The Trump Presidency

[Zakalwe]

If folks need guns for an uprising, they can just find a way, like the gun fetishists are always saying criminals will do anyway.

The gun fetishists have shown that all their talk about needing guns to form a militia against a tyrannical government has been shown to be nothing more than nonsense. There IS a tyrannical government in place at the moment- a government that is openly racist, disappears people off the streets, is riding roughshod over the Constitution, has allowed 160,000+ people to die through sheer ineptitude. And all the while the gun fetishists have sided with that tyrannical government is led by a man who says things that appeals to their inbuilt biases.

[Jason Thompson]

If folks need guns for an uprising, they can just find a way, like the gun fetishists are always saying criminals will do anyway.

The gun fetishists have shown that all their talk about needing guns to form a militia against a tyrannical government has been shown to be nothing more than nonsense. There IS a tyrannical government in place at the moment- a government that is openly racist, disappears people off the streets, is riding roughshod over the Constitution, has allowed 160,000+ people to die through sheer ineptitude. And all the while the gun fetishists have sided with that tyrannical government is led by a man who says things that appeals to their inbuilt biases.

Were I feeling cynical I might say it has something to do with wanting to be the ones at an advantage. With their guns they could take on a lone terrorist or random school shooter and be the hero. With their guns they can march into a room full of unarmed politicians and shout for their views from a position of strength and willingness to use lethal force to get what they want. With their guns they can intimidate those without guns into doing as they please. However, the prospect of using their guns to stand up to an equally well-armed and properly trained force, and in all likelihood get shot themselves, requires a change of underwear....

[Obviousman]

I think a key issue is that the majority of gun owners really do have the best intentions but you know what they say about that...

[Jeff Raven]

I think a key issue is that the majority of gun owners really do have the best intentions but you know what they say about that...

That has definitely been my experience. In addition, I think it's important for the general public to not over-generalize the image of a gun owner as someone who looks like the ones we see at demonstrations or the more extreme examples. (I don't believe people here are doing so - I'm just stating it's something that all people should be aware of) I knew plenty of gun owners who used them only for hunting, providing food for their families, keeping farms free from varmints, or for target shooting. Several don't own handguns or even desire to, and they are very careful about safety and maintenance. For them, a gun was a tool to provide, or a recreational hobby, and nothing more. I have no idea of the number of owners who fit into this category, but I know that growing up that was the case for the vast majority in my area. (getting a handgun was not easy) As with most categories, there is a lot of variability, more than most people see or keep in mind.

[JayUtah]

That's been my experience.  I grew up in the American Midwest and I live in the American West.  The majority of gun owners I've encountered have been responsible people who use their firearms for the same sorts of purposes.

That said, we've always had the Ammon Bundy types (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy) but they are a particular sort.  They arise out of longstanding tension between state and local officials and the inhabitants, and the Federal government -- which owns some 60% of Utah and tends to rule these people's lives from Washington.  They have fairly narrowly aimed grievances, but it would be quite easy to lump them in with "gun nuts."  But that's a long, rather irrelevant story.

The paramilitary wannabes armed with assault-style rifles and showing up to "protect" the police and private property at protests are a completely new phenomenon -- or at least newly visible.  They've always been around, and many of them have roots in white supremacist movements, such as those in the Hayden Lake, Idaho area.  The Trump administration's openly racist policies seem to have emboldened them.

As I said before, I enjoyed target shooting as a teenager, but I find other things these days are better at running up the adrenaline.  Like Bach's Toccata and Fugue in d minor.  Ironically when I moved out West, I sold all my firearms.  I live in a city.  I don't need any.  And if I feel the need to keep up my marksmanship -- which I do from time to time -- there are plenty of target ranges.  My sister was in the Army (a West Point graduate, as a matter of fact, and an MP -- Military Police, not Member of Parliament) and can still shoot 10 out of 10 at 300 meters.  So we go shoot paper targets for old time's sake.

Plunking tin cans laid out on a fence rail, duck hunting on a quiet lake with guys you've known forever, skeet shooting -- these are the things many Americans naturally gravitate to when they think of how they would use a gun, if they would use one at all.  But of course these don't make the news, and they make for unexciting television and movies.  So the perception of the U.S. in many people's eyes is the glorification of violence and gun culture that we see in entertainment.  And television news these days is little removed from entertainment.

I assure you that for every person in the world who's looking at the U.S. with despair and alarm at what's going on, there are plenty of us Americans doing exactly the same thing.

[Jeff Raven]

Well said, Jay.  And 10/10 from 300 meters?  Damn!!!  That's some great shooting.

[JayUtah]

I have no idea how she does it.  But the Marines train out to 500 yards, so by Marine standards she might still have room to improve.

[Jason Thompson]

Plunking tin cans laid out on a fence rail, duck hunting on a quiet lake with guys you've known forever, skeet shooting -- these are the things many Americans naturally gravitate to when they think of how they would use a gun, if they would use one at all.  But of course these don't make the news, and they make for unexciting television and movies.  So the perception of the U.S. in many people's eyes is the glorification of violence and gun culture that we see in entertainment.  And television news these days is little removed from entertainment.

I assure you that for every person in the world who's looking at the U.S. with despair and alarm at what's going on, there are plenty of us Americans doing exactly the same thing.

As I've said before, I have no doubt the majority of gun owners are responsible and it wouldn't even occur to them in all but the most extreme examples to even point their gun at a person, much less fire one at someone. However, as you say, that's not newsworthy.

One question I do have though, about the police use of guns. Why is it whenever I see a report about a police shooting it always involves multiple shots? In the latest case a guy was shot seven times in the back from point blank range. Since one well-aimed bullet will kill or incapacitate (and even one badly aimed bullet has a good chance of doing either of those things as well), why are trained law enforcement officers unloading multiple bullets into anyone? And that's before we even get onto the dubious nature of what amounts to summary execution for maybe going for a weapon...

[Peter B]

Plunking tin cans laid out on a fence rail, duck hunting on a quiet lake with guys you've known forever, skeet shooting -- these are the things many Americans naturally gravitate to when they think of how they would use a gun, if they would use one at all.  But of course these don't make the news, and they make for unexciting television and movies.  So the perception of the U.S. in many people's eyes is the glorification of violence and gun culture that we see in entertainment.  And television news these days is little removed from entertainment.

I assure you that for every person in the world who's looking at the U.S. with despair and alarm at what's going on, there are plenty of us Americans doing exactly the same thing.

As I've said before, I have no doubt the majority of gun owners are responsible and it wouldn't even occur to them in all but the most extreme examples to even point their gun at a person, much less fire one at someone. However, as you say, that's not newsworthy.

One question I do have though, about the police use of guns. Why is it whenever I see a report about a police shooting it always involves multiple shots? In the latest case a guy was shot seven times in the back from point blank range. Since one well-aimed bullet will kill or incapacitate (and even one badly aimed bullet has a good chance of doing either of those things as well), why are trained law enforcement officers unloading multiple bullets into anyone? And that's before we even get onto the dubious nature of what amounts to summary execution for maybe going for a weapon...

I think I can answer this.

It's not an American thing, it's a Use Of Force thing: once you've decided to shoot you keep shooting as quickly as possible to end the threat as soon as possible.

Sure, one bullet may incapacitate a person, but the time spent waiting to see whether it has is time the person can use to do something - such as pull out a weapon and harm a third party. Better to keep shooting until you see the person fall to the ground.

[Jeff Raven]

One question I do have though, about the police use of guns. Why is it whenever I see a report about a police shooting it always involves multiple shots? In the latest case a guy was shot seven times in the back from point blank range. Since one well-aimed bullet will kill or incapacitate (and even one badly aimed bullet has a good chance of doing either of those things as well), why are trained law enforcement officers unloading multiple bullets into anyone? And that's before we even get onto the dubious nature of what amounts to summary execution for maybe going for a weapon...

The specifics of that case warrant their own discussion, so forgive me for not speaking about that. Situations differ, and training can vary from force to force, but rather than address that (because there are differences and that would be a longer discussion) I wanted to address your premise that 1 well-aimed shot will kill or incapacitate, so more are not necessary.  I also want to put a disclaimer that I am not an officer, although I do have a family member who was, and know some of what they went through in terms of training.  First, in an emergency situation even well-trained people cannot always react 'perfectly' and take the shot that is much easier on the range. Second, when someone is moving, it's not so easy to hit that small area that would put someone down instantly, or even to hit them at all. You see that in after-action reports, where multiple shots are fired and yet only a small number hit. Third, there are a number of instances of someone getting hit with a 9mm round (which many forces carry) and still going, and in fact people have been hit with multiple rounds and still been able to mount an effective attack, at least for a short time. Being shot can give someone even more impetus to fight or resist, because it can activate survival instincts.

Combined, it is understandable that multiple shots are often fired. Once the decision has been made that shots need to be fired (again, that in and of itself could warrant threads), that deadly force is needed, then the person will do what is necessary to carry out that decision. People are trained/told to not point a gun at someone unless they intend to use it, and not to use it unless they intend or are ready to kill.  Police can and do point weapons to effect compliance with orders, but they do not do that haphazardly.

That's my take, anyway, for what it's worth.

[Jeff Raven]

I think I can answer this.

It's not an American thing, it's a Use Of Force thing: once you've decided to shoot you keep shooting as quickly as possible to end the threat as soon as possible.

Sure, one bullet may incapacitate a person, but the time spent waiting to see whether it has is time the person can use to do something - such as pull out a weapon and harm a third party. Better to keep shooting until you see the person fall to the ground.

Well said, and much briefer than my own reply.

[JayUtah]

I agree with a lot of what's been said by way of an answer.

It's harder than it looks to hit a moving target with a handgun, even at point-blank range.  In the 1981 attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, the would-be assassin John Hinckley hit nearly everything and everyone except the President, who was ultimately the victim only of an improbable ricochet.  And from Hinckley's perspective, it was a deliberate act.  He wasn't in a reactive posture.  He was mentally and physically primed to open fire.  Ane he was firing only a .22 caliber pistol, which doesn't kick that much and wreck your aim.

For a variety of reasons, handguns are just not that accurate or useful a weapon in a tactical situation.  The idea that the shooter would be able to sight the target in a non-lethal way is wishful.  Generally he will aim at center mass and fire somewhat indiscriminately.

The real answer, I think, is the one hinted at:  adrenaline.  Some of the police departments in my vicinity have a transparency policy that allows the public to see records of interviews of police officers who discharge their weapons on duty.  A recurring theme is that they don't remember how many shots they fired.  The tendency seems to be to empty the gun.  As much as we would desire a measured response, and as much as we hope police officers are trained to remain calm in a crisis, human nature seems to still be in charge.  He had many factors in his favor

There are commonly used drugs, especially methamphetamines, that amplify a person's ability to continue to function after injury.  So that factors into the calculus of how much force is considered incapacitating.  If an officer believes the suspect may be under the influence of drugs, he will probably consider that one hit will not stop the suspect.

[gillianren]

Though of course none of that explains victims who were already on the ground . . . .

[Obviousman]

It's harder than it looks to hit a moving target with a handgun, even at point-blank range.

Oh yes indeed. I qualified as a Marksman with the SLR (Self Loading Rifle, what we Australians called the L1A1 FN rifle), but accuracy and the 9mm pistol seemed to be mutually exclusive for me....

[Jeff Raven]

Great example with Hinckley, Jay. And, as you said, adrenaline definitely throws off aim and concentration, and can also interfere with decision-making.  It's also true that, while the saying ridicules bringing a knife to a gun fight, that understates the deadliness of a knife-wielder. When my relative went through the academy they showed the class a demonstration of a man with a knife about 10-15 feet from a trainee with his handgun holstered.  The 'attacker' moved with deliberation toward the trainee, striding, not running. In most cases the trainee didn't even get their gun fully out, let alone get off a good shot, before they were 'stabbed'. And if a person is speaking at the same time, as is often the case during police-involved shootings, that slows reactions down more.

One thought I had is that I'm surprised there aren't more instances where there are head shots reported, at least for those who are shot while approaching the officer. My relative was trained to put 2 in center of mass, and if the person kept going, to put the 3rd shot in center of forehead. I don't know how many forces use similar training, but the idea was, as Peter B said, to make sure the person was stopped, and that last shot (especially with a .357 magnum) is pretty much guaranteed to do that.