• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Question for the anti-gun crowd: Which of these things are true?

Which of these things do you think are true?

  • 'Assault weapon' and assault rifle are interchangeable terms

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 'Assault weapons' are necessarily inaccurate and only suitable for 'spray fire'

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    17
A specific case comes to mind where a police officer tried shooting a python in a tree... missed, and hit someone's kid in the head down the block.

Not so much as even a formal investigation brought against him to start with... it wasn't until people started rallying and complaining that they did anything to him.. and last I heard there was no official punishment.

When I said that anecdotal evidence was worse than no evidence, I was serious. The only thing worse than that is anecdotal evidence of a story that might have maybe happened one time.

Had to laugh when I saw this option. A trained competent stable policeman is a contradiction in terms.

Badge + gun == dangerous person not to be trusted.

This certainly sounds reasonable and measured.

Why would you imply anything but?

Because it's factually inaccurate?
 
Had to laugh when I saw this option. A trained competent stable policeman is a contradiction in terms.

Badge + gun == dangerous person not to be trusted.

That's a little harsh. There are lots of LEO's out there who truly believe in "to protect and serve" and do their best to live it.

OTOH, that is how most people view cops most of the time. Everybody knows it, cops know it too. I remember stopping at Hardees for a biscuit on the way home and seeing everyone looking at me out the corner of their eye.
"What's that cop doing in here?"
(well, he's hungry, and his wife's a terrible cook so he's getting himself a gravy biscuit.)
"Is he going to realize that I have ten unpaid parking tickets and arrest me?"
(He doesn't give a crap, he just got off a double shift and he is tired. He might do something if a mass murderer starts shooting folks, but he's going to ignore anything short of that 'cuz he's on his way home. )


But you know what? There's so many BS unreasonable laws these days, too many for anyone to keep track of, that it is not unreasonable for citizens to view the enforcers of those myriad non-sensical laws with suspicion. Heck, I do it now too. When I see a cop I wonder if he's going to bother me, since I know it is his business to stick his nose into things that might be illegal. Even if as far as I know I'm not doing anything unlawful, when even judges and lawyers have to have law libraries to figure out anything more complex than a parking ticket, what chance does Joe Citizen have of knowing how to stay on the "right" side of all those volumes of law?

[ame=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865]"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane[/ame]


G.
 
When I said that anecdotal evidence was worse than no evidence, I was serious. The only thing worse than that is anecdotal evidence of a story that might have maybe happened one time.



This certainly sounds reasonable and measured.



Because it's factually inaccurate?

The story happened, otherwise I wouldn't have said ****.


FOXNews.com - Oklahoma Police Kill 5-Year Old Boy While Shooting at Snake - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

If you ****ing googled and applied yourself you'd have turned it up on your first search.


IN regards to the actual story... Had I fired that shot, and killed someone's child.. I'd be ****ing sitting in jail right now... same with any other normal citizen who wasn't wearing a badge.

Does that mean I hate cops? Absolutely not, does that mean I think they get unfair advantages in situations they **** up? Yes.
 
The story happened, otherwise I wouldn't have said ****.

FOXNews.com - Oklahoma Police Kill 5-Year Old Boy While Shooting at Snake - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

If you ****ing googled and applied yourself you'd have turned it up on your first search.

It's my job to research your anecdotes? Who knew.

IN regards to the actual story... Had I fired that shot, and killed someone's child.. I'd be ****ing sitting in jail right now... same with any other normal citizen who wasn't wearing a badge.

Funny story about that - if you had actually bothered to do a bit more research on your story, you might have seen this:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/2008/Final/W_032908_A_20.pdf

A Cleveland County judge found two former Noble police officers guilty of second-degree manslaughter on Friday in the accidental shooting death of a 5- year-old boy, but he declined to rule immediately on a plea deal for the men. District Judge Tom Lucas said he will render a decision Monday morning on whether to accept the agreement between prosecutors and Robert Shawn Richardson, 30, and Paul Bradley Rogers, 34.

...

Under the plea agreement, Richardson and Rogers each would receive a two-year deferred prison sentence, meaning they likely would not have to spend any actual time behind bars. They also would pay a $500 fine and a $500 victims compensation assessment and surrender their police certification. Cleveland County First Assistant District Attorney David
Brockman said the proposed sentence is comparable to what prosecutors would offer in a negligent homicide case involving a vehicular accident. “If it’s an appropriate resolution for Joe Smith on the street,” he said, “it’s an appropriate resolution for these officers."


...

Family members said they believe that Rogers and Richardson are receiving special treatment because they were police officers. Brockman denied
that, telling the judge that charges were, in fact, filed in the case because the men were police officers.

You can disagree with the sentence all you want, but fact remains that even in your own example, the cops were charged criminally, pled to a crime, and were sentenced in line with what happens to average citizens. That kind of ruins your argument.

Does that mean I hate cops? Absolutely not, does that mean I think they get unfair advantages in situations they **** up? Yes.

So you're saying the Cleveland DA is a liar?
 
Last edited:
I have to wonder:
If "none of the above" has such a strong showing, why are each of these 'truths' (or a varianth thereof) so often seen posted by the anti-gun side?
 
I have to wonder:
If "none of the above" has such a strong showing, why are each of these 'truths' (or a varianth thereof) so often seen posted by the anti-gun side?

Because, like most propagandists, they'll tell any lie they can dream up to make their side seem "reasonable".
 
I voted for #5 and #8.

I'm not necessarily anti-gun, and I'm not entirely sure about voting for #5. I think it depends on what is considered a 'standard weapon.' For example, an M4 can do far more damage than a Glock right?

For #8, that's common sense, officers and specially trained for their jobs.

For the "M4" vs. "Glock"

You tell me.

This is the .223 round, otherwise known as the 5.56x45 NATO. The M4, or more commonly known as the AR-15 fires this round. Keep in mind that the actual bullet fired from the cartridge is not a whole lot bigger than a .22. The bullet is fired at roughly 3000 fps. The round is designed to forward tumble upon impact.
223ackleyx377.jpg


This, is the .357 Sig/Auto. It is shot out of almost any pistol that can fire the .40 caliber cartridge. There are many Glocks that fire this round. The bullet is slightly longer, and much wider than the .223/5.56x45 round. It fires the bullet at roughly 1,350 feet per second. This is still relatively fast (think you can outrun it? lol) yet it's slow enough and the bullet is heavy enough to transfer ALOT more energy than the .223 shown above. More energy transfer = more contact damage and overall more destruction.
400px-.357_SIG.jpg


Now, one of the weapons is small enough to be put in and pulled out of a pocket, the other is either a carbine or full size rifle.

You tell me which one "does more damage" ;)
 
Ummm....I'd have to disagree with you, at least in part.

I know lots of cops and lots of armed citizens. Many of the armed citizens I know have had more and better training than many of the cops.

When I was a county cop, we had four AD's (accidental discharges) in the locker room over three months. No one was injured. Most were attributed to racking the slide with the finger inside the trigger guard on a type of auto pistol with a light trigger. Now, that is just a newbie error... finger off the trigger until ready to fire is basic. Embarassing. At least they got the "pointed in a safe direction" part right. :doh Our Captain was not pleased.

The average cop does only that training that is required of him by the department. Many of the private armed citizens I know have sought out at least some advanced training with world-class instructors. Is this typical? I don't know, but its been my experience.

As for being more stable... naaaaaah, not really. Divorce is so common its practically a stereotype. Domestic abuse ditto, often covered up (seen that with my own eyes more than once.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not busting on cops; I used to be one and the majority are good folks. My point is they are like human beings in general; their character and quality comes in many degrees and flavors.

Your last sentence is dead-on correct. Private armed citizens use guns for self-defense, or defense of others. Cops do that but also have to use weapons for effecting arrests in many cases. Where citizens usually try to avoid trouble when they can, cops are obliged to seek it out and involve themselves, a different dynamic. Dynamic entry (usually SWAT) is a whole 'nuther thing too. Not to mention cops usually have backup present or on the way when the SHTF.


G.


The former chief firearms instructor for the city of cincinnati noted that if you took ten cops at random and put them up against ten people shooting at the local public indoor gun range in a contest that featured

1) pure marksmanship

2) knowledge of gun laws

3) shoot/noshoot scenarios

He'd bet on the non cops everytime
 
I especially disagree with the police officer one - I mean, it's not a one to one that they're crazier, but before vans serial killers liked either VW's or cop-looking cars - I mean, there's a certain type that likes authority that you don't want to have dating your sister. On that note also they do have elevated spousal abuse. And it's not like the ones in my locality know me from Cain, or don't some of them maybe wish they were special-forces commandos or something, or not have military-type weapons in the trunks of the cars, so if federal authorities ordered them against me Posse-Commitatus (yes I adhere to that interpretation of it) would be a moot point. And it's not like they intervene, or are not specifically absolved from having to do so if they don't like the setup, in crimes other than traffic violations, or that they're lawyers or don't know that you're probably not a lawyer.

I mean, I have friends who are cops, and I appreciate their work - just that law enforcement hovers between public service and instrument of authority, and might as such get undue latitude.
 
Because it's an opinion poll and utterly unscientific?

To be honest I think it has more to do with the fact that most "anti-gun" supporters have very little knowledge of firearms in general. This makes answering real questions about firearms and the use of such very hard for them to say the least.

PS So in the end they probably don't want to look stupid, who would?
 
Last edited:
The average cop is probably more of all those things than the average citizen, mostly due to the fact that they all go through extensive firearm training while the average citizen doesn't. There's also probably something to the fact that in situations where guns are being used, police officers have a different set of interests than do private citizens.

Cops using guns like to hear the loud bangs, citizens using guns in self defense to save their lives.

That must be what you're referring to.

When was the last time you heard of a group of citizens firing off 100 rounds or more and not hitting anything but occupied buildings? Can't recall one, but a couple years ago in Compton the LA County Sheriff's did exactly that, and arrested...no one.
 
To clarify, I was referring to the "average citizen" who probably doesn't have a gun at all or has only had the most minimal training. I don't doubt that there are many private citizens who are far more responsible with their weapons than many cops.

This is called "moving goal posts" in most circles.
 
Cleveland County First Assistant District Attorney David
Brockman said the proposed sentence is comparable to what prosecutors would offer in a negligent homicide case involving a vehicular accident. “If it’s an appropriate resolution for Joe Smith on the street,” he said, “it’s an appropriate resolution for these officers."

So you're saying the Cleveland DA is a liar?

And would Joe Smith on the street who shot a kid while missing snake been offered that option?

Why didn't the dip**** cop go get the shotgun out of the car? Let's put it this way...anyone with the most minimal of firearms training KNOWS the shot that kills a SNAKE is most likely going to go through the snake (I mean, how many people shoot down the full length of a snake, hmmmmm?) and that bullet is going to go somewhere.

Nope, the cops got off lightly, as usual.
 
I have to wonder:
If "none of the above" has such a strong showing, why are each of these 'truths' (or a varianth thereof) so often seen posted by the anti-gun side?

The Left relies so heavily on lies to make it's points that it can even begin to remember what truth looks like.
 
No, that doesnt really answer the question.

All right. You are asking why "none of the above" is a common answer to your poll, disagreeing with the other options. My response: people have different opinions and will express them. The existence of an opinion that disagrees with yours ("none of the above" in my case) and support for that opinion does not invalidate your own. I might well ask:

If "A cop is better trained, competent, has better judgment and is more stable than an ordinary citizen " has such a strong showing, why is "none of the above" so often seen posted by the pro-gun side?
 
If "A cop is better trained, competent, has better judgment and is more stable than an ordinary citizen " has such a strong showing, why is "none of the above" so often seen posted by the pro-gun side?

1) The people wanting to limit the freedom of people to choose to own guns have an unrealistic, overly idealistic view of the police, and a woeful ignorance of history.

2) The people believing the cops are more stable than the statistics indicate they are want to believe this because it buttresses their belief that their neighbors shouldn't be allowed to be free to own guns.

3) None of the above was selected by more cynical people recognizing the dangers inherent in limiting basic human freedoms.
 
Last edited:
All right. You are asking why "none of the above" is a common answer to your poll, disagreeing with the other options. My response: people have different opinions and will express them.
Actually no -- I am asking why, If "none of the above" has such a strong showing, are each of these 'truths' (or a varianth thereof) so often seen posted by the anti-gun side?

That is, if they are so obviously not true, why do they keep getting repeated?
 
The average cop is probably more of all those things than the average citizen, mostly due to the fact that they all go through extensive firearm training while the average citizen doesn't. There's also probably something to the fact that in situations where guns are being used, police officers have a different set of interests than do private citizens.




in nyc, police have a hit rate of 13%, the criminals 21%


I think the police have improved since. put this puts things in perspective.


Police don't train for the most part. They "qualify".
 
Last edited:
While both may share that interest, the cop is also interested in following standard police procedure in order to keep his job and ensure that should a shooting be necessary, it will comply with the rules and regulations of his job. These rules are not always in alignment with what a civilian might do.



Anecdotal evidence is worse than no evidence.





:lol: the safest place when being shot at by many police officers, is right in front of him. ;)




While as low as 13%, NYPD currently hovers around 30%. This is abysmal, though improved.




During 1999 in New York, only 13 percent of the bullets fired during police gunfights struck home

Where did all the bullets go?
 
Last edited:
Actually no -- I am asking why, If "none of the above" has such a strong showing, are each of these 'truths' (or a varianth thereof) so often seen posted by the anti-gun side?

That is, if they are so obviously not true, why do they keep getting repeated?

The Left follows the rules established by the Volkisher Beobachter. Lie, lie, and lie again, and eventually it becomes the truth.
 
Back
Top Bottom