If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Three shot, one injured inside New Jersey Police station. If only the police had been armed, this would never have happened   (foxnews.com) divider line 555
    More: News, New Jersey, police stations, stairwell  
•       •       •

12561 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2012 at 9:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



555 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-28 08:43:29 AM
They obviously need Paul Newman in the police station.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-28 08:56:25 AM
The uprising against tearrany has begun!
 
2012-12-28 08:56:43 AM
Three people were shot, but only one was injured?
 
2012-12-28 09:01:52 AM

propasaurus: Three people were shot, but only one was injured?


Hmm...  Maybe two were wearing their vests?
 
2012-12-28 09:05:56 AM
Days since last mass shooting: 0
 
2012-12-28 09:06:30 AM
I'll bet it was one day before one of the cop's retirement, too. Those guys should know better than to show up on their last day.
 
2012-12-28 09:06:57 AM
Wayne LaPierre has the solution to this problem: Place armed teachers inside every police station.
 
2012-12-28 09:07:32 AM
That does it. We need to give police officers guns. Then everyone would be too scared to shoot them.
 
2012-12-28 09:07:49 AM
Those cops obviously needed more guns.
 
2012-12-28 09:08:33 AM
This happened because they've taken God out of the police stations.
 
2012-12-28 09:09:04 AM

Fissile: Wayne LaPierre has the solution to this problem: Place armed teachers inside every police station.


+1 hahahahaha
 
2012-12-28 09:09:05 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: I'll bet it was one day before one of the cop's retirement, too. Those guys should know better than to show up on their last day.


Actually, he was shot on the last day before they were going to seal him into the bulletproof bunker, which is now SOP on the day before they retire...
 
2012-12-28 09:09:20 AM
What the cops needed were assault rifles. Much more scary.
 
2012-12-28 09:09:30 AM
I've been saying it for years.  Every police officer should be issued a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and claymores.  When will these libby libs stop treading on us?
 
2012-12-28 09:09:44 AM

Oysterman: That does it. We need to give police officers guns. Then everyone would be too scared to shoot them.


From the article, it sounds like one of the cops should have kept better control of his own weapon.
 
2012-12-28 09:09:52 AM
Actually, they did subby:

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.
MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.


Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.
 
2012-12-28 09:09:52 AM
Your probably pissed the shooter didn't gun down some kids before his suicide by cop. Oh well, maybe you'll get your wish tomorrow.
 
2012-12-28 09:09:52 AM
Maybe the shooter was committing suicide-by-cop?
 
2012-12-28 09:09:55 AM
The police need to stop training inmates on how to use assault rifles?
 
2012-12-28 09:10:09 AM
Give the cops more guns, and take away their video games.
 
2012-12-28 09:10:43 AM
He was just trying to get his wanted level up to six stars.
 
2012-12-28 09:10:51 AM
The shooter took a cop's gun. Nobody would be able to get a gun from a teacher.
 
2012-12-28 09:10:56 AM
This is why one officer needs to be designated as the office popper. Every half hour he squeezes off a few rounds into the ceiling below a bunch of TempurPedic mattresses. Honestly, do you guys think that criminals are going to shoot up a building that has shots being fired several times a day? I think not.
 
2012-12-28 09:11:09 AM

phaseolus: Maybe the shooter was committing suicide-by-cop?


quite probable
 
2012-12-28 09:11:12 AM

Fissile: Wayne LaPierre has the solution to this problem: Place armed teachers inside every police station.


Yeah! Then maybe cops would finally LEARN something.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 09:11:13 AM
Wow - so these are the guys you think have the ability to protect every citizen from criminals? These are the government agents you think can bring about peace while every other law abiding citizen is disarmed?
 
2012-12-28 09:11:14 AM
I thought all you had to do was show the perp that you had a gun and they would run away? That worked 2 million times last year!

Or not. 2 million is five times the number of violent crimes that occurred in the USA last year. If that was what the CC folks stopped, then there must have been 4-6 million violent crimes that were not reported.
 
2012-12-28 09:11:26 AM
If the police station was a weapons free zone this would not have happened.
 
2012-12-28 09:12:03 AM

kombat_unit: Your probably pissed the shooter didn't gun down some kids before his suicide by cop. Oh well, maybe you'll get your wish tomorrow.


No, but I am pissed that people don't know the difference between "your" and "you're".
 
2012-12-28 09:12:11 AM
I was gonna make a crack about the NRA blaming Grand Theft Auto for this, and how their should be vets walking the halls with guns to prevent these things...but meh, it's Friday...gonna go grab a breakfast taco instead.
 
2012-12-28 09:12:48 AM

dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.
MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.

Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.


This. Three shot is a lot different than 26 dead. Hint: It's more difficult to shoot accurately when someone is shooting back at you.
 
2012-12-28 09:13:03 AM
Only 3? hmmmm and why didn't they just kill every polioce officer in the building?? oh the shooter was shot and killed..... nice try Farker

images.sodahead.com
 
2012-12-28 09:13:15 AM

dittybopper: Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.


Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around made the attack possible.
 
2012-12-28 09:13:25 AM

Nem Wan: The shooter took a cop's gun. Nobody would be able to get a gun from a teacher.


schmoesknow.com
What an average teacher might look like
 
2012-12-28 09:13:58 AM

KIA: Wow - so these are the guys you think have the ability to protect every citizen from criminals? These are the government agents you think can bring about peace while every other law abiding citizen is disarmed?


Naw, we'd rather depend on the untrained law abiding citizen. Like the one who got killed here. Lets see:

Untrained civilians: 1 dead
Trained Police: One shot. Two with boo boos.

/check the stats
 
2012-12-28 09:14:13 AM

propasaurus: Three people were shot, but only one was injured?


2 were killed but they're listed as resulting from allergic reaction (to small metallic objects)

//new nra excuse
 
2012-12-28 09:14:30 AM
No dead good guys, one dead bad guy... seems like it's working as intended.
 
2012-12-28 09:15:01 AM
A gun isn't a force field.
 
2012-12-28 09:16:18 AM
Are you all retarded?

"Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident when a struggle with officers ensued at around 5:30 a.m. The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect."

The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work.
 
2012-12-28 09:16:22 AM

BizarreMan: If the police station was a weapons free zone this would not have happened.


FTFA:  The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said.

As mentioned above, I'm sure teachers would be able to protect their firearms much better than trained law enforcement personnel.
 
2012-12-28 09:16:32 AM
It's not that they weren't armed, it's because they took prayer away from police stations.
 
2012-12-28 09:16:43 AM

Click Click D'oh: No dead good guys, one dead bad guy... seems like it's working as intended.


It's cute how grown people still use terms like 'good guys' and 'bad guys' and they're totally serious in their usage, too.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 09:17:15 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: KIA: Wow - so these are the guys you think have the ability to protect every citizen from criminals? These are the government agents you think can bring about peace while every other law abiding citizen is disarmed?

Naw, we'd rather depend on the untrained law abiding citizen. Like the one who got killed here. Lets see:

Untrained civilians: 1 dead
Trained Police: One shot. Two with boo boos.

/check the stats


Actually, the police were wearing body armor which Feinstein is still trying to make illegal for civilians. One got hit below the body armor. It is unclear which one was careless enough to let a perp swipe their gun and how a perp who should have been in handcuffs managed to do that anyway.
 
2012-12-28 09:17:45 AM
Two things:

a) I thought the knowledge of guns would dissuade people from attacking...where is that stupid f*cking Facebook post with the sign that says "if this sign was in front of the school, would the attack have happened"?
2) Yes, police officers that are trained and highly regulated were able to take down this criminal
d) The pro gun nitwits (specifically the people that have gone nutso the past couple weeks) seem to forget the above when making their new arguments today
 
2012-12-28 09:17:59 AM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: This is why one officer needs to be designated as the office popper. Every half hour he squeezes off a few rounds into the ceiling below a bunch of TempurPedic mattresses. Honestly, do you guys think that criminals are going to shoot up a building that has shots being fired several times a day? I think not.


t3.gstatic.com

Not amused.
 
2012-12-28 09:18:25 AM

dittybopper: Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.


Click Click D'oh: No dead good guys, one dead bad guy... seems like it's working as intended.


Yep. But we can't let that get in the way of a good derpfest!
 
2012-12-28 09:18:32 AM

BizarreMan: If the police station was a weapons free zone this would not have happened.


This is funny and true
 
2012-12-28 09:18:44 AM

natazha: I thought all you had to do was show the perp that you had a gun and they would run away? That worked 2 million times last year!

Or not. 2 million is five times the number of violent crimes that occurred in the USA last year. If that was what the CC folks stopped, then there must have been 4-6 million violent crimes that were not reported.


Ummm... no. Don't know where those numbers came from, I'm just commenting on the (il)logic of your statement. If someone stopped a violent crime before it was committed, then there was - by definition - no violent crime committed to be reported.

/Logikal thot, how duz it wurk?
 
2012-12-28 09:19:00 AM
I think the headline summed it up, and generally speaking, I agree. However. If you've ever been in a police station, you may notice that once an officer enters the building, they have to check their firearm at the front desk. In other words, most of the people in the building, in fact, are not armed. Only select individuals, like detectives, are allowed to carry in the building.

I'm speaking of this from the one time that I got arrested, and was rather surprised to see that routine as I was being shuffled into the station.

It was a mistake in a traffic violation. Sorry for the letdown in terms of why I got arrested to start with. It still sucked, though.
 
2012-12-28 09:19:09 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: I'll bet it was one day before one of the cop's retirement, too. Those guys should know better than to show up on their last day.


They're getting too old for this shiat
 
2012-12-28 09:19:14 AM

Click Click D'oh: No dead good guys, one dead bad guy... seems like it's working as intended.


Cops are civilians?
 
2012-12-28 09:19:59 AM

Vodka Zombie: propasaurus: Three people were shot, but only one was injured?

Hmm...  Maybe two were wearing their vests?


Now it's "too soon" once again.
 
2012-12-28 09:20:06 AM

maggoo: dittybopper: Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around made the attack possible.


Damn straight. If cops didn't have guns this would never have happened.

/If it saves just one life...
 
2012-12-28 09:20:32 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: dittybopper: Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.

Click Click D'oh: No dead good guys, one dead bad guy... seems like it's working as intended.

Yep. But we can't let that get in the way of a good derpfest!


Kiriyama9000: Are you all retarded?

"Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident when a struggle with officers ensued at around 5:30 a.m. The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect."

The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work.


Funny, the way I see it working is the guy gets restrained and charged with trying to escape. Of course, in my view of things, the cops would have been armed with non-lethal weapons and no one would have died and most likely, the only guy to get hurt would have been the retard being arrested.

But, hey, what do I know? I'm only one guy.
 
2012-12-28 09:21:07 AM

dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.
MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.

Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.


The entire event demonstrates armed people do not prevent mass shootings. They're responders.
 
2012-12-28 09:21:08 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: natazha: I thought all you had to do was show the perp that you had a gun and they would run away? That worked 2 million times last year!

Or not. 2 million is five times the number of violent crimes that occurred in the USA last year. If that was what the CC folks stopped, then there must have been 4-6 million violent crimes that were not reported.

Ummm... no. Don't know where those numbers came from, I'm just commenting on the (il)logic of your statement. If someone stopped a violent crime before it was committed, then there was - by definition - no violent crime committed to be reported.

/Logikal thot, how duz it wurk?


That's similar to the often repeated "thought" that only criminals commit crimes with firearms.
 
2012-12-28 09:21:17 AM

Kiriyama9000: Are you all retarded?

"Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident when a struggle with officers ensued at around 5:30 a.m. The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect."

The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work.


THIS!!! The fark arm-chair anti gun task force is getting derpier by the moment. Subby, your headline is shiatty, inaccurate, and not even a good troll.
 
2012-12-28 09:21:34 AM
s1.ibtimes.com

"What we need doing in this country is start training police on the use of firearms and then putting armed police inside police stations!"
 
2012-12-28 09:21:47 AM

dittybopper: Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.


Dancin_In_Anson: Yep. But we can't let that get in the way of a good derpfest!


Click Click D'oh: No dead good guys, one dead bad guy... seems like it's working as intended.


At which point in the past few weeks has any argument been made to keep guns out of the hands of police officers?

You know, continuing to harp on events where trained police officers stopped a shooting doesn't further the argument that you are intending to make. I mean, assuming you aren't just making silly comments to further some twisted agenda because reasonable discussion about a serious problem is beyond your pay grade.

Just think, if the police officers DIDN'T have guns, the person in custody wouldn't have been able to steal a weapon and shoot three people.
 
2012-12-28 09:21:48 AM

Infernalist: Funny, the way I see it working is the guy gets restrained and charged with trying to escape.


That is funny!
 
2012-12-28 09:21:50 AM
F*ck, I know a Jersey cop.

Wait this place is way South of him.

Hope all the officers recover fully.
 
2012-12-28 09:21:53 AM

KIA: Actually, the police were wearing body armor which Feinstein is still trying to make illegal for civilians.


Yeah, think of how much fairer it would have been if the perp had had body armor as well.
 
2012-12-28 09:22:01 AM

Chinchillazilla: Days since last mass shooting: 0


Your definition of "mass" confuses me.


/there is gang related gun violence about... every damn day.
//but if its a bunch of white people getting shot, god help us.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 09:22:06 AM

Infernalist: Of course, in my view of things, the cops would have been armed with non-lethal weapons and no one would have died


Yes, however there is no evidence of any kind that water-pistols are effective in law enforcement or that they have any effect upon crime rates.
 
2012-12-28 09:23:08 AM

PaulRB: propasaurus: Three people were shot, but only one was injured?

2 were killed but they're listed as resulting from allergic reaction (to small metallic objects)

//new nra excuse


www.webelements.com
 
2012-12-28 09:23:21 AM

Slappajo: dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.
MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.

Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.

This. Three shot is a lot different than 26 dead. Hint: It's more difficult to shoot accurately when someone is shooting back at you.


You're hint is why arming citizens isn't a good defense against mass shooters. It's a great point to buttress gun control.
 
2012-12-28 09:23:25 AM
Certainly doesn't help that the media keeps making all of these shooters into celebs.
 
2012-12-28 09:24:06 AM

Kiriyama9000: The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work


Really?

I am pretty sure whn the police have somebody in custody they, as a rule, shouldn't be able to take police officers weapon from them.
 
2012-12-28 09:24:10 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Infernalist: Funny, the way I see it working is the guy gets restrained and charged with trying to escape.

That is funny!


I know, right? It's always funny until it happens to someone you personally give a shiat about.

Another example of the primary lesson: Do NOT call the cops unless your life is in danger because if you do, your life may well end when they get involved.
 
2012-12-28 09:24:25 AM
MORE GUNS!

Love the headline subby :)
 
2012-12-28 09:24:33 AM
Does anyone know the status of the shooter's Man Card?

I'm asking for a friend.
 
2012-12-28 09:24:46 AM
How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown?  Something like 500+?  This is yet another one.  I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.
 
2012-12-28 09:25:06 AM

TheTrashcanMan: Certainly doesn't help that the media keeps making all of these shooters into celebs.


I think if you see a shooter and think of him as a "celeb" that's kind of on you, man.
 
2012-12-28 09:25:35 AM

KIA: Infernalist: Of course, in my view of things, the cops would have been armed with non-lethal weapons and no one would have died

Yes, however there is no evidence of any kind that water-pistols are effective in law enforcement or that they have any effect upon crime rates.


I was thinking more along the lines of tasers and industrial strength pepper spray, billy clubs and other methods of non-lethal weaponry.

But, you knew that.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 09:26:05 AM

Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown? Something like 500+?


About the same number that have died as a result of the flu. Same as always. Did you get your flu shot?
 
2012-12-28 09:26:45 AM
The Herp-A-Derp anti-gunners are out in force this morning.

The still havent figured out bad people will still do bad things. Cute.
 
2012-12-28 09:26:59 AM
Did the suspect aquire his own weapon that the cops missed in a search or did he aquire the cops weapon because his hands were cuffed in front of his body.

I thought it was the weapon owners fault when a crime is committed with their firearm? Is the prosecutor filing charges against the weapons owner?
 
2012-12-28 09:27:14 AM

EbolaNYC: A gun isn't a force field.


A gun endows a Sphere of Protection +3 when equipped.
 
2012-12-28 09:27:34 AM

Fissile: Wayne LaPierre has the solution to this problem: Place armed teachers inside every police station.


But what happens if a nutjob drives an armored Zamboni into the station??? We have to make sure all teachers and all police have an armored Zamboni parked next to their desks. Otherwise, bedlam will rule!
 
2012-12-28 09:27:53 AM

propasaurus: Three people were shot, but only one was injured?


==============

It's called "cop math". It's like when they find a little baggie of stems and seeds on a 19 year old pizza-face and they declare a "major" drug bust "with a street value of $1.2 million".

The shooting inside this cop station means all the cops at this station have just won the cop lottery. Every one will now declare an injury.....flying "shrapnel", loss of hearing, stress, etc.....and retire on a 100% disability pension that will pay six figures, and include a Cadillac health plan. The week after they "retire" they get another municipal/county job that pays at least six figures and the hiring authority will say, "It was such a bargain finding this guy because we don't need to pay his health care!"
 
2012-12-28 09:28:07 AM

Bontesla: Slappajo: dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.
MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.

Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.

This. Three shot is a lot different than 26 dead. Hint: It's more difficult to shoot accurately when someone is shooting back at you.

You're hint is why arming citizens isn't a good defense against mass shooters. It's a great point to buttress gun control.


*your hint
goddamitsomuch
 
2012-12-28 09:28:19 AM
/grabs popcorn
//whiskey too
 
2012-12-28 09:28:26 AM

Infernalist: I know, right? It's always funny until it happens to someone you personally give a shiat about.


I don't give a shiat about a criminal who went for a cop's gun and lost.
 
2012-12-28 09:28:39 AM

Giltric: Did the suspect aquire his own weapon that the cops missed in a search or did he aquire the cops weapon because his hands were cuffed in front of his body.

I thought it was the weapon owners fault when a crime is committed with their firearm? Is the prosecutor filing charges against the weapons owner?


Depends on the situation, I think. If he was cuffed in front and managed to grab an unsecured gun from deputy derper, then yeah, that cop is likely looking at a lengthy paid vacation with outcome unknown.

The rules are different for cops. I thought everyone knew this by now.
 
2012-12-28 09:28:53 AM
media.comicvine.com
for questioning
 
2012-12-28 09:29:00 AM

Click Click D'oh: No dead good guys, one dead bad guy... seems like it's working as intended.


Sad thing is this stuff has got to take its toll on the cops' well-being, through no fault of their own. Their job is harrowing enough without this shiat.
 
2012-12-28 09:29:01 AM

imontheinternet: Nem Wan: The shooter took a cop's gun. Nobody would be able to get a gun from a teacher.


What an average teacher might look like


He's a cop, you idiot.
 
2012-12-28 09:29:48 AM

LasersHurt: TheTrashcanMan: Certainly doesn't help that the media keeps making all of these shooters into celebs.

I think if you see a shooter and think of him as a "celeb" that's kind of on you, man.


Ha. Well said
 
2012-12-28 09:30:28 AM

imontheinternet: BizarreMan: If the police station was a weapons free zone this would not have happened.

FTFA:  The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said.

As mentioned above, I'm sure teachers would be able to protect their firearms much better than trained law enforcement personnel.

The talk of giving teachers guns is silly. Having said that, I went to a high school that had two armed police officers on duty at all times. If someone did come in with a gun, they'd have to deal with an armed response. Even if somehow both officers failed to bring down an assailant, isn't that still better than no response at all?

Not once in my four years in high school did I feel encroached by having officers around, nor did I ever feel that I was in a prison. If I were an elementary school student, I probably thought it would have been awesome to have an officer around. Didn't some of us aspire to be a cop some day at one point or another? Middle school students probably wouldn't care much -- we were all little asses back then.

Put an officer at every school. Give them an office. They are trained and have sworn an oath. Will this be perfect? No. Will this be cheap? No. Will more children be better protected than they are now? YES.

You cannot find and prevent every crazy or mentally sick person from doing crazy things. It is IMPOSSIBLE to predict crazy and even more IMPOSSIBLE to find every potential weapon for said crazy that could be used and destroy them.

Instead, provide an armed response. The only way to deal with deadly force is unfortunately to respond with deadly force.
 
2012-12-28 09:30:33 AM

PaulRB: propasaurus: Three people were shot, but only one was injured?

2 were killed but they're listed as resulting from allergic reaction (to small metallic objects)

//new nra excuse


I like this one. Boys lets get the FDA on this. I smell good PR in our future.
www.51allout.co.uk
 
KIA
2012-12-28 09:30:38 AM

Infernalist: other methods of non-lethal weaponry


A) You forgot about Nerf guns. Very intimidating in some of the larger models.

B) Billy-clubs. Right. Why not give them a 18th-century man-catcher? Those were non-lethal and had like a nine-foot range rather than the more limited three-foot range of a billy club.

C) If criminals want habanera sauce, they can generally get it without going to the police for it.

D) Tasers aren't necessarily non-lethal and also aren't necessarily effective.
 
2012-12-28 09:30:59 AM

LasersHurt: TheTrashcanMan: Certainly doesn't help that the media keeps making all of these shooters into celebs.

I think if you see a shooter and think of him as a "celeb" that's kind of on you, man.


Very rarely do you remember the names of the victims, but you always remember the name of the shooter. It seems in recent events, gun men are trying to "one-up" each other.
 
2012-12-28 09:31:15 AM

socodog: Kiriyama9000: Are you all retarded?

"Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident when a struggle with officers ensued at around 5:30 a.m. The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect."

The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work.

THIS!!! The fark arm-chair anti gun task force is getting derpier by the moment. Subby, your headline is shiatty, inaccurate, and not even a good troll.


So if the cops WEREN'T armed, this would have never happened.
 
2012-12-28 09:31:21 AM
blogs.suntimes.com
WANTED FOR QUESTIONING
 
2012-12-28 09:31:26 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Infernalist: I know, right? It's always funny until it happens to someone you personally give a shiat about.

I don't give a shiat about a criminal who went for a cop's gun and lost.


I know you don't. You see a nameless, faceless loser who got what he deserved. And I pity you for your lack of comprehension.

You don't grasp that this is the last step in what was likely a long line of bad judgement calls and mistakes, judging by what he was hauled in for.

I'm saying he shouldn't have had to have died because some farking retard of a cop left his gun unsecured.
 
2012-12-28 09:32:53 AM
Maybe the cops need bigger guns, with 25mm exploding rounds.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 09:33:05 AM

Infernalist: You don't grasp that this is the last step in what was likely a long line of bad judgement calls and mistakes, judging by what he was hauled in for.


Well... Bye.
 
2012-12-28 09:33:16 AM
did someone armed end it?

/drtfa
 
2012-12-28 09:33:24 AM

Goodfella: [s1.ibtimes.com image 578x365]

"What we need doing in this country is start training police on the use of firearms and then putting armed police inside police stations!"


You hit the nail on the head sir.
 
2012-12-28 09:33:34 AM
He won't be back.
 
2012-12-28 09:33:58 AM
It's time the police step up their game:
www.animereq.com
Leona wouldn't have let this shiat happen.
 
2012-12-28 09:34:00 AM

KIA: Infernalist: other methods of non-lethal weaponry

A) You forgot about Nerf guns. Very intimidating in some of the larger models.

B) Billy-clubs. Right. Why not give them a 18th-century man-catcher? Those were non-lethal and had like a nine-foot range rather than the more limited three-foot range of a billy club.

C) If criminals want habanera sauce, they can generally get it without going to the police for it.

D) Tasers aren't necessarily non-lethal and also aren't necessarily effective.


Your snark is noted, I'll have to mentally adjust your scores downward as a result.

Your response shows that you have zero comprehension of how 90% of the civilized world deals with criminals. I have to dub thee 'retarded' and move on.
 
2012-12-28 09:34:21 AM

Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown?  Something like 500+?  This is yet another one.  I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.


b...b...but somebody shot somebody else....and another guy....mass shooting?...newsflash?

:(
 
2012-12-28 09:34:45 AM
Jesus Derping Christ. Not this shiat again.
 
2012-12-28 09:35:08 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: I'll bet it was one day before one of the cop's retirement, too. Those guys should know better than to show up on their last day.


s2.postimage.org

"He was just two days away from retirement - then he took an early retirement."
 
2012-12-28 09:35:47 AM

Kiriyama9000: If someone did come in with a gun, they'd have to deal with an armed response.


Yes, armed officers will have a chance to take down a shooter before he does the maximum amount of damage.  However, what is more common - school shootings or fights?  If these armed officers are there, will they not be breaking up fights?  When they break up fights, will the students not have an opportunity to take the handgun from the police, just as the man did in this story?  Finally, do you think having guns in schools will make deaths by guns in schools go down or up?
 
2012-12-28 09:35:49 AM

Goodfella: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: I'll bet it was one day before one of the cop's retirement, too. Those guys should know better than to show up on their last day.

They're getting too old for this shiat


*shakes fist*

/I'll be back
 
2012-12-28 09:36:18 AM

Fissile: Wayne LaPierre has the solution to this problem: Place armed teachers inside every police station.


Winner!
 
2012-12-28 09:36:39 AM

Kiriyama9000: imontheinternet: BizarreMan: If the police station was a weapons free zone this would not have happened.

FTFA:  The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said.

As mentioned above, I'm sure teachers would be able to protect their firearms much better than trained law enforcement personnel.
The talk of giving teachers guns is silly. Having said that, I went to a high school that had two armed police officers on duty at all times. If someone did come in with a gun, they'd have to deal with an armed response. Even if somehow both officers failed to bring down an assailant, isn't that still better than no response at all?

Not once in my four years in high school did I feel encroached by having officers around, nor did I ever feel that I was in a prison. If I were an elementary school student, I probably thought it would have been awesome to have an officer around. Didn't some of us aspire to be a cop some day at one point or another? Middle school students probably wouldn't care much -- we were all little asses back then.

Put an officer at every school. Give them an office. They are trained and have sworn an oath. Will this be perfect? No. Will this be cheap? No. Will more children be better protected than they are now? YES.

You cannot find and prevent every crazy or mentally sick person from doing crazy things. It is IMPOSSIBLE to predict crazy and even more IMPOSSIBLE to find every potential weapon for said crazy that could be used and destroy them.

Instead, provide an armed response. The only way to deal with deadly force is unfortunately to respond with deadly force.


And when the shooter kills the officer first? Perhaps the officer has his back turned or is locking her office to patrol? Or suppose the officer is on the other side of the building? You could unload an entire clip on many guns before the officer arrives.

The fact is you're hiring a RESPONDER and not a preventer. So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.

We need preventative measures.
 
2012-12-28 09:37:13 AM

PaulRB: propasaurus: Three people were shot, but only one was injured?

2 were killed but they're listed as resulting from allergic reaction (to small metallic objects)

//new nra excuse


I thought the technical term was "High Velocity Lead Poisoning", but I could be wrong.
 
2012-12-28 09:37:25 AM

imontheinternet: BizarreMan: If the police station was a weapons free zone this would not have happened.

FTFA:  The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said.

As mentioned above, I'm sure teachers would be able to protect their firearms much better than trained law enforcement personnel.


I'm sure teachers have to deal with large, angry ,drunk criminal types all the time like cops do.

Apples =/= Oranges.
 
2012-12-28 09:37:31 AM

Kiriyama9000: The talk of giving teachers guns is silly. Having said that, I went to a high school that had two armed police officers on duty at all times. If someone did come in with a gun, they'd have to deal with an armed response. Even if somehow both officers failed to bring down an assailant, isn't that still better than no response at all?


Well, some could argue that it is the same as no response at all...plus two guards on the funeral pyre, plus two guns and two clips (at least) in the shooter's arsenal.

But aside from that...again, how are we, who vote down simple school levies because our kids don't go to the schools in question, going to pay for the positioning of armed guards? Because with the nearly coast-to-coast downsizing of local and county police forces, there aren't going to be enough police to be in every school and enough to patrol. Like I said, the kid from Die Hard 3 knows the scenario: "It's Christmas! You could steal City Hall!" So the guards are either going to have to be hired by the schools, or the locals are going to have to bring more cops back on payroll. Either way, this costs money; money that, in the past decade at the very least, everyone seems reluctant to give.
 
2012-12-28 09:37:40 AM

Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown?  Something like 500+?  This is yet another one.  I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.


If you include suicides it would be a bit less than that. No suicides, it would be considerably lower than that.
 
2012-12-28 09:38:08 AM

liam76: Kiriyama9000: The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work

Really?

I am pretty sure whn the police have somebody in custody they, as a rule, shouldn't be able to take police officers weapon from them.

You're making an assumption that every officer is perfect at their job.
You also fail to realize that the officer needs access to their service weapon.
They can do as much as they can to prevent others from gaining access, but it is still a weapon holstered at their side that they need immediate access to should the need arise. Other officers did this and lives were saved because of it.

Where are you going with your logic?
What should the officers have done prior to this?
Disarm themselves and then move the guy?

They are armed for a reason.
For this very reason.
 
2012-12-28 09:38:10 AM

Infernalist: You don't grasp that this is the last step in what was likely a long line of bad judgement calls and mistakes, judging by what he was hauled in for.


Sounds to me like he has...sorry...had a bit of history of violent behavior. Anyone that is willing to shoot a cop is more than willing to shoot the likes of you while you're in the process of asking him if he would like a hug.

Infernalist: I'm saying he shouldn't have had to have died because some farking retard of a cop left his gun unsecured.


Where in the article did it say that a cop's firearm was unsecured?

Yes, I'll wait.
 
2012-12-28 09:39:06 AM

Infernalist: Dancin_In_Anson: Infernalist: I know, right? It's always funny until it happens to someone you personally give a shiat about.

I don't give a shiat about a criminal who went for a cop's gun and lost.

I know you don't. You see a nameless, faceless loser who got what he deserved. And I pity you for your lack of comprehension.

You don't grasp that this is the last step in what was likely a long line of bad judgement calls and mistakes, judging by what he was hauled in for.

I'm saying he shouldn't have had to have died because some farking retard of a cop left his gun unsecured.


So you don't believe that this person should have been punished for his decision to take that retard of a cop's gun and start shooting at the other officers in the building? Is this entrapment of some kind in your mind? It's all the fault of the gun again, not the person pulling the trigger?


/the idiocy in this thread is much deeper than the previous gun threads recently.
 
2012-12-28 09:39:21 AM

Infernalist: Those cops obviously needed more guns.


Additionally they need them to practice with Nintendo Duck Hunt to improve there accuracy, or at least make it available to them inside every Dunkin' and Krispy Kreme donut.
 
2012-12-28 09:40:24 AM

natazha: I thought all you had to do was show the perp that you had a gun and they would run away? That worked 2 million times last year!

Or not. 2 million is five times the number of violent crimes that occurred in the USA last year. If that was what the CC folks stopped, then there must have been 4-6 million violent crimes that were not reported.


If the perp stops when he sees an armed citizen then there was no crime to report. Besides you should know by reading FARK that the last thing you do in inviolve the cops unless you have no other choice.
 
2012-12-28 09:40:36 AM
So, it sounds like the shooter grabbed one of the cops guns.  Well, the solution is obvious, Diane Feinstein needs to sponsor a bill to ban cops from having guns.
 
2012-12-28 09:40:37 AM

TheTrashcanMan: LasersHurt: TheTrashcanMan: Certainly doesn't help that the media keeps making all of these shooters into celebs.

I think if you see a shooter and think of him as a "celeb" that's kind of on you, man.

Very rarely do you remember the names of the victims, but you always remember the name of the shooter. It seems in recent events, gun men are trying to "one-up" each other.


Maybe, but it's kind of a Catch 22. What do you want to do, ignore the crimes? Not report them? That has a host of other implications that I don't like - Americans are already far to willing to pretend nothing's wrong.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 09:41:16 AM

Infernalist: I'll have to mentally adjust your scores downward as a result.


Lol. OK, Simon Cowell, proceed with your mental scoring and see how many farks people don't give.

Infernalist: you have zero comprehension of how 90% of the civilized world deals with criminals


Really. Fifty-nine countries retain the death penalty as reported in 2007.[4] Comparativists study the different ways in which execution is carried out across the world including hanging, shooting, beheading, injection, electrocution, and even stoning.[4] Comparativists find that in many developing countries such as Iran, Indonesia, Belarus, and many others, that violent methods of execution such as hanging beheading, shooting, and stoning are much more common ways of carrying out the death penalty, and in many cases the only ways... In many countries such as Burma a person can be sentenced to prison for merely disagreeing with the government.[

Perhaps it is not I who lacks a comprehension of how other countries "deal with criminals."
 
2012-12-28 09:41:31 AM
OMG! Quick, ban some guns before it's too late.
Once those guns get a taste of blood, they are UNSTOPPABLE!

huh?

You're telling me someone actually used a gun as a weapon?
From all the recent media reports I was under the assumption that guns killed on their own.

what?

You mean to say that a criminal used a gun to commit a crime?
But don't we already have laws to prevent criminals from having guns?

Better ban some more guns Barocky.
 
2012-12-28 09:41:46 AM
Easy solution. Get rid of police stations

/my bill is in the mail
 
2012-12-28 09:42:04 AM

pdee: imontheinternet: BizarreMan: If the police station was a weapons free zone this would not have happened.

FTFA:  The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said.

As mentioned above, I'm sure teachers would be able to protect their firearms much better than trained law enforcement personnel.

I'm sure teachers have to deal with large, angry ,drunk criminal types all the time like cops do.

Apples =/= Oranges.


You realize gang members go to school, right?
 
2012-12-28 09:42:08 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Infernalist: You don't grasp that this is the last step in what was likely a long line of bad judgement calls and mistakes, judging by what he was hauled in for.

Sounds to me like he has...sorry...had a bit of history of violent behavior. Anyone that is willing to shoot a cop is more than willing to shoot the likes of you while you're in the process of asking him if he would like a hug.

Infernalist: I'm saying he shouldn't have had to have died because some farking retard of a cop left his gun unsecured.

Where in the article did it say that a cop's firearm was unsecured?

Yes, I'll wait.


So, if wasn't unsecured, how did he manage to get it? Did he blink his eyes like I Dream of Jeanie and poof it into his hands?

Think before you post.

And you're assuming the guy was in his right head.

Regardless, this death is entirely the retarded cop's fault for not maintaining control of his handgun. But, naturally, nothing will come of that incompetence.
 
2012-12-28 09:42:10 AM

martid4: Additionally they need them to practice with Nintendo Duck Hunt


Jesus Christ, man.  Don't you know that violent video games ARE the farking problem?

What's next?  You want the cops driving around listening to that Run DCM gangsta music or Winger heavy-metals?
 
2012-12-28 09:42:11 AM

MythDragon: It's time the police step up their game:
[www.animereq.com image 550x412]
Leona wouldn't have let this shiat happen.


I raise you...

www.amongninjas.co.uk
/and it's BIG
 
2012-12-28 09:43:05 AM

BillCo: So, it sounds like the shooter grabbed one of the cops guns.  Well, the solution is obvious, Diane Feinstein needs to sponsor a bill to ban cops from having guns.


They should be required to secure their weapons with a Slinky.
 
2012-12-28 09:43:14 AM
And the green light trolling continues.
 
2012-12-28 09:43:19 AM

Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown?  Something like 500+?  This is yet another one.  I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.


How many people have died since Newtown as a result of Murder? more than 500+. How many have died since Newton due to cancer caused by cigarettes? How many by auto accidents and drunk drivers?

Now how many of those 500+ have been suicides?

Your crass statements about the patheticness are misleading and eggregiously stupid.
 
2012-12-28 09:43:22 AM

KIA: Infernalist: I'll have to mentally adjust your scores downward as a result.

Lol. OK, Simon Cowell, proceed with your mental scoring and see how many farks people don't give.

Infernalist: you have zero comprehension of how 90% of the civilized world deals with criminals

Really. Fifty-nine countries retain the death penalty as reported in 2007.[4] Comparativists study the different ways in which execution is carried out across the world including hanging, shooting, beheading, injection, electrocution, and even stoning.[4] Comparativists find that in many developing countries such as Iran, Indonesia, Belarus, and many others, that violent methods of execution such as hanging beheading, shooting, and stoning are much more common ways of carrying out the death penalty, and in many cases the only ways... In many countries such as Burma a person can be sentenced to prison for merely disagreeing with the government.[

Perhaps it is not I who lacks a comprehension of how other countries "deal with criminals."


I said 'civilized' world. I'm fairly sure that BURMA is not a country we should be looking up to, son.
 
2012-12-28 09:43:26 AM

Infernalist: Dancin_In_Anson: Infernalist: I know, right? It's always funny until it happens to someone you personally give a shiat about.

I don't give a shiat about a criminal who went for a cop's gun and lost.

I know you don't. You see a nameless, faceless loser who got what he deserved. And I pity you for your lack of comprehension.

You don't grasp that this is the last step in what was likely a long line of bad judgement calls and mistakes, judging by what he was hauled in for.

I'm saying he shouldn't have had to have died because some farking retard of a cop left his gun unsecured.


Agreed.
 
2012-12-28 09:44:09 AM
God, guns and Internet Tough Guys. That shall be our legacy.
 
2012-12-28 09:44:29 AM
The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said.

That sounds like code for "took a gun from the officers".

/They failed to secure their own firearm and people were shot as a result.
/Why are cops still allowed to carry guns?
 
2012-12-28 09:45:19 AM

rev. dave: Maybe the cops need bigger guns, with 25mm exploding rounds.


The cops were blinded by a cloud of powdered sugar.
 
2012-12-28 09:45:25 AM
I'm pretty sure nobody ever shot a cop who was carrying a Hello Kitty lunchbox.   Why are we not using those to protect our officers?
 
2012-12-28 09:45:35 AM

FinFangFark: I was gonna make a crack about the NRA blaming Grand Theft Auto for this, and how their should be vets walking the halls with guns to prevent these things...but meh, it's Friday...gonna go grab a breakfast taco instead.


The end result will also be more poignant than anything that gets dropped in this thread.
 
2012-12-28 09:45:37 AM

Fissile: propasaurus: Three people were shot, but only one was injured?

==============

It's called "cop math". It's like when they find a little baggie of stems and seeds on a 19 year old pizza-face and they declare a "major" drug bust "with a street value of $1.2 million".

The shooting inside this cop station means all the cops at this station have just won the cop lottery. Every one will now declare an injury.....flying "shrapnel", loss of hearing, stress, etc.....and retire on a 100% disability pension that will pay six figures, and include a Cadillac health plan. The week after they "retire" they get another municipal/county job that pays at least six figures and the hiring authority will say, "It was such a bargain finding this guy because we don't need to pay his health care!"


I just figured the uninjured were black knights.
 
2012-12-28 09:46:14 AM

Bontesla: So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.


Really?
 
2012-12-28 09:47:07 AM
They need armed guards inside the police station.
 
2012-12-28 09:48:19 AM
Uhm, to the cop that had his gun stolen: They make special holsters now to prevent that from happening.

To the cops that attended to him un-cuffed: Next time, try cuffing him until the weapons are secured.

To the cops that got shot: I'm glad it wasn't worse. Hope the cop with the belly wound makes it through to full duty.

To the cops that shot and killed the idiot: Good call. Glad you came out without any fatalities (well, save for the dead idiot).
 
2012-12-28 09:48:35 AM

KIA: Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown? Something like 500+?

About the same number that have died as a result of the flu. Same as always. Did you get your flu shot?


Yup.  Though I'd like to see something empirical that says over 500 people have died of the flu in the last three weeks.
 
2012-12-28 09:49:33 AM
I wish I could get shot without being injured
 
2012-12-28 09:50:02 AM

Coco LaFemme: Though I'd like to see something empirical that says over 500 people have died of the flu in the last three weeks.


And that those people were intentionally injected with the flu virus by another person.
 
2012-12-28 09:50:13 AM
I bet the perp was just in the process of "turning his life around" too.
 
2012-12-28 09:51:01 AM
Three shot, one injured?

Drtfa
 
2012-12-28 09:51:06 AM
A shooter tries this type of thing where there are other weapons and he manages only to wound 3 before being taken down.

It's almost as if those evil nasty murderous scary guns that the good guys had stopped a crime and saved innocent lives.
 
2012-12-28 09:51:14 AM

GanjSmokr: /the idiocy in this thread is much deeper than the previous gun threads recently.


For now we only have the cops' word, I wonder what really happened. Knowing cops I would not be surprised if one of them accidentily shot himself, and not wanting a reprimand they decided to blame it on a likely looking civilian they had in custody for something minor, and then loosed a few shots into the body armor of some other cops to "prove" that they had no choice but to respond with deadly force.
 
2012-12-28 09:51:20 AM

Bontesla: Kiriyama9000: imontheinternet: BizarreMan: If the police station was a weapons free zone this would not have happened.

FTFA:  The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said.

As mentioned above, I'm sure teachers would be able to protect their firearms much better than trained law enforcement personnel.
The talk of giving teachers guns is silly. Having said that, I went to a high school that had two armed police officers on duty at all times. If someone did come in with a gun, they'd have to deal with an armed response. Even if somehow both officers failed to bring down an assailant, isn't that still better than no response at all?

Not once in my four years in high school did I feel encroached by having officers around, nor did I ever feel that I was in a prison. If I were an elementary school student, I probably thought it would have been awesome to have an officer around. Didn't some of us aspire to be a cop some day at one point or another? Middle school students probably wouldn't care much -- we were all little asses back then.

Put an officer at every school. Give them an office. They are trained and have sworn an oath. Will this be perfect? No. Will this be cheap? No. Will more children be better protected than they are now? YES.

You cannot find and prevent every crazy or mentally sick person from doing crazy things. It is IMPOSSIBLE to predict crazy and even more IMPOSSIBLE to find every potential weapon for said crazy that could be used and destroy them.

Instead, provide an armed response. The only way to deal with deadly force is unfortunately to respond with deadly force.

And when the shooter kills the officer first? Perhaps the officer has his back turned or is locking her office to patrol? Or suppose the officer is on the other side of the building? You could unload an entire clip on many guns before the officer arrives.

The fact is you're hiring a RESPONDER and not a preventer. So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead ...

That is absurd and sickening logic.
I guess those 7 lives wouldn't matter to you.

"Oh don't bother. Just let him keep firing away. Don't put an officer or someone else with a gun in there; they might get die or shoot someone accidentally."

Right, so just let the sicko have his way then.
 
2012-12-28 09:51:22 AM

ghare: Click Click D'oh: No dead good guys, one dead bad guy... seems like it's working as intended.

Cops are civilians?


Yes. They aren't military.
 
2012-12-28 09:51:35 AM
This reminds me of when I was working the front desk at a police station back in 1984.

This guy comes in and says he's looking for a woman, who was at the station making a statement. I tell the guy to cool it in the lounge and wait for her to come out. Don't you know about thirty seconds later that guy rammed his car through the front of the station, crushing me in my booth?

Then he proceeds to come into the station and shoot up the place.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 09:51:56 AM

Infernalist: I said 'civilized' world. I'm fairly sure that BURMA is not a country we should be looking up to, son.


Even more hysterical. So you only want to include white folks in your sophisticated analysis of "the way things should work" instead of all of those brown folks who now compose more than 70% of the world.

Do tell me, son, how effective England and Australia have been at protecting said white folks from assault, robbery, daytime burglary, rape, and so on. Wait, before you answer, at least read one scholarly work published well before the Newtown tragedy. Try this one here:

http://www.joyceleemalcolm.com/books/guns_and_violence

On the extremely high likelihood that you're not going to bother to read up on any fact-based analysis, I'll summarize: disarming the law-abiding citizens did nothing other than empower the criminals who now basically do whatever they want.
 
2012-12-28 09:52:13 AM
If only someone could explain why only 3 people were shot... hmm, it's a little hard....
 
2012-12-28 09:52:33 AM

Bontesla: So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.


If you're one of the seven, it's pretty significant.
 
2012-12-28 09:52:39 AM
I bet the air really smelled of sulphur
 
2012-12-28 09:52:49 AM

GanjSmokr: Infernalist: Dancin_In_Anson: Infernalist: I know, right? It's always funny until it happens to someone you personally give a shiat about.

I don't give a shiat about a criminal who went for a cop's gun and lost.

I know you don't. You see a nameless, faceless loser who got what he deserved. And I pity you for your lack of comprehension.

You don't grasp that this is the last step in what was likely a long line of bad judgement calls and mistakes, judging by what he was hauled in for.

I'm saying he shouldn't have had to have died because some farking retard of a cop left his gun unsecured.

So you don't believe that this person should have been punished for his decision to take that retard of a cop's gun and start shooting at the other officers in the building? Is this entrapment of some kind in your mind? It's all the fault of the gun again, not the person pulling the trigger?


/the idiocy in this thread is much deeper than the previous gun threads recently.


Misbehaving? That's a shooting.
Tell a lie? That's a shooting.

Or wait... Do you use some other forms of punishment? Perhaps non-lethal forms? Because given your post - the you imply only one for exists.
 
2012-12-28 09:52:57 AM

TheTrashcanMan: Chinchillazilla: Days since last mass shooting: 0

Your definition of "mass" confuses me.


/there is gang related gun violence about... every damn day.
//but if its a bunch of white people getting shot, god help us.


Sorry. How many people have to get shot at once for it to be noteworthy? 26 is definitely enough, 3 is not. Where's the line, so I know in the future?
 
2012-12-28 09:53:03 AM

Bontesla: The fact is you're hiring a RESPONDER and not a preventer. So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.


Seven lives aren't significant?

Why can't we do both, in hiring responders *AND* preventers?
 
2012-12-28 09:53:16 AM

bulldg4life: dittybopper: Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.

Dancin_In_Anson: Yep. But we can't let that get in the way of a good derpfest!

Click Click D'oh: No dead good guys, one dead bad guy... seems like it's working as intended.

At which point in the past few weeks has any argument been made to keep guns out of the hands of police officers?

You know, continuing to harp on events where trained police officers stopped a shooting doesn't further the argument that you are intending to make. I mean, assuming you aren't just making silly comments to further some twisted agenda because reasonable discussion about a serious problem is beyond your pay grade.

Just think, if the police officers DIDN'T have guns, the person in custody wouldn't have been able to steal a weapon and shoot three people.


Nice one. Self-pwned much?
 
2012-12-28 09:53:27 AM

Infernalist: So, if wasn't unsecured, how did he manage to get it?


You're right. It must have just been laying there on the table right next to him.
 
2012-12-28 09:53:45 AM

Kit Fister: Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown?  Something like 500+?  This is yet another one.  I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.

How many people have died since Newtown as a result of Murder? more than 500+. How many have died since Newton due to cancer caused by cigarettes? How many by auto accidents and drunk drivers?

Now how many of those 500+ have been suicides?

Your crass statements about the patheticness are misleading and eggregiously stupid.


So is your spelling. Anyway, this thread isn't about people dying of cancer, or people dying in auto accidents either with or without the aid of a drunk driver. This is yet another thread about yet another moron who decided to take his gun and play bang bang bang out in public. I'm not arguing that before Sandy Hook this never happened, what I'm saying is that since Sandy Hook, it seems like it's happened more frequently than usual. Maybe people are more hyper-aware of this stuff now, I don't know.

I just found it pathetic that yet again, some moron decided to go play bang bang bang with his toy.
 
2012-12-28 09:53:47 AM

tbhouston: I wish I could get shot without being injured


Ummm...  You could get a job in porn.
 
2012-12-28 09:53:48 AM
I hate to be this guy but "MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed."

So he only managed to shoot a couple people before being taken out. Versus 10 times that number in Newton. I don't understand why people act like armed police officers in school is some outrageous thing, we had an armed police officer on campus sometimes at my high school, which was a nice high school in a nice area. That guy from meet the press apparantly has his kids in a school with a security staff of 11.

I think it doesn't fit gun control advocate's message so they try and dismiss it out of hand. I don't own any guns, nor own stock in companies that make them, this isn't an agenda talking, just common sense.
 
2012-12-28 09:55:08 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: And the green light trolling continues.


What? Haven't you noticed the reasonable discourse, leading to mutually acceptable proposals regarding gun control and school safety?

Heh. Actually, I noticed most of those guys disappeared days ago...
 
2012-12-28 09:55:32 AM
"The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect."

This is great evidence for not arming our school staff and banning some types of guns. In fact, yesterday a woman pushed a man in front of a subway, killing him. Seeing as I don't use the Subway and their only purpose is to commit horrific murders, they should be banned immediately. Any subway riders who disagree are sick, twisted farks who care only for their little toys and have no regard for innocent human lives.
 
2012-12-28 09:56:01 AM

The Muthaship: Bontesla: So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.

Really?


Hey. What's seven lives worth compared to being able to go out and shoot high-powered weaponry and get drunk for the shiat of it? I'm sure the families of the dead understand that their loved ones died for the noble cause of letting rednecks get drunk and shoot shiat on the weekend.
 
2012-12-28 09:56:09 AM

Nana's Vibrator: I bet the air really smelled of sulphur


I doubt it. That's a feature of black powder, not smokeless powder.

/Loves the smell of "The Devil's Flatulence".
 
2012-12-28 09:56:13 AM
this wasn't some random crazy walking into and shooting up a police station.  This was someone already arrested getting loose, grabbing a cops gun and then shooting the guys who brought him in.  Still unfortunate, but doesn't count as a mass shooting.
 
2012-12-28 09:56:19 AM

People_are_Idiots:

To the cops that got shot: I'm glad it wasn't worse. Hope the cop with the belly wound makes it through to full duty.


I'm interpreting this differently from the way you had intended. Gross.
 
2012-12-28 09:56:24 AM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-28 09:56:32 AM

imontheinternet: pdee: imontheinternet: BizarreMan: If the police station was a weapons free zone this would not have happened.

FTFA:  The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said.

As mentioned above, I'm sure teachers would be able to protect their firearms much better than trained law enforcement personnel.

I'm sure teachers have to deal with large, angry ,drunk criminal types all the time like cops do.

Apples =/= Oranges.

You realize gang members go to school, right?


While Im opposed to arming teachers you do have a point. Perhapse I should change my mind.
 
2012-12-28 09:56:47 AM

Kit Fister: Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown?  Something like 500+?  This is yet another one.  I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.

How many people have died since Newtown as a result of Murder? more than 500+. How many have died since Newton due to cancer caused by cigarettes? How many by auto accidents and drunk drivers?

Now how many of those 500+ have been suicides?

Your crass statements about the patheticness are misleading and eggregiously stupid.


You're understanding of nuance is limited. Low-effort thinker? Poor kit.
 
2012-12-28 09:56:48 AM

People_are_Idiots: Uhm, to the cop that had his gun stolen: They make special holsters now to prevent that from happening.

To the cops that attended to him un-cuffed: Next time, try cuffing him until the weapons are secured.

To the cops that got shot: I'm glad it wasn't worse. Hope the cop with the belly wound makes it through to full duty.

To the cops that shot and killed the idiot: Good call. Glad you came out without any fatalities (well, save for the dead idiot).


We just went to those new double retention holsters, they are nice but if someone knows how they work they could still get your gun. They say police station not jail..here those are two different places so this guy could have been coming to turn himself in on the DV warrant, that happens alot. So he might not even have been in cuffs yet if so, definitely not in the front. I don't know of anyone, outside of the jail, that would cuff in the front.

My thought is this all happened when they went to cuff him. Over powered one officer, got his gun, two responded to help. He was gut shot fighting for the gun.

my .02...
 
2012-12-28 09:57:00 AM
Left out :

/on my Facebook Feed this morning
 
2012-12-28 09:57:43 AM

Civil_War2_Time: Nice one. Self-pwned much?


Not really, because it is a stupid argument.

In response to recent shootings, no reasonable person is going to advocate removing guns from police officers. I surely don't see it as a solution and the nitwit in this thread advocating it seems to be the only one even coming close to making the statement.

However, there are countless people blindly making a comment about how having guns stopped the shooter after three wounds...the inverse of that would be no guns in the station causing no wounds at all.

It is a stupid simplistic argument.
 
2012-12-28 09:57:52 AM

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: "The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect."

This is great evidence for not arming our school staff and banning some types of guns. In fact, yesterday a woman pushed a man in front of a subway, killing him. Seeing as I don't use the Subway and their only purpose is to commit horrific murders, they should be banned immediately. Any subway riders who disagree are sick, twisted farks who care only for their little toys and have no regard for innocent human lives.


Idiots keep making this argument about cars, trains, pencils, whatever, without a hint of understanding how farking retarded it is.
 
2012-12-28 09:57:54 AM

Kiriyama9000: Are you all retarded?

"Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident when a struggle with officers ensued at around 5:30 a.m. The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect."

The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work.


In many stations, cops check their service sidearms as they enter... when bad guys go to try to escape, they neither have guns, nor can they get them from the locked boxes at the entrance... what there is is a wall of cops who are well trained, and one unarmed guy, they force him to the floor, do a better job of restraining him (seems pretty obvious that whenever a criminal gets loose enough to fight, that's not how things are supposed to work), and carry on with their day... nobody gets shot, certainly nobody gets killed, and everyone goes on with their day after a minor scuffle... the guy gets an additional couple counts of battery on a peace officer, and the officer who did a shiat job of restraining the suspect in the first place gets reviewed to see if he violated policy in the course of his failure to control the suspect... everyone goes either home or to jail alive... and that's how things are supposed to work.

/mind boggling that you think a criminal getting a cops gun is how things are supposed to work.
 
2012-12-28 09:58:02 AM

Bontesla: MisbehavingStealing a cop's gun? That's a shooting.
Tell a lieShooting at cops with that stolen gun? That's a shooting.


FTFY.
Or did you really believe that this particular guy was just "misbehaving"?
 
2012-12-28 09:58:17 AM
Many police stations have lock boxes at the vestibule of the in-booking area where police lock their weapon before escorting a subject in. I guess this one did not.
 
2012-12-28 09:58:42 AM

KIA: Actually, the police were wearing body armor which Feinstein is still trying to make illegal for civilians.


citationneeded.jpg
 
KIA
2012-12-28 09:58:55 AM

Coco LaFemme: KIA: Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown? Something like 500+?

About the same number that have died as a result of the flu. Same as always. Did you get your flu shot?

Yup.  Though I'd like to see something empirical that says over 500 people have died of the flu in the last three weeks.


Last summer, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a report showing that over 20,000 people a year die in the U.S. as a result of influenza. About 90% of those people are over age 65, even though people over 65 make up only about 15% of the population.

See here: http://www.usmedicine.com/compendium/with-90-of-us-influenza-deaths-in -elderly-new-high-dose-vaccine-seeks-lower-mortality-morbidity-rates.h tml

CDC reported firearm homicides from 2009 as 11,493. Verify here http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Homicide is ranked #15 on the causes of death chart, far below heart disease, diabetes, influenza, septicemia, cirrhosis, and hypertension. Heck, it's lower than Parkinson's disease. Verify: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
Heart disease and cancer caused 47.9% of the deaths all by themselves. Homicide itself was down 6.8% from 2008. Id.

By the way, the vast majority of firearms homicides are committed by people with prior criminal records. In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996. Other sources suggest that as much as 90% of all firearms offenses are committed by people with prior criminal convictions.
 
2012-12-28 09:59:08 AM
Police should not have guns, but they should be mandatory for everyone else.
 
2012-12-28 09:59:10 AM

Fissile: Wayne LaPierre has the solution to this problem: Place armed teachers inside every police station.


We can't trust teachers around the juvies. We should probably just arm a kindergartener in every station.
 
2012-12-28 09:59:49 AM

imontheinternet: I've been saying it for years.  Every police officer should be issued a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and claymores.  When will these libby libs stop treading on us?


I know right? what we really need are hundreds of new duplicate gun laws voted through on pure emotion that will never enforced.

I've also written "Newtown" on my basketball shoes like the Pros do.

Boy do I feel better now!
 
2012-12-28 10:00:12 AM

The Muthaship: Bontesla: So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.

Really?


Is 20 your definition of a significant improvement? You aim low.
 
2012-12-28 10:00:14 AM
Good thing they weren't in NY or 9 police officers standing around would have been shot by the cop that returned fire
 
2012-12-28 10:01:54 AM

Shahab: I hate to be this guy but "MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed."

So he only managed to shoot a couple people before being taken out. Versus 10 times that number in Newton. I don't understand why people act like armed police officers in school is some outrageous thing, we had an armed police officer on campus sometimes at my high school, which was a nice high school in a nice area. That guy from meet the press apparantly has his kids in a school with a security staff of 11.

I think it doesn't fit gun control advocate's message so they try and dismiss it out of hand. I don't own any guns, nor own stock in companies that make them, this isn't an agenda talking, just common sense.


When you get shot with your own farking gun, it fits gun control advocates message perfectly. I'm not a gun control advocate, I think people should be able to get whatever gun they frickin want (with the proviso that a periodic mental health check would be necessary for semi or full auto weapons)... but this, this fits their message perfectly, and this is precisely why so many jails don't have officers with guns, and why so many police departments require officers to check their guns and thoroughly search their suspects when entering the building.
 
2012-12-28 10:02:24 AM
Remember when people pointed out that the knife attack in China only caused 22 wounded children, but pro-gun people said it didn't matter because people were going to get killed one way or the other......now we have people pointing out that armed guards might lead to 20 people getting killed instead of 27, therefore it is a reasonable solution.

How about just a tiny little bit of consistency...
 
2012-12-28 10:03:09 AM

KIA: Coco LaFemme: KIA: Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown? Something like 500+?

About the same number that have died as a result of the flu. Same as always. Did you get your flu shot?

Yup.  Though I'd like to see something empirical that says over 500 people have died of the flu in the last three weeks.

Last summer, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a report showing that over 20,000 people a year die in the U.S. as a result of influenza. About 90% of those people are over age 65, even though people over 65 make up only about 15% of the population.

See here: http://www.usmedicine.com/compendium/with-90-of-us-influenza-deaths-in -elderly-new-high-dose-vaccine-seeks-lower-mortality-morbidity-rates.h tml

CDC reported firearm homicides from 2009 as 11,493. Verify here http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Homicide is ranked #15 on the causes of death chart, far below heart disease, diabetes, influenza, septicemia, cirrhosis, and hypertension. Heck, it's lower than Parkinson's disease. Verify: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
Heart disease and cancer caused 47.9% of the deaths all by themselves. Homicide itself was down 6.8% from 2008. Id.

By the way, the vast majority of firearms homicides are committed by people with prior criminal records. In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996. Other sources suggest that as much as 90% of all firearms offenses are committed by people with prior criminal convictions.


The thing is, everyone agrees we should work to end heart disease, diabetes, influenza, septicemia, cirrhosis, and hypertension. We throw money and research at those things. But apparently a lot of people think we should just let the firearm deaths keep on as they are.
 
2012-12-28 10:03:16 AM
Well, thanks to guns, that is one criminal who will never be brought to justice. Whatever crime he originally committed, we will never know if he was guilty or not, who else was involved, or anything, really. If this was suicide by cop, then who was he protecting by dying? Thanks to guns, instead of, say, pepper spray or tasers, we are left with even larger mysteries and nothing but injustices all round, for which there will be no retributive justice or restorative justice.
 
2012-12-28 10:05:39 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: the families of the dead understand that their loved ones died for the noble cause of letting rednecks get drunk


getting drunk costs us 100k lives per year, and thats not including the molestations and rapes, beatings and abuses...etc.

Alchohol wasn't even designed to kill people like firearms were and there are less firearm fatalities per year than alchohol.
 
2012-12-28 10:05:39 AM

Coco LaFemme: Kit Fister: Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown?  Something like 500+?  This is yet another one.  I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.

How many people have died since Newtown as a result of Murder? more than 500+. How many have died since Newton due to cancer caused by cigarettes? How many by auto accidents and drunk drivers?

Now how many of those 500+ have been suicides?

Your crass statements about the patheticness are misleading and eggregiously stupid.

So is your spelling. Anyway, this thread isn't about people dying of cancer, or people dying in auto accidents either with or without the aid of a drunk driver. This is yet another thread about yet another moron who decided to take his gun and play bang bang bang out in public. I'm not arguing that before Sandy Hook this never happened, what I'm saying is that since Sandy Hook, it seems like it's happened more frequently than usual. Maybe people are more hyper-aware of this stuff now, I don't know.

I just found it pathetic that yet again, some moron decided to go play bang bang bang with his toy.


I agree with you, but we have little detail on the situation. For all we know, it was a subject of arrest who was attempting escape.
 
2012-12-28 10:05:44 AM

Infernalist: Dancin_In_Anson: Infernalist: You don't grasp that this is the last step in what was likely a long line of bad judgement calls and mistakes, judging by what he was hauled in for.

Sounds to me like he has...sorry...had a bit of history of violent behavior. Anyone that is willing to shoot a cop is more than willing to shoot the likes of you while you're in the process of asking him if he would like a hug.

Infernalist: I'm saying he shouldn't have had to have died because some farking retard of a cop left his gun unsecured.

Where in the article did it say that a cop's firearm was unsecured?

Yes, I'll wait.

So, if wasn't unsecured, how did he manage to get it? Did he blink his eyes like I Dream of Jeanie and poof it into his hands?

Think before you post.

And you're assuming the guy was in his right head.

Regardless, this death is entirely the retarded cop's fault for not maintaining control of his handgun. But, naturally, nothing will come of that incompetence.


Wow, that is some weapons grade derp right there.
 
2012-12-28 10:05:50 AM

kyrg: I know right? what we really need are hundreds of new duplicate gun laws voted through on pure emotion that will never enforced.


What we need is a global, bipartisan solution that puts everything on the table- gun control, mental health, school security, etc.  That will never happen because the gun nuts and all their wealthy backers won't budge an inch and their stooges in Congress will block everything for fear of getting primaried by an NRA-funded extremist..
 
2012-12-28 10:05:58 AM

Bontesla: You aim low.


I think you are looking at it completely wrong. Saving one life is a significant improvement, regardless of how many were lost on a given occasion. There are bad/crazy people out there. That is unfortunate, but the lengths you (and a scary number of others in this thread) are willing to go in what would be a futile attempt to prevent the bad/crazy people from doing the evil things they do sacrifices the freedom of the vast majority of people who are not bad/crazy.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

We used to hear that quote a lot on Fark when the Patriot Act was passing. I wonder where it went......
 
2012-12-28 10:06:29 AM

Bontesla: Kit Fister: Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown?  Something like 500+?  This is yet another one.  I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.

How many people have died since Newtown as a result of Murder? more than 500+. How many have died since Newton due to cancer caused by cigarettes? How many by auto accidents and drunk drivers?

Now how many of those 500+ have been suicides?

Your crass statements about the patheticness are misleading and eggregiously stupid.

You're understanding of nuance is limited. Low-effort thinker? Poor kit.


Well, if you'd like to show me where NUANCE is used here, and why the nuance of a gun being used is preferable to any other means of death...
 
2012-12-28 10:08:19 AM
Anyone tally up the trollerific gun thread greenlights in the past few weeks? It's a bit tiring, but the derp the gun grabbers are spewing is getting ludicrous so I'm OK with it.

/they'll reach plaid by February
 
2012-12-28 10:08:56 AM

dittybopper: Nana's Vibrator: I bet the air really smelled of sulphur

I doubt it. That's a feature of black powder, not smokeless powder.

/Loves the smell of "The Devil's Flatulence".


Thus, the new name for New Jersey was born!
 
2012-12-28 10:09:24 AM

ghare: Click Click D'oh: No dead good guys, one dead bad guy... seems like it's working as intended.

Cops are civilians?


Cops are civilians. This is what seperates us from a police state.
 
2012-12-28 10:10:22 AM

The Muthaship: Saving one life is a significant improvement,


You forgot to include the word innocent, none gun stealing, none cop shooting life. Otherwise some people on this thread will say its a fallacy or some BS.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 10:11:04 AM

Chinchillazilla: The thing is, everyone agrees we should work to end heart disease, diabetes, influenza, septicemia, cirrhosis, and hypertension. We throw money and research at those things.


Close, but a slight miss. After we have already thrown a lot of money and research at these things they are still far higher than firearms homicides.

You also imply that money and research has not been spent on firearms laws and controls. We have some 20,000 firearms laws on the books. Even in the Newtown situation, the shooter tried to buy firearms at three different dealers and was rejected all three times. Our firearms laws are extensive and work when enforced. The rate of firearm homicides at 11,493 with 313 million residents in the US = 0.003671 percent. That's right. Three one-thousandths of one percent of people in the US died from firearms homicides.

Now when you consider that up to 90% of those may have been committed by people with prior criminal records, people who simply are not law-abiding folks, and that it is already illegal for felons to possess guns, you have to ask: is there any legislation short of banning a natural and constitutional right for the law-abiding citizens which can reduce the rate below three one-thousandths of one percent?

So far, nobody has come up with anything realistic in response to that core question.
 
2012-12-28 10:11:49 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: People_are_Idiots: Uhm, to the cop that had his gun stolen: They make special holsters now to prevent that from happening.

To the cops that attended to him un-cuffed: Next time, try cuffing him until the weapons are secured.

To the cops that got shot: I'm glad it wasn't worse. Hope the cop with the belly wound makes it through to full duty.

To the cops that shot and killed the idiot: Good call. Glad you came out without any fatalities (well, save for the dead idiot).

We just went to those new double retention holsters, they are nice but if someone knows how they work they could still get your gun. They say police station not jail..here those are two different places so this guy could have been coming to turn himself in on the DV warrant, that happens alot. So he might not even have been in cuffs yet if so, definitely not in the front. I don't know of anyone, outside of the jail, that would cuff in the front.


The nice thing about those though it takes a little bit more thought to get to the gun, something this guy probably didn't have. As far as having him cuffed or not, my thought was in this line: "Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident." Usually if you're under arrest like that from what I've seen, you're already in cuffs (not arguing with you mind you). Most towns I know of have their police station in the jail, so it isn't unusual to have police bringing the perp to the station.


My thought is this all happened when they went to cuff him. Over powered one officer, got his gun, two responded to help. He was gut shot fighting for the gun.

my .02...


BTW, my hat's off to you. :)
 
2012-12-28 10:12:02 AM

Kiriyama9000: Are you all retarded?

"Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident when a struggle with officers ensued at around 5:30 a.m. The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect."

The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work.


Don't most police holsters have safeties that require at least two actions to un-holster the weapon?
 
2012-12-28 10:12:42 AM

Oysterman: That does it. We need to give police officers guns. Then everyone would be too scared to shoot them.


Yeah. It's not like the armed police officers shot and killed the bad guy before he could hurt anyone else. Oh...wait...
 
2012-12-28 10:13:03 AM

Shahab: I hate to be this guy but "MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed."

So he only managed to shoot a couple people before being taken out. Versus 10 times that number in Newton. I don't understand why people act like armed police officers in school is some outrageous thing, we had an armed police officer on campus sometimes at my high school, which was a nice high school in a nice area. That guy from meet the press apparantly has his kids in a school with a security staff of 11.

I think it doesn't fit gun control advocate's message so they try and dismiss it out of hand. I don't own any guns, nor own stock in companies that make them, this isn't an agenda talking, just common sense.


He may have been killed but I'll bet he is still being shot. Cops are lined up, walking past the corpse and letting off a couple rounds. It could go on for hours.
 
2012-12-28 10:13:33 AM
Useful gun control solutions: booker
 
2012-12-28 10:14:07 AM

Bontesla: The Muthaship: Bontesla: So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.

Really?

Is 20 your definition of a significant improvement? You aim low.


Not that I think that having armed guards in every school is a good thing... but isn't this the exact argument used to limit magazine size? That yes people will still die but it will be less somehow with smaller magazines?
 
2012-12-28 10:14:11 AM

bulldg4life: Civil_War2_Time: Nice one. Self-pwned much?

Not really, because it is a stupid argument.

In response to recent shootings, no reasonable person is going to advocate removing guns from police officers. I surely don't see it as a solution and the nitwit in this thread advocating it seems to be the only one even coming close to making the statement.

However, there are countless people blindly making a comment about how having guns stopped the shooter after three wounds...the inverse of that would be no guns in the station causing no wounds at all.

It is a stupid simplistic argument.


Yes, it IS a stupid simplistic argument.

BUT, this is where the concealed vs. open-view carry situation comes into play.

If the tackled cop had his gun in a holster around his ankle (like my dad's .45 mini), there would likely have been but one person shot...the perp. Although the perp wouldn't have tackled someone trying to get his gun if he didn't know if he even had one on-person (and in a police station).

It's time for cops to stop showing-off their weapons, because they don't need to. Conceal it, and there will be next to no shootings of cops with their own guns...IMO.
 
2012-12-28 10:14:13 AM
After a few years, I think I finally have Fark figured out..

-Cops are hated
-Guns are bad
-Unions are great
-The U.S. sucks...but Obama is great
-The govt. sucks..but it's ok now because of Obama
-Republicans are evil and responsible for everything from killing old people, to killing the arts and global warming
-Religion is bad, and if you are a Christian especially, you are stupid and deserve scorn and hatred..but Obama being a Christian and mentioning God is a-ok
-Cars are bad..unless they're electric
-The rich are evil
-Obama biatches!


I miss anything?
 
2012-12-28 10:14:24 AM

tarheel07: Kiriyama9000: Are you all retarded?

"Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident when a struggle with officers ensued at around 5:30 a.m. The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect."

The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work.

Don't most police holsters have safeties that require at least two actions to un-holster the weapon?


Some do. Some even require three. Unfortunately, some law enforcement holsters, and particularly those used by plainclothes officers generally do not.
 
2012-12-28 10:15:50 AM

Audaeus: If only someone could explain why only 3 people were shot... hmm, it's a little hard....


you have the strangest boner right now because of the possibility of more injuries?
 
2012-12-28 10:16:21 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Infernalist: So, if wasn't unsecured, how did he manage to get it?

You're right. It must have just been laying there on the table right next to him.


Probably dressed all provocatively... practically begging to be used. If that slutty gun had just kept itself covered up none of this would have happened.
 
2012-12-28 10:16:56 AM
How long before the TSA's presence is expanded beyond airports?
 
2012-12-28 10:17:22 AM

Scerpes: Oysterman: That does it. We need to give police officers guns. Then everyone would be too scared to shoot them.

Yeah. It's not like the armed police officers shot and killed the bad guy before he could hurt anyone else. Oh...wait...


But I was told they pick their targets because they have "gun-free" signs outside. Is that not the case?
 
KIA
2012-12-28 10:17:44 AM

publikenemy: After a few years, I think I finally have Fark figured out..

-Cops are hated
-Guns are bad
-Unions are great
-The U.S. sucks...but Obama is great
-The govt. sucks..but it's ok now because of Obama
-Republicans are evil and responsible for everything from killing old people, to killing the arts and global warming
-Religion is bad, and if you are a Christian especially, you are stupid and deserve scorn and hatred..but Obama being a Christian and mentioning God is a-ok
-Cars are bad..unless they're electric
-The rich are evil
-Obama biatches!


I miss anything?


You could have just summarized: Basement-dwelling dope-smoking pseudo-philosophy rules.

That and we all miss teh bewbies. Anyone else remember massive mammary threads? Weiners too, let's be fair. I suppose Tumblr kind of killed all of that. Oh, well. Maybe we can get a beer thread again.
 
2012-12-28 10:17:47 AM

socodog: Many police stations have lock boxes at the vestibule of the in-booking area where police lock their weapon before escorting a subject in. I guess this one did not.


I thought that this is how most police stations operated also to keep things like this from happening. With the exception of a few armed officers that don't handle suspects and are there for security.
 
2012-12-28 10:18:06 AM

Benjamin Orr: Probably dressed all provocatively... practically begging to be used. If that slutty gun had just kept itself covered up none of this would have happened


I know, right?
 
2012-12-28 10:18:58 AM

Civil_War2_Time: It's time for cops to stop showing-off their weapons, because they don't need to. Conceal it, and there will be next to no shootings of cops with their own guns...IMO.


I don't know if that is true...I mean, a cop on patrol and the only option is an ankle holster? Not sure if that is a solution.

I would say there was obviously a breakdown in securing of weapons and/or the criminal, but I'm not sure if concealed carry for all cops makes sense.
 
2012-12-28 10:19:07 AM

Civil_War2_Time: Yes, it IS a stupid simplistic argument.

BUT, this is where the concealed vs. open-view carry situation comes into play.

If the tackled cop had his gun in a holster around his ankle (like my dad's .45 mini), there would likely have been but one person shot...the perp. Although the perp wouldn't have tackled someone trying to get his gun if he didn't know if he even had one on-person (and in a police station).

It's time for cops to stop showing-off their weapons, because they don't need to. Conceal it, and there will be next to no shootings of cops with their own guns...IMO.


1. Ankle holsters are horrendous for a primary weapon.

2. I'm sure you've never taken off your jacket in your office.
 
2012-12-28 10:19:28 AM

Benjamin Orr: Bontesla: The Muthaship: Bontesla: So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.

Really?

Is 20 your definition of a significant improvement? You aim low.

Not that I think that having armed guards in every school is a good thing... but isn't this the exact argument used to limit magazine size? That yes people will still die but it will be less somehow with smaller magazines?


The difference is 10 shots per mag vs. 100. Not 26 vs 20.
 
2012-12-28 10:20:23 AM

Oh you're right sub-tard... I guess even the police shouldn't have guns!!!!



Using a gun grab by an in custody criminal as your call for gun control.... too many lulz.....
 
2012-12-28 10:20:30 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Scerpes: Oysterman: That does it. We need to give police officers guns. Then everyone would be too scared to shoot them.

Yeah. It's not like the armed police officers shot and killed the bad guy before he could hurt anyone else. Oh...wait...

But I was told they pick their targets because they have "gun-free" signs outside. Is that not the case?


I've never used that line of reasoning. It's quite possible. Of course when you've got an asshole in a police station that wants to leave and the police won't let him, he might try to get a hold of a weapon anyway.
 
2012-12-28 10:21:26 AM
Shooter killed by the good guys. Problem solved.

/Former LEO
 
2012-12-28 10:21:36 AM

dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.
MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.

Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.


Yeah, about that. The shooter got his weapon from one of the cops during a struggle...
 
2012-12-28 10:21:38 AM
There is a woman sleeping safely in her bed tonight.
 
2012-12-28 10:22:19 AM
Taken from a cam at the scene:

img32.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-28 10:22:22 AM

imontheinternet: Nem Wan: The shooter took a cop's gun. Nobody would be able to get a gun from a teacher.

[schmoesknow.com image 432x256]
What an average teacher might look like


photo.shockya.com
 
2012-12-28 10:22:26 AM
You know what, honest question here for the "guns are not a part of the problem" crowd. I like facts and numbers and figures and I like to draw conclusions from them. Here's a series of facts I've gleaned from FBI crime stats and Wikipedia tables for other threads since Newtown:

1. The USA is far and away the most heavily armed society in the world. More than 88 guns per 100 citizens. More than 40% of all people in the country between the ages of zero and dead own at least one gun. That last bit isn't "on average", that's actually people who own at least one gun.

2. The OECD member country list is useful for comparing like nations based on their development. Among OECD member countries, only Mexico has more gun crimes per capita than the USA

3. 37/50 states in the USA have "will-issue" laws on the books for concealed carry permits. 2 states are "constitutional carry" and do not even require a permit. One state is technically "shall issue" but operates as "will issue". That means in 40 out 50 states the only people who can't get a concealed carry permit are felons and people who are known to be mentally unstable (which is a small number of people since states are not required to provide that information to the FBI anymore).

4. Only 7 of 50 states ranked 50 (out of 100) or above on Brady Campaign's gun control scorecard. 5 more ranked 25 or above leaving 38 of 50 states scoring 24 or less with the majority scoring between 0 and 10.

How can you, in a country more armed than any other nation, with a vast majority of states allowing unchallenged concealed carry for non-felons, and a vast majority of states having weak or no gun control laws on the books reconcile the argument that the problem is we need more armed citizens when we also lead all developed nations (except the one embroiled in a massive drug war) in gun violence and are way up the list on all countries combined?

I literally cannot even begin to comprehend the argument here. We're already more armed than any other country on earth, with the vast majority of states having extremely loose controls on concealed carry and what you can buy.... yet we lead the developed world in gun violence and the argument is there aren't enough people with guns?

You literally can't own more guns per capita than any other country on earth no matter how many more you add. If we're already the most heavily armed populace on the planet, but also the 10th most dangerous for gun violence.... how is more guns even remotely a justifiable position based on any actual data?
 
2012-12-28 10:22:51 AM

ongbok: socodog: Many police stations have lock boxes at the vestibule of the in-booking area where police lock their weapon before escorting a subject in. I guess this one did not.

I thought that this is how most police stations operated also to keep things like this from happening. With the exception of a few armed officers that don't handle suspects and are there for security.


I've been in a ton of police stations and none of them ever required officers to secure weapons. The only place they usually have to do that is in a custody area, such as a jail. And it's entirely possible that they had this guy in an interview area that would not require them to secure their weapons.
 
2012-12-28 10:22:51 AM
We need more big government. More guys with guns in case the good guys get their guns taken away.
 
2012-12-28 10:23:33 AM

Audaeus: If only someone could explain why only 3 people were shot... hmm, it's a little hard....


You're right.  It shouldn't have been any.
 
2012-12-28 10:24:30 AM

KIA: Coco LaFemme: KIA: Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown? Something like 500+?

About the same number that have died as a result of the flu. Same as always. Did you get your flu shot?

Yup.  Though I'd like to see something empirical that says over 500 people have died of the flu in the last three weeks.

Last summer, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a report showing that over 20,000 people a year die in the U.S. as a result of influenza. About 90% of those people are over age 65, even though people over 65 make up only about 15% of the population.

See here: http://www.usmedicine.com/compendium/with-90-of-us-influenza-deaths-in -elderly-new-high-dose-vaccine-seeks-lower-mortality-morbidity-rates.h tml

CDC reported firearm homicides from 2009 as 11,493. Verify here http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Homicide is ranked #15 on the causes of death chart, far below heart disease, diabetes, influenza, septicemia, cirrhosis, and hypertension. Heck, it's lower than Parkinson's disease. Verify: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
Heart disease and cancer caused 47.9% of the deaths all by themselves. Homicide itself was down 6.8% from 2008. Id.

By the way, the vast majority of firearms homicides are committed by people with prior criminal records. In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996. Other sources suggest that as much as 90% of all firearms offenses are committed by people with prior criminal convictions.


That's all well and good, but that's not what I asked you for.  If I wanted to know how many people died every year as a result of the flu, I could have looked that up on my own.  Same with every other statistic you threw at me.  You said that the same number of people that have died as a result of gun violence in the last three weeks is the same number of people who have died of the flu, and I wanted you to show me something that said that over 500 people have died of the flu in the last 21 days.
 
2012-12-28 10:24:39 AM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: Taken from a cam at the scene:

[img32.imageshack.us image 650x366]


So close, and yet so far.
 
2012-12-28 10:24:44 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: Bontesla: The Muthaship: Bontesla: So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.

Really?

Is 20 your definition of a significant improvement? You aim low.

Not that I think that having armed guards in every school is a good thing... but isn't this the exact argument used to limit magazine size? That yes people will still die but it will be less somehow with smaller magazines?

The difference is 10 shots per mag vs. 100. Not 26 vs 20.


My point is that either reducing deaths is a good thing or it isn't.

I don't even want to know what a handgun with a 100 rd magazine would look like.
 
2012-12-28 10:26:15 AM

Scerpes: I've been in a ton of police stations and none of them ever required officers to secure weapons.


imagemacros.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-28 10:26:39 AM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: Taken from a cam at the scene:


robertus: [photo.shockya.com image 500x375]


3 seconds off.  Damn, that was close.  Still awesome, though.
 
2012-12-28 10:26:54 AM
Personally, I'm happy the officers are alive and hopefully able to return to their duties of turning their Tasers on the true criminal element that are elderly women and school children.
 
2012-12-28 10:27:06 AM
Identical thing almost happened up here in Vermont earlier this year.
Guy I knew got hauled in for domestic (he went ballistic when he caught his wife in bed with a chick) and went for the cops gun while drunk. Needless to say, her bed's warm and his cot's cold.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 10:27:40 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: If we're already the most heavily armed populace on the planet, but also the 10th most dangerous for gun violence


You see what you did right there, right?
 
2012-12-28 10:27:48 AM

Kiriyama9000: liam76: Kiriyama9000: The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work
Really?

I am pretty sure whn the police have somebody in custody they, as a rule, shouldn't be able to take police officers weapon from them.
You're making an assumption that every officer is perfect at their job.
You also fail to realize that the officer needs access to their service weapon.
They can do as much as they can to prevent others from gaining access, but it is still a weapon holstered at their side that they need immediate access to should the need arise. Other officers did this and lives were saved because of it.

Where are you going with your logic?


I made no assumption.

You claimed this was how it was supposed to work, I pointed out it was pretty stupid to think that a guy, in custody, grabbing a cops gun is how it is "supposed to work".

it is also pretty stupid to claim their lives were saved by having guns holstered at their side when their lives were put in danger because they couldn't control guns holstered at their side.


What should the officers have done prior to this?
Disarm themselves and then move the guy?

They are armed for a reason.
For this very reason.


The officer should have made sure a person in custody couldn't take their weapon.

The officer who lost their weapon has just shown it isn't safe for them to carry a weapon.
 
2012-12-28 10:28:27 AM

vudukungfu: Identical thing almost happened up here in Vermont earlier this year.
Guy I knew got hauled in for domestic (he went ballistic when he caught his wife in bed with a chick) and went for the cops gun while drunk. Needless to say, her bed's warm and his cot's cold.


Your friend sounds unstable and illogical
 
2012-12-28 10:28:27 AM

Vodka Zombie: Personally, I'm happy the officers are alive and hopefully able to return to their duties of turning their Tasers on the true criminal element that are elderly women and school children.


With a little luck, they'll get a dirty hippy or two.
 
2012-12-28 10:28:58 AM

vudukungfu: Gay guy I knew got hauled in for domestic (he went ballistic when he caught his wife in bed with a chick)


FTFY
 
2012-12-28 10:29:10 AM

vudukungfu: when he caught his wife in bed with a chick


.... but why was he mad?
 
KIA
2012-12-28 10:29:18 AM

Coco LaFemme: I wanted you to show me something that said that over 500 people have died of the flu in the last 21 days.


So, you don't believe in math or averages? Try it and see what you get. Go on. 20,000 flu deaths a year vs 11,493 firearms deaths per annum. I know you can do it!
 
2012-12-28 10:29:18 AM

FinFangFark: I was gonna make a crack about the NRA blaming Grand Theft Auto for this, and how their should be vets walking the halls with guns to prevent these things...but meh, it's Friday...gonna go grab a breakfast taco instead.


Ladies and gentlemen, the most reasonable man on fark.

Driving into Pueblo this morning, a breakfast taco sounds right up my alley.
 
2012-12-28 10:29:43 AM
AWESOME!

These gunmen are finally going after the right people!
 
2012-12-28 10:30:05 AM
3 injured, 2 minor and one in stable condition, and a dead shooter.
Nice try, but +1 guns.
 
2012-12-28 10:30:45 AM

People_are_Idiots: The nice thing about those though it takes a little bit more thought to get to the gun, something this guy probably didn't have. As far as having him cuffed or not, my thought was in this line: "Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident." Usually if you're under arrest like that from what I've seen, you're already in cuffs (not arguing with you mind you). Most towns I know of have their police station in the jail, so it isn't unusual to have police bringing the perp to the station.


Well, newspapers use the term arrest a lot and most people always picture an arrest as being cuffed and taken to jail. That leads to a lot of "what?? he was arrested for littering, jay walking, simple possession????" etc. I activate my lights and pull you over, technically that is an arrest. I give you a ticket for misdemeanor possession and you get to walk away. That is an arrest and release on summons.

So this guy "being arrested" doesn't automatically mean he was in cuffs.

It happens a lot for people turning themselves in at the jail. Jail Deputies can't arrest people so we will go over. Handcuff them for about 2 minutes while we search, take off the cuffs, issue the warrant, and take them to processing. Easily those guys could have changed their minds and decided they didn't want to go to jail that night.  Because they are turning themselves in they are not in the secure area of the jail and therefore I remain armed because they can be. It's only when I take them to processing to I turn over my weapons.
 
2012-12-28 10:30:54 AM

WillyChase: FinFangFark: I was gonna make a crack about the NRA blaming Grand Theft Auto for this, and how their should be vets walking the halls with guns to prevent these things...but meh, it's Friday...gonna go grab a breakfast taco instead.

Ladies and gentlemen, the most reasonable man on fark.

Driving into Pueblo this morning, a breakfast taco sounds right up my alley.


Well it will certainly be shooting down your alley later on
 
2012-12-28 10:33:47 AM

asscorethethird: AWESOME!

These gunmen are finally going after the right people!


The right one sure died.
 
2012-12-28 10:34:01 AM

Scerpes: Civil_War2_Time: Yes, it IS a stupid simplistic argument.

BUT, this is where the concealed vs. open-view carry situation comes into play.

If the tackled cop had his gun in a holster around his ankle (like my dad's .45 mini), there would likely have been but one person shot...the perp. Although the perp wouldn't have tackled someone trying to get his gun if he didn't know if he even had one on-person (and in a police station).

It's time for cops to stop showing-off their weapons, because they don't need to. Conceal it, and there will be next to no shootings of cops with their own guns...IMO.

1. Ankle holsters are horrendous for a primary weapon.

2. I'm sure you've never taken off your jacket in your office.


I said it was just my opinion.

My friend and aunt was murdered 10 years ago this past week (when some dick took her purse, found only $20 and was so pissed he gut-shot her). IMO, if she had a gun that was reasonably accessable (ankle-holster, etc.), she might still be alive today. YMMV.

My dad carries because he works in the same part of Houston where she was killed. He had never had a CCW permit before that.
 
2012-12-28 10:34:22 AM

Benjamin Orr: WillyChase: FinFangFark: I was gonna make a crack about the NRA blaming Grand Theft Auto for this, and how their should be vets walking the halls with guns to prevent these things...but meh, it's Friday...gonna go grab a breakfast taco instead.

Ladies and gentlemen, the most reasonable man on fark.

Driving into Pueblo this morning, a breakfast taco sounds right up my alley.

Well it will certainly be shooting down your alley later on


You, sir, have won the internet.
 
2012-12-28 10:35:08 AM
If not previously stated, the toll could have been much worse if they did't have guns to protect themselves. And subby is a douche.
 
2012-12-28 10:35:18 AM

thecpt: vudukungfu: when he caught his wife in bed with a chick

.... but why was he mad?


I'll respond to all 3 of you here.
His nickname was the "Funmeister" at America's #1 family resort.
He worked with children all his life and was like a kid at heart.
Acted young, thought young, even married a much younger woman.
After three kids, she decided it was time to "Experiment"

If she had told him and been honest with him, and broke it to him gently, he might have been OK with it.
But she was going over to her girl friend's house for "tupperware" parties, and calling him and saying she wasn't going to drive back, too much wine, etc, and spending the night and leaving him stuck in a small cabin (one I used to live in ) with the kids.

She was using him as a babby sitter while she got laid.
 
2012-12-28 10:36:02 AM

KIA: Coco LaFemme: I wanted you to show me something that said that over 500 people have died of the flu in the last 21 days.

So, you don't believe in math or averages? Try it and see what you get. Go on. 20,000 flu deaths a year vs 11,493 firearms deaths per annum. I know you can do it!

So you can't find me something specific that says over 500 people have died of the flu in the last 21 days?  That's what you said, and I asked you to back it up.  It's not my job to prove your assertion - that's yours.  It doesn't mean I don't believe in math or averages.......it means I don't believe YOU.  If you count the number of major wars we've had since declaring our independence and divide it by the number of years since 1776, we average out to about 1 major war every 20 or so years.  However, that's an average, not the actual number.  Considering WWII, Korea, and Vietnam all happened within the same 15 year span, it proves that averages don't tell the whole story.


So for the last time - find me an article somewhere that says in the last 21 days over 500 people have died of the flu, or forever hold your peace.

 
2012-12-28 10:36:12 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: You know what, honest question here for the "guns are not a part of the problem" crowd. I like facts and numbers and figures and I like to draw conclusions from them. Here's a series of facts I've gleaned from FBI crime stats and Wikipedia tables for other threads since Newtown:

1. The USA is far and away the most heavily armed society in the world. More than 88 guns per 100 citizens. More than 40% of all people in the country between the ages of zero and dead own at least one gun. That last bit isn't "on average", that's actually people who own at least one gun.

2. The OECD member country list is useful for comparing like nations based on their development. Among OECD member countries, only Mexico has more gun crimes per capita than the USA

3. 37/50 states in the USA have "will-issue" laws on the books for concealed carry permits. 2 states are "constitutional carry" and do not even require a permit. One state is technically "shall issue" but operates as "will issue". That means in 40 out 50 states the only people who can't get a concealed carry permit are felons and people who are known to be mentally unstable (which is a small number of people since states are not required to provide that information to the FBI anymore).

4. Only 7 of 50 states ranked 50 (out of 100) or above on Brady Campaign's gun control scorecard. 5 more ranked 25 or above leaving 38 of 50 states scoring 24 or less with the majority scoring between 0 and 10.

How can you, in a country more armed than any other nation, with a vast majority of states allowing unchallenged concealed carry for non-felons, and a vast majority of states having weak or no gun control laws on the books reconcile the argument that the problem is we need more armed citizens when we also lead all developed nations (except the one embroiled in a massive drug war) in gun violence and are way up the list on all countries combined?

I literally cannot even begin to comprehend the argument here. We're already more armed th ...


Here's your problem: saying "gun crime" is a logical fallacy. You fail to consider:

- what is listed as "gun crime" for your statistics includes suicides and all manner of gun-related incidents. Suicides alone comprise about 60-70% of these so-called "gun crimes".
- Of the remaining crime figures, a vast majority of those are drug-related, stemming from the flow of illegal drugs into the country and the criminal organizations and gangs to whom the flow represents vast moneys.

Also, what you fail to recognize is that, in comparison, other nations in your list have far different systems for providing mental health care (non existent in this country beyond private insurance or out of pocket), far less poverty rates than the US, and far less diverse populations, leading to social friction.

I think it's fairly stupid to argue that "not enough people have guns", but would instead argue that we fail to address the process by which we handle criminals and the mentally ill, and have significantly failed insofar as maintaining and streamlining the process by which data on people who should NOT have guns make it into the system by which we determine eligibility to OWN guns.

Further I'd submit that we fail to stringently enforce the process of preventing straw purchases simply in that we do little to follow up and verify.

This is where I think registration could help, provided that the database of information were kept strictly confidential, and provisions were made to require a warrant and good cause to look at it beyond searching by serial number to determine ownership of a firearm and track its path.

I don;t think that it's necessary to pass a lot of gratuitous feel-good legislation that goes overboard on what we do when I think we can pass amended legislation that fix the NICS system, reporting requirements, and institute an electronic 4473 process that both streamlines the NICS background check system for dealers and keeps a copy of the paperwork on file with the ATF, as well as making it searchable for law enforcement.
 
2012-12-28 10:36:27 AM

DeathCipris: 3 injured, 2 minor and one in stable condition, and a dead shooter.
Nice try, but +1 guns.


I'll guess you're not the officer that took a bullet in his gut.
 
2012-12-28 10:37:13 AM
Ok, how many people in this thread had to change their pants before posting their stupid comments relating this to the (actual)mass murder of children in a gun free zone in a gun control state?


Hmmmm?

1 > 27
 
2012-12-28 10:37:22 AM

Shahab: I think it doesn't fit gun control advocate's message so they try and dismiss it out of hand.


Sure it does. Guns are dangerous, more guns increase the potential for danger. The police officer had his/her gun stolen, you think this couldn't happen in a school where they are talking about arming teachers or to some retired NRA security volunteer?
 
2012-12-28 10:37:23 AM

Civil_War2_Time: My friend and aunt was murdered 10 years ago this past week (when some dick took her purse, found only $20 and was so pissed he gut-shot her). IMO, if she had a gun that was reasonably accessable (ankle-holster, etc.), she might still be alive today. YMMV.


If she had a gun in an ankle holster, and the guy who shot her already had his gun out, he would've shot her for reaching for it.
 
2012-12-28 10:38:16 AM

publikenemy: After a few years, I think I finally have Fark figured out..

-Cops are hated
-Guns are bad
-Unions are great
-The U.S. sucks...but Obama is great
-The govt. sucks..but it's ok now because of Obama
-Republicans are evil and responsible for everything from killing old people, to killing the arts and global warming
-Religion is bad, and if you are a Christian especially, you are stupid and deserve scorn and hatred..but Obama being a Christian and mentioning God is a-ok
-Cars are bad..unless they're electric
-The rich are evil
-Obama biatches!


I miss anything?



www.allmystery.de
 
2012-12-28 10:38:29 AM

s2s2s2: Ok, how many people in this thread had to change their pants before posting their stupid comments relating this to the (actual)mass murder of children in a gun free zone in a gun control state?


Hmmmm?

1 > 27


Look, all we're saying is if we armed cops this wouldn't happen.
 
2012-12-28 10:38:53 AM
So the only reason this guy got a gun is because the cops were carrying them around a criminal?

If this was the UK the guy would freak out, get beat down, then locked up.

Obviously this would be worse than him getting a gun and shooting three people.
 
2012-12-28 10:39:45 AM

KIA: Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown? Something like 500+?

About the same number that have died as a result of the flu. Same as always. Did you get your flu shot?


Perhaps. And if we could eradicte the flu, we would. Instead we take steps to reduce the mortality. Hmmm
 
2012-12-28 10:40:25 AM

meintx2001: If not previously stated, the toll could have been much worse if they did't have guns to protect themselves. And subby is a douche.


How does one differentiate the guns they use to protect themselves versus the ones they willingly hand out to violent offenders? I'm just asking because the entire story revolves around the latter.
 
2012-12-28 10:41:42 AM

Civil_War2_Time: Yes, it IS a stupid simplistic argument.

BUT, this is where the concealed vs. open-view carry situation comes into play.

If the tackled cop had his gun in a holster around his ankle (like my dad's .45 mini), there would likely have been but one person shot...the perp. Although the perp wouldn't have tackled someone trying to get his gun if he didn't know if he even had one on-person (and in a police station).

It's time for cops to stop showing-off their weapons, because they don't need to. Conceal it, and there will be next to no shootings of cops with their own guns...IMO.


1) The suspect is the only one that know's ahead of time that there is going to be some shooting. He has the tremendous tactical advantage of action where I have to rely on reaction to respond. So now you want me to drop to a knee, pull up my pants, pull out a useless sub compact and get into a fight?

2) It's called deterrent. Your gun is in your waistband behind your back and mine is about 2" from the gun hand. Going to draw on me? There is a chance that you might get a shot off but I am going to be returning fire almost immediately after it. Unless you happen to get me in the head I am shooting back.
 
2012-12-28 10:42:35 AM
I will never understand facilities that think having officers in direct contact with the accused while carrying a gun is a good idea. I'd like to see someone shoot up a room full of people out take a dozen hostages after wrestling a baton away from an officer. Stow the firearms and carry contact weapon only when in direct contact with the accused; what is wrong with this concept?
 
2012-12-28 10:42:53 AM

People_are_Idiots: The nice thing about those though it takes a little bit more thought to get to the gun, something this guy probably didn't have. As far as having him cuffed or not, my thought was in this line: "Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident." Usually if you're under arrest like that from what I've seen, you're already in cuffs (not arguing with you mind you). Most towns I know of have their police station in the jail, so it isn't unusual to have police bringing the perp to the station.


It would be very uncommon to have a police station in a jail. Some police stations have temporary holding cells, but jails are generally run by counties where as the police stations are run by cities. They may even be in the same building, but the entrances to the jails will be separate and secured. Even if they share a common public entrance, the jail will be a very definite separate area.

Being in handcuffs is not a requirement to be under arrest. All that has to happen is some action to indicate that you're in police custody, such as being told that you're under arrest.
 
2012-12-28 10:43:48 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: only Mexico has more gun crimes per capita than the USA


And Mexico has very strict gun control over civilian firearm ownership. Yay prohibition. Failing forever.
 
2012-12-28 10:44:24 AM

vudukungfu: She was using him as a babby sitter while she got laid.


Sorry, it was obligatory snark. I for one would crumble if I experienced the same thing, even without having kids.
 
2012-12-28 10:46:13 AM

Civil_War2_Time: It's time for cops to stop showing-off their weapons, because they don't need to. Conceal it, and there will be next to no shootings of cops with their own guns...IMO.

1. Ankle holsters are horrendous for a primary weapon.

2. I'm sure you've never taken off your jacket in your office.

I said it was just my opinion.

My friend and aunt was murdered 10 years ago this past week (when some dick took her purse, found only $20 and was so pissed he gut-shot her). IMO, if she had a gun that was reasonably accessable (ankle-holster, etc.), she might still be alive today. YMMV.

My dad carries because he works in the same part of Houston where she was killed. He had never had a CCW permit before that.


I'm sorry to hear about your aunt, but she'd have been shot trying to get to an ankle holster. It's a horrible choice for law enforcement because it's not reasonably accessible. For a backup weapon it's fine, but for a primary, your options are pretty limited.
 
2012-12-28 10:46:17 AM

publikenemy: After a few years, I think I finally have Fark figured out..

-Cops are hated
-Guns are bad
-Unions are great
-The U.S. sucks...but Obama is great
-The govt. sucks..but it's ok now because of Obama
-Republicans are evil and responsible for everything from killing old people, to killing the arts and global warming
-Religion is bad, and if you are a Christian especially, you are stupid and deserve scorn and hatred..but Obama being a Christian and mentioning God is a-ok
-Cars are bad..unless they're electric
-The rich are evil
-Obama biatches!


I miss anything?


Basically, it's whatever CNN and John Stewart tell them to think.
 
2012-12-28 10:46:30 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Look, all we're saying is if we armed cops this wouldn't happen.


What wouldn't happen? Perps being killed for trying to kill cops? Getting shot is in the job description of cops. Is that news to you? You are acting like that is news to you.

Oh I see. The effective use of guns to prevent a wider tragedy has you needing to run defense.

Much like the man in PA who was proving the words of that idiot, LaPierre as he was saying them.
 
2012-12-28 10:46:50 AM

meintx2001: If not previously stated, the toll could have been much worse if they did't have guns to protect themselves. And subby is a douche.


As previously stated the toll would have been much less if the police were not carrying the gun the guy stole from them.....

And you are a douche.
 
2012-12-28 10:47:16 AM

KIA: You see what you did right there, right?


You're seriously gonna run with the argument that everything's cool because at least we're not El Salvador or Colombia? Really?

Anyway, don't bother answering that. Either answer the question or don't, I'm not getting into this idiotic "debate" again for the billionth time with people who have no interest in even considering any viewpoint but their own.

Kit Fister: stuff snipped for brevity


Your response suggests you're not really the target of my question. I am specifically seeking a response from the crowd of people who are absolutely opposed to even considering that the current level of access to firearms is part of the problem. The fact that you even support the notion of talking about controlling straw purchases or registration puts you far to the left of the people I'm seeking an answer from here.
 
2012-12-28 10:48:15 AM

s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: Look, all we're saying is if we armed cops this wouldn't happen.

What wouldn't happen? Perps being killed for trying to kill cops? Getting shot is in the job description of cops. Is that news to you? You are acting like that is news to you.

Oh I see. The effective use of guns to prevent a wider tragedy has you needing to run defense.

Much like the man in PA who was proving the words of that idiot, LaPierre as he was saying them.


It really is tragic that there wasn't armed police officer in the Sandy Hook school. There might have only been three people wounded there, too. Or less.
 
2012-12-28 10:48:22 AM

dready zim: if the police were not carrying the gun the guy stole from them


Um, no. Had the police still been carrying that gun, he'd have had no gun to shoot at them with.
 
2012-12-28 10:48:44 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Civil_War2_Time: My friend and aunt was murdered 10 years ago this past week (when some dick took her purse, found only $20 and was so pissed he gut-shot her). IMO, if she had a gun that was reasonably accessable (ankle-holster, etc.), she might still be alive today. YMMV.

If she had a gun in an ankle holster, and the guy who shot her already had his gun out, he would've shot her for reaching for it.


That's a valid point. But, he snatched her purse in a warehouse (he'd been stalking her), and only the two were there. He was 3X her size, and the cameras caught him pulling the gun out after he checked the contents. He then blew her away.

Our family didn't seek the death penalty, and convinced the prosecuter and judge to let him live the rest of his days in prison.

Had she been carrying a gun on-her (waist, ankle, etc.), he'd be the one likely dead...not her.
 
2012-12-28 10:49:21 AM

Civil_War2_Time: I said it was just my opinion.

My friend and aunt was murdered 10 years ago this past week (when some dick took her purse, found only $20 and was so pissed he gut-shot her). IMO, if she had a gun that was reasonably accessable (ankle-holster, etc.), she might still be alive today. YMMV.

My dad carries because he works in the same part of Houston where she was killed. He had never had a CCW permit before that.


I could offer up several better options for your father for concealment. Ankle holsters are good for stash or back up weapons only. I would not consider them for a primary defensive weapon. Accessing the weapon is not a natural or fluid motion.
 
2012-12-28 10:49:37 AM

Scerpes: It really is tragic that there wasn't armed police officer in the Sandy Hook school. There might have only been three people wounded there, too. Or less.


Only if that mythical cop had a weapon with real stopping power, and really good aim.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 10:50:16 AM

Coco LaFemme: KIA: Coco LaFemme: find me an article somewhere that says in the last 21 days over 500 people have died of the flu


Are you seriously contending that the long-term average of flu deaths has somehow been suspended over the last 21 days? 20,000 flu deaths a year is an average of (20,000 / 365) 54.79 per day. Round to 55 x 21 days = 1155 flu deaths in the last 21 days.

Now, you appear to want to argue that if there aren't statistics which have been gathered and published already for the last 21 days, then nobody actually died of the flu. That's a whole new level of stupid which has no place in rational discussions.

If you're going to concede that you're being wildly irrational, then by all means proceed.
 
2012-12-28 10:50:18 AM

generallyso: I will never understand facilities that think having officers in direct contact with the accused while carrying a gun is a good idea. I'd like to see someone shoot up a room full of people out take a dozen hostages after wrestling a baton away from an officer. Stow the firearms and carry contact weapon only when in direct contact with the accused; what is wrong with this concept?


Large amounts of THIS.
 
2012-12-28 10:51:01 AM

bulldg4life: Remember when people pointed out that the knife attack in China only caused 22 wounded children, but pro-gun people said it didn't matter because people were going to get killed one way or the other......now we have people pointing out that armed guards might lead to 20 people getting killed instead of 27, therefore it is a reasonable solution.

How about just a tiny little bit of consistency...


OK, how about the knife attack at a Chinese kindergarten that resulted in 12 dead and 5 injured? Or the guy in Africa who killed 21 people with an axe? Or the guy in Sweden who killed 9 with an axe? What about the guy in the UK who managed to kill 12 and injure 11 using "sporting" firearms: A double barrel shotgun and a .22 rifle.
 
2012-12-28 10:51:22 AM

s2s2s2: Scerpes: It really is tragic that there wasn't armed police officer in the Sandy Hook school. There might have only been three people wounded there, too. Or less.

Only if that mythical cop had a weapon with real stopping power, and really good aim.


Depends on what you mean by "real stopping power." And average aim could have sufficed.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-12-28 10:51:37 AM
www.animeout.com

Easy on the eyes AND will basically have more weaponry than any street thug will ever have.
 
2012-12-28 10:51:50 AM

Scerpes: s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: Look, all we're saying is if we armed cops this wouldn't happen.

What wouldn't happen? Perps being killed for trying to kill cops? Getting shot is in the job description of cops. Is that news to you? You are acting like that is news to you.

Oh I see. The effective use of guns to prevent a wider tragedy has you needing to run defense.

Much like the man in PA who was proving the words of that idiot, LaPierre as he was saying them.

It really is tragic that there wasn't armed police officer in the Sandy Hook school. There might have only been three people wounded there, too. Or less.


Or the officer could have been the first victim, and the shooter could have had an extra weapon as a result. It's easy to play the woulda coulda shoulda game and come up with whatever outcome you want.
 
2012-12-28 10:53:07 AM

dready zim: generallyso: I will never understand facilities that think having officers in direct contact with the accused while carrying a gun is a good idea. I'd like to see someone shoot up a room full of people out take a dozen hostages after wrestling a baton away from an officer. Stow the firearms and carry contact weapon only when in direct contact with the accused; what is wrong with this concept?

Large amounts of THIS.


Because there are secure and non secure areas of the jail. In the non-secure area the subject could still be armed therefore I will remain armed.
 
2012-12-28 10:53:38 AM
While I'm against a mandate for civilians, this is why the development of smart guns that only fire for the owner is so important. Last time I heard, the number one source of a gun when a cop is shot is still his or her own gun. I know the technology exists, but it is still not ready for the field. It has to be relatively fool proof, and reliable enough that when an office draws his weapon, he knows it will fire.

Hell I'd use that technology at home. Since the kids got old enough to get into anything and everything, my guns have been locked up. The odds of me needing to defend my family from a home invasion are simply too low vs. the chance of one of my family getting accidentally shot with one of my guns.
 
2012-12-28 10:53:54 AM

seatown75: Scerpes: s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: Look, all we're saying is if we armed cops this wouldn't happen.

What wouldn't happen? Perps being killed for trying to kill cops? Getting shot is in the job description of cops. Is that news to you? You are acting like that is news to you.

Oh I see. The effective use of guns to prevent a wider tragedy has you needing to run defense.

Much like the man in PA who was proving the words of that idiot, LaPierre as he was saying them.

It really is tragic that there wasn't armed police officer in the Sandy Hook school. There might have only been three people wounded there, too. Or less.

Or the officer could have been the first victim, and the shooter could have had an extra weapon as a result. It's easy to play the woulda coulda shoulda game and come up with whatever outcome you want.


If you think the school wouldn't have been safer with an armed police officer on campus, you're out of your mind. I can't guarantee that he could have ended the incident without some loss of life, but I can tell you that 20 dead 2nd graders would have had a better chance.
 
2012-12-28 10:54:39 AM

Nana's Vibrator: People_are_Idiots:

To the cops that got shot: I'm glad it wasn't worse. Hope the cop with the belly wound makes it through to full duty.

I'm interpreting this differently from the way you had intended. Gross.


www.immortalmusic.net
 
2012-12-28 10:54:44 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Civil_War2_Time: Yes, it IS a stupid simplistic argument.

BUT, this is where the concealed vs. open-view carry situation comes into play.

If the tackled cop had his gun in a holster around his ankle (like my dad's .45 mini), there would likely have been but one person shot...the perp. Although the perp wouldn't have tackled someone trying to get his gun if he didn't know if he even had one on-person (and in a police station).

It's time for cops to stop showing-off their weapons, because they don't need to. Conceal it, and there will be next to no shootings of cops with their own guns...IMO.

1) The suspect is the only one that know's ahead of time that there is going to be some shooting. He has the tremendous tactical advantage of action where I have to rely on reaction to respond. So now you want me to drop to a knee, pull up my pants, pull out a useless sub compact and get into a fight?

2) It's called deterrent. Your gun is in your waistband behind your back and mine is about 2" from the gun hand. Going to draw on me? There is a chance that you might get a shot off but I am going to be returning fire almost immediately after it. Unless you happen to get me in the head I am shooting back.


I know it's called a deterrent. The point we're (myself and others) trying to make is having an exposed weapon is a recipe for possible disaster.

Also, how unfit are you that you have to go down to a knee to reach a gun in an ankle-holster? Can you not stand on one leg and balance yourself?

And my dad's .45 is likely bigger than what you pack. Sub-compact? Hahaha.
 
2012-12-28 10:55:04 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: You know what, honest question here for the "guns are not a part of the problem" crowd. I like facts and numbers and figures and I like to draw conclusions from them. Here's a series of facts I've gleaned from FBI crime stats and Wikipedia tables for other threads since Newtown:

1. The USA is far and away the most heavily armed society in the world. More than 88 guns per 100 citizens. More than 40% of all people in the country between the ages of zero and dead own at least one gun. That last bit isn't "on average", that's actually people who own at least one gun.

2. The OECD member country list is useful for comparing like nations based on their development. Among OECD member countries, only Mexico has more gun crimes per capita than the USA

3. 37/50 states in the USA have "will-issue" laws on the books for concealed carry permits. 2 states are "constitutional carry" and do not even require a permit. One state is technically "shall issue" but operates as "will issue". That means in 40 out 50 states the only people who can't get a concealed carry permit are felons and people who are known to be mentally unstable (which is a small number of people since states are not required to provide that information to the FBI anymore).

4. Only 7 of 50 states ranked 50 (out of 100) or above on Brady Campaign's gun control scorecard. 5 more ranked 25 or above leaving 38 of 50 states scoring 24 or less with the majority scoring between 0 and 10.

How can you, in a country more armed than any other nation, with a vast majority of states allowing unchallenged concealed carry for non-felons, and a vast majority of states having weak or no gun control laws on the books reconcile the argument that the problem is we need more armed citizens when we also lead all developed nations (except the one embroiled in a massive drug war) in gun violence and are way up the list on all countries combined?

I literally cannot even begin to comprehend the argument here. We're already more armed th ...


*sigh* In America gun control would not work. Or maybe I should say it would work exactly like prohibition on alcohol and drugs worked. Most law abiding citizen would give up their guns as the penalties would be too steep to do other wise, while most outlaw type citizens would give up their registered guns and then go buy or build unregistered guns.

If the biggest law enforcement effort ever to keep drugs out of our country, off our streets, and out of the hands of children has failed, what makes you think gun prohibition or even gun control will do any better?
 
KIA
2012-12-28 10:55:30 AM

KIA: Vegan Meat Popsicle: If we're already the most heavily armed populace on the planet, but also the 10th most dangerous for gun violence

You see what you did right there, right?


kombat_unit: And Mexico has very strict gun control over civilian firearm ownership. Yay prohibition. Failing forever.


This.
 
2012-12-28 10:55:56 AM

kombat_unit: And Mexico has very strict gun control over civilian firearm ownership. Yay prohibition. Failing forever.


The majority of small arms and assault rifles are smuggled in from the U.S.

Are you going to answer my question or just be stupid?
 
2012-12-28 10:56:02 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: You know what, honest question here for the "guns are not a part of the problem" crowd. I like facts and numbers and figures and I like to draw conclusions from them. Here's a series of facts I've gleaned from FBI crime stats and Wikipedia tables for other threads since Newtown:

1. The USA is far and away the most heavily armed society in the world. More than 88 guns per 100 citizens. More than 40% of all people in the country between the ages of zero and dead own at least one gun. That last bit isn't "on average", that's actually people who own at least one gun.

2. The OECD member country list is useful for comparing like nations based on their development. Among OECD member countries, only Mexico has more gun crimes per capita than the USA

3. 37/50 states in the USA have "will-issue" laws on the books for concealed carry permits. 2 states are "constitutional carry" and do not even require a permit. One state is technically "shall issue" but operates as "will issue". That means in 40 out 50 states the only people who can't get a concealed carry permit are felons and people who are known to be mentally unstable (which is a small number of people since states are not required to provide that information to the FBI anymore).

4. Only 7 of 50 states ranked 50 (out of 100) or above on Brady Campaign's gun control scorecard. 5 more ranked 25 or above leaving 38 of 50 states scoring 24 or less with the majority scoring between 0 and 10.

How can you, in a country more armed than any other nation, with a vast majority of states allowing unchallenged concealed carry for non-felons, and a vast majority of states having weak or no gun control laws on the books reconcile the argument that the problem is we need more armed citizens when we also lead all developed nations (except the one embroiled in a massive drug war) in gun violence and are way up the list on all countries combined?

I literally cannot even begin to comprehend the argument here. We're already more armed than any other country on earth, with the vast majority of states having extremely loose controls on concealed carry and what you can buy.... yet we lead the developed world in gun violence and the argument is there aren't enough people with guns?

You literally can't own more guns per capita than any other country on earth no matter how many more you add. If we're already the most heavily armed populace on the planet, but also the 10th most dangerous for gun violence.... how is more guns even remotely a justifiable position based on any actual data?


*Crickets* Then, derp of course.
 
2012-12-28 10:56:05 AM

Scerpes: Depends on what you mean by "real stopping power."


Something that could have knocked his little ass down, given that he was wearing a vest(was that confirmed?).

Fair enough on the aim.

seatown75: Or the officer could have been the first victim, and the shooter could have had an extra weapon as a result. It's easy to play the woulda coulda shoulda game and come up with whatever outcome you want.


No doubt that a qualified, armed officer(not some fatty near retirement) on the scene would have made for better odds.
 
2012-12-28 10:56:35 AM
I found today's thread to not be in!

/Still in it!
 
2012-12-28 10:57:04 AM
Don't they have handcuffs that make it impossible to use your hands? Like a double glove cuff if you can picture it. Two gloves sewn together with normal handcuffs built into the cuffs.
 
2012-12-28 10:57:45 AM

s2s2s2: Scerpes: Depends on what you mean by "real stopping power."

Something that could have knocked his little ass down, given that he was wearing a vest(was that confirmed?).

Fair enough on the aim.


I've never heard the bit about the vest. Not saying it's not true, but I've never seen it.
 
2012-12-28 10:57:57 AM

Scerpes: seatown75: Scerpes: s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: Look, all we're saying is if we armed cops this wouldn't happen.

What wouldn't happen? Perps being killed for trying to kill cops? Getting shot is in the job description of cops. Is that news to you? You are acting like that is news to you.

Oh I see. The effective use of guns to prevent a wider tragedy has you needing to run defense.

Much like the man in PA who was proving the words of that idiot, LaPierre as he was saying them.

It really is tragic that there wasn't armed police officer in the Sandy Hook school. There might have only been three people wounded there, too. Or less.

Or the officer could have been the first victim, and the shooter could have had an extra weapon as a result. It's easy to play the woulda coulda shoulda game and come up with whatever outcome you want.

If you think the school wouldn't have been safer with an armed police officer on campus, you're out of your mind. I can't guarantee that he could have ended the incident without some loss of life, but I can tell you that 20 dead 2nd graders would have had a better chance.


Well in active shooter training the whole point is to get the guy to fight you instead of the defenseless. Even if you can't kill him you harass him with fire, keep him moving and trying to engage you or corner him somewhere. Keep his mind off the kids and focused on trying to kill the guy that is shooting at him.

That is the benefit of an officer in that scenario and how lives are saved.
 
2012-12-28 10:58:31 AM

s2s2s2: seatown75: Or the officer could have been the first victim, and the shooter could have had an extra weapon as a result. It's easy to play the woulda coulda shoulda game and come up with whatever outcome you want.

No doubt that a qualified, armed officer(not some fatty near retirement) on the scene would have made for better odds.


You should talk to police unions abut fitness standards.  And it's not just those near retirement that are the fatty's.
 
2012-12-28 10:58:32 AM

Scerpes: seatown75: Scerpes: s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: Look, all we're saying is if we armed cops this wouldn't happen.

What wouldn't happen? Perps being killed for trying to kill cops? Getting shot is in the job description of cops. Is that news to you? You are acting like that is news to you.

Oh I see. The effective use of guns to prevent a wider tragedy has you needing to run defense.

Much like the man in PA who was proving the words of that idiot, LaPierre as he was saying them.

It really is tragic that there wasn't armed police officer in the Sandy Hook school. There might have only been three people wounded there, too. Or less.

Or the officer could have been the first victim, and the shooter could have had an extra weapon as a result. It's easy to play the woulda coulda shoulda game and come up with whatever outcome you want.

If you think the school wouldn't have been safer with an armed police officer on campus, you're out of your mind. I can't guarantee that he could have ended the incident without some loss of life, but I can tell you that 20 dead 2nd graders would have had a better chance.


You have no proof of that. It's simply a fantasy outcome people like yourself are desperately clinging to in order to make yourself feel like you have an answer to a terrible problem.
 
2012-12-28 10:58:59 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: The majority of small arms and assault rifles are smuggled in from the U.S.


Smuggled? Our government delivers them personally.
 
2012-12-28 10:59:06 AM

Mike_1962: *Crickets* Then, derp of course.


Almost all of the recent mass shootings have taken place where guns are forbidden. This proves the "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" motto.
 
2012-12-28 11:00:00 AM

seatown75: You have no proof of that. It's simply a fantasy outcome people like yourself are desperately clinging to in order to make yourself feel like you have an answer to a terrible problem.


The incident in the article is pretty much confirmation of that. Bad guy with gun and no cops around? 26 dead. Bad guy with gun and armed cops around? Bad guy dead.
 
2012-12-28 11:00:10 AM

DrewCurtisJr: Shahab: I think it doesn't fit gun control advocate's message so they try and dismiss it out of hand.

Sure it does. Guns are dangerous, more guns increase the potential for danger. The police officer had his/her gun stolen, you think this couldn't happen in a school where they are talking about arming teachers or to some retired NRA security volunteer?


Much less likely: Police "open carry", where their gun is out in the open and available for anyone to just take at a whim.

A teacher would likely be required to carry concealed. For 99% of the time, no one but the armed teachers themselves would know they were armed in the first place, and it's *MUCH* harder to take a gun that is concealed under clothing than one that is out in the open in a conventional belt holster.

Probably the *BEST* solution would be to highly publicize efforts to arm teachers, and to require those what wish to be armed (which will be a tiny minority) to carry concealed.

That changes the calculus of people who go on mass shooting sprees: Their motivation seems to be to kill as many people as possible before they kill themselves or are killed by police. If they don't know who is armed and who isn't, but they perceive that it's likely that at least *SOME* teachers/administrators/staff at the school are armed, then that school becomes less attractive a target.
 
2012-12-28 11:00:28 AM

Kit Fister: I don;t think that it's necessary to pass a lot of gratuitous feel-good legislation that goes overboard on what we do when I think we can pass amended legislation that fix the NICS system, reporting requirements, and institute an electronic 4473 process that both streamlines the NICS background check system for dealers and keeps a copy of the paperwork on file with the ATF, as well as making it searchable for law enforcement.



What I would like to see in gun control is banning external magazines and limiting internal magazines to no more then 8 rounds. This would begin to limit the damage a shooter with legal firearms could do, while at the same time be a reasonable amount of ammunition for hunters or sport shooters.
 
2012-12-28 11:00:52 AM

seatown75: You have no proof of that. It's simply a fantasy outcome people like yourself are desperately clinging to in order to make yourself feel like you have an answer to a terrible problem.


How have "gun free zones" worked out for us?

(A: lots of dead kids)
 
2012-12-28 11:01:21 AM
only one was injured so yes I guess arming occupants is a good thing.

Now that subby is a complete Dumb ***. maybe subby will realize that it could have been 26 instead of just the 3 killed. But the officers were armed and able to stop the gunman.
 
2012-12-28 11:02:23 AM

Slaves2Darkness: *sigh* In America gun control would not work. Or maybe I should say it would work exactly like prohibition on alcohol and drugs worked. Most law abiding citizen would give up their guns as the penalties would be too steep to do other wise, while most outlaw type citizens would give up their registered guns and then go buy or build unregistered guns.

If the biggest law enforcement effort ever to keep drugs out of our country, off our streets, and out of the hands of children has failed, what makes you think gun prohibition or even gun control will do any better?


Why can't any of you answer my question? I asked a very specific question, none of you can seem to respond. Just your standard bullshiat.

I'm not looking for a farking debate with you. I already know your position, I don't want to hear it again. I want to know why you hold that position. What facts, what historical evidence, what data did you use to decide "it won't work"?

I know what you believe, WHY do you believe it? What is your rationale? Is it seriously "guns are just like drugs and alcohol"? is that baseless analogy really why you think that?
 
2012-12-28 11:02:29 AM

Giltric: Vegan Meat Popsicle: the families of the dead understand that their loved ones died for the noble cause of letting rednecks get drunk

getting drunk costs us 100k lives per year, and thats not including the molestations and rapes, beatings and abuses...etc.

Alchohol wasn't even designed to kill people like firearms were and there are less firearm fatalities per year than alchohol.


More people have choked to death on popcorn in the last 50 years than have been killed by nuclear weapons.

Gee, its almost as if something used thousands of times more frequently can result in more harm, even if it is intrinsically less harmful. Whoda thunkit?
 
2012-12-28 11:02:37 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Kit Fister: I don;t think that it's necessary to pass a lot of gratuitous feel-good legislation that goes overboard on what we do when I think we can pass amended legislation that fix the NICS system, reporting requirements, and institute an electronic 4473 process that both streamlines the NICS background check system for dealers and keeps a copy of the paperwork on file with the ATF, as well as making it searchable for law enforcement.


What I would like to see in gun control is banning external magazines and limiting internal magazines to no more then 8 rounds. This would begin to limit the damage a shooter with legal firearms could do, while at the same time be a reasonable amount of ammunition for hunters or sport shooters.


No.
 
2012-12-28 11:02:43 AM

dittybopper: DrewCurtisJr: Shahab: I think it doesn't fit gun control advocate's message so they try and dismiss it out of hand.

Sure it does. Guns are dangerous, more guns increase the potential for danger. The police officer had his/her gun stolen, you think this couldn't happen in a school where they are talking about arming teachers or to some retired NRA security volunteer?

Much less likely: Police "open carry", where their gun is out in the open and available for anyone to just take at a whim.

A teacher would likely be required to carry concealed. For 99% of the time, no one but the armed teachers themselves would know they were armed in the first place, and it's *MUCH* harder to take a gun that is concealed under clothing than one that is out in the open in a conventional belt holster.

Probably the *BEST* solution would be to highly publicize efforts to arm teachers, and to require those what wish to be armed (which will be a tiny minority) to carry concealed.

That changes the calculus of people who go on mass shooting sprees: Their motivation seems to be to kill as many people as possible before they kill themselves or are killed by police. If they don't know who is armed and who isn't, but they perceive that it's likely that at least *SOME* teachers/administrators/staff at the school are armed, then that school becomes less attractive a target.


Maybe the best solution would be to put biometric lock boxes in classrooms for those teachers that want to carry.
 
2012-12-28 11:02:48 AM

Kiriyama9000: Bontesla: Kiriyama9000: imontheinternet: BizarreMan: If the police station was a weapons free zone this would not have happened.

FTFA:  The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said.

As mentioned above, I'm sure teachers would be able to protect their firearms much better than trained law enforcement personnel.
The talk of giving teachers guns is silly. Having said that, I went to a high school that had two armed police officers on duty at all times. If someone did come in with a gun, they'd have to deal with an armed response. Even if somehow both officers failed to bring down an assailant, isn't that still better than no response at all?

Not once in my four years in high school did I feel encroached by having officers around, nor did I ever feel that I was in a prison. If I were an elementary school student, I probably thought it would have been awesome to have an officer around. Didn't some of us aspire to be a cop some day at one point or another? Middle school students probably wouldn't care much -- we were all little asses back then.

Put an officer at every school. Give them an office. They are trained and have sworn an oath. Will this be perfect? No. Will this be cheap? No. Will more children be better protected than they are now? YES.

You cannot find and prevent every crazy or mentally sick person from doing crazy things. It is IMPOSSIBLE to predict crazy and even more IMPOSSIBLE to find every potential weapon for said crazy that could be used and destroy them.

Instead, provide an armed response. The only way to deal with deadly force is unfortunately to respond with deadly force.

And when the shooter kills the officer first? Perhaps the officer has his back turned or is locking her office to patrol? Or suppose the officer is on the other side of the building? You could unload an entire clip on many guns before the officer arrives.

The fact is you're hiring a RESPONDER and not a preventer. So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead ...
That is absurd and sickening logic.
I guess those 7 lives wouldn't matter to you.

"Oh don't bother. Just let him keep firing away. Don't put an officer or someone else with a gun in there; they might get die or shoot someone accidentally."

Right, so just let the sicko have his way then.


Do you often struggle with logic or merely only in discussions about the use of guns in attempted or successful killing sprees?

Specifically where does my criticism about hiring responders as a preventative measure indicate that I suggest we give up and do nothing?
 
2012-12-28 11:03:28 AM

Spudsy1: only one was injured so yes I guess arming occupants is a good thing.

Now that subby is a complete Dumb ***. maybe subby will realize that it could have been 26 instead of just the 3 killed. But the officers were armed and able to stop the gunman.


It wouldn't have been that high. No way. Guy didn't have 30 round "magazines" and was surrounded by people with guns.
 
2012-12-28 11:04:08 AM
Oh geez, this was in my hometown and I have been in that building. As much as people rag on cops, their job is dangerous and nothing is routine.
 
2012-12-28 11:04:09 AM
Sounds like he got the cops gun.

/Ban cops
 
2012-12-28 11:04:31 AM
Again, I'm referencing the article, and my family's history. Nothing is set in stone when it comes to CCW.

IMO, if the cop that is in the ICU didn't have an exposed gun, he'd likely be suffering from bruises instead of gunshot wounds.
 
2012-12-28 11:05:33 AM

Kit Fister: Vegan Meat Popsicle: You know what, honest question here for the "guns are not a part of the problem" crowd. I like facts and numbers and figures and I like to draw conclusions from them. Here's a series of facts I've gleaned from FBI crime stats and Wikipedia tables for other threads since Newtown:

1. The USA is far and away the most heavily armed society in the world. More than 88 guns per 100 citizens. More than 40% of all people in the country between the ages of zero and dead own at least one gun. That last bit isn't "on average", that's actually people who own at least one gun.

2. The OECD member country list is useful for comparing like nations based on their development. Among OECD member countries, only Mexico has more gun crimes per capita than the USA

3. 37/50 states in the USA have "will-issue" laws on the books for concealed carry permits. 2 states are "constitutional carry" and do not even require a permit. One state is technically "shall issue" but operates as "will issue". That means in 40 out 50 states the only people who can't get a concealed carry permit are felons and people who are known to be mentally unstable (which is a small number of people since states are not required to provide that information to the FBI anymore).

4. Only 7 of 50 states ranked 50 (out of 100) or above on Brady Campaign's gun control scorecard. 5 more ranked 25 or above leaving 38 of 50 states scoring 24 or less with the majority scoring between 0 and 10.

How can you, in a country more armed than any other nation, with a vast majority of states allowing unchallenged concealed carry for non-felons, and a vast majority of states having weak or no gun control laws on the books reconcile the argument that the problem is we need more armed citizens when we also lead all developed nations (except the one embroiled in a massive drug war) in gun violence and are way up the list on all countries combined?

I literally cannot even begin to comprehend the argument here. We're already more armed th ...

Here's your problem: saying "gun crime" is a logical fallacy. You fail to consider:

- what is listed as "gun crime" for your statistics includes suicides and all manner of gun-related incidents. Suicides alone comprise about 60-70% of these so-called "gun crimes".
- Of the remaining crime figures, a vast majority of those are drug-related, stemming from the flow of illegal drugs into the country and the criminal organizations and gangs to whom the flow represents vast moneys.

Also, what you fail to recognize is that, in comparison, other nations in your list have far different systems for providing mental health care (non existent in this country beyond private insurance or out of pocket), far less poverty rates than the US, and far less diverse populations, leading to social friction.

I think it's fairly stupid to argue that "not enough people have guns", but would instead argue that we fail to address the process by which we handle criminals and the mentally ill, and have significantly failed insofar as maintaining and streamlining the process by which data on people who should NOT have guns make it into the system by which we determine eligibility to OWN guns.

Further I'd submit that we fail to stringently enforce the process of preventing straw purchases simply in that we do little to follow up and verify.

This is where I think registration could help, provided that the database of information were kept strictly confidential, and provisions were made to require a warrant and good cause to look at it beyond searching by serial number to determine ownership of a firearm and track its path.

I don;t think that it's necessary to pass a lot of gratuitous feel-good legislation that goes overboard on what we do when I think we can pass amended legislation that fix the NICS system, reporting requirements, and institute an electronic 4473 process that both streamlines the NICS background check system for dealers and keeps a copy of the paperwork on file with the ATF, as well as making it searchable for law enforcement.


Yes, but you are a person who is willing to accept reasonable effective controls, not one of those who say that they favour a change but declare ANY change as ineffective.
 
2012-12-28 11:05:34 AM

s2s2s2: Spudsy1: only one was injured so yes I guess arming occupants is a good thing.

Now that subby is a complete Dumb ***. maybe subby will realize that it could have been 26 instead of just the 3 killed. But the officers were armed and able to stop the gunman.

It wouldn't have been that high. No way. Guy didn't have 30 round "magazines" and was surrounded by people with guns.


Yeah...it's highly unlikely he could have possibly found another weapon if he dropped a dozen or so cops.
 
2012-12-28 11:06:50 AM

The Muthaship: Vegan Meat Popsicle: The majority of small arms and assault rifles are smuggled in from the U.S.

Smuggled? Our government delivers them personally.


This is also a fallacy designed to get just this kind of think going (yes, I meant think, not thing).

The actual data, should anyone bother to read the many many articles on Mexico's seized guns, states that a majority of the guns that could be traced came in from the US. This does not mean that this is the majority of guns seized, just that those are the ones that could be (easily) traced. Looking at any number of articles (google 'Cartel weapon sources' if you like), Cartels have access to guns from all over central and South America where militaries and other entities sell them guns pretty damn openly, including places like Bolivia and Argentina. Also documented are that a number of soldiers in Columbia and Mexico and other countries desert and take weapons with them to work for the cartels.

Besides, Cartel members aren't dumb. US Government runs a program to help smuggle guns into Mexico for whatever reason, they're going to do it. As we see, the whole thing resulted in no arrests, and no actual, substantive benefit other than more guns in Mexico.
 
2012-12-28 11:08:33 AM

Kit Fister: S Government runs a program to help smuggle guns into Mexico for whatever reason, they're going to do it.


Ok, never mind, I don't want your opinions any more at all after such an amazingly stupid statement.
 
2012-12-28 11:08:36 AM

s2s2s2: Scerpes: Depends on what you mean by "real stopping power."

Something that could have knocked his little ass down, given that he was wearing a vest(was that confirmed?).

Fair enough on the aim.

seatown75: Or the officer could have been the first victim, and the shooter could have had an extra weapon as a result. It's easy to play the woulda coulda shoulda game and come up with whatever outcome you want.

No doubt that a qualified, armed officer(not some fatty near retirement) on the scene would have made for better odds.


Building the school like a prison with electronic doors connected to metal detectors would have reduced the odds, along with a lot of other things. Armed guards are one fairly expensive and dangerous means of harm reduction, not a foolproof solution.
 
2012-12-28 11:08:39 AM

Civil_War2_Time: I know it's called a deterrent. The point we're (myself and others) trying to make is having an exposed weapon is a recipe for possible disaster.

Also, how unfit are you that you have to go down to a knee to reach a gun in an ankle-holster? Can you not stand on one leg and balance yourself?

And my dad's .45 is likely bigger than what you pack. Sub-compact? Hahaha


So let me get the scenario straight. I have come up to rob you and you are going to stand on one leg and retrieve a weapon from your ankle. You know what I am going to do and where you are going to end up? I am torn between just pushing you over or kicking you in the balls so hard you puke out pieces of urethra.

Do a simple test in your office. Have someone put a pencil in his belt and you put a pencil in your sock. See if he can hit you with that pencil before you can hit him.

/also, if you go down to your knee you are drawing into a decent shooting position not hopping around on one foot it has nothing to do with "fit"
 
2012-12-28 11:10:48 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Bontesla: So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.

If you're one of the seven, it's pretty significant.


And if you're one of 32?
If your definition of improvement is merely to potentially increase the response time then you're not making a significant improvement in preventing mass shootings.

You're focusing on a single hypothetical scenario and saying that the improvement is worth implementing your suggestion. Your hypothetical scenario can easily go the other way and end up adding an additional victim to the pool. That's why implementing responders to a position of prevention is an inadequate suggestion.
 
2012-12-28 11:12:48 AM

Fissile: Wayne LaPierre has the solution to this problem: Place armed teachers inside every police station.


Winnarrrr!
 
KIA
2012-12-28 11:13:17 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I want to know why you hold that position. What facts, what historical evidence, what data did you use to decide "it won't work"?


Okay. The small island nation of England outlawed all civilian possession of firearms including the lowly .22 caliber in 1997. The Cumbria shootings in 2010 led to 13 fatalities and 11 injured when Derrick Bird shot and killed three people connected to himself, and 12 others in an apparently random shooting spree before turning the gun on himself.

Point 1: Outlawing guns did not stop mass shootings.

Point 2: Outlawing guns did not stop gun crimes:

The number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and fell to 21,521 in 2005/06. Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[65] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. In late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths. Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary (an opposition party spokesperson), attributed the rise to ineffective policing and an out-of-control gang culture.[70]

A 2006 statistical analysis found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation[71].

Point 3: Outlawing guns caused rapes, robberies and burglaries to skyrocket:

England now has a worse rate of burglaries and robberies than the US.

"For burglaries and robberies England and Wales had more crimes per 100,000 people than the USA.
England and Wales was ranked sixth for burglaries - worse than Sweden, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Italy and Chile - and for robberies, England and Wales was seventh. For rapes, England and Wales was ranked ninth, worse than the likes of Norway, Poland, Sweden, Australia and Germany, while for car thefts, England and Wales was eighth - worse than Slovenia, Chile, Mexico, Greece and the Czech Republic."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England- h as-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html
 
2012-12-28 11:13:25 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Kit Fister: I don;t think that it's necessary to pass a lot of gratuitous feel-good legislation that goes overboard on what we do when I think we can pass amended legislation that fix the NICS system, reporting requirements, and institute an electronic 4473 process that both streamlines the NICS background check system for dealers and keeps a copy of the paperwork on file with the ATF, as well as making it searchable for law enforcement.


What I would like to see in gun control is banning external magazines and limiting internal magazines to no more then 8 rounds. This would begin to limit the damage a shooter with legal firearms could do, while at the same time be a reasonable amount of ammunition for hunters or sport shooters.


If hunting and sport shooting were the only uses for guns protected by the Second Amendment, you might have a point. But they aren't.

Also, would you require people to turn in all magazines with the capability to hold more than 8 rounds, or would they be grandfathered? There are difficulties with either course of action:

1. Confiscation: This would require that owners of the magazines be compensated for them. This would be an enormous economic burden on the government: I can't find a good estimate of their numbers, but if there at least 5 magazines per gun that can take them, and, say, 50 million such guns (most semi-auto handguns now have at least 10+ round capacity), and each magazine costs $20, that's about $5,000,000,000 in compensation the government would have to pay out, and the Constitution requires that they pay fair market value for them.

2. Grandfathering: This would "freeze" the supply, but it would have little effect for decades. The 10 year long AWB had almost no effect on the actual *SUPPLY* of magazines, they were still easily available for purchase even 9 years into it, for a price of course. We didn't run out of them, and since the AWB sunset, they've only become more and more popular with more shooters, so the supply would be greater than previously. Also, people could make their own: Most magazines are simple sheet-metal boxes with a spring inside them. A high school shop student could make them rather easily, and probably would, if the "real thing" were expensive enough.
 
2012-12-28 11:13:33 AM

clane: Only 3? hmmmm and why didn't they just kill every polioce officer in the building?? oh the shooter was shot and killed..... nice try Farker

[images.sodahead.com image 300x300]


Too late for the 3 shot. While a derringer may hold 2 bullets it's still powerful against 3 who don't want a bullet in them.
 
2012-12-28 11:14:28 AM

dittybopper: A teacher would likely be required to carry concealed. For 99% of the time, no one but the armed teachers themselves would know they were armed in the first place, and it's *MUCH* harder to take a gun that is concealed under clothing than one that is out in the open in a conventional belt holster.


Yes they'll be concealed, but you don't think that students who see a teacher 5 days a week for 9 months might get a glimpse of a concealed weapon?
 
2012-12-28 11:15:35 AM

Scerpes: s2s2s2: Spudsy1: only one was injured so yes I guess arming occupants is a good thing.

Now that subby is a complete Dumb ***. maybe subby will realize that it could have been 26 instead of just the 3 killed. But the officers were armed and able to stop the gunman.


It wouldn't have been that high. No way. Guy didn't have 30 round "magazines" and was surrounded by people with guns.

Yeah...it's highly unlikely he could have possibly found another weapon if he dropped a dozen or so cops.


Incredibly stupid comment.
 
2012-12-28 11:15:59 AM

KIA: KIA: Vegan Meat Popsicle: If we're already the most heavily armed populace on the planet, but also the 10th most dangerous for gun violence

You see what you did right there, right?

kombat_unit: And Mexico has very strict gun control over civilian firearm ownership. Yay prohibition. Failing forever.

This.


No. Not this. Laws are meaningless when there is no rule of law. Your country has problems, but you are still a society under rule of law. Much of Mexico exists in anarchy.
 
2012-12-28 11:16:04 AM
Should be required attire for non police entering a police station.
 
2012-12-28 11:16:55 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: kombat_unit: And Mexico has very strict gun control over civilian firearm ownership. Yay prohibition. Failing forever.

The majority of small arms and assault rifles are smuggled in from the U.S.

Are you going to answer my question or just be stupid?


I'm not beholden to you, random fark troll. And to think the full auto rifles are coming from the U.S. is patently dumb. If you think the cartels that are moving tons of drugs into Mexico would have a problem not dropping a 100 AK's on each shipment, you're silly. Or perhaps you feel guilty for doing drugs washed in blood.
 
2012-12-28 11:17:13 AM
www.thesissystore.com
 
2012-12-28 11:17:59 AM
This is Fark, right? So when exactly did the cops become the "good guys"? I'm really confused now.

/neither a cop lover nor hater
 
KIA
2012-12-28 11:18:09 AM
Had to add one more:

From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome
 
2012-12-28 11:18:10 AM

imontheinternet: Kiriyama9000: If someone did come in with a gun, they'd have to deal with an armed response.

Yes, armed officers will have a chance to take down a shooter before he does the maximum amount of damage.  However, what is more common - school shootings or fights?  If these armed officers are there, will they not be breaking up fights?  When they break up fights, will the students not have an opportunity to take the handgun from the police, just as the man did in this story?  Finally, do you think having guns in schools will make deaths by guns in schools go down or up?

No shootings in my school. No cops overwhelmed.
The officers did have to break up fights on occasion.
I've seen football style spears and have seen mace used by them to de-escalate things.

When you start endangering others, you lose your right to safety.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 11:21:11 AM

Mike_1962: Much of Mexico exists in anarchy.


So... are you saying that the existing laws aren't enforced?

Or are you saying that people do whatever they have to do to protect themselves and their families whether the law does or not?
 
2012-12-28 11:23:24 AM

dittybopper: Bontesla: The fact is you're hiring a RESPONDER and not a preventer. So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.

Seven lives aren't significant?

Why can't we do both, in hiring responders *AND* preventers?


I never claimed seven lives aren't significant. I merely said the loss of 20 isn't a significant improvement over the loss of 27. We should perhaps aim for a bit more reduction, no?

Police officers are responders. That's their primary function - to respond to alleged crimes and criminal activity. Now police officers can respond to a crime, and in doing so, prevent the furthering of that crime or the addition of other crimes. However, they're still responding and that is their primary function.

Officers would only be responding to the crime which only happens in either the commission of a crime or after the crime has taken place.

In this instance - that crime is the potential massacre of many people. There's nothing wrong with using responders as a backup plan but it's inadequate as a preventative measure.
 
2012-12-28 11:23:40 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: The uprising against tearrany has begun!


lol "terrany"

/made me chuckle
 
2012-12-28 11:23:52 AM

Benjamin Orr: cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: Bontesla: The Muthaship: Bontesla: So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.

Really?

Is 20 your definition of a significant improvement? You aim low.

Not that I think that having armed guards in every school is a good thing... but isn't this the exact argument used to limit magazine size? That yes people will still die but it will be less somehow with smaller magazines?

The difference is 10 shots per mag vs. 100. Not 26 vs 20.

My point is that either reducing deaths is a good thing or it isn't.

I don't even want to know what a handgun with a 100 rd magazine would look like.


armamentsales.netfirms.com
 
2012-12-28 11:24:24 AM

IlGreven: Kiriyama9000: The talk of giving teachers guns is silly. Having said that, I went to a high school that had two armed police officers on duty at all times. If someone did come in with a gun, they'd have to deal with an armed response. Even if somehow both officers failed to bring down an assailant, isn't that still better than no response at all?

Well, some could argue that it is the same as no response at all...plus two guards on the funeral pyre, plus two guns and two clips (at least) in the shooter's arsenal.

But aside from that...again, how are we, who vote down simple school levies because our kids don't go to the schools in question, going to pay for the positioning of armed guards? Because with the nearly coast-to-coast downsizing of local and county police forces, there aren't going to be enough police to be in every school and enough to patrol. Like I said, the kid from Die Hard 3 knows the scenario: "It's Christmas! You could steal City Hall!" So the guards are either going to have to be hired by the schools, or the locals are going to have to bring more cops back on payroll. Either way, this costs money; money that, in the past decade at the very least, everyone seems reluctant to give.

I know where I am in Baltimore, the city police force has only gotten larger in my lifetime...

Well, this is a topic that needs to be addressed. Are people willing to pay for their children's safety or not? Upgraded locks, windows, doors, and internal safety protocols can only do so much.

In my public high school we had officers on duty, but the county where I live usually runs a budget surplus every year.
 
2012-12-28 11:26:40 AM
wild pigs something something too easy
 
2012-12-28 11:26:51 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Civil_War2_Time: I know it's called a deterrent. The point we're (myself and others) trying to make is having an exposed weapon is a recipe for possible disaster.

Also, how unfit are you that you have to go down to a knee to reach a gun in an ankle-holster? Can you not stand on one leg and balance yourself?

And my dad's .45 is likely bigger than what you pack. Sub-compact? Hahaha

So let me get the scenario straight. I have come up to rob you and you are going to stand on one leg and retrieve a weapon from your ankle. You know what I am going to do and where you are going to end up? I am torn between just pushing you over or kicking you in the balls so hard you puke out pieces of urethra.

Do a simple test in your office. Have someone put a pencil in his belt and you put a pencil in your sock. See if he can hit you with that pencil before you can hit him.

/also, if you go down to your knee you are drawing into a decent shooting position not hopping around on one foot it has nothing to do with "fit"


There are little-to-no wild-west scenarios of "quick-draw" like you're describing in your comment in the real world anymore. If that were the case, the secret service would ALL be wearing exposed guns for a more speedy shot.

Once again, this article was about someone with an apparently exposed gun getting it taken from him and being shot. I'm saying that likely wouldn't have happened if he didn't have it in plain sight in a holster. His "deterrent" got him shot, if that's what actually happened. The perp would likely not have lunged at the cop (in a police station) if he didn't see a gun he thought he could get, and use.
 
2012-12-28 11:27:05 AM

GanjSmokr: Bontesla: MisbehavingStealing a cop's gun? That's a shooting.
Tell a lieShooting at cops with that stolen gun? That's a shooting.


FTFY.
Or did you really believe that this particular guy was just "misbehaving"?


Lol . WOW.
That point just danced circles around you.
 
2012-12-28 11:27:23 AM

firefly212: Kiriyama9000: Are you all retarded?

"Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident when a struggle with officers ensued at around 5:30 a.m. The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect."

The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work.

In many stations, cops check their service sidearms as they enter... when bad guys go to try to escape, they neither have guns, nor can they get them from the locked boxes at the entrance... what there is is a wall of cops who are well trained, and one unarmed guy, they force him to the floor, do a better job of restraining him (seems pretty obvious that whenever a criminal gets loose enough to fight, that's not how things are supposed to work), and carry on with their day... nobody gets shot, certainly nobody gets killed, and everyone goes on with their day after a minor scuffle... the guy gets an additional couple counts of battery on a peace officer, and the officer who did a shiat job of restraining the suspect in the first place gets reviewed to see if he violated policy in the course of his failure to control the suspect... everyone goes either home or to jail alive... and that's how things are supposed to work.

/mind boggling that you think a criminal getting a cops gun is how things are supposed to work.


You misinterpreted what I said and you're making an assumption that the police are infallible. A mistake was made and a criminal managed to get an officer's gun. Other officers responded with deadly force and ended the event with only injuries on their account.
 
2012-12-28 11:28:36 AM
Too bad they didn't use smart guns. Of course the NRA is against those. Not sure why. I guess they think that the guvmint would have some sort of universal back door disarming code.
 
2012-12-28 11:28:46 AM

Scerpes: Maybe the best solution would be to put biometric lock boxes in classrooms for those teachers that want to carry.


I don't like that idea either: The gun would have to be in a drawer, where it could be more easily stolen, and it would take a while for it to be employed, perhaps too long: Shooter would probably target the teacher first, so (s)he has to have it ready at a moments notice. One of the reasons why the Supreme Court ruled that DC's law was unconstitutional was that it required that all guns in the home be locked up, and during oral arguments, even the lawyers for DC fumbled by conceding it could take 3 seconds to unlock a gun: They had intended to show it wasn't a significant burden, but ended up proving the opposite. Three seconds is a *LONG* time when you are in a situation like that.
 
2012-12-28 11:30:48 AM

KIA: Had to add one more:

From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome


You have established a case that says crime is an issue. You have not provided anything to establish that a lack of uncontrolled firearms is the cause. Also, care to point out where the rest of the civilized world has spiralling crime due to lack of firearms? No?
 
2012-12-28 11:32:04 AM

dr_blasto: Benjamin Orr: cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: Bontesla: The Muthaship: Bontesla: So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.

Really?

Is 20 your definition of a significant improvement? You aim low.

Not that I think that having armed guards in every school is a good thing... but isn't this the exact argument used to limit magazine size? That yes people will still die but it will be less somehow with smaller magazines?

The difference is 10 shots per mag vs. 100. Not 26 vs 20.

My point is that either reducing deaths is a good thing or it isn't.

I don't even want to know what a handgun with a 100 rd magazine would look like.

[armamentsales.netfirms.com image 599x464]


lol... that seems easily concealable and unlikely to jam.

I can support banning 100 rd magazines for handguns just because they look so damn stupid.
 
2012-12-28 11:32:20 AM

billygeek: clane: Only 3? hmmmm and why didn't they just kill every polioce officer in the building?? oh the shooter was shot and killed..... nice try Farker

[images.sodahead.com image 300x300]

Too late for the 3 shot. While a derringer may hold 2 bullets it's still powerful against 3 who don't want a bullet in them.


or a slingshot  www.myindiapictures.com
 
2012-12-28 11:33:00 AM

liam76: Kiriyama9000: liam76: Kiriyama9000: The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work
Really?

I am pretty sure whn the police have somebody in custody they, as a rule, shouldn't be able to take police officers weapon from them.
You're making an assumption that every officer is perfect at their job.
You also fail to realize that the officer needs access to their service weapon.
They can do as much as they can to prevent others from gaining access, but it is still a weapon holstered at their side that they need immediate access to should the need arise. Other officers did this and lives were saved because of it.

Where are you going with your logic?

I made no assumption.

You claimed this was how it was supposed to work, I pointed out it was pretty stupid to think that a guy, in custody, grabbing a cops gun is how it is "supposed to work".

it is also pretty stupid to claim their lives were saved by having guns holstered at their side when their lives were put in danger because they couldn't control guns holstered at their side.


What should the officers have done prior to this?
Disarm themselves and then move the guy?

They are armed for a reason.
For this very reason.

The officer should have made sure a person in custody couldn't take their weapon.

The officer who lost their weapon has just shown it isn't safe for them to carry a weapon.


The police are not infallible and will not be perfect every time. This does not happen frequently. Why don't we hear about police weapons being used against them or others more frequently? Are they to go elsewhere unarmed because of the slight chance that their firearm may be stolen?

The "way things are supposed to work" comment was made in regards to how the other officers responded in ending the situation. They aren't supposed to let a criminal get ahold of a weapon and they aren't supposed to be overwhelmed, but as I said, they cannot be perfect 100% of the time.

Be thankful they put up with this crap so most of us don't have to.
 
2012-12-28 11:33:37 AM

dittybopper: Scerpes: Maybe the best solution would be to put biometric lock boxes in classrooms for those teachers that want to carry.

I don't like that idea either: The gun would have to be in a drawer, where it could be more easily stolen, and it would take a while for it to be employed, perhaps too long: Shooter would probably target the teacher first, so (s)he has to have it ready at a moments notice. One of the reasons why the Supreme Court ruled that DC's law was unconstitutional was that it required that all guns in the home be locked up, and during oral arguments, even the lawyers for DC fumbled by conceding it could take 3 seconds to unlock a gun: They had intended to show it wasn't a significant burden, but ended up proving the opposite. Three seconds is a *LONG* time when you are in a situation like that.


I don't disagree with any of that. At the same time, I understand just what a burden it is to carry either concealed or open day in and day out. I just don't think it's feasible to expect teachers to do that.
 
2012-12-28 11:33:42 AM

The Muthaship: Bontesla: You aim low.

I think you are looking at it completely wrong. Saving one life is a significant improvement, regardless of how many were lost on a given occasion. There are bad/crazy people out there. That is unfortunate, but the lengths you (and a scary number of others in this thread) are willing to go in what would be a futile attempt to prevent the bad/crazy people from doing the evil things they do sacrifices the freedom of the vast majority of people who are not bad/crazy.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

We used to hear that quote a lot on Fark when the Patriot Act was passing. I wonder where it went......


You're entitled to defend yourself, your property, and your family. You're allowed to also use arms for sport and collecting.

You do not have an inherent and enumerated right to own assault weapons. That right is granted by SCOTUS and is subject to change at any time.

I understand your point on giving up liberty for the sake of safety but it's something we do. You cannot shout, "fire" in a crowded theater even though you have the right to speak freely. We give up a little bit of free speech to avoid people inciting riots and riots.

We also aren't constituonally entitled to rocket launchers even though they're an effective tool for defense.
 
2012-12-28 11:33:55 AM

seatown75: Building the school like a prison with electronic doors connected to metal detectors would have reduced the odds, along with a lot of other things. Armed guards are one fairly expensive and dangerous means of harm reduction, not a foolproof solution.


I agree very much that this is a better solution.
 
2012-12-28 11:34:46 AM

DrewCurtisJr: dittybopper: A teacher would likely be required to carry concealed. For 99% of the time, no one but the armed teachers themselves would know they were armed in the first place, and it's *MUCH* harder to take a gun that is concealed under clothing than one that is out in the open in a conventional belt holster.

Yes they'll be concealed, but you don't think that students who see a teacher 5 days a week for 9 months might get a glimpse of a concealed weapon?


They might.

Then again, they might not.

But when you talk about non-student shooters coming in, like Adam Lanza, they won't know who is armed and who isn't.

Beyond that, though, is the idea: If you *KNOW* there are armed teachers, or highly suspect that their might be, there is very little chance that you are going to know who *ALL* of them are. That's going to change your thinking about your chances.

It's kind of like how if you think your opponent has a full house, and you only have three of a kind, you aren't going to call them on it. Doesn't matter if they only have a pair of deuces.
 
2012-12-28 11:35:57 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: kombat_unit: And Mexico has very strict gun control over civilian firearm ownership. Yay prohibition. Failing forever.

The majority of small arms and assault rifles are smuggled in from the U.S.

Are you going to answer my question or just be stupid?


That's not really true. A lot of the weapons are stolen from the Mexican military or smuggled in from the South.
 
2012-12-28 11:36:20 AM

Kit Fister: Bontesla: Kit Fister: Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown?  Something like 500+?  This is yet another one.  I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.

How many people have died since Newtown as a result of Murder? more than 500+. How many have died since Newton due to cancer caused by cigarettes? How many by auto accidents and drunk drivers?

Now how many of those 500+ have been suicides?

Your crass statements about the patheticness are misleading and eggregiously stupid.

You're understanding of nuance is limited. Low-effort thinker? Poor kit.

Well, if you'd like to show me where NUANCE is used here, and why the nuance of a gun being used is preferable to any other means of death...


If you don't understand how the flu is different than mass shooters than your problem isn't that I failed to point out nuance.
 
2012-12-28 11:36:56 AM

Fissile: Wayne LaPierre has the solution to this problem: Place armed teachers inside every police station.


I love you.
 
2012-12-28 11:36:58 AM

dr_blasto: Vegan Meat Popsicle: kombat_unit: And Mexico has very strict gun control over civilian firearm ownership. Yay prohibition. Failing forever.

The majority of small arms and assault rifles are smuggled in from the U.S.

Are you going to answer my question or just be stupid?

That's not really true. A lot of the weapons are stolen from the Mexican military or smuggled in from the South.


That's not true. Eric Holder takes them himself when he goes to Cabo on vacation.
 
2012-12-28 11:38:33 AM

Bontesla: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Bontesla: So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.

If you're one of the seven, it's pretty significant.

And if you're one of 32?
If your definition of improvement is merely to potentially increase the response time then you're not making a significant improvement in preventing mass shootings.

You're focusing on a single hypothetical scenario and saying that the improvement is worth implementing your suggestion. Your hypothetical scenario can easily go the other way and end up adding an additional victim to the pool. That's why implementing responders to a position of prevention is an inadequate suggestion.


I did not suggest anything, nor did I propose any hypothetical scenario.
I only responded to your moronic statement that a potential 7 lives saved was insignificant.
 
2012-12-28 11:39:11 AM
Um, moron...only the shooter was killed. Having guns doesn't prevent the shooting, it just stops it sooner. Are you brain dead?
 
2012-12-28 11:39:14 AM
KIA, if you're gonna try to use math, do it right... 2.44 million people die in the US each year (so taking the full 313 million is rather disingenuous). of those 2.44 million,  12,632 were homicides with firearms (there's another 17k suicides with firearms, a large number of which are minors, but that conversation can be for another day), so the total percentage of deaths in the US resulting from firearms homicides is a little over a half of a percent. The bigger problem is still that we're taking all deaths, we're comparing violent homicide to old age. If you want to get a grip on how dangerous firearms are, consider that in the same year (cdc faststats), there were 16,799 homicides... so firearms accounted for a full 75.19 percent of homicides.

Though I agree with you that new laws regarding firearms themselves isn't the answer, and I would much more place an emphasis on federal prosecution of existing firearms laws (that already provide for an extra 10 years of jail time for a firearm involving a felony), if we delve further, and note that death by firearms account for more than 78% of suicides in the US, and nearly 67% of juvenile suicides, I think that measures holding parents responsible for firearms without trigger locks, and requiring mental health checks before purchasing a firearm and periodically thereafter isn't this unreasonable monster you make it out to be. Sometimes, in the world of stats (my world) the big numbers seem impersonal... when you talk about three thousandths of one percent, you're talking about a number... but when you're talking about someone's son, someone's daughter, someone's best friends... then you're talking about people. You're very right to try to turn this into a numbers argument, because when we talk about the math of it, it seems like a cold calculus... how much will we spend per fractional percentage point... but when you talk about how much we would have spent to prevent the wholesale slaughter of more than eleven thousand brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, and friends, you come off like a sociopath, or at the very least, an imitation aspy (you do a great job at emotional disconnect, but I've never met an aspy who was so bad at logic issues in mathematics terms).
 
2012-12-28 11:39:37 AM

dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.
MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.

Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.


A new record!
 
2012-12-28 11:39:48 AM

Scerpes: dittybopper: Scerpes: Maybe the best solution would be to put biometric lock boxes in classrooms for those teachers that want to carry.

I don't like that idea either: The gun would have to be in a drawer, where it could be more easily stolen, and it would take a while for it to be employed, perhaps too long: Shooter would probably target the teacher first, so (s)he has to have it ready at a moments notice. One of the reasons why the Supreme Court ruled that DC's law was unconstitutional was that it required that all guns in the home be locked up, and during oral arguments, even the lawyers for DC fumbled by conceding it could take 3 seconds to unlock a gun: They had intended to show it wasn't a significant burden, but ended up proving the opposite. Three seconds is a *LONG* time when you are in a situation like that.

I don't disagree with any of that. At the same time, I understand just what a burden it is to carry either concealed or open day in and day out. I just don't think it's feasible to expect teachers to do that.


You wouldn't *EXPECT* them to do it: It would have to be a completely voluntary program. Those that are motivated enough to get certified for that sort of thing (and it should be a bit more complex then getting a conventional CCW in most states, but not *TOO* much more complex) will take on the burden willfully and carefully.

Those that don't want to take on that burden simply wouldn't.

And while it should be tougher to get, we should *PUBLICIZE* it like we were giving them out like candy on Halloween. The real value of it would be deterrence.
 
2012-12-28 11:40:12 AM

Rixel: Too bad they didn't use smart guns. Of course the NRA is against those. Not sure why. I guess they think that the guvmint would have some sort of universal back door disarming code.


Biometric locks would drastically reduce new gun sales. That is the only reason the NRA is opposed. If they somehow had the effect of increasing sales, the NRA would support their use.
 
2012-12-28 11:40:42 AM

Bontesla: GanjSmokr: Bontesla: MisbehavingStealing a cop's gun? That's a shooting.
Tell a lieShooting at cops with that stolen gun? That's a shooting.


FTFY.
Or did you really believe that this particular guy was just "misbehaving"?

Lol . WOW.
That point just danced circles around you.


Were you trying to make an actual "point" in that post or yours? Bless your little heart.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 11:41:30 AM

Mike_1962: You have not provided anything to establish that a lack of uncontrolled firearms is the cause.


Actually, I totally did since there are no legal firearms in England and this increase has happened since that time while crime rates have decreased in America as firearms remained legal.
 
2012-12-28 11:41:52 AM

meta1hed: Um, moron...only the shooter was killed. Having guns doesn't prevent the shooting, it just stops it sooner. Are you brain dead?


It only happened because he took THEIR gun.

Now who's stupid?
 
2012-12-28 11:42:30 AM

justtray: dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.
MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.

Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.

A new record!


Last new record I purchased was Iron Maiden's Powerslave. I switched to cassette tapes not long after, and shortly after that, to CD's.
 
2012-12-28 11:44:24 AM

dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.
MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.

Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.


Oh FFS. Guns don't kill people OR PROTECT PEOPLE. PEOPLE do those things. Guns didn't make these cops safer. If guns didn't exist, none of them would have been shot to begin with. It was body armor and the months of training it takes to become a police officer that kept these guys safe. Goddamnit so much.
 
2012-12-28 11:44:36 AM

KIA: Mike_1962: You have not provided anything to establish that a lack of uncontrolled firearms is the cause.

Actually, I totally did since there are no legal firearms in England and this increase has happened since that time while crime rates have decreased in America as firearms remained legal.


No you did not. America has 40 TIMES the amount of gun crime as the UK. Now go away, I already defeated that argument yesterday. But but 100% increase doesn't mean crap when you're going from 50-100. Even the articles that list those stats admit the cause is due to more aggressive gang related activity, not the gun ban.

Stop parroting talking points you dont understand
 
2012-12-28 11:44:47 AM

seatown75: Rixel: Too bad they didn't use smart guns. Of course the NRA is against those. Not sure why. I guess they think that the guvmint would have some sort of universal back door disarming code.

Biometric locks would drastically reduce new gun sales. That is the only reason the NRA is opposed. If they somehow had the effect of increasing sales, the NRA would support their use.


That, and the fact that they aren't reliable enough. If they were, the police would adopt them, and it would prevent situations like this one. Because they open carry, and their guns are regularly used against them, the police should be clamoring for them, but they don't.

Wonder why?
 
2012-12-28 11:45:07 AM

Kiriyama9000: Are you all retarded?

"Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident when a struggle with officers ensued at around 5:30 a.m. The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect."

The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work.


This bears repeating.
 
2012-12-28 11:45:28 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: KIA: Wow - so these are the guys you think have the ability to protect every citizen from criminals? These are the government agents you think can bring about peace while every other law abiding citizen is disarmed?

Naw, we'd rather depend on the untrained law abiding citizen. Like the one who got killed here. Lets see:

Untrained civilians: 1 dead
Trained Police: One shot. Two with boo boos.

/check the stats


Police officers: 150 rounds over two range trips per year. Anything else is on their own time and dime.
CCW carrier: ~150rds per range trip, at least one trip a month.

Who's the untrained one again?
 
2012-12-28 11:45:33 AM
I'm having a really hard time distinguishing one thread from another today.
 
2012-12-28 11:45:52 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Kit Fister: S Government runs a program to help smuggle guns into Mexico for whatever reason, they're going to do it.

Ok, never mind, I don't want your opinions any more at all after such an amazingly stupid statement.


were you asleep for the whole Fast and Furious thing? You know, the failed program that dumped thousands of guns into Mexico from the US by allowing cartels to circumvent laws that would've prevented sales to them? And the program that GAVE them a functional M2 Machine Gun and promptly lost it?
 
2012-12-28 11:46:11 AM

dittybopper: Beyond that, though, is the idea: If you *KNOW* there are armed teachers, or highly suspect that their might be, there is very little chance that you are going to know who *ALL* of them are. That's going to change your thinking about your chances.


Do you really think that a troubled person, one that is intent on killing as many as possible before killing himself, would be the least be put off by the thought of an armed teacher? As best an armed teacher may have reduced the number of dead (which is, obviously, a good thing) but to think that the knowledge that a teacher may be armed would have prevented the attack is silly.
 
2012-12-28 11:46:28 AM

Bontesla: Kit Fister: Bontesla: Kit Fister: Coco LaFemme: How many people have died in this country as a result of guns since Newtown?  Something like 500+?  This is yet another one.  I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.

How many people have died since Newtown as a result of Murder? more than 500+. How many have died since Newton due to cancer caused by cigarettes? How many by auto accidents and drunk drivers?

Now how many of those 500+ have been suicides?

Your crass statements about the patheticness are misleading and eggregiously stupid.

You're understanding of nuance is limited. Low-effort thinker? Poor kit.

Well, if you'd like to show me where NUANCE is used here, and why the nuance of a gun being used is preferable to any other means of death...

If you don't understand how the flu is different than mass shooters than your problem isn't that I failed to point out nuance.


*then
 
2012-12-28 11:46:44 AM

Click Click D'oh: No dead good guys, one dead bad guy... seems like it's working as intended.


Except the whole point was supposed to be that crazed gunmen -- while crazed -- would still somehow be deterred by "hard targets" where they knew people were armed... at least until you all just moved the goalposts.

So, no.  No it didn't.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 11:47:22 AM

firefly212: total percentage of deaths in the US resulting from firearms homicides is a little over a half of a percent.


Okay. It is already illegal for felons to have firearms as it is for those under a restraining order. What is your proposal to get that number lower using reasonable, real-world means?

firefly212: requiring mental health checks before purchasing a firearm


No argument here on that point. We already have background checks and those can be improved. So, there we have one thing that can and should be done. For the record, I have elsewhere argued that there is no reason why private sales at gun shows or anywhere within a reasonable distance of a FFL dealer shouldn't get a background check on the buyer. It's $20.00 and assures the seller that they're not selling to a terrorist or felon, so who in their right mind wouldn't do that.

firefly212: you come off like a sociopath


Oh. This is the part where I emote all over the place, cry like a baby and wail about the evils of the world. Then I'm not a sociopath, right? See, we had a dialogue going about rational data, problems and solutions, then you want to change it over to personal attacks again. Boo.
 
2012-12-28 11:48:57 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Bontesla: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Bontesla: So maybe the shooter only kills 20 instead of 27? That's not a significant improvement.

If you're one of the seven, it's pretty significant.

And if you're one of 32?
If your definition of improvement is merely to potentially increase the response time then you're not making a significant improvement in preventing mass shootings.

You're focusing on a single hypothetical scenario and saying that the improvement is worth implementing your suggestion. Your hypothetical scenario can easily go the other way and end up adding an additional victim to the pool. That's why implementing responders to a position of prevention is an inadequate suggestion.

I did not suggest anything, nor did I propose any hypothetical scenario.
I only responded to your moronic statement that a potential 7 lives saved was insignificant.


You suggested that I said seven lives is insignificant. I merely argued that there isn't a significant delta between 27 and 7.
 
2012-12-28 11:49:48 AM

RidgeRunner5: DROxINxTHExWIND: KIA: Wow - so these are the guys you think have the ability to protect every citizen from criminals? These are the government agents you think can bring about peace while every other law abiding citizen is disarmed?

Naw, we'd rather depend on the untrained law abiding citizen. Like the one who got killed here. Lets see:

Untrained civilians: 1 dead
Trained Police: One shot. Two with boo boos.

/check the stats

Police officers: 150 rounds over two range trips per year. Anything else is on their own time and dime.
CCW carrier: ~150rds per range trip, at least one trip a month.

Who's the untrained one again?


Why do you assume we only go to the range on our departmental days?
 
2012-12-28 11:51:07 AM

gilgigamesh: Click Click D'oh: No dead good guys, one dead bad guy... seems like it's working as intended.

Except the whole point was supposed to be that crazed gunmen -- while crazed -- would still somehow be deterred by "hard targets" where they knew people were armed... at least until you all just moved the goalposts.

So, no.  No it didn't.


When give a choice between a hard target and a soft target, a gunman will likely choose a soft target. This shooter didn't have that choice. He was faced with circumstances that only gave him one target. It's completely dishonest for you to imply otherwise. Fortunately, because of the other armed individuals there, he was stopped before he killed 26.
 
2012-12-28 11:51:44 AM

GanjSmokr: Bontesla: GanjSmokr: Bontesla: MisbehavingStealing a cop's gun? That's a shooting.
Tell a lieShooting at cops with that stolen gun? That's a shooting.


FTFY.
Or did you really believe that this particular guy was just "misbehaving"?

Lol . WOW.
That point just danced circles around you.

Were you trying to make an actual "point" in that post or yours? Bless your little heart.


You indicated being killed was a punishment inferring that had he not have been shot, there would have been no punishment. So I inquired as to how you normally discipline small infractions? Do you shoot the offender? Because my toolbox comes with a variety of punishments that aren't lethal. This point? You missed it.
 
2012-12-28 11:52:01 AM

dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.
MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.

Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.


I finally get the argument from the pro-gun side.

It's OK if a few people get gunned down, as long as a hero with is own gun is there to stop the shooter before things can get "much worse."

Brilliant. I'm going to go buy a handgun today.
 
2012-12-28 11:52:06 AM
I'm too hung over for this thread.
 
2012-12-28 11:52:17 AM

Kiriyama9000: firefly212: Kiriyama9000: Are you all retarded?

"Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident when a struggle with officers ensued at around 5:30 a.m. The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect."

The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work.

In many stations, cops check their service sidearms as they enter... when bad guys go to try to escape, they neither have guns, nor can they get them from the locked boxes at the entrance... what there is is a wall of cops who are well trained, and one unarmed guy, they force him to the floor, do a better job of restraining him (seems pretty obvious that whenever a criminal gets loose enough to fight, that's not how things are supposed to work), and carry on with their day... nobody gets shot, certainly nobody gets killed, and everyone goes on with their day after a minor scuffle... the guy gets an additional couple counts of battery on a peace officer, and the officer who did a shiat job of restraining the suspect in the first place gets reviewed to see if he violated policy in the course of his failure to control the suspect... everyone goes either home or to jail alive... and that's how things are supposed to work.

/mind boggling that you think a criminal getting a cops gun is how things are supposed to work.

You misinterpreted what I said and you're making an assumption that the police are infallible. A mistake was made and a criminal managed to get an officer's gun. Other officers responded with deadly force and ended the event with only injuries on their account.


No, I didn't misinterpret what you said, what you said was just mind bogglingly stupid.

What's supposed to happen.
1. You're not supposed to make mistakes in restraining a prisoner.
2. When you do make said mistake, if you had policies (as other departments do) in place preventing firearms from entering the facility, the use of deadly force would be wholly unnecessary.
3. Even if you made the mistake in restraining a prisoner, and your department has no procedures to prevent firearms from entering the facility, your number one farking job is not "get the bad guy," it's "protect your sidearm"... failing to protect your sidearm puts not just you, but every other officer and civilian in the area in an incredible amount of danger.

This shooting, though necessary once the prisoner had a firearm, was not "how things are supposed to work"... it was a series of colossal fark ups on the part of the arresting officer, the department, and the criminal... there were numerous reasonable ways to avoid the officers and the criminals lives being put in danger, and they were farked up at every frickin point, ultimately resulting in a criminal having a firearm in a police station... regardless of what happened after that point, all of the things that led to a point where a frickin custodial prisoner had a firearm is NOT AT ALL HOW THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. Here on Earth, when cops fark up, departments fark up, and there is a chain of incidents leading to a prisoner having a firearm, there's hell to pay and departmental investigations that look at every aspect of what went wrong, not a friggin cheerleading squad like you blathering about how great everything worked. Bad things don't happen because of one f#ck up, they happen because a series of f@ck ups, usually by several people... the idea that we would cheer about all that went right, when three cops got shot in their own friggin station... and that we'd say that's how it's supposed to be... that's not something any reasonable gun owner, and certainly not any cop, is going to be happy about.
 
2012-12-28 11:52:49 AM

dittybopper: Beyond that, though, is the idea: If you *KNOW* there are armed teachers, or highly suspect that their might be, there is very little chance that you are going to know who *ALL* of them are. That's going to change your thinking about your chances.


I'll have to disagree with the deterrent effect of possibly armed biology teachers. In this case the guy grabbed a gun in a room full of cops, the Portland mall shooter couldn't have assumed that there weren't any other armed individuals in the mall.
 
2012-12-28 11:53:56 AM

Bontesla:

You do not have an inherent and enumerated right to own assault weapons. That right is granted by SCOTUS and is subject to change at any time.


Wrong. Rights are not granted and I do have an inherent right to own an 'assault' weapon. I have the right to any weapon necessary to defend myself from any agressor.

Governments can only limit and infringe on our ability to exercise rights. The rights exist whether the government does or not.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 11:53:57 AM

justtray: America has 40 TIMES the amount of gun crime as the UK.


And one-sixth the rapiness muggings and burglaries. Go away, rape- mugging- and burglary-lover.
 
2012-12-28 11:55:06 AM

seatown75: Rixel: Too bad they didn't use smart guns. Of course the NRA is against those. Not sure why. I guess they think that the guvmint would have some sort of universal back door disarming code.

Biometric locks would drastically reduce new gun sales. That is the only reason the NRA is opposed. If they somehow had the effect of increasing sales, the NRA would support their use.


Make them mandatory for police. BAM! Millions of new gun sales....unless of course they are so against them that they are willing to go unarmed.
 
2012-12-28 11:55:53 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Why do you assume we only go to the range on our departmental days?


I suspect those are POA numbers.
 
2012-12-28 11:56:15 AM

KIA: firefly212: total percentage of deaths in the US resulting from firearms homicides is a little over a half of a percent.

Okay. It is already illegal for felons to have firearms as it is for those under a restraining order. What is your proposal to get that number lower using reasonable, real-world means?

firefly212: requiring mental health checks before purchasing a firearm

No argument here on that point. We already have background checks and those can be improved. So, there we have one thing that can and should be done. For the record, I have elsewhere argued that there is no reason why private sales at gun shows or anywhere within a reasonable distance of a FFL dealer shouldn't get a background check on the buyer. It's $20.00 and assures the seller that they're not selling to a terrorist or felon, so who in their right mind wouldn't do that.

firefly212: you come off like a sociopath

Oh. This is the part where I emote all over the place, cry like a baby and wail about the evils of the world. Then I'm not a sociopath, right? See, we had a dialogue going about rational data, problems and solutions, then you want to change it over to personal attacks again. Boo.


It's not personal, man... I perceive the world in terms of numbers, I perceive individual people in terms of quantifiable metrics... I gauge individual conversations in terms of metrics... but when you go to talk about dead people (and I had to be mindful of this in previous jobs), you need to be mindful that they are people, not numbers... otherwise people will think you simply fail to understand that differentiation.
 
2012-12-28 11:56:19 AM

imontheinternet: BizarreMan: If the police station was a weapons free zone this would not have happened.

FTFA:  The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said.

As mentioned above, I'm sure teachers would be able to protect their firearms much better than trained law enforcement personnel.


The Cents...You make none of it!
 
2012-12-28 11:56:39 AM

KIA: justtray: America has 40 TIMES the amount of gun crime as the UK.

And one-sixth the rapiness muggings and burglaries. Go away, rape- mugging- and burglary-lover.


Its almost as if population density increases violent crimes. 20 mil out of 60 total live in London.

Keep on being ignorant, just don't wonder why no one is taking you seriously.
 
2012-12-28 11:56:57 AM

Lernaeus: Kiriyama9000: Are you all retarded?

"Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident when a struggle with officers ensued at around 5:30 a.m. The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect."

The jerk-off probably managed to yank one of the officers service weapons from a holster.
The cops responded with deadly force and killed the mother farker.
Thankfully there were only injuries to the police and only some asshat is dead.

This is how things are supposed to work.

This bears repeating.


Criminals are supposed to take the officer's gun and assault a police station?
 
2012-12-28 11:58:33 AM

KIA: The number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03,


Well, you answered the question, but I'm curious how you respond to the fact that the huge jump is almost completely attributable to the way the U.K. changed crime reporting in 2003? Gun crime IS on the rise in the U.K., and it's unclear whether the earlier data is too low or the newer data is too high, but the sudden spike is incredibly misleading when presented without that important bit of context regarding the change in reporting. Plus, even with the increases, the U.K. continues to enjoy one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, particularly by firearm.

Also, there are controlled studies out there which find a correlation between higher ownership rates and higher homicide rates.

And when you have studies that allegedly find the "opposite" is true they rely heavily on hand-picked bits of data and blanket "banned/not banned" comparisons without any consideration or controls for any specific laws.

How do you reconcile those types of studies? At best it would seem that there is conflicting evidence, but realistically how do you ignore the fact that gun ownership rates correlate to gun homicide rates? A giant coincidence?

kombat_unit: I'm not beholden to you


What does that have to do with the fact that you actively tried to insinuate yourself into my little piece of this thread and force a conversation you'd prefer to have instead of the one I'm trying to have?

But, yea, even though you're the one who tried to jump into the middle of my conversation and force your will on the topic I'M the troll. Okay. Makes perfect sense.

dr_blasto: A lot of the weapons are stolen from the Mexican military or smuggled in from the South.


That's true, particularly of larger destructive devices like grenades and RPGs, but the U.S. is a major source, both legally and illegally, of small arms and rifles for the cartels. Many of the guns stolen (or illegally sold) away from the Mexican military are also of U.S. origin since the U.S. supplies firearms to Mexican authorities. Of the traceable guns upwards of 90% turn out to be from the U.S., although there are number of reasons to suspect that little bit of data's accuracy.
 
2012-12-28 11:58:56 AM

Scerpes: This shooter didn't have that choice.


Sure he did.  He had the choice to go quietly and not shoot anybody, and probably get released in a few hours.

You (or more to the point people who think it makes a difference whether a target is armed) are implying rational motivations to people who are not rational.  Some people just lose it.  Some people want to commit suicide by cop.  The presence of guns vel non is not going to make a difference to them.
 
2012-12-28 11:59:50 AM

dittybopper: That's going to change your thinking about your chances.


People who go into elementary schools and shoot children before killing their mother and themselves aren't really interested in "their chances" or in "thinking"

Just saying.

Deterrents only work when somebody actually *cares* about consequences.
 
2012-12-28 12:00:56 PM

dittybopper: seatown75: Rixel: Too bad they didn't use smart guns. Of course the NRA is against those. Not sure why. I guess they think that the guvmint would have some sort of universal back door disarming code.

Biometric locks would drastically reduce new gun sales. That is the only reason the NRA is opposed. If they somehow had the effect of increasing sales, the NRA would support their use.

That, and the fact that they aren't reliable enough. If they were, the police would adopt them, and it would prevent situations like this one. Because they open carry, and their guns are regularly used against them, the police should be clamoring for them, but they don't.

Wonder why?


At one point semi-autos weren't reliable enough. Technology improves. This particular technology will have to improve for other uses first before it is acceptable for service weapons.

Probably the easiest way to improve adoption is through insurance- ie reduce premiums for people who use this kind of lock. Too bad the NRA has already lobbied successfully against that.
 
2012-12-28 12:01:19 PM

Kit Fister: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Kit Fister: S Government runs a program to help smuggle guns into Mexico for whatever reason, they're going to do it.

Ok, never mind, I don't want your opinions any more at all after such an amazingly stupid statement.

were you asleep for the whole Fast and Furious thing? You know, the failed program that dumped thousands of guns into Mexico from the US by allowing cartels to circumvent laws that would've prevented sales to them? And the program that GAVE them a functional M2 Machine Gun and promptly lost it?


Gave who an M2 what now? Where'd you get this?
 
2012-12-28 12:02:04 PM

gilgigamesh: Click Click D'oh: No dead good guys, one dead bad guy... seems like it's working as intended.

Except the whole point was supposed to be that crazed gunmen -- while crazed -- would still somehow be deterred by "hard targets" where they knew people were armed... at least until you all just moved the goalposts.

So, no.  No it didn't.


Ffs. This.
The goalposts have officially been moved.
Thank you.
 
2012-12-28 12:02:43 PM

NightOwl2255: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Why do you assume we only go to the range on our departmental days?

I suspect those are POA numbers.


Strange, no one has ever asked me if I practice off-hours that I can recall. I disagree with them, I know a ton of officers that recreational shoot as well. Heck every range around here gives us a nice discount and one has a special section just for law enforcement. (insert "so we don't hurt anyone" joke)

I get on one of the military bases and shoot for $5 an hour bring your own ammo. Can't beat that price...
 
2012-12-28 12:03:03 PM

justtray: KIA: Mike_1962: You have not provided anything to establish that a lack of uncontrolled firearms is the cause.

Actually, I totally did since there are no legal firearms in England and this increase has happened since that time while crime rates have decreased in America as firearms remained legal.

No you did not. America has 40 TIMES the amount of gun crime as the UK. Now go away, I already defeated that argument yesterday. But but 100% increase doesn't mean crap when you're going from 50-100. Even the articles that list those stats admit the cause is due to more aggressive gang related activity, not the gun ban.

Stop parroting talking points you dont understand


You're asking the wrong questions.

Did the gun ban reduce violent crime overall?

newsimg.bbc.co.uk

No, it didn't. Violent crime was going down before the ban, and UK crime followed the same general trend in the US, peaking in the early 1990's, and falling after that.

Did it reduce homicides overall?

2.bp.blogspot.com

No, it didn't.

Did it prevent mass shootings? No, it didn't.

That last one is of particular interest: I've argued with UK citizens before (going back to usenet conversations in the late 1990's) that the handgun ban in the UK didn't help the crime rate drop, and they countered that it was meant to prevent another Dunblane or Hungerford tragedy. The UK seems to have a mass shooting about once per decade, and while it was perhaps a couple of years late, they *STILL* have them on roughly that schedule it seems.

OK, so we've established that the UK handgun ban doesn't lower violent crime or murder rates, and it doesn't prevent mass shootings. So why keep it? You've had it for, what, 16 years now? At what point do you say "OK, we made a mistake. Turns out that taking highly regulated guns away from people *DOESN'T* help, so let's allow them again"?

In other words, why not err on the side of more freedom, rather than less? You tried it, it didn't work, so why keep it?
 
2012-12-28 12:04:34 PM
So it's ok to have that discussion on firearms now?
 
2012-12-28 12:04:37 PM

KIA: Chinchillazilla: The thing is, everyone agrees we should work to end heart disease, diabetes, influenza, septicemia, cirrhosis, and hypertension. We throw money and research at those things.

Close, but a slight miss. After we have already thrown a lot of money and research at these things they are still far higher than firearms homicides.

You also imply that money and research has not been spent on firearms laws and controls. We have some 20,000 firearms laws on the books. Even in the Newtown situation, the shooter tried to buy firearms at three different dealers and was rejected all three times. Our firearms laws are extensive and work when enforced. The rate of firearm homicides at 11,493 with 313 million residents in the US = 0.003671 percent. That's right. Three one-thousandths of one percent of people in the US died from firearms homicides.

Now when you consider that up to 90% of those may have been committed by people with prior criminal records, people who simply are not law-abiding folks, and that it is already illegal for felons to possess guns, you have to ask: is there any legislation short of banning a natural and constitutional right for the law-abiding citizens which can reduce the rate below three one-thousandths of one percent?

So far, nobody has come up with anything realistic in response to that core question.


So if other things kill more people, no one should bother reducing an epidemic that leaves thousands dead and millions afraid for their lives? The Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment when guns were slightly more effective at killing people than a slingshot. Should we really never question the reasoning of a bunch of guys who owned slaves?
 
2012-12-28 12:04:43 PM

mdeesnuts: Bontesla:

You do not have an inherent and enumerated right to own assault weapons. That right is granted by SCOTUS and is subject to change at any time.


Wrong. Rights are not granted and I do have an inherent right to own an 'assault' weapon. I have the right to any weapon necessary to defend myself from any agressor.

Governments can only limit and infringe on our ability to exercise rights. The rights exist whether the government does or not.


Citation needed :)
 
2012-12-28 12:05:20 PM

KIA: firefly212: total percentage of deaths in the US resulting from firearms homicides is a little over a half of a percent.

Okay. It is already illegal for felons to have firearms as it is for those under a restraining order. What is your proposal to get that number lower using reasonable, real-world means?

firefly212: requiring mental health checks before purchasing a firearm

No argument here on that point. We already have background checks and those can be improved. So, there we have one thing that can and should be done. For the record, I have elsewhere argued that there is no reason why private sales at gun shows or anywhere within a reasonable distance of a FFL dealer shouldn't get a background check on the buyer. It's $20.00 and assures the seller that they're not selling to a terrorist or felon, so who in their right mind wouldn't do that.

firefly212: you come off like a sociopath

Oh. This is the part where I emote all over the place, cry like a baby and wail about the evils of the world. Then I'm not a sociopath, right? See, we had a dialogue going about rational data, problems and solutions, then you want to change it over to personal attacks again. Boo.


Sorry, I forgot to address the first part... My method to address the homicide rate by real world means is by better enforcement of existing gun laws, usually homicide isn't the first crime a person commits with a firearm, I'd like to see people who commit earlier crimes with firearms actually do the 10 years with no chance of parole that federal law provides for. Additonally, I'd like to see a national gun buy-back program (funded by a 2% tax on firearms) in a private/public partnership where we could get more guns out of the hands of people who are likely to sell them in person to person transactions as opposed to actual gun dealers. By getting unwanted guns out of the hands where they're most likely to enter the grey and black markets, we'll do a better job of driving up the costs of firearms in those markets. If we could find a way to offer the resale value (either as cash, or as a combo of cash and gift cards through the partnership) of firearms in exchange for unwanted firearms, we could do a much better job of keeping well-intentioned private citizens from unwittingly selling firearms to bad guys. Lastly, for straw purchases, instead of a maximum of 10 years, I'd like to see a minimum of five years, and a maximum of fifty years, but I'd like an additional clause such that if the firearm involved in the straw purchase was used in a felonious crime, even if the purchaser was not/could not have been aware of that crime, they would be considered an accessory to the felony and chargable as such.
 
2012-12-28 12:06:00 PM

Bontesla: GanjSmokr: Bontesla: GanjSmokr: Bontesla: MisbehavingStealing a cop's gun? That's a shooting.
Tell a lieShooting at cops with that stolen gun? That's a shooting.


FTFY.
Or did you really believe that this particular guy was just "misbehaving"?

Lol . WOW.
That point just danced circles around you.

Were you trying to make an actual "point" in that post or yours? Bless your little heart.

You indicated being killed was a punishment inferring that had he not have been shot, there would have been no punishment. So I inquired as to how you normally discipline small infractions? Do you shoot the offender? Because my toolbox comes with a variety of punishments that aren't lethal. This point? You missed it.


I indicated being killed was a punishment for THIS situation (person stealing police officer's gun and shooting at him with it) and I did not infer that there would be no punishment had he not been shot and killed... nor were we talking about "small infractions" here in any way, shape, or form until you decided to throw it in.

Maybe you feel the police officers have politely asked him to stop shooting at them so they could put him in a cell?

If he had spat at them, he wouldn't have gotten shot and killed. If he had called their mothers "whores", they wouldn't have shot and killed him. Had he stolen jelly beans from their communal jelly bean bowl, he wouldn't have been shot and killed. However, he didn't do any of those things. He chose to steal one of their guns and shoot at them. Their response to this action was warranted and the fact that he died from a decision he CHOSE to make is his fault.

Your point? You failed to make it.
 
2012-12-28 12:06:09 PM

BeesNuts: dittybopper: That's going to change your thinking about your chances.

People who go into elementary schools and shoot children before killing their mother and themselves aren't really interested in "their chances" or in "thinking"

Just saying.

Deterrents only work when somebody actually *cares* about consequences.


Seriously. The only "consequence" they're concerned with is getting a higher body count. Armed guards certainly make bombs a more attractive backup plan, and no kind of non-military firearm is very effective against a bomb.
 
2012-12-28 12:06:35 PM
In my state the LEGAL possession of a handgun requires:

- Application for permit involves background check, fingerprinting, etc. and takes months to effect.
- Waiting period to purchase
- Attending and passing safety course
- Applying for amendments to license for all purchases and dispositions
- Re-certification of license if more than 5 years of inactivity for new purchase

The process to LEGALLY own and use a handgun is already quite controlled. Additionally, if a handgun is not endorsed on your license you cannot legally possess or use it except during competition. That means if you borrow your buddy's pistol at the range to try it you are breaking the law. Failure to follow the laws for guns is cause for your license to be revoked which means you then must dispose of all your handguns. I know judges that review all arrests in their jurisdiction and will revoke your license even for non gun related issues. Busted for a DWI, kiss your license good-bye. Doesn't matter that all your guns were home safely locked away when you were pulled over. You still lose your license - drivers and pistol.

While I don't have statistics to back it up I would suspect that the majority of gun related murders are perpetrated by person(s) not legally owning the gun used to effect their crime. What needs to be controlled is the possession and usage of guns by people not properly licensed to do so. Enact Draconian laws and punishments for these types. The act of mere possession should carry a life sentence with it. The penalties would then increase from there. Placing additional burdens on the people legally possessing them will not solve this problem.
 
2012-12-28 12:08:08 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: dr_blasto: A lot of the weapons are stolen from the Mexican military or smuggled in from the South.

That's true, particularly of larger destructive devices like grenades and RPGs, but the U.S. is a major source, both legally and illegally, of small arms and rifles for the cartels. Many of the guns stolen (or illegally sold) away from the Mexican military are also of U.S. origin since the U.S. supplies firearms to Mexican authorities. Of the traceable guns upwards of 90% turn out to be from the U.S., although there are number of reasons to suspect that little bit of data's accuracy.


The semi-automatic rifles available in the US like the AK-style rifles-cost more (lots more) than actual AK-style assault rifles. Import from Africa; you could purchase one for $100 or less. The US-registered and legal weapons aren't going for any less than $400 to $1200 netting you a semi-auto clone of the real thing. Also, of note, isn't the Zeta cartel largely made up of active military and deserters? They've been using the weapons we, the US, sell/give/whatever to the Mexican government to facilitate their bloodlust.

Now, small arms in the form of stolen pistols? Those might be a majority from the US, there is a glut of stolen ones on our streets, it doesn't take much of a logical leap to see them migrating to Mexico.
 
2012-12-28 12:09:15 PM

farm machine: In my state the LEGAL possession of a handgun requires:

- Application for permit involves background check, fingerprinting, etc. and takes months to effect.
- Waiting period to purchase
- Attending and passing safety course
- Applying for amendments to license for all purchases and dispositions
- Re-certification of license if more than 5 years of inactivity for new purchase

The process to LEGALLY own and use a handgun is already quite controlled. Additionally, if a handgun is not endorsed on your license you cannot legally possess or use it except during competition. That means if you borrow your buddy's pistol at the range to try it you are breaking the law. Failure to follow the laws for guns is cause for your license to be revoked which means you then must dispose of all your handguns. I know judges that review all arrests in their jurisdiction and will revoke your license even for non gun related issues. Busted for a DWI, kiss your license good-bye. Doesn't matter that all your guns were home safely locked away when you were pulled over. You still lose your license - drivers and pistol.

While I don't have statistics to back it up I would suspect that the majority of gun related murders are perpetrated by person(s) not legally owning the gun used to effect their crime. What needs to be controlled is the possession and usage of guns by people not properly licensed to do so. Enact Draconian laws and punishments for these types. The act of mere possession should carry a life sentence with it. The penalties would then increase from there. Placing additional burdens on the people legally possessing them will not solve this problem.


Not sure what state you're in, but that sounds a lot more like the process for a CCW than simply for purchasing a handgun.
 
2012-12-28 12:09:26 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Strange, no one has ever asked me if I practice off-hours that I can recall.


There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million CCW holders. How he decided that, on average, they make at least 12 trips to the range (and fire 150 plus times each visit) a year is clear, it's anecdotal, not fact.
 
2012-12-28 12:10:29 PM

NightOwl2255: dittybopper: Beyond that, though, is the idea: If you *KNOW* there are armed teachers, or highly suspect that their might be, there is very little chance that you are going to know who *ALL* of them are. That's going to change your thinking about your chances.

Do you really think that a troubled person, one that is intent on killing as many as possible before killing himself, would be the least be put off by the thought of an armed teacher? As best an armed teacher may have reduced the number of dead (which is, obviously, a good thing) but to think that the knowledge that a teacher may be armed would have prevented the attack is silly.


Actually, yes. They are *DISTURBED*, but that doesn't mean their thinking isn't somewhat logical: They tend to have a goal: Take as many with them as possible before dying in order to become famous.

If you make them believe that a particular target is "hardened", then they will pick a weaker target.
 
2012-12-28 12:10:34 PM

mdeesnuts: Governments can only limit and infringe on our ability to exercise rights. The rights exist whether the government does or not.



Oh? If the rights exist whether the government says so or not, then where did these rights originate? A right isn't a right if it can be taken away or limited. You have no rights.
 
2012-12-28 12:10:37 PM

dr_blasto: Vegan Meat Popsicle: dr_blasto: A lot of the weapons are stolen from the Mexican military or smuggled in from the South.

That's true, particularly of larger destructive devices like grenades and RPGs, but the U.S. is a major source, both legally and illegally, of small arms and rifles for the cartels. Many of the guns stolen (or illegally sold) away from the Mexican military are also of U.S. origin since the U.S. supplies firearms to Mexican authorities. Of the traceable guns upwards of 90% turn out to be from the U.S., although there are number of reasons to suspect that little bit of data's accuracy.

The semi-automatic rifles available in the US like the AK-style rifles-cost more (lots more) than actual AK-style assault rifles. Import from Africa; you could purchase one for $100 or less. The US-registered and legal weapons aren't going for any less than $400 to $1200 netting you a semi-auto clone of the real thing. Also, of note, isn't the Zeta cartel largely made up of active military and deserters? They've been using the weapons we, the US, sell/give/whatever to the Mexican government to facilitate their bloodlust.

Now, small arms in the form of stolen pistols? Those might be a majority from the US, there is a glut of stolen ones on our streets, it doesn't take much of a logical leap to see them migrating to Mexico.


I hate the term AK-style... an R-15 has as much in common with an AK-47 as a Ford Fiesta has in common with the Space Shuttle.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 12:13:13 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Also, there are controlled studies out there which find a correlation between higher ownership rates and higher homicide rates.


The term "higher" is a comparative and does nothing to impugn the fundamental point I first raised above. At .003 percent of population, US firearms homicides are minute. Even using Firefly's rate of one-half of one percent the US firearms homicide rate is extremely low. The sheer number of guns owned actually highlights the low rate.

I already posited that improving background checks and requiring people within reasonable range of a FFL or selling to strangers be required to get a FFL background check to avoid selling to terrorists or felons. Nobody seems to support that on either side, so I guess it's probably a great solution that might actually have an impact on the availability to the people who commit the most crimes.

Given that already low rate and the 20,000 laws already on the books, it is extremely unlikely that anything else short of total fascism will reduce that rate further. Anyone else have anything constructive short of fascism?
 
2012-12-28 12:14:10 PM

GanjSmokr: Bontesla: GanjSmokr: Bontesla: GanjSmokr: Bontesla: MisbehavingStealing a cop's gun? That's a shooting.
Tell a lieShooting at cops with that stolen gun? That's a shooting.


FTFY.
Or did you really believe that this particular guy was just "misbehaving"?

Lol . WOW.
That point just danced circles around you.

Were you trying to make an actual "point" in that post or yours? Bless your little heart.

You indicated being killed was a punishment inferring that had he not have been shot, there would have been no punishment. So I inquired as to how you normally discipline small infractions? Do you shoot the offender? Because my toolbox comes with a variety of punishments that aren't lethal. This point? You missed it.

I indicated being killed was a punishment for THIS situation (person stealing police officer's gun and shooting at him with it) and I did not infer that there would be no punishment had he not been shot and killed... nor were we talking about "small infractions" here in any way, shape, or form until you decided to throw it in.

Maybe you feel the police officers have politely asked him to stop shooting at them so they could put him in a cell?

If he had spat at them, he wouldn't have gotten shot and killed. If he had called their mothers "whores", they wouldn't have shot and killed him. Had he stolen jelly beans from their communal jelly bean bowl, he wouldn't have been shot and killed. However, he didn't do any of those things. He chose to steal one of their guns and shoot at them. Their response to this action was warranted and the fact that he died from a decision he CHOSE to make is his fault.

Your point? You failed to make it.


:/
You missed it again.
 
2012-12-28 12:15:21 PM

NightOwl2255: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Strange, no one has ever asked me if I practice off-hours that I can recall.

There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million CCW holders. How he decided that, on average, they make at least 12 trips to the range (and fire 150 plus times each visit) a year is clear, it's anecdotal, not fact.


I don't disagree with that but his premise is that they shoot considerably more often than cops and implied that cops only shoot during requals. Thus trying to prove his "who is more trained" theory.

If you take all the prior military out of the CCW holders I would be comfortable in saying I am considerably more trained than the vast majority.
 
2012-12-28 12:15:35 PM
Anyway... I think it's pretty obvious that more guns and trained officers do not prevent mass shootings.
 
2012-12-28 12:15:55 PM

firefly212: dr_blasto: Vegan Meat Popsicle: dr_blasto: A lot of the weapons are stolen from the Mexican military or smuggled in from the South.

That's true, particularly of larger destructive devices like grenades and RPGs, but the U.S. is a major source, both legally and illegally, of small arms and rifles for the cartels. Many of the guns stolen (or illegally sold) away from the Mexican military are also of U.S. origin since the U.S. supplies firearms to Mexican authorities. Of the traceable guns upwards of 90% turn out to be from the U.S., although there are number of reasons to suspect that little bit of data's accuracy.

The semi-automatic rifles available in the US like the AK-style rifles-cost more (lots more) than actual AK-style assault rifles. Import from Africa; you could purchase one for $100 or less. The US-registered and legal weapons aren't going for any less than $400 to $1200 netting you a semi-auto clone of the real thing. Also, of note, isn't the Zeta cartel largely made up of active military and deserters? They've been using the weapons we, the US, sell/give/whatever to the Mexican government to facilitate their bloodlust.

Now, small arms in the form of stolen pistols? Those might be a majority from the US, there is a glut of stolen ones on our streets, it doesn't take much of a logical leap to see them migrating to Mexico.

I hate the term AK-style... an R-15 has as much in common with an AK-47 as a Ford Fiesta has in common with the Space Shuttle.


AK-style in reference to the fact that in most of the world, the AK-47/74/102 is incredibly abundant and has become the assault rifle du jour for both governments, rebels and cartels. M4/16A2/fancy western assault rifle isn't as readily available, and where they are, are much more expensive.
 
2012-12-28 12:17:37 PM

KIA: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Also, there are controlled studies out there which find a correlation between higher ownership rates and higher homicide rates.

The term "higher" is a comparative and does nothing to impugn the fundamental point I first raised above. At .003 percent of population, US firearms homicides are minute. Even using Firefly's rate of one-half of one percent the US firearms homicide rate is extremely low. The sheer number of guns owned actually highlights the low rate.

I already posited that improving background checks and requiring people within reasonable range of a FFL or selling to strangers be required to get a FFL background check to avoid selling to terrorists or felons. Nobody seems to support that on either side, so I guess it's probably a great solution that might actually have an impact on the availability to the people who commit the most crimes.

Given that already low rate and the 20,000 laws already on the books, it is extremely unlikely that anything else short of total fascism will reduce that rate further. Anyone else have anything constructive short of fascism?


Random Idea... what if (to close the gun show loophole), people could go to a police station and pay 10-20 bucks to get a background check, and get a little card indicating they had done so that would be valid for whatever period a background check is good for in the issuing state (here in CO, it's 72 hours, iirc)... you could just require the people coming into the gun show present their little card (and some state issued ID so you know the person on the card is them) on entry, so you'd know everyone had their background check.
 
2012-12-28 12:17:47 PM

dittybopper: justtray: KIA: Mike_1962: You have not provided anything to establish that a lack of uncontrolled firearms is the cause.

Actually, I totally did since there are no legal firearms in England and this increase has happened since that time while crime rates have decreased in America as firearms remained legal.

No you did not. America has 40 TIMES the amount of gun crime as the UK. Now go away, I already defeated that argument yesterday. But but 100% increase doesn't mean crap when you're going from 50-100. Even the articles that list those stats admit the cause is due to more aggressive gang related activity, not the gun ban.

Stop parroting talking points you dont understand

You're asking the wrong questions.

Did the gun ban reduce violent crime overall?

[newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 465x272]

No, it didn't. Violent crime was going down before the ban, and UK crime followed the same general trend in the US, peaking in the early 1990's, and falling after that.

Did it reduce homicides overall?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x277]

No, it didn't.

Did it prevent mass shootings? No, it didn't.

That last one is of particular interest: I've argued with UK citizens before (going back to usenet conversations in the late 1990's) that the handgun ban in the UK didn't help the crime rate drop, and they countered that it was meant to prevent another Dunblane or Hungerford tragedy. The UK seems to have a mass shooting about once per decade, and while it was perhaps a couple of years late, they *STILL* have them on roughly that schedule it seems.

OK, so we've established that the UK handgun ban doesn't lower violent crime or murder rates, and it doesn't prevent mass shootings. So why keep it? You've had it for, what, 16 years now? At what point do you say "OK, we made a mistake. Turns out that taking highly regulated guns away from people *DOESN'T* help, so let's allow them again"?

In other words, why not err on the side of more freedom, rather than less? You tried it, i ...


This was already thoroughly refuted on the last page.
 
2012-12-28 12:18:52 PM

dittybopper: If you make them believe that a particular target is "hardened", then they will pick a weaker target.


Weaker? Weaker than a school full of kids with the possibility that there may be an armed teacher against a person with a semi-automatic rifle being used by a person that fully intends on dying.
 
2012-12-28 12:19:46 PM
Fissile: Wayne LaPierre has the solution to this problem: Place armed teachers inside every police station.

It appears from this story that LaPierre has be vindicated. Some one bursting in a room and firing will never be stopped, its what happens after that initial scene when he goes to the next class room or comes walking out into the hall.
 
2012-12-28 12:20:45 PM

Bontesla:
:/
You missed it again.


Hmmmm. Maybe someone else can chime in and tell us if it's me missing a point or if it's you failing to make one.
 
2012-12-28 12:21:04 PM

dittybopper: seatown75: Rixel: Too bad they didn't use smart guns. Of course the NRA is against those. Not sure why. I guess they think that the guvmint would have some sort of universal back door disarming code.

Biometric locks would drastically reduce new gun sales. That is the only reason the NRA is opposed. If they somehow had the effect of increasing sales, the NRA would support their use.

That, and the fact that they aren't reliable enough. If they were, the police would adopt them, and it would prevent situations like this one. Because they open carry, and their guns are regularly used against them, the police should be clamoring for them, but they don't.

Wonder why?


Good thing that the cops that wield them are 100% reliable as well.
 
2012-12-28 12:21:40 PM

dr_blasto: firefly212: dr_blasto: Vegan Meat Popsicle: dr_blasto: A lot of the weapons are stolen from the Mexican military or smuggled in from the South.

That's true, particularly of larger destructive devices like grenades and RPGs, but the U.S. is a major source, both legally and illegally, of small arms and rifles for the cartels. Many of the guns stolen (or illegally sold) away from the Mexican military are also of U.S. origin since the U.S. supplies firearms to Mexican authorities. Of the traceable guns upwards of 90% turn out to be from the U.S., although there are number of reasons to suspect that little bit of data's accuracy.

The semi-automatic rifles available in the US like the AK-style rifles-cost more (lots more) than actual AK-style assault rifles. Import from Africa; you could purchase one for $100 or less. The US-registered and legal weapons aren't going for any less than $400 to $1200 netting you a semi-auto clone of the real thing. Also, of note, isn't the Zeta cartel largely made up of active military and deserters? They've been using the weapons we, the US, sell/give/whatever to the Mexican government to facilitate their bloodlust.

Now, small arms in the form of stolen pistols? Those might be a majority from the US, there is a glut of stolen ones on our streets, it doesn't take much of a logical leap to see them migrating to Mexico.

I hate the term AK-style... an R-15 has as much in common with an AK-47 as a Ford Fiesta has in common with the Space Shuttle.

AK-style in reference to the fact that in most of the world, the AK-47/74/102 is incredibly abundant and has become the assault rifle du jour for both governments, rebels and cartels. M4/16A2/fancy western assault rifle isn't as readily available, and where they are, are much more expensive.


I understand that the world is largely flooded with AK-47s... I just get frustrated when people describe semi-auto rifles with totally different mechanics as "AK-style"... the term has gotten so overused that it has pretty much lost all meaning... I mean, given the right stock, people (including here in FARK threads) would call a bolt-action rifle AK-Style just because it looks mean and scary. Much like when congress tried to re-define the term "assault weapon" in cosmetic terms, I think we do a disservice to our own arguments when we use such (now) subjective and vague terminology.
 
2012-12-28 12:25:06 PM

dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.
MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.

Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.


^^This
 
2012-12-28 12:26:26 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: NightOwl2255: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Strange, no one has ever asked me if I practice off-hours that I can recall.

There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million CCW holders. How he decided that, on average, they make at least 12 trips to the range (and fire 150 plus times each visit) a year is clear, it's anecdotal, not fact.

I don't disagree with that but his premise is that they shoot considerably more often than cops and implied that cops only shoot during requals. Thus trying to prove his "who is more trained" theory.

If you take all the prior military out of the CCW holders I would be comfortable in saying I am considerably more trained than the vast majority.


I go to the range almost every weekend and I don't consider myself more well trained than anyone, especially cops. I may be a better shot, but that's meaningless in a SHTF situation. I've also seen plenty of people do incredibly stupid things with firearms at the range. Just because someone goes there and busts out 150 rounds doesn't make them well-trained or even competent to own a firearm.

/has a PA LTCF (license to carry firearms)
 
2012-12-28 12:27:02 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: RidgeRunner5: DROxINxTHExWIND: KIA: Wow - so these are the guys you think have the ability to protect every citizen from criminals? These are the government agents you think can bring about peace while every other law abiding citizen is disarmed?

Naw, we'd rather depend on the untrained law abiding citizen. Like the one who got killed here. Lets see:

Untrained civilians: 1 dead
Trained Police: One shot. Two with boo boos.

/check the stats

Police officers: 150 rounds over two range trips per year. Anything else is on their own time and dime.
CCW carrier: ~150rds per range trip, at least one trip a month.

Who's the untrained one again?

Why do you assume we only go to the range on our departmental days?


From my experience, the majority do. They see their gun as just a tool on their belt. They don't want to take their work home with them. They don't want to spend their own time and money doing something required for work, that they won't get reimbursed for.
 
2012-12-28 12:27:08 PM

Incog_Neeto: dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.
MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.

Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.

^^This


Except when you realize he used their gun.... Jesus. Stupid is a stupid does.
 
2012-12-28 12:28:04 PM
Has anyone derped about teh small penis yet?
 
2012-12-28 12:29:10 PM

ranold: This happened because they've taken God out of the police stations.


I see you mocking down there
 
2012-12-28 12:29:24 PM

KIA: Infernalist: other methods of non-lethal weaponry

A) You forgot about Nerf guns. Very intimidating in some of the larger models.

B) Billy-clubs. Right. Why not give them a 18th-century man-catcher? Those were non-lethal and had like a nine-foot range rather than the more limited three-foot range of a billy club.

C) If criminals want habanera sauce, they can generally get it without going to the police for it.

D) Tasers aren't necessarily non-lethal and also aren't necessarily effective.


You obviously have never had the pleasure of getting OC sprayed in your face or a taser used on you.

/Part of a non lethal weapons package I went to. OC spray is the worst feeling ever, and it doesn't stop for a long, long time.
//Oh and a taser locks up your muscles. No "fighting through the pain", it literally scrambles your nerves. That's why cops use it, especially on people they think might be on some sort of drug.
 
2012-12-28 12:30:59 PM

Buffalo77: Fissile: Wayne LaPierre has the solution to this problem: Place armed teachers inside every police station.

It appears from this story that LaPierre has be vindicated. Some one bursting in a room and firing will never be stopped, its what happens after that initial scene when he goes to the next class room or comes walking out into the hall.


Well, this one would have been stopped if the gun was checked - a procedure common in many other police departments. Also, technically, had there been no gun then this wouldn't have happened.
 
2012-12-28 12:33:51 PM

Delectatio Morosa: Has anyone derped about teh small penis yet?


Handguns don't really compensate for a small peener. That's what ridiculously high-powered hunting rifles are for. Which, of course, is why I own several of them.
 
2012-12-28 12:34:17 PM

justtray: Incog_Neeto: dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.
MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.

Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.

^^This

Except when you realize he used their gun.... Jesus. Stupid is a stupid does.


It's almost as though the gun made the situation more dangerous. Odd. That a lethal weapon capable of killing multiple people in seconds could potentially create additional danger is just so very unexpected.
 
2012-12-28 12:35:40 PM
What I have been saying for years has finally come to fruition. If we just banned cops this wouldn't have happened!
 
2012-12-28 12:35:45 PM

pinchpoint: Delectatio Morosa: Has anyone derped about teh small penis yet?

Handguns don't really compensate for a small peener. That's what ridiculously high-powered hunting rifles are for. Which, of course, is why I own several of them.


Well played.
 
2012-12-28 12:35:52 PM

Buffalo77: Fissile: Wayne LaPierre has the solution to this problem: Place armed teachers inside every police station.

It appears from this story that LaPierre has be vindicated. Some one bursting in a room and firing will never be stopped, its what happens after that initial scene when he goes to the next class room or comes walking out into the hall.


Not really. Not even the staunchest gun-control advocates claim that every crazed gunman can be stopped. That was always a straw argument. The argument that armed teachers could somehow stop someone who is already going from room to room firing at people remains weak at best. And that's assuming that teachers would be carrying guns on their person at all times, like police officers do. The fact that we're even considering that is insanity. The "arming the teachers" argument in general is, in reality, implausible and insane.
 
2012-12-28 12:38:05 PM

NightOwl2255: dittybopper: Beyond that, though, is the idea: If you *KNOW* there are armed teachers, or highly suspect that their might be, there is very little chance that you are going to know who *ALL* of them are. That's going to change your thinking about your chances.

Do you really think that a troubled person, one that is intent on killing as many as possible before killing himself, would be the least be put off by the thought of an armed teacher? As best an armed teacher may have reduced the number of dead (which is, obviously, a good thing) but to think that the knowledge that a teacher may be armed would have prevented the attack is silly.


Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?
 
2012-12-28 12:39:53 PM

TheTrashcanMan: Chinchillazilla: Days since last mass shooting: 0

Your definition of "mass" confuses me.



Now you are just being intentionally derp. Mass shootings occur whenever something with mass is shot, doh.
 
2012-12-28 12:40:12 PM

Infernalist: Dancin_In_Anson: Infernalist: I know, right? It's always funny until it happens to someone you personally give a shiat about.

I don't give a shiat about a criminal who went for a cop's gun and lost.

I know you don't. You see a nameless, faceless loser who got what he deserved. And I pity you for your lack of comprehension.

You don't grasp that this is the last step in what was likely a long line of bad judgement calls and mistakes, judging by what he was hauled in for.

I'm saying he shouldn't have had to have died because some farking retard of a cop left his gun unsecured.


I bet you couldn't even type that with a straight face, could you? Is this really how the pants-wetting anti-gun kooks think or is it libs in general??? LMFAO! The guy who tried to grab the gun and ended up getting killed for it is the victim because, well, the gun was just sitting there and all. What was he supposed to do??? NOT try to grab it?
 
2012-12-28 12:42:19 PM

Callous: NightOwl2255: dittybopper: Beyond that, though, is the idea: If you *KNOW* there are armed teachers, or highly suspect that their might be, there is very little chance that you are going to know who *ALL* of them are. That's going to change your thinking about your chances.

Do you really think that a troubled person, one that is intent on killing as many as possible before killing himself, would be the least be put off by the thought of an armed teacher? As best an armed teacher may have reduced the number of dead (which is, obviously, a good thing) but to think that the knowledge that a teacher may be armed would have prevented the attack is silly.

Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?


I'm not certain they pick gun free zones. I think their target is about casualties in areas we consider safe.
 
2012-12-28 12:44:13 PM

The Singing Bush: mdeesnuts: Governments can only limit and infringe on our ability to exercise rights. The rights exist whether the government does or not.


Oh? If the rights exist whether the government says so or not, then where did these rights originate? A right isn't a right if it can be taken away or limited. You have no rights.


I have a natural right, granted to me by my plain existence as a sentient person, to defend myself. I have that right whether I am in New Jersey, New Dehli, or anywhere in between. There are a few others like that, too. The right to self determination comes to mind.

Now, they can be infringed upon (by a person, a government, a pack of rabid dust mites), they can be denied (like you just tried to do), but they do not cease to exist.
 
2012-12-28 12:50:35 PM

BigBooper: Last time I heard, the number one source of a gun when a cop is shot is still his or her own gun


That includes suicides....of which cops rank in top 10 along with dentists or something.
 
2012-12-28 12:59:14 PM

mdeesnuts: have a natural right, granted to me by my plain existence as a sentient person, to defend myself. I have that right whether I am in New Jersey, New Dehli, or anywhere in between. There are a few others like that, too. The right to self determination comes to mind.

Now, they can be infringed upon (by a person, a government, a pack of rabid dust mites), they can be denied (like you just tried to do), but they do not cease to exist.


If a right can be infringed upon or denied, then it is obviously not a right. We do not have rights in this country or any other - we have privileges. The ability and willingness to defend yourself is not a right, it is an instinct.
 
2012-12-28 01:01:58 PM

Bontesla: Callous: NightOwl2255: dittybopper: Beyond that, though, is the idea: If you *KNOW* there are armed teachers, or highly suspect that their might be, there is very little chance that you are going to know who *ALL* of them are. That's going to change your thinking about your chances.

Do you really think that a troubled person, one that is intent on killing as many as possible before killing himself, would be the least be put off by the thought of an armed teacher? As best an armed teacher may have reduced the number of dead (which is, obviously, a good thing) but to think that the knowledge that a teacher may be armed would have prevented the attack is silly.

Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?

I'm not certain they pick gun free zones. I think their target is about casualties in areas we consider safe.


Exactly, if it's a "Gun Free Zone" they know that until the cops show up they will be unopposed and can kill many more than if there were guns present.
 
2012-12-28 01:02:12 PM

Incog_Neeto: dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.
MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.

Initial report is that 3 are wounded, and the shooter was shot and killed.

Seems to me that having a bunch of guns around prevented that from being much worse.

^^This


How does having a bunch of guns around, one of which the criminal got a hold of, prevent something from being worse... it occurs to me that had there been no gun there for the criminal to obtain, that the situation wouldn't have happened at all, let alone been worse.
 
2012-12-28 01:03:54 PM

Civil_War2_Time: My friend and aunt was murdered 10 years ago this past week (when some dick took her purse, found only $20 and was so pissed he gut-shot her). IMO, if she had a gun that was reasonably accessable (ankle-holster, etc.), she might still be alive today. YMMV.


Maybe she should have kept a gun in her purse.
 
2012-12-28 01:05:02 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: The majority of small arms and assault rifles are smuggled in from the U.S.


No.

heres what happens......

Mexico seizes 100k weapons at crime scenes......they determine that 20k of them might come from the US..the other 80k come from somewhere else.

The Mexican authorities give those 20k weapons to the ATF to trace....and 90% of those that are given to the ATF are found to come from America.

That includes military weapons like full auto and select fire m-16s that the US sold to Guatemala, or Nicuragua, or Panama military and police....as well as one shot per trigger pull semi auto rifles and pistols that came from US gun stores.
Where are the mexican cartels getting grenades and c4? US gun stores?
 
2012-12-28 01:06:44 PM

justtray: This was already thoroughly refuted on the last page.


Wait: How were they refuted?

You're saying that the law had some significant, measurable effect on overall violent crime in the UK, homicide rates in the UK, and mass shootings in the UK?

What you are saying is "Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?"
 
2012-12-28 01:06:56 PM

Callous: Bontesla: Callous: NightOwl2255: dittybopper: Beyond that, though, is the idea: If you *KNOW* there are armed teachers, or highly suspect that their might be, there is very little chance that you are going to know who *ALL* of them are. That's going to change your thinking about your chances.

Do you really think that a troubled person, one that is intent on killing as many as possible before killing himself, would be the least be put off by the thought of an armed teacher? As best an armed teacher may have reduced the number of dead (which is, obviously, a good thing) but to think that the knowledge that a teacher may be armed would have prevented the attack is silly.

Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?

I'm not certain they pick gun free zones. I think their target is about casualties in areas we consider safe.

Exactly, if it's a "Gun Free Zone" they know that until the cops show up they will be unopposed and can kill many more than if there were guns present.


And that's why they don't rob convenience stores, why gunmen never shot up Columbine HS, where they had armed guards in the building, and why nothing bad ever happened at VA Tech, where they also had armed guards on site... criminals pick gun-free zones for their terrible acts.

/there are good arguments for the necessity of firearms (and I agree with them), but you're just an idiot.
 
2012-12-28 01:08:25 PM

firefly212: I understand that the world is largely flooded with AK-47s... I just get frustrated when people describe semi-auto rifles with totally different mechanics as "AK-style"... the term has gotten so overused that it has pretty much lost all meaning... I mean, given the right stock, people (including here in FARK threads) would call a bolt-action rifle AK-Style just because it looks mean and scary. Much like when congress tried to re-define the term "assault weapon" in cosmetic terms, I think we do a disservice to our own arguments when we use such (now) subjective and vague terminology.


It doesn't help that the term assault rifle is misused. Nor does it help when we call that thing you can buy at a gun shop for $500 an AK-47, when it isn't any closer to the real AK that the AR-15 is to the M4. However, in Mexico and referencing massive amounts of murder and destruction, the safe bet is that the AK is really an AK and not the knock-offs people fret over when they bring up F&F. I've seen pictures of arms caches there that have crew-served weapons, any bubba-d SKS isn't really going to be a hot item in comparison.
 
2012-12-28 01:08:55 PM

KIA: Coco LaFemme: I wanted you to show me something that said that over 500 people have died of the flu in the last 21 days.

So, you don't believe in math or averages? Try it and see what you get. Go on. 20,000 flu deaths a year vs 11,493 firearms deaths per annum. I know you can do it!


Both of your figures are wildly wrong. The CDC estimates that there are approximately 36,000 flu deaths per year in the United States, and about 32,000 firearm deaths per year.
 
2012-12-28 01:09:03 PM
Did he say that hed be back?
 
2012-12-28 01:10:17 PM

MisterRonbo: Gee, its almost as if something used thousands of times more frequently can result in more harm, even if it is intrinsically less harmful. Whoda thunkit?


If I go to the range do you count every pull of the trigger as use? or do you count that as one use even though I may put 500 rounds down range?

Do we count minutes or hours or days as use when refferring to the millions of Americans who actively open or concealed carry.....how do you determine what use is for statistical purposes?
 
2012-12-28 01:13:50 PM

Civil_War2_Time: Scerpes: Civil_War2_Time: Yes, it IS a stupid simplistic argument.

BUT, this is where the concealed vs. open-view carry situation comes into play.

If the tackled cop had his gun in a holster around his ankle (like my dad's .45 mini), there would likely have been but one person shot...the perp. Although the perp wouldn't have tackled someone trying to get his gun if he didn't know if he even had one on-person (and in a police station).

It's time for cops to stop showing-off their weapons, because they don't need to. Conceal it, and there will be next to no shootings of cops with their own guns...IMO.

1. Ankle holsters are horrendous for a primary weapon.

2. I'm sure you've never taken off your jacket in your office.

I said it was just my opinion.

My friend and aunt was murdered 10 years ago this past week (when some dick took her purse, found only $20 and was so pissed he gut-shot her). IMO, if she had a gun that was reasonably accessable (ankle-holster, etc.), she might still be alive today. YMMV.

My dad carries because he works in the same part of Houston where she was killed. He had never had a CCW permit before that.


Having the gun isn't the solution, being ready with it is... if she simply had the gun, odds are she'd be dead and the criminal would have an extra gun in addition to his other loot. Practicing with it regularly, becoming proficient with it, and practicing for high-stress scenarios is how people live through bad things... but even then, if he's the kind of guy who shoots first, then robs, there's just not a whole hell of a lot of ways to see that coming. Bad things are going to happen, guns are neither the problem, nor the solution. Guns solving gun crimes is about as silly as the notion that going to have a drink is going to make you feel better about the shiatty life caused by alcoholism. There are certainly cases where people have used guns to save their lives against other armed people, but if we're going to go with this data-driven bender that started in this thread, we should be clear that if a person is going to die by way of a firearm (unlikely), the person most likely to die by way of the firearm is the person who owns it, coming it at a close second are his family members... accidental discharges (non-lethal) involving neighbors are more common than shooting a criminal even...
 
2012-12-28 01:16:09 PM

Callous: Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?


In most of these cases the targets are where they are/were students or where they worked or got fired from. And then you have situations of domestic violence that spills over to work or public places.
 
2012-12-28 01:16:37 PM

The Singing Bush: If a right can be infringed upon or denied, then it is obviously not a right. We do not have rights in this country or any other - we have privileges. The ability and willingness to defend yourself is not a right, it is an instinct.


I'm not making this shiat up. The concept of natural rights is not new. As a matter of fact, it has quite a widespread following and was fundamental to the founding of the US. Some even consider them inalienable.

Go do some reading and quit making a fool of yourself.
 
2012-12-28 01:16:39 PM

KIA: Coco LaFemme: I wanted you to show me something that said that over 500 people have died of the flu in the last 21 days.

So, you don't believe in math or averages? Try it and see what you get. Go on. 20,000 flu deaths a year vs 11,493 firearms deaths per annum. I know you can do it!


Don't conflate homicide by firearms with overall firearms deaths, it's gonna get you in a credibility hole when someone rolls in suicides and accidental (fatal) discharges in.
 
2012-12-28 01:21:50 PM

TheTrashcanMan: Chinchillazilla: Days since last mass shooting: 0

Your definition of "mass" confuses me.


/there is gang related gun violence about... every damn day.
//but if its a bunch of white people getting shot, god help us.


No yeah pretty much.
 
2012-12-28 01:28:52 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Callous: Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?

In most of these cases the targets are where they are/were students or where they worked or got fired from. And then you have situations of domestic violence that spills over to work or public places.


If you're going to refute him, hit harder.
1. Colorado has one of the highest CCW/capita rates in the country, the movie theater was not a "gun free zone"
2. Columbine had armed police officer guards, that's pretty much the opposite of "gun free"
3. VA Tech had armed police officers on campus, again, the opposite of "gun free" 32 dead, 24 more shot and injured.
4. Diner in Tulsa, not a gun free zone, again a high ccw/capita rate, didn't stop Jake England and Alan Watts from killing five black guys (they killed them just for being black).
5. IHOP, Carson City, NV, not a gun free zone, 11 shot, 5 dead, including three National Guard Members, 1 of the dead had a gun on him, one of the shot (lived) had a gun on him.
6. Fort Hood, TX (pretty much the polar opposite of gun free), Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 and wounded 29.
7. Kirkwood, MO City Hall (four cops on duty in the building), Charles Thornton Killed six and injured 2 more.

Callous, your question is "why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"? "

My question to you would be... why do you think that nuts pick locations that are gun free zones when the opposite seems to be happening in the reality the rest of us live in?
 
2012-12-28 01:31:58 PM

Callous: Bontesla: Callous: NightOwl2255: dittybopper: Beyond that, though, is the idea: If you *KNOW* there are armed teachers, or highly suspect that their might be, there is very little chance that you are going to know who *ALL* of them are. That's going to change your thinking about your chances.

Do you really think that a troubled person, one that is intent on killing as many as possible before killing himself, would be the least be put off by the thought of an armed teacher? As best an armed teacher may have reduced the number of dead (which is, obviously, a good thing) but to think that the knowledge that a teacher may be armed would have prevented the attack is silly.

Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?

I'm not certain they pick gun free zones. I think their target is about casualties in areas we consider safe.

Exactly, if it's a "Gun Free Zone" they know that until the cops show up they will be unopposed and can kill many more than if there were guns present.


We aren't agreeing...
 
2012-12-28 01:35:48 PM
So a guy busts into an unarmed school and kills 27. A guy busts into an armed police station and 0 killed.
 
2012-12-28 01:36:58 PM

trappedspirit: Now you are just being intentionally derp. Mass shootings occur whenever something with mass is shot, doh.


If you blast 5000 rounds from a ridiculously large weapon into a black hole, do you still have a small penis?

i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-28 01:43:14 PM

hovsm: So a guy busts into an unarmed school and kills 27. A guy busts into an armed police station and 0 killed.


That's not what happened but thanks for playing.
 
2012-12-28 01:45:36 PM

firefly212: Callous: Bontesla: Callous: NightOwl2255: dittybopper: Beyond that, though, is the idea: If you *KNOW* there are armed teachers, or highly suspect that their might be, there is very little chance that you are going to know who *ALL* of them are. That's going to change your thinking about your chances.

Do you really think that a troubled person, one that is intent on killing as many as possible before killing himself, would be the least be put off by the thought of an armed teacher? As best an armed teacher may have reduced the number of dead (which is, obviously, a good thing) but to think that the knowledge that a teacher may be armed would have prevented the attack is silly.

Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?

I'm not certain they pick gun free zones. I think their target is about casualties in areas we consider safe.

Exactly, if it's a "Gun Free Zone" they know that until the cops show up they will be unopposed and can kill many more than if there were guns present.

And that's why they don't rob convenience stores, why gunmen never shot up Columbine HS, where they had armed guards in the building, and why nothing bad ever happened at VA Tech, where they also had armed guards on site... criminals pick gun-free zones for their terrible acts.

/there are good arguments for the necessity of firearms (and I agree with them), but you're just an idiot.


Columbine was chosen because it was the school they attended.  And the guard was off site at lunch when they attacked.  I'm pretty sure they knew the guard's habits and planned it that way.  Virginia Tech again was chosen because it was the school he attended.  And he chained the door to the building he attacked closed behind him, so he would have as much time as possible before the cops got in.  Had there been a cop in the building things may have been different.

Convenience stores are robbed for money, not for mass killings.
 
2012-12-28 01:46:11 PM

firefly212: 1. Colorado has one of the highest CCW/capita rates in the country, the movie theater was not a "gun free zone"
2. Columbine had armed police officer guards, that's pretty much the opposite of "gun free"
3. VA Tech had armed police officers on campus, again, the opposite of "gun free" 32 dead, 24 more shot and injured.
4. Diner in Tulsa, not a gun free zone, again a high ccw/capita rate, didn't stop Jake England and Alan Watts from killing five black guys (they killed them just for being black).
5. IHOP, Carson City, NV, not a gun free zone, 11 shot, 5 dead, including three National Guard Members, 1 of the dead had a gun on him, one of the shot (lived) had a gun on him.
6. Fort Hood, TX (pretty much the polar opposite of gun free), Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 and wounded 29.


1. I think that particular theater chain had a no-gun policy
2. 1 off duty cop that exchanged fire with 1 perp inconclusively and called for back up, did not enter school until slaughter/suicide was complete.
3. VA Tech - didn't the school cops wait 2 hours to enter the building and get their asses pilloried for it?
4. No info
5. A gun is not a force field
6. Soldiers are not allowed to carry on post, civilian PD. If terrorist Hassan had engaged the soldiers on a firing range, that would be much different
 
2012-12-28 01:47:19 PM

dr_blasto: Kit Fister: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Kit Fister: S Government runs a program to help smuggle guns into Mexico for whatever reason, they're going to do it.

Ok, never mind, I don't want your opinions any more at all after such an amazingly stupid statement.

were you asleep for the whole Fast and Furious thing? You know, the failed program that dumped thousands of guns into Mexico from the US by allowing cartels to circumvent laws that would've prevented sales to them? And the program that GAVE them a functional M2 Machine Gun and promptly lost it?

Gave who an M2 what now? Where'd you get this?


Read the stuff on F&F and its predecessor. During one of the arms purchases, an M2 Browning .50 machine gun (yes, the real deal) was "Allowed" to walk to the Cartels. It was promptly lost on the tracking radar. So, somewhere down there, a US Browning .50 is running around.`
 
2012-12-28 01:47:52 PM

hovsm: So a guy busts into an unarmed school and kills 27. A guy busts into an armed police station and 0 killed.


Except that the second sentence isn't reflective of what actually happened.

He didn't bust in
At least one person is dead
We don't arm police stations

I think the only part you got right was the "[a] guy..."
 
2012-12-28 01:52:28 PM

mdeesnuts: The Singing Bush: If a right can be infringed upon or denied, then it is obviously not a right. We do not have rights in this country or any other - we have privileges. The ability and willingness to defend yourself is not a right, it is an instinct.

I'm not making this shiat up. The concept of natural rights is not new. As a matter of fact, it has quite a widespread following and was fundamental to the founding of the US. Some even consider them inalienable.

Go do some reading and quit making a fool of yourself.


From your own link: "rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable."

OK, so it was fundamental to the founding of the US, which led to the most ridiculously naive statement ever put on paper, that "all men are created equal."

You're correct in that the concept of natural rights is not new and has a following. But it is just a concept, like for instance, Catholicism, or the KKK, or the Taliban. It doesn't make it correct.
 
2012-12-28 01:54:22 PM

Giltric: MisterRonbo: Gee, its almost as if something used thousands of times more frequently can result in more harm, even if it is intrinsically less harmful. Whoda thunkit?

If I go to the range do you count every pull of the trigger as use? or do you count that as one use even though I may put 500 rounds down range?

Do we count minutes or hours or days as use when refferring to the millions of Americans who actively open or concealed carry.....how do you determine what use is for statistical purposes?


I'll count it as any time someone has in their possession a loaded gun.

Do you think that remotely approaches the amount of time people spend in cars? Do you think there are even one tenth the number of people who carry a gun as drive or ride in a motor vehicle, or are out in public where they could be run over by a car? I'd bet there are more children riding a school bus every day than there are people who carry a gun.
 
2012-12-28 01:54:28 PM

Kit Fister: dr_blasto: Kit Fister: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Kit Fister: S Government runs a program to help smuggle guns into Mexico for whatever reason, they're going to do it.

Ok, never mind, I don't want your opinions any more at all after such an amazingly stupid statement.

were you asleep for the whole Fast and Furious thing? You know, the failed program that dumped thousands of guns into Mexico from the US by allowing cartels to circumvent laws that would've prevented sales to them? And the program that GAVE them a functional M2 Machine Gun and promptly lost it?

Gave who an M2 what now? Where'd you get this?

Read the stuff on F&F and its predecessor. During one of the arms purchases, an M2 Browning .50 machine gun (yes, the real deal) was "Allowed" to walk to the Cartels. It was promptly lost on the tracking radar. So, somewhere down there, a US Browning .50 is running around.`


I've read a lot, clearly not all, but never did I see any mention of an M2.

F&F was exclusively related to FFL dealers. None of those FFL were going to sell an M2 because none of them would have had an M2 for sale. If memory serves, "Wide Receiver" also worked exclusively through FFLs. An M2 would have been a weapon stolen from either the US or Mexican military. If it was stolen from the US military, it is almost inconceivable that the weapon would have been allowed to walk under any circumstance.
 
2012-12-28 01:59:33 PM

kombat_unit: firefly212: 1. Colorado has one of the highest CCW/capita rates in the country, the movie theater was not a "gun free zone"
2. Columbine had armed police officer guards, that's pretty much the opposite of "gun free"
3. VA Tech had armed police officers on campus, again, the opposite of "gun free" 32 dead, 24 more shot and injured.
4. Diner in Tulsa, not a gun free zone, again a high ccw/capita rate, didn't stop Jake England and Alan Watts from killing five black guys (they killed them just for being black).
5. IHOP, Carson City, NV, not a gun free zone, 11 shot, 5 dead, including three National Guard Members, 1 of the dead had a gun on him, one of the shot (lived) had a gun on him.
6. Fort Hood, TX (pretty much the polar opposite of gun free), Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 and wounded 29.

1. I think that particular theater chain had a no-gun policy
2. 1 off duty cop that exchanged fire with 1 perp inconclusively and called for back up, did not enter school until slaughter/suicide was complete.
3. VA Tech - didn't the school cops wait 2 hours to enter the building and get their asses pilloried for it?
4. No info
5. A gun is not a force field
6. Soldiers are not allowed to carry on post, civilian PD. If terrorist Hassan had engaged the soldiers on a firing range, that would be much different


I'm happy you were able to list out exceptions, I don't disagree that there were extenuating circumstances in all of these cases... but the extenuating circumstances don't make up for the fact that it just isn't true that mass murderers are picking places without firearms.

also:
1. no it doesn't, I've been to that theater, with friends, who were carrying... it's Colorado, do whatever you want provided it's not a post office or bank. Lying isn't a truth-forcefield, Mr. LaPierre.
2. Thanks, one cop exchanged fire with the two shooters... so not only was it not "gun-free", the cop fired and it did not in any way deter the killers. Congratulations on illustrating my point in an articulate manner... now if only you could do the same for yours.
3. They were armed, on campus, and frequently roaming about, the killer had no way of knowing whether or not armed guards were in the building... deterrence provided by armed guards... none whatsoever.
4. Here's a hint, there are more guns in Oklahoma than there are citizens of Oklahoma... how many people did guns save that night?
5. No shiat a gun isn't a forcefield, thank god I'm not the one trying to make the case that guns prevent crime.
6. That wasn't civilian PD responding, the trucks and squad cars that say US Army on the side... those are owned by... wait for it... wait for it... the US Army, as it turns out, they have these guys they call  "Military Police" and they responded quickly to the shooting (not too far from a gate/checkpoint)... they did a good job, responded quickly, and got things under control... but as you eloquently pointed out earlier, guns are not a force field.
 
2012-12-28 02:00:12 PM

dittybopper: justtray: KIA: Mike_1962: You have not provided anything to establish that a lack of uncontrolled firearms is the cause.

Actually, I totally did since there are no legal firearms in England and this increase has happened since that time while crime rates have decreased in America as firearms remained legal.

No you did not. America has 40 TIMES the amount of gun crime as the UK. Now go away, I already defeated that argument yesterday. But but 100% increase doesn't mean crap when you're going from 50-100. Even the articles that list those stats admit the cause is due to more aggressive gang related activity, not the gun ban.

Stop parroting talking points you dont understand

You're asking the wrong questions.

Did the gun ban reduce violent crime overall?

[newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 465x272]

No, it didn't. Violent crime was going down before the ban, and UK crime followed the same general trend in the US, peaking in the early 1990's, and falling after that.

Did it reduce homicides overall?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x277]

No, it didn't.

Did it prevent mass shootings? No, it didn't.

That last one is of particular interest: I've argued with UK citizens before (going back to usenet conversations in the late 1990's) that the handgun ban in the UK didn't help the crime rate drop, and they countered that it was meant to prevent another Dunblane or Hungerford tragedy. The UK seems to have a mass shooting about once per decade, and while it was perhaps a couple of years late, they *STILL* have them on roughly that schedule it seems.

OK, so we've established that the UK handgun ban doesn't lower violent crime or murder rates, and it doesn't prevent mass shootings. So why keep it? You've had it for, what, 16 years now? At what point do you say "OK, we made a mistake. Turns out that taking highly regulated guns away from people *DOESN'T* help, so let's allow them again"?

In other words, why not err on the side of more freedom, rather than less? You tried it, i ...


Hmm, your graphs show either
A. homicide rate dropping before the gun ban, which doesn't support your point and
B. homicide rate dropping after the gun ban, which doesn't support your point either,

why?

because it took 6 years to get all the guns off the streets, and even then criminals would be expected to hold on to them.

The effect delay in your graph makes perfect sense.
 
2012-12-28 02:03:29 PM

Kit Fister: dr_blasto: Kit Fister: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Kit Fister: S Government runs a program to help smuggle guns into Mexico for whatever reason, they're going to do it.

Ok, never mind, I don't want your opinions any more at all after such an amazingly stupid statement.

were you asleep for the whole Fast and Furious thing? You know, the failed program that dumped thousands of guns into Mexico from the US by allowing cartels to circumvent laws that would've prevented sales to them? And the program that GAVE them a functional M2 Machine Gun and promptly lost it?

Gave who an M2 what now? Where'd you get this?

Read the stuff on F&F and its predecessor. During one of the arms purchases, an M2 Browning .50 machine gun (yes, the real deal) was "Allowed" to walk to the Cartels. It was promptly lost on the tracking radar. So, somewhere down there, a US Browning .50 is running around.`


As the only liberal person who likes guns, let me be the first to say, f#ck everything.

Then again, I'd be ok with full-auto weapons being legal, provided that when you buy them, you get a mental health check, you get a mental health check once a year thereafter, ownership is contingent upon your willingness to let the government randomly verify that the weapon is still in your possession, and when you sell it, you are required to sell it to either a licensed firearms dealer, or to the government (no private party sales).
 
2012-12-28 02:08:04 PM
subby....only ONE was injured? If the people in the station weren't armed, then several people would have obviously died!  wtf kind of logic do you have going on?

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-28 02:08:22 PM

dr_blasto: Kit Fister: dr_blasto: Kit Fister: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Kit Fister: S Government runs a program to help smuggle guns into Mexico for whatever reason, they're going to do it.

Ok, never mind, I don't want your opinions any more at all after such an amazingly stupid statement.

were you asleep for the whole Fast and Furious thing? You know, the failed program that dumped thousands of guns into Mexico from the US by allowing cartels to circumvent laws that would've prevented sales to them? And the program that GAVE them a functional M2 Machine Gun and promptly lost it?

Gave who an M2 what now? Where'd you get this?

Read the stuff on F&F and its predecessor. During one of the arms purchases, an M2 Browning .50 machine gun (yes, the real deal) was "Allowed" to walk to the Cartels. It was promptly lost on the tracking radar. So, somewhere down there, a US Browning .50 is running around.`

I've read a lot, clearly not all, but never did I see any mention of an M2.

F&F was exclusively related to FFL dealers. None of those FFL were going to sell an M2 because none of them would have had an M2 for sale. If memory serves, "Wide Receiver" also worked exclusively through FFLs. An M2 would have been a weapon stolen from either the US or Mexican military. If it was stolen from the US military, it is almost inconceivable that the weapon would have been allowed to walk under any circumstance.


It may have been pre-F&F but an M2 got out and into the hands of the cartels.
 
2012-12-28 02:13:48 PM

Giltric: The Mexican authorities give those 20k weapons to the ATF to trace....and 90% of those that are given to the ATF are found to come from America.

That includes military weapons like full auto and select fire m-16s that the US sold to Guatemala, or Nicuragua, or Panama military and police....as well as one shot per trigger pull semi auto rifles and pistols that came from US gun stores.
Where are the mexican cartels getting grenades and c4? US gun stores?


Are grenades and c4 small arms and rifles now or something? Has there been a reclassification I'm unaware of?

Yes, the majority of handguns and a large portion of rifles used by the Mexican cartels stem from America either in the form of smuggled arms or arms sold to and then stolen from the Mexican military.

America plays a large hand in arming those cartels. This isn't really a debatable thing. It's been known for some time.

firefly212: As the only liberal person who likes guns, let me be the first to say, f#ck everything.


I like my guns just fine.

I just don't understand why I shouldn't have to accept some basic responsibilities or minor inconveniences related to their acquisition and use. I'm under stricter obligations to maintain and operate my car safely than I am my handgun and I think that's absurd.
 
2012-12-28 02:15:23 PM

MisterRonbo: Giltric: MisterRonbo: Gee, its almost as if something used thousands of times more frequently can result in more harm, even if it is intrinsically less harmful. Whoda thunkit?

If I go to the range do you count every pull of the trigger as use? or do you count that as one use even though I may put 500 rounds down range?

Do we count minutes or hours or days as use when refferring to the millions of Americans who actively open or concealed carry.....how do you determine what use is for statistical purposes?

I'll count it as any time someone has in their possession a loaded gun.

Do you think that remotely approaches the amount of time people spend in cars? Do you think there are even one tenth the number of people who carry a gun as drive or ride in a motor vehicle, or are out in public where they could be run over by a car? I'd bet there are more children riding a school bus every day than there are people who carry a gun.


I'd wager that my f350 is far more dangerous when used to intentionally hurt and maim and kill than any of my firearms....my aim doesn;t even have to be precise...and if the target moves it is far easier to reaquire someone and hit them using a 5 foot wide projectile than something that is .223 in diameter.

Sounds like a job for Mythbusters.
 
2012-12-28 02:16:42 PM

firefly212: Thanks, one cop exchanged fire with the two shooters... so not only was it not "gun-free", the cop fired and it did not in any way deter the killers. Congratulations on illustrating my point in an articulate manner... now if only you could do the same for yours.


At Columbine, there were actually two armed officers who shot at Eric Harris.
 
2012-12-28 02:19:48 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Are grenades and c4 small arms and rifles now or something? Has there been a reclassification I'm unaware of?


No just make the next logical jump....if the cartels can get grenades and c4 from mexican and other countries authorities wouldn;t they also buy some full auto military rifles from them and save themselves a trip up to the US to buy some rinky dink civillian semi autos?
 
2012-12-28 02:24:42 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I'm under stricter obligations to maintain and operate my car safely than I am my handgun


You are always obligated to operate your firearms in a safe matter.

Maybe you don't take the responsibility of owning those weapons seriously enough....and you should probably turn them in.

You are also obligated not to rape anyone....but is any government agency trying to deter you from raping someone? Are you taking saltpeter supplements?
 
2012-12-28 02:34:58 PM

KIA: Wow - so these are the guys you think have the ability to protect every citizen from criminals? These are the government agents you think can bring about peace while every other law abiding citizen is disarmed?


But...but...but...train...and stuff.

Seriously, we know all police officers are flawless machines incapable of a moments lapse of attention.

Clearly the perp was a pirate-ninja-robot MMA master.

/or the cop let his guard down...and the guy seized the opportunity.
 
2012-12-28 02:35:28 PM

firefly212: Civil_War2_Time: Scerpes: Civil_War2_Time: Yes, it IS a stupid simplistic argument.

BUT, this is where the concealed vs. open-view carry situation comes into play.

If the tackled cop had his gun in a holster around his ankle (like my dad's .45 mini), there would likely have been but one person shot...the perp. Although the perp wouldn't have tackled someone trying to get his gun if he didn't know if he even had one on-person (and in a police station).

It's time for cops to stop showing-off their weapons, because they don't need to. Conceal it, and there will be next to no shootings of cops with their own guns...IMO.

1. Ankle holsters are horrendous for a primary weapon.

2. I'm sure you've never taken off your jacket in your office.

I said it was just my opinion.

My friend and aunt was murdered 10 years ago this past week (when some dick took her purse, found only $20 and was so pissed he gut-shot her). IMO, if she had a gun that was reasonably accessable (ankle-holster, etc.), she might still be alive today. YMMV.

My dad carries because he works in the same part of Houston where she was killed. He had never had a CCW permit before that.

Having the gun isn't the solution, being ready with it is... if she simply had the gun, odds are she'd be dead and the criminal would have an extra gun in addition to his other loot. Practicing with it regularly, becoming proficient with it, and practicing for high-stress scenarios is how people live through bad things... but even then, if he's the kind of guy who shoots first, then robs, there's just not a whole hell of a lot of ways to see that coming. Bad things are going to happen, guns are neither the problem, nor the solution. Guns solving gun crimes is about as silly as the notion that going to have a drink is going to make you feel better about the shiatty life caused by alcoholism. There are certainly cases where people have used guns to save their lives against other armed people, but if we're going to go with this ...


yeah, the anecdotal stories are a bit odd to me. All I can think when I hear "someone I know was robbed and had/didn't have a gun and was/wasn't killed" is "So you've never been robbed yourself then?"

/When you get punched in the mouth because you opened your *own* front door to go outside, it's kind of hard to remember to draw your gun and act like a bad ass. Training or otherwise.
//In Philly, the best deterrent is knowing and being seen with your neighbors.
///And not arguing with the guys who are dealing crack through your mailslot.
 
2012-12-28 02:35:43 PM

Sultan Of Herf: KIA: Wow - so these are the guys you think have the ability to protect every citizen from criminals? These are the government agents you think can bring about peace while every other law abiding citizen is disarmed?

But...but...but...train...and stuff.

Seriously, we know all police officers are flawless machines incapable of a moments lapse of attention.

Clearly the perp was a pirate-ninja-robot MMA master.

/or the cop let his guard down...and the guy seized the opportunity.


Training...ing.

/dammit
 
2012-12-28 02:38:45 PM

firefly212: DrewCurtisJr: Callous: Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?

In most of these cases the targets are where they are/were students or where they worked or got fired from. And then you have situations of domestic violence that spills over to work or public places.

If you're going to refute him, hit harder.
1. Colorado has one of the highest CCW/capita rates in the country, the movie theater was not a "gun free zone"


Yes it was. Link

2. Columbine had armed police officer guards, that's pretty much the opposite of "gun free"

The guard was off campus at lunch when they attacked their own school.  They probably knew his habits and planned it that way.  And only the non-present guard was allowed to carry.  Therefore it's a Gun Free Zone.

3. VA Tech had armed police officers on campus, again, the opposite of "gun free" 32 dead, 24 more shot and injured.

And he chained the door shut on his own school to give himself as much killing time as possible before the cops could get in.  The school had renewed it's policy the previous year prohibiting anyone except law enforcement to carry on campus.  So yes it is also Gun Free Zone.

4. Diner in Tulsa, not a gun free zone, again a high ccw/capita rate, didn't stop Jake England and Alan Watts from killing five black guys (they killed them just for being black).

I'm not familiar with particular event.  Only thing I could find via google was a spree shooter at multiple locations, and he was targeting black people.

5. IHOP, Carson City, NV, not a gun free zone, 11 shot, 5 dead, including three National Guard Members, 1 of the dead had a gun on him, one of the shot (lived) had a gun on him.
6. Fort Hood, TX (pretty much the polar opposite of gun free), Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 and wounded 29.


Actually the only people allowed to carry firearms are the civilian police on the base.  The soldiers are not allowed to carry, all their weapons are kept in the armory.

7. Kirkwood, MO City Hall (four cops on duty in the building), Charles Thornton Killed six and injured 2 more.

Gun Free Zone -  Link

Callous, your question is "why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"? "

My question to you would be... why do you think that nuts pick locations that are gun free zones when the opposite seems to be happening in the reality the rest of us live in?


The reality you apparently live is delusional because I was able to, in a few minutes with Google, find that 5 of the 7 incidents you listed as non gun free zines were in fact Gun Free Zones.  The other two I couldn't find anything one way or the other.
 
2012-12-28 02:42:41 PM

firefly212: If you're going to refute him, hit harder.
1. Colorado has one of the highest CCW/capita rates in the country, the movie theater was not a "gun free zone"


Yes it was. The theater posted "No Firearms" signs. It was a "Gun Free Zone".

2. Columbine had armed police officer guards, that's pretty much the opposite of "gun free"


At the time, the doctrine of the police was "Wait for the SWAT guys". We know better now.

3. VA Tech had armed police officers on campus, again, the opposite of "gun free" 32 dead, 24 more shot and injured.


None of them were in a position to respond, and everyone else was unarmed.

4. Diner in Tulsa, not a gun free zone, again a high ccw/capita rate, didn't stop Jake England and Alan Watts from killing five black guys (they killed them just for being black).


I don't know enough about this one: Was the diner posted as no guns allowed?

5. IHOP, Carson City, NV, not a gun free zone, 11 shot, 5 dead, including three National Guard Members, 1 of the dead had a gun on him, one of the shot (lived) had a gun on him.


Again, don't know enough about this one. Was the IHOP posted?

6. Fort Hood, TX (pretty much the polar opposite of gun free), Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 and wounded 29.


This is where I *KNOW* you are full of shiat, because I used to be in the Army, and I owned personally owned firearms at the time.

You can't carry a loaded firearm in the military unless it's in the course of your normal duties, and that didn't qualify. Hell, I couldn't even keep a gun in the barracks or even in my car unless I was going to or coming from the range: It had to be stored in the armory, and I had to sign it out whenever I wanted to shoot it.

In effect, every military base is a "gun free zone" for practical purposes, except in a war zone. Last I checked, Ft. Hood wasn't in a war zone.


7. Kirkwood, MO City Hall (four cops on duty in the building), Charles Thornton Killed six and injured 2 more.



Were the cops right there when he opened fire?
 
2012-12-28 02:53:27 PM
England and Watts killed people at multiple locations - not a diner, and it was 3 people and 2 others wounded... Link

The three people killed -- two of them in residential areas between 1 and 2 a.m. and the other about 8 a.m. next to a funeral home, though investigators believe he was shot hours earlier -- have been identified by authorities as Dannaer Fields, William Allen and Bobby Clark.
 
2012-12-28 02:55:48 PM
The Kirkwood City Council shooting occurred on February 7, 2008, in Kirkwood, Missouri, United States; a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri in St. Louis County.

A gunman went on a shooting rampage at a public meeting in the city hall, leaving six people dead and two others injured. Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton[1] shot one police officer with a revolver across the side street from city hall and took the officer's handgun before entering city hall.

Thornton reached council chambers with these two weapons shortly after the meeting began. There, he shot a police officer, the public works director, two council members, the mayor, and a reporter. In total, the gunman killed five and wounded two others. He was then shot and killed by police.[1][5][6]

Link
 
2012-12-28 02:58:03 PM

Giltric: I'd wager that my f350 is far more dangerous when used to intentionally hurt and maim and kill than any of my firearms....my aim doesn;t even have to be precise...and if the target moves it is far easier to reaquire someone and hit them using a 5 foot wide projectile than something that is .223 in diameter.


And yet people very seldom use vehicles for mass killings. Bombs are certainly more effective, but their use is rare too.

Because a gun makes it easy.

That's the part you just don't get. In your theoretical world, every suicide by a gun would happen anyway, because they *could* find another way. If a killer didn't have a thirty round magazine, they could just carry three guns with ten rounds each, etc.

In the real world, when you make something easier to do, it happens more often. Acting on a sudden impluse is easier than carrying out a plan. Killing 20 first graders is easier with a gun than it is with a truck.

Bonus point: We start at opposite ends of a football field, you in a heavy duty truck, me with an AR-15 with 30 rounds. Guess who comes out alive.
 
2012-12-28 02:59:26 PM

Callous: firefly212: DrewCurtisJr: Callous: Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?

In most of these cases the targets are where they are/were students or where they worked or got fired from. And then you have situations of domestic violence that spills over to work or public places.

If you're going to refute him, hit harder.
1. Colorado has one of the highest CCW/capita rates in the country, the movie theater was not a "gun free zone"

Yes it was. Link

2. Columbine had armed police officer guards, that's pretty much the opposite of "gun free"

The guard was off campus at lunch when they attacked their own school.  They probably knew his habits and planned it that way.  And only the non-present guard was allowed to carry.  Therefore it's a Gun Free Zone.

3. VA Tech had armed police officers on campus, again, the opposite of "gun free" 32 dead, 24 more shot and injured.

And he chained the door shut on his own school to give himself as much killing time as possible before the cops could get in.  The school had renewed it's policy the previous year prohibiting anyone except law enforcement to carry on campus.  So yes it is also Gun Free Zone.

4. Diner in Tulsa, not a gun free zone, again a high ccw/capita rate, didn't stop Jake England and Alan Watts from killing five black guys (they killed them just for being black).

I'm not familiar with particular event.  Only thing I could find via google was a spree shooter at multiple locations, and he was targeting black people.

5. IHOP, Carson City, NV, not a gun free zone, 11 shot, 5 dead, including three National Guard Members, 1 of the dead had a gun on him, one of the shot (lived) had a gun on him.
6. Fort Hood, TX (pretty much the polar opposite of gun free), Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 and wounded 29.

Actually the only people allowed to carry firearms are the civilian police on the base.  The soldiers are not allowed to carry, all their weapons are kept in the armo ...


I like how you define gun-free zone in such a way as to totally ignore that these incidents all had armed civilians, MPs, or law enforcement on scene... and the LEO at columbine exchanged fire with Klebold and Harris, he was most decidedly not offsite, you dirty f#@king liar.

Also, regarding Ft. Hood, MPs responded from the East Rancier Gate, Civilian LEOs responded too because the shooting was off base (just a little bit away from the entrance)... you're absolutely full of shiat regarding MPs not carrying sidearms on base, and you're just plain wrong. The guard that shot Hasan was a civilian (I'll grant you that) employed by... the Army. Lying won't help you, armed guards were on site, military, civilian, and military contractors... and still, a torrent of blood.

As for Aurora, I'm aware of no signs on site prohibiting the carrying of firearms, nor was any of my friends stopped at any time (then again, CCW requires you not be carrying conspicuously, so there's that)... I doubt anyone, gunman included, went to cinemarks website to find out their policy on guns (Kinda weird that a TX company would have that anyways).

VA Tech... ya, he chained the door shut... but do you have any indication that he knew that the armed guards weren't in the building? Anything at all? Anything at all to support your argument that guns would have deterred him?

Bad things are gonna happen, bad guys are gonna do what bad guys do... pretending that the presence of more guns is going to make a batshiat crazy guy somehow more sane is as farking crazy as the anti-gun people thinking that banning 30 round magazines will make a guy with 3 ten round magazines take a significant amount of time more.
 
2012-12-28 03:02:28 PM

Benjamin Orr: England and Watts killed people at multiple locations - not a diner, and it was 3 people and 2 others wounded... Link

The three people killed -- two of them in residential areas between 1 and 2 a.m. and the other about 8 a.m. next to a funeral home, though investigators believe he was shot hours earlier -- have been identified by authorities as Dannaer Fields, William Allen and Bobby Clark.


Please pardon me, my source (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-ma ss -shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/ ) only indicated that 5 were shot, I've emailed them to see if they can amend it to indicate that only 3 were killed, and that only one of those killed was in a diner.
 
2012-12-28 03:06:42 PM
In this thread, gun-nuts are going to re-define gun-free zone such that if 99/100 people have a gun, it still counts as a gun free zone because that one guy was the one who should have had the gun. Cops don't count, Civilian Military Contractors don't count, MP's (SP's, SF's) don't count... so basically, if you've had training in how to use firearms, you no longer count in their definition of a "gun free zone"... the only path to safety is to arm idiots with no training whatsoever.
 
2012-12-28 03:06:47 PM

Callous: firefly212: DrewCurtisJr: Callous: Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?

In most of these cases the targets are where they are/were students or where they worked or got fired from. And then you have situations of domestic violence that spills over to work or public places.

If you're going to refute him, hit harder.
1. Colorado has one of the highest CCW/capita rates in the country, the movie theater was not a "gun free zone"

Yes it was. Link

2. Columbine had armed police officer guards, that's pretty much the opposite of "gun free"

The guard was off campus at lunch when they attacked their own school.  They probably knew his habits and planned it that way.  And only the non-present guard was allowed to carry.  Therefore it's a Gun Free Zone.

3. VA Tech had armed police officers on campus, again, the opposite of "gun free" 32 dead, 24 more shot and injured.

And he chained the door shut on his own school to give himself as much killing time as possible before the cops could get in.  The school had renewed it's policy the previous year prohibiting anyone except law enforcement to carry on campus.  So yes it is also Gun Free Zone.

4. Diner in Tulsa, not a gun free zone, again a high ccw/capita rate, didn't stop Jake England and Alan Watts from killing five black guys (they killed them just for being black).

I'm not familiar with particular event.  Only thing I could find via google was a spree shooter at multiple locations, and he was targeting black people.

5. IHOP, Carson City, NV, not a gun free zone, 11 shot, 5 dead, including three National Guard Members, 1 of the dead had a gun on him, one of the shot (lived) had a gun on him.
6. Fort Hood, TX (pretty much the polar opposite of gun free), Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 and wounded 29.

Actually the only people allowed to carry firearms are the civilian police on the base.  The soldiers are not allowed to carry, all their weapons are kept in the armo ...


I think the general point, that criminals looking to kill lots of people go on craig's list and vet the places they terrorize before going and killing lots of people, is still bunk.

Criminals looking to kill lots of people go to where lots of people are. Locally. The School they happen to go to, The Restaurant in town, The Military Base they happen to live on...

The "reason" for columbine wasn't convenience of targets, but emotion. Angry kids deciding they'd "show em". That's well documented. It wouldn't make sense for them to go to another school. The school was the ONLY reason they were doing it to begin with.

Aurora is the only one for which I'd really consider the possibility that the shooter planned the attack and the venue because of the access to guns there... but I think it is MUCH more likely that he planned to attack the local movie theater while it was showing one of the most highly anticipated movies of the year during peak movie-going season. Because... again... lots of people. Conveniently located.

The notion that the Fort Hood shooter "chose" Fort Hood because military bases check weapons at the armory is... frankly... the dumbest thing I've heard about this particular debate. And for some reason, a lot of people are saying it.

It's retarded. Don't go full retard.
 
2012-12-28 03:07:46 PM

The Larch: firefly212: Thanks, one cop exchanged fire with the two shooters... so not only was it not "gun-free", the cop fired and it did not in any way deter the killers. Congratulations on illustrating my point in an articulate manner... now if only you could do the same for yours.

At Columbine, there were actually two armed officers who shot at Eric Harris.


Ummm, no. There was a single one initially, and he wasn't inside the school, he was in a remote parking lot on campus when the call came in. He did shoot at Harris and Klebold when they were visible, but they retreated into the safety of the school. He was joined by a second police officer and they both engaged Harris and Klebold again when they exited the school, but again they retreated and the police officers didn't actively engage them after that.

They never entered the school at all.

In essence, the inside of the school was a gun-free zone (except for the shooters guns, of course) until the SWAT team entered.

It is *BECAUSE* of Columbine that the doctrine of response to mass shootings has changed: The police go in with what they have on hand immediately without waiting for the tactical teams. Why? Because actively engaging the shooters at a bare minimum forces them to pay attention to the people shooting at them instead of the unarmed victims. Previously the doctrine was to wait for the guys with heavy armor and overwhelming firepower, but as Columbine showed, that can result in even more casualties.
 
2012-12-28 03:12:19 PM
Crazy people are not going to care if cops are nearby or if a random person is armed or not.. obviously most of them aren't going to drive up to a SWAT team and just open fire.

In certain situations you are going to have police or armed civilians nearby and sometimes they will actually stop/slow down the maniac. There are no magic shields and most of them just don't care if they live or die.

All of this discussion would be much easier if both extremes would stop altering the facts to better reflect their point of view though.
 
2012-12-28 03:17:41 PM
Cripes, it's getting to the point where we should just ban criminals once and for all.
 
2012-12-28 03:18:14 PM

firefly212: VA Tech... ya, he chained the door shut... but do you have any indication that he knew that the armed guards weren't in the building? Anything at all? Anything at all to support your argument that guns would have deterred him?


His actions: He shot himself as soon as the police entered the building.
 
2012-12-28 03:20:14 PM
The fact is very few "Gun Free Zones" are actually gun free. Unless there is a metal detector at the door, it's on the honor system, and there are a lot of people that carry that are not that honorable. And the notion that mass killers, most of whom are intending to die, would be swayed by the thought of encountering a armed person is near ridiculous.
 
2012-12-28 03:22:08 PM

firefly212: In this thread, gun-nuts are going to re-define gun-free zone such that if 99/100 people have a gun, it still counts as a gun free zone because that one guy was the one who should have had the gun. Cops don't count, Civilian Military Contractors don't count, MP's (SP's, SF's) don't count... so basically, if you've had training in how to use firearms, you no longer count in their definition of a "gun free zone"... the only path to safety is to arm idiots with no training whatsoever.


No, a Gun Free Zone is somewhere that the general public is not allowed to carry a firearm.  There are always exceptions for police.  Just because there is an armed cop onsite doesn't make it a non Gun Free Zone.
 
2012-12-28 03:23:01 PM

dittybopper: firefly212: VA Tech... ya, he chained the door shut... but do you have any indication that he knew that the armed guards weren't in the building? Anything at all? Anything at all to support your argument that guns would have deterred him?

His actions: He shot himself as soon as the police entered the building.


So, you take his suicide as evidence that he knew armed guards weren't in the building when he started his action? Please, enlighten us all. I take his suicide as evidence that he knew that the noodly appendage was more real than Jesus, and that while the two of them were occupied with fighting over imaginaryland, Godzilla was going to devour his soul... it seems as rational as your assumption.
 
2012-12-28 03:23:11 PM

dittybopper: In essence, the inside of the school was a gun-free zone (except for the shooters guns, of course) until the SWAT team entered.


I don't know what "gun free zone" means. If there are two armed officers on campus shooting at the perpetrators, it's a gun free zone?
 
2012-12-28 03:24:34 PM

Callous: firefly212: In this thread, gun-nuts are going to re-define gun-free zone such that if 99/100 people have a gun, it still counts as a gun free zone because that one guy was the one who should have had the gun. Cops don't count, Civilian Military Contractors don't count, MP's (SP's, SF's) don't count... so basically, if you've had training in how to use firearms, you no longer count in their definition of a "gun free zone"... the only path to safety is to arm idiots with no training whatsoever.

No, a Gun Free Zone is somewhere that the general public is not allowed to carry a firearm.  There are always exceptions for police.  Just because there is an armed cop onsite doesn't make it a non Gun Free Zone.


Ya, I get it... MPs have guns, Police on site have guns, Civilian Military Contractors have guns, but none of those guns count, it's a gun free zone, because that's how you've defined "gun free" in such a manner as to exclude the hundreds of guns present at these massacres.
 
2012-12-28 03:25:18 PM

Callous: firefly212: In this thread, gun-nuts are going to re-define gun-free zone such that if 99/100 people have a gun, it still counts as a gun free zone because that one guy was the one who should have had the gun. Cops don't count, Civilian Military Contractors don't count, MP's (SP's, SF's) don't count... so basically, if you've had training in how to use firearms, you no longer count in their definition of a "gun free zone"... the only path to safety is to arm idiots with no training whatsoever.

No, a Gun Free Zone is somewhere that the general public is not allowed to carry a firearm.  There are always exceptions for police.  Just because there is an armed cop onsite doesn't make it a non Gun Free Zone.


Ah... got it. So, if there are armed security guards in every school, they're gun free zones because the principals aren't armed. If the principals are armed, it's a gun free zone because the teachers aren't armed. If the teachers are armed, it's a gun free zone because the custodial staff isn't armed. If the custodial staff is armed, it's a gun free zone because the students aren't armed.

Essentially, a gun free zone is anyplace where even one person isn't allowed to have a gun.
 
2012-12-28 03:25:43 PM
Also in this thread, the state of TX, even outside of military bases, is "gun free."

You know why I want mental health tests before people can buy guns... it's because of you delusional farkers.
 
2012-12-28 03:26:15 PM

Andyxc: Guns didn't make these cops safer. If guns didn't exist, none of them would have been shot to begin with. It was body armor and the months of training it takes to become a police officer that kept these guys safe. Goddamnit so much.


This just happened Cops arrest a chick for stealing. Don't cuff her. She's in the police station and grabs a knife comes up from behind the cop and tries to slash his throat and I didn't useanycommas becauseithapppendsofast.

Cop should be fired for his stupidity.
MY commanding officer would have kicked a cop in the balls for being that dumb.
 
2012-12-28 03:28:34 PM

MisterRonbo: Giltric: I'd wager that my f350 is far more dangerous when used to intentionally hurt and maim and kill than any of my firearms....my aim doesn;t even have to be precise...and if the target moves it is far easier to reaquire someone and hit them using a 5 foot wide projectile than something that is .223 in diameter.

And yet people very seldom use vehicles for mass killings. Bombs are certainly more effective, but their use is rare too.

Because a gun makes it easy.

That's the part you just don't get. In your theoretical world, every suicide by a gun would happen anyway, because they *could* find another way. If a killer didn't have a thirty round magazine, they could just carry three guns with ten rounds each, etc.

In the real world, when you make something easier to do, it happens more often. Acting on a sudden impluse is easier than carrying out a plan. Killing 20 first graders is easier with a gun than it is with a truck.

Bonus point: We start at opposite ends of a football field, you in a heavy duty truck, me with an AR-15 with 30 rounds. Guess who comes out alive.


Me. the .223 is not an anti-materiel round. Some people claim it's even a terrible round against flesh. You would be a smear with an empty magazine.

stick to T16s and Womp Rats.
 
2012-12-28 03:32:41 PM

MisterRonbo: Giltric: I'd wager that my f350 is far more dangerous when used to intentionally hurt and maim and kill than any of my firearms....my aim doesn;t even have to be precise...and if the target moves it is far easier to reaquire someone and hit them using a 5 foot wide projectile than something that is .223 in diameter.

And yet people very seldom use vehicles for mass killings. Bombs are certainly more effective, but their use is rare too.

Because a gun makes it easy.

That's the part you just don't get. In your theoretical world, every suicide by a gun would happen anyway, because they *could* find another way. If a killer didn't have a thirty round magazine, they could just carry three guns with ten rounds each, etc.

In the real world, when you make something easier to do, it happens more often. Acting on a sudden impluse is easier than carrying out a plan. Killing 20 first graders is easier with a gun than it is with a truck.

Bonus point: We start at opposite ends of a football field, you in a heavy duty truck, me with an AR-15 with 30 rounds. Guess who comes out alive.


lol, if he ducks, you're not shooting through that engine with an AR-15, I'd put good money on him being smart enough to duck, and you being dumb enough to stand there with your low caliber weapon... advantage: him.
 
2012-12-28 03:34:38 PM

vudukungfu: Andyxc: Guns didn't make these cops safer. If guns didn't exist, none of them would have been shot to begin with. It was body armor and the months of training it takes to become a police officer that kept these guys safe. Goddamnit so much.

This just happened Cops arrest a chick for stealing. Don't cuff her. She's in the police station and grabs a knife comes up from behind the cop and tries to slash his throat and I didn't useanycommas becauseithapppendsofast.

Cop should be fired for his stupidity.
MY commanding officer would have kicked a cop in the balls for being that dumb.


Whenever a prisoner gets out of control, let alone becomes armed, it's a process failure... contrary to the fail in this thread, prisoners getting subdued or killed after getting out of control and becoming armed is proof that something's wrong, not that everything is alright.
 
2012-12-28 03:39:05 PM

dittybopper: The Larch: firefly212: Thanks, one cop exchanged fire with the two shooters... so not only was it not "gun-free", the cop fired and it did not in any way deter the killers. Congratulations on illustrating my point in an articulate manner... now if only you could do the same for yours.

At Columbine, there were actually two armed officers who shot at Eric Harris.

Ummm, no. There was a single one initially, and he wasn't inside the school, he was in a remote parking lot on campus when the call came in. He did shoot at Harris and Klebold when they were visible, but they retreated into the safety of the school. He was joined by a second police officer and they both engaged Harris and Klebold again when they exited the school, but again they retreated and the police officers didn't actively engage them after that.

They never entered the school at all.

In essence, the inside of the school was a gun-free zone (except for the shooters guns, of course) until the SWAT team entered.

It is *BECAUSE* of Columbine that the doctrine of response to mass shootings has changed: The police go in with what they have on hand immediately without waiting for the tactical teams. Why? Because actively engaging the shooters at a bare minimum forces them to pay attention to the people shooting at them instead of the unarmed victims. Previously the doctrine was to wait for the guys with heavy armor and overwhelming firepower, but as Columbine showed, that can result in even more casualties.


honestly, thanks for posting that. My opinion at the time was that the police in Columbine were the most cowardly people to ever put on a uniform, and each officer on site that didn't immediately enter that building should have lost his or her badge. I'm glad to see immediate entry tactics are being trained implemented.
 
2012-12-28 03:47:38 PM
.

firefly212: Whenever a prisoner gets out of control, let alone becomes armed, it's a process failure... contrary to the fail in this thread, prisoners getting subdued or killed after getting out of control and becoming armed is proof that something's wrong, not that everything is alright.


You must have gone to the NS Sherlock Police academy
 
2012-12-28 03:49:30 PM

Giltric: MisterRonbo: Giltric: I'd wager that my f350 is far more dangerous when used to intentionally hurt and maim and kill than any of my firearms....my aim doesn;t even have to be precise...and if the target moves it is far easier to reaquire someone and hit them using a 5 foot wide projectile than something that is .223 in diameter.

And yet people very seldom use vehicles for mass killings. Bombs are certainly more effective, but their use is rare too.

Because a gun makes it easy.

That's the part you just don't get. In your theoretical world, every suicide by a gun would happen anyway, because they *could* find another way. If a killer didn't have a thirty round magazine, they could just carry three guns with ten rounds each, etc.

In the real world, when you make something easier to do, it happens more often. Acting on a sudden impluse is easier than carrying out a plan. Killing 20 first graders is easier with a gun than it is with a truck.

Bonus point: We start at opposite ends of a football field, you in a heavy duty truck, me with an AR-15 with 30 rounds. Guess who comes out alive.

Me. the .223 is not an anti-materiel round. Some people claim it's even a terrible round against flesh. You would be a smear with an empty magazine.


I had no idea Ford's windshields were bulletproof.

In fairness, I'm not a very good shot. I'd probably stand behind the goalpost and wait for you to get close. The only way you could win would be if....

...wait for it...

...you could move the goalposts.
 
2012-12-28 03:51:15 PM

Nana's Vibrator: dittybopper: The Larch: firefly212: Thanks, one cop exchanged fire with the two shooters... so not only was it not "gun-free", the cop fired and it did not in any way deter the killers. Congratulations on illustrating my point in an articulate manner... now if only you could do the same for yours.

At Columbine, there were actually two armed officers who shot at Eric Harris.

Ummm, no. There was a single one initially, and he wasn't inside the school, he was in a remote parking lot on campus when the call came in. He did shoot at Harris and Klebold when they were visible, but they retreated into the safety of the school. He was joined by a second police officer and they both engaged Harris and Klebold again when they exited the school, but again they retreated and the police officers didn't actively engage them after that.

They never entered the school at all.

In essence, the inside of the school was a gun-free zone (except for the shooters guns, of course) until the SWAT team entered.

It is *BECAUSE* of Columbine that the doctrine of response to mass shootings has changed: The police go in with what they have on hand immediately without waiting for the tactical teams. Why? Because actively engaging the shooters at a bare minimum forces them to pay attention to the people shooting at them instead of the unarmed victims. Previously the doctrine was to wait for the guys with heavy armor and overwhelming firepower, but as Columbine showed, that can result in even more casualties.

honestly, thanks for posting that. My opinion at the time was that the police in Columbine were the most cowardly people to ever put on a uniform, and each officer on site that didn't immediately enter that building should have lost his or her badge. I'm glad to see immediate entry tactics are being trained implemented.


A Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy, Neil Gardner, was assigned to the high school as a full-time uniformed and armed. Gardner usually ate lunch with students in the cafeteria, but on April 20 he was eating lunch in his patrol car at the northwest corner of the campus, watching students in the Smokers' Pit in Clement Park. The security staff at Columbine did not observe the bombs being placed in the cafeteria, since a custodian was replacing the school security video tape as it happened.

shiatty coincidences happen, the cop who normally ate in the cafeteria was out in his car eating, just plain bad luck that the janitor was changing the security video tapes (so nobody called the cop to come back for suspicious behavior). The introduction of more guns will not stop shiatty coincidences, and anyone who thinks they will is out of their gourd. Flooding our schools and workplaces with guns is a recipe for more workplace violence, for more accidental shootings, for more kids to get a hold of a gun accidentally left behind, the only thing more guns won't do is make violent and homicidal psychopaths any less determined to kill... at best, it'll motivate them to get better body armor before they go on a killing spree... then of course, we need more anti-armor rounds in schools, until they go up to type 4 body armor, then we'll need more M82s and maybe some rocket launchers in our schools. Where does this idiocy stop for the people who think guns solve problems?
 
2012-12-28 03:54:49 PM

vudukungfu: . firefly212: Whenever a prisoner gets out of control, let alone becomes armed, it's a process failure... contrary to the fail in this thread, prisoners getting subdued or killed after getting out of control and becoming armed is proof that something's wrong, not that everything is alright.

You must have gone to the NS Sherlock Police academy


Considering the number of people in this thread cheering for how three officers shot and a dead prisoner is proof the system works, it seems that the obvious is rather elusive to some.
 
2012-12-28 03:56:39 PM

Nana's Vibrator: honestly, thanks for posting that. My opinion at the time was that the police in Columbine were the most cowardly people to ever put on a uniform, and each officer on site that didn't immediately enter that building should have lost his or her badge. I'm glad to see immediate entry tactics are being trained implemented.


The first officer was on scene about 4 minutes after they started shooting. He was engaged by Harris almost immediately and exchanged fire for a few minutes until he got some supporting fire from another officer forcing harris to retreat. The first officer was something like 60yds away over open ground with just a pistol confronting someone with a rifle. He would have never made it to the school even if he tried. They then set up a perimeter and waited for SWAT per the playbook.

The protocol has changed dramatically. Individual officers run into the building without support and start taking ground. Move as fast as possible to sounds of violence, bypassing the wounded, and make them fight you instead.
 
2012-12-28 04:00:18 PM

firefly212: shiatty coincidences happen


No, that's what they want us to believe. It's actually all part of the conspiracy to get Obama elected, and reelected, and grab all the guns.
 
2012-12-28 04:04:27 PM

firefly212: Where does this idiocy stop for the people who think guns solve problems?


Perhaps guns don't solve the problem, but barring sane individuals from possessing them won't either. There is no real answer other than to allow people the option of carrying them, and hoping the "unknown" aspect will be deterrent enough for a would be mass murderer.
 
2012-12-28 04:08:51 PM
This happened because of police-related video games.
 
2012-12-28 04:11:19 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: firefly212: Where does this idiocy stop for the people who think guns solve problems?

Perhaps guns don't solve the problem, but barring sane individuals from possessing them won't either. There is no real answer other than to allow people the option of carrying them, and hoping the "unknown" aspect will be deterrent enough for a would be mass murderer.


There is no such thing as a deterrent for these people.
Notice that most of the people who commit mass shootings kill themselves, or just let the cops kill them?
If there had been an armed guard at Sandy Hook, the shooter would have either shot that guy first or just avoided him.
 
2012-12-28 04:15:32 PM

Begoggle: This happened because of police-related video games.


I blame it on the movie "Bad Lieutenant"