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 555
    More: News, New Jersey, police stations, stairwell  
•       •       •

12575 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2012 at 9:04 AM (2 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 12:50:35 PM  

BigBooper: Last time I heard, the number one source of a gun when a cop is shot is still his or her own gun


That includes suicides....of which cops rank in top 10 along with dentists or something.
 
2012-12-28 12:59:14 PM  

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

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


If a right can be infringed upon or denied, then it is obviously not a right. We do not have rights in this country or any other - we have privileges. The ability and willingness to defend yourself is not a right, it is an instinct.
 
2012-12-28 01:01:58 PM  

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

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

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

I'm not certain they pick gun free zones. I think their target is about casualties in areas we consider safe.


Exactly, if it's a "Gun Free Zone" they know that until the cops show up they will be unopposed and can kill many more than if there were guns present.
 
2012-12-28 01:02:12 PM  

Incog_Neeto: dittybopper: Actually, they did subby:

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

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

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

^^This


How does having a bunch of guns around, one of which the criminal got a hold of, prevent something from being worse... it occurs to me that had there been no gun there for the criminal to obtain, that the situation wouldn't have happened at all, let alone been worse.
 
2012-12-28 01:03:54 PM  

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


Maybe she should have kept a gun in her purse.
 
2012-12-28 01:05:02 PM  

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


No.

heres what happens......

Mexico seizes 100k weapons at crime scenes......they determine that 20k of them might come from the US..the other 80k come from somewhere else.

The Mexican authorities give those 20k weapons to the ATF to trace....and 90% of those that are given to the ATF are found to come from America.

That includes military weapons like full auto and select fire m-16s that the US sold to Guatemala, or Nicuragua, or Panama military and police....as well as one shot per trigger pull semi auto rifles and pistols that came from US gun stores.
Where are the mexican cartels getting grenades and c4? US gun stores?
 
2012-12-28 01:06:44 PM  

justtray: This was already thoroughly refuted on the last page.


Wait: How were they refuted?

You're saying that the law had some significant, measurable effect on overall violent crime in the UK, homicide rates in the UK, and mass shootings in the UK?

What you are saying is "Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?"
 
2012-12-28 01:06:56 PM  

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

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

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

I'm not certain they pick gun free zones. I think their target is about casualties in areas we consider safe.

Exactly, if it's a "Gun Free Zone" they know that until the cops show up they will be unopposed and can kill many more than if there were guns present.


And that's why they don't rob convenience stores, why gunmen never shot up Columbine HS, where they had armed guards in the building, and why nothing bad ever happened at VA Tech, where they also had armed guards on site... criminals pick gun-free zones for their terrible acts.

/there are good arguments for the necessity of firearms (and I agree with them), but you're just an idiot.
 
2012-12-28 01:08:25 PM  

firefly212: I understand that the world is largely flooded with AK-47s... I just get frustrated when people describe semi-auto rifles with totally different mechanics as "AK-style"... the term has gotten so overused that it has pretty much lost all meaning... I mean, given the right stock, people (including here in FARK threads) would call a bolt-action rifle AK-Style just because it looks mean and scary. Much like when congress tried to re-define the term "assault weapon" in cosmetic terms, I think we do a disservice to our own arguments when we use such (now) subjective and vague terminology.


It doesn't help that the term assault rifle is misused. Nor does it help when we call that thing you can buy at a gun shop for $500 an AK-47, when it isn't any closer to the real AK that the AR-15 is to the M4. However, in Mexico and referencing massive amounts of murder and destruction, the safe bet is that the AK is really an AK and not the knock-offs people fret over when they bring up F&F. I've seen pictures of arms caches there that have crew-served weapons, any bubba-d SKS isn't really going to be a hot item in comparison.
 
2012-12-28 01:08:55 PM  

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

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


Both of your figures are wildly wrong. The CDC estimates that there are approximately 36,000 flu deaths per year in the United States, and about 32,000 firearm deaths per year.
 
2012-12-28 01:09:03 PM  
Did he say that hed be back?
 
2012-12-28 01:10:17 PM  

MisterRonbo: Gee, its almost as if something used thousands of times more frequently can result in more harm, even if it is intrinsically less harmful. Whoda thunkit?


If I go to the range do you count every pull of the trigger as use? or do you count that as one use even though I may put 500 rounds down range?

Do we count minutes or hours or days as use when refferring to the millions of Americans who actively open or concealed carry.....how do you determine what use is for statistical purposes?
 
2012-12-28 01:13:50 PM  

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

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

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

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

1. Ankle holsters are horrendous for a primary weapon.

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

I said it was just my opinion.

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

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


Having the gun isn't the solution, being ready with it is... if she simply had the gun, odds are she'd be dead and the criminal would have an extra gun in addition to his other loot. Practicing with it regularly, becoming proficient with it, and practicing for high-stress scenarios is how people live through bad things... but even then, if he's the kind of guy who shoots first, then robs, there's just not a whole hell of a lot of ways to see that coming. Bad things are going to happen, guns are neither the problem, nor the solution. Guns solving gun crimes is about as silly as the notion that going to have a drink is going to make you feel better about the shiatty life caused by alcoholism. There are certainly cases where people have used guns to save their lives against other armed people, but if we're going to go with this data-driven bender that started in this thread, we should be clear that if a person is going to die by way of a firearm (unlikely), the person most likely to die by way of the firearm is the person who owns it, coming it at a close second are his family members... accidental discharges (non-lethal) involving neighbors are more common than shooting a criminal even...
 
2012-12-28 01:16:09 PM  

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


In most of these cases the targets are where they are/were students or where they worked or got fired from. And then you have situations of domestic violence that spills over to work or public places.
 
2012-12-28 01:16:37 PM  

The Singing Bush: If a right can be infringed upon or denied, then it is obviously not a right. We do not have rights in this country or any other - we have privileges. The ability and willingness to defend yourself is not a right, it is an instinct.


I'm not making this shiat up. The concept of natural rights is not new. As a matter of fact, it has quite a widespread following and was fundamental to the founding of the US. Some even consider them inalienable.

Go do some reading and quit making a fool of yourself.
 
2012-12-28 01:16:39 PM  

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

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


Don't conflate homicide by firearms with overall firearms deaths, it's gonna get you in a credibility hole when someone rolls in suicides and accidental (fatal) discharges in.
 
2012-12-28 01:21:50 PM  

TheTrashcanMan: Chinchillazilla: Days since last mass shooting: 0

Your definition of "mass" confuses me.


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


No yeah pretty much.
 
2012-12-28 01:28:52 PM  

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

In most of these cases the targets are where they are/were students or where they worked or got fired from. And then you have situations of domestic violence that spills over to work or public places.


If you're going to refute him, hit harder.
1. Colorado has one of the highest CCW/capita rates in the country, the movie theater was not a "gun free zone"
2. Columbine had armed police officer guards, that's pretty much the opposite of "gun free"
3. VA Tech had armed police officers on campus, again, the opposite of "gun free" 32 dead, 24 more shot and injured.
4. Diner in Tulsa, not a gun free zone, again a high ccw/capita rate, didn't stop Jake England and Alan Watts from killing five black guys (they killed them just for being black).
5. IHOP, Carson City, NV, not a gun free zone, 11 shot, 5 dead, including three National Guard Members, 1 of the dead had a gun on him, one of the shot (lived) had a gun on him.
6. Fort Hood, TX (pretty much the polar opposite of gun free), Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 and wounded 29.
7. Kirkwood, MO City Hall (four cops on duty in the building), Charles Thornton Killed six and injured 2 more.

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

My question to you would be... why do you think that nuts pick locations that are gun free zones when the opposite seems to be happening in the reality the rest of us live in?
 
2012-12-28 01:31:58 PM  

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

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

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

I'm not certain they pick gun free zones. I think their target is about casualties in areas we consider safe.

Exactly, if it's a "Gun Free Zone" they know that until the cops show up they will be unopposed and can kill many more than if there were guns present.


We aren't agreeing...
 
2012-12-28 01:35:48 PM  
So a guy busts into an unarmed school and kills 27. A guy busts into an armed police station and 0 killed.
 
2012-12-28 01:36:58 PM  

trappedspirit: Now you are just being intentionally derp. Mass shootings occur whenever something with mass is shot, doh.


If you blast 5000 rounds from a ridiculously large weapon into a black hole, do you still have a small penis?

i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-28 01:43:14 PM  

hovsm: So a guy busts into an unarmed school and kills 27. A guy busts into an armed police station and 0 killed.


That's not what happened but thanks for playing.
 
2012-12-28 01:45:36 PM  

firefly212: Callous: Bontesla: Callous: NightOwl2255: dittybopper: Beyond that, though, is the idea: If you *KNOW* there are armed teachers, or highly suspect that their might be, there is very little chance that you are going to know who *ALL* of them are. That's going to change your thinking about your chances.

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

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

I'm not certain they pick gun free zones. I think their target is about casualties in areas we consider safe.

Exactly, if it's a "Gun Free Zone" they know that until the cops show up they will be unopposed and can kill many more than if there were guns present.

And that's why they don't rob convenience stores, why gunmen never shot up Columbine HS, where they had armed guards in the building, and why nothing bad ever happened at VA Tech, where they also had armed guards on site... criminals pick gun-free zones for their terrible acts.

/there are good arguments for the necessity of firearms (and I agree with them), but you're just an idiot.


Columbine was chosen because it was the school they attended.  And the guard was off site at lunch when they attacked.  I'm pretty sure they knew the guard's habits and planned it that way.  Virginia Tech again was chosen because it was the school he attended.  And he chained the door to the building he attacked closed behind him, so he would have as much time as possible before the cops got in.  Had there been a cop in the building things may have been different.

Convenience stores are robbed for money, not for mass killings.
 
2012-12-28 01:46:11 PM  

firefly212: 1. Colorado has one of the highest CCW/capita rates in the country, the movie theater was not a "gun free zone"
2. Columbine had armed police officer guards, that's pretty much the opposite of "gun free"
3. VA Tech had armed police officers on campus, again, the opposite of "gun free" 32 dead, 24 more shot and injured.
4. Diner in Tulsa, not a gun free zone, again a high ccw/capita rate, didn't stop Jake England and Alan Watts from killing five black guys (they killed them just for being black).
5. IHOP, Carson City, NV, not a gun free zone, 11 shot, 5 dead, including three National Guard Members, 1 of the dead had a gun on him, one of the shot (lived) had a gun on him.
6. Fort Hood, TX (pretty much the polar opposite of gun free), Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 and wounded 29.


1. I think that particular theater chain had a no-gun policy
2. 1 off duty cop that exchanged fire with 1 perp inconclusively and called for back up, did not enter school until slaughter/suicide was complete.
3. VA Tech - didn't the school cops wait 2 hours to enter the building and get their asses pilloried for it?
4. No info
5. A gun is not a force field
6. Soldiers are not allowed to carry on post, civilian PD. If terrorist Hassan had engaged the soldiers on a firing range, that would be much different
 
2012-12-28 01:47:19 PM  

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

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

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

Gave who an M2 what now? Where'd you get this?


Read the stuff on F&F and its predecessor. During one of the arms purchases, an M2 Browning .50 machine gun (yes, the real deal) was "Allowed" to walk to the Cartels. It was promptly lost on the tracking radar. So, somewhere down there, a US Browning .50 is running around.`
 
2012-12-28 01:47:52 PM  

hovsm: So a guy busts into an unarmed school and kills 27. A guy busts into an armed police station and 0 killed.


Except that the second sentence isn't reflective of what actually happened.

He didn't bust in
At least one person is dead
We don't arm police stations

I think the only part you got right was the "[a] guy..."
 
2012-12-28 01:52:28 PM  

mdeesnuts: The Singing Bush: If a right can be infringed upon or denied, then it is obviously not a right. We do not have rights in this country or any other - we have privileges. The ability and willingness to defend yourself is not a right, it is an instinct.

I'm not making this shiat up. The concept of natural rights is not new. As a matter of fact, it has quite a widespread following and was fundamental to the founding of the US. Some even consider them inalienable.

Go do some reading and quit making a fool of yourself.


From your own link: "rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable."

OK, so it was fundamental to the founding of the US, which led to the most ridiculously naive statement ever put on paper, that "all men are created equal."

You're correct in that the concept of natural rights is not new and has a following. But it is just a concept, like for instance, Catholicism, or the KKK, or the Taliban. It doesn't make it correct.
 
2012-12-28 01:54:22 PM  

Giltric: MisterRonbo: Gee, its almost as if something used thousands of times more frequently can result in more harm, even if it is intrinsically less harmful. Whoda thunkit?

If I go to the range do you count every pull of the trigger as use? or do you count that as one use even though I may put 500 rounds down range?

Do we count minutes or hours or days as use when refferring to the millions of Americans who actively open or concealed carry.....how do you determine what use is for statistical purposes?


I'll count it as any time someone has in their possession a loaded gun.

Do you think that remotely approaches the amount of time people spend in cars? Do you think there are even one tenth the number of people who carry a gun as drive or ride in a motor vehicle, or are out in public where they could be run over by a car? I'd bet there are more children riding a school bus every day than there are people who carry a gun.
 
2012-12-28 01:54:28 PM  

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

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

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

Gave who an M2 what now? Where'd you get this?

Read the stuff on F&F and its predecessor. During one of the arms purchases, an M2 Browning .50 machine gun (yes, the real deal) was "Allowed" to walk to the Cartels. It was promptly lost on the tracking radar. So, somewhere down there, a US Browning .50 is running around.`


I've read a lot, clearly not all, but never did I see any mention of an M2.

F&F was exclusively related to FFL dealers. None of those FFL were going to sell an M2 because none of them would have had an M2 for sale. If memory serves, "Wide Receiver" also worked exclusively through FFLs. An M2 would have been a weapon stolen from either the US or Mexican military. If it was stolen from the US military, it is almost inconceivable that the weapon would have been allowed to walk under any circumstance.
 
2012-12-28 01:59:33 PM  

kombat_unit: firefly212: 1. Colorado has one of the highest CCW/capita rates in the country, the movie theater was not a "gun free zone"
2. Columbine had armed police officer guards, that's pretty much the opposite of "gun free"
3. VA Tech had armed police officers on campus, again, the opposite of "gun free" 32 dead, 24 more shot and injured.
4. Diner in Tulsa, not a gun free zone, again a high ccw/capita rate, didn't stop Jake England and Alan Watts from killing five black guys (they killed them just for being black).
5. IHOP, Carson City, NV, not a gun free zone, 11 shot, 5 dead, including three National Guard Members, 1 of the dead had a gun on him, one of the shot (lived) had a gun on him.
6. Fort Hood, TX (pretty much the polar opposite of gun free), Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 and wounded 29.

1. I think that particular theater chain had a no-gun policy
2. 1 off duty cop that exchanged fire with 1 perp inconclusively and called for back up, did not enter school until slaughter/suicide was complete.
3. VA Tech - didn't the school cops wait 2 hours to enter the building and get their asses pilloried for it?
4. No info
5. A gun is not a force field
6. Soldiers are not allowed to carry on post, civilian PD. If terrorist Hassan had engaged the soldiers on a firing range, that would be much different


I'm happy you were able to list out exceptions, I don't disagree that there were extenuating circumstances in all of these cases... but the extenuating circumstances don't make up for the fact that it just isn't true that mass murderers are picking places without firearms.

also:
1. no it doesn't, I've been to that theater, with friends, who were carrying... it's Colorado, do whatever you want provided it's not a post office or bank. Lying isn't a truth-forcefield, Mr. LaPierre.
2. Thanks, one cop exchanged fire with the two shooters... so not only was it not "gun-free", the cop fired and it did not in any way deter the killers. Congratulations on illustrating my point in an articulate manner... now if only you could do the same for yours.
3. They were armed, on campus, and frequently roaming about, the killer had no way of knowing whether or not armed guards were in the building... deterrence provided by armed guards... none whatsoever.
4. Here's a hint, there are more guns in Oklahoma than there are citizens of Oklahoma... how many people did guns save that night?
5. No shiat a gun isn't a forcefield, thank god I'm not the one trying to make the case that guns prevent crime.
6. That wasn't civilian PD responding, the trucks and squad cars that say US Army on the side... those are owned by... wait for it... wait for it... the US Army, as it turns out, they have these guys they call  "Military Police" and they responded quickly to the shooting (not too far from a gate/checkpoint)... they did a good job, responded quickly, and got things under control... but as you eloquently pointed out earlier, guns are not a force field.
 
2012-12-28 02:00:12 PM  

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

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

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

Stop parroting talking points you dont understand

You're asking the wrong questions.

Did the gun ban reduce violent crime overall?

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

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

Did it reduce homicides overall?

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

No, it didn't.

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

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

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

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


Hmm, your graphs show either
A. homicide rate dropping before the gun ban, which doesn't support your point and
B. homicide rate dropping after the gun ban, which doesn't support your point either,

why?

because it took 6 years to get all the guns off the streets, and even then criminals would be expected to hold on to them.

The effect delay in your graph makes perfect sense.
 
2012-12-28 02:03:29 PM  

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

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

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

Gave who an M2 what now? Where'd you get this?

Read the stuff on F&F and its predecessor. During one of the arms purchases, an M2 Browning .50 machine gun (yes, the real deal) was "Allowed" to walk to the Cartels. It was promptly lost on the tracking radar. So, somewhere down there, a US Browning .50 is running around.`


As the only liberal person who likes guns, let me be the first to say, f#ck everything.

Then again, I'd be ok with full-auto weapons being legal, provided that when you buy them, you get a mental health check, you get a mental health check once a year thereafter, ownership is contingent upon your willingness to let the government randomly verify that the weapon is still in your possession, and when you sell it, you are required to sell it to either a licensed firearms dealer, or to the government (no private party sales).
 
2012-12-28 02:08:04 PM  
subby....only ONE was injured? If the people in the station weren't armed, then several people would have obviously died!  wtf kind of logic do you have going on?

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-28 02:08:22 PM  

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

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

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

Gave who an M2 what now? Where'd you get this?

Read the stuff on F&F and its predecessor. During one of the arms purchases, an M2 Browning .50 machine gun (yes, the real deal) was "Allowed" to walk to the Cartels. It was promptly lost on the tracking radar. So, somewhere down there, a US Browning .50 is running around.`

I've read a lot, clearly not all, but never did I see any mention of an M2.

F&F was exclusively related to FFL dealers. None of those FFL were going to sell an M2 because none of them would have had an M2 for sale. If memory serves, "Wide Receiver" also worked exclusively through FFLs. An M2 would have been a weapon stolen from either the US or Mexican military. If it was stolen from the US military, it is almost inconceivable that the weapon would have been allowed to walk under any circumstance.


It may have been pre-F&F but an M2 got out and into the hands of the cartels.
 
2012-12-28 02:13:48 PM  

Giltric: The Mexican authorities give those 20k weapons to the ATF to trace....and 90% of those that are given to the ATF are found to come from America.

That includes military weapons like full auto and select fire m-16s that the US sold to Guatemala, or Nicuragua, or Panama military and police....as well as one shot per trigger pull semi auto rifles and pistols that came from US gun stores.
Where are the mexican cartels getting grenades and c4? US gun stores?


Are grenades and c4 small arms and rifles now or something? Has there been a reclassification I'm unaware of?

Yes, the majority of handguns and a large portion of rifles used by the Mexican cartels stem from America either in the form of smuggled arms or arms sold to and then stolen from the Mexican military.

America plays a large hand in arming those cartels. This isn't really a debatable thing. It's been known for some time.

firefly212: As the only liberal person who likes guns, let me be the first to say, f#ck everything.


I like my guns just fine.

I just don't understand why I shouldn't have to accept some basic responsibilities or minor inconveniences related to their acquisition and use. I'm under stricter obligations to maintain and operate my car safely than I am my handgun and I think that's absurd.
 
2012-12-28 02:15:23 PM  

MisterRonbo: Giltric: MisterRonbo: Gee, its almost as if something used thousands of times more frequently can result in more harm, even if it is intrinsically less harmful. Whoda thunkit?

If I go to the range do you count every pull of the trigger as use? or do you count that as one use even though I may put 500 rounds down range?

Do we count minutes or hours or days as use when refferring to the millions of Americans who actively open or concealed carry.....how do you determine what use is for statistical purposes?

I'll count it as any time someone has in their possession a loaded gun.

Do you think that remotely approaches the amount of time people spend in cars? Do you think there are even one tenth the number of people who carry a gun as drive or ride in a motor vehicle, or are out in public where they could be run over by a car? I'd bet there are more children riding a school bus every day than there are people who carry a gun.


I'd wager that my f350 is far more dangerous when used to intentionally hurt and maim and kill than any of my firearms....my aim doesn;t even have to be precise...and if the target moves it is far easier to reaquire someone and hit them using a 5 foot wide projectile than something that is .223 in diameter.

Sounds like a job for Mythbusters.
 
2012-12-28 02:16:42 PM  

firefly212: Thanks, one cop exchanged fire with the two shooters... so not only was it not "gun-free", the cop fired and it did not in any way deter the killers. Congratulations on illustrating my point in an articulate manner... now if only you could do the same for yours.


At Columbine, there were actually two armed officers who shot at Eric Harris.
 
2012-12-28 02:19:48 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Are grenades and c4 small arms and rifles now or something? Has there been a reclassification I'm unaware of?


No just make the next logical jump....if the cartels can get grenades and c4 from mexican and other countries authorities wouldn;t they also buy some full auto military rifles from them and save themselves a trip up to the US to buy some rinky dink civillian semi autos?
 
2012-12-28 02:24:42 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I'm under stricter obligations to maintain and operate my car safely than I am my handgun


You are always obligated to operate your firearms in a safe matter.

Maybe you don't take the responsibility of owning those weapons seriously enough....and you should probably turn them in.

You are also obligated not to rape anyone....but is any government agency trying to deter you from raping someone? Are you taking saltpeter supplements?
 
2012-12-28 02:34:58 PM  

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


But...but...but...train...and stuff.

Seriously, we know all police officers are flawless machines incapable of a moments lapse of attention.

Clearly the perp was a pirate-ninja-robot MMA master.

/or the cop let his guard down...and the guy seized the opportunity.
 
2012-12-28 02:35:28 PM  

firefly212: Civil_War2_Time: Scerpes: Civil_War2_Time: Yes, it IS a stupid simplistic argument.

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

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

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

1. Ankle holsters are horrendous for a primary weapon.

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

I said it was just my opinion.

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

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

Having the gun isn't the solution, being ready with it is... if she simply had the gun, odds are she'd be dead and the criminal would have an extra gun in addition to his other loot. Practicing with it regularly, becoming proficient with it, and practicing for high-stress scenarios is how people live through bad things... but even then, if he's the kind of guy who shoots first, then robs, there's just not a whole hell of a lot of ways to see that coming. Bad things are going to happen, guns are neither the problem, nor the solution. Guns solving gun crimes is about as silly as the notion that going to have a drink is going to make you feel better about the shiatty life caused by alcoholism. There are certainly cases where people have used guns to save their lives against other armed people, but if we're going to go with this ...


yeah, the anecdotal stories are a bit odd to me. All I can think when I hear "someone I know was robbed and had/didn't have a gun and was/wasn't killed" is "So you've never been robbed yourself then?"

/When you get punched in the mouth because you opened your *own* front door to go outside, it's kind of hard to remember to draw your gun and act like a bad ass. Training or otherwise.
//In Philly, the best deterrent is knowing and being seen with your neighbors.
///And not arguing with the guys who are dealing crack through your mailslot.
 
2012-12-28 02:35:43 PM  

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

But...but...but...train...and stuff.

Seriously, we know all police officers are flawless machines incapable of a moments lapse of attention.

Clearly the perp was a pirate-ninja-robot MMA master.

/or the cop let his guard down...and the guy seized the opportunity.


Training...ing.

/dammit
 
2012-12-28 02:38:45 PM  

firefly212: DrewCurtisJr: Callous: Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?

In most of these cases the targets are where they are/were students or where they worked or got fired from. And then you have situations of domestic violence that spills over to work or public places.

If you're going to refute him, hit harder.
1. Colorado has one of the highest CCW/capita rates in the country, the movie theater was not a "gun free zone"


Yes it was. Link

2. Columbine had armed police officer guards, that's pretty much the opposite of "gun free"

The guard was off campus at lunch when they attacked their own school.  They probably knew his habits and planned it that way.  And only the non-present guard was allowed to carry.  Therefore it's a Gun Free Zone.

3. VA Tech had armed police officers on campus, again, the opposite of "gun free" 32 dead, 24 more shot and injured.

And he chained the door shut on his own school to give himself as much killing time as possible before the cops could get in.  The school had renewed it's policy the previous year prohibiting anyone except law enforcement to carry on campus.  So yes it is also Gun Free Zone.

4. Diner in Tulsa, not a gun free zone, again a high ccw/capita rate, didn't stop Jake England and Alan Watts from killing five black guys (they killed them just for being black).

I'm not familiar with particular event.  Only thing I could find via google was a spree shooter at multiple locations, and he was targeting black people.

5. IHOP, Carson City, NV, not a gun free zone, 11 shot, 5 dead, including three National Guard Members, 1 of the dead had a gun on him, one of the shot (lived) had a gun on him.
6. Fort Hood, TX (pretty much the polar opposite of gun free), Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 and wounded 29.


Actually the only people allowed to carry firearms are the civilian police on the base.  The soldiers are not allowed to carry, all their weapons are kept in the armory.

7. Kirkwood, MO City Hall (four cops on duty in the building), Charles Thornton Killed six and injured 2 more.

Gun Free Zone -  Link

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

My question to you would be... why do you think that nuts pick locations that are gun free zones when the opposite seems to be happening in the reality the rest of us live in?


The reality you apparently live is delusional because I was able to, in a few minutes with Google, find that 5 of the 7 incidents you listed as non gun free zines were in fact Gun Free Zones.  The other two I couldn't find anything one way or the other.
 
2012-12-28 02:42:41 PM  

firefly212: If you're going to refute him, hit harder.
1. Colorado has one of the highest CCW/capita rates in the country, the movie theater was not a "gun free zone"


Yes it was. The theater posted "No Firearms" signs. It was a "Gun Free Zone".

2. Columbine had armed police officer guards, that's pretty much the opposite of "gun free"


At the time, the doctrine of the police was "Wait for the SWAT guys". We know better now.

3. VA Tech had armed police officers on campus, again, the opposite of "gun free" 32 dead, 24 more shot and injured.


None of them were in a position to respond, and everyone else was unarmed.

4. Diner in Tulsa, not a gun free zone, again a high ccw/capita rate, didn't stop Jake England and Alan Watts from killing five black guys (they killed them just for being black).


I don't know enough about this one: Was the diner posted as no guns allowed?

5. IHOP, Carson City, NV, not a gun free zone, 11 shot, 5 dead, including three National Guard Members, 1 of the dead had a gun on him, one of the shot (lived) had a gun on him.


Again, don't know enough about this one. Was the IHOP posted?

6. Fort Hood, TX (pretty much the polar opposite of gun free), Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 and wounded 29.


This is where I *KNOW* you are full of shiat, because I used to be in the Army, and I owned personally owned firearms at the time.

You can't carry a loaded firearm in the military unless it's in the course of your normal duties, and that didn't qualify. Hell, I couldn't even keep a gun in the barracks or even in my car unless I was going to or coming from the range: It had to be stored in the armory, and I had to sign it out whenever I wanted to shoot it.

In effect, every military base is a "gun free zone" for practical purposes, except in a war zone. Last I checked, Ft. Hood wasn't in a war zone.


7. Kirkwood, MO City Hall (four cops on duty in the building), Charles Thornton Killed six and injured 2 more.



Were the cops right there when he opened fire?
 
2012-12-28 02:53:27 PM  
England and Watts killed people at multiple locations - not a diner, and it was 3 people and 2 others wounded... Link

The three people killed -- two of them in residential areas between 1 and 2 a.m. and the other about 8 a.m. next to a funeral home, though investigators believe he was shot hours earlier -- have been identified by authorities as Dannaer Fields, William Allen and Bobby Clark.
 
2012-12-28 02:55:48 PM  
The Kirkwood City Council shooting occurred on February 7, 2008, in Kirkwood, Missouri, United States; a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri in St. Louis County.

A gunman went on a shooting rampage at a public meeting in the city hall, leaving six people dead and two others injured. Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton[1] shot one police officer with a revolver across the side street from city hall and took the officer's handgun before entering city hall.

Thornton reached council chambers with these two weapons shortly after the meeting began. There, he shot a police officer, the public works director, two council members, the mayor, and a reporter. In total, the gunman killed five and wounded two others. He was then shot and killed by police.[1][5][6]

Link
 
2012-12-28 02:58:03 PM  

Giltric: I'd wager that my f350 is far more dangerous when used to intentionally hurt and maim and kill than any of my firearms....my aim doesn;t even have to be precise...and if the target moves it is far easier to reaquire someone and hit them using a 5 foot wide projectile than something that is .223 in diameter.


And yet people very seldom use vehicles for mass killings. Bombs are certainly more effective, but their use is rare too.

Because a gun makes it easy.

That's the part you just don't get. In your theoretical world, every suicide by a gun would happen anyway, because they *could* find another way. If a killer didn't have a thirty round magazine, they could just carry three guns with ten rounds each, etc.

In the real world, when you make something easier to do, it happens more often. Acting on a sudden impluse is easier than carrying out a plan. Killing 20 first graders is easier with a gun than it is with a truck.

Bonus point: We start at opposite ends of a football field, you in a heavy duty truck, me with an AR-15 with 30 rounds. Guess who comes out alive.
 
2012-12-28 02:59:26 PM  

Callous: firefly212: DrewCurtisJr: Callous: Yes, why else do you think these nuts always pick locations that they know are "gun free zones"?

In most of these cases the targets are where they are/were students or where they worked or got fired from. And then you have situations of domestic violence that spills over to work or public places.

If you're going to refute him, hit harder.
1. Colorado has one of the highest CCW/capita rates in the country, the movie theater was not a "gun free zone"

Yes it was. Link

2. Columbine had armed police officer guards, that's pretty much the opposite of "gun free"

The guard was off campus at lunch when they attacked their own school.  They probably knew his habits and planned it that way.  And only the non-present guard was allowed to carry.  Therefore it's a Gun Free Zone.

3. VA Tech had armed police officers on campus, again, the opposite of "gun free" 32 dead, 24 more shot and injured.

And he chained the door shut on his own school to give himself as much killing time as possible before the cops could get in.  The school had renewed it's policy the previous year prohibiting anyone except law enforcement to carry on campus.  So yes it is also Gun Free Zone.

4. Diner in Tulsa, not a gun free zone, again a high ccw/capita rate, didn't stop Jake England and Alan Watts from killing five black guys (they killed them just for being black).

I'm not familiar with particular event.  Only thing I could find via google was a spree shooter at multiple locations, and he was targeting black people.

5. IHOP, Carson City, NV, not a gun free zone, 11 shot, 5 dead, including three National Guard Members, 1 of the dead had a gun on him, one of the shot (lived) had a gun on him.
6. Fort Hood, TX (pretty much the polar opposite of gun free), Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 and wounded 29.

Actually the only people allowed to carry firearms are the civilian police on the base.  The soldiers are not allowed to carry, all their weapons are kept in the armo ...


I like how you define gun-free zone in such a way as to totally ignore that these incidents all had armed civilians, MPs, or law enforcement on scene... and the LEO at columbine exchanged fire with Klebold and Harris, he was most decidedly not offsite, you dirty f#@king liar.

Also, regarding Ft. Hood, MPs responded from the East Rancier Gate, Civilian LEOs responded too because the shooting was off base (just a little bit away from the entrance)... you're absolutely full of shiat regarding MPs not carrying sidearms on base, and you're just plain wrong. The guard that shot Hasan was a civilian (I'll grant you that) employed by... the Army. Lying won't help you, armed guards were on site, military, civilian, and military contractors... and still, a torrent of blood.

As for Aurora, I'm aware of no signs on site prohibiting the carrying of firearms, nor was any of my friends stopped at any time (then again, CCW requires you not be carrying conspicuously, so there's that)... I doubt anyone, gunman included, went to cinemarks website to find out their policy on guns (Kinda weird that a TX company would have that anyways).

VA Tech... ya, he chained the door shut... but do you have any indication that he knew that the armed guards weren't in the building? Anything at all? Anything at all to support your argument that guns would have deterred him?

Bad things are gonna happen, bad guys are gonna do what bad guys do... pretending that the presence of more guns is going to make a batshiat crazy guy somehow more sane is as farking crazy as the anti-gun people thinking that banning 30 round magazines will make a guy with 3 ten round magazines take a significant amount of time more.
 
2012-12-28 03:02:28 PM  

Benjamin Orr: England and Watts killed people at multiple locations - not a diner, and it was 3 people and 2 others wounded... Link

The three people killed -- two of them in residential areas between 1 and 2 a.m. and the other about 8 a.m. next to a funeral home, though investigators believe he was shot hours earlier -- have been identified by authorities as Dannaer Fields, William Allen and Bobby Clark.


Please pardon me, my source (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-ma ss -shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/ ) only indicated that 5 were shot, I've emailed them to see if they can amend it to indicate that only 3 were killed, and that only one of those killed was in a diner.
 
2012-12-28 03:06:42 PM  
In this thread, gun-nuts are going to re-define gun-free zone such that if 99/100 people have a gun, it still counts as a gun free zone because that one guy was the one who should have had the gun. Cops don't count, Civilian Military Contractors don't count, MP's (SP's, SF's) don't count... so basically, if you've had training in how to use firearms, you no longer count in their definition of a "gun free zone"... the only path to safety is to arm idiots with no training whatsoever.
 
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 »
Advertisement
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