Police official: 3 officers killed in Pa. shooting

[JFoobar]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
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.

While I tend towards the pro-gun side of the equation, the firearm<-->automobile comparison that gets trotted out every single time the gun debate starts is tired and dripping with fallacy.

Automobiles are necessary. Our economy, heck, our society depends upon them heavily. With a couple of decades and many billions of dollars in improvements, we might be able to rely on public transportation, but not now...not by a long shot.

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".

What percentage of firearms even get touched in any given day? How about in any given week or even month? You don't know and neither do I but we both do know that only a tiny percentage of those 238 million firearms ever get used in any given month, let alone a day. The vast majority are in storage, locked in a safe or a cabinet and might get, at most, handled unloaded and a once-over with an oily rag in any given year.

Now what percentage of automobiles get used over the time timeframe? The percentage is much, much higher as we both know.

Poll a solid cross-section of U.S. firearm owners and ask them if they could get along more easily without their guns or their cars. What would the result be?

You're living in a fantasy world if you think that banning firearms will remove them from people' hands.

No argument from me here. This statement is especially valid in the United States.

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

Civilized society has been targeting this disease for hundreds of years and the disease still thrives. Yes, anyone who thinks that firearms actually cause violent crimes is a nitwit, but the presence of firearms obviously has the potential of making any given violent crime more violent and mor devastating.

When the hoi polloi flips on CNN and they hear that the jagoff in Pittsburgh was wearing body armor and shooting 100+ rounds out of an "AK-47", many of them wonder 'how on earth could someone even get a gun like that???' It's a legitimate question and comparing guns to cars is not the answer they are looking for.

 

[kmmatney]

Why does anyone "need" an AK-47 - especially this 22-year old asshat, living in an apartment, who killed the 3 officers? I can see maybe having a pistol, but an AK-47 is a bit much. I hope Pennsylvania has the death penalty...

I used to be pro-gun, but hearing the lame arguments on this forum, and just using common sense, is making me more anti-gun everyday. (but I will always be pro death-penalty).

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: JFoobar

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
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.

While I tend towards the pro-gun side of the equation, the firearm<-->automobile comparison that gets trotted out every single time the gun debate starts is tired and dripping with fallacy.

Automobiles are necessary. Our economy, heck, our society depends upon them heavily. With a couple of decades and many billions of dollars in improvements, we might be able to rely on public transportation, but not now...not by a long shot.

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".

What percentage of firearms even get touched in any given day? How about in any given week or even month? You don't know and neither do I but we both do know that only a tiny percentage of those 238 million firearms ever get used in any given month, let alone a day. The vast majority are in storage, locked in a safe or a cabinet and might get, at most, handled unloaded and a once-over with an oily rag in any given year.

Now what percentage of automobiles get used over the time timeframe? The percentage is much, much higher as we both know.

Poll a solid cross-section of U.S. firearm owners and ask them if they could get along more easily without their guns or their cars. What would the result be?

You're living in a fantasy world if you think that banning firearms will remove them from people' hands.

No argument from me here. This statement is especially valid in the United States.

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

Civilized society has been targeting this disease for hundreds of years and the disease still thrives. Yes, anyone who thinks that firearms actually cause violent crimes is a nitwit, but the presence of firearms obviously has the potential of making any given violent crime more violent and mor devastating.

When the hoi polloi flips on CNN and they hear that the jagoff in Pittsburgh was wearing body armor and shooting 100+ rounds out of an "AK-47", many of them wonder 'how on earth could someone even get a gun like that???' It's a legitimate question and comparing guns to cars is not the answer they are looking for.

Freedom has inherent risks.
Freedom of speech and assembly can offend, start riots, start tax revolts
Freedom from search and seizure can blow cases if not followed properly can allow a guy to make sarin gas in basement
Freedom to bear firearms is that some people that own weapons will snap sometimes.

Thing is, none of these killers I read about are free to have these firearms - all are prohibited persons!!! Goes to show after 20,000 attempts at gun laws, there is no getting them out of their hands and only takes right away from law abiding.

 

[Sacrilege]

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?

You sound like a real stand up human being. When you inevitably flip out, be sure to just kill yourself and not people around you.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: kmmatney
Why does anyone "need" an AK-47 - especially this 22-year old asshat, living in an apartment, who killed the 3 officers? I can see maybe having a pistol, but an AK-47 is a bit much. I hope Pennsylvania has the death penalty...

I used to be pro-gun, but hearing the lame arguments on this forum, and just using common sense, is making me more anti-gun everyday. (but I will always be pro death-penalty).

I think it's part of the militia mentality - which, by itself, is not necessarily bad. Remember that little skirmish with the brits a couple of hundred years+ ago...

What's your stance on abortion?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JFoobar

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
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.

While I tend towards the pro-gun side of the equation, the firearm<-->automobile comparison that gets trotted out every single time the gun debate starts is tired and dripping with fallacy.

Automobiles are necessary. Our economy, heck, our society depends upon them heavily. With a couple of decades and many billions of dollars in improvements, we might be able to rely on public transportation, but not now...not by a long shot.

It's not intended to be an absolute equivalence. Only to point out that there are other things that we use every day that are, in raw numbers, more dangerous even though we don't think about them as such. The similar swimming pool argument is an example. Many of the things we use in our daily lives are dangerous, but we don't think about them at all.

For a large number of people, cars aren't necessary. Anyone living in a large city can easily do without owning a car. Almost no-one does, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

Originally posted by: JFoobar

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".

What percentage of firearms even get touched in any given day? How about in any given week or even month? You don't know and neither do I but we both do know that only a tiny percentage of those 238 million firearms ever get used in any given month, let alone a day. The vast majority are in storage, locked in a safe or a cabinet and might get, at most, handled unloaded and a once-over with an oily rag in any given year.

Now what percentage of automobiles get used over the time timeframe? The percentage is much, much higher as we both know.

If no-one's touching the firearm, it can't possibly harm anyone. It doesn't matter how many are actually handled in a given day. The fact is that 99.99985% of firearms pose no risk to anyone.

Originally posted by: JFoobar
Poll a solid cross-section of U.S. firearm owners and ask them if they could get along more easily without their guns or their cars. What would the result be?

I know what you're expecting, and I agree that most people would evaluate the specific question posed as you expect they would. However, most people are also apt to prioritize the elimination of a minor inconvenience over the reduction in a greater, but less likely, inconvenience. Just because most people would rate having a vehicle over having a firearm does not necessarily mean that the choice is logical.

Additionally, this is a leading question because it presupposes that the going without is voluntary, which is not a valid presupposition in the real world. If you asked those same firearms owners what they would think about the government banning automobiles, I can guarantee that you'd get a different response.

Originally posted by: JFoobar

You're living in a fantasy world if you think that banning firearms will remove them from people' hands.

No argument from me here. This statement is especially valid in the United States.

As I've already shown, it's especially valid in the UK too. If it weren't, the use of firearms in crime in the UK would not have doubled after banning handguns.

Originally posted by: JFoobar

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

Civilized society has been targeting this disease for hundreds of years and the disease still thrives. Yes, anyone who thinks that firearms actually cause violent crimes is a nitwit, but the presence of firearms obviously has the potential of making any given violent crime more violent and more devastating.

And the use of a Porsche or Ferrari has the potential to make a car accident more devastating by allowing higher speeds. And the presence of video recorders has the potential to allow piracy. It's simply bad policy to run around making restrictions based on what a small minority of people might do with something.

The "disease" thrives because it is an inherent risk involved with life. The only cure would be for every single person (myself included) to die.

Originally posted by: JFoobar
When the hoi polloi flips on CNN and they hear that the jagoff in Pittsburgh was wearing body armor and shooting 100+ rounds out of an "AK-47", many of them wonder 'how on earth could someone even get a gun like that???' It's a legitimate question and comparing guns to cars is not the answer they are looking for.

I wasn't addressing "hoi polloi". It was a targeted response to a specific individual.

ZV

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: kmmatney
Why does anyone "need" an AK-47 - especially this 22-year old asshat, living in an apartment, who killed the 3 officers? I can see maybe having a pistol, but an AK-47 is a bit much. I hope Pennsylvania has the death penalty...

I used to be pro-gun, but hearing the lame arguments on this forum, and just using common sense, is making me more anti-gun everyday. (but I will always be pro death-penalty).

A lot of people have lame arguments, that does not mean that their stance is wrong. It was either in this thread or the other thread that I pointed to 4 good things about gun rights. 1 rape stopped, 1 torture/rape stopped, 1 burglary stopped, and 1 possible rape and or murder stopped. We know what they were going to do because, the 1 rapist had raped her before and come back, the second one was on a spree where he would rape them multiple times and torture them before leaving, and the last possible rape/murder we do not know what he may have done, but he was obviously after the woman.

The second thing is that his AK-47, was almost certainly not an actual AK-47, because selective fire weapons are rare, and expensive in the U.S.. They are rarely used in criminal acts, however when they are they are reported more often because reporters seem to view the attacks as more newsworthy. The fact of the matter is that rifles such as this one are used in less than 5% of all gun crimes in America, they are really much less of a problem than handguns, but it sells more papers if it has a big scary black gun involved.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

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.

Seriously..... that is retarded.

It's like comparing Iceland to Eritrea, the US and the UK are very similar societies with similar rates of crime except for one thing, THAT was the point.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: kmmatney
Why does anyone "need" an AK-47 - especially this 22-year old asshat, living in an apartment, who killed the 3 officers? I can see maybe having a pistol, but an AK-47 is a bit much. I hope Pennsylvania has the death penalty...

I used to be pro-gun, but hearing the lame arguments on this forum, and just using common sense, is making me more anti-gun everyday. (but I will always be pro death-penalty).

A lot of people have lame arguments, that does not mean that their stance is wrong. It was either in this thread or the other thread that I pointed to 4 good things about gun rights. 1 rape stopped, 1 torture/rape stopped, 1 burglary stopped, and 1 possible rape and or murder stopped. We know what they were going to do because, the 1 rapist had raped her before and come back, the second one was on a spree where he would rape them multiple times and torture them before leaving, and the last possible rape/murder we do not know what he may have done, but he was obviously after the woman.

The second thing is that his AK-47, was almost certainly not an actual AK-47, because selective fire weapons are rare, and expensive in the U.S.. They are rarely used in criminal acts, however when they are they are reported more often because reporters seem to view the attacks as more newsworthy. The fact of the matter is that rifles such as this one are used in less than 5% of all gun crimes in America, they are really much less of a problem than handguns, but it sells more papers if it has a big scary black gun involved.

4 incidents compared to thousands raped at gunpoint?

There are VERY few actual AK-47's left so no, it probably wasn't an AK-47 but a duplicate version, the original doesn't even have selectable fire, it's full auto all the time so you have to be quick with the trigger to fire singles.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: kmmatney
Why does anyone "need" an AK-47 - especially this 22-year old asshat, living in an apartment, who killed the 3 officers? I can see maybe having a pistol, but an AK-47 is a bit much. I hope Pennsylvania has the death penalty...

I used to be pro-gun, but hearing the lame arguments on this forum, and just using common sense, is making me more anti-gun everyday. (but I will always be pro death-penalty).

A lot of people have lame arguments, that does not mean that their stance is wrong. It was either in this thread or the other thread that I pointed to 4 good things about gun rights. 1 rape stopped, 1 torture/rape stopped, 1 burglary stopped, and 1 possible rape and or murder stopped. We know what they were going to do because, the 1 rapist had raped her before and come back, the second one was on a spree where he would rape them multiple times and torture them before leaving, and the last possible rape/murder we do not know what he may have done, but he was obviously after the woman.

The second thing is that his AK-47, was almost certainly not an actual AK-47, because selective fire weapons are rare, and expensive in the U.S.. They are rarely used in criminal acts, however when they are they are reported more often because reporters seem to view the attacks as more newsworthy. The fact of the matter is that rifles such as this one are used in less than 5% of all gun crimes in America, they are really much less of a problem than handguns, but it sells more papers if it has a big scary black gun involved.

4 incidents compared to thousands raped at gunpoint?

There are VERY few actual AK-47's left so no, it probably wasn't an AK-47 but a duplicate version, the original doesn't even have selectable fire, it's full auto all the time so you have to be quick with the trigger to fire singles.

Thousands raped at gunpoint?

a gun was used by the perpetrator in only 3.1% of the rapes.

US DOJ statistics

AND, my point is, when you introduce more stringent gun laws, rapes go UP. When you make guns more available, rapes go down. The most telling story was in florida, they trained a few hundred women with handguns, the news was all over this story about a single town training women with firearms, and rapes went down 80% in that town, and overtime that town continued to have a much lower rape crime compared to surrounding towns. I can't make rapists go away, but all the evidence proves that when you arm the women, rapes go down. And I really want as few rapes as possible. If you have any proof that gun control can reduce the rate at which women are raped, I would love to hear it.


I found this that made my point very clearly, so I just took the entire thing from Source

This is a link to an argument, that cites more studies.

"For both completed rape and sexual coercion, victims of completed acts
were less likely to take protective action than those who experienced
attempted victimization. This finding suggests that the intended victim's
willingness or ability to use protection might be one reason attempts to
rape and coerce sex failed. Note that the most common protective action
was using physical force against the assailant. Nearly 70 percent of
victims of attempted rape used this response -- again, a plausible reason
many of these acts were not completed."...
[M]ost recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing
that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed
rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original
research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of
past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially
valuable in solidifying this conclusion.
I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use
of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best
means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and
injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance.
This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.
First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that
both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most
effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the
assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.
Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice
Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman
resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1
percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40
percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems,
1990)

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000)
analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery,
aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with
a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who
did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who
resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property
losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost
three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance
strategy.
Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address
the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte,
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.)
The former concludes, "Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife
dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not
analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes
that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of
resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished
"without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."
The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when
avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and
resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
There are VERY few actual AK-47's left so no, it probably wasn't an AK-47 but a duplicate version, the original doesn't even have selectable fire, it's full auto all the time so you have to be quick with the trigger to fire singles.

I think his point was that selectable fire weapons are VERY rare, expensive, and highly regulated in the U.S. In fact, most "assault rifles" -- as they are so often wrongfully labeled by the media -- are nothing more than "scary looking" hunting rifles with a few extra "scary looking" parts.

IOW, the guy didn't use an original AK47.

I just built a sweet new AR15 carbine myself in order to do some extra training in my spare time...

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

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?

You sound like a real stand up human being. When you inevitably flip out, be sure to just kill yourself and not people around you.

So besides the fact that you're unable to separate reality from an internet message board, you're also unable to answer simple questions. You've got some real life issues to work on. Maybe you and Perknose can form some sort of support group.

 

[ProfJohn]

Question...

Ok, we know the guy was a nut job and we know he was afraid Obama was going to come take his guns.

But has there been any evidence that this incident was triggered by that fear??

When his momma called the cops was he thinking "oh no Obama is coming to get my guns" or was he thinking "I aint going to jail coppers!!!"

I think the whole fear of Obama taking his guns thing is over done. Did that guy in Oakland fear that Obama was going to take his guns too?

 

[nullzero]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Last 30 days..


1. Nursing home murders
2. Man in Alabama driving around shooting at people
3. Immigration help center in Binghamton, NY
4. Cops in Pittsburgh
5. man that beheaded his 5 year old sister and killed 2 other siblings with a knife
6. Cops in Oakland

Going to be a long HOT summer I fear as economy gets worse.

Unfortunately I think you are right . A lot of these people are starting to break apart once the money stops flowing. It just shows you how sad and pathetic are society has become, to be dependent on a piece of green paper which most of us have allowed to control our emotions and lives.

What we need is people to get back into touch with each other and their communities. Family, friends, interacting with community and nature are all needed for a healthy mind.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: 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.

I said apalling not appealing... Read what i wrote, not what u think i wrote.
My original post about removing race was written in complete SARCASM...

check your meter.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
There are VERY few actual AK-47's left so no, it probably wasn't an AK-47 but a duplicate version, the original doesn't even have selectable fire, it's full auto all the time so you have to be quick with the trigger to fire singles.

I think his point was that selectable fire weapons are VERY rare, expensive, and highly regulated in the U.S. In fact, most "assault rifles" -- as they are so often wrongfully labeled by the media -- are nothing more than "scary looking" hunting rifles with a few extra "scary looking" parts.

I just built a sweet new AR15 carbine myself in order to do some extra training in my spare time...

I like this picture.

Ammo

Which one is shot by the big bad scary black gun??????? And which one from a common hunting rifle?

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Question...

Ok, we know the guy was a nut job and we know he was afraid Obama was going to come take his guns.

But has there been any evidence that this incident was triggered by that fear??

When his momma called the cops was he thinking "oh no Obama is coming to get my guns" or was he thinking "I aint going to jail coppers!!!"

I think the whole fear of Obama taking his guns thing is over done. Did that guy in Oakland fear that Obama was going to take his guns too?

He was dishonorably discharged from the Marines, therefore he could not legally own firearms to begin with. I can only speculate, but once the police were called about a domestic dispute, they were more than likely going to ask if there were any firearms in the house (depending on the nature of the domestic dispute). If the police find he is violating the law, he was at the least going to lose the firearms, if not face charges and possibly do time...

I think the fear of a possible gun ban was just some kind of self deluding excuse covering up the fact he was illegally in possession of firearms to begin with...