The cop only fired one shot.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/maryl ... spartandhp
This can't possibly be true
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Re: This can't possibly be true
Obviously, that cop has no future in CA. First he did his job, secondly he actually hit what he was aiming at. Do a search on police shootings in SF. In the last month one featured over 90 shots fired by police with no hits. Another took 65 shots to end the issue but the perp was in the trunk of a compact car.
I am surprised SF doesn't issue hand grenades.
I am surprised SF doesn't issue hand grenades.
Re: This can't possibly be true
They probably couldn't throw one far enough to not kill themselves.Star7 wrote:I am surprised SF doesn't issue hand grenades.
I was gonna say 'throw like a girl', but that would be an insult to women.
Re: This can't possibly be true
I just got this email:
from Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent ..
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent .
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns .'
You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's too late!
from Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent ..
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent .
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns .'
You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's too late!
Re: This can't possibly be true
Rover, you have been suckered.
This email has been floating around the internet for a long time, and it was proven false back in 2002.
The guns banned after the 1997 buyback were primarily semi-automatics and pump-action weapons and ownership of those is allowed in some special cases.
The email is bogus.
Cheers from Aus.
This email has been floating around the internet for a long time, and it was proven false back in 2002.
The guns banned after the 1997 buyback were primarily semi-automatics and pump-action weapons and ownership of those is allowed in some special cases.
The email is bogus.
Cheers from Aus.
Re: This can't possibly be true
Just shows you can't believe what you find on the web. But, the whole Australian thing still strikes me as a really bad idea.
-
ShootWithStyle
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:49 am
-
SlartyBartFast
- Posts: 579
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:04 am
- Location: Montreal, Québec, Canada
Re: This can't possibly be true
As a Canadian gun owner, the only frustrating thing I see is the seemingly arbitrary classification of various rifles as prohibited then non-restricted then prohibited again or the reinterpretation of the legality of high capacity .22lr magazines that were legal for many years and then made illegal.
I'd like to see a position paper form the NFA or CSSA that addresses each point of law individually instead of being seen as against all gun laws.
- Smith & Wesson SW22 Victory
- FAS SP607
- FAS SP607
-
ShootingSight
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 9:37 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Contact:
Re: This can't possibly be true
What people overlook is that these discussions are not just about criminal activity.
There was a time when Australia was worried about invasion from Japan, and they did not have the weapons to defend themselves. England was afraid of invasion from Germany, and they did not have the weapons to defend themselves. It was the US who supplied weapons to both.
And lest people invoke the argument that armed civilians cannot stop an invasion, I would point out that Afghanistan got the Russians to give up, and have been holding the US at bay for 20 years.
There was a time when Australia was worried about invasion from Japan, and they did not have the weapons to defend themselves. England was afraid of invasion from Germany, and they did not have the weapons to defend themselves. It was the US who supplied weapons to both.
And lest people invoke the argument that armed civilians cannot stop an invasion, I would point out that Afghanistan got the Russians to give up, and have been holding the US at bay for 20 years.
-
SlartyBartFast
- Posts: 579
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:04 am
- Location: Montreal, Québec, Canada
Re: This can't possibly be true
The US supplied them with weapons too (and money and training). WTH does any of that have to do with how an officer responded to a shooting?ShootingSight wrote: I would point out that Afghanistan got the Russians to give up, and have been holding the US at bay for 20 years.
What's wrong is the discussion is never about what was done right or what can be improved. It's quickly a dogmatic recital of all the political talking points and mocking of differing positions.
- Smith & Wesson SW22 Victory
- FAS SP607
- FAS SP607
Re: This can't possibly be true
Well, update to the original post:
Turns out the kid shot HIMSELF in the head. The school cop hit him in the hand.
Oh well.
Turns out the kid shot HIMSELF in the head. The school cop hit him in the hand.
Oh well.
Re: This can't possibly be true
May I suggest you take Don Imus's advice? It will result in a much lower stress level.SlartyBartFast wrote:The US supplied them with weapons too (and money and training). WTH does any of that have to do with how an officer responded to a shooting?ShootingSight wrote: I would point out that Afghanistan got the Russians to give up, and have been holding the US at bay for 20 years.
What's wrong is the discussion is never about what was done right or what can be improved. It's quickly a dogmatic recital of all the political talking points and mocking of differing positions.
"Don't wrestle with a pig. You can't win, and the pig likes it."