep. Just accept now that you have mental deficiencies. You will be better in the long run for it. And where are those numbers on all those cops that died? There must have been hundreds of them. How many dead cops are you cool with?
Adam Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 When an officer pulls his gun--a rare occasion--and when they fire it--an even rarer occasion--they are doing so to stop a suspected dangerous criminal. They stop that person by aiming at the biggest part of the person they can see, ie, the torso. That's all the rule should be. When a cop fires his gun, his job should be to hit his target. That's it. "Aim for the arm or leg" is absurd. I somewhat disagree- it should be at the cop's discression. If they think they can apprehend the criminal, then by all means. If they think that will put their own/others lives at risk, then do what you have to do. I am all for only shooting to kill if it is necessary, but sometimes it is.
Booster4324 Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 I somewhat disagree- it should be at the cop's discression. If they think they can apprehend the criminal, then by all means. If they think that will put their own/others lives at risk, then do what you have to do. I am all for only shooting to kill if it is necessary, but sometimes it is. Center mass is better. Far more likely to stop the subject and far less likely to hit someone in the background. Why not ask (not you Adam) the cops to shoot the weapons out of their hands?
John Adams Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 I somewhat disagree- it should be at the cop's discression. If they think they can apprehend the criminal, then by all means. If they think that will put their own/others lives at risk, then do what you have to do. I am all for only shooting to kill if it is necessary, but sometimes it is. That's fine. The point is that a pistol is not a really accurate thing to fire. When you fire it, you have to go into it believing that the target will die. You can't aim for a fricking arm or leg on a moving target. That's movie BS.
Booster4324 Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 That's fine. The point is that a pistol is not a really accurate thing to fire. When you fire it, you have to go into it believing that the target will die. You can't aim for a fricking arm or leg on a moving target. That's movie BS. If they stand perfectly still, it is easy. "Freeze, BLAM"
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Yes, you have proven to be such an impeccable source of information Here is a partial statement from the Exxon rep. That in no way conflicts with anything else anyone else said on the matter. You simply don't realize that because you're a dumbass. Eleven NYC police officers have been shot and killed in the line of duty in the past few years. That does not include the number that have been killed by means other than gunfire (e.g. stabbed or purposely hit by cars) - but then, you were oddly specific, as though you think that police should only defend themselves with like force.
Booster4324 Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 That in no way conflicts with anything else anyone else said on the matter. You simply don't realize that because you're a dumbass. Eleven NYC police officers have been shot and killed in the line of duty in the past few years. That does not include the number that have been killed by means other than gunfire (e.g. stabbed or purposely hit by cars) - but then, you were oddly specific, as though you think that police should only defend themselves with like force. That could be cool. I could see a new doctrine of force. Shoot a cop, you get shot, drive over a cop, they drive over you with a tank, they pull a knife, well they get shot. Sean Connery (Malone):Just like a Wop to bring a knife to a gunfight.
Wacka Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 I knew a simple request of some numbers would be too complicated for you. Next time I'll stick to only asking you about colors of fruits and the sounds that farm animals make. What does the cow say? Connor is a moran.
Bronc24 Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 I don't see how anyone can advocate for police using "minimal" force. I am all for equal rights, but if you commit a crime and pose a threat to an officer, you lose all rights, IMO.
Adam Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 That's fine. The point is that a pistol is not a really accurate thing to fire. When you fire it, you have to go into it believing that the target will die. You can't aim for a fricking arm or leg on a moving target. That's movie BS. What I was trying to say is that the cops usually have a split second to make a decision. Unless you later find that they are just plain nuts, leave the decision on where to shoot to them.
Recommended Posts