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  
•       •       •

12562 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 10:57:57 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.
 
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