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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 555 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report