Another public shooting rampage...

It's you who needs to get out in the real world more. My father is a retired police officer, after 30 years, and he swore on oath to "uphold and laws and protect the public" of his given jurisdiction. This may vary from state to state. In fact, this is the mission statement:

So, yes, it is their "duty" to protect the public. I would also suggest that if you ever receive a court restraining order that you take it seriously. Prison is not a real fun place, and I don't think they will give you access to SP from your cell.

 

Tal,
you poor fool simply don't understand the nature of the treat gun control poses. Propaganda? No way!

PS: Alternative link added.

 

Rags: 'image hosted by tripod'

But don't worry, it's still witty and convincing.

 

chandos, call your local police dept and tell them you need protection. they will tell you it is not their job to protect you.they have a job to do and holding your hand aint it.

tal, your statement just shows your ignorance. if you look at the typical gun owner you will find that they are well above the average in education and income. you may not call it prohobition in name but it equates to the same thing.
barmy......you are either being sarcastic or are drunk again.
drew, kinda funny all the firearm manufacturers keep making tons of money if they are not selling their products. also look at how much ammo winchester and federal produce every year for the civilion market. we are talking 2 BILLION rounds a year. sorry dude, poor people aren't buying that much.

 

By 'protect you', do you mean 'stand behind me holding a magnum and sporting a stern look'?

Of course police are there to protect you, but not in that manner. If you have a concern about your safety, call them, they'll check it out. If someone nicks your stuff, call them. Other countries seem to get on fine like this. Or is your problem that you don't trust the police? Prefer to take matters into your own hands? That's the problem with people with mindsets like yours.. far too vigilantish! (is that a word?)

And why's that? Whaty I said was perfectly fine. It wouldn't do for me to be drunk at this time really, at work talking to customers.

It's not nice seeing your argument crumble around you and being massively outnumbered, not fun at all. That's why you're turning to ad hominem and throwing insults around, trying to belittle. It's pretty natural human response sometimes, so don't worry, I don't hold it against you.

 

Of course they are selling their products. Of course they are making money. But they aren't selling 10 million a year to American civilians, which is what it would take for the number of civilian owned US firearms to double over the course of 20 years. Nor would they need to in order to turn a profit. To give some perspective, Americans, nearly all of whom drive and own a car, aren't even buying that many cars each year...and cars, unlike guns, need to be replaced quite often.

You are being ridiculous again. Of course it isn't the job of the police to follow you around and pre-emptively stop any and all potential threats and dangers from ever happening to you. If that were the case, the state would need to employ at least one police officer for every person living in the United States...which is obviously not possible (not to mention beyond ridiculous).

Police protect people by patrolling (looking for crimes in progress) and responding to civilian calls for help. Seriously, if police don't exist to protect people, we may as well just disband them, since they serve no other purpose of which I'm aware.

 

Don't apologize, you haven't done anything. First, as others have mentioned, a policeman's duty is to protect "the public" and uphold the law, and most instances of someone harming you - outside of self-defense - fall outside the law. Therefore, the cops are supposed to protect citizens in such cases. How effective they are/can be is another issue - probably ours are worse than yours. Second, you again try to twist my words. Did I say that people shouldn't have guns, period? I don't think I did. I said that there should be a decent waiting period for a background check and some regulations on how people obtain and maintain guns. So Jenny Sue has been living in fear of her abusive husband for years, she has spent weeks if not months waiting for that restraining order, but she could never get a gun because she had to wait 15 days for an approval? Yeah, just how likely is that? I'd say it's complete BS, to be honest.

I didn't think I'd have to clarify this, but you don't seem to get it. I'm okay with gun ownership, see some value in it, and I may, at some point, get a gun myself - but I want to keep it in reasonable boundaries. A respectable and responsible person, the kind of person who would stop a crime with a gun, will - and should - still be able to get a gun even if the gun control laws in the US were harsher than they are now. The whole purpose of such laws (which can, of course, be good or bad, depending on how they is phrased and enforced) is to make sure that the people who have guns are responsible and stable enough to use them properly. If a waiting period or a background check is prohibition for you, by the same standard you should say driving is prohibited - because you usually need a lot more than that time to get a driver's license.

I'm not sure if I used the right phrase here. I've heard of dinner table scandals that grew into someone beating up their wife, so such a scandal can end up as battery, or worse. It may be immature behavior on the part of the person who assaults their spouce over something like that, but so is stalking and trying to kill your ex-wife, especially when you have a restraining order. Both are immature, hurtful and tragic - and people do it. That I should present a theoretical and anecdotal argument should not surprise you when you've done the same - especially if my argument is a spin-off of yours.

Of course, tbh what is no less important than who gets the gun is who uses it. The law isn't the best way to influence that, but a state doesn't have many other options to influence that.

 

Barmy,
taking things in the own hands is direct, effective, final and produces always adequate results. That's because citizens fortunately lack the distance, self restraint and professionalism that lamentably results in policemen toning down the amount of violence used, thus creating far greater deterrence than cops. After that incident I wouldn't even dare ring the door bell to ask for the way in that neighbourhood - some armed lunatic might just shoot me through the door to be safe rather than sorry.

 

Holy crap Ragusa, that news story is horrendous. Watching the clip, the guy shouted 'they're getting away!' then let off 3 shots with a shotgun. Just let them get away man, jesus! Yeah, that's it, shoot a guy over a stolen DVD player. What a nutjob. Case in point why Joe Public shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.

 

if you listen to the end portion of the tape he says they came in the yard with him, a 70 year old man vs 2 burglars? yeah thats gonna get charges pressed(not!) hmmm, 70+ years old means he probably saw action in korea. also people from that generation have a different "take"(or mindset) on a lot of things including property as a lot grew up with nothing yet never stole anything in their life. i dont know if the shooting was warranted as i like all of you was not there when it happened. he may truly have felt in fear for his life once he got outside

on the castle law, most states it only applies to your home but in some(like south carolina for example) it includes your entire property!

 

There absolutely will be charges. He walked out of his house -armed with a shotgun- with the specific intent to kill two people who were running off with some of his neighbor's stuff and proceeded to do exactly that. He didn't warn them. They didn't threaten him. In fact, they didn't even have time to threaten him. He just walked out his front door and opened fire. If that's self defense, so is murder.

 

AMaster,
I fixed that link and added an alternate one. One should work, if not try again some time later.

 

I don't know, to be honest. He may get the jury on his side, and it's not like most people will feel good about sentencing an old guy in his 70's who, excessive force or not, technically prevented a crime. I think he'll probably be charged, but there's a chance that Martaug is right on that one. It mostly depends on what he meant by "having no choice" at the end of his talk - if the jury decides that one of those guys did something that could be a credible threat he'd probably get off the hook.

In such a situation I'd probably shoot in the air and shout at them. If he did that, and they came at him (not too likely), I wouldn't consider it a crime.

 

That's priceless. Thanks.

 

Ah, yes. I have on several occasions. And have had several people arrested as a result. Some of us believe the law has some value. And if you mean, "they have a job to do," like handing out traffic tickets, they even took time out from that....

 

posted by tal:
I wasn't making any statements about typical gun owners in the US, so I'm not sure what you're replying to, but I'm sure you know!

really? so this comment byyou : "The "they want to take yer guns away!" redneck scare tactic is just that - made up to whip the ignorant gun-toting masses ". so you can call someone ignorant without implying they are dumb?

also have you not seen my post about the supreme court taking the case against the handgun BAN which has been in effect in washington D.C. since the '70s(which by the way has not reduced their crime rate at all. in fact they are one of the top 10 most violent)

about the average gun owner, hmmm, lets see, i'm fairly average in my shooting and buying habits. i buy 3-4 firearms a year averaging about $1000 per gun. i shot at least twice per week(500 rds each time) so i go through about 50,000 rds a year just in practice. this doesnt include my competition rds, which are another 5,000 or so.
have you priced ammo lately? even buying case lots, it averages about $215 / 1000 rds. with S&H i'm looking at almost $12,000 a year in ammo. throw in range fees and entrance fees & i'm easily spending over $16000 a year in disposable income. kinda hard to do when you are at or below the median income. most if not all the people i shot with are much more highly educated than i(most have at least 4 years of college). i make almost 3 times the median income in the US and i'm on the low end of most of the guys(& girls) i shot with. sure there are people there who make less but they are a much smaller group. i will try and find the study about it and post a link.

oh and no countries having gun bans? have you looked at australia or japan recently? also check your history, every country that has had genocides has enacted a gun ban before the atrocities took place. have a good day!


@ chandos, oh really? you called the police and told them you needed somebody to come stay at your house to protect you and they just sent somebody out to wait around until the criminal showed up? BS.

 

The OED tells us that

Ignorant: Destitute of knowledge, either in general or with respect to a particular fact or subject; unknowing, uninformed, unlearned.

dumb:9. 3. N. Amer. A foolish or stupid person. Also dum(b)-dum(b). colloq.

So, yes, you can.

 

martaug,
from what I read on the web there is a huge military surplus market in the US, where you can buy surplus military ammo at snappy prices. Nothing as splendid as Winchester of Federal ammo, but it'll do. It ought to be for muderous purposes as adequate as for recreational ones. Don't you tell me that you go out at the range firing those Starfires (or whatever else). Also there is a large re-loading market for the price conscious do-it-yourself shooter.