Gardai carrying Guns

Mr Simpson

monument wrote: »

Police do not aim to wound, they aim to kill.

No they don't. Police are trained to aim for the largest target on the body, the torso. Its not a question of shooting to injure or kill. If they were aiming to kill, they would shoot for the head, but they don't, there is too much risk of missing.

Witcher

dorkacle wrote: »

I never said they do turn into murders?

I never said you did, you stated it was a lack of faith in the Gardai that propagates the idea of the Gardai turning into murderers, I said it wasn't a lack of faith it was ignorance of firearms and how murders are committed.

dorkacle

Blay wrote: »

I never said you did, you stated it was a lack of faith in the Gardai that propagates the idea of the Gardai turning into murderers, I said it wasn't a lack of faith it was ignorance of firearms and how murders are committed.

Well the term 'murderer' is a bit of an extreme term, but if you suggests that it propagates the idea gardai killing people, well then yes that is true.

And all it takes is one mistaken identity, or one innocent killed by a guard in an accident and the argument against armed guards is justified IMO.
And to be honest, like many I suspect, I wouldn't be particularly keen to test it.

Sure just google 'mistaken police killings in america' and you get a list of them.

And even if it is an ignorance of firearms, so what? Nobody NEEDS a firearm IMO, so ignorance is irrelevant I would say...?

monument

Blay wrote: »

You can't really compare driving a car to using a firearm, with a gun you only have to move the first joint of your index finger and you have potentially taken someone's life, while driving a car is dangerous, it requires more than a slip of the index finger for something to go wrong.

32,885 = number of road deaths in the US in 2010
14,159 = number of gun deaths in the US in 2010

240 = number of road deaths in Ireland in 2009
58 = number of gun deaths in Ireland in 2009

MarkMc wrote: »

No they don't. Police are trained to aim for the largest target on the body, the torso. Its not a question of shooting to injure or kill. If they were aiming to kill, they would shoot for the head, but they don't, there is too much risk of missing.

Fair enough.

But if somebody aims around a scumbag's vital organs, the scumbag is going to try to kill them.

Witcher

monument wrote: »

32,885 = number of road deaths in the US in 2010
14,159 = number of gun deaths in the US in 2010

240 = number of road deaths in Ireland in 2009
58 = number of gun deaths in Ireland in 2009

I'm not getting into a car vs. gun debate with you:rolleyes: The guards will get the proper training.

monument

Blay wrote: »

I'm not getting into a car vs. gun debate with you:rolleyes: The guards will get the proper training.

If you say so.

It must be the same way they all have gotten proper training for driving. :rolleyes:

freddiek

arming thick gombeen Gardai is a recipe for disaster and it wouldnt be too long before an innocent bystander got in the way of one of their bullets

Witcher

freddiek wrote: »

arming thick gombeen Gardai is a recipe for disaster and it wouldnt be too long before an innocent bystander got in the way of one of their bullets

Good to finally see reasoned debate on the thread:pac:

Witcher

monument wrote: »

If you say so.

It must be the same way they all have gotten proper training for driving. :rolleyes:

Funny how the force managed to provide training in how to use a stick(ASP) and a can of pepper spray...but sure a stick is more dangerous than a gun:pac:

monument

Blay wrote: »

Funny how the force managed to provide training in how to use a stick(ASP) and a can of pepper spray...but sure a stick is more dangerous than a gun:pac:

Sad how they have not been all trained how to drive cars at high speed in urban areas which is also a little more dangerous than pepper spray or a stick. :rolleyes:

Witcher

monument wrote: »

Sad how they have not been all trained how to drive cars at high speed in urban areas which is also a little more dangerous than pepper spray or a stick. :rolleyes:

Yes, an intelligent and relevant addition to this debate. If people like you called the shots the Gardai would only have a whistle.

They were driving without licences...so what? They're now being shot at....should we let Gardai be murdered in the streets because some of them didn't hold a driving licence?

You're clearly of the opinion that they won't get the training and that they'll just be handed a pistol...you're entitled to that opinion but the training given along with ASP and the pepper spray suggest you're wrong.

Witcher

dorkacle wrote: »

And even if it is an ignorance of firearms, so what? Nobody NEEDS a firearm IMO, so ignorance is irrelevant I would say...?

People are allowing what they see in movies to colour their image of reality, they think police draw their guns and just fire everywhere, when you pull the trigger there's a lot going on inside your head that isn't seen and you don't know that until you actually fire one. The sensationalism you read on here that the Gardai will start killing people just because they have firearms is an example of people thinking a gun in your hand suddenly turns you into a killer, it doesn't but most people here don't know someone who owns a legally held firearm so it doesn't click that guns don't always make murderers out of people.

I don't know if that makes any sense as I haven't read it back but basically the Gardai won't turn into murderers because they have guns as people on here seem to think they will.

Esel

Blay wrote: »

They were driving without licences...so what? They're now being shot at....should we let Gardai be murdered in the streets because some of them didn't hold a driving licence? FFS.

Gardaí cannot drive an official vehicle without having the relevant licence, afaik. The issue here is whether the garda driving has received the relevant training for high-speed driving. A lot of gardaí have not been provided with this training, but are allowed to drive under something called 'Chief's permission' (i.e. formal permission from their Chief Superintendent).

I think that, if the incidence of unarmed gardaí being confronted (or shot at) by wrongdoers armed with firearms is the deciding factor in whether all gardaí should be armed or not, it will never happen, just because it happens so rarely in comparison with their involvement with wrongdoers as a whole. It didn't happen during the Troubles, and it is not going to happen now.

miller50841

yes they should carry fire arms...

Yes its fine all the doogooders saying no they shouldnt until its them or their house or family member getting held up.

Ireland and its so called citizens need to cop on really and see whats happening.
I do understand some think it would be bad as to follow the US would be bad too many guns and not so many people but sure hay.

If I have to protect me or my family it has to be done and I mean that.

Witcher

Esel wrote: »

Gardaí cannot drive an official vehicle without having the relevant licence, afaik. The issue here is whether the garda driving has received the relevant training for high-speed driving. A lot of gardaí have not been provided with this training, but are allowed to drive under something called 'Chief's permission' (i.e. formal permission from their Chief Superintendent).

I've heard it differently, there was a thread a while ago on Boards somewhere about Gardai driving without their licence on a Super's permission just because they needed the cars on the road...might have been about a Garda driving on a learner permit now that I think of it. It could have been an exceptional case or I may have picked it up wrong but I don't want to make this a thread about the Gardai and their driving habits so I won't go on about it. The fact is just because they didn't have driver training doesn't mean they won't have firearms training.

Locust

So another armed robbery in Portmarnock there the other day... And a guard on a mountain bike confronts them with not much more than a bicycle pump gets shot at...??

I think its absolutely ridiculous. Completely insane than Gardai arent routinely armed.

That Guard should have the capability to defend himself, proportionate to whats out there today. Every week we read about criminals with firearms now in our news. Society has moved on from the auld fashioned 1960's community guards, we're now dealing with armed and organised gangs...

I doubt that robber would have fired at Guard if the Guard was armed, if he did he more than likely the guard would have shouted warnings and returned fire and he would have been shot dead, a lawful killing. I think there would be an outcry about the killing by the papers but the majority of the public would support the Gardai. After all he was the bad guy.

monument

Blay wrote: »

Yes, an intelligent and relevant addition to this debate. If people like you called the shots the Gardai would only have a whistle.

With this being your kind of logic, if I was calling the shots, I'd be restricting you to a whistle.

Blay wrote: »

They're now being shot at....

Gardai were shot at before now, what exactly has changed that justifies changing the very nature of our police force with great expense we can't afford.

Blay wrote: »

You're clearly of the opinion that they won't get the training and that they'll just be handed a pistol...

You're clearly wrong.

Blay wrote: »

you're entitled to that opinion but the training given along with ASP and the pepper spray suggest you're wrong.

The lack of advanced driving training 5 years after it was heavily criticised tells a different story.

It's not just the most basic one-off training we want for armed gardai -- it's high quality and on-going.

Locust wrote: »

I doubt that robber would have fired at Guard if the Guard was armed, if he did he more than likely the guard would have shouted warnings and returned fire and he would have been shot dead, a lawful killing. I think there would be an outcry about the killing by the papers but the majority of the public would support the Gardai. After all he was the bad guy.

Can you honestly reread that and still say that you doubt that robber would shoot?

MEMBER12

Great news today, the second guy has been arrested in relation to the armed robbery in Portmarnock yesterday. Well done to the boys in blue.

Potential-Monke

Re: the chiefs permission. Firstly, it's gone, and has been replaced with a 1 day course. The official driving course is 2 weeks (for car only). Those driving the patrol cars now are fully licensed with at least the 1 day course done. If you don't have it, you cannot drive the cars, full stop.

When chiefs was in, you had to have a full, clean licence before the chief would even consider you. And, no chief would put a learner driver or someone on a provisional licence into an official car. It's a massive insurance claim waiting to happen, and the chief's job would be on the line if they did so. (If i can be proven that this did happen, i will refute).

As for the gun training, the training a Garda would receive would be well beyond what someone in the general public would receive (if guns were legalised for all). Most gun ranges teach you the basic safety and use policies, but the Gardai would receive a lot more than that, including psychological understanding, and reading of the suspect with the gun. It will also attempt to train you on what you might feel after shooting someone. You won't get that as a citizen, as citizens would not be taught to shoot someone. Also, if a Garda's aim deteriorates over time, their gun card would be taken off them.

Any Garda trained in the use of firearms is highly trained, with a mental check-list to be completed before even considering taking out the firearm.

Esel

Potential-Monke wrote: »

If it can be proven that this did happen, i will refute.

If it is proven, you couldn't refute it...

deRanged

thanks for the clarification on the driving, Potential-Monke. One thing that concerns me about Gardai being routinely armed is the training aspect.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

When chiefs was in, you had to have a full, clean licence before the chief would even consider you. And, no chief would put a learner driver or someone on a provisional licence into an official car.

I had a vague memory of a Garda involved in a fatal crash driving on an expired provisional. Once I looked it up, it turned out that although he was on duty, he was not driving an official car. (link)

Back in 2006, a question was asked in the Dail ((link) as to how many Gardai were driving on Chiefs. it was over 2000, which seems an awfully high number to me.

I'd like all Gardai carrying firearms to be highly trained, with sufficient refresher courses, every 6 months or annually or whatever is required to keep a very high standard.

I've no hope at all that this country will resource the Gardai sufficiently to allow this to happen. Chiefs is gone, and that's great, but it's been replaced with a 1 day course. That's still not the proper training no matter how you look at it.

I don't like the idea of Gardai not being adequately trained for driving, and I really dislike the idea of inadequately trained Gardai carrying firearms.
I'd be concerned that a solution would be found, that would lead to shorter courses or special dispensation. There's precedent for this, unfortunately.

Potential-Monke

deRanged wrote: »

I don't like the idea of Gardai not being adequately trained for driving, and I really dislike the idea of inadequately trained Gardai carrying firearms.
I'd be concerned that a solution would be found, that would lead to shorter courses or special dispensation. There's precedent for this, unfortunately.

There are a few points i left out about the driving which i can't go into, but sufficed to say that no Garda is driving in a manner in which they are not trained to.

And while they may cut some corners with the driving (the 1 day course is intended as a stop gap until further full courses become available), but they would never cut a firearms course. Everyone that has a full licence would have some experience and ability to drive, whereas next to no one would have experience in shooting a pistol, so they couldn't cut the corners.

sdanseo

There's a tad of a difference between allowing someone to operate an official car (remember, these Gardaí are trained cops and have also earned their driving licence) versus handing guns to Gardaí without proper training. It simply wouldn't be allowed to happen, and frankly to suggest otherwise, especially in a country where gun laws are already incredibly stringent, is lunacy.

K.Flyer

I think a lot of people forget, or maybe just do not know, that there are ALREADY quite a few Garda who carry guns while on duty.
They just do not walk around waving them about for all to see, because they are discreet about it and rarely are they drawn and used, unless absolutely necessary.
So, I presume that they HAVE been given the proper training and assesment before being let out with them on their person.
For me its not a question of "Should the Garda be Armed?", as quite a few already are, rather that "Should the rest of them or more of them now carry guns?"

Locust

monument wrote: »

Can you honestly reread that and still say that you doubt that robber would shoot?

Having an armed cop is a massive deterrent

If you were to put yourself in the shoes of a robber can you honestly say that you would shoot at a trained armed police officer? The point of using a weapon during a robbery is to put fear into the people you are robbing - when the police turn up at the scene - actually using the gun on them is either death or a lengthy sentence. When it gets to that point most people with any sense drop the gun and surrender. Its crazy that our first responders don't have that capability.

I know we may be dealing with cracked up junkies but it must run through even the thickest skulls that pointing a gun at an armed officer will most likely get you killed.

RainyDay

Locust wrote: »

Having an armed cop is a massive deterrent

Doesn't seem to be a 'massive deterrent' in the USA.

monument

RainyDay wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be a 'massive deterrent' in the USA.

What s/he said.

pah

RainyDay wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be a 'massive deterrent' in the USA.

How so?

Locust

RainyDay wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be a 'massive deterrent' in the USA.

Yeah lets pick the maddest country in the world... wait comparing the gun culture and numerous 'issues' the USA has to tiny Ireland is an exercise in futility. That comment doesn't hold water. The US is an abnormal society compared to ours, arguably governed by fear.

Look at somewhere closer to home, within the EU - How many French or German cops attending the scene of an incident have been shot?

Locust

Here let me help :- A few stats German population is over 80 million people and the police fired just 85 shots for 2011. Of the 85, 49 were warnings shots, 36 were aimed shots at criminal suspects, 15 people were injured, and 6 were killed
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-germany-85-shots-022/

Crime in Germany
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gm-germany/cri-crime

I firmly believe those stats would be worse if they were an unarmed police service

MagicSean

Locust wrote: »

Having an armed cop is a massive deterrent

If you were to put yourself in the shoes of a robber can you honestly say that you would shoot at a trained armed police officer? The point of using a weapon during a robbery is to put fear into the people you are robbing - when the police turn up at the scene - actually using the gun on them is either death or a lengthy sentence. When it gets to that point most people with any sense drop the gun and surrender. Its crazy that our first responders don't have that capability.

I know we may be dealing with cracked up junkies but it must run through even the thickest skulls that pointing a gun at an armed officer will most likely get you killed.

i was actually just talking about this with a colleague today. The Irish people massively underestimate just how violent and vicious some of the criminals are, particularly the young ones. There are many that would think nothing of firing at a Garda if it was the difference between escape or capture. There are some who would hope for the opportunity. If you want Gardaí to carry guns you better be ready for them to use them.

For me, the main reason I would not like to be armed is that if push came to shove and I had to use it, I wouldn't feel like i could count on the support of the people, let alone management or politicians. I don't think the Irish people are ready for their police to be shooting people. Just look at the high profile incidents of that nature from the past.

monument

Locust wrote: »

Here let me help :- A few stats German population is over 80 million people and the police fired just 85 shots for 2011. Of the 85, 49 were warnings shots, 36 were aimed shots at criminal suspects, 15 people were injured, and 6 were killed
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-germany-85-shots-022/

The article is about comparing the US to Germany -- as the headline goes US cops used 85 shots per person.

Would we be closer to Berlin or Boston?

Locust wrote: »

Crime in Germany
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gm-germany/cri-crime

I firmly believe those stats would be worse if they were an unarmed police service

Just because you firmly believe it, does not make it true. Not in the slightest bit.

Locust wrote: »

Yeah lets pick the maddest country in the world... wait comparing the gun culture and numerous 'issues' the USA has to tiny Ireland is an exercise in futility. That comment doesn't hold water. The US is an abnormal society compared to ours, arguably governed by fear.

Look at somewhere closer to home, within the EU - How many French or German cops attending the scene of an incident have been shot?

We have a larger culture of fear and hyping crime than at least Germany, not too sure about France.

Terrontress

Locust wrote: »

Here let me help :- A few stats German population is over 80 million people and the police fired just 85 shots for 2011. Of the 85, 49 were warnings shots, 36 were aimed shots at criminal suspects, 15 people were injured, and 6 were killed
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-germany-85-shots-022/

Crime in Germany
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gm-germany/cri-crime

I firmly believe those stats would be worse if they were an unarmed police service

I'm surprised at German police firing warning shots.

What happens to that bullet once discharged?

If you are a police officer firing a gun, it should be at the torso with the intention of incapacitating the threat.

Waving guns about or firing them off in to the air will only get you shot yourself.

Locust

monument wrote: »

The article is about comparing the US to Germany -- as the headline goes US cops used 85 shots per person.

Would we be closer to Berlin or Boston?

I said you cant compare Ireland to US - one is frigid of firearms the other is gun mad. My mention of Germany was to point to another EU country. Whats your point?
I was highlighting the fact that an EU country like Germany can have an armed police force with a population of 80 million and be incredibly self controlled with them. Thats staggering. It speaks volumes that the presence of armed police is enough to deter without having to actually use the thing.

monument wrote: »

Just because you firmly believe it, does not make it true. Not in the slightest bit.

I think the stats speak for themselves. If i firmly disbelieve it, it doesn't disprove it. Whats your point?

monument wrote: »

We have a larger culture of fear and hyping crime than at least Germany, not too sure about France.

My fear comment was not in relation to the media and public perception on crime glamour seem to shoot out of fear (I personally think a lot people in the US feel the need to have a gun out of a deep rooted fear).

Locust

Terrontress wrote: »

I'm surprised at German police firing warning shots.

What happens to that bullet once discharged?

If you are a police officer firing a gun, it should be at the torso with the intention of incapacitating the threat.

Waving guns about or firing them off in to the air will only get you shot yourself.

If you shoot - you should shoot to kill. The exception is a warning shot and I think theres a time and a place for warning shots. Its actually quite a tactical and advanced call to make in a crisis.

By definition - A warning shot is the intentional discharge of a firearm with the purpose of causing a positive change in a person's behavior. A warning shot could be fired to cause a person to stop fleeing, to cause a person to drop a weapon, to gain the attention of a potentially violent crowd, etc. The person firing will take into account what they are shooting at and the potential for the bullet to carry on (they would anyway).

There is a psychology of having a firearm but not being prepared to use it. If the bad guy gets even a wiff that you aren't prepared to use it, then he will take advantage of that.

Sometimes you are better off showing him by warning shot that you are prepared to use it.

Again theres a time and a place for it. A lot of countries fire warning shots, in some its quite commonplace, but here in Ireland obviously the public are absolutely terrified of firearms. Obviously it works for the German police.

bravestar

Terrontress wrote: »

If you are a police officer firing a gun, it should be at the torso with the intention of incapacitating the threat.

Shots are aimed at center of mass with the intention of stopping the threat, not incapacitating.

Locust wrote: »

If you shoot - you should shoot to kill. The exception is a warning shot and I think theres a time and a place for warning shots. Its actually quite a tactical and advanced call to make in a crisis.

As above. You shoot to stop the threat. Not to kill or incapacitate. While the result from the bullet may be either or both. The intention of the person taking the shot is to stop the threat.

Warning shots are a no no. If the threat you are facing is that serious a risk to yours or someone else's life, that a firearm is required, then you must shoot to stop the threat. By firing a warning shot you are basically saying that the threat was not immediate or serious enough for you to shoot the person and if that was the case then you should have attempted to stop the threat in another manner and not have used a firearm at all.

As for the German warning shots, I am not familiar with their laws or training so can't comment.

Flurple

why cant they just be normal and have tasers?

Terrontress

bravestar wrote: »

Shots are aimed at center of mass with the intention of stopping the threat, not incapacitating.



As above. You shoot to stop the threat. Not to kill or incapacitate. While the result from the bullet may be either or both. The intention of the person taking the shot is to stop the threat.

Warning shots are a no no. If the threat you are facing is that serious a risk to yours or someone else's life, that a firearm is required, then you must shoot to stop the threat. By firing a warning shot you are basically saying that the threat was not immediate or serious enough for you to shoot the person and if that was the case then you should have attempted to stop the threat in another manner and not have used a firearm at all.

As for the German warning shots, I am not familiar with their laws or training so can't comment.

Do you understand what incapacitate means?

Terrontress

Locust wrote: »

If you shoot - you should shoot to kill. The exception is a warning shot and I think theres a time and a place for warning shots. Its actually quite a tactical and advanced call to make in a crisis.

By definition - A warning shot is the intentional discharge of a firearm with the purpose of causing a positive change in a person's behavior. A warning shot could be fired to cause a person to stop fleeing, to cause a person to drop a weapon, to gain the attention of a potentially violent crowd, etc. The person firing will take into account what they are shooting at and the potential for the bullet to carry on (they would anyway).

There is a psychology of having a firearm but not being prepared to use it. If the bad guy gets even a wiff that you aren't prepared to use it, then he will take advantage of that.

Sometimes you are better off showing him by warning shot that you are prepared to use it.

Again theres a time and a place for it. A lot of countries fire warning shots, in some its quite commonplace, but here in Ireland obviously the public are absolutely terrified of firearms. Obviously it works for the German police.

Where might an armed officer aim if he fires a warning shot? In to the air and it has to come back down. Against a surface and it might ricochet. I get what you're saying about the psychological advantage but I can't understand the practicalities of it.

monument

Locust wrote: »

I said you cant compare Ireland to US - one is frigid of firearms the other is gun mad. My mention of Germany was to point to another EU country. Whats your point?
I was highlighting the fact that an EU country like Germany can have an armed police force with a population of 80 million and be incredibly self controlled with them. Thats staggering. It speaks volumes that the presence of armed police is enough to deter without having to actually use the thing.

We are not Germany. The outcome of arming our police may not be as bad as the US, but it might be a lot worse than Germany -- we don't know.

At the end of the day Germany is just one case. In another country, the US -- which we are more culturally linked to than Germany -- they used their firearms the same amount on one person.

Locust wrote: »

I think the stats speak for themselves. If i firmly disbelieve it, it doesn't disprove it. Whats your point?

My point: Correlation does not imply causation; http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

There is likely to be many other factors at play, including social, cultural, and institutional legal factors.

Locust wrote: »

My fear comment was not in relation to the media and public perception on crime glamour seem to shoot out of fear (I personally think a lot people in the US feel the need to have a gun out of a deep rooted fear).

Again, maybe not at the same level of the US, but Ireland has developed a culture of fear of crime, and we did this while gun crime was still below EU norms. For a large chunk of people, fear overtook reality a long time ago.

Locust

Terrontress wrote: »

Where might an armed officer aim if he fires a warning shot? In to the air and it has to come back down. Against a surface and it might ricochet. I get what you're saying about the psychological advantage but I can't understand the practicalities of it.

I've seen crowds in the north (back in the day) that weren't listening to commands to disperse and the then RUC fired warning shots from a rifle into the tarmac beside them... (which readily absorbed the bullet and pushed up a big mound) it really made the point. The crowd all instantly became compliant found religion and dispersed.

Older colleagues (from across the way) have told me, that they regularly used to take fire when driving through certain areas on weekends... They couldn't alway pinpoint where the shooter was but generally used to pick a rubbish bin close enough and shot the bin sending it flying as a warning shot, which prevented further shots being fired.

Warning shots are historically more of a military tactic, the police seem to have moved away from them due to the risks involved, but the psychological advantage is great.

They are meant to be discharged in a manner that minimizes the risk of injury, ricochet dangers and damage property. So its a judgement call that a officer or soldier would make - to fire at something soft enough that will not ricochet or in a safe direction.

A quick google search i found the Indianapolis Police have authorised warning shots, which is rare http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-impd-to-permit-officers-to-fire-warning-shots-20120627,0,5528013.column

http://missoulian.com/news/local/man-taken-into-custody-after-missoula-police-fire-warning-shot/article_c7a8bc58-2c88-11e2-8dde-001a4bcf887a.html

http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=8438

http://japandailypress.com/hiroshima-police-fire-warning-shots-on-knife-wielding-ex-u-s-marine-098671

http://www.radford.edu/~tburke/Burke/warningshots.pdf



This is all fantasy stuff as -- Ireland is a long ways away from 1. arming uniform AGS 2. having a policy that authorises warning shots!!
Nonetheless i enjoy discussion

Locust

bravestar wrote: »

Warning shots are a no no. If the threat you are facing is that serious a risk to yours or someone else's life, that a firearm is required, then you must shoot to stop the threat. By firing a warning shot you are basically saying that the threat was not immediate or serious enough for you to shoot the person and if that was the case then you should have attempted to stop the threat in another manner and not have used a firearm at all.

Situations can be fluid as im sure you well know. The threat may be a risk to life one moment and may be okay the next - it may be a threat to life, but may not be immediate, there are so many variables - you could be driving down a road one minute and the next surrounded by a violent crowd smashing the windows of your car trying drag you out of the vehicle and kick you to death.

I understand warning shots are a no no for the police in this part of the world but if the spit hit the fan and it came down to it, a warning shot could save your life.

MEMBER12

Well Iam all for arming the Gardai, I would still like see a referendum on this however, there is one reason that this will not happen and that is money. And perhaps the courage of someone to bring it up in the Dail. I think there would have to be a major incident for this to occur. Let's hope someone does not get hurt to make this happen.

bravestar

Terrontress wrote: »

Do you understand what incapacitate means?

Yes. It does not however take into account the possibility of death. If I incapacitate you, I would presume you are still alive. If I kill you, I would presume you are dead. If I stop you, you could be incapacitated or dead.

I didn't make the terminology up, if you choose not to listen, then fair enough.

Terrontress

bravestar wrote: »

Yes. It does not however take into account the possibility of death. If I incapacitate you, I would presume you are still alive. If I kill you, I would presume you are dead. If I stop you, you could be incapacitated or dead.

I didn't make the terminology up, if you choose not to listen, then fair enough.

Nonsense. There is nobody more incapacitated than someone killed.

bravestar

Terrontress wrote: »

Nonsense. There is nobody more incapacitated than someone killed.

Well you must be the only person who thinks killing and incapacitating are the same thing. Since you dont listen to words, I suggest you go get some training in relation to the use of less than lethal - lethal use of force and then come back to us.

MagicSean

bravestar wrote: »

Well you must be the only person who thinks killing and incapacitating are the same thing. Since you dont listen to words, I suggest you go get some training in relation to the use of less than lethal - lethal use of force and then come back to us.

Less than lethal force is not relevent when talking about using a gun though. You shoot to put the person down. Doesn't matter if they die or not.

bravestar

MagicSean wrote: »

Less than lethal force is not relevent when talking about using a gun though. You shoot to put the person down. Doesn't matter if they die or not.

It is relevant because less than lethal is used to incapacitate and that word appears to be the subject of much debate. That's why I mentioned it.

Back to firearms, you are correct. Shoot COM to stop threat. Death or not is irrelevant as long as the action is stopped that caused you to fire.

Terrontress

bravestar wrote: »

It is relevant because less than lethal is used to incapacitate and that word appears to be the subject of much debate. That's why I mentioned it.

Back to firearms, you are correct. Shoot COM to stop threat. Death or not is irrelevant as long as the action is stopped that caused you to fire.

Just go to a dictionary and look the word up.

Witcher

Good to see the important issues being debated here:rolleyes: