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  
•       •       •

12564 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2012 at 9:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



555 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-28 03:06:47 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 think the general point, that criminals looking to kill lots of people go on craig's list and vet the places they terrorize before going and killing lots of people, is still bunk.

Criminals looking to kill lots of people go to where lots of people are. Locally. The School they happen to go to, The Restaurant in town, The Military Base they happen to live on...

The "reason" for columbine wasn't convenience of targets, but emotion. Angry kids deciding they'd "show em". That's well documented. It wouldn't make sense for them to go to another school. The school was the ONLY reason they were doing it to begin with.

Aurora is the only one for which I'd really consider the possibility that the shooter planned the attack and the venue because of the access to guns there... but I think it is MUCH more likely that he planned to attack the local movie theater while it was showing one of the most highly anticipated movies of the year during peak movie-going season. Because... again... lots of people. Conveniently located.

The notion that the Fort Hood shooter "chose" Fort Hood because military bases check weapons at the armory is... frankly... the dumbest thing I've heard about this particular debate. And for some reason, a lot of people are saying it.

It's retarded. Don't go full retard.
 
2012-12-28 03:07:46 PM  

The Larch: 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.


Ummm, no. There was a single one initially, and he wasn't inside the school, he was in a remote parking lot on campus when the call came in. He did shoot at Harris and Klebold when they were visible, but they retreated into the safety of the school. He was joined by a second police officer and they both engaged Harris and Klebold again when they exited the school, but again they retreated and the police officers didn't actively engage them after that.

They never entered the school at all.

In essence, the inside of the school was a gun-free zone (except for the shooters guns, of course) until the SWAT team entered.

It is *BECAUSE* of Columbine that the doctrine of response to mass shootings has changed: The police go in with what they have on hand immediately without waiting for the tactical teams. Why? Because actively engaging the shooters at a bare minimum forces them to pay attention to the people shooting at them instead of the unarmed victims. Previously the doctrine was to wait for the guys with heavy armor and overwhelming firepower, but as Columbine showed, that can result in even more casualties.
 
2012-12-28 03:12:19 PM  
Crazy people are not going to care if cops are nearby or if a random person is armed or not.. obviously most of them aren't going to drive up to a SWAT team and just open fire.

In certain situations you are going to have police or armed civilians nearby and sometimes they will actually stop/slow down the maniac. There are no magic shields and most of them just don't care if they live or die.

All of this discussion would be much easier if both extremes would stop altering the facts to better reflect their point of view though.
 
2012-12-28 03:17:41 PM  
Cripes, it's getting to the point where we should just ban criminals once and for all.
 
2012-12-28 03:18:14 PM  

firefly212: 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?


His actions: He shot himself as soon as the police entered the building.
 
2012-12-28 03:20:14 PM  
The fact is very few "Gun Free Zones" are actually gun free. Unless there is a metal detector at the door, it's on the honor system, and there are a lot of people that carry that are not that honorable. And the notion that mass killers, most of whom are intending to die, would be swayed by the thought of encountering a armed person is near ridiculous.
 
2012-12-28 03:22:08 PM  

firefly212: 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.


No, a Gun Free Zone is somewhere that the general public is not allowed to carry a firearm.  There are always exceptions for police.  Just because there is an armed cop onsite doesn't make it a non Gun Free Zone.
 
2012-12-28 03:23:01 PM  

dittybopper: firefly212: 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?

His actions: He shot himself as soon as the police entered the building.


So, you take his suicide as evidence that he knew armed guards weren't in the building when he started his action? Please, enlighten us all. I take his suicide as evidence that he knew that the noodly appendage was more real than Jesus, and that while the two of them were occupied with fighting over imaginaryland, Godzilla was going to devour his soul... it seems as rational as your assumption.
 
2012-12-28 03:23:11 PM  

dittybopper: In essence, the inside of the school was a gun-free zone (except for the shooters guns, of course) until the SWAT team entered.


I don't know what "gun free zone" means. If there are two armed officers on campus shooting at the perpetrators, it's a gun free zone?
 
2012-12-28 03:24:34 PM  

Callous: firefly212: 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.

No, a Gun Free Zone is somewhere that the general public is not allowed to carry a firearm.  There are always exceptions for police.  Just because there is an armed cop onsite doesn't make it a non Gun Free Zone.


Ya, I get it... MPs have guns, Police on site have guns, Civilian Military Contractors have guns, but none of those guns count, it's a gun free zone, because that's how you've defined "gun free" in such a manner as to exclude the hundreds of guns present at these massacres.
 
2012-12-28 03:25:18 PM  

Callous: firefly212: 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.

No, a Gun Free Zone is somewhere that the general public is not allowed to carry a firearm.  There are always exceptions for police.  Just because there is an armed cop onsite doesn't make it a non Gun Free Zone.


Ah... got it. So, if there are armed security guards in every school, they're gun free zones because the principals aren't armed. If the principals are armed, it's a gun free zone because the teachers aren't armed. If the teachers are armed, it's a gun free zone because the custodial staff isn't armed. If the custodial staff is armed, it's a gun free zone because the students aren't armed.

Essentially, a gun free zone is anyplace where even one person isn't allowed to have a gun.
 
2012-12-28 03:25:43 PM  
Also in this thread, the state of TX, even outside of military bases, is "gun free."

You know why I want mental health tests before people can buy guns... it's because of you delusional farkers.
 
2012-12-28 03:26:15 PM  

Andyxc: Guns didn't make these cops safer. If guns didn't exist, none of them would have been shot to begin with. It was body armor and the months of training it takes to become a police officer that kept these guys safe. Goddamnit so much.


This just happened Cops arrest a chick for stealing. Don't cuff her. She's in the police station and grabs a knife comes up from behind the cop and tries to slash his throat and I didn't useanycommas becauseithapppendsofast.

Cop should be fired for his stupidity.
MY commanding officer would have kicked a cop in the balls for being that dumb.
 
2012-12-28 03:28:34 PM  

MisterRonbo: 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.


Me. the .223 is not an anti-materiel round. Some people claim it's even a terrible round against flesh. You would be a smear with an empty magazine.

stick to T16s and Womp Rats.
 
2012-12-28 03:32:41 PM  

MisterRonbo: 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.


lol, if he ducks, you're not shooting through that engine with an AR-15, I'd put good money on him being smart enough to duck, and you being dumb enough to stand there with your low caliber weapon... advantage: him.
 
2012-12-28 03:34:38 PM  

vudukungfu: Andyxc: Guns didn't make these cops safer. If guns didn't exist, none of them would have been shot to begin with. It was body armor and the months of training it takes to become a police officer that kept these guys safe. Goddamnit so much.

This just happened Cops arrest a chick for stealing. Don't cuff her. She's in the police station and grabs a knife comes up from behind the cop and tries to slash his throat and I didn't useanycommas becauseithapppendsofast.

Cop should be fired for his stupidity.
MY commanding officer would have kicked a cop in the balls for being that dumb.


Whenever a prisoner gets out of control, let alone becomes armed, it's a process failure... contrary to the fail in this thread, prisoners getting subdued or killed after getting out of control and becoming armed is proof that something's wrong, not that everything is alright.
 
2012-12-28 03:39:05 PM  

dittybopper: The Larch: 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.

Ummm, no. There was a single one initially, and he wasn't inside the school, he was in a remote parking lot on campus when the call came in. He did shoot at Harris and Klebold when they were visible, but they retreated into the safety of the school. He was joined by a second police officer and they both engaged Harris and Klebold again when they exited the school, but again they retreated and the police officers didn't actively engage them after that.

They never entered the school at all.

In essence, the inside of the school was a gun-free zone (except for the shooters guns, of course) until the SWAT team entered.

It is *BECAUSE* of Columbine that the doctrine of response to mass shootings has changed: The police go in with what they have on hand immediately without waiting for the tactical teams. Why? Because actively engaging the shooters at a bare minimum forces them to pay attention to the people shooting at them instead of the unarmed victims. Previously the doctrine was to wait for the guys with heavy armor and overwhelming firepower, but as Columbine showed, that can result in even more casualties.


honestly, thanks for posting that. My opinion at the time was that the police in Columbine were the most cowardly people to ever put on a uniform, and each officer on site that didn't immediately enter that building should have lost his or her badge. I'm glad to see immediate entry tactics are being trained implemented.
 
2012-12-28 03:47:38 PM  
.

firefly212: Whenever a prisoner gets out of control, let alone becomes armed, it's a process failure... contrary to the fail in this thread, prisoners getting subdued or killed after getting out of control and becoming armed is proof that something's wrong, not that everything is alright.


You must have gone to the NS Sherlock Police academy
 
2012-12-28 03:49:30 PM  

Giltric: MisterRonbo: 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.

Me. the .223 is not an anti-materiel round. Some people claim it's even a terrible round against flesh. You would be a smear with an empty magazine.


I had no idea Ford's windshields were bulletproof.

In fairness, I'm not a very good shot. I'd probably stand behind the goalpost and wait for you to get close. The only way you could win would be if....

...wait for it...

...you could move the goalposts.
 
2012-12-28 03:51:15 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: dittybopper: The Larch: 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.

Ummm, no. There was a single one initially, and he wasn't inside the school, he was in a remote parking lot on campus when the call came in. He did shoot at Harris and Klebold when they were visible, but they retreated into the safety of the school. He was joined by a second police officer and they both engaged Harris and Klebold again when they exited the school, but again they retreated and the police officers didn't actively engage them after that.

They never entered the school at all.

In essence, the inside of the school was a gun-free zone (except for the shooters guns, of course) until the SWAT team entered.

It is *BECAUSE* of Columbine that the doctrine of response to mass shootings has changed: The police go in with what they have on hand immediately without waiting for the tactical teams. Why? Because actively engaging the shooters at a bare minimum forces them to pay attention to the people shooting at them instead of the unarmed victims. Previously the doctrine was to wait for the guys with heavy armor and overwhelming firepower, but as Columbine showed, that can result in even more casualties.

honestly, thanks for posting that. My opinion at the time was that the police in Columbine were the most cowardly people to ever put on a uniform, and each officer on site that didn't immediately enter that building should have lost his or her badge. I'm glad to see immediate entry tactics are being trained implemented.


A Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy, Neil Gardner, was assigned to the high school as a full-time uniformed and armed. Gardner usually ate lunch with students in the cafeteria, but on April 20 he was eating lunch in his patrol car at the northwest corner of the campus, watching students in the Smokers' Pit in Clement Park. The security staff at Columbine did not observe the bombs being placed in the cafeteria, since a custodian was replacing the school security video tape as it happened.

shiatty coincidences happen, the cop who normally ate in the cafeteria was out in his car eating, just plain bad luck that the janitor was changing the security video tapes (so nobody called the cop to come back for suspicious behavior). The introduction of more guns will not stop shiatty coincidences, and anyone who thinks they will is out of their gourd. Flooding our schools and workplaces with guns is a recipe for more workplace violence, for more accidental shootings, for more kids to get a hold of a gun accidentally left behind, the only thing more guns won't do is make violent and homicidal psychopaths any less determined to kill... at best, it'll motivate them to get better body armor before they go on a killing spree... then of course, we need more anti-armor rounds in schools, until they go up to type 4 body armor, then we'll need more M82s and maybe some rocket launchers in our schools. Where does this idiocy stop for the people who think guns solve problems?
 
2012-12-28 03:54:49 PM  

vudukungfu: . firefly212: Whenever a prisoner gets out of control, let alone becomes armed, it's a process failure... contrary to the fail in this thread, prisoners getting subdued or killed after getting out of control and becoming armed is proof that something's wrong, not that everything is alright.

You must have gone to the NS Sherlock Police academy


Considering the number of people in this thread cheering for how three officers shot and a dead prisoner is proof the system works, it seems that the obvious is rather elusive to some.
 
2012-12-28 03:56:39 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: honestly, thanks for posting that. My opinion at the time was that the police in Columbine were the most cowardly people to ever put on a uniform, and each officer on site that didn't immediately enter that building should have lost his or her badge. I'm glad to see immediate entry tactics are being trained implemented.


The first officer was on scene about 4 minutes after they started shooting. He was engaged by Harris almost immediately and exchanged fire for a few minutes until he got some supporting fire from another officer forcing harris to retreat. The first officer was something like 60yds away over open ground with just a pistol confronting someone with a rifle. He would have never made it to the school even if he tried. They then set up a perimeter and waited for SWAT per the playbook.

The protocol has changed dramatically. Individual officers run into the building without support and start taking ground. Move as fast as possible to sounds of violence, bypassing the wounded, and make them fight you instead.
 
2012-12-28 04:00:18 PM  

firefly212: shiatty coincidences happen


No, that's what they want us to believe. It's actually all part of the conspiracy to get Obama elected, and reelected, and grab all the guns.
 
2012-12-28 04:04:27 PM  

firefly212: Where does this idiocy stop for the people who think guns solve problems?


Perhaps guns don't solve the problem, but barring sane individuals from possessing them won't either. There is no real answer other than to allow people the option of carrying them, and hoping the "unknown" aspect will be deterrent enough for a would be mass murderer.
 
2012-12-28 04:08:51 PM  
This happened because of police-related video games.
 
2012-12-28 04:11:19 PM  

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: firefly212: Where does this idiocy stop for the people who think guns solve problems?

Perhaps guns don't solve the problem, but barring sane individuals from possessing them won't either. There is no real answer other than to allow people the option of carrying them, and hoping the "unknown" aspect will be deterrent enough for a would be mass murderer.


There is no such thing as a deterrent for these people.
Notice that most of the people who commit mass shootings kill themselves, or just let the cops kill them?
If there had been an armed guard at Sandy Hook, the shooter would have either shot that guy first or just avoided him.
 
2012-12-28 04:15:32 PM  

Begoggle: This happened because of police-related video games.


I blame it on the movie "Bad Lieutenant"
 
2012-12-28 04:36:55 PM  

Bontesla: 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.


So what you are saying is that someone at sometime claims that the mere presence of guns would act as a deterrent to incidents, and this notion established some goalposts, and now they have moved the goal posts by pointing out that it was the use of guns that stopped this particular attack? Who is this strange official goal post setting person you have been having this odd argument with? Because if the idea is that someone was suggesting each and every shooting incident was and will be performed by a rational shooter, be influenced by identical motivators, and respond with a choice to not start shooting the place up, then I would like to meet this person. Because they sound crazy. Maybe you could just give me a link to their comment and I can send them a message.
 
2012-12-28 05:15:12 PM  

firefly212: MisterRonbo: 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.

lol, if he ducks, you're not shooting through that engine with an AR-15, I'd put good money on him being smart enough to duck, and you being dumb enough to stand there with your low caliber weapon... advantage: him.


Even if he ducked down there is a fairly good chance that he might get hit. Bullets drop as they hit a windshield from the outside. This is due to the curve of the glass. I know this because i've shot windshields with multiple types of handguns/rifles. Also not watching where he is driving while ducked down, with glass flying around, would make it hard to hit a moving target.

The likely hood of a .223/5.56 round going through a engine block are remote; the fire wall would not stop a bullet from getting into the cab though (the entire engine compartment is not engine block). Depending on the type of bullet, green tip, steel core etc... it might do enough damage to stop the vehicle. I also doubt he has solid rubber tires. A blow out could, depending on his driving ability. cause the truck to turn exposing the soft aluminum doors.

/work at a gun range
//don't have many police come and train during off hours
///CLEET qualification is a joke. Have heard of officers trying to bribe there way into qualifying. You can miss 6 shots completely and still qualify. Have seen many officers take the test multiple times because they could not qualify.
////CCW only require 50 rounds fired down range and you don't have to hit the target.... from 3 and 5 yards.....
//it's old, but still, banning guns is a slippery slope to banning everything.... UK wants to ban long kitchen knives There has been talk of banning bats too.....
 
2012-12-28 06:26:04 PM  

WRXminion: ////CCW only require 50 rounds fired down range and you don't have to hit the target.... from 3 and 5 yards.....


Ha! Not in Florida. You fire ONE round, at a man-size target that's about five feet away. All they care is that you keep the weapon pointed downrange, and don't put your finger on the trigger until you're pointing at the target.
 
2012-12-28 06:29:55 PM  

Callous: 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.


It's amazing that he was able to exchange fire with the shooters if he wasn't there. Link. He's credited with saving lives by doing so, too.
 
2012-12-28 06:30:12 PM  

firefly212:
lol, if he ducks, you're not shooting through that engine with an AR-15, I'd put good money on him being smart enough to duck, and you being dumb enough to stand there with your low caliber weapon... advantage: him.


As I said, I'm standing behind the goal post (or anything else that keeps the truck from merely mowing me over). Guess what, the door and truck bed provide about as much cover as tissue paper. And thanks to his choosing a truck rather than a car, he's sitting higher and the door doesn't even have side-impact beams. Advantage: me

I'd actually be willing to try this experiment. Have to go to a jurisdiction with....affordable officials. The PPV revenues would be through the roof.
 
2012-12-28 06:56:48 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: I'll bet it was one day before one of the cop's retirement, too. Those guys should know better than to show up on their last day.


Especially if they've been whining for years that they're "too old for this shiat".
 
2012-12-28 07:27:51 PM  

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


My thought as well. Yes, that officer(and likely many others) either need to attend refresher retention training or get a better retention holster*.

But we have 3 injured, not 20 dead. It's a heck of a lot better situation.

*A holster designed to keep the gun in it unless you know the trick, which is normally designed to be easy for somebody knowing the trick that is wearing the holster, but highly difficult for anybody else. It's supposed to work at least long enough for retention training to kick in and the officer to beat the ass of the person trying to take his or her gun away. Seeing as how they're busy trying for the gun rather than kicking the officer's ass. If the officer's ass is pre-beaten, of course, he's already screwed.

Nem Wan: The shooter took a cop's gun. Nobody would be able to get a gun from a teacher.


The threat is actually different between a CCW holder and a Cop. Cops are expected to take suspects alive, physically grappling if necessary with an openly carried weapon on their hip. Ideally the criminal shouldn't even know the CCWing teacher has a gun, much less where it is and how to get to it. The teacher doesn't have to grapple with the criminal, merely shoot.

Coco LaFemme: Yup. Though I'd like to see something empirical that says over 500 people have died of the flu in the last three weeks.


Just because I'm interested: ~25k-36k deaths a year(highly variable), that's 481-692 deaths per week, so yeah, it's fairly safe to say that 'over 500 people have died of the flu in the last three weeks'.

KIA: In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996. Other sources suggest that as much as 90% of all firearms offenses are committed by people with prior criminal convictions.


Yeah, this is one of the things that most don't realize on a conscious basis - most of the VICTIMS of murder are criminals themselves, often over criminal disputes. That 90% is not just 'by' criminals, they're being used against other criminals at equally high rates. I think that's part of why people concentrate on spree killers so much - as a non-criminal I'm as safe from murder as I would be in Europe. Relatively speaking, I'm more at risk from a spree killer than somebody who's a criminal themselves, or living in a bad area.
 
2012-12-28 07:33:59 PM  
Remember, unless you enter law enforcement, you're a hapless victim. Cops are the only variable that should be discussed.

Unless you go to Arizona, where "[Loughner] was arrested after being detained by bystanders,[5][60][61] and police later released his name and details."

Those farkers have guns!
 
2012-12-28 07:35:09 PM  

nubzers: 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.


If healthy and not high, yes tasers and pepper spray are decent enough deterrents. However, pepper spray has been proven that there are nasty and potentially fatal side effects to someone with a respiratory condition (particularly asthma), and tasers can be deadly to someone in a drug-induced state. Plus, depending on the drug, neither have an effect. I remember seeing an episode of a guy high on some drug first getting sprayed, then tasered, then finally dog-piled by 5-6 cops, because the taser and the spray had little effect.

/try tear gas.... no fun at all.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 08:10:36 PM  

The Larch: CDC estimates that there are approximately 36,000 flu deaths per year in the United States, and about 32,000 firearm deaths per year.


The "firearms deaths" include a huge number of suicides and a small number of accidents. However, nobody is wetting their pants over suicides. The media is terrorizing people about "mass shootings" which are firearm homicides. All firearm homicides, including mass shootings in 2011 were 11,493.

If you want flu deaths to be more than three times the number of firearms homicides, fine. Whatever.
 
KIA
2012-12-28 08:15:07 PM  

Chinchillazilla: The Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment when guns were slightly more effective at killing people than a slingshot.


Wow. This is what they are teaching nowadays?
 
2012-12-28 08:29:43 PM  
I never knew that .75 caliber and .62 caliber bullets were so wimpy.
 
2012-12-28 08:52:01 PM  

MisterRonbo: WRXminion: ////CCW only require 50 rounds fired down range and you don't have to hit the target.... from 3 and 5 yards.....

Ha! Not in Florida. You fire ONE round, at a man-size target that's about five feet away. All they care is that you keep the weapon pointed downrange, and don't put your finger on the trigger until you're pointing at the target.


CCW classes are not meant to be shooting classes. They are mostly just to inform what the law concerning CCW is. We always recommend firearms training classes to everyone who takes our CCW class.

Most people who a get CCW from us either have training/get training or don't follow through on the CCW prossess. I would say majority of CCW holders know enough to save their life/those around them. If a teacher opted to get a CCW, I know a few in my area that carry even when the school has baned it, they will probably get the training to shoot the assalent and not little Timmy.

/the mall gunman shot himself once a CCW carrying shopper drew down on him
//Mississippi school shooter was taken down by the assistant principle. Who would have saved more people had he not needed to go to his car to get his .45
 
2012-12-28 09:22:21 PM  
This new moral panic is the shiznit.
 
2012-12-28 09:36:03 PM  
Are the libs gonna start shouting for the cops to be disarmed now?
 
2012-12-28 09:41:08 PM  

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


Except that we're always told that the mere presence of a gun will be enough to serve as a deterrent to any potential shooter.  We've had a couple of incidents over the last couple of weeks to suggest that that isn't necessarily true.
 
2012-12-28 10:44:35 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Are the libs gonna start shouting for the cops to be disarmed now?


There are some Ron Paul-loving NRA-member Tea-Party gun-toting folks out there who would heartily agree with the notion of disarming cops.

/trust me, I just got done with the holiday family get-togethers
 
2012-12-28 11:05:26 PM  
Mentat: Except that we're always told that the mere presence of a gun will be enough to serve as a deterrent to any potential shooter.  We've had a couple of incidents over the last couple of weeks to suggest that that isn't necessarily true.

Because a guy taking a cops weapon and shooting at several of them obviously wasn't trying to die. Because this happened during processing and he was already being arrested for something, there's no way this could have been a suicide-by-cop. Not saying that the presence of a gun will deter anybody from going on some sort of a shooting/murder spree, but judging by the presence of serial killers and other mass murderers in the past, some people are just going to end up doing something like this anyways. If they can't do it with a gun, they'll do it with explosives, or a car, or a lawn mower, or a sledgehammer, etc. Disarming isn't the answer, neither is arming anybody more heavily. There isn't really a solution to human nature, so all you can really do is protect yourself to the point where you feel adequately prepared to deal with a situation, not get yourself into the kind of trouble that would push you over the edge and into a violent shooting spree, and hope that if you find yourself in that much trouble you're able to remain level-headed enough to stop yourself from going on a rampage. Not that hard, people.
 
2012-12-28 11:36:30 PM  
told ya so

i.imgur.com
mall, copshop whatever...

remember kids, GUNMERICA! THE ENVY OF THE WORLD!
 
2012-12-29 01:57:08 AM  
No if the police weren't armed the 30 people would have been shot instead of 3.
 
2012-12-29 04:23:05 AM  

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

Except that we're always told that the mere presence of a gun will be enough to serve as a deterrent to any potential shooter.  We've had a couple of incidents over the last couple of weeks to suggest that that isn't necessarily true.


Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary. I'd recommend you look up the word "deterrent."
 
2012-12-29 09:48:06 AM  
why would anyone shoot a cop of all people. they are the nicest folk around
 
2012-12-29 10:52:49 AM  

bulldg4life: police officers that are ... highly regulated


By definition, police are not highly regulated. A good amount of laws have an addendum that says something along the lines of,
(f) none of the above criminal charges apply if you are a police officer.
So whatever regulations there are on police officers, there are more on the average civilian.
 
Displayed 50 of 555 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report