• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Police Station shooting - we need to arm COPS!

Incidents like this are unfortunately not infrequent, and are usually due to poor prisoner search and handling procedures.
There have been cases recently where handcuffed individuals, improperly searched, had produced concealed firearms and either shot arresting officers or themselves.
In one video we were shown for training purposes, a non-resisting drunk was left alone in the booking cell for a few minutes... The video shows him producing a full-sized .45 automatic from the small of his back and shooting himself....

We disarm before handling any prisoner at the station, putting our handguns in locked boxes, and search the prisoner thoroughly before starting any booking procedure. This is what's supposed to be done...
Coppers get lazy, the subject is apparently cooperative, or extremely filthy....shortcuts are taken and tragedies occur.
 
Bikewer said:
In one video we were shown for training purposes, a non-resisting drunk was left alone in the booking cell for a few minutes... The video shows him producing a full-sized .45 automatic from the small of his back and shooting himself....
Click to expand...

That's a narly video. It's weird how he kinda shruggs about it, like he's made an OK decision, and then blamo. People are weird.

Also, OP, I don't think the idea is to prevent shootings entirely, but to mitigate their damage.
 
If only a good, God-fearing, NRA card-carrying citizen with a CCW had been there.



:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
There are loads of different scenarios possible from the descriptive given in the link. For all we know a card carrying member of the NRA could have walked into the police station and started shooting at cops, who returned fire and killed him, or her. I think we should wait for more details.
 
Man, the anti-gun nuts love attacking strawmen.

Has anyone ever claimed that being armed makes you immune from being attacked and killed?

But hey, if straw is all you have build away.
 
DavidJames said:
The fact that you didn't provide a quote in your claim of strawman is very telling.
Click to expand...
What do you think the title of this thread means, if not an attack on a strawman?

Likewise the arming teachers and firemen threads, and I'm sure you can find the anti-gun nuts sarcastically saying the 5 and 6 year olds in that school all need to be armed too.

All attacking an argument no one has made.

No one has claimed that being armed makes you immune from attack, it just makes it more likely you can defend yourself if you are.
 
WildCat said:
....

No one has claimed that being armed makes you immune from attack, it just makes it more likely you can defend yourself if you are.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So there is no deterrence in carrying a firearm?
 
WildCat said:
What do you think the title of this thread means, if not an attack on a strawman?

Likewise the arming teachers and firemen threads, and I'm sure you can find the anti-gun nuts sarcastically saying the 5 and 6 year olds in that school all need to be armed too.

All attacking an argument no one has made.

No one has claimed that being armed makes you immune from attack, it just makes it more likely you can defend yourself if you are.
Click to expand...


Here. Lemme help you.


------> The point.

















------>Your head.




:rolleyes:
 
WildCat said:
What do you think the title of this thread means, if not an attack on a strawman?

Likewise the arming teachers and firemen threads, and I'm sure you can find the anti-gun nuts sarcastically saying the 5 and 6 year olds in that school all need to be armed too.

All attacking an argument no one has made.

No one has claimed that being armed makes you immune from attack, it just makes it more likely you can defend yourself if you are.
Click to expand...

In which case we should be able to agree to legislate to the probabilities, which are quantifiable. If having a gun makes you sixty percent more likely to successfully defend yourself, let's keep them. If having a gun makes you one half percent more likely to successfully defend yourself, then the benefits do not outweigh the risks.

Personally, I have no one objections to the second amendment as it is now. But I think if people want to revisit it, which they clearly do, it should be assessed rationally and using data, no matter which direction the data points.
 
Nessie said:
Interesting. So there is no deterrence in carrying a firearm?
Click to expand...
How does "doesn't make you immune from attack" equal "no deterrence"?

Are you capable af arguing against what people actually write, or just strawmen of your own construction?
 
TragicMonkey said:
In which case we should be able to agree to legislate to the probabilities, which are quantifiable. If having a gun makes you sixty percent more likely to successfully defend yourself, let's keep them. If having a gun makes you one half percent more likely to successfully defend yourself, then the benefits do not outweigh the risks..
Click to expand...
Why doesn't even that small chance outweigh the risk? You haven't even defined the risk, let alone quantified it.
 
Nessie said:
Interesting. So there is no deterrence in carrying a firearm?
Click to expand...

Where exactly in Wildcat's post did he say there is no deterrence? An armed person may or may not deter someone from committing a crime. I firmly believe I'm less likely to be a victim of a home invasion because so many people here keep guns in there home. That doesn't mean it never happens. Most "bad guys" are deterred from pulling a weapon on a group of armed police, because that's pretty close a to a death sentence. It doesn't mean it never ever happens.

What if no one in the police station was armed? Do you really think there would have been just 3 injured cops and zero dead? PART of the reason for keeping armed security at schools is to minimize the number of victims in case of a shooting. There is a chance that if someone at Sandy Hook had been armed there would have been fewer victims. I haven't seen anyone say that would be 100%.
 
WildCat said:
How does "doesn't make you immune from attack" equal "no deterrence"?

Are you capable af arguing against what people actually write, or just strawmen of your own construction?
Click to expand...

So when you said this " it just makes it more likely you can defend yourself if you are." as a qualifier you were not meaning to suggest no deterrence?

How much of a deterrence is having a gun?
 
lobosrul said:
Where exactly in Wildcat's post did he say there is no deterrence? An armed person may or may not deter someone from committing a crime. I firmly believe I'm less likely to be a victim of a home invasion because so many people here keep guns in there home. That doesn't mean it never happens. Most "bad guys" are deterred from pulling a weapon on a group of armed police, because that's pretty close a to a death sentence. It doesn't mean it never ever happens.
Click to expand...

The question mark at the end of the sentence makes it clear, well should make it clear I am looking for clarification, especially since there was a qualifying statement immediately after.

Have you evidence to show you are safer with a gun at home?

What if no one in the police station was armed? Do you really think there would have been just 3 injured cops and zero dead? PART of the reason for keeping armed security at schools is to minimize the number of victims in case of a shooting. There is a chance that if someone at Sandy Hook had been armed there would have been fewer victims. I haven't seen anyone say that would be 100%.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. US cops have not got the best hit rate. That is not a criticism, just an observation understanding how a shoot out is different from targets.

http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/9/3/303.abstract
 
WildCat said:
Why doesn't even that small chance outweigh the risk? You haven't even defined the risk, let alone quantified it.
Click to expand...

Then that is a matter for discussion. One that could lead to actual productive conclusions, unlike both sides of this debate when they insist on arguing principles. But it will never happen. Neither side is willing to agree to abide by the data then look at it because they each want to win. On principle. That's why you get people for whom no ocean of blood is wide enough to justify gun control, and others for whom the remotest possibility of an accident once in a hundred years is too much to permit gun ownership. Nobody cares what the actual risks are, except the people who are neutral on the subject. And We're neutral precisely because we don't care, so we don't participate in this increasingly stupid fight.

It's actually kind of funny, in a horribly morbid way.
 
Nessie said:
There are loads of different scenarios possible from the descriptive given in the link. For all we know a card carrying member of the NRA could have walked into the police station and started shooting at cops, who returned fire and killed him, or her. I think we should wait for more details.
Click to expand...

But that was not what happened, or, your statement is no longer operative.

It was an arrestee, who grabbed a highly trained police weapon.
 
Nessie said:
The question mark at the end of the sentence makes it clear, well should make it clear I am looking for clarification, especially since there was a qualifying statement immediately after.

Have you evidence to show you are safer with a gun at home?
Click to expand...

I never said that I keep a gun in my home. I said that so many people in my are do, it becomes a deterrent. I don't think I need any evidence to say that the very real possibility of being shot dead, makes most people reconsider their actions.

I have no idea. US cops have not got the best hit rate. That is not a criticism, just an observation understanding how a shoot out is different from targets.

http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/9/3/303.abstract
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, there have been some cases where police have fired indiscriminately with little regard of what they're aiming at. What does that have to do with the current topic?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom