2 Cops Among 67 Shot in Weekend Violence; Teen and 56-Year-Old Bystander Killed

[Raskolnikov]

SamH:

88% of the criminals surveyed by Wright and Rossi agreed with the statement that, “A criminal who wants a handgun is going to get one.” (these felons are not obeying the gun laws and the anti gun politicians cannot figure this out!)

81% of interviewees agreed that a “smart criminal” will try to determine if a potential victim is armed.

74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, because of fear of being shot.

57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police.

I’m certainly more afraid of armed citizens than the police, and I’m no criminal. Police are much more trustworthy than any random guy off the street who can legally purchase a firearm.

gamewell45:

There’s a lot of “if’s” in there; suppose your asleep and you get caught off guard?? No weapon is going to keep you from being saved; suppose your gun jams or misfires? Again, nothing is going to save you from the bad guys. Are you going to sue the manufactuer of the gun? or if they break into your house while your asleep and rob and murder you and/or your family? Is your estate going to sue 911?

There’s too many varibles involved to really justify your position

.

Indeed. And one thing I would mention is that this is supposed tom be a modern western civilized society, not the wild west or 19th century Sicily. I’d rather live in a society where I am more vulnerable to the very few willing an able to commit violent crimes who are not stopped by the authorities than be armed to the teeth and have to spend every night sitting on the porch with a shotgun for fear that a bunch of brigands will raid my house. Societies of the former kind are safer. Hence why most western European countries are generally relatively safe; most people reject the idea that we all have a duty to strap up and take complete responsibility for our own personal protection, because there is a communal beneft to living in a society where carrying weapons is taboo.

As for the US, the first step, of course, would be adequately enforcing gun laws already in place. It should always and everywhere be a felony to possess a firearm without all the proper paperwork having been completed, and substantial jailtime should be a givenfor such crimes. make the punishment for owning or carrying a gun without a license so draconian that criminals will sooner do their jobs unarmed than risk getting caught with a gun.

 

[Raskolnikov]

NYC has some of the strongest gun control laws in the nation, as did DC when it was the murder capital of the world. Oddly enough, it seems that the criminals ignored the law.

While it is true that sometimes guns do not help in a situation, they do help in a lot of situations. For example, I live in a rural area. If both police officers were at the other end of their territory and someone broke into my house, it could take them 1/2 hour or more just to drive to our house. Not everyone in the US lives within a few minutes of police help

Police of course do not exist primarily to protect you from the crime that is already happening, so much as to imbue into society a ‘Pavlovian response mechanism,’ that if one commits a crime, he will suffer for it.

To be sure, I doubt guns are a real deterrant of a crime in progress either. My guess is, by the time one realizes he is being robbed or attacked by an armed assailant, it is almost always too late for pulling out ones own weapon to do anything to ameliorate the situation. Their only significant funciton, I imagine, would be purely deterrant.

 

[gamewell45]

NYC has some of the strongest gun control laws in the nation, as did DC when it was the murder capital of the world. Oddly enough, it seems that the criminals ignored the law.

While it is true that sometimes guns do not help in a situation, they do help in a lot of situations. For example, I live in a rural area. If both police officers were at the other end of their territory and someone broke into my house, it could take them 1/2 hour or more just to drive to our house. Not everyone in the US lives within a few minutes of police help

The other side of the coin is that not every area of the US has the need for more police officers since crime rates are extremely low depending on where you live.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

There’s a lot of “if’s” in there; suppose your asleep and you get caught off guard?? No weapon is going to keep you from being saved; suppose your gun jams or misfires? Again, nothing is going to save you from the bad guys. Are you going to sue the manufactuer of the gun? or if they break into your house while your asleep and rob and murder you and/or your family? Is your estate going to sue 911?

There’s too many varibles involved to really justify your position.

I have revolver located at strategic positions around my house and anyone trying to get into my house would wake my dog up, which would wake me up. I am one of the few who does not take my safety and freedom for granted. Its not that I am macho. Its that I work with Marine Corps facility security for several years of my military service. I know how to keep myself safe and take away variables.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The other side of the coin is that not every area of the US has the need for more police officers since crime rates are extremely low depending on where you live.

Ya, thats what we need, more servants of the will of the state.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I’m certainly more afraid of armed citizens than the police, and I’m no criminal. Police are much more trustworthy than any random guy off the street who can legally purchase a firearm.

.

Indeed. And one thing I would mention is that this is supposed tom be a modern western civilized society, not the wild west or 19th century Sicily. I’d rather live in a society where I am more vulnerable to the very few willing an able to commit violent crimes who are not stopped by the authorities than be armed to the teeth and have to spend every night sitting on the porch with a shotgun for fear that a bunch of brigands will raid my house. Societies of the former kind are safer. Hence why most western European countries are generally relatively safe; most people reject the idea that we all have a duty to strap up and take complete responsibility for our own personal protection, because there is a communal beneft to living in a society where carrying weapons is taboo.

As for the US, the first step, of course, would be adequately enforcing gun laws already in place. It should always and everywhere be a felony to possess a firearm without all the proper paperwork having been completed, and substantial jailtime should be a givenfor such crimes. make the punishment for owning or carrying a gun without a license so draconian that criminals will sooner do their jobs unarmed than risk getting caught with a gun.

I am trying to find where in the Constitution the second amendment requires licencing and paperwork to excercise a right that is as guaranteed as your right to say that we need them.

 

[gamewell45]

I have revolver located at strategic positions around my house and anyone trying to get into my house would wake my dog up, which would wake me up. I am one of the few who does not take my safety and freedom for granted. Its not that I am macho. Its that I work with Marine Corps facility security for several years of my military service. I know how to keep myself safe and take away variables.

What about the average citizen that owns a single revolver who has no military background, no dog in the house and has no ideas on how to take away varibles???

I’ll bet your wartching the debates right now.

 

[bbarrick8383]

What about the average citizen that owns a single revolver who has no military background, no dog in the house and has no ideas on how to take away varibles???

I’ll bet your wartching the debates right now.

What about him?

Your solution is to remove his revolver. Which makes zero sense.

Why must you go through life pushing for regulation of what if’s that have nothing to do with you?

 

[bbarrick8383]

To be sure, I doubt guns are a real deterrant of a crime in progress either. My guess is, by the time one realizes he is being robbed or attacked by an armed assailant, it is almost always too late for pulling out ones own weapon to do anything to ameliorate the situation. Their only significant funciton, I imagine, would be purely deterrant.

Wrong.

I can show you the bullet holes where a friend was being robbed by three armed men. When he pulled his gun and started firing they ran firing shots, in his general direction, but nowhere near him. One of the men died outside of his door, while him and his wife were thankfully unharmed.

In cases like Arizona or Ft. Hood where there is a mass shooting, you may be right. An armed individual is not going to be a deterrent to the shooter. In those cases an armed civilian/law enforcement/soldier are the best hope to end the bloodshed quick and minimize the damage caused by the lunatic.

 

[Raskolnikov]

I am trying to find where in the Constitution the second amendment requires licencing and paperwork to excercise a right that is as guaranteed as your right to say that we need them.

The constitution, you are aware, made no attempt to spell out every detailed facet of the administration of the country. If it be deemed ‘necessary and proper’ that weapons be registered and licensed to help enforce laws against, say, murder (a state crime I am aware, but let’s say, the murder of postal workers), rape, robbery, etc. Does the state guarantee the right of a private citizen to own a firearm? Certainly? Does it forfeit the right the regulate the sale of suh deadly weapons? A resounding no. And thank God. Come the day when gun restrictions are dropped and the price of guns freefalls, making it affordable to virtually every thug in the country and not have to worry about getting in trouble for it, on that day I will apply for a German or Austrian (or Luxembourgisch?) visa and begin working on my citizenship there. I’ll content myself to live in a country with a very low crime rate and everyone who wants to play OK Corral over here can go right on ahead. Hopefully that day never comes.

 

[Raskolnikov]

What about him?

Your solution is to remove his revolver. Which makes zero sense.

Why must you go through life pushing for regulation of what if’s that have nothing to do with you?

There is another side to that dilemma though. What about those of us who don’t own weapons and don’t accept the idea that we have a duty to be armed at all times to ‘protect our familes’ and whatnot? I personally am for the middle ground. If limiting a few people’s rights will make society safer, I’m for it; I have no desire to take away Scott’s revolver; but if someone wants everyone to be able to buy an AK-47 from Wal-mart without even showing an ID, is not only wrong, but needs to have his head examined.

 

[gamewell45]

What about him?

Your solution is to remove his revolver. Which makes zero sense.

Why must you go through life pushing for regulation of what if’s that have nothing to do with you?

Most likely for the same reason you don’t support gun control. We both believe very strongly in our positions.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

What about the average citizen that owns a single revolver who has no military background, no dog in the house and has no ideas on how to take away varibles???

I’ll bet your wartching the debates right now.

I can’t prepare for all of the variables in the world. I can only look out for me, mine, and my neighbors. Maybe if more of us did that, we’d need less police.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

There is another side to that dilemma though. What about those of us who don’t own weapons and don’t accept the idea that we have a duty to be armed at all times to ‘protect our familes’ and whatnot? I personally am for the middle ground. If limiting a few people’s rights will make society safer, I’m for it; I have no desire to take away Scott’s revolver; but if someone wants everyone to be able to buy an AK-47 from Wal-mart without even showing an ID, is not only wrong, but needs to have his head examined.

You’d have to find a WalMart that sells AK47s. Most of the WMs have gotten out of the firearms sales business altogether.

 

[Holly3278]

How very sad. Lord, have mercy!

 

[Wolseley]

We’re talking about New York, NY, not Horseapples, VA.

1. We’re talking about New York City, not Podunk.

Psst----Rich: your anti-rural bigotry is showing. Not everybody is a stupid hick simply because they don’t live in the big city, you know.

There would be shootouts left and right by folks who aren’t “criminals.”

Only for about six months or so, though. After that the trigger-happy ones would be dead and in the ground, and the rest would be a tad more cautious.

BTW, shooters don’t “think twice” and they don’t migrate elsewhere.

Balderdash. In my twenty tears of law enforcement, upwards of half the people we incarcerated for firearms crimes were from other cities, other parts of the state, or from other states.

There’s a lot of “if’s” in there; suppose your asleep and you get caught off guard?? No weapon is going to keep you from being saved; suppose your gun jams or misfires? Again, nothing is going to save you from the bad guys. Are you going to sue the manufactuer of the gun? or if they break into your house while your asleep and rob and murder you and/or your family? Is your estate going to sue 911?

There’s too many varibles involved to really justify your position.

He’s right, Scott. Rather than take the chance that your weapon will jam or that you won’t wake up in time, it’s much better that you simply do nothing, let the criminals kill you, rape your wife, and steal your valuables.

And one thing I would mention is that this is supposed tom be a modern western civilized society, not the wild west or 19th century Sicily.

The key phrase above, of course, being “supposed to be”. It’s not, but it’s supposed to be.

Until it is, it’s better to be prepared. Boy Scout motto.

What about the average citizen that owns a single revolver who has no military background

Simply one more argument in favor of a mandatory military draft.

Come the day when gun restrictions are dropped and the price of guns freefalls, making it affordable to virtually every thug in the country and not have to worry about getting in trouble for it, on that day I will apply for a German or Austrian (or Luxembourgisch?) visa and begin working on my citizenship there.

Seeya. Don’t let the door hit ya, etc. Be sure to write.

 

[1holycatholic]

Simply one more argument in favor of a mandatory military draft.

 

[St_Francis]

The other side of the coin is that not every area of the US has the need for more police officers since crime rates are extremely low depending on where you live.

And the reason they are low is that so many of the people have guns.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Psst----Rich: your anti-rural bigotry is showing. Not everybody is a stupid hick simply because they don’t live in the big city, you know.

No?

He’s right, Scott. Rather than take the chance that your weapon will jam or that you won’t wake up in time, it’s much better that you simply do nothing, let the criminals kill you, rape your wife, and steal your valuables.

You claim to have been in law enforcement, so you had to have investigated dozens if not hundreds of crimes. Were robbery, rape, and murder the invariable results of any home invasion? And, what sort of a jurisdiction did you work in that there were so many robberies, rapes, and murders?

Even New York City isn’t that lawless.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

And the reason they are low is that so many of the people have guns.

Exactly. Vermont has a very low crime rate…but they also have no law regarding concealed carry. If you own a gun, you can carry it without having to “have your papers. Can I see your papers please? Ver are papers! Do you know vat ve do vis people who do not have zer papers?”