Harris-led office, ATF stonewalling probe into 'collusion' with anti-gun group lawsuit: House Oversight chair

[JosephZ]

Neither are firearms. They're designed for target practice.

Guns can be used for target practice, and some more than others are designed for better accuracy for this purpose, but they are still deadly weapons designed to inflict bodily harm or to kill.

Fact of the matter is that anything can be used as a weapon, if the intent is to use it as a weapon.

This is true, but a firearm is specifically designed to be a deadly weapon. This is why they are regulated and other items that can be used as a weapon are not.

I've never been to a gun show where there were guns for sale from anyone but a FFL holder; and every time that I've purchased from them I've had to submit to a NICS check as required by law.

There's a flea market in my town, and on any given weekend there will be one or more individuals selling guns. I can go there this coming Saturday and walk away with a gun with no questions asked and no background check if I want to. A few sellers may ask if I live in North Carolina, but that would be it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Do we know what stolen firearms are? When we figure that out; maybe we can figure out what any of this has to do with gun manufacturers.

What are you talking about? Your second post was about restricting private gun sales. That’s why we’re all making comments about it.

 

[HARK!]

What are you talking about? Your second post was about restricting private gun sales. That’s why we’re all making comments about it.

My bad. I had forgotten how draconian this administration's assaults are on our fundamental rights. Thank for reminding me.

 

[HARK!]

Guns can be used for target practice, and some more than others are designed for better accuracy for this purpose, but they are still deadly weapons designed to inflict bodily harm or to kill.

So Police carry guns deigned to kill us; and the executive branch want to disarm us? Is that what you are saying?

I was under the impression that we, including the police, were armed for protection, not killing.

 

[JosephZ]

So Police carry guns deigned to kill us; and the executive branch want to disarm us? Is that what you are saying?

I'm not aware of any legislative proposals put forth to disarm americans or anyone in the congress or senate wanting to do this.

I was under the impression that we, including the police, were armed for protection, not killing.

Police officers are trained to shoot to kill to protect themselves or others from harm if necesary. I would advise that if someone comes into your home with the intent to harm you or your family and you have a firearm in your house for protection, that you also shoot to kill.

 

[Pommer]

Neither are firearms. They're designed for target practice. Fact of the matter is that anything can be used as a weapon, if the intent is to use it as a weapon.

A frying pan isn’t designed to hurl a slug of metal 1,350ft/s but could still be used as a “weapon”, yes.
Agreed.

 

[HARK!]

A frying pan isn’t designed to hurl a slug of metal 1,350ft/s but could still be used as a “weapon”, yes.
Agreed.

And just as deadly.

 

[HARK!]

Police officers are trained to shoot to kill to protect themselves or others from harm if necesary. I would advise that if someone comes into your home with the intent to harm you or your family and you have a firearm in your house for protection, that you also shoot to kill.

Police do not shoot to kill; and I wouldn't recommend that anyone to take that approach to defending themselves.

I am not a lawyer; and this is not legal advice.

 

[JosephZ]

Police do not shoot to kill; and I wouldn't recommend that anyone to take that approach to defending themselves.

Police are trained to neutralize the threat by shooting center mass with multiple shots. They are not shooting to wound.

 

[Pommer]

And just as deadly.

It’d take a bit more time to kill 26 people with a strong, cast-iron frying pan, than the ~4’ it took Adam Lanza, I’d guess.

 

[HARK!]

It’d take a bit more time to kill 26 people with a strong, cast-iron frying pan, than the ~4’ it took Adam Lanza, I’d guess.

So we're back to pressure cookers?

 

[HARK!]

Police are trained to neutralize the threat by shooting center mass with multiple shots. They are not shooting to wound.

They are not trained to shoot multiple rounds. They are trained to stop the threat, not wound, not kill.

In some States it is a serious crime to intentionally wound someone with a firearm.

 

[Pommer]

So we're back to pressure cookers?

Apparently.
How many pressure-cooker related deaths do we think that there are each year?

I’d venture a guess of ~52/yr, (all causes).

 

[HARK!]

Apparently.
How many pressure-cooker related deaths do we think that there are each year?

I’d venture a guess of ~52/yr, (all causes).

Far fewer than there are with blunt objects.

Moving the goalposts yet again?

 

[Pommer]

Far fewer than there are with blunt objects.

Moving the goalposts yet again?

Just shooting-the-breeze, friend.

 

[JosephZ]

They are not trained to shoot multiple rounds. They are trained to stop the threat, not wound, not kill.

They are indeed trained to fire multiple rounds, and they are hoping to hit vital organs in the process. It's called the use of deadly force for a reason. The legal definition of "deadly force" is any force that is likely or intended to cause serious bodily injury or death.

I was a corrections officer for a while in the early 2000s, and during training we were taught to fire center mass and continue firing until the assailant is down and incapacitated. Firing once isn't an option when your life is in danger.



THE ONLY RELIABLE WAY TO STOP THE AGGRESSION OF A FEARLESS ASSAILANT IS TO DISRUPT HIS VITAL BODY STRUCTURES. This fact has proven itself both on the military and urban battlefields.

• THE HEART, MAJOR BLOOD VESSELS, AND UPPER PART OF THE SPINE ARE THE VITAL STRUCTURES OF THE TORSO. These can be over ten inches deep from some angles in some people.

• BULLET HITS IN THE TORSO CANNOT BE COUNTED UPON TO CAUSE A PERSON TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE HIS ACTIONS. Even a total cessation of blood flow to the brain can allow 10 seconds of purposeful action - more than enough time to empty a whole magazine. The false expectation that a bullet striking a vital part of the body will cause immediate incapacitation is a common and dangerous misconception. "Immediate incapacitation is a common and dangerous misconception."

• LUCK IS A FACTOR THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED: SOMETIMES AN APPARENTLY WELLPLACED BULLET WILL JUST MISS EVERY IMPORTANT STRUCTURE YOU THINK IT SHOULD CAUSE A PERSON TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE HIS ACTIONS. Just below the heart, for example, it is possible for a bullet to pass between the aorta and the vena cava without hitting either of these large blood vessels. Several well-placed hits is the only way to get around the luck problem. When you are in a gunfight and know that you have just put two or three bullets into the center of the chest of the bad guy what should you expect? Any expectation other than that he will keep shooting back at you can get you killed. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst

No well-trained officer is going to shoot once and then stand there and wait to see if his adversary is going to stop shooting back at him. Instead, the intelligent officer will put several shots in the center of the torso of his adversary.

https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1992-Vol1No3.pdf

 

[HARK!]

They are indeed trained to fire multiple rounds, and they are hoping to hit vital organs in the process.

Wrong. They are trained to stop the threat. I took classes on this subject. They shoot for center mass because they are more likely to hit the target, and that is where the transference of stopping power has the greatest effect, not to aim for vital organs. Police do not carry firearms to kill. They carry them for protection.

I was a corrections officer for a while in the early 2000s, and during training we were taught to fire center mass and continue firing until the assailant is down and incapacitated. Firing once isn't an option when your life is in danger.

I have taken extensive classes on this subject, with law enforcement and several attorneys.

What you just described is stopping; and there are legal consequences to continue firing once the threat is stopped. If the threat is stopped with a single shot; then a single shot is sufficient.

https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1992-Vol1No3.pdf

Medical Doctors are neither LEOs nor attorneys.

 

[JosephZ]

Wrong. They are trained to stop the threat. I took classes on this subject. They shoot for center mass because they are more likely to hit the target, and that is where the transference of stopping power has the greatest effect, not to aim for vital organs

Simply hitting the target isn't enough. When you aim center mass, you are literally aiming for the assailant's heart, lungs, and aorta. You are not hoping to wound the assailant; you are hoping to render him incapacitated as quickly as possible, and this is done by hitting vital organs. If you are firing at an assailant and missing vital organs, they will likely remain a threat until you do.

What you just described is stopping; and there are legal consequences to continue firing once the threat is stopped. If the threat is stopped with a single shot; then a single shot is sufficient.

What are you going to do—fire a single shot and assess the situation? That's a good way to get killed. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you are justified to fire a gun once at an assailant, then you are justified to continue shooting until that assailant is down and incapacitated, even if that means you fire until you run out of rounds.

Medical Doctors are neither LEOs nor attorneys.

The purpose of including excerpts from that publication was to show why law enforcement officers are trained to fire multiple rounds at center mass when confronting an assailant and the dangers of not doing so.