Knives vs guns when entering police dept

[DocJD]

That was ridiculous. Good ol' hollywood. One man taking out far too many (he would have been squashed like a bug in a matter of seconds no matter who he is), and then cops shooting their way into an occupied room in their own precinct, with no idea of their backstop, instead of using a battering ram which surely would have been both faster and safer.

Yes ! It's Hollywood Movie / Video Game fantasy land .

Worse yet , the hero is a PRC spy .

Gotta wonder : Who funded that piece of BS chi com propaganda ?

 

[trevitrace]

Lol.

 

[me2]

There was some report I came across that said LEOs had a higher chance of death from knife attacks than gunshots. Maybe that has something to do with it.

 

[David Mary]

It's important for us to follow the law, and not to be mean spirited and ugly about it but to be significant"

Wow. So well said.

 

[Leo Greer]

Here's my opinion, as I care to share it on this issue.

For buildings which aren't willing to actively and rigorously enforce their no weapons policy, it makes no sense to have it in the first place. The people who mean to do harm will bring their weapons anyways, and so it's utterly pointless to rob rule-following citizens of fair chance to defend themselves, when anyone who actually means harm will just bring weapons anyways.

The most dangerous situation for every gunman is not having the police show up three minutes after the first shot. The most dangerous situation is having someone with their CPL pull out a 1/2 lb Ruger LCP and blast them in the back from three yards, 2 1/2 seconds after the first shot.

Even more dangerous is attempting to mug my grandfather, who is perfectly happy to declare his plans to pose as a harmless old man and then rip his '45 out of his bag and blast the assailant to bits.

If no-weapons rules ARE rigorously enforced (as in the case of airplanes), then we must define what a weapon is. Excuse me, but I'm of the opinion that, since dogs are allowed, knives should be too, because a trained attack dog is almost always more dangerous than a knife. And yet any animal declared as an emotional support pet is allowed on a plane. In the cabin. So are people of any size, weight, and martial arts training.

Which is more dangerous; a 150 lb American Bully Mix, or a 3" pocketknife?

The only situation in which I'd pick the pocketknife would be in a hostage situation, where the hijacker immediately takes a hostage and places the plane under threat.

Even then, however, things like phones, iPads, and laptops are also allowed on planes.

Which is more dangerous; a 3" pocketknife, or a 3" shard of glass from your iPhone screen?

Neither is more or less dangerous when it comes to inflicting a wound on soft human flesh. However, one item is devoted rigorous work to keeping it out of courtrooms and off airplanes, and the other is never even under question.

For that matter, camera lens glass is even thicker and holds even more damage potential than iPhone or laptop glass.

In any event, how many people do you think would attempt to hijack planes if they knew that the second they declared a hijacking, they could be staring down the barrels of twenty different concealed-carry pistols?

Legal, regulated concealed carry of both knives and guns gives power to the citizen both to defend themselves, and to fulfill the Constitution, which requires that American citizens be able to bear arms, and have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It takes away from the power of terrorism, gunmen, and school shooters, who then have to face the fact that they may be confronting dozens of armed people adept in the use of firearms (and knives too).

Without the legal ability to adequately bear arms, a significant portion of citizens will neglect to do so. However, people with intent to harm will still have weapons, and the ability to use them.

Common are the stories of shootings in which gunmen roam free in the midst of defenseless citizens, having either smuggled a gun into some regulated building, or simply chosen a state in which weapons are shunned. But, stories may also be found of when citizens with weapons of their own stopped assailants dead in their tracks and indisputably saved lives.

As for instances when these rights (which I believe the Constitution does give us) come under fire (excuse the pun), I believe in carrying my chosen weapons in an ordinary way, and with neither any additional flair nor concealment added. If a government appointed body says something, I will either surrender my weapon, or leave. If a business owner says something, I will take my business elsewhere.

I will also vote for what I believe is right, and stand up for what I believe in a rational and intelligent way when called to it, or questioned.

And that is about all I can do. At least without running for office.

Hey, I might be able to move to New Jersey right now and do it.

For God and Country,

Leo.

 

[Stickgunner]

In the words of Brendan Behan, "I have never seen a situation so dismal that a policeman couldn't make it worse."

The words of a terrorist aren't much to brag about. Are you going to quote Arafat or perhaps a little Baader–Meinhof Gang next? They all liked to complain about police as well.

 

[Danke42]

I always get all my self defense tips from old Irish poets because if it's one thing those guys know how to do it's how to start a fight.

 

[Lee D]

I always get all my self defense tips from old Irish poets because if it's one thing those guys know how to do it's how to start a fight.

Don’t exclude the ladies, my wife is capable of starting a fight anywhere…anytime.

 

[Danke42]

Don’t exclude the ladies, my wife is capable of starting a fight anywhere…anytime.

 

[Lee D]

This is why I keep the shed locked up

 

[Bob Denman]

I had a small pair of pointy tweezers in my pocket from work. They wouldn't let me in the courthouse with them.

If you started yanking nose hairs out of a Court Bailiff: he would be blinded by the pain. Several inmates might escape!

 

[catspa]

In any event, how many people do you think would attempt to hijack planes if they knew that the second they declared a hijacking, they could be staring down the barrels of twenty different concealed-carry pistols?

I like how you’re thinking, Leo. C’mon and fly ParkerAir, where each passenger over 18 is handed a single shot .22 pistol as they board, along with one round of ammunition. Upon arrival at our destination, please return them to the hostess as you exit the aircraft.

Any passenger discharging his/her cartridge will be billed for it at the current prorated retail price. Any passenger discharging a cartridge into a hijacker will, upon landing, be issued a voucher entitling them to two cartridges on their next flight.

Please do NOT eject lifeless hijacker carcasses from the aircraft. Some jurisdictions below have strict littering laws. Body bags are stored in the black cabinet at the starboard rear of the cabin, please use them and place hijacker carcasses in the clearly marked bins where maintenance crews can dispose of them after landing. Thank you.

Parker

 

[Centermass]

I just wanted to catch my layover at Tulsa, when somebody disagreed about the in-flight movie selection. Next thing I know 14 passengers are dead, another 7 injured by stray rounds, AND we had to land in Newark.

Yeah, sounds totally reasonable.

 

[Bob Denman]

When I told my Missus that I wanted to be cremated: she made an appoinrment for next Tuesday..

 

[catspa]

Centermass, sounds like you avoided hijacking altogether.

You’ll be relieved to know then, that ParkerAir has no planes, no pilots, and no scheduled flights. Hostesses? No, sorry. In fact, we’re not even authorized by the FAA. That’s the downside of being merely a mental construct for discussion purposes.

Oh, well.

Parker

 

[Centermass]

Centermass, sounds like you avoided hijacking altogether.

You’ll be relieved to know then, that ParkerAir has no planes, no pilots, and no scheduled flights. Hostesses? No, sorry. In fact, we’re not even authorized by the FAA. That’s the downside of being merely a mental construct for discussion purposes.

Oh, well.

Parker

Did you just try to serve me some hot piping sarcasm? Ooh, steamy!

But, I too, was being facetious given the absurdity of the rationale, not regarding what you posted, but that of the poster you had quoted.

 

[josiahg52]

You guys are too funny. We just have to live and exist in this world. Frustratingly, we all live in different regions with different-minded people. As I related above, my people seemed to not be that concerned. Maybe that's because they learned to recognize me or that's just the way they were.

One thing I want to point out, the US Constitution doesn't "grant" us any rights. It affirms natural human rights and protects them from government infringement. It might be semantics to some but I think it's an important and distinctive point that is often overlooked.

 

[Leo Greer]

You guys are too funny. We just have to live and exist in this world. Frustratingly, we all live in different regions with different-minded people. As I related above, my people seemed to not be that concerned. Maybe that's because they learned to recognize me or that's just the way they were.

One thing I want to point out, the US Constitution doesn't "grant" us any rights. It affirms natural human rights and protects them from government infringement. It might be semantics to some but I think it's an important and distinctive point that is often overlooked.

I can see your point here. But I would like to ask a few questions, if you could spare the time to answer. What would lead you to believe that the Constitution only affirms natural human rights? For example, why do you believe it's a natural human right to be able to bear arms? Where do you believe human rights come from?

(Sorry, I don't usually like to ask philosophy questions! But I did anyways...)

 

[rje58]

I can see your point here. But I would like to ask a few questions, if you could spare the time to answer. What would lead you to believe that the Constitution only affirms natural human rights? For example, why do you believe it's a natural human right to be able to bear arms? Where do you believe human rights come from?

(Sorry, I don't usually like to ask philosophy questions! But I did anyways...)

Here is the rationale, as described in the Declaration of Independence, a predecessor document:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So, according to the Founding Fathers, these are universal rights. The only reason that some people don't have these rights is that someone, presumably in most cases, a government, but in some cases, private parties, are depriving them of their natural, universal rights. This is commonly accomplished by tyrants of one sort or another.

Sic Semper Tyrannis



State Motto of Virginia

 

[The Zieg]

The words of a terrorist aren't much to brag about. Are you going to quote Arafat or perhaps a little Baader–Meinhof Gang next? They all liked to complain about police as well.

Oh, absoLUTEly!!