guns

[flatcat19]

Frank...you live off I84?

[frankendat]

26 minutes ago, flatcat19 said:

Frank...you live off I84?

A short drive and I could be on it.

[frankendat]

On 4/24/2024 at 12:27 AM, flatcat19 said:

 

Not a 10/22. Bolt action. 

We did not want the kids to have semi auto for their first gun. 

 

And, yes. Left eye. All 3 of my kids are.left eye. Goofy fuckers. 

I started with a single shot pellet gun, so I could practice in the back yard. We lived in Idaho, but in a "city". Graduated to a bull barrel target competition Win. 52 bolt action. I miss that rifle, it was the NRA's, they let me use it for their program (about 3 years) Old Win 52's skyrocketed in value and my chances owning one are slim. Then to a break-open single shot deer rifle, I can still remember hunting with my Dad and coming across tracks in the snow. He hands me one round and instructs I take a path, a few yards off the side of the tracks. "Are there more rounds?" I asked. "Maybe, how many tags do you have"? He replied. "One." I said. "Then you have all you need."

[flatcat19]

50 minutes ago, frankendat said:

A short drive and I could be on it.

 

I'm working in Ontario. Went to Meridian to goof off. Driving by ya. 

Hi; bye. 

[IZRL]

12 hours ago, datsunfreak said:

I think this could be a somewhat myopic view of that situation. 

 

I would counter with "the first priority in being a skilled law enforcement officer maybe shouldn't be how many rounds you can put into a small circle from 40 feet". In fact, I would say it's fairly low on the list of what makes a "good" police officer. 

I agree it isn't #1. But it is up there on the list. The only experience i have with something "similar" to law enforcement. Is I was a security supervisor at a casino for 4 years. I know what you're thinking "hahaha rent a cop". But ask anyone who has ever been a security officer at a casino and without a doubt they will tell you. Being security at a casino is no joke. Anyway, all that to say, I know the importance of "verbal judo". Doesn't change the fact that you have to be proficient with the tools you were issued in that rare occasion when you have no other option. 

 

And to your comment about letting officers use a 9 if they want to. I'm not a 100% sure but i don't think they are given a choice but to carry the 9 they were issued. At least not here. 

Edited April 26 by IZRL

[datsunfreak]

13 hours ago, IZRL said:

Doesn't change the fact that you have to be proficient with the tools you were issued in that rare occasion when you have no other option. 

 

Agreed. Which is why I would say give them the tool they have the best chance at being proficient with. 👍

 

13 hours ago, IZRL said:

I'm not a 100% sure but i don't think they are given a choice but to carry the 9 they were issued. At least not here. 

 

Correct, most departments have a standard issue side arm that you have no choice in. There are a few cities around here that once you reach a certain milestone in your tenure, you can have more say in what that side arm is. I know at least one officer who carries a 45ACP 1911 because at 10+ years on the job they were allowed to choose their own side arm. He has said that detectives are given more leeway in their choice of weapon as well. 

 

But I would also bet if you want to go to the city's gun range and shoot up their ammo, they only have 9mm.  😄

[datsunfreak]

14 hours ago, IZRL said:

And to your comment about letting officers use a 9 if they want to. I'm not a 100% sure but i don't think they are given a choice but to carry the 9 they were issued. At least not here. 

 

And I am sorry if my statement was misleading, but I did not mean they should get to choose. 👍

[frankendat]

On 4/25/2024 at 6:15 AM, datsunfreak said:

 

I think this could be a somewhat myopic view of that situation. 

 

I would counter with "the first priority in being a skilled law enforcement officer maybe shouldn't be how many rounds you can put into a small circle from 40 feet". In fact, I would say it's fairly low on the list of what makes a "good" police officer. 

 

If you had a viable candidate, who is skilled at negotiation, de-escalation, an excellent driver, an excellent fighter, and wicked smart, you would want to flunk them out because they aren't as comfortable/accurate shooting with a 45? I would not. If they are more effective/accurate with a 9mm, let them carry a 9mm. I have shot just about every flavor of ammo there is, but I am most comfortable/accurate with either a 9mm or a 22LR. And I ain't gonna carry no 22LR. 😄

 

And the previous statements about reducing the lethality of what the officer has on his hip makes sense to me. I would rather them be a good shot with a tazer to be honest. 👍

First, it should be acknowledged that the police in the United States, when taken as a whole, have been and are a positive. Police transgressions and transgressors, while vulgar and unconscionable are the minority, but this is not an apologetic for the police.  

 

Second, for a number of societal reasons (not all of which are incorrect) there has been reluctance to enforce standards. It is easy to provide examples of injustice when inflexible rules are applied, but there should be, there must be, limits. It is easy to provide examples of injustice when no rules are applied.

 

Americans are fearful of reprisal, the police, as sole enforcer of standards, are summoned for every defiant child and this should not be, is not, the appropriate role for police, however it is likely too late to successfully adjust this societal expectation.

 

Since antiquity it has been acknowledged, to successfully command an individual or an organization one must be respected, in the absence of respect the individual or organization must be feared.

 

I do not know who originally said the following, but it holds true. A man without capacity for violence is not peaceful, he is harmless. Harmless police are worse than useless, because they provide an illusion of security. Harmless police lack respect and are almost feared. Harmless police are not feared for their effectiveness controlling a situation and enforcing rules, it is their ineffectiveness and incompetence which yields fear.

 

For a society to succeed, rules must exist (anthropological fact) and rules must be enforced. I neither disagree nor debate the necessity or importance of non-violent conflict resolution or “alternative” enforcement methodology. However, if the police are summoned, it should be understood (and until recent history was understood) it is their duty to the community and to themselves to control the situation and take action to protect.

If an individual, disregards, fails to comply, or acts in opposition to lawful orders given by a police officer, and they are not placing the officer or the community in imminent harm, then sure, tazer, mace, judo (verbal or otherwise), but If an individual, disregards, fails to comply, or acts in opposition to lawful orders given by a police officer, and they are placing the officer or the community in imminent harm, then the officer should employ the quickest method of threat neutralization with the highest probability of success, which is two shots center mass.

 

The most important job of a police officer is to protect the community and then himself from imminent harm, therefore, the most important skill for a police officer is to accurately discharge his service weapon if it becomes necessary. That is not saying, de-escalation, negotiation etc. are not important, it is saying there is a time when the line must not be crossed and when it is without reprisal, all police are in danger, because they no longer command respect and are “harmless”. Police must have the capacity and ability to successfully employ violence, deadly and otherwise, without it, they’re costumed camp counselors, controlling and commanding nothing and no one leaving everyone to the mercy of evil.

 

(My point is unchanged whether .45, 9mm, or even .22, although .45 is most effective, even better a .45LC double action revolver)

[Soundline]

On 4/24/2024 at 5:52 PM, IZRL said:

 

Recently I asked a friend of mine who's in law enforcement about why the change from 40/45 to 9s. He says that what he heard was that they based it on ease of use. They said that people are more accurate with the 9 (which for me i feel im the opposite). It seems like that's the story with everything in America now days. Lower the bar, so the less capable can reach. Versus forcing people to put some time and effort to reach the minimum standards.

 

I'm no expert by any means, but in my mind if an officer has made the decision to use his side arm. It's not meant to slow the threat down or just injure them.  His intention is to stop the threat immediately. According to the 21 foot rule. On average a man with a knife can cover a distance of 21 feet in 1.5-2 seconds. I don't care how fast your trigger finger is. You're not going to unload a magazine in that time. So stopping a threat immediately or as close to that as possibly is preferable. Who cares what's justifiable in court when I have to choose between my life vs someone else's, IMO.

I actually agree with you.  The decisions made by attorneys and bureaucrats who are not on the front line rarely benefit a community.  I believe that if an officer must use lethal force, then it should be the most effective and induce the least amount of suffering.

 

On 4/25/2024 at 5:15 AM, datsunfreak said:

 

I think this could be a somewhat myopic view of that situation. 

 

I would counter with "the first priority in being a skilled law enforcement officer maybe shouldn't be how many rounds you can put into a small circle from 40 feet". In fact, I would say it's fairly low on the list of what makes a "good" police officer. 

 

If you had a viable candidate, who is skilled at negotiation, de-escalation, an excellent driver, an excellent fighter, and wicked smart, you would want to flunk them out because they aren't as comfortable/accurate shooting with a 45? I would not. If they are more effective/accurate with a 9mm, let them carry a 9mm. I have shot just about every flavor of ammo there is, but I am most comfortable/accurate with either a 9mm or a 22LR. And I ain't gonna carry no 22LR. 😄

 

And the previous statements about reducing the lethality of what the officer has on his hip makes sense to me. I would rather them be a good shot with a tazer to be honest. 👍

I worked on three homicide cases where a .22 LR was the identified murder weapon.  At close range they can effectively end human life.  When the tragic events of the 1972 Munich Olympics occurred mossad employed .22 LR Beretta’s as their weapons of assassination for those they deemed responsible.  Still doesn’t mean I’d carry one.
 

Tasers are trash and I rarely carried one.  The threshold for use of a taser was nearly the same as the threshold for use of a firearm since they cause death for a variety of reasons.  I also didn’t feel right torturing people into compliance.  

 

On 4/26/2024 at 5:15 AM, datsunfreak said:

 

Agreed. Which is why I would say give them the tool they have the best chance at being proficient with. 👍

 

 

Correct, most departments have a standard issue side arm that you have no choice in. There are a few cities around here that once you reach a certain milestone in your tenure, you can have more say in what that side arm is. I know at least one officer who carries a 45ACP 1911 because at 10+ years on the job they were allowed to choose their own side arm. He has said that detectives are given more leeway in their choice of weapon as well. 

 

But I would also bet if you want to go to the city's gun range and shoot up their ammo, they only have 9mm.  😄

Often smaller jurisdictions offer wider choices.  In my old department of about 130 sworn officers we had to purchase our own gun off the department approved list.  We could carry in 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP.  Then if you were a Tactical SWAT Ofc you carried a 1911 from Wilson, Kimber, Colt, Sig, or Nighthawk.  Why? Good question and I have no idea how they came to that, even after talking to the Captain who made the call.  

[Soundline]

16 hours ago, frankendat said:

First, it should be acknowledged that the police in the United States, when taken as a whole, have been and are a positive. Police transgressions and transgressors, while vulgar and unconscionable are the minority, but this is not an apologetic for the police.  

 

Second, for a number of societal reasons (not all of which are incorrect) there has been reluctance to enforce standards. It is easy to provide examples of injustice when inflexible rules are applied, but there should be, there must be, limits. It is easy to provide examples of injustice when no rules are applied.

 

Americans are fearful of reprisal, the police, as sole enforcer of standards, are summoned for every defiant child and this should not be, is not, the appropriate role for police, however it is likely too late to successfully adjust this societal expectation.

 

Since antiquity it has been acknowledged, to successfully command an individual or an organization one must be respected, in the absence of respect the individual or organization must be feared.

 

I do not know who originally said the following, but it holds true. A man without capacity for violence is not peaceful, he is harmless. Harmless police are worse than useless, because they provide an illusion of security. Harmless police lack respect and are almost feared. Harmless police are not feared for their effectiveness controlling a situation and enforcing rules, it is their ineffectiveness and incompetence which yields fear.

 

For a society to succeed, rules must exist (anthropological fact) and rules must be enforced. I neither disagree nor debate the necessity or importance of non-violent conflict resolution or “alternative” enforcement methodology. However, if the police are summoned, it should be understood (and until recent history was understood) it is their duty to the community and to themselves to control the situation and take action to protect.

If an individual, disregards, fails to comply, or acts in opposition to lawful orders given by a police officer, and they are not placing the officer or the community in imminent harm, then sure, tazer, mace, judo (verbal or otherwise), but If an individual, disregards, fails to comply, or acts in opposition to lawful orders given by a police officer, and they are placing the officer or the community in imminent harm, then the officer should employ the quickest method of threat neutralization with the highest probability of success, which is two shots center mass.

 

The most important job of a police officer is to protect the community and then himself from imminent harm, therefore, the most important skill for a police officer is to accurately discharge his service weapon if it becomes necessary. That is not saying, de-escalation, negotiation etc. are not important, it is saying there is a time when the line must not be crossed and when it is without reprisal, all police are in danger, because they no longer command respect and are “harmless”. Police must have the capacity and ability to successfully employ violence, deadly and otherwise, without it, they’re costumed camp counselors, controlling and commanding nothing and no one leaving everyone to the mercy of evil.

 

(My point is unchanged whether .45, 9mm, or even .22, although .45 is most effective, even better a .45LC double action revolver)

Now I’ll attempt to respond to Frank.  I believe we shouldn’t have sentencing guidelines.  For example I think the law should state “you steal a car, you do 7 years”.  Anyone convicted of the crime does exactly the same sentence.  The punishment should be harsh, but evenly applied.  It should be taught in school as a requirement to pass the 8th grade.  All laws should be written at an 8th grade level.  If ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ laws shouldn’t be written in ‘legalese’ so they’re difficult for anyone who hasn’t passed the bar to properly interpret them.  They should be in common language and fairly applied across the entire citizenry. 

 

Unfortunately the legal precedent has been set that police have no legal duty to protect the population.  I vehemently disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling on this.  Their stance was basically that an employer cannot force their employees into a potentially life threatening situation.  I disagree because this is a voluntary position, that like the military has an implied responsibility of potentially being killed as part of your routine duties.  To drive this home I had a police Sgt who would show us videos at muster everyday of police officers get killed.  While not the best way to start your shift, those doing this job need to understand that any shift could be your last.

 

My next opinion is that there should be harsher punishments for police who break the law.  In the car theft example, a policeman should get 8 years.  If you enforce the laws, you should be punished harsher due to the violation of public trust.  The police need to be well funded, well staffed, and well trained.  We had one training day each month to cover legal updates, policy changes, defensive training, firearms, emergency vehicle operation, and all your standard HR training.  If you only train a tool like a firearm one time a year, how good are you?  You’re shit.  Especially since that training was shooting your annual qualification.  With defunding some departments only have one of each of these topics a year.  How proficient with the law can you be if you only read it once a year?  It changes much faster than that.

 

This lack of training is why you see such sporadic, ineffective, and frankly incompetent policing. How good can you be going hands on in a conflict if you only punch a bag once a year?  How sharp can you stay on search and seizure laws if you last refreshed 9 months ago and your State Supreme Court has new rulings?  How can you avoid losing control of your vehicle in a pursuit in the rain when the last time you were on a skid pad was 12 years ago?  How can you avoid shooting a hostage when you’ve never even shot at simulated hostage targets?
 

Police are responsible for so many different skills, they should be training one full week each month. Hand to hand, vehicle operations, and firearms should be hit at least every other month.  

[MikeRL411]

On 4/26/2024 at 5:15 AM, datsunfreak said:

 

But I would also bet if you want to go to the city's gun range and shoot up their ammo, they only have 9mm.  😄

 If it isn't closed due to financial limitations [or fear of being sued].

[frankendat]

18 hours ago, Soundline said:

Now I’ll attempt to respond to Frank.  I believe we shouldn’t have sentencing guidelines.  For example I think the law should state “you steal a car, you do 7 years”.  Anyone convicted of the crime does exactly the same sentence.  The punishment should be harsh, but evenly applied.  It should be taught in school as a requirement to pass the 8th grade.  All laws should be written at an 8th grade level.  If ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ laws shouldn’t be written in ‘legalese’ so they’re difficult for anyone who hasn’t passed the bar to properly interpret them.  They should be in common language and fairly applied across the entire citizenry. 

 

Unfortunately the legal precedent has been set that police have no legal duty to protect the population.  I vehemently disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling on this.  Their stance was basically that an employer cannot force their employees into a potentially life threatening situation.  I disagree because this is a voluntary position, that like the military has an implied responsibility of potentially being killed as part of your routine duties.  To drive this home I had a police Sgt who would show us videos at muster everyday of police officers get killed.  While not the best way to start your shift, those doing this job need to understand that any shift could be your last.

 

My next opinion is that there should be harsher punishments for police who break the law.  In the car theft example, a policeman should get 8 years.  If you enforce the laws, you should be punished harsher due to the violation of public trust.  The police need to be well funded, well staffed, and well trained.  We had one training day each month to cover legal updates, policy changes, defensive training, firearms, emergency vehicle operation, and all your standard HR training.  If you only train a tool like a firearm one time a year, how good are you?  You’re shit.  Especially since that training was shooting your annual qualification.  With defunding some departments only have one of each of these topics a year.  How proficient with the law can you be if you only read it once a year?  It changes much faster than that.

 

This lack of training is why you see such sporadic, ineffective, and frankly incompetent policing. How good can you be going hands on in a conflict if you only punch a bag once a year?  How sharp can you stay on search and seizure laws if you last refreshed 9 months ago and your State Supreme Court has new rulings?  How can you avoid losing control of your vehicle in a pursuit in the rain when the last time you were on a skid pad was 12 years ago?  How can you avoid shooting a hostage when you’ve never even shot at simulated hostage targets?
 

Police are responsible for so many different skills, they should be training one full week each month. Hand to hand, vehicle operations, and firearms should be hit at least every other month.  

As an example of your point on maintaining proficiency, I haven’t actively read the laws for over a decade and was surprised, by recent cases regarding police protection. Although, nuisance is everything when it relates to high court juris prudence, the core of police protection appears unchanged. Police DO have a duty to the community, as a whole, they DO NOT have a duty to the individual citizen or group. If someone calls police needing help because thugs are breaking into their home, shouting that they are going to eat all residents inside and dispatch sends all on duty police to another life threatening call, which delays response to the thug break in, and the caller and their family are consumed by cannibal thugs.  The heirs, of the someone who called police and was consumed, have no recourse against the police or the State. It is a fine, but important point of law, which was the law, and I do not see evidence that it has changed. If there is legislation or case law that shows I am in error, then I would be happy to have it.

Edited April 28 by frankendat

[frankendat]

2 hours ago, Soundline said:

Anyone convicted of the crime does exactly the same sentence.  The punishment should be harsh, but evenly applied

I believed that too. Until, I was given a low level position where I had a chance to enforce policy. Applying the same sentence did simplify the system and I was able to sleep knowing I treated everyone equally, but was it just? After many months I determined it was not. People and situations are comprised of a seemingly infinite number of variables and an inflexible rule will bring injustice.

[frankendat]

 

3 hours ago, Soundline said:

All laws should be written at an 8th grade level.  If ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ laws shouldn’t be written in ‘legalese’ so they’re difficult for anyone who hasn’t passed the bar to properly interpret them.  They should be in common language and fairly applied across the entire citizenry. 

I am glad you have interest in this, as it is something with which I have interest and most lose motivation, when the complexities of moral philosophy and crime and punishment, reveal themselves. 

 

Try to write a law. Review the canons of statutory construction if you want guidance (stay Federal to keep it simple) Once it is written, stare at it, think about it and then find loopholes, attack it. When you think your law is unassailable, post it, or send it to me and I will take a crack at it. 

[flatcat19]

Blah, blah, blah. 

 

Fuck the police. 

[frankendat]

13 hours ago, flatcat19 said:

Blah, blah, blah. 

 

Fuck the police. 

(non urban version)

This is important stuff
I mean, these kids are being screwed
There's a whole generation of them
They got constitutional rights that are being violated everyday by the police
They take the kids, they rough 'em up, they throw 'em in jail
The judges are cold
Then they throw the kids in jail, they give them a sentence
They don't give a shit, they just care about headlines

Fuck tha police comin' straight from the underground
A mother fucker got it bad 'cause I'm loud
I'm not a carbon copy so police think they have the authority
To kill a minority
Fuck that shit 'cause I ain't the one
For a punk motherfucker with a badge and a gun
To be beatin' on and thrown in jail
We can go toe to toe in the middle of a cell
Fuckin' with me 'cause I'm a teenager
With a little bit of dough and a pager
Searchin' my car lookin' for the product
Yeah, motherfucker, I'm sellin' narcotics
You'd rather see me in the pen
Then me and my friends
All rollin' in a Benz-o
Beat a police out of shape
And when I'm finished, bring the yellow tape
To tape off the scene of a the slaughter
Still gettin' strong off bread and water
I don't know if they're fags or what
Searchin' me down and grabbin' my nuts
A motherfucker on the war path
And when I'm finished, it's gonna be a blood bath
Of cops dyin' on my way

Yeah, I got somethin' to say
Fuck tha police X4

The jury's about to filled with, rednecks, white bread, chicken-shit, motherfuckers

Fuck the police and I said it with authority
'Cause my people on the streets are the majority
Lights are flashin' behind me
But you're scared little faggot so you mace me to blind me
But that shit don't work I just laugh
Because it gives 'em a hint not to step in my path
Police I'm sayin' fuck you punk
Read my rights and shit, it's all junk
Pullin' out a silly club so you stand
With a fake ass badge and a gun in your hand
But take off the gun so you can see what's up
And we'll go at it punk and I'ma fuck you up
Make you think I'm gonna kick your ass
But drop your gat and I'm gonna blast
Takin' out a police will make my day
A motherfucker like me don't give a fuck to say

Fuck tha police X12

Yo man, what the fuck?
The name of the game is stay alive

[Soundline]

17 hours ago, frankendat said:

As an example of your point on maintaining proficiency, I haven’t actively read the laws for over a decade and was surprised, by recent cases regarding police protection. Although, nuisance is everything when it relates to high court juris prudence, the core of police protection appears unchanged. Police DO have a duty to the community, as a whole, they DO NOT have a duty to the individual citizen or group. If someone calls police needing help because thugs are breaking into their home, shouting that they are going to eat all residents inside and dispatch sends all on duty police to another life threatening call, which delays response to the thug break in, and the caller and their family are consumed by cannibal thugs.  The heirs, of the someone who called police and was consumed, have no recourse against the police or the State. It is a fine, but important point of law, which was the law, and I do not see evidence that it has changed. If there is legislation or case law that shows I am in error, then I would be happy to have it.

Nope, you’re correct as far as I can tell.  I disagree with the 11th Circuit in their Hernandez v. Peterson (2019) case involving the Parkland School Shooting in Florida.  This case has been upheld by the Supreme Court.  Summary is that Broward Co Sheriff Deputies waited outside, preventing medics from going in.  I believe officers SHOULD have a duty to act.  Legally, they are not required to do anything in those situations.  The deputies training was terrible, the School Resource Officer was ineffective and should not, in my opinion, have been assigned that beat.  

 

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201914414.pdf

 

I disagree with specifically the way that Warren v. Dist of Columbia (1981) was handled by the responding officers.  For non-legal nerds the summary is young women living together called the police and said someone had broken into the home and were attacking residents.  Police responded and drove by, one knocked on the door, but no one answered so they left.  The girls called back and no officers were dispatched.  They were then raped and tortured for 14 hours.  I believe the officers should have taken more action, such as checking the windows and doors.  The girls calling the police were hiding on the roof and could have been seen.  The Supreme Court ruled the officer’s had “D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general "public duty," but that "no specific legal duty exists" unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.“

 

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/

 

17 hours ago, frankendat said:

I believed that too. Until, I was given a low level position where I had a chance to enforce policy. Applying the same sentence did simplify the system and I was able to sleep knowing I treated everyone equally, but was it just? After many months I determined it was not. People and situations are comprised of a seemingly infinite number of variables and an inflexible rule will bring injustice.

 

I understand this as well as I think is possible for me.  There are mitigating circumstances but the way things are being applied now they’ve gone too far towards leniency.  Where men and women sexually assaulting young boys and girls are given no jail time.  I believe there must be a bottom threshold.  I’m using the worst case example here specifically to express how bad things have gotten.  You’re making a very valid point, there’s a vast difference between being fair and being just.  It appears to me that the criminals are granted greater rights than the victims of the crimes in many circumstances.

 

Here is a recent example:

https://thepostmillennial.com/kentucky-trans-pedophile-receives-no-jail-time-after-pleading-guilty-to-sex-abuse-of-a-baby

 

17 hours ago, frankendat said:

 

I am glad you have interest in this, as it is something with which I have interest and most lose motivation, when the complexities of moral philosophy and crime and punishment, reveal themselves. 

 

Try to write a law. Review the canons of statutory construction if you want guidance (stay Federal to keep it simple) Once it is written, stare at it, think about it and then find loopholes, attack it. When you think your law is unassailable, post it, or send it to me and I will take a crack at it. 

I’d say the two of us could do as good of a job as anyone currently serving in state or federal office in their first term.

 

What I’d like you all to take away from this discussion is, train and carry your gun.  Expect to self rescue.  No one is coming so it’s up to us to defend our loved ones.  If the right cop shows up and helps in time, be pleasantly surprised.  But do not rely on others to defend you from evil.

[frankendat]

3 minutes ago, Soundline said:

Nope, you’re correct as far as I can tell.  I disagree with the 11th Circuit in their Hernandez v. Peterson (2019) case involving the Parkland School Shooting in Florida.  This case has been upheld by the Supreme Court.  Summary is that Broward Co Sheriff Deputies waited outside, preventing medics from going in.  I believe officers SHOULD have a duty to act.  Legally, they are not required to do anything in those situations.  The deputies training was terrible, the School Resource Officer was ineffective and should not, in my opinion, have been assigned that beat.  

 

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201914414.pdf

 

I disagree with specifically the way that Warren v. Dist of Columbia (1981) was handled by the responding officers.  For non-legal nerds the summary is young women living together called the police and said someone had broken into the home and were attacking residents.  Police responded and drove by, one knocked on the door, but no one answered so they left.  The girls called back and no officers were dispatched.  They were then raped and tortured for 14 hours.  I believe the officers should have taken more action, such as checking the windows and doors.  The girls calling the police were hiding on the roof and could have been seen.  The Supreme Court ruled the officer’s had “D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general "public duty," but that "no specific legal duty exists" unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.“

 

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/

 

 

I understand this as well as I think is possible for me.  There are mitigating circumstances but the way things are being applied now they’ve gone too far towards leniency.  Where men and women sexually assaulting young boys and girls are given no jail time.  I believe there must be a bottom threshold.  I’m using the worst case example here specifically to express how bad things have gotten.  You’re making a very valid point, there’s a vast difference between being fair and being just.  It appears to me that the criminals are granted greater rights than the victims of the crimes in many circumstances.

 

Here is a recent example:

https://thepostmillennial.com/kentucky-trans-pedophile-receives-no-jail-time-after-pleading-guilty-to-sex-abuse-of-a-baby

 

I’d say the two of us could do as good of a job as anyone currently serving in state or federal office in their first term.

 

What I’d like you all to take away from this discussion is, train and carry your gun.  Expect to self rescue.  No one is coming so it’s up to us to defend our loved ones.  If the right cop shows up and helps in time, be pleasantly surprised.  But do not rely on others to defend you from evil.

You're just too damned reasonable.

Your takeaway is one of my primary preaching points to any anti-gun. It also sums up my attitude toward law enforcement in general: Be respectful, be polite, keep your mouth shut, know your rights, if the right cop shows up be pleasantly surprised, but even then they are not on your side.

I fall back to the experience at my old job often, because I tried ideas and obtained real life experience. Much like writing your own legal statute (law) when you attempt it, especially with a group and bound by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it gets really complicated, really fast. I am not defending the bullshit parade that has become the law, but I understand how it became reality.

When my family learned of the inaction in Parkland they were livid.

I would attempt to write and pass criminal legislation if given the chance, but it would be scary and what would be learned would likely haunt for the rest of my life. I wrote and tried to pass some State civil legislation decades past. I tried to find a common ground and was crushed by both sides, it didn't even make it to the legislative floor and I learned so much that I didn't know, I didn't know.

 

[dimlight65]

Um, can we get back to "Show & Tell"?  😜

 

I'll start.  Today at the gun show, I found a threaded barrel...

 

 

for my Canik TP9 DA (and/or my daily carry TP9v2 for that matter)...

 

 

I popped it in...

 

 

 

and screwed an A2 birdcage on...

 

 

 

 

No, I am not 100% sure it is a 9mm compatible birdcage. 

No, I will not shoot 9mm through it to find out.  

Yes, I removed it before putting the gun away.

Yes, there are cat hairs all over everything.

Edited April 29 by dimlight65
Cat hairs

[Soundline]

The school of hard knocks taught me to be reasonable.  Inflexible things break, and there’s nothing worse than having a broken cop or military.  I really think most of our laws need to be like: “You will not kill other humans, except in defense of life, limb, liberty, or property.  Violators will receive a minimum 10 years confinement in prison and a maximum of being hanged.”
 

I know how open that leaves it for attack, so I’d suggest someone else write them, but I think they should be short and concise.  If a law statute cannot be posted to Twitter it’s too long. 
 

What kinda show and tell are you looking for?  I’ll add this, if you’ve never fired a compensated pistol, I’d suggest trying it.  
 

Here’s a pair of Department issued Sigs.  They’re both DAK (double action only) and had malfunctions.  It was under $400 for the pair shipped to me.  Honestly I never found out what the P229’s issue was.  I dislike the .40 S&W DAK P229.  So, I took all that shit off and converted it to a DA/SA.  It’s definitely an exorcise in patients getting all the springs to align, but nothing anyone who drives a Datsun can’t do.

 

The P226 just needed an ejector spring, so a quick swap and it was back to tossing .40 SW down range like it had before.

[datsunfreak]

12 hours ago, dimlight65 said:

No, I am not 100% sure it is a 9mm compatible birdcage. 

No, I will not shoot 9mm through it to find out.  

 

Looks like a pretty dang big hole to me...  😄

[dimlight65]

8 hours ago, datsunfreak said:

 

Looks like a pretty dang big hole to me...  😄

 

Said the bishop to the actress! 

 

I did try to pass a .380 ACP round through it.  It did not fit.  So, I need to find another 9mm A2 birdcage... or solvent trap adapter.

[datsunfreak]

15 hours ago, dimlight65 said:

I did try to pass a .380 ACP round through it.  It did not fit.  So, I need to find another 9mm A2 birdcage... or solvent trap adapter.

 

Or a drill.  😁

[dimlight65]

6 hours ago, datsunfreak said:

 

Or a drill.  😁

 

Pooibly

[frankendat]

On 4/28/2024 at 10:16 PM, Soundline said:

What kinda show and tell are you looking for?  I’ll add this, if you’ve never fired a compensated pistol, I’d suggest trying it.  

I have never fired a compensated pistol in one of the inferior calibers, is it different? A compensated .45 ACP with (from the factory sub sonic) military hardball, is cumbersome and nose heavy but shoots the same. (A compensated .45 ACP carbine is neither heavy nor cumbersome)

Edited Thursday at 09:33 PM by frankendat