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.

(My Fox Detroit)   Detroit high school coach shows how a good guy with a gun on campus can stop a bad guy with a gun   (myfoxdetroit.com) divider line 576
    More: Hero, MLK High School, Detroit, Martin Luther King, St. Clair Shores, video player  
•       •       •

22754 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Feb 2013 at 7:38 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



576 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
 
2013-02-03 08:20:46 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Why did he shoot the unarmed kid? Is it legal to shoot an unarmed person in Michigan because they were with an armed person attempting to rob you? When I took the class for my CCW here in Cali, we were told we couldn't shoot people who were unarmed and/or posed no immediate threat. We have to BE threatened, not simply FEEL threatened.

/curious about the laws there about this sort of thing.


One of the kids pulled a gun, says TFA.  It doesn't say the other kid was unarmed.

Later reports clarify that only one kid was expelled, and his mother denies that.

This is a Fox station, remember.
 
2013-02-03 08:21:20 PM  
The coach it would seem was possibly violating the law by possessing a weapon on school grounds.

Has he been investigated?
 
2013-02-03 08:22:16 PM  

whidbey: FatherChaos: Reported by Fox News.  Why am I not surprised?

I suppose there's a War on the Elderly now.  Or War on Coaches?  War on SOMETHING?

In b4  durrr it isn't Fox News, it's one of their AFFILIATES.


Just so people can't blame this on the affiliate station, the Foxnews.com article links to the same page.
 
2013-02-03 08:22:58 PM  

doglover: Also, glorify suicide like Japanese culture does. In America, people go on sprees. In Japan, those same people jump under trains or off buildings. Their suicide rate and homicide rate are the opposite of ours. Why? Suicide's a sexy way out. Many great stories and examples. Spread it around in the US. Teach people suicide is painless, and they can take or leave it if they choose. Get some of these crazies to put themselves in the ground before their little gardens of evil bear any bitter fruit.


I'll support this, but can we glorify it in such a way that discourages the use of Mass Transit as the means? I really hate that shiat.
 
2013-02-03 08:24:18 PM  
The uncomfortable truth about firearms is that some people just NEED KILLING.
 
2013-02-03 08:25:31 PM  

FatherChaos: whidbey: FatherChaos: Reported by Fox News.  Why am I not surprised?

I suppose there's a War on the Elderly now.  Or War on Coaches?  War on SOMETHING?

In b4  durrr it isn't Fox News, it's one of their AFFILIATES.

Just so people can't blame this on the affiliate station, the Foxnews.com article links to the same page.


Can't speak for other cities, but Fox News 13 in Seattle comes off just as plasticine and hyper-moralistic as the parent organization.
 
2013-02-03 08:25:34 PM  

pedrop357: Short of a full out ban and confiscation on firearms, what do you propose to save even 1 or 2 a day?


Personally I support an almost full gun ban similar to other countries. Cops could have them, and maybe hunters and target shooters could have some limited, highly restricted and monitored access, but that's about it.

Even with a full ban/confiscation, our non-firearm murder rate suggests that most of those would still happen by other means.

That's like arguing child porn would still exist even without the internet, therefore the government shouldn't try to make it harder for pedos to swap porn online.

It is a SHIATLOAD harder to kill people with knives than guns, and certainly no one would ever be able to take out dozens of people in one go
 
2013-02-03 08:26:49 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Gdalescrboz: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass

Those twenty kids in Newtown were sure precisely targeted.

How many people must a weapon be capable of killing before it is "indiscriminate"?


You don't know what indiscriminate means do you?
 
2013-02-03 08:28:09 PM  
dookdookdook:

It is a SHIATLOAD harder to kill people with knives than guns, and certainly no one would ever be able to take out dozens of people in one go

But it is a hell of a lot easier to kill that bastard with the knife if you're packing.
 
2013-02-03 08:29:48 PM  

Gdalescrboz: I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass


Simple.

The argument made from the right is that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invading country.  Since the arms gap between the average national army and the average citizen militia has widened astronomically since the American Revolution, the only logical conclusion of this interpretation of 2A is that the citizenry has a constitutional right to arm itself on a par with the military.
 
2013-02-03 08:30:12 PM  

pedrop357: BarkingUnicorn: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

What is wrong with your Google fu, guys?  The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is still in effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez


Act was amended to get around that.  It's still in effect and numerous lower courts have upheld it.  It's not moving towards the SCOTUS.
 
2013-02-03 08:31:20 PM  

Azlefty: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297
No, good guys 2,500.000

Your side should start taking the score of the good guys also!


No lib has that kind of integrity
 
2013-02-03 08:32:30 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: Short of a full out ban and confiscation on firearms, what do you propose to save even 1 or 2 a day?

Personally I support an almost full gun ban similar to other countries. Cops could have them, and maybe hunters and target shooters could have some limited, highly restricted and monitored access, but that's about it.

Even with a full ban/confiscation, our non-firearm murder rate suggests that most of those would still happen by other means.

That's like arguing child porn would still exist even without the internet, therefore the government shouldn't try to make it harder for pedos to swap porn online.

It is a SHIATLOAD harder to kill people with knives than guns, and certainly no one would ever be able to take out dozens of people in one go


Why would cops still need them?

Mass homicides are less than 1% of all homicides.

Technically speaking, the government does not make it harder for people to swap child porn online-there are no background checks, no waiting periods, inspection, etc.  only after-the-fact enforcement which more analogous to laws forbidding discharge in city limits, assault, brandishing, etc.
 
2013-02-03 08:32:40 PM  

BigNumber12: dookdookdook: Haha, sure. "Gang violence" totally isn't a code word for "Black people".

It certainly seems to be in your mind. FYI, there are large numbers of Hispanic, Asian, and White gangs as well.

[i660.photobucket.com image 344x226]


What a white gang may look like:
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-03 08:32:50 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

To the best of my knowledge, ALL schools are gun free zones. I think he did the right think, I also think he should be charged, too.

pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

Tons of shiat isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I suppose you should quit the internet, it isn't mentioned. Fark off.


Time for some Civics 101, which you should've learned in middle school.  The Constitution is a grant of powers.  If the Constitution doesn't say the federal government can do something, then the federal government can't do it.

Time for some Civics 201.  The Supreme Court has expressly held that the federal government does NOT have the power to make possession of a gun on school grounds a crime.  The state can.  The federal government cannot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Read it.  Left to right, letters form words, words make sentences, sentences create paragraphs.


This is why we cannot have a discussion on gun control.  Because just about everyone in the discussion doesn't even know the MOST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS IT IS A GRANT OF POWERS.
 
2013-02-03 08:33:30 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Act was amended to get around that. It's still in effect and numerous lower courts have upheld it. It's not moving towards the SCOTUS.


What court decisions have upheld it?  To my knowledge, the GFSZA of 1996 has yet to be used to prosecute anyone.
 
2013-02-03 08:35:39 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: pedrop357: BarkingUnicorn: pedrop357: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Why?

What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to make such a law?

What is wrong with your Google fu, guys?  The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is still in effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Act was amended to get around that.  It's still in effect and numerous lower courts have upheld it.  It's not moving towards the SCOTUS.


SCOTUS is also not a court of justice.  If the lower courts uphold it and there is not a split, the supreme court will not hear it.
 
2013-02-03 08:36:14 PM  

BigNumber12: doglover: Also, glorify suicide like Japanese culture does. In America, people go on sprees. In Japan, those same people jump under trains or off buildings. Their suicide rate and homicide rate are the opposite of ours. Why? Suicide's a sexy way out. Many great stories and examples. Spread it around in the US. Teach people suicide is painless, and they can take or leave it if they choose. Get some of these crazies to put themselves in the ground before their little gardens of evil bear any bitter fruit.

I'll support this, but can we glorify it in such a way that discourages the use of Mass Transit as the means? I really hate that shiat.


My solution for Japan? Fire hoses and not stopping the train. People wouldn't pick the train if they knew no one would be inconvenienced.
 
2013-02-03 08:36:24 PM  

dookdookdook: Simple.

The argument made from the right is that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invading country. Since the arms gap between the average national army and the average citizen militia has widened astronomically since the American Revolution, the only logical conclusion of this interpretation of 2A is that the citizenry has a constitutional right to arm itself on a par with the military.


I agree.  Anything a cop, soldier, or police department can own, possess, carry, etc. should be legal to be owned, possessed, carried byt the people who give them their power in the first place ie., US.  This would mean full auto, short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors (which are actually unregulated in New Zealand, France, Norway, and Finland), explosives like grenades and flashbangs, etc.
 
2013-02-03 08:37:15 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: pedrop357: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Why did he shoot the unarmed kid? Is it legal to shoot an unarmed person in Michigan because they were with an armed person attempting to rob you? When I took the class for my CCW here in Cali, we were told we couldn't shoot people who were unarmed and/or posed no immediate threat. We have to BE threatened, not simply FEEL threatened.

/curious about the laws there about this sort of thing.

An unarmed person CAN be a threat under many circumstances.

Yeah, I've had that conversation with someone before. We both came to the conclusion that anyone, anywhere CAN be a threat at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. He decided that meant it was OK to shoot someone if you FELT threatened. I decided I would try and retreat to safety (just as I was taught) and only fire on an unarmed person if I had no other choice. He doesn't have a CCW, though, so it won't be an issue for him, most likely. He actually failed the test when he took it. Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure he's the same friend of a friend who failed the HSC test the first time he took it, too. Hmmm...


In this case, both boys were acting together to commit a crime.  If the armed one killed somebody, both could be convicted of murder.  See "felony murder."  It's entirely consistent to view both as one deadly threat even if only one was armed.
 
2013-02-03 08:39:47 PM  

pedrop357: Why would cops still need them?


Meh, I'm not necessarily against banning them for cops as well.

Mass homicides are less than 1% of all homicides.

And 9/11 accounted for about 2% of all homicides over the decade 2000-2009, but it accounted for about 99.999% of all the spending pursuing murder suspects over that time.

Or are you now arguing that the murder of 20 5-year olds deserve no more attention than the murder of 20 gang members?

Technically speaking, the government does not make it harder for people to swap child porn online-there are no background checks, no waiting periods, inspection, etc. only after-the-fact enforcement which more analogous to laws forbidding discharge in city limits, assault, brandishing, etc.

Right, so if there were no laws governing child porn online, it would be exactly as hard to come by, and people would still need to use Darknet and pay with Bitcoins.
 
2013-02-03 08:41:30 PM  

Gdalescrboz: Wolf_Blitzer: Gdalescrboz: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass

Those twenty kids in Newtown were sure precisely targeted.

How many people must a weapon be capable of killing before it is "indiscriminate"?

You don't know what indiscriminate means do you?


You seem to think guns never miss. I suggest you stop playing Call of Duty and go spend some time at the range with real ones.
 
2013-02-03 08:41:49 PM  

dookdookdook: Technically speaking, the government does not make it harder for people to swap child porn online-there are no background checks, no waiting periods, inspection, etc. only after-the-fact enforcement which more analogous to laws forbidding discharge in city limits, assault, brandishing, etc.

Right, so if there were no laws governing child porn online, it would be exactly as hard to come by, and people would still need to use Darknet and pay with Bitcoins.


People hide their child porn trading because if they are caught AFTER trading it, they will be prosecuted.
 
2013-02-03 08:42:26 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: Why would cops still need them?

Meh, I'm not necessarily against banning them for cops as well.

Mass homicides are less than 1% of all homicides.

And 9/11 accounted for about 2% of all homicides over the decade 2000-2009, but it accounted for about 99.999% of all the spending pursuing murder suspects over that time.

Or are you now arguing that the murder of 20 5-year olds deserve no more attention than the murder of 20 gang members?

Technically speaking, the government does not make it harder for people to swap child porn online-there are no background checks, no waiting periods, inspection, etc. only after-the-fact enforcement which more analogous to laws forbidding discharge in city limits, assault, brandishing, etc.

Right, so if there were no laws governing child porn online, it would be exactly as hard to come by, and people would still need to use Darknet and pay with Bitcoins.


You know an awful lot about childporn on line.
 
2013-02-03 08:43:39 PM  
Why is this story in the Politics tab?

Are we going to start posting every shooting on Fark/politics now?

You know, including the many hundreds where the good guys don't win?

Or don't they count because they don't feed into the right wing's fairy tales?
 
2013-02-03 08:44:21 PM  

Yogimus: You know an awful lot about childporn on line.


If you posted on 4chan for 8 years, you'd know a lot about it too.
 
2013-02-03 08:45:47 PM  

pedrop357: People hide their child porn trading because if they are caught AFTER trading it, they will be prosecuted.


The incentive not to get caught makes it harder to trade child porn.

Do you not understand the basic concepts behind having laws against things?
 
2013-02-03 08:46:11 PM  

Gdalescrboz: Wolf_Blitzer: Gdalescrboz: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass

Those twenty kids in Newtown were sure precisely targeted.

How many people must a weapon be capable of killing before it is "indiscriminate"?

You don't know what indiscriminate means do you?


It means a weapon doesn't give a shiat who it kills.  They're all indiscriminate.

The crew of the Enola Gay didn't care who they killed, as long as they were in Hiroshima.  Lanza didn't care who he killed as long as they were inside the school.  They were indiscriminate about who they killed.
 
2013-02-03 08:46:39 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: Short of a full out ban and confiscation on firearms, what do you propose to save even 1 or 2 a day?


Personally I support an almost full gun ban similar to other countries. Cops could have them, and maybe hunters and target shooters could have some limited, highly restricted and monitored access, but that's about it.


You know instead of changing the Constitution to suit your little snowflakeness you could always move to a nice a safe country like ;

Jamaica
Belize
St Kitts
Trinidad and Tobago
Congo
All with murder rates 6X higher than the US
 
2013-02-03 08:47:25 PM  

pedrop357: dookdookdook: Simple.

The argument made from the right is that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invading country. Since the arms gap between the average national army and the average citizen militia has widened astronomically since the American Revolution, the only logical conclusion of this interpretation of 2A is that the citizenry has a constitutional right to arm itself on a par with the military.

I agree.  Anything a cop, soldier, or police department can own, possess, carry, etc. should be legal to be owned, possessed, carried byt the people who give them their power in the first place ie., US.  This would mean full auto, short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors (which are actually unregulated in New Zealand, France, Norway, and Finland), explosives like grenades and flashbangs, etc.


I still want a minigun chambered for .22 shells. Y'know just for kicks. Piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!
 
2013-02-03 08:49:03 PM  

pedrop357: dookdookdook: 34 corpses a day isn't the same as one guy choking to death on a peanut.

Stop making stupid arguments.

Short of a full out ban and confiscation on firearms, what do you propose to save even 1 or 2 a day?

Even with a full ban/confiscation, our non-firearm murder rate suggests that most of those would still happen by other means.


I think it's a cultural problem more than anything. When I was growing up and was dumped with the Norwegian relatives every summer, it was rare to hear about a murder. Still is, I think. I saw the per capita by country murder rates one or two times (I think it was from the World Fact Book or something), and I think the US murder rate (per capita) is about 10 times that of Norway. I know Norway is a wealthy country, but I grew up being told the US was wealthy as well. I've also heard the "causes" of high murder rates being everything from poverty to lack of education (which pretty much go hand in hand anyway) to the "nature vs nurture" argument to "GAWD is soooo mad you guize!" (WTF???) and probably everything in between.

There's just something in our culture that encourages, or at least excuses in the mind of the offender, this sort of behavior, I think. What it is, I do not know. I do know a gun ban/confiscation will not work and is unconstitutional. I also know not trying to do something because "it's going to happen anyway" is a defeatist attitude I just can't get behind. There are a lot of things that are going to happen anyway, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try and stop or minimize them by addressing the underlying issues - if we can identify them.
 
2013-02-03 08:49:11 PM  
America, I'm sad that there's such a thing as carry permits of any kind, yes i understand when there is genuine need for it, but to have anyone needing it is sad case of affairs

/good for the old guy, serves the idiots right
//I love me my guns, but find it's ridiculous how America goes about it, it ain't the time of cowboys and Indians
 
2013-02-03 08:49:20 PM  

pedrop357: Technically speaking, the government does not make it harder for people to swap child porn online-there are no background checks, no waiting periods, inspection, etc. only after-the-fact enforcement which more analogous to laws forbidding discharge in city limits, assault, brandishing, etc.


The very manufacture or possession of child porn is itself 100% illegal. The proper analogy would be banning gun factories.
 
2013-02-03 08:49:27 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: People hide their child porn trading because if they are caught AFTER trading it, they will be prosecuted.

The incentive not to get caught makes it harder to trade child porn.

Do you not understand the basic concepts behind having laws against things?


Sure.  BUT, it's in an invalid comparison to gun control.  UNLESS, you're interested in gun control as end unto itself.

Gun control as it relates to crime is more analogous to requiring background checks before one posts, or requiring inspection of anything posted prior to being allowed to post in order to prevent the distribution of child porn, or threats to the president, etc.
 
2013-02-03 08:49:52 PM  
Did they just fail in that cut on TV or was that just the stream?
 
2013-02-03 08:50:37 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: pedrop357: Technically speaking, the government does not make it harder for people to swap child porn online-there are no background checks, no waiting periods, inspection, etc. only after-the-fact enforcement which more analogous to laws forbidding discharge in city limits, assault, brandishing, etc.

The very manufacture or possession of child porn is itself 100% illegal. The proper analogy would be banning gun factories.


Leave him alone he didnt think it through.
 
2013-02-03 08:51:13 PM  
Whoops, wrong thread.
 
2013-02-03 08:51:32 PM  

pedrop357: dookdookdook: Simple.

The argument made from the right is that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invading country. Since the arms gap between the average national army and the average citizen militia has widened astronomically since the American Revolution, the only logical conclusion of this interpretation of 2A is that the citizenry has a constitutional right to arm itself on a par with the military.

I agree.  Anything a cop, soldier, or police department can own, possess, carry, etc. should be legal to be owned, possessed, carried byt the people who give them their power in the first place ie., US.  This would mean full auto, short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors (which are actually unregulated in New Zealand, France, Norway, and Finland), explosives like grenades and flashbangs, etc.


Please, get on the rooftops with a bullhorn and tell your neighbors this. You'll do more to help gun control than that nut LaPierre ever could.
 
2013-02-03 08:52:14 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Gdalescrboz: Wolf_Blitzer: Gdalescrboz: SpdrJay: Think of how many muggings we could stop if everyone had their own tactical nuke!

I don't get the nuke argument the left makes. A gun is a precision weapon, a nuke kills indiscriminately. If the left cant see the difference between gun ownership and nuke ownership, their deep has reached critical mass

Those twenty kids in Newtown were sure precisely targeted.

How many people must a weapon be capable of killing before it is "indiscriminate"?

You don't know what indiscriminate means do you?

You seem to think guns never miss. I suggest you stop playing Call of Duty and go spend some time at the range with real ones.


Ok so you don't know what indiscriminate means. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2013-02-03 08:53:19 PM  

Dhusk: Why is this story in the Politics tab?

Are we going to start posting every shooting on Fark/politics now?

You know, including the many hundreds where the good guys don't win?

Or don't they count because they don't feed into the right wing's fairy tales?


Interesting projection there since it is the left that ignores all of the times firearms are used to protect self or others, since that doesn't feed into the lefts paranoia and creates less bodies for them to stand on when they push their agenda!
 
2013-02-03 08:53:24 PM  
"Hero" tag? Really??
 
2013-02-03 08:53:31 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.


Violating the Constitution should be a federal offense.
 
2013-02-03 08:53:44 PM  

dookdookdook: pedrop357: But, it's a hell of a dodge to suggest that a substantial amount of our crime is not drug related, OR to pretend that drug and gang related violence only involves black people.

Haha, sure.  "Gang violence" totally isn't a code word for "Black people".

[www.michaelekbundit.com image 250x167]


You'd better hope the Latino and Asian gangs don't hear your race-baiting ass saying they don't get violent.  If they decide to prove you wrong you'll probably wish you'd gotten a pistol permit.
 
2013-02-03 08:54:29 PM  

Gdalescrboz: Ok so you don't know what indiscriminate means. Thanks for clearing that up.


I know what "idiot" means, its going right next to your handle.
 
2013-02-03 08:55:16 PM  

dookdookdook: FYI other countries have gangs too.

You can't make the argument "Well the American murder rate would be as low as England's murder rate if we factored out all our blacks and mexicans and gangs and schizophrenics (while not doing the same thing for England) therefore Real America doesn't actually have a gun violence problem".


Um... you're not actually arguing with what I said. I didn't make that argument.
 
2013-02-03 08:55:24 PM  

Saturn5: AverageAmericanGuy: Carrying a gun into a school should be a federal offense.

Violating the Constitution should be a federal offense.


See, it's 200 years old and is different now from what it was then, so that means that the government can do whatever it things is right.  Ignore all those amendments that actually made it different, those were just formalities that can be done by legislation now.
 
2013-02-03 08:56:06 PM  

Jim_Callahan: cretinbob: Goody Guys 1 Bad Guys 297

As we tend to point out in every one of these threads, defensive uses of firearms actually outnumber gun-related crimes by an order of magnitude or two. Albeit, most DGUs do not actually end in someone getting shot, because non-criminals tend to prefer not to fire unless they absolutely have to.

//Though, in all fairness to the criminals, many gun-related crimes don't involve them actually shooting someone, either.


Self-reported DGUs outnumber gun-related crimes by an order of magnitude.  A DOJ study  http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf found them to be much rarer, based upon actual crime data.  Since legitimate uses of the "self-defense" provision of homicide law are EXTREMELY rare (about 200 per year), it's likely that the difference between legitimate uses and stated uses is quite overstated, or that DGUs are somewhere in the order of 1 to 6 compared to actual crimes.  To work out the math according to the Kleck figure, one in four hundred guns is used defensively every year. That passes the smell test? The 97 survey above says that 14 million adults carried, and if we adjust that by the guns figure (they place it at 190 million compared to 2010 figures of about 300 million), then maybe 20 million adults carry nowadays. One in twenty of them used their gun this year? Wow.
 
2013-02-03 08:56:36 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Real Women Drink Akvavit: pedrop357: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Why did he shoot the unarmed kid? Is it legal to shoot an unarmed person in Michigan because they were with an armed person attempting to rob you? When I took the class for my CCW here in Cali, we were told we couldn't shoot people who were unarmed and/or posed no immediate threat. We have to BE threatened, not simply FEEL threatened.

/curious about the laws there about this sort of thing.

An unarmed person CAN be a threat under many circumstances.

Yeah, I've had that conversation with someone before. We both came to the conclusion that anyone, anywhere CAN be a threat at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. He decided that meant it was OK to shoot someone if you FELT threatened. I decided I would try and retreat to safety (just as I was taught) and only fire on an unarmed person if I had no other choice. He doesn't have a CCW, though, so it won't be an issue for him, most likely. He actually failed the test when he took it. Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure he's the same friend of a friend who failed the HSC test the first time he took it, too. Hmmm...

In this case, both boys were acting together to commit a crime.  If the armed one killed somebody, both could be convicted of murder.  See "felony murder."  It's entirely consistent to view both as one deadly threat even if only one was armed.


I forgot all about that bit of law in the US. My cop dramas have failed me by not pounding it into my head hard enough. DAMN YOU, LAW AND ORDER FRANCHISE!!! DAMN YOU STRAIGHT TO TARTARUS!!elebenty!

/did forget about that bit of law, so thanks for the reminder
//just curious how this will play out since the coach ended up being the shooter, not the wannabe felons
 
2013-02-03 08:56:44 PM  

LeGnome: "Hero" tag? Really??


Yeah. Subby wants the entire populace armed. So he can go have a beer with them and pat them on the back for being patriots, ostensibly.
 
2013-02-03 08:56:44 PM  

BigNumber12: dookdookdook: FYI other countries have gangs too.

You can't make the argument "Well the American murder rate would be as low as England's murder rate if we factored out all our blacks and mexicans and gangs and schizophrenics (while not doing the same thing for England) therefore Real America doesn't actually have a gun violence problem".

Um... you're not actually arguing with what I said. I didn't make that argument.


Like a lot of anti-gun types in these threads, he/she has a nice a strawman collection and they're going to show them off DAMMIT!
 
Displayed 50 of 576 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