Posted on 08/05/2018 10:24:47 AM PDT by topher
In the Aurora, Colorado, home invasion, the home owners killed the perp.
The people who lived there used proper procedure to call the police.
Did the noise of the gunfire to kill the perp temporarily deafen the home owner? Is there a means for the police to better communicate in such a situation?
I think using a silencer goes too far. But what about a device that makes the noise something that would not interfere with hearing. There is a big difference between firing a handgun indoors versus outdoors in terms of the noise.
In this example, should gun owners have noise suppression device?
I would clearly concede that the police should have been more patient.
Hand gestures probably should have been used with telling the home owner to put down the weapon.
Personally, I keep my electronic earmuffs in the bedstand. Those go on after weapon(s) are acquired, and besides protection, actually enhance one's hearing as an added benefit.
Turn them up all the way and they are like bionic ears, I can hear conversations in another room.
40 years this would NOT have happened. But we have lowered standards so far that just about anyone with a pulse can become a cop, see James Comey
In the Colorado police murder, yes, I call it murder, the cop was trigger happy and has a record of shooting people. He did not assess the situation, he did not attempt to do anything first, other than shoot the homeowner. This is murder and should be treated as such.
I don't see how the homeowner would have benefited from a silence vis-a-vis his murdering cop, but if this gets us hearing protection devices, at least some good could come from his murder.
In hindsight, lesson learned for all of us, once involved in a shooting, once secure, put the gun down. Definitely put the gun down BEFORE OR AS the police arrive. Having a gun in hand, especially at the scene of a shooting is dangerous and, with a trigger happy "shoot first" cop, deadly.
There is so much missing here it is hard to know where to start.
First, the home owner should have put the gun down the instant the cops were in sight. The gun is not needed after the bad guy is out of it.
If the bad guy is only wounded but not out of commission it is up to the cops as soon as they arrive..
As for the cops; Were the blue light bars on? They are so bright around here that even if the squad cars are on the other side of the building, the lights reflect off everything in sight. They are blinding.
Second and even more important, even cops are not supposed to shoot everyone they see with a gun. The gun must pose a threat to them, that is pointed t them. Or the gun must be an immediate threat to a third party. A cop who shoots just because he sees a gun should be prosecuted the same as you or I would be.
Silencers and signs are totally irrelevant. I have a hearing problem. I can hear noises as well as anyone as well as about 75 percent of human voices, but there are some voices that are very difficult. The high pitched fast talking blonds on FOX News are the most difficult to understand. I hear them, but do not get everything they are saying.
The point being that both the homeowner and the cops involved made serious errors. Proper mindset and training is worth more than silencers and signs.
The best thing to be said for a silencer in this case is that the nosy neighbor who called the cops might not have heard the shots and the homeowner would have been the one to call the cops and include an explanation of what took place and what he looked like.
A silencer would do exactly what you want: suppress the noise of the gunfire. It does not SILENCE the weapon. That’s just Hollywood nonsense.
“...using a silencer goes too far...”
Please explain how so.
Yea ben and they were made to remove the one with the bitch wearing the hijab too!
You don't need to suppress the noise as much as a silencer.
A person might want to know that his gun was fired -- such as a child firing the handgun.
That was my point. Just something to allow a person to hear after the gun is fired. A silencer would be okay, but knowing a gun is fired might be a desirable thing (as I pointed out above).
A gunowner would be horrified to find a child/person dead because he did not hear the shot of his gun from someone playing with it. And if it has a 'distinctive' sound, the homeowner would know it is his gun being fired...
That is the 'why' for my point of view (which could be total nonsense).
Suppressors do not make a gun silent nor do they actually suppress the noise that much in the first place. You still get the sonic boom of the supersonic projectile (unless you’re firing .45ACP or other subsonic ammo) and the surprisingly loud sound of the firearm’s action. Suppressors do not silence a gun; “silencers” is a bit of media conflation to make it seem like a product only used by criminals and has been since before 1934.
Your point of view is sadly total nonsense.
Won’t work on a deaf guy with his back to the cops.
The man's stepson said the police didn't give any warning so hearing was not an issue.
Your notion of what a ‘silencer’ does seems to have been formed by Hollywood. As others have indicated, that is a false notion. In fact, it is the very same false notion that led an ignorant Congress to make ‘silencers’ practically illegal in 1934.
I doubt you have ever heard a suppressed fire arm. They are not silenced like the movies pretend. In fact unless you are a regular with firearms you probably wouldn't even notice a suppresses firearm was "Silenced."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.