Another cop and another accidental discharge
Cop’s gun goes off all by itself. My ass.
15 Responses to “Another cop and another accidental discharge”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 15th, 2004 at 10:49 am
Good thing he was a LEO with special training and stuff. Can you imagine the carnage if we let just anybody carry concealed?
March 15th, 2004 at 10:53 am
[sarcasm]
No, no, no! You clearly don’t get it!
When a LEO has an AD, it’s a “mechanical fault”. LEO’s are special and holy, and incapable of error.
When a civvy has an AD, it’s Gross Negligence, And More Clear Evidence That Civilians Shouldn’t Be Armed.
In fact, they’ll bring in experts to the trial to testify how the gun can only fire if the trigger is pressed.
[/sarcasm]
March 15th, 2004 at 11:46 am
I am now enlightened.
March 15th, 2004 at 4:39 pm
Yall suck. Police Officers are alloud to carry firearms where civilians cant. And yes, guns do accidentally discharge. We should all be thankful that no more serious injuries were sustained. Why do you guys go off on the men in blue who protect your asses (no pun intended)? My brother (a leo) was shot in the line of duty a couple of years ago, and he was just out there on a $30k salary protecting you and me. What did he get shot for? Some guy was stealing clothes. Where’s the freakin’ respect? Geez, you guys disappoint me.
March 15th, 2004 at 5:55 pm
Mays, I think you misunderstand us. For my part, I do have respect for Law Enforcement Officers, and I appreciate the dangerous, underpaid work that they do.
HOWEVER, I do NOT think that they should be granted privileges that us ordinary citizens don’t have. In particular, I do not see why they should be “alloud [sic] to carry firearms where civilians cant [sic].”
March 15th, 2004 at 6:17 pm
ADs do happen and they happen to police often because they’re around weapons all the time. But the fact is, the gun didn’t just go off. Period. My dad, by the way, is a local prominent law enforcement official.
March 15th, 2004 at 6:50 pm
Speaking of ADs, is it the case that most modern handguns pretty much won’t discharge just from being, say, dropped? I mean, I know that with older single-action action revolvers, for example, it’s dangerous to have a round under the hammer. But are there very many new designs where the gun has been known to discharge without something pulling the trigger?
Just curious. I didn’t see any mention of what he was carrying.
March 16th, 2004 at 8:54 am
HOWEVER, I do NOT think that they should be granted privileges that us ordinary citizens don’t have. In particular, I do not see why they should be “alloud [sic] to carry firearms where civilians cant [sic].”
Are you kidding me? They rightfully SHOULD be alloud to carry firearms when normal citizens can. Police Officers are Police Officers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. WHAT IF a police officer runs into a guy he arrested at the NCAA basketball tournament. The guy may have some sort of weapon smuggled in, and this defenseless police officer, who is just out to protect yours and my sorry ass is up the creek. No, that’s exactly why retired officers are alloud to carry firearms, and exactly why this officer was alloud to carry a gun to this basketball game.
I just wonder what you all are implying by saying this incident wasn’t an accident?
March 16th, 2004 at 9:14 am
They rightfully SHOULD be alloud to carry firearms when normal citizens can.
Of course; I never said otherwise. I said I don’t think should be given privileges that ordinary citizens don’t have.
Police officers aren’t the only potential victims of violent crime. If they should be allowed to carry in order to defend themselves, so should everybody else.
March 16th, 2004 at 10:02 am
Mays, we’re not implying that it wasn’t an accident. We’re implying that the officer involved wasn’t following basic gun safety. At least, I am.
March 18th, 2004 at 10:47 am
All of you arguing with Mays are engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
March 18th, 2004 at 3:10 pm
Or look at it this way: a victim of a stalker is a victim 24 hours a day 7 days a week, not just when they are in their home. What if she met her stalker at an NCAA tournament? The guy may have smuggled a weapon of some kind into the arena and the defenseless stalkee, who did nothing to be in her position, is up a creek. No, that is exactly why everyone who is otherwise allowed to own a gun (i.e. not small children, cons, etc) should be allowed to carry where police are allowed to carry. You can substitute abused wife and abusive husband or any number of other examples above, but the point remains the same.
March 18th, 2004 at 3:15 pm
In case you didn’t get it, mays, you are proving our point with your example, which, other than your conclusion, is valid. And no, I wasn’t being sarcastic. Sarcasm would be saying “that ex-con couldn’t have had a concealed weapon because that’s illegal.”
March 24th, 2004 at 1:37 pm
I’m not saying regular schmucks shouldn’t have the right to carry concealed firearms. But whereas some citizens have to have permits to carry firearms in certain locations, police officers have a right to do it all the time (in a sense, they do have permits, by being certified police officers).
I now understand your viewpoints. I apologize for my misinterpretation.
And Spoons — kiss my ass!
March 17th, 2004 at 11:57 pm
Thursday Gun Links #9
Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries for March, 2004 are up. They’re posted somewhat irregularly, but you can use ChangeDetection to get an email alert when the main page gets updated. Here’s a great rec.guns discussion of using a gun to shoot off…