No defensive use?


PDA






dpote
February 12, 2013, 07:03 PM
Apparently, firearms have no defensive use according to this guy.
This video makes my head hurt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYmDEIH4H3A

Dave

If you enjoyed reading about "No defensive use?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Manco
February 12, 2013, 07:15 PM
If he's not a moron then he's a liar because everybody knows that the best defense (after avoiding the fight altogether fails) is a good offense. Some expert! :rolleyes:

JFrame
February 12, 2013, 07:22 PM
The police chief in question is scary stupid -- or, as the video says, represents the "epitome of lunacy."


.

r1derbike
February 12, 2013, 07:25 PM
Wow. Bailiff! Get that imposter's badge!

Ehtereon11B
February 12, 2013, 07:25 PM
I guess the "experts" don't believe in numbers like this gem from the CDC

The researchers found that six percent of the sample population had used a firearm in a burglary situation in the last twelve months. [FN32] Extrapolating the polling sample to the national population, the researchers estimated that in the last twelve months, there were approximately 1,896,842 incidents in which a householder retrieved a firearm but did not see an intruder. [FN33] There were an estimated 503,481 incidents in which the armed householder did see the burglar, [FN34] and 497,646 incidents in which the burglar was scared away by the firearm. [FN35] In other words, half a million times every year, burglars were likely forced to flee a home because they encountered an armed victim.

http://davekopel.org/2a/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm#FN;F35

wild cat mccane
February 12, 2013, 07:26 PM
Assault weapons have no self defense purpose-so said the Supreme Court in 1994. That is how the AWB was ruled constitutional.

JRH6856
February 12, 2013, 08:20 PM
Assault weapons have no self defense purpose-so said the Supreme Court in 1994. That is how the AWB was ruled constitutional.
Would you like to provide a case citation for that 1994 ruling?

jerkface11
February 12, 2013, 08:33 PM
Would you like to provide a case citation for that 1994 ruling?

I can't wait to see this.

josiewales
February 12, 2013, 08:40 PM
Oh man!:banghead:

What I'd like to know is, does he carry a sidearm while on duty?

Navy_Guns
February 12, 2013, 08:41 PM
Because a crazy LAPD officer on the run for multiple murders would NEVER just show up at your door armed with lots of guns. Nope, you don't need that 'assault rifle' Mr. and Mrs. America.

lpsharp88
February 12, 2013, 08:42 PM
Last time I checked, anything that shoots/launches a projectile, or can hold an edge, has a defensive use

Akita1
February 12, 2013, 08:52 PM
Can't believe that they paraded THIS person our to sell this garbage. Beside the fact that his positions are completely illogical and idiotic, he's essentially acting like a buffoon who'd have a hard time selling water to dehydrated marathoners in the desert.

gunsandreligion
February 12, 2013, 09:05 PM
As with much political correctness, people will say utterly foolish things and actully believe themselves.

JRH6856
February 12, 2013, 09:05 PM
Oh man!:banghead:

What I'd like to know is, does he carry a sidearm while on duty?
Yes. To project power and intimidate the public. :uhoh:

jerkface11
February 12, 2013, 09:06 PM
wild cat mccane Assault weapons have no self defense purpose-so said the Supreme Court in 1994. That is how the AWB was ruled constitutional.

You've made this claim in other threads as well. When questioned about it you fail to answer. The Clinton "assault weapons ban" became law in 1994 there is no way it could have gone all the way to the supreme court that quickly. In fact it NEVER did. Perhaps you should do some research before repeating this untruth again.

Airbrush Artist
February 12, 2013, 09:20 PM
Can we dig deep enough so that California will float out into the Ocean?

gunsandreligion
February 12, 2013, 09:26 PM
Just need a big earthquake.

M-Cameron
February 12, 2013, 09:35 PM
does anyone else find it unsettling he said his officers carry guns for solely for "offensive" use...?

Definition of OFFENSIVE

1
a : making attack : aggressive
b : of, relating to, or designed for attack <offensive weapons>
c : of or relating to an attempt to score in a game or contest; also : of or relating to a team in possession of the ball or puck


so hes admitting his officers carry guns to actively attack innocent civilians..........so much for that whole " to protect and to serve" thing, eh?


how this man still has a job, i do not know.

dpote
February 12, 2013, 09:38 PM
M-Cameron,

That was my take on the video, and why I wanted to post the link.

Dave

Fred_G
February 12, 2013, 09:50 PM
Wow, well that is **********. Why does the DHS get AR-15's for personal defense then?

armoredman
February 12, 2013, 10:38 PM
so hes admitting his officers carry guns to actively attack innocent civilians..........so much for that whole " to protect and to serve" thing, eh
It is true, in California, where you can get shot for the crime of delivering newspapers...

Grassman
February 12, 2013, 11:20 PM
This scared little man needs to sell insurance. No way he should be a cop.

VINTAGE-SLOTCARS
February 13, 2013, 02:57 AM
WoW !!! This man is in charge of a law enforcement agency? How can his officers have any trust in this fool. He has no "Command Presence" , stumbles thru his speach. He apperantly had no idea he was going to be recorded. He looked scared and very unsteady. He dosen't make any valid statments. As retired Leo, I have serious doubts about this man's ability to lead a fishing trip. Sir James, if you read this it's ok to reply

mrvco
February 13, 2013, 03:06 AM
Because a crazy LAPD officer on the run for multiple murders would NEVER just show up at your door armed with lots of guns. Nope, you don't need that 'assault rifle' Mr. and Mrs. America.

In that specific situation... a gas mask, Nomex suit and a fire extinguisher might be more appropriate :evil:

JFrame
February 13, 2013, 10:03 AM
WoW !!! This man is in charge of a law enforcement agency? How can his officers have any trust in this fool. He has no "Command Presence" , stumbles thru his speach. He apperantly had no idea he was going to be recorded. He looked scared and very unsteady. He dosen't make any valid statments. As retired Leo, I have serious doubts about this man's ability to lead a fishing trip. Sir James, if you read this it's ok to reply

He looks like the living embodiment of the Peter Principle in action.


.

michaelbsc
February 13, 2013, 10:27 AM
Ok, since guns are worthless as defensive tools all of his officers should turn in their expensive guns and carry a whistle.

Bad guys will know that when they're caught, if the officer blows the whistle - just like the ref in a basketball game - they stop and cease play.

I can see how this works. We'll set up new training programs in the prisons to make sure the word gets out.

It's a revenue neutral change, since the money saved on expensive equipment like guns and consumables like practice ammo can pay for salaries of the psychologists and social workers required to run the training programs, but the spin off benefit is two fold; we increase employment and decrease the number of guns in the world.

Man, why didn't someone think of this before?

Godsgunman
February 13, 2013, 10:41 AM
How come all the morons get to positions like this? I guess we shouldn't be surprised it is California for ya.

Akita1
February 13, 2013, 10:41 AM
I left him a "shocked and dismayed" type comment on the City's web site (you can direct them to the PD). They'll probably come knocking…oh yeah, I'm not in CA but I do have a few "defensive" weapons so guess that makes me a miscreant in this genius' mind.

Manco
February 13, 2013, 01:32 PM
Ok, since guns are worthless as defensive tools all of his officers should turn in their expensive guns and carry a whistle.

But he said that the job of police officers was to "intimidate and show power," for which they need guns.

Bad guys will know that when they're caught, if the officer blows the whistle - just like the ref in a basketball game - they stop and cease play.

There is no need for assault whistles (that assault people's ears). They could just make a "T" sign with their hands, say "time out," and make bad guys stand in a corner.

michaelbsc
February 13, 2013, 07:06 PM
There is no need for assault whistles (that assault people's ears). They could just make a "T" sign with their hands, say "time out," and make bad guys stand in a corner.

No juice and cookies for you!

thorazine
February 14, 2013, 05:40 AM
Assault weapons have no self defense purpose-so said the Supreme Court in 1994. That is how the AWB was ruled constitutional.

Wouldn't apply for...

They are Personal Defense Weapons now.

If you enjoyed reading about "No defensive use?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!