Oh noes, are you going to quit this thread? Again, that is? Silly little douchebag.
This guy shot two of the first three officers in the head and kept officers from approaching the wounded officers until they brought in an armored SWAT vehicle.
That’s what’s being reported. Why? Do you have proof to the contrary?
Ooooh, going all caps on me now. You’re a real rough customer, aren’t you?
This asshole laid in wait with an AK47 and caused the greatest single day loss the city has ever seen. I’d call that going to war with them. Does that get you all excited, like an action movie?
Yes I was. And I was wrong because this happened after the release of the movie. Of course, it’s Hollywoods fault. And the guns they used were blameless and totally irrelevant.
Well, as it happens, because I was sentenced to 3 years at the age of 17, I am banned from owning a gun for life here in the UK. Which, as I have never wanted to shoot anything really anyway, suits me fine.
And as for anything you know about my personality, all I have given you is a no-frills, non-glamorous account of some of my mistakes in a previous lifetime, and you think you can sit there and judge me on it?
Well, Mr-Hard-Ass-Second-Rate-Eliot-Ness-Wannabe, everytime you respond to one of my posts, you make an even bigger cunt of yourself*, so you carry on!
No it doesn’t. That same spree could have easily been carried out with a .38 pistol and three well placed shots. The fact that they were armed and trained does NOT mean they were ready and careful. This guy had the drop on them, in theory, he could have used a fucking trebuchet to kill the next person that walked through the door. The call was for (so I’ve read) a verbal domestic dispute. If you’ve responded to one of these, you’ve responded to a thousand of 'em, except for this last one, of course. A certian amount of complacency had a hand in the deaths of these officers as well. Of course, the person at fault is the shooter, not the NRA, not the manufacturer, not gun control advocates, not Barack Obama, the shooter bears sole responsibility for the deaths of the officers.
The 7.62 x 39 round that the “AK” in question uses is not entirely different than any other long rifle round in existance, in that 90% of body armor doesn’t even come CLOSE to being able to stop it. The NIJ Threat level VI vest, which NO cop I know or have ever seen wears, is the only one that will stop a rifle round (166gr 30.06.) with any reliability, and of course, the neck and head aren’t covered, so even a .25 in the hands of someone who knew how to handle it could theoretically have done those officers in.
The underlying idea that guns should be legal at all is that they are first and foremost for the defense of the indivdual and the family. A concept sacrosanct in this country. This concept has been bastardized by the severely right wing and distorted by the severely left wing. When I say defense, I mean it in every sense of the word. From criminals, from thieves, from rapists, from tyrants, from anyone who would do harm to me and to my family and to you and yours.
Secondly, guns are used for hunting. There are places in this country where people hunt to feed their families.
Third and finally, shooting sports as recreation. Many people, including yours truly, enjoy shooting for sport. There comes a sense of accomplishment as well as the acquistion of a useful skill, learning the patience and technique required to hit a target from several hundred feet away.
The concept of an “assault weapon” has been bastardized in the media and the scary black guns that are in news bytes and matrix movies and rap videos and whatnot are no more or less dangerous than Chuck Connors’ Winchester, save for the fact more rounds can come out of them.
We have common sense laws on the books, and they need to be enforced. The only thing we really need to do is close the gun show loophole, make concealed carry a state licensed thing that incurs a yearly federal tax, further, a federal tax on all ammunition of 2% for American made ammo and 3.5% for foreign made ammo. Other than that, the rights of the states trump the rights of the federal government and the rights of the people trumps all.
Until they repeal the 2nd Amendment, guns are here to stay, it’s best to find peace with that.
In a perfect world, Ivan, when you’re not being shot at, that’s the place that ensures the most damage is done and that the target will be stopped. Now, the best you can hope for in many tactically difficult situations like this one clearly was, where emotions run extremely high and can severely effect performance, is to walk away under your own power.
My guess is that cop 3, based on the report of hand wounds, blind fired around the corner for cover and struck the shooter accidentally. If he’d have had a clear shot, my guess is the shooter would be dead.
I keep seeing the comment about the NRA and those who want to have weapons wanting to have current laws repealed. Where do they get that?
I keep seeing people from other countries and other cultures saying that their place is better and implying that all the US of A has to do it do what they do, or change their culture to the same as the one they live with. Where does that come from?
I keep seeing the comment that says we have to have a ‘cite’ to prove that what the media reported is wrong before they can hang their whole argument on it. Where does that come from?
IMO, with the information age as it is (Can’t put that back in the box anymore than we can put any technology back in the box.) the danger of copycat activities all activities of any nature are going to increase dramatically… It is not the fault of the object but it is the normal. “Well, that seems like a great idea and I never would have thought of it if I had not known about it.” that humans do.
I keep seeing statements that all weapon advocates want to arm or to increase firearm possession.
Where do they get that?
I just don’t want mine taken away and since I have been background checked already and have proof of that and already have firearms, why should I have to wait to get another one? See, even though I shouldn’t need to be checked, I have been because it is the law for concealed carry.
So why do so many firearm control advocates want me to not have more than one weak infective firearm? Why do they assume that having 3 long firearms and 2 hand weapons will cause me to, I don’t know, go nuts maybe…??
for the foreseeable future, the people of the US of A will not develop the culture of nor the mind set of Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, or England, what ever, and so there questions and answers need to be about the people here and their mind sets and cultures.
Now, for me, I know of many people, one in my own family, who were murdered with malice of forethought by non family members or close acquaintances by means other that firearms. The victims did not have a firearm on the premises either. I do know that not having a firearm did not make the outcome better. I do not believe that having had a firearm could have made their out come worse.
Of course if you feel that death or any harm being done to the attacker is unacceptable, then we will have to agree to disagree.
Yes, you cannot have a free society without accepting the idea that people may be free to do bad things. The only alternative is complete control and no free people.
The responsibility for individual actions, belongs with the individual. This guy in Penn. got upset apparently because he had an argument with his mother about a dog pissing on the carpet. And he decided to go amok and get his vest on and shoot police officers. It’s common and called ‘suicide by police’, except this guy must have changed his mind and gave up. Because, you see, he wanted someone else to be responsible for the outcome, not him. He probably expeced to be shot ending his participation.
What he decided to do is all him. Not that the state didn’t control his mothers anger, or schools didn’t teach him better, or mental health care in his area failed to serve him.
He is responsible. Every government control, and they are ALL well meaning, removes the responsibility from the individual and places it with the state. And that is just wrong.
This is a strawman in that no one has stated he wasn’t primarily responsible. The state has laws that are in place in an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of people who would use them in this way. They clearly did not work, in this case, and several others this week alone. What is the rational, logical response to that? Give money to an organization that would, if they had their way, have LESS governmental regulations of firearms? Or would it be to look at what we have, and say “What can we do to toughen this?” Throwing our hands in the air and deciding that the fight would be too hard, or that your own personal desire to have access to guns trumps, and is therefore worth the cost of innocent lives is perfectly ok, just be willing to man the fuck up and say so.
Got a cite for that “shoot to kill” in a self defense situation (as opposed to a war)? We do advocate shooting for center of mass (as long as the bad guy isn’t wearing body armor), but law abiding gun owners advocate shooting to stop. Unfortunately, the fastest, surest way to stop someone from doing something is sometimes fatal.
Rather coarsley phrased but I’ll second here. Seems to me the same ridiculous debates pop up any time someone uses a gun to kill someone (yes that’s hyperbole. Settle down). Shit happens. Sometimes the crazies win. Simply putting essentially cosmetic restrictions on firearms won’t keep that from happening.
Not that the whole “lawmakers not knowing a thing about guns” makes a difference. Even if knowledgable lawmakers crafted restrictions based upon rate of fire (too much WoW, almost said dps) or other mechanical means to increase ones killing power, the gun lobby would stomp their little feet about it. Say for example one wanted to ban the .50 Caliber Rifle. This would affect a minimum of gun owners and certainly just a handful of sport shooters. And yet…. There is no real reason for anyone to need to own this weapon (yes, it’s not even practical for crime so thusly no real reason to ban it.), but the NRA is ready to fight for your right to own it. Dare I say that the NRA and groups like it hard line knee jerk stance is what inspires such hard line knee jerk stances (and “gun fetish” pretty much defines jerk) agin’ it.
Off soapbox and on topic, I lay blame on those who push the Obama’s gunna take yer guns agenda. I understand that reasoned political discourse neither sells books nor pushes podcasts (would the listeners be considered pod people?), but let’s not give the crazies any more ammunition than they already have.
Wrong. Heat was not based on anything; it was a complete work of fiction, and there was no event in Los Angeles that inspired it. The movie supposedly inspired the North Hollywood shootout. You have it backwards, I think.
No, but fortunately I’m in the Pit, so I don’t need one.
If you want to chance the search function though, just type “shoot to kill” in, and see how many of the ‘gun experts’ on here mention it in their posts.
All you do, over and over, is prove how useless and impotent you are here. I admitted my mistake about ten posts ago. I apologized. Are you reading anything here, or are you simply waiting to recite whatever dad tells you, no matter what came before it?
Honestly. It is extremely helpful, when in a debate, to listen to what the other folks are saying, rather than waiting impatiently to speak.
Okay - I started this thread and here is my two cents.
I think it is foolish to talk about banning guns or having a nation where there are no guns other than in the hands of the military and police. I fully support the right of a person to have a gun - and by that I mean a normal regular gun that fires individual shots and not a military assault weapon. I will be honest with you — I wish guns were never invented. But this is reality and not fantasyland. People have a right to own a gun.
But I strongly support the idea that nobody should have a military or assault weapon. Yeah, i have heard the arguement that such weapons are needed as a balance against the same weapons being in the ands of the government. Look folks, if it ever comes down to the government forces versus the rest of us in an actual fight to the death, I hope I died of cancer the previous year. You might as well bend over and kiss your ass and this country good–bye if things ever get to that point. So frankly, I do not care about that so called protection.
Yes, I concede that if every single person carried a weapon then scumbags like the guy in Binghampton NY would have been stopped cold before they killed 13 other people. But is that the society you want to live in? How many others would be killed by armed people in everyday road rage situations? This is not longer the Wild West of Dodge City and I am glad it is.
If you as a person have come to the conclusion that you need to shoot another human being in defense of your life or that of another, shooting to wound or to ‘stop’ is as dangerous as doing nothing at all. Once a human being is shot, they either fight or flee. It’s not 50/50 though. If you shoot someone coming at you in the dark of night who is an obvious threat to you and you shoot him in the leg, he (or she) may be able to get off a round or three before they fall down, unless they’re coked up or meth’d out or whatever, then they may not feel it until you’re already dead
I know civilian instructors teach ‘center mass to stop’ but what it boils down to is center mass is where the pump is, stop the pump, stop the person, stop the person, stop the threat. IOW, if you’re going to shoot, be prepared to kill or run away.
Here’s another thing I’ve noticed. According to what I’ve read, just over 50% of Republicans own firearms, whereas the figure for Democrats is nearer to a third. When the number of Pub’s and Dem’s is more or less equal, why do Republicans have such a big say in the matter?