PDA

View Full Version : 1000 yr agreement


BattleScout
09-18-2013, 12:12 AM
“How to Compromise without Stealing or Losing Principles”, should be a skill possessed and practiced by all. Unfortunately though, our educational, economic, and political systems have embraced a Machiavellian approach to negotiations. Our democratic republic is decomposing, because We the People are failing. Pressures of corruption, mis-information, distrust, and culture have led us so far away, it’ll take a miracle to right our path and retake what has been lost.

I know many on this forum will object to this post, but I’m only trying to present an idea for the purpose of discussion. Our elected representatives have proven that they represent their party before us, and are not willing to bring constructive effort to the deliberative process. I am a staunch supporter of the Constitution of the United States of America, and have made several oaths to that affect.

For consideration; All in possession of a legal carry firearm shall have non-lethal munitions loaded into a magazine, inserted into the carried firearm. Two additional magazines may be carried, loaded, without regard to lethality.

Who, in the United States, uses firearms to murder? I propose (excluding military):
1. gangs, cartels, syndicates, organized crime
2. genetically predisposed
2. local police, state trooper, federal agent
4. mentally defective
5. desperate minority
6. average citizen

teg33
09-18-2013, 12:23 AM
BattleScout, I think you had enough smoking weed. I don't know what are you talking about

BattleScout
09-18-2013, 12:42 AM
That's a shame... to post such, without a question.

epwegmann
09-18-2013, 12:52 AM
What the......



Aliens?

SonofWWIIDI
09-18-2013, 1:01 AM
Shane Harrison remembers clearly the day officers barged in and shot his roommate 16 times.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Unarmed-man-shot-16-times-files-20-million-suit-against-Dept-of-Corrections-214998791.html?m=y&smobile=y

Harlem man survives being shot 21 times by NYPD
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/harlem-man-survives-being-shot-21-times-nypd-155125248.html. (2010)

Last summer, 50 bullets were fired during a chaotic Harlem block party—and 46 were from police guns. One man, Luis Soto, died from a police bullet and another, Angel Alvarez, was shot at least 23 times, mostly from the police. Yesterday, a grand jury decided against bringing criminal charges against the police, but Alvarez is looking to sue the NYPD. His lawyer said, "It appears their mentality was: Shoot first and ask questions later."

(Same two instances above, just different hole counts.)

40 years for man shot more than 20 times in shootout with cops
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-05/news/chi-man-shot-by-police-several-times-sentenced-to-40-years-20120405_1_man-shot-howard-morgan-officers

It is possible that even Chaz Page doesn't know why he shot a Harrisburg woman six times at point-blank range during a petty argument in the city's Hall Manor housing complex.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/08/man_who_shot_harrisburg_woman.html

A 20-year-old Jackson man was shot multiple times in the torso, Jackson police Lt. Christopher Simpson said. He is being treated at the hospital for life-threatening injures.
http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2013/09/20-year-old_man_36-year-old_ma.html

I can go on. It seems that even "lethal" ammunition doesn't always mean lethal. So, if someone can live after being shot multiple time with presumably "lethal" ammunition, why would you want to use "non-lethal" ammunition.

BTW, I only have the articles a cursory examination to try and make sure they were not dupes of each other (save for the two that I indicated were about the same shooting), and I make no statement or forward no theory about the who/why/where or and bashing of any perp/victim/LEO's who may have been involved in the above quoted articles. I merely post them as examples of how even "lethal" ammunition does not always do it's job.

BattleScout
09-18-2013, 1:04 AM
Yes, aliens... We're talking about aliens. :conehead: Another brilliant contributor to the dis-cusion.

epwegmann
09-18-2013, 1:17 AM
Well, aliens make more sense than the original post. Maybe I''m missing something between the "1000yr agreement" and the use of "less than lethal" ammo.

What would one even hope to accomplish carrying that? You're average citizen is not a police officer or military. You are not constrained by the whole use of force continium; you are not trying to get a suspect to comply. If you have to pull your weapon it is for self defense, period.

And as a side note, under the list of people most likely to use a weapon for murder, shouldnt it just be one group: murderers? Food for thought.

-Erik

SonofWWIIDI
09-18-2013, 1:23 AM
Well, aliens make more sense than the original post. Maybe I''m missing something between the "1000yr agreement" and the use of "less than lethal" ammo.

What would one even hope to accomplish carrying that? You're average citizen is not a police officer or military. You are not constrained by the whole use of force continium; you are not trying to get a suspect to comply. If you have to pull your weapon it is for self defense, period.

And as a side note, under the list of people most likely to use a weapon for murder, shouldnt it just be one group: murderers? Food for thought.

-Erik

^^^This^^^

BattleScout
09-18-2013, 1:40 AM
epwegmann, really? Aliens may make more sense to you, but I find it difficult to accept officer/agent unjustified shootings rival that of the common criminals. Why would one carry a tazer or pepper spray, let alone a baton or flashlight for security? I would prefer a sidearm with one magazine of stunners and two lethal others, after the pause.

BattleScout
09-18-2013, 1:58 AM
SonofWWIIDI, the common criminal will lack discipline. They are cowards and will tend to raise their firearm above line of sight. Duck, squeeze, and run is their tactic when confronted with opposing force. The experienced are effective with non-lethal tactics, because they understand escalation of force. Hesitation of the aggressor is the advantage of the defender. Can't switch mags if you need to? Don't worry, there's training for that.

epwegmann
09-18-2013, 2:16 AM
epwegmann, really? Aliens may make more sense to you, but I find it difficult to accept officer/agent unjustified shootings rival that of the common criminals. Why would one carry a tazer or pepper spray, let alone a baton or flashlight for security? I would prefer a sidearm with one magazine of stunners and two lethal others, after the pause.

Police and military HAVE to carry that stuff, and it generally isn't by choice. Like I had stated, we have ROE and use of force continiums that dicate our response to a certain situation. The average person with a LTC doesnt have to walk around with Batman style gadget belt.

A further point worth mentioning is if you choose to shoot someone with your less than lethal ammo, you could be setting youself up for some sort of litigation. How much training have you had with these "less than lethals"? How are you qualified to know when and how to employ them? Was your purpose to just injure and maim instead of self defense? If you life was in a sitution to be threatened to the point require the use of firearm, why did you choose to use that kind of ammuntion? And if it didn't require the use of lethal ammuntion, why did it warrant the use of a firearm?

As for your whole officer/ agent and "regular criminal"; if a cop or federal agent shoots and kills someone in a situation that didn't warrant it, they stand to face the same penalties as someone that is just a "regular" criminal. A badge isn't some sort of magical shield; if anything it could bring more scrutiny than most.

SonofWWIIDI
09-18-2013, 2:34 AM
SonofWWIIDI, the common criminal will lack discipline. They are cowards and will tend to raise their firearm above line of sight. Duck, squeeze, and run is their tactic when confronted with opposing force. The experienced are effective with non-lethal tactics, because they understand escalation of force. Hesitation of the aggressor is the advantage of the defender. Can't switch mags if you need to? Don't worry, there's training for that.

While I agree with portions of the above quote:

Not all criminals lack discipline. Some actually have training too. In a do or die situation, which is the only reason for a non LEO to draw, why would anyone want to take the chance of having to unnecessarily switch from non lethal to lethal ammo. And the job of our LEO's (people with more training and experience in "escalation of force") is to bring criminals to justice. My own experience aside, my job is to defend myself/family from scumbags that intend to do me/us harm any way I can with as little effort as I can.

And, I'm sorry, but most average people don't have experience with "non-lethal" force, advanced self defence techniques or "escalation of force" training. No amount of training can guarantee that you would have time, wherewithal, or dexterity to change a mag fast enough to stop a charging scumbag. AND, unless you have been in a situation like that before, you cannot say for certain how you would react.

If "non lethal" force is your suggestion, why not just carry pepper spray or a tazer? Because carrying all three or a combination of all three would be cumbersome for non LEO's.

BattleScout
09-18-2013, 2:36 AM
Police and military HAVE to carry that stuff, and it generally isn't by choice. Like I had stated, we have ROE and use of force continiums that dicate our response to a certain situation. The average person with a LTC doesnt have to walk around with Batman style gadget belt.

A further point worth mentioning is if you choose to shoot someone with your less than lethal ammo, you could be setting youself up for some sort of litigation. How much training have you had with these "less than lethals"? How are you qualified to know when and how to employ them? Was your purpose to just injure and maim instead of self defense? If you life was in a sitution to be threatened to the point require the use of firearm, why did you choose to use that kind of ammuntion? And if it didn't require the use of lethal ammuntion, why did it warrant the use of a firearm?

As for your whole officer/ agent and "regular criminal"; if a cop or federal agent shoots and kills someone in a situation that didn't warrant it, they stand to face the same penalties as someone that is just a "regular" criminal. A badge isn't some sort of magical shield; if anything it could bring more scrutiny than most.

It's a shame our law enforcement is trusted less than our legislators. Get a clue, its the law breakers and enforcers that should be less than lethal. LEOs have been absolved of protecting the citizens, and are increasingly used for revenue generation. Many of us law abiding citizens are unable to carry, but with less than lethal maybe, there's a hope. Self preservation is a Constitutional guarantee. And yes LEOs receive protection from prosecution, to an extent greater than you wish to admit.

Bustercat
09-18-2013, 4:17 AM
the reason there's no compromise... even on things we all pretty much agree on (violent felons or crazies shouldn't have access to guns, etc.)...
Is that gun control is driven by an emotional moral reaction, not a set of rational ideas. There are no achievable end goals to it. How many gun deaths is an "acceptable" number? 2000? 10? 1?
Because of that they will never stop coming back, and because of the "do something" attitude they will take away as much as they can from as many different places as they can, hoping "something" will work.

Give an inch willingly today, they will be back for more later till they have the whole mile.

teg33
09-18-2013, 5:20 AM
That's a shame... to post such, without a question.

My apology, your post title made me confused. Lol

teg33
09-18-2013, 5:34 AM
I think firearm can only be use as the last resort and if you utilize less lethal ammo, it will put yourself into harm way.

FXR
09-18-2013, 4:16 PM
1. What are stunners and where can I buy them?
2. Which of the following groups will use stunners in the manner you suggest?


1. gangs, cartels, syndicates, organized crime
2. genetically predisposed
2. local police, state trooper, federal agent
4. mentally defective
5. desperate minority
6. average citizen

3. 3 goes between 2 and 4.
4. You don't make a convincing argument with phrases like 4 and 5.
5. Why on earth would you want more restrictions on carrying a firearm for self defense, when this state has so many restrictions already?