It's funny how some people think. I had been asked to test fire a Hi-Point 9mm carbine and was returning it to my lgs. Once inside and while standing there with it, another customer(Ca transplant)came in with a collector grade M1 Garand. Oddly, this man began chastising me for having a Columbine gun. I pointed out that had the C shooter used a Garand, then the results would have been more tragic. Finally I asked this: Other than the Hi-Point being a piece of shit, what are you really saying? Should one be banned and not the other? If so, by what criteria? The guy stared, said nothing, and walked out. Being a gentleman, I did not tell him he was full of shit.
Is that what we've gotten to? Any gun you don't like the looks of is a "kiddie killer" gun? Fuck him bloody.
I really don't get worked up over a lot of shit (plenty to get worked up over that matters), but shit like that irks me to no end. The absolutely VILE terminology people use is completely unacceptable. Maybe where I'm looking to retire isn't vacant enough after all...
The bill’s authors, and plenty of reporters, claim there were 162 fatal events involving officers in CA last year and that half of the suspects (81?) were unarmed.
Well, with a bit of research, they are disingenuous at best. I think stronger words are in order.
I first looked at Cal DoJ’s Open Justice portal. However, the last year of data on it is from 2016.
But the bill's authors said 162 shot & killed, so I checked the Washington Post fatal force page for 2017 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...hootings-2017/).
That page lists 162 officer involved fatalities for California in 2017 which matches the claims of the authors and reporters.
Going to the weapons tabs, I get different numbers than the authors or reporters. Half (81) were armed with firearms. What about the other half?
37 had a knife, 9 used a vehicle, 7 had a replica firearm, 13 had "other", "unarmed" was 11, and unknown was 4.
"Other" covered: metal pipes, pitch fork, hammers, blunt object, ax, rock, baseball bats, metal object, an unknown weapon, & a beer bottle.
As for “Unarmed” ... seven were fleeing, 3 in cars, not enough information for the others.
And in the "Unknown" category three of the four were described as fleeing while one was not. With those "fleeing" I can't tell if they met the standard in Tennessee v Garner.
So, the assertion by the bill's authors and the NPR reporter that "half were unarmed" is not just disingenuous but is in fact actually a lie. And a lie that should have been easily caught.
Last edited by Erick Gelhaus; 04-15-2018 at 12:44 PM. Reason: formatting
"Deliberate Ignorance" (in furtherance of an agenda) comes immediately to mind.
(Link provided for those who may be unfamiliar with the term.)
There's nothing civil about this war.
I don’t agree with this idea. Sure there’s some movement of people into conservative and rural areas from big cities,but from my perch there’s plenty of rural folls who are buying into this culture as well. You’d be surprised how many Republican voters think the same things urban Democrats do regarding law enforcement.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
"Calif. DA candidate: Cop killers shouldn't get death penalty"
https://www.policeone.com/legal/arti...death-penalty/
Last edited by TheNewbie; 04-28-2018 at 12:10 PM.
I wonder just how many LEOs in CA signed up for the "Suicide By Felon" program.
Well then, since turnabout is fair play, I guess one might argue that the bad guy signed up for being aerated when he decided to run afoul of the law while in possession of a weapon. It's part of the risk they take.
There's nothing civil about this war.