Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: News, New Jersey, police stations, stairwell  
•       •       •

12584 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2012 at 9:04 AM (3 years 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 11:58:56 AM  

Scerpes: This shooter didn't have that choice.


Sure he did.  He had the choice to go quietly and not shoot anybody, and probably get released in a few hours.

You (or more to the point people who think it makes a difference whether a target is armed) are implying rational motivations to people who are not rational.  Some people just lose it.  Some people want to commit suicide by cop.  The presence of guns vel non is not going to make a difference to them.
 
2012-12-28 11:59:50 AM  

dittybopper: That's going to change your thinking about your chances.


People who go into elementary schools and shoot children before killing their mother and themselves aren't really interested in "their chances" or in "thinking"

Just saying.

Deterrents only work when somebody actually *cares* about consequences.
 
2012-12-28 12:00:56 PM  

dittybopper: seatown75: Rixel: Too bad they didn't use smart guns. Of course the NRA is against those. Not sure why. I guess they think that the guvmint would have some sort of universal back door disarming code.

Biometric locks would drastically reduce new gun sales. That is the only reason the NRA is opposed. If they somehow had the effect of increasing sales, the NRA would support their use.

That, and the fact that they aren't reliable enough. If they were, the police would adopt them, and it would prevent situations like this one. Because they open carry, and their guns are regularly used against them, the police should be clamoring for them, but they don't.

Wonder why?


At one point semi-autos weren't reliable enough. Technology improves. This particular technology will have to improve for other uses first before it is acceptable for service weapons.

Probably the easiest way to improve adoption is through insurance- ie reduce premiums for people who use this kind of lock. Too bad the NRA has already lobbied successfully against that.
 
2012-12-28 12:01:19 PM  

Kit Fister: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Kit Fister: S Government runs a program to help smuggle guns into Mexico for whatever reason, they're going to do it.

Ok, never mind, I don't want your opinions any more at all after such an amazingly stupid statement.

were you asleep for the whole Fast and Furious thing? You know, the failed program that dumped thousands of guns into Mexico from the US by allowing cartels to circumvent laws that would've prevented sales to them? And the program that GAVE them a functional M2 Machine Gun and promptly lost it?


Gave who an M2 what now? Where'd you get this?
 
2012-12-28 12:02:04 PM  

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

Except the whole point was supposed to be that crazed gunmen -- while crazed -- would still somehow be deterred by "hard targets" where they knew people were armed... at least until you all just moved the goalposts.

So, no.  No it didn't.


Ffs. This.
The goalposts have officially been moved.
Thank you.
 
2012-12-28 12:02:43 PM  

NightOwl2255: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Why do you assume we only go to the range on our departmental days?

I suspect those are POA numbers.


Strange, no one has ever asked me if I practice off-hours that I can recall. I disagree with them, I know a ton of officers that recreational shoot as well. Heck every range around here gives us a nice discount and one has a special section just for law enforcement. (insert "so we don't hurt anyone" joke)

I get on one of the military bases and shoot for $5 an hour bring your own ammo. Can't beat that price...
 
2012-12-28 12:03:03 PM  

justtray: KIA: Mike_1962: You have not provided anything to establish that a lack of uncontrolled firearms is the cause.

Actually, I totally did since there are no legal firearms in England and this increase has happened since that time while crime rates have decreased in America as firearms remained legal.

No you did not. America has 40 TIMES the amount of gun crime as the UK. Now go away, I already defeated that argument yesterday. But but 100% increase doesn't mean crap when you're going from 50-100. Even the articles that list those stats admit the cause is due to more aggressive gang related activity, not the gun ban.

Stop parroting talking points you dont understand


You're asking the wrong questions.

Did the gun ban reduce violent crime overall?

newsimg.bbc.co.uk

No, it didn't. Violent crime was going down before the ban, and UK crime followed the same general trend in the US, peaking in the early 1990's, and falling after that.

Did it reduce homicides overall?

2.bp.blogspot.com

No, it didn't.

Did it prevent mass shootings? No, it didn't.

That last one is of particular interest: I've argued with UK citizens before (going back to usenet conversations in the late 1990's) that the handgun ban in the UK didn't help the crime rate drop, and they countered that it was meant to prevent another Dunblane or Hungerford tragedy. The UK seems to have a mass shooting about once per decade, and while it was perhaps a couple of years late, they *STILL* have them on roughly that schedule it seems.

OK, so we've established that the UK handgun ban doesn't lower violent crime or murder rates, and it doesn't prevent mass shootings. So why keep it? You've had it for, what, 16 years now? At what point do you say "OK, we made a mistake. Turns out that taking highly regulated guns away from people *DOESN'T* help, so let's allow them again"?

In other words, why not err on the side of more freedom, rather than less? You tried it, it didn't work, so why keep it?
 
2012-12-28 12:04:34 PM  
So it's ok to have that discussion on firearms now?
 
2012-12-28 12:04:37 PM  

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

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

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

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

So far, nobody has come up with anything realistic in response to that core question.


So if other things kill more people, no one should bother reducing an epidemic that leaves thousands dead and millions afraid for their lives? The Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment when guns were slightly more effective at killing people than a slingshot. Should we really never question the reasoning of a bunch of guys who owned slaves?
 
2012-12-28 12:04:43 PM  

mdeesnuts: Bontesla:

You do not have an inherent and enumerated right to own assault weapons. That right is granted by SCOTUS and is subject to change at any time.


Wrong. Rights are not granted and I do have an inherent right to own an 'assault' weapon. I have the right to any weapon necessary to defend myself from any agressor.

Governments can only limit and infringe on our ability to exercise rights. The rights exist whether the government does or not.


Citation needed :)
 
2012-12-28 12:05:20 PM  

KIA: firefly212: total percentage of deaths in the US resulting from firearms homicides is a little over a half of a percent.

Okay. It is already illegal for felons to have firearms as it is for those under a restraining order. What is your proposal to get that number lower using reasonable, real-world means?

firefly212: requiring mental health checks before purchasing a firearm

No argument here on that point. We already have background checks and those can be improved. So, there we have one thing that can and should be done. For the record, I have elsewhere argued that there is no reason why private sales at gun shows or anywhere within a reasonable distance of a FFL dealer shouldn't get a background check on the buyer. It's $20.00 and assures the seller that they're not selling to a terrorist or felon, so who in their right mind wouldn't do that.

firefly212: you come off like a sociopath

Oh. This is the part where I emote all over the place, cry like a baby and wail about the evils of the world. Then I'm not a sociopath, right? See, we had a dialogue going about rational data, problems and solutions, then you want to change it over to personal attacks again. Boo.


Sorry, I forgot to address the first part... My method to address the homicide rate by real world means is by better enforcement of existing gun laws, usually homicide isn't the first crime a person commits with a firearm, I'd like to see people who commit earlier crimes with firearms actually do the 10 years with no chance of parole that federal law provides for. Additonally, I'd like to see a national gun buy-back program (funded by a 2% tax on firearms) in a private/public partnership where we could get more guns out of the hands of people who are likely to sell them in person to person transactions as opposed to actual gun dealers. By getting unwanted guns out of the hands where they're most likely to enter the grey and black markets, we'll do a better job of driving up the costs of firearms in those markets. If we could find a way to offer the resale value (either as cash, or as a combo of cash and gift cards through the partnership) of firearms in exchange for unwanted firearms, we could do a much better job of keeping well-intentioned private citizens from unwittingly selling firearms to bad guys. Lastly, for straw purchases, instead of a maximum of 10 years, I'd like to see a minimum of five years, and a maximum of fifty years, but I'd like an additional clause such that if the firearm involved in the straw purchase was used in a felonious crime, even if the purchaser was not/could not have been aware of that crime, they would be considered an accessory to the felony and chargable as such.
 
2012-12-28 12:06:00 PM  

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


FTFY.
Or did you really believe that this particular guy was just "misbehaving"?

Lol . WOW.
That point just danced circles around you.

Were you trying to make an actual "point" in that post or yours? Bless your little heart.

You indicated being killed was a punishment inferring that had he not have been shot, there would have been no punishment. So I inquired as to how you normally discipline small infractions? Do you shoot the offender? Because my toolbox comes with a variety of punishments that aren't lethal. This point? You missed it.


I indicated being killed was a punishment for THIS situation (person stealing police officer's gun and shooting at him with it) and I did not infer that there would be no punishment had he not been shot and killed... nor were we talking about "small infractions" here in any way, shape, or form until you decided to throw it in.

Maybe you feel the police officers have politely asked him to stop shooting at them so they could put him in a cell?

If he had spat at them, he wouldn't have gotten shot and killed. If he had called their mothers "whores", they wouldn't have shot and killed him. Had he stolen jelly beans from their communal jelly bean bowl, he wouldn't have been shot and killed. However, he didn't do any of those things. He chose to steal one of their guns and shoot at them. Their response to this action was warranted and the fact that he died from a decision he CHOSE to make is his fault.

Your point? You failed to make it.
 
2012-12-28 12:06:09 PM  

BeesNuts: dittybopper: That's going to change your thinking about your chances.

People who go into elementary schools and shoot children before killing their mother and themselves aren't really interested in "their chances" or in "thinking"

Just saying.

Deterrents only work when somebody actually *cares* about consequences.


Seriously. The only "consequence" they're concerned with is getting a higher body count. Armed guards certainly make bombs a more attractive backup plan, and no kind of non-military firearm is very effective against a bomb.
 
2012-12-28 12:06:35 PM  
In my state the LEGAL possession of a handgun requires:

- Application for permit involves background check, fingerprinting, etc. and takes months to effect.
- Waiting period to purchase
- Attending and passing safety course
- Applying for amendments to license for all purchases and dispositions
- Re-certification of license if more than 5 years of inactivity for new purchase

The process to LEGALLY own and use a handgun is already quite controlled. Additionally, if a handgun is not endorsed on your license you cannot legally possess or use it except during competition. That means if you borrow your buddy's pistol at the range to try it you are breaking the law. Failure to follow the laws for guns is cause for your license to be revoked which means you then must dispose of all your handguns. I know judges that review all arrests in their jurisdiction and will revoke your license even for non gun related issues. Busted for a DWI, kiss your license good-bye. Doesn't matter that all your guns were home safely locked away when you were pulled over. You still lose your license - drivers and pistol.

While I don't have statistics to back it up I would suspect that the majority of gun related murders are perpetrated by person(s) not legally owning the gun used to effect their crime. What needs to be controlled is the possession and usage of guns by people not properly licensed to do so. Enact Draconian laws and punishments for these types. The act of mere possession should carry a life sentence with it. The penalties would then increase from there. Placing additional burdens on the people legally possessing them will not solve this problem.
 
2012-12-28 12:08:08 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: dr_blasto: A lot of the weapons are stolen from the Mexican military or smuggled in from the South.

That's true, particularly of larger destructive devices like grenades and RPGs, but the U.S. is a major source, both legally and illegally, of small arms and rifles for the cartels. Many of the guns stolen (or illegally sold) away from the Mexican military are also of U.S. origin since the U.S. supplies firearms to Mexican authorities. Of the traceable guns upwards of 90% turn out to be from the U.S., although there are number of reasons to suspect that little bit of data's accuracy.


The semi-automatic rifles available in the US like the AK-style rifles-cost more (lots more) than actual AK-style assault rifles. Import from Africa; you could purchase one for $100 or less. The US-registered and legal weapons aren't going for any less than $400 to $1200 netting you a semi-auto clone of the real thing. Also, of note, isn't the Zeta cartel largely made up of active military and deserters? They've been using the weapons we, the US, sell/give/whatever to the Mexican government to facilitate their bloodlust.

Now, small arms in the form of stolen pistols? Those might be a majority from the US, there is a glut of stolen ones on our streets, it doesn't take much of a logical leap to see them migrating to Mexico.
 
2012-12-28 12:09:15 PM  

farm machine: In my state the LEGAL possession of a handgun requires:

- Application for permit involves background check, fingerprinting, etc. and takes months to effect.
- Waiting period to purchase
- Attending and passing safety course
- Applying for amendments to license for all purchases and dispositions
- Re-certification of license if more than 5 years of inactivity for new purchase

The process to LEGALLY own and use a handgun is already quite controlled. Additionally, if a handgun is not endorsed on your license you cannot legally possess or use it except during competition. That means if you borrow your buddy's pistol at the range to try it you are breaking the law. Failure to follow the laws for guns is cause for your license to be revoked which means you then must dispose of all your handguns. I know judges that review all arrests in their jurisdiction and will revoke your license even for non gun related issues. Busted for a DWI, kiss your license good-bye. Doesn't matter that all your guns were home safely locked away when you were pulled over. You still lose your license - drivers and pistol.

While I don't have statistics to back it up I would suspect that the majority of gun related murders are perpetrated by person(s) not legally owning the gun used to effect their crime. What needs to be controlled is the possession and usage of guns by people not properly licensed to do so. Enact Draconian laws and punishments for these types. The act of mere possession should carry a life sentence with it. The penalties would then increase from there. Placing additional burdens on the people legally possessing them will not solve this problem.


Not sure what state you're in, but that sounds a lot more like the process for a CCW than simply for purchasing a handgun.
 
2012-12-28 12:09:26 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Strange, no one has ever asked me if I practice off-hours that I can recall.


There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million CCW holders. How he decided that, on average, they make at least 12 trips to the range (and fire 150 plus times each visit) a year is clear, it's anecdotal, not fact.
 
2012-12-28 12:10:29 PM  

NightOwl2255: dittybopper: Beyond that, though, is the idea: If you *KNOW* there are armed teachers, or highly suspect that their might be, there is very little chance that you are going to know who *ALL* of them are. That's going to change your thinking about your chances.

Do you really think that a troubled person, one that is intent on killing as many as possible before killing himself, would be the least be put off by the thought of an armed teacher? As best an armed teacher may have reduced the number of dead (which is, obviously, a good thing) but to think that the knowledge that a teacher may be armed would have prevented the attack is silly.


Actually, yes. They are *DISTURBED*, but that doesn't mean their thinking isn't somewhat logical: They tend to have a goal: Take as many with them as possible before dying in order to become famous.

If you make them believe that a particular target is "hardened", then they will pick a weaker target.
 
2012-12-28 12:10:34 PM  

mdeesnuts: Governments can only limit and infringe on our ability to exercise rights. The rights exist whether the government does or not.



Oh? If the rights exist whether the government says so or not, then where did these rights originate? A right isn't a right if it can be taken away or limited. You have no rights.
 
2012-12-28 12:10:37 PM  

dr_blasto: Vegan Meat Popsicle: dr_blasto: A lot of the weapons are stolen from the Mexican military or smuggled in from the South.

That's true, particularly of larger destructive devices like grenades and RPGs, but the U.S. is a major source, both legally and illegally, of small arms and rifles for the cartels. Many of the guns stolen (or illegally sold) away from the Mexican military are also of U.S. origin since the U.S. supplies firearms to Mexican authorities. Of the traceable guns upwards of 90% turn out to be from the U.S., although there are number of reasons to suspect that little bit of data's accuracy.

The semi-automatic rifles available in the US like the AK-style rifles-cost more (lots more) than actual AK-style assault rifles. Import from Africa; you could purchase one for $100 or less. The US-registered and legal weapons aren't going for any less than $400 to $1200 netting you a semi-auto clone of the real thing. Also, of note, isn't the Zeta cartel largely made up of active military and deserters? They've been using the weapons we, the US, sell/give/whatever to the Mexican government to facilitate their bloodlust.

Now, small arms in the form of stolen pistols? Those might be a majority from the US, there is a glut of stolen ones on our streets, it doesn't take much of a logical leap to see them migrating to Mexico.


I hate the term AK-style... an R-15 has as much in common with an AK-47 as a Ford Fiesta has in common with the Space Shuttle.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 12:13:13 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Also, there are controlled studies out there which find a correlation between higher ownership rates and higher homicide rates.


The term "higher" is a comparative and does nothing to impugn the fundamental point I first raised above. At .003 percent of population, US firearms homicides are minute. Even using Firefly's rate of one-half of one percent the US firearms homicide rate is extremely low. The sheer number of guns owned actually highlights the low rate.

I already posited that improving background checks and requiring people within reasonable range of a FFL or selling to strangers be required to get a FFL background check to avoid selling to terrorists or felons. Nobody seems to support that on either side, so I guess it's probably a great solution that might actually have an impact on the availability to the people who commit the most crimes.

Given that already low rate and the 20,000 laws already on the books, it is extremely unlikely that anything else short of total fascism will reduce that rate further. Anyone else have anything constructive short of fascism?
 
2012-12-28 12:14:10 PM  

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


FTFY.
Or did you really believe that this particular guy was just "misbehaving"?

Lol . WOW.
That point just danced circles around you.

Were you trying to make an actual "point" in that post or yours? Bless your little heart.

You indicated being killed was a punishment inferring that had he not have been shot, there would have been no punishment. So I inquired as to how you normally discipline small infractions? Do you shoot the offender? Because my toolbox comes with a variety of punishments that aren't lethal. This point? You missed it.

I indicated being killed was a punishment for THIS situation (person stealing police officer's gun and shooting at him with it) and I did not infer that there would be no punishment had he not been shot and killed... nor were we talking about "small infractions" here in any way, shape, or form until you decided to throw it in.

Maybe you feel the police officers have politely asked him to stop shooting at them so they could put him in a cell?

If he had spat at them, he wouldn't have gotten shot and killed. If he had called their mothers "whores", they wouldn't have shot and killed him. Had he stolen jelly beans from their communal jelly bean bowl, he wouldn't have been shot and killed. However, he didn't do any of those things. He chose to steal one of their guns and shoot at them. Their response to this action was warranted and the fact that he died from a decision he CHOSE to make is his fault.

Your point? You failed to make it.


:/
You missed it again.
 
2012-12-28 12:15:21 PM  

NightOwl2255: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Strange, no one has ever asked me if I practice off-hours that I can recall.

There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million CCW holders. How he decided that, on average, they make at least 12 trips to the range (and fire 150 plus times each visit) a year is clear, it's anecdotal, not fact.


I don't disagree with that but his premise is that they shoot considerably more often than cops and implied that cops only shoot during requals. Thus trying to prove his "who is more trained" theory.

If you take all the prior military out of the CCW holders I would be comfortable in saying I am considerably more trained than the vast majority.
 
2012-12-28 12:15:35 PM  
Anyway... I think it's pretty obvious that more guns and trained officers do not prevent mass shootings.
 
2012-12-28 12:15:55 PM  

firefly212: dr_blasto: Vegan Meat Popsicle: dr_blasto: A lot of the weapons are stolen from the Mexican military or smuggled in from the South.

That's true, particularly of larger destructive devices like grenades and RPGs, but the U.S. is a major source, both legally and illegally, of small arms and rifles for the cartels. Many of the guns stolen (or illegally sold) away from the Mexican military are also of U.S. origin since the U.S. supplies firearms to Mexican authorities. Of the traceable guns upwards of 90% turn out to be from the U.S., although there are number of reasons to suspect that little bit of data's accuracy.

The semi-automatic rifles available in the US like the AK-style rifles-cost more (lots more) than actual AK-style assault rifles. Import from Africa; you could purchase one for $100 or less. The US-registered and legal weapons aren't going for any less than $400 to $1200 netting you a semi-auto clone of the real thing. Also, of note, isn't the Zeta cartel largely made up of active military and deserters? They've been using the weapons we, the US, sell/give/whatever to the Mexican government to facilitate their bloodlust.

Now, small arms in the form of stolen pistols? Those might be a majority from the US, there is a glut of stolen ones on our streets, it doesn't take much of a logical leap to see them migrating to Mexico.

I hate the term AK-style... an R-15 has as much in common with an AK-47 as a Ford Fiesta has in common with the Space Shuttle.


AK-style in reference to the fact that in most of the world, the AK-47/74/102 is incredibly abundant and has become the assault rifle du jour for both governments, rebels and cartels. M4/16A2/fancy western assault rifle isn't as readily available, and where they are, are much more expensive.
 
2012-12-28 12:17:37 PM  

KIA: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Also, there are controlled studies out there which find a correlation between higher ownership rates and higher homicide rates.

The term "higher" is a comparative and does nothing to impugn the fundamental point I first raised above. At .003 percent of population, US firearms homicides are minute. Even using Firefly's rate of one-half of one percent the US firearms homicide rate is extremely low. The sheer number of guns owned actually highlights the low rate.

I already posited that improving background checks and requiring people within reasonable range of a FFL or selling to strangers be required to get a FFL background check to avoid selling to terrorists or felons. Nobody seems to support that on either side, so I guess it's probably a great solution that might actually have an impact on the availability to the people who commit the most crimes.

Given that already low rate and the 20,000 laws already on the books, it is extremely unlikely that anything else short of total fascism will reduce that rate further. Anyone else have anything constructive short of fascism?


Random Idea... what if (to close the gun show loophole), people could go to a police station and pay 10-20 bucks to get a background check, and get a little card indicating they had done so that would be valid for whatever period a background check is good for in the issuing state (here in CO, it's 72 hours, iirc)... you could just require the people coming into the gun show present their little card (and some state issued ID so you know the person on the card is them) on entry, so you'd know everyone had their background check.
 
2012-12-28 12:17:47 PM  

dittybopper: justtray: KIA: Mike_1962: You have not provided anything to establish that a lack of uncontrolled firearms is the cause.

Actually, I totally did since there are no legal firearms in England and this increase has happened since that time while crime rates have decreased in America as firearms remained legal.

No you did not. America has 40 TIMES the amount of gun crime as the UK. Now go away, I already defeated that argument yesterday. But but 100% increase doesn't mean crap when you're going from 50-100. Even the articles that list those stats admit the cause is due to more aggressive gang related activity, not the gun ban.

Stop parroting talking points you dont understand

You're asking the wrong questions.

Did the gun ban reduce violent crime overall?

[newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 465x272]

No, it didn't. Violent crime was going down before the ban, and UK crime followed the same general trend in the US, peaking in the early 1990's, and falling after that.

Did it reduce homicides overall?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x277]

No, it didn't.

Did it prevent mass shootings? No, it didn't.

That last one is of particular interest: I've argued with UK citizens before (going back to usenet conversations in the late 1990's) that the handgun ban in the UK didn't help the crime rate drop, and they countered that it was meant to prevent another Dunblane or Hungerford tragedy. The UK seems to have a mass shooting about once per decade, and while it was perhaps a couple of years late, they *STILL* have them on roughly that schedule it seems.

OK, so we've established that the UK handgun ban doesn't lower violent crime or murder rates, and it doesn't prevent mass shootings. So why keep it? You've had it for, what, 16 years now? At what point do you say "OK, we made a mistake. Turns out that taking highly regulated guns away from people *DOESN'T* help, so let's allow them again"?

In other words, why not err on the side of more freedom, rather than less? You tried it, i ...


This was already thoroughly refuted on the last page.
 
2012-12-28 12:18:52 PM  

dittybopper: If you make them believe that a particular target is "hardened", then they will pick a weaker target.


Weaker? Weaker than a school full of kids with the possibility that there may be an armed teacher against a person with a semi-automatic rifle being used by a person that fully intends on dying.
 
2012-12-28 12:19:46 PM  
Fissile: Wayne LaPierre has the solution to this problem: Place armed teachers inside every police station.

It appears from this story that LaPierre has be vindicated. Some one bursting in a room and firing will never be stopped, its what happens after that initial scene when he goes to the next class room or comes walking out into the hall.
 
2012-12-28 12:20:45 PM  

Bontesla:
:/
You missed it again.


Hmmmm. Maybe someone else can chime in and tell us if it's me missing a point or if it's you failing to make one.
 
2012-12-28 12:21:04 PM  

dittybopper: seatown75: Rixel: Too bad they didn't use smart guns. Of course the NRA is against those. Not sure why. I guess they think that the guvmint would have some sort of universal back door disarming code.

Biometric locks would drastically reduce new gun sales. That is the only reason the NRA is opposed. If they somehow had the effect of increasing sales, the NRA would support their use.

That, and the fact that they aren't reliable enough. If they were, the police would adopt them, and it would prevent situations like this one. Because they open carry, and their guns are regularly used against them, the police should be clamoring for them, but they don't.

Wonder why?


Good thing that the cops that wield them are 100% reliable as well.
 
2012-12-28 12:21:40 PM  

dr_blasto: firefly212: dr_blasto: Vegan Meat Popsicle: dr_blasto: A lot of the weapons are stolen from the Mexican military or smuggled in from the South.

That's true, particularly of larger destructive devices like grenades and RPGs, but the U.S. is a major source, both legally and illegally, of small arms and rifles for the cartels. Many of the guns stolen (or illegally sold) away from the Mexican military are also of U.S. origin since the U.S. supplies firearms to Mexican authorities. Of the traceable guns upwards of 90% turn out to be from the U.S., although there are number of reasons to suspect that little bit of data's accuracy.

The semi-automatic rifles available in the US like the AK-style rifles-cost more (lots more) than actual AK-style assault rifles. Import from Africa; you could purchase one for $100 or less. The US-registered and legal weapons aren't going for any less than $400 to $1200 netting you a semi-auto clone of the real thing. Also, of note, isn't the Zeta cartel largely made up of active military and deserters? They've been using the weapons we, the US, sell/give/whatever to the Mexican government to facilitate their bloodlust.

Now, small arms in the form of stolen pistols? Those might be a majority from the US, there is a glut of stolen ones on our streets, it doesn't take much of a logical leap to see them migrating to Mexico.

I hate the term AK-style... an R-15 has as much in common with an AK-47 as a Ford Fiesta has in common with the Space Shuttle.

AK-style in reference to the fact that in most of the world, the AK-47/74/102 is incredibly abundant and has become the assault rifle du jour for both governments, rebels and cartels. M4/16A2/fancy western assault rifle isn't as readily available, and where they are, are much more expensive.


I understand that the world is largely flooded with AK-47s... I just get frustrated when people describe semi-auto rifles with totally different mechanics as "AK-style"... the term has gotten so overused that it has pretty much lost all meaning... I mean, given the right stock, people (including here in FARK threads) would call a bolt-action rifle AK-Style just because it looks mean and scary. Much like when congress tried to re-define the term "assault weapon" in cosmetic terms, I think we do a disservice to our own arguments when we use such (now) subjective and vague terminology.
 
2012-12-28 12:25:06 PM  

dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

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

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

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


^^This
 
2012-12-28 12:26:26 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: NightOwl2255: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Strange, no one has ever asked me if I practice off-hours that I can recall.

There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million CCW holders. How he decided that, on average, they make at least 12 trips to the range (and fire 150 plus times each visit) a year is clear, it's anecdotal, not fact.

I don't disagree with that but his premise is that they shoot considerably more often than cops and implied that cops only shoot during requals. Thus trying to prove his "who is more trained" theory.

If you take all the prior military out of the CCW holders I would be comfortable in saying I am considerably more trained than the vast majority.


I go to the range almost every weekend and I don't consider myself more well trained than anyone, especially cops. I may be a better shot, but that's meaningless in a SHTF situation. I've also seen plenty of people do incredibly stupid things with firearms at the range. Just because someone goes there and busts out 150 rounds doesn't make them well-trained or even competent to own a firearm.

/has a PA LTCF (license to carry firearms)
 
2012-12-28 12:27:02 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: RidgeRunner5: DROxINxTHExWIND: KIA: Wow - so these are the guys you think have the ability to protect every citizen from criminals? These are the government agents you think can bring about peace while every other law abiding citizen is disarmed?

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

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

/check the stats

Police officers: 150 rounds over two range trips per year. Anything else is on their own time and dime.
CCW carrier: ~150rds per range trip, at least one trip a month.

Who's the untrained one again?

Why do you assume we only go to the range on our departmental days?


From my experience, the majority do. They see their gun as just a tool on their belt. They don't want to take their work home with them. They don't want to spend their own time and money doing something required for work, that they won't get reimbursed for.
 
2012-12-28 12:27:08 PM  

Incog_Neeto: dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

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

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

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

^^This


Except when you realize he used their gun.... Jesus. Stupid is a stupid does.
 
2012-12-28 12:28:04 PM  
Has anyone derped about teh small penis yet?
 
2012-12-28 12:29:10 PM  

ranold: This happened because they've taken God out of the police stations.


I see you mocking down there
 
2012-12-28 12:29:24 PM  

KIA: Infernalist: other methods of non-lethal weaponry

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

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

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

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


You obviously have never had the pleasure of getting OC sprayed in your face or a taser used on you.

/Part of a non lethal weapons package I went to. OC spray is the worst feeling ever, and it doesn't stop for a long, long time.
//Oh and a taser locks up your muscles. No "fighting through the pain", it literally scrambles your nerves. That's why cops use it, especially on people they think might be on some sort of drug.
 
2012-12-28 12:30:59 PM  

Buffalo77: Fissile: Wayne LaPierre has the solution to this problem: Place armed teachers inside every police station.

It appears from this story that LaPierre has be vindicated. Some one bursting in a room and firing will never be stopped, its what happens after that initial scene when he goes to the next class room or comes walking out into the hall.


Well, this one would have been stopped if the gun was checked - a procedure common in many other police departments. Also, technically, had there been no gun then this wouldn't have happened.
 
2012-12-28 12:33:51 PM  

Delectatio Morosa: Has anyone derped about teh small penis yet?


Handguns don't really compensate for a small peener. That's what ridiculously high-powered hunting rifles are for. Which, of course, is why I own several of them.
 
2012-12-28 12:34:17 PM  

justtray: Incog_Neeto: dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

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

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

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

^^This

Except when you realize he used their gun.... Jesus. Stupid is a stupid does.


It's almost as though the gun made the situation more dangerous. Odd. That a lethal weapon capable of killing multiple people in seconds could potentially create additional danger is just so very unexpected.
 
2012-12-28 12:35:40 PM  
What I have been saying for years has finally come to fruition. If we just banned cops this wouldn't have happened!
 
2012-12-28 12:35:45 PM  

pinchpoint: Delectatio Morosa: Has anyone derped about teh small penis yet?

Handguns don't really compensate for a small peener. That's what ridiculously high-powered hunting rifles are for. Which, of course, is why I own several of them.


Well played.
 
2012-12-28 12:35:52 PM  

Buffalo77: Fissile: Wayne LaPierre has the solution to this problem: Place armed teachers inside every police station.

It appears from this story that LaPierre has be vindicated. Some one bursting in a room and firing will never be stopped, its what happens after that initial scene when he goes to the next class room or comes walking out into the hall.


Not really. Not even the staunchest gun-control advocates claim that every crazed gunman can be stopped. That was always a straw argument. The argument that armed teachers could somehow stop someone who is already going from room to room firing at people remains weak at best. And that's assuming that teachers would be carrying guns on their person at all times, like police officers do. The fact that we're even considering that is insanity. The "arming the teachers" argument in general is, in reality, implausible and insane.
 
2012-12-28 12:38:05 PM  

NightOwl2255: dittybopper: Beyond that, though, is the idea: If you *KNOW* there are armed teachers, or highly suspect that their might be, there is very little chance that you are going to know who *ALL* of them are. That's going to change your thinking about your chances.

Do you really think that a troubled person, one that is intent on killing as many as possible before killing himself, would be the least be put off by the thought of an armed teacher? As best an armed teacher may have reduced the number of dead (which is, obviously, a good thing) but to think that the knowledge that a teacher may be armed would have prevented the attack is silly.


Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?
 
2012-12-28 12:39:53 PM  

TheTrashcanMan: Chinchillazilla: Days since last mass shooting: 0

Your definition of "mass" confuses me.



Now you are just being intentionally derp. Mass shootings occur whenever something with mass is shot, doh.
 
2012-12-28 12:40:12 PM  

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

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

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

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

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


I bet you couldn't even type that with a straight face, could you? Is this really how the pants-wetting anti-gun kooks think or is it libs in general??? LMFAO! The guy who tried to grab the gun and ended up getting killed for it is the victim because, well, the gun was just sitting there and all. What was he supposed to do??? NOT try to grab it?
 
2012-12-28 12:42:19 PM  

Callous: NightOwl2255: dittybopper: Beyond that, though, is the idea: If you *KNOW* there are armed teachers, or highly suspect that their might be, there is very little chance that you are going to know who *ALL* of them are. That's going to change your thinking about your chances.

Do you really think that a troubled person, one that is intent on killing as many as possible before killing himself, would be the least be put off by the thought of an armed teacher? As best an armed teacher may have reduced the number of dead (which is, obviously, a good thing) but to think that the knowledge that a teacher may be armed would have prevented the attack is silly.

Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?


I'm not certain they pick gun free zones. I think their target is about casualties in areas we consider safe.
 
2012-12-28 12:44:13 PM  

The Singing Bush: mdeesnuts: Governments can only limit and infringe on our ability to exercise rights. The rights exist whether the government does or not.


Oh? If the rights exist whether the government says so or not, then where did these rights originate? A right isn't a right if it can be taken away or limited. You have no rights.


I have a natural right, granted to me by my plain existence as a sentient person, to defend myself. I have that right whether I am in New Jersey, New Dehli, or anywhere in between. There are a few others like that, too. The right to self determination comes to mind.

Now, they can be infringed upon (by a person, a government, a pack of rabid dust mites), they can be denied (like you just tried to do), but they do not cease to exist.
 
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 »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report