Police official: 3 officers killed in Pa. shooting

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: daishi5
You seem to fail at the most basic comparisons, why don't you compare the crime rate in the UK from before their more stringent gun laws and after? That gives you a comparison over time, and gee you might find that they had an even lesser crime rate before they restricted gun rights, which would have made them even less crime prone than us.

Their gun crime rate went down after they banned guns.

Their gun crime rate is lower per capita than the US.

Any questions?

Actually, firearm use in crime DOUBLED in the UK since they banned handguns. (?Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger?, The Times, August 24, 2007.)

Street robberies in the UK were up 28%, violent crime up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes up 14% in 2001 after handguns were banned. (British Home Office, reported by BBC news, July 12, 2002.)

You are now more likely to be mugged in London than you are in Harlem. (5.9 robberies per 1000 people in Harlem, 7.4 in London, far more in the more inner-city areas of London such as Lambeth, which averages 24 per 1000 people.) Link.

Real numbers are such a pain, aren't they.

ZV

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Zebo
He could have killed them all with a 55 gallon drum of gas and a match.

When is the last time you carried a 55 gallon drum of gas discreetly into a classroom?

That only weighs about...500 pounds or so? Piece of cake for a 40-year old scrawny Asian guy.

Carry? Not exactly.

I won't get into details too many nuts out there as it is if you think about it'll come to you - not to mention literally hundreds of other ways to kill. Point being guns are just one tool of many.

And it's the only tool that can save a frail woman or person from a violent, bigger, faster stronger, rapists or assailant - I'm not willing to take that right away - only so murderers can find new ways to apply their mayhem, after they decide to surrender their guns (which they wont).

 

[jpeyton]

Text

A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England & Wales remains a relatively rare event. Firearms (including air weapons) were used in only one in every 250 recorded crimes (one in every 500 when air weapons were excluded). It said that injury caused during a firearm offence was rare with less than 3% resulting in a serious or fatal injury.[26]

The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. There were 2 fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period and 107 non-fatal shootings - an average of 9.7 per year over the same period.[27]

In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm. [27]

By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[28] The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales. [29] The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average, but the rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland were above the EU average.[30]

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
According to Charlton Heston, America's high crime rate is because it is a melting pot of ethnicity. :disgust:

When in fact, most crime is committed "within race."

I think the reason is because of the high level of hate and violence ingrained in the American psyche. Just look at this thread, people are calling for the death of their fellow forum members. People hate others because they are at war with themselves.

Perhaps he was referring to the fact that black Americans kill each other at a much higher rate than white Americans.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: JD50
No one is actually calling for the death of their fellow forum members. Sounds like you have some problems separating real life from an internet message board.

DIAF

What does DIAF stand for?

It means JD50 just hoisted himself on his own petard.

He's a proud part of the self-ownership society!

 

[Jack Flash]

I have wondered, how does one quickly draw their weapon from a concealed holster. I suppose there's plenty of practice that goes along with the training but it seems like it would be a slow process.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Text

A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England & Wales remains a relatively rare event. Firearms (including air weapons) were used in only one in every 250 recorded crimes (one in every 500 when air weapons were excluded). It said that injury caused during a firearm offence was rare with less than 3% resulting in a serious or fatal injury.[26]

The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. There were 2 fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period and 107 non-fatal shootings - an average of 9.7 per year over the same period.[27]

In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm. [27]

By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[28] The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales. [29] The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average, but the rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland were above the EU average.[30]

Doesn't change the fact that the rates when UP after firearms were banned in the UK. This means that the rates were lower even before the bans and indicates that gun laws are not the reason that the rates differ and suggests that the reasons are cultural and not legal.

ZV

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
I have wondered, how does one quickly draw their weapon from a concealed holster. I suppose there's plenty of practice that goes along with the training but it seems like it would be a slow process.

Okay looked up some videos on YouTube and it seems you definitely have to count on your assailant being surprised that you are responding with your own concealed weapon.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
the reason that the rates differ and suggests that the reasons are cultural and not legal.

Exactly, it's our gun culture which is the bigger problem here.

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
You are now more likely to be mugged in London than you are in Harlem. (5.9 robberies per 1000 people in Harlem, 7.4 in London, far more in the more inner-city areas of London such as Lambeth, which averages 24 per 1000 people.) Link.

You are more likely to be the victim of a gun homicide in Harlem than in London.

Would you rather have a family member mugged or dead?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
the reason that the rates differ and suggests that the reasons are cultural and not legal.

Exactly, it's our gun culture which is the bigger problem here.

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
You are now more likely to be mugged in London than you are in Harlem. (5.9 robberies per 1000 people in Harlem, 7.4 in London, far more in the more inner-city areas of London such as Lambeth, which averages 24 per 1000 people.) Link.

You are more likely to be the victim of a gun homicide in Harlem than in London.

Would you rather have a family member mugged or dead?

Once again, you are making inappropriate inferences.

When guns were as widely available in the UK as they are in the US, the UK gun crime rate was LOWER than it is now that they have banned handguns. That means the problem cannot possibly be the guns themselves.

The differences have nothing to do with guns or their availability. There is nothing in the facts to support your feelings.

ZV

 

[trenchfoot]

I'm assuming from the argument that if we all carried firearms, it would be enough of a deterrent to lower crimes rates enough to justify that line of reasoning.

What's missing in that leap of logic is the willingness of a person to kill someone else, even in self defense. How many people in a room would actually be willing to kill someone else at the drop of a dime? How many people in that room would have the proper training to shoot what they're aiming at and not accidentally kill an innocent bystander?

How many people would actually take a course similar to what police officers have to go through to be able to bear arms in a manner that is acceptable to others that see themselves as potential victims of a person who is willing to shoot someone else but is not willing or able to have the proper training to handle an exchange of gunfire in a crowded public area correctly? How many people are willing to prove they are mentally fit and fully capable of correctly asessing a situation, have the mental capacity to draw a firearm, aim and hit their intended target all while being continuously shot at for the first time in their lives? How many people actually trust themselves that much?

I've always understood that if you're carrying a firearm hidden or shown, it means you are willing to kill someone with it, that you are willing to take the risk of harming others within range and that you are willing to take a chance in a court of law to prove your innocence once your weapon is drawn and that you are willing to accept the consequences of having killed someone by mistake.

Now, in real life, just how many people fall into a category like that?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
I'm assuming from the argument that if we all carried firearms, it would be enough of a deterrent to lower crimes rates enough to justify that line of reasoning.

What's missing in that leap of logic is the willingness of a person to kill someone else, even in self defense. How many people in a room would actually be willing to kill someone else at the drop of a dime? How many people in that room would have the proper training to shoot what they're aiming at and not accidentally kill an innocent bystander?

How many people would actually take a course similar to what police officers have to go through to be able to bear arms in a manner that is acceptable to others that see themselves as potential victims of a person who is willing to shoot someone else but is not willing or able to have the proper training to handle an exchange of gunfire in a crowded public area correctly? How many people are willing to prove they are mentally fit and fully capable of correctly asessing a situation, have the mental capacity to draw a firearm, aim and hit their intended target all while being continuously shot at for the first time in their lives? How many people actually trust themselves that much?

I've always understood that if you're carrying a firearm hidden or shown, it means you are willing to kill someone with it, that you are willing to take the risk of harming others within range and that you are willing to take a chance in a court of law to prove your innocence once your weapon is drawn and that you are willing to accept the consequences of having killed someone by mistake.

Now, in real life, just how many people fall into a category like that?

Happens every day multiple times a day.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/g...fenseblog/blogger.html

Don't worry us poor untrained masses have no problem blowing away some scumbag when our life our families life is on the line.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: tweaker2
I'm assuming from the argument that if we all carried firearms, it would be enough of a deterrent to lower crimes rates enough to justify that line of reasoning.

What's missing in that leap of logic is the willingness of a person to kill someone else, even in self defense. How many people in a room would actually be willing to kill someone else at the drop of a dime? How many people in that room would have the proper training to shoot what they're aiming at and not accidentally kill an innocent bystander?

How many people would actually take a course similar to what police officers have to go through to be able to bear arms in a manner that is acceptable to others that see themselves as potential victims of a person who is willing to shoot someone else but is not willing or able to have the proper training to handle an exchange of gunfire in a crowded public area correctly? How many people are willing to prove they are mentally fit and fully capable of correctly asessing a situation, have the mental capacity to draw a firearm, aim and hit their intended target all while being continuously shot at for the first time in their lives? How many people actually trust themselves that much?

I've always understood that if you're carrying a firearm hidden or shown, it means you are willing to kill someone with it, that you are willing to take the risk of harming others within range and that you are willing to take a chance in a court of law to prove your innocence once your weapon is drawn and that you are willing to accept the consequences of having killed someone by mistake.

Now, in real life, just how many people fall into a category like that?

Happens every day multiple times a day.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/g...fenseblog/blogger.html

Don't worry us poor untrained masses have no problem blowing away some scumbag when our life our families life is on the line.

And I would do exactly as you mentioned as I consider myself willing and able, and have the firearms and the experience that I need to protect the lives of my family, but that's not what I was referring to.

More to follow.

In essence, I was specifically addressing the issue as mentioned in my first sentence of my original post.

edit - I hit the reply button by mistake - *edit complete* - my bad.

 

[Zebo]

NM will wait till you finsh

 

[Zebo]

Here is low down on perp from listening to various local sites...

Kicked out of Marines dishonorable discharge (some think mental which question howz he got guns???)

Neighbors had witnessed him physically assault his mother previously strangling her and throwing her threw window.

Neighbors and friends say he was drug addict (meth)

When officers arrived, he put on a bullet proof vest and waited for them.

The officers were not advised guns were present, knocked on the door and did not have a chance


Sounds like he had a few more issues than being a militant libertarian, ERIC....like being a homicidal bat shit crazy drug addicted manic.... More details to follow.

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
I'm assuming from the argument that if we all carried firearms, it would be enough of a deterrent to lower crimes rates enough to justify that line of reasoning.

What's missing in that leap of logic is the willingness of a person to kill someone else, even in self defense. How many people in a room would actually be willing to kill someone else at the drop of a dime? How many people in that room would have the proper training to shoot what they're aiming at and not accidentally kill an innocent bystander?

How many people would actually take a course similar to what police officers have to go through to be able to bear arms in a manner that is acceptable to others that see themselves as potential victims of a person who is willing to shoot someone else but is not willing or able to have the proper training to handle an exchange of gunfire in a crowded public area correctly? How many people are willing to prove they are mentally fit and fully capable of correctly asessing a situation, have the mental capacity to draw a firearm, aim and hit their intended target all while being continuously shot at for the first time in their lives? How many people actually trust themselves that much?

I've always understood that if you're carrying a firearm hidden or shown, it means you are willing to kill someone with it, that you are willing to take the risk of harming others within range and that you are willing to take a chance in a court of law to prove your innocence once your weapon is drawn and that you are willing to accept the consequences of having killed someone by mistake.

Now, in real life, just how many people fall into a category like that?

Ex-military - covers a great deal of what you pointed out above.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: tweaker2
I'm assuming from the argument that if we all carried firearms, it would be enough of a deterrent to lower crimes rates enough to justify that line of reasoning.

What's missing in that leap of logic is the willingness of a person to kill someone else, even in self defense. How many people in a room would actually be willing to kill someone else at the drop of a dime? How many people in that room would have the proper training to shoot what they're aiming at and not accidentally kill an innocent bystander?

How many people would actually take a course similar to what police officers have to go through to be able to bear arms in a manner that is acceptable to others that see themselves as potential victims of a person who is willing to shoot someone else but is not willing or able to have the proper training to handle an exchange of gunfire in a crowded public area correctly? How many people are willing to prove they are mentally fit and fully capable of correctly asessing a situation, have the mental capacity to draw a firearm, aim and hit their intended target all while being continuously shot at for the first time in their lives? How many people actually trust themselves that much?

I've always understood that if you're carrying a firearm hidden or shown, it means you are willing to kill someone with it, that you are willing to take the risk of harming others within range and that you are willing to take a chance in a court of law to prove your innocence once your weapon is drawn and that you are willing to accept the consequences of having killed someone by mistake.

Now, in real life, just how many people fall into a category like that?

Ex-military - covers a great deal of what you pointed out above.

Good point - It's where I got a lot of my experience too.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: daishi5
We have seen the evidence from other countries banning guns does not reduce their crime rate.

Compare the per capita murder rate between the UK and US.

How about a comparison of Mexico and the US

Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. It is in many ways similar to the United Kingdom, except with much more severe prison terms for even the smallest gun law violations.

It would be infinitely more valid to compare two developed "western" nations like the UK and the US, don't you think?

Switzerland (western / developed)

Switzerland requires every male over the age of 20 to own an assault rifle (specifically SIG 550 in 5.56 cal.).

In one study by David Kopel of seven countries, including the United States and Japan, Switzerland is found to be one of the safest countries in the study.

According to Charlton Heston, America's high crime rate is because it is a melting pot of ethnicity. :disgust:

When in fact, most crime is committed "within race."

I think the reason is because of the high level of hate and violence ingrained in the American psyche. Just look at this thread, people are calling for the death of their fellow forum members. People hate others because they are at war with themselves.

Hestons point was we should remove those races which are prone to commit "in race" violence from our melting pot... this would be more effective than removing the guns... NO?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: tweaker2
I'm assuming from the argument that if we all carried firearms, it would be enough of a deterrent to lower crimes rates enough to justify that line of reasoning.

What's missing in that leap of logic is the willingness of a person to kill someone else, even in self defense. How many people in a room would actually be willing to kill someone else at the drop of a dime? How many people in that room would have the proper training to shoot what they're aiming at and not accidentally kill an innocent bystander?

How many people would actually take a course similar to what police officers have to go through to be able to bear arms in a manner that is acceptable to others that see themselves as potential victims of a person who is willing to shoot someone else but is not willing or able to have the proper training to handle an exchange of gunfire in a crowded public area correctly? How many people are willing to prove they are mentally fit and fully capable of correctly asessing a situation, have the mental capacity to draw a firearm, aim and hit their intended target all while being continuously shot at for the first time in their lives? How many people actually trust themselves that much?

I've always understood that if you're carrying a firearm hidden or shown, it means you are willing to kill someone with it, that you are willing to take the risk of harming others within range and that you are willing to take a chance in a court of law to prove your innocence once your weapon is drawn and that you are willing to accept the consequences of having killed someone by mistake.

Now, in real life, just how many people fall into a category like that?

Ex-military - covers a great deal of what you pointed out above.

Good point - It's where I got a lot of my experience too.

Ex military too but I shot over 5000 game (birds, deer, rabbit, hogs and whatnot) before even going in - so my time there, frankly, dulled my skills.

I used to shoot flying birds with a 10/22... my eyes arnt what they used to be...


Bottom line tweaker - is the will is there - check out all the stories at link I posted - I've never even heard of a woman about to get raped and just couldn't pull the trigger... As far as skill, most CCW's states make you attend a proficiency class (it's a joke I know) but since most self defense conflicts occur at less than 3 yards that's not even needed IMO - a blind man could hit assailant.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Yesterday in the thread about the NY shootings, I repeatedly heard people saying "if only the people inside had guns on them, it wouldn't have happened". That's a common argument from gun proponents. They believe the mere presence of a weapon will turn a normal person into Wyatt Earp.

The PA cops had guns on them. Why did they get killed? As cops, they have more experience, training and skill with a gun than your typical gun-carrying citizen.

They got killed because guns are not a perfect solution. You seem to have this fantasy that if guns go away all of the sudden crime will go away. You need to wake up to the real world, it is not a choice between perfect society, and horrible carnage every day. Both choices have downsides, and both choices have upsides. You just refuse to acknowledge the upsides to gun rights, and pretend the downsides to gun control don't exist.

You point to other countries strict gun laws as a being the only cause of their lower crime rate when you compare them. But when I mention to you how as our gun laws got looser our crime rate went down, all of the sudden gun laws have no impact on crime, it must have been better policing.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
the reason that the rates differ and suggests that the reasons are cultural and not legal.

Exactly, it's our gun culture which is the bigger problem here.

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
You are now more likely to be mugged in London than you are in Harlem. (5.9 robberies per 1000 people in Harlem, 7.4 in London, far more in the more inner-city areas of London such as Lambeth, which averages 24 per 1000 people.) Link.

You are more likely to be the victim of a gun homicide in Harlem than in London.

Would you rather have a family member mugged or dead?

Did their murder rate go down since they implemented their gun control laws?

Would you rather have a family member murdered with a knife, does that make them any less dead?

If gun control only changes the weapon of choice, but does not reduce the number of crimes, what have you gained?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
I'm assuming from the argument that if we all carried firearms, it would be enough of a deterrent to lower crimes rates enough to justify that line of reasoning.

What's missing in that leap of logic is the willingness of a person to kill someone else, even in self defense. How many people in a room would actually be willing to kill someone else at the drop of a dime? How many people in that room would have the proper training to shoot what they're aiming at and not accidentally kill an innocent bystander?

How many people would actually take a course similar to what police officers have to go through to be able to bear arms in a manner that is acceptable to others that see themselves as potential victims of a person who is willing to shoot someone else but is not willing or able to have the proper training to handle an exchange of gunfire in a crowded public area correctly? How many people are willing to prove they are mentally fit and fully capable of correctly asessing a situation, have the mental capacity to draw a firearm, aim and hit their intended target all while being continuously shot at for the first time in their lives? How many people actually trust themselves that much?

I've always understood that if you're carrying a firearm hidden or shown, it means you are willing to kill someone with it, that you are willing to take the risk of harming others within range and that you are willing to take a chance in a court of law to prove your innocence once your weapon is drawn and that you are willing to accept the consequences of having killed someone by mistake.

Now, in real life, just how many people fall into a category like that?

Statistically about 2-4% of the eligible population, thought that number has been going up very quickly (almost doubling in some areas) for the last 6 months.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: JD50
No one is actually calling for the death of their fellow forum members. Sounds like you have some problems separating real life from an internet message board.

DIAF

What does DIAF stand for?

It means JD50 just hoisted himself on his own petard.

He's a proud part of the self-ownership society!

A question for both of you. When someone says "die in a fire" on an internet message board, do you honestly think that they want someone to burn to death? I thought I covered that in the post that you just quoted? You know, the whole thing about being able to separate reality from an internet message board?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: sao123
Hestons point was we should remove those races which are prone to commit "in race" violence from our melting pot... this would be more effective than removing the guns... NO?

Murder rate by gender and race
per 100,000 population (1997)
White Male: 6.7
White Female: 2.3

Black Male: 47.1
Black Female: 9.3


Unfortunately, I could not find any data for other races in the US. Based on those statistics, that same reasoning could be used to deport males.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Here is low down on perp from listening to various local sites...

Kicked out of Marines dishonorable discharge (some think mental which question howz he got guns???)

Neighbors had witnessed him physically assault his mother previously strangling her and throwing her threw window.

Neighbors and friends say he was drug addict (meth)

When officers arrived, he put on a bullet proof vest and waited for them.

The officers were not advised guns were present, knocked on the door and did not have a chance


Sounds like he had a few more issues than being a militant libertarian, ERIC....like being a homicidal bat shit crazy drug addicted manic.... More details to follow.

Interesting note:

Dishonorable discharge - Disqualifies a person from being legally allowed to own a firearm.

So the person in question was already prohibited from owning firearms. Simply enforcing the laws we already have would have been enough.

ZV