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 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.
 
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