Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Hypothetically speaking
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 1482714" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>Actually, I'd prefer you read the article carefully. To wit:</p><p></p><p>That "overly cautious" attitude is what led to using a SWAT team and a flash-bang--a military device--for a simple arrest warrant, without even verifying that the suspect was even present. The "officer safety uber alles" attitude gets innocent, uninvolved people killed in the name of protecting the people who <em>volunteered/I] for the dangerous duty.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>This thread seems to be about the same topic: we've identified that the three people in question were in a place that they had a right to be, and that they were carrying arms within the bounds of the law. Nonetheless, we have <em>multiple</em> people advocating that they be treated as felons: "proned out," held at the point of a "long gun," "cuff[ed]...," and this is <em>after</em> they've been cleared.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>And as long as we're on the subject, police officers shoot innocent people 11% of the time; private citizens shoot innocent people 2% of the time*. Statistically, it seems like the three innocent private citizens ought to be disarming the officer, not vice-versa, if safety is our goal.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>* Source: November 15, 1993, issue of <em>Newsweek</em>, as reported at <a href="http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/957-guns-untold-story.html" target="_blank">http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/957-guns-untold-story.html</a> (and pretty much everywhere else on the internet)</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 1482714, member: 13624"] Actually, I'd prefer you read the article carefully. To wit: That "overly cautious" attitude is what led to using a SWAT team and a flash-bang--a military device--for a simple arrest warrant, without even verifying that the suspect was even present. The "officer safety uber alles" attitude gets innocent, uninvolved people killed in the name of protecting the people who [I]volunteered/I] for the dangerous duty. This thread seems to be about the same topic: we've identified that the three people in question were in a place that they had a right to be, and that they were carrying arms within the bounds of the law. Nonetheless, we have [I]multiple[/I] people advocating that they be treated as felons: "proned out," held at the point of a "long gun," "cuff[ed]...," and this is [I]after[/I] they've been cleared. And as long as we're on the subject, police officers shoot innocent people 11% of the time; private citizens shoot innocent people 2% of the time*. Statistically, it seems like the three innocent private citizens ought to be disarming the officer, not vice-versa, if safety is our goal. * Source: November 15, 1993, issue of [I]Newsweek[/I], as reported at [url]http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/957-guns-untold-story.html[/url] (and pretty much everywhere else on the internet)[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Hypothetically speaking
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom