TexasCHLforum.com

I was reading the write up on CNN and that was the ONLY way it made sense to me....but I wasn't going to say anything except to my husband geez.....at least our cops can shoot a little bit better...maybe not experts, but I really don't think they would have shot 9! people....good grief!

The shooting was staged by Bloomberg.

You may think that's crazy talk but it's logical. According to Bloomberg himself, strict gun laws ensure people can't get guns without government approval. In NYC that means Bloomber's approval. Therefore the killer got the weapon from Bloomberg or with his approval.

The.only other option is Bloomberg lies more than Goebbels did. That's too nutty to be true so Bloomberg must be behind the Empire State murders. Elementary!

Kythas wrote:Police Commissioner Ray Kelly is now saying some of the shooting victims at the Empire State Building may have been accidentally shot by police in the crossfire with the suspect.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/24/sh ... -building/

Doesn't the city/county/state government require extremely heavy trigger pulls on all police firearms in NYC? I know Kahr quit doing business with NYPD when they couldn't (wouldn't?) make the trigger pulls heavy enough to pass their specifications. They increased the weight because there were too many accidental discharges. I’ll see if I can dig up the link.

Just thinking, when you have 10-12 lbs trigger pulls, accuracy tends to suffer.


(and that is how I got my Kahr K9)

The antis are worried that CHLers are going to shoot innocents if we are allowed to carry everywhere?

Idjits!

Anygunanywhere

Last shooting was in Washington, heavily gun controlled, against an anti-gay non profit. This one is in New York, another no gun location, against a fashion for profit.

Brave men with guns stopped both attacks.

SewTexas wrote:I was reading the write up on CNN and that was the ONLY way it made sense to me....but I wasn't going to say anything except to my husband geez.....at least our cops can shoot a little bit better...maybe not experts, but I really don't think they would have shot 9! people....good grief!

Well, according to the reports, he shot the intended victim 5 times. Assuming he put a round in the chamber and topped off the magazine, he started out with 8 rounds. There was one round left in the mag after the police killed him. 8-6= 2. Nine people were wounded so the police had to have shot at least 7 people. Assuming he shot at the police, and there is conflicting testimony on that, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to believe the police, who discharged 16 rounds, shot all nine people who were wounded.

VMI77 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:I was reading the write up on CNN and that was the ONLY way it made sense to me....but I wasn't going to say anything except to my husband geez.....at least our cops can shoot a little bit better...maybe not experts, but I really don't think they would have shot 9! people....good grief!

Well, according to the reports, he shot the intended victim 5 times. Assuming he put a round in the chamber and topped off the magazine, he started out with 8 rounds. There was one round left in the mag after the police killed him. 8-6= 2. Nine people were wounded so the police had to have shot at least 7 people. Assuming he shot at the police, and there is conflicting testimony on that, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to believe the police, who discharged 16 rounds, shot all nine people who were wounded.

"Friendly fire".

I blogged about this. I was highly critical of Bloomberg's "professionals". http://txantimedia.com/2012/08/25/nypds-finest-shoot-8/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is absolutely no reason to use 16 rounds on an armed suspect, and especially not in an area crowded with pedestrians. The man killed one person. The police wounded eight. Who was more dangerous to the public?

News alert just popped up on my phone saying that it has been confirmed that all 9 people wounded were hit by police gunfire. Maybe instead of taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, New York should consider taking them away from the police.

jmra wrote:News alert just popped up on my phone saying that it has been confirmed that all 9 people wounded were hit by police gunfire. Maybe instead of taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, New York should consider taking them away from the police.

Wow. Unbelievable.

ffemt300 wrote:

jmra wrote:News alert just popped up on my phone saying that it has been confirmed that all 9 people wounded were hit by police gunfire. Maybe instead of taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, New York should consider taking them away from the police.

Wow. Unbelievable.

Unfortunately, I don't have any problem believing it.

philip964 wrote:Last shooting was in Washington, heavily gun controlled, against an anti-gay non profit. This one is in New York, another no gun location, against a fashion for profit.

Brave men with guns stopped both attacks.

It was not an anti-gay non profit. It was pro traditional marriage. Big difference.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

philip964 wrote:Last shooting was in Washington, heavily gun controlled, against an anti-gay non profit. This one is in New York, another no gun location, against a fashion for profit.

Brave men with guns stopped both attacks.

It was not an anti-gay non profit. It was pro traditional marriage. Big difference.

Anygunanywhere

This ^^

And while I do not doubt their courage, I very much doubt their marksmanship. Were I one of those in the beaten zone, I would have rather taken my own chances with a gun than be shot down as "collateral damage," who outnumbered the bad guy 9 to 1 that day. It might have been brave, but it was also unbelievably poor performance. But that's OK. You've got to break a few eggs to keep people from getting the idea that the 2nd Amendment actually applies to them more than it does to government agencies.

The lastest says

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/justice/n ... ?hpt=hp_t1

that there were no direct police hits on the bystanders

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the bystanders were not hit directly by police, but rather the officers' struck "flowerpots and other objects around, so ... their bullets fragmented and, in essence, that's what caused the wounds."

Police officers fired a total of 16 rounds; one officer shot nine while another one shot seven, the New York Police Department said.

Hmmmm....

chasfm11 wrote:The lastest says

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/justice/n ... ?hpt=hp_t1

that there were no direct police hits on the bystanders

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the bystanders were not hit directly by police, but rather the officers' struck "flowerpots and other objects around, so ... their bullets fragmented and, in essence, that's what caused the wounds."

Police officers fired a total of 16 rounds; one officer shot nine while another one shot seven, the New York Police Department said.

Hmmmm....

Oh fer cryin' out loud. The police bullets hit the bystanders. If they were shooting "flowerpots and other objects around", their marksmenship is still questionable at best. If you watch the video, they weren't more than 10 yards from the gunman. At that range, if you can't keep it within the eight ring, you need to put the weapon down and go find some other line of work.

The reality is these officers fired wildly and repeatedly in a place crammed with innocent civilians. It shouldn't have taken more than two accurate shots for each officer and then they reassess. These guys kept squeezing the trigger repeatedly, without regard to the safety of the people in their line of fire. If a CHL holder did that, they would be held liable for every injury and roundly condemned for being a cowboy.