Question for gun controllers:

Following such logic, most law enforcement officers should never be issued a firearm. Their level of incompetence is astounding.

 

It is fact. If the firearm-related restrictions on fully-automatic firearms were rooted in the concept of public safety, they would have been prohibited outright, rather than merely being subject to taxation for legal ownership.

It is no different than how the government treats tobacco products.

Such devices are not relevant to the discussion, as such devices and their payloads are not firearms or ammunition.

 

Really? And the stats supporting your contention are what exactly? Failing that just outline your personal experience as an expert on shooting under stress.

 

Have to say that 1 hit in 8 (presumably anywhere on the target) at close ranges at least is WAY to low a bench mark. With enough time and practice you could probably train a chimp to do better. If you are talking hand guns the 50% hit rate on a man sized target at say 4 meters un-timed would probably be more reasonable. With long arms you could push the range out a few more meters.

I would also argue for a higher standard if you are applying for a 'carry' license as opposed to a sporting/hunting license.

 

Incidents such as this account:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nypd-84-shots-brooklyn_n_55ec4b31e4b093be51bbb978

An attempted murder suspect who fired at New York police was apprehended only after police engaged him in a gun fight, firing a barrage of bullets.


Of the 84 total shots cops fired, one struck the suspect.

As well as articles such as the following:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...e-7-10-police-bullets-miss-their-mark-gun-co/

https://www.forcescience.org/2018/11/new-study-on-shooting-accuracy-how-does-your-agency-stack-up/

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/

The simple truth is the law enforcement officers in the united states are not highly trained professionals when it comes to the matter of firearms.

 

Define firearms! And by the way Where does the second say firearms?

 

You have a reading comprehension issue. They should get eight shots.

 

Taggants do nothing to stop gun-related violence, as they only come into play -after- the round is expended.

 

The OP didn’t reference any legislation. Care to post what you are talking about.

 

Duh, change the laws!

 

Tragedies? Sure.
Worthy of infringing on the rights of people that had nothing to do with them? Nope.
Every year, 2-3 'assault weapons are used to kill about 10 people in a mass shooting - how does this rationally and reasonably support a ban on said weapons?

You said "standard" mags, which I presume was in contrast to "high capacity" mags. I asked how many rounds are "standard".

You missed my subtle point. Assault rifles, legally, are machine guns, cost tens of thousands of dollars, and no legal assault rifles has ever been used in a crime.
Beyond that:
A subjective demonstration of "essential" isn't part of the equation.
And, for the record... AR platform rifles are widely and effectively used for both target shooting and game hunting.

None of this negates what I said. AR-platform weapons are well-suited for every traditionally legal use for a firearm, including home-defense; their modularity allows them to be configured for efficacy in virtually every purpose a person might have for a gun.

You make the mistake of thinking that because there may be a perfect firearm for (x) purpose, firearms that are less effective at (x) purpose are superfluous and thus the right to own them may be infringed. Doesn't work that way.
.

 

Thanks for the stats. BTW news reports of some of the more egregious examples of poor marksman don't really count. Now for my responses - which are based purely on my limited personal experience. As such they are only personal opinions and someone with a difference experience set is entirely justified in reaching a different set of conclusions.

Firstly and quoting the research you provided a 30 to 50% hit rate in is IMO entirely acceptable under the potentially life threatening circumstances. This is because;

1) Shooting under stress in a universe away from range practice.
2) Real world shootings are not static events like target shooting and are not conducted in controlled environments like tactical range shoots are. You literally have NO control over events other than the all critical shoot/don't shoot decision.
3) You are not simply trying to 'hit a target', you are also trying to make tactical decisions about fire and movement while also maintaining situational awareness and communications.
4) Your average LEO gets at best 1 to 2, mandatory range days a year. Anything else has to be done on his or her own time. This is because the other days of the working they are fully engaged in their normal duties. To be clear they are not trained to the level of special forces operators because of the sheer cost involved. No PD in the country (and their taxpayers) could afford the training regime required to become that good. The two training regimes are mirror opposites.
5) For the average shooter handguns are inherently less accurate than long arms by virtue of the ergonomics involved.

Secondly as someone who has undergone active shooter training I know from experience how adrenaline and tunnel vision effect your accuracy. My accuracy levels went way down and at one point I was 'shot' by another officer simply because he didn't hear me identify myself even though observers watching the exercise did hear me quite clearly. (Our two teams were both under 'fire' from a training officer at the time).

Lastly none of the above is meant to excuse individual examples of poor Police marksmanship or fire discipline. Such incidents need to be addressed by a review of individual officer performance and the training regime of the Department involved. That said 100 examples of bad marksmanship shouldn't outweigh 1000 good examples.

If you have never been in such a situation I can't really explain it. These few lines do the issue no justice. If you ever get the opportunity enroll in an active shooter course (being the US I assume there are lots of privately run ones available).

 

I am fully aware this was the case. FYI I was also aware of the different legal status of auto vs semi auto long arms in the US and the fact that the civilian versions sold there are semi's - I just didn't consider the distinction particularly relevant to the discussion. My point was that we engage in both sports over here with a high degree of success without access to auto/semi-auto long arms. The world did not end with their removal.

True but that still leaves the issue of over penetration in suburban environments and the fact that other weapon systems like a well configured pistol can do the job with equal effectiveness.

Then we arrive at a point where we are just debating the utility of 'superfluous vs essential'.

 

Ok. And?

A properly configured AR has no more issue with over penetration than a handgun or shotgun, and is superior to both in all aspects, save for the single-round crushing power of 12g buckshot.

With your "essential" distinction holding no water - over here, our right includes - all- weapons suitable for a particular purpose, not just a few.

 

And .. so we come we are back to can vs must. I can if I choose to engage in all the activities referred to i.e hunting, target shooting or (god forbid) home defense without reliance or real need for an assault rifle.

You can certainly argue that case. I could also argue that in confined spaces (hallways and such) a pistol might have greater utility.

Which is the nub of the matter, the conflating of right and need. Your right to own a particular class of weapon has no bearing on the question of whether or not you actually need to own it. You want to raise arguments as to why you choose to own such weapons, fine do so. That has no bearing however on whether or not you actually need to - given other weapons can for-full the same functions.

For example lets assume that at some point in the future a plebiscite leads to the 2nd amendment being amended. As a result your right to own assault rifles is removed. Assuming all the other options discussed remain on the table this change would not prevent you from satisfying your apparent need for self defense options.The right might be removed - the ability to for-fill the need is not.

 

I agree. But it wasnt my suggestion.

 

Where do you draw the line? Suppose you're asked to support a gun control bill, and it includes all the laws you think are reasonable and sensible. But it goes farther than that. How far is too far? Which policies, if included, will cause you to say, 'I can't support this'?

 

As I noted in my first post were I in the US my primary concerns would be around secure storage and appropriate levels of training rather than outright bans. By licensing I mean a graduated scheme from 'Learner" to fully qualified to open carry for instance. I'd also want comprehensive background checks. Depending on how complex a task it would be I'd link weapons to licenses (maybe).

I have no real beef with firearm ownership per se (other than assault rifles - perhaps). But who as far as magazines go who needs a 100 drum mag for their Glock, I mean really?

I'd also let Clubs and organizations like the NRA plan out and operate the training courses not local PDs. They already have enough on their plates and as long as the courses are independently audited they would be a good revenue stream for the sport.

There's a lot of room for give and take in the list BTW. Basically I'd want the biggest safety bang (in terms of reduced casualties) for the least amount of bucks. So I want a hell of a lot of planning & number crunching before I signed off on the deal. That way you could see what works and what doesn't. And if it doesn't work repeal it.

 

Remind me never to break into your home.

 

Nice. Where do YOU draw the line?

 

Way before we catch up with you aussies.

 

So.....where exactly do you draw the line? This is, after all, your Thread.

 

I don't have a need to exercise -any- right in any particular way - but I have the right to.
I have the right to own and used whatever firearms is suitable for whatever legal purpose I might have; the fact that some firearms are more or less suitable than others means nothing.

The same can be said for the exercise of any number of rights -
- You don't need to use an AR15 for hunting, but you have the right to.
- You don't need to go to church three times a week, but you have the right to.
- You don't need to fly your flag every day, but you have the right to
- You don't need to vote in every election, but you have the right to.
- You don't need to abort every pregnancy, but you have the right to.
I'm not sure why you think there's a point here.