Police official: 3 officers killed in Pa. shooting

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: 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.

Noted and appreciated.:thumbsup:

BTW, 410 gage is my preference for small bird and skeet/trap *just to show off* and 300 WSM for dropping a deer here and there.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: 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?

Asperger's?

Hard to determine anybody's true intentions. People who say guns should be banned might not really mean it. And people who vociferously defend guns might really wish that guns would disappear.

So, when I type stfu, I really mean keep on talking, you're really interesting - this time.

 

[Zebo]

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.

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09094/960662-455.stm
More from here



He threatened his girlfriend's life and had PFA against him.

So we know that from at least around 2005 he was now a prohibited person who could not legally possess firearms.

Taking "his" guns sounds like serious editorializing by media.

 

[Zebo]

Edit: From his discharge date he was a prohibited person since a Dishonorable Discharge IS a felony for gun buying purposes. So legally this individual never was allowed to purchase his guns. Prohibited by age before going in and prohibited by law upon discharge.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: 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.

We don't need to deport anyone, but we need to acknowledge that the presence of guns in this country is not what makes black people kill each other at an absurdly high rate compared to white people.

I think if you found statistics on legal gun ownership by race, they'd tell you that whites are more likely to legally own guns - yet they aren't killing people with them.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
so jpeyton...

does the war on drugs work?

if it does, then i will let you have your viewpoint.
if you feel it does not, then why would a war on guns work?

does teaching abstinence work?
if you feel it does, then i will let you have your viewpoint
if you feel it does not, then why would abstinence of guns work?

what does this have t do with anything?

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: 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?

Well I bet 80% if not more of these senseless mass shootings are commmited by whites. So should we start with the race with biggest problem with this?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: daishi5

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?

Their "gun" crime rate or their "total" crime rate? Are you happier if a woman gets raped at knife point, just because there was no gun?

Total crime rate can trend down because of improvements in law enforcement.

Of course people will resort to other weapons. Do you think the shooter in NY yesterday could have killed/injured 39 people with a knife?

A knife is a close quarters weapon, and its killing potential drops significantly outside an arm's reach.

Put four men into a room about 40 feet long. On one side, put three men with no weapon but their bare hands. On the other side, put one man with a gun. That one man can easily disable the other three.

Now run that same scenario with the lone man having a knife.

He could have killed them all with a 55 gallon drum of gas and a match.

not exactly portable or concealable.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: 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.

That tells me how many people per 100,000 die as a result of homicide. Because blacks are much smaller population of course they are going to have a higher per capita homicide rate. But what that doesn't tell me is what race is commiting most of these mass shootings like this. And truthfully I could care less what race is doing it or why. WE HAVE A GUN PROBLEM IN OUR COUNTRY. And until we realize that and change it, even if that means taking away guns, nothing is going to change. People are just crazy nowadays. And what is even more disturbing, most of these nutjobs bought these guns LEGALLY. These aren't gang bangers per say. These are everyday ordinary people. And as I have many times over, guns have become the first choice to make a statement or settle a dispute. Why? Because to many people have them and unfortunately we have develop a lust for violence in our society. This stuff ain't happening in ghettos with the down trodden and druggies. Houston we have a PROBLEM.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: 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.

That tells me how many people per 100,000 die as a result of homicide. Because blacks are much smaller population of course they are going to have a higher per capita homicide rate. But what that doesn't tell me is what race is commiting most of these mass shootings like this. And truthfully I could care less what race is doing it or why. WE HAVE A GUN PROBLEM IN OUR COUNTRY. And until we realize that and change it, even if that means taking away guns, nothing is going to change. People are just crazy nowadays. And what is even more disturbing, most of these nutjobs bought these guns LEGALLY. These aren't gang bangers per say. These are everyday ordinary people. And as I have many times over, guns have become the first choice to make a statement or settle a dispute. Why? Because to many people have them and unfortunately we have develop a lust for violence in our society. This stuff ain't happening in ghettos with the down trodden and druggies. Houston we have a PROBLEM.

Also, do you have any sort of statistics to back up your rant?

 

[JSt0rm]

1997 was a good year for Californian wine and a bad year for black on black crime. Do we have any more recent statistics?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: classy
This stuff ain't happening in ghettos with the down trodden and druggies. Houston we have a PROBLEM.

Actually, that is where it's happening. If you take the "ghetto" drug and gang crime out of the statistics, the US gun homicide rate is comparable to places like the UK and Switzerland. The best way to reduce gun crime would be to eliminate urban gang and drug culture.

ZV

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: 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.

Originally posted by: classy

Well I bet 80% if not more of these senseless mass shootings are commmited by whites. So should we start with the race with biggest problem with this?

my point was deporting all the black people from the country makes no more or no less sense than removing all the guns.
both are appalling solutions which accomplish nothing.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Clarification of my earlier post: I am not suggesting deporting anyone. I was indicating that homicide statistics could be used as justification to deport males (from all races) using the same reasoning (which I am against for obvious reasons).

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
1997 was a good year for Californian wine and a bad year for black on black crime. Do we have any more recent statistics?

That was the last year listed in the webpage linked in my earlier post, they have those statistics dating back to the 70s for you to browse at your leisure.



After some searching, I found a table that maps it from 76 to 2005. They do not break it down by gender and only compare whites and blacks (everyone else lumped into other). Last two years included in this post for convenience.

Link

Per 100K:
2004:
White: 3.6
Black: 24.1

2005:
White: 3.5
Black: 26.5

Originally posted by: classy
Because blacks are much smaller population of course they are going to have a higher per capita homicide rate.

Raw numbers:
2004:
White: 8,522
Black: 9,234

2005:
White: 8,350
Black: 10,285

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Clarification of my earlier post: I am not suggesting deporting anyone. I was indicating that homicide statistics could be used as justification to deport males (from all races) using the same reasoning (which I am against for obvious reasons).

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
1997 was a good year for Californian wine and a bad year for black on black crime. Do we have any more recent statistics?

That was the last year listed in the webpage linked in my earlier post, they have those statistics dating back to the 70s for you to browse at your leisure.



After some searching, I found a table that maps it from 76 to 2005. They do not break it down by gender and only compare whites and blacks (everyone else lumped into other). Last two years included in this post for convenience.

Link

Per 100K:
2004:
White: 3.6
Black: 24.1

2005:
White: 3.5
Black: 26.5

Originally posted by: classy
Because blacks are much smaller population of course they are going to have a higher per capita homicide rate.

Raw numbers:
2004:
White: 8,522
Black: 9,234

2005:
White: 8,350
Black: 10,285

Thanks for the numbers. That was my point on the numbers the guy posted. Looking at the raw numbers, there is not that much difference in the true numbers of deaths. The bad thing is blacks are dying at much higher rate in respect to percentage of the population. What annoys me is stupid @ss comments like this

Originally posted by: classy

This stuff ain't happening in ghettos with the down trodden and druggies. Houston we have a PROBLEM.

Actually, that is where it's happening. If you take the "ghetto" drug and gang crime out of the statistics, the US gun homicide rate is comparable to places like the UK and Switzerland. The best way to reduce gun crime would be to eliminate urban gang and drug culture.

ZV

Like yea the major problem is just the blacks and ghettos. Yea right, 47 people were mass murdered in the last couple of months, how many were killed by a black person or someone from the ghetto? And no ZV the best way to reduce gun crime, is to reduce the number and more importantly the type of guns put in the hands of people. Most of those deaths here lately were committed by regular ordinary people, who bought the guns legally. But just keep drinking the Kool Aid, okay. In short you and few others are just plain delusional. LOL......I know how to fix the gun problem, lets just give people more guns, yea that will fix it, lol. Thats like going up to drug addict and saying hey do more drugs and you'll be cured. Or going to a forest fire with tanker truck full of gas to spray on the flames. Or taking a person addicted to gambling and dropping them off at a casino, telling them you'll be back to get them in few hours. This is not the wild wild west, its time to disarm, period.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: classy
Looking at the raw numbers, there is not that much difference in the true numbers of deaths.

Just to clarify, the numbers I posted were those of the perpetrator by race, the victims by race can be found here.

 

[Pocatello]

If banning stuffs work, the war on drugs would have been won a long time a ago. If you ban the stuffs people want, it just drives up the price of the illegal stuffs.

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: JD50
Hey OP, why don't you bring some facts to the table and show us how many people have been killed by AK-47's?

Besides this one and the four police officers were fatally shot in Oakland, Calif a few weeks ago?

How many more do you need? What is justifiable to you?

Despite this shooting and the shootings in Oakland, LEO deaths in the line of duty have been trending downward.

Quoted from this article about the shooting:

Link

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 133 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty in 2008, a 27 percent decrease from year before and the lowest annual total since 1960.

What ever your stance on guns, and I am pro gun, my deepest condolences to the friends and family of the fallen. A truly senseless tragedy.

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
1997 was a good year for Californian wine and a bad year for black on black crime. Do we have any more recent statistics?

DOJ stats by race from 2005:

Link

 

[poohbear]

Originally posted by: JD50
I was a police officer for 3 years, it hits very close to home any time a cop is killed in the line of duty. That being said, it's absolutely sickening to see clueless assholes like yourself use tragedies like this to push your anti-second amendment agenda. DIAF

i dont get your logic, would'nt u want guns banned so these frontline officers are safer? the constitution didnt ban slavery & didnt explicitly guarantee suffrage for all americans, why do people quote it like its church doctrine that can't be changed? its just a piece of paper written by men, wise men, but men of their time and fallible men nonetheless.

 

[poohbear]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: 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.

Originally posted by: classy

Well I bet 80% if not more of these senseless mass shootings are commmited by whites. So should we start with the race with biggest problem with this?

my point was deporting all the black people from the country makes no more or no less sense than removing all the guns.
both are appalling solutions which accomplish nothing.

no both are not appealing solutions. Look at other countries where guns are banned and violence is censored more than the US, u'll find much lower rate of violent crimes. I lived in Korea & japan and violent crime was virtually unheard of (guns are banned there).

why even bring up race anyways? white colloar crime is highest among whites, should we stop giving executive positions to whites? only minority americans can now be CEOs, managers, and executives. fantastic.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I lived in Korea & japan and violent crime was virtually unheard of (guns are banned there).

That`s not exactly true......there are a lot of stabbings and other crimes....

 

[poohbear]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

I lived in Korea & japan and violent crime was virtually unheard of (guns are banned there).

That`s not exactly true......there are a lot of stabbings and other crimes....

i never heard of such inccidents, its generally much safer here and i've never witnessed a crime firsthand or even heard of it through friends, but that might just be cultural, but im sure a gun ban has alot to do w/ minimizing violent crime. regardless, even if there are stabbings, its a helluva lot less dangerous than shootings which allow the person to inflict death right there and then. atleast w/ a stabbing the guy has to think things through a little more instead of whipping the gun out and pulling the trigger.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: poohbear

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

I lived in Korea & japan and violent crime was virtually unheard of (guns are banned there).

That`s not exactly true......there are a lot of stabbings and other crimes....

i never heard of such inccidents, its generally much safer here and i've never witnessed a crime firsthand or even heard of it through friends, but that might just be cultural, but im sure a gun ban has alot to do w/ minimizing violent crime. regardless, even if there are stabbings, its a helluva lot less dangerous than shootings which allow the person to inflict death right there and then. atleast w/ a stabbing the guy has to think things through a little more instead of whipping the gun out and pulling the trigger.

Each country is different. I would bet that if Japan has more freedom to own guns, violent crimes wouldn't go up very much and most people wouldn't want a gun there anyway. Everybody in my town has a least one gun in the house, yet, you could walk at night without being afraid. You wouldn't do that in some part of Washington D.C, which has some of the strictest gun law in the country. The demand for guns in this country is so high that banning guns will never work.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: classy
Like yea the major problem is just the blacks and ghettos. Yea right, 47 people were mass murdered in the last couple of months, how many were killed by a black person or someone from the ghetto? And no ZV the best way to reduce gun crime, is to reduce the number and more importantly the type of guns put in the hands of people. Most of those deaths here lately were committed by regular ordinary people, who bought the guns legally. But just keep drinking the Kool Aid, okay. In short you and few others are just plain delusional. LOL......I know how to fix the gun problem, lets just give people more guns, yea that will fix it, lol. Thats like going up to drug addict and saying hey do more drugs and you'll be cured. Or going to a forest fire with tanker truck full of gas to spray on the flames. Or taking a person addicted to gambling and dropping them off at a casino, telling them you'll be back to get them in few hours. This is not the wild wild west, its time to disarm, period.

Yesterday, in one single day, 116 people were killed by automobiles. That's more than were killed by firearms. Should we ban cars too? They aren't necessary, people can just use public transportation.

There are at least 238,000,000 privately-held, legal firearms in the United states. Every day, 99.9985% of firearms are handled in perfect safety (i.e. they cause no injuries and no deaths). That's a staggeringly good safety percentage. Higher than many things that we use every day and take for granted as "safe".

You're living in a fantasy world if you think that banning firearms will remove them from people' hands. As we've seen in the UK, where crimes committed with firearms DOUBLED after firearms were banned, a ban on firearms only disarms the people who were acting legally already. The criminals don't care. Just like the person in the PA shooting didn't care and went out to buy his guns illegally. The man in PA was not legally allowed to own firearms. The VA Tech shooter was not legally allowed to own firearms. We do not know yet if the shooter in Binghamton could legally own his firearms.

Targeting the firearms is targeting the symptom, not the disease. Removing the firearms will not remove the violent tendencies of the criminal element.

ZV