NationStates Jolt Archive

disgruntled ex-husband decides today is the day to kill the bitch who divorced him. he takes a knife to the local wal-mart where she works, walks behind the counter and proceeds to stab her 12 times.

a 72-year-old man with a concealed-carry permit jumps over the counter and shoots the ex-husband dead.

the woman is in the hospital recovering from her ordeal.

http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=11742

the woman had a restraining order against her ex. of course it did no good. the only thing that saved her life was the legal gun carried by a stranger.

Curious. But not convincent.

Blood ran anyways. And because of a gun.

The only thing that killed many people was the legal gun carried by a stranger, or indeed frightened family member.

No legal guns where I live, and the murder rate's much lower. However, in Canada it's also lower, and they allow guns. So allowing guns solves no problems.

yeah SOOO much better to have a woman stabbed to death because she had the nerve to divorce her husband.

Nor better, nor worse.

There were a woman, and two stupids.

And allowing that gun didn't save any life.

are you saying that in your opinion it would have been just as "good" if the woman had died instead of the man? that if he had killed her and turned himself in to the police, it would have been an equally "good" outcome as having him be killed before he could kill her?

if so, i disagree.

(i put "good" in quotations since there was no actual good outcome to this story, just a better ending than it could have been)

Nor better, nor worse.

There were a woman, and two stupids.

And allowing that gun didn't save any life.

Exactly just revenge if you could say that...

Exactly just revenge if you could say that...
its not revenge when you save a woman's life.

its justifiable homicide.

If you'd just finished researching non-lethal weaponry, the woman would have been able to disable the husband, without the assistance of the other man, and no-one would have been hurt or killed. You'd just have one man in prison for attempted assault.

are you saying that in your opinion it would have been just as "good" if the woman had died instead of the man? that if he had killed her and turned himself in to the police, it would have been an equally "good" outcome as having him be killed before he could kill her?

if so, i disagree.

(i put "good" in quotations since there was no actual good outcome to this story, just a better ending than it could have been)

I don't say it is good. But if I was the one with the gun, I hadn't shot. I don't want to be called "killer", you know.

And it is not revenge; Ianarabia. Revenge had been if it was the woman who killed her husband.

Couldn't the 72 years old man shoot the husband's legs? Thus nobody had died.

its not revenge when you save a woman's life.

its justifiable homicide.

Is it any different when you save mans life? :p

I don't say it is good. But if I was the one with the gun, I hadn't shot. I don't want to be called "killer", you know.

And it is not revenge; Ianarabia. Revenge had been if it was the woman who killed her husband.

Couldn't the 72 years old man shoot the husband's legs? Thus nobody had died.
if you had been there you would have let her be murdered?

obviously you would never have been the man with the gun (and neither would i) but would you not have killed him to save her if that could have been done and was the only way to stop him?

its impossible to know if the guy could have shot him in some non-lethal way.

Is it any different when you save mans life? :p
*sticks her tongue out at ianarabia*

If you'd just finished researching non-lethal weaponry, the woman would have been able to disable the husband, without the assistance of the other man, and no-one would have been hurt or killed. You'd just have one man in prison for attempted assault.
i doubt she is allowed to bring non-lethal weaponry to work at walmart. and in any case the first few stabbings probably put you off any big defensive moves.

if you had been there you would have let her be murdered?


No, but you still wouldn't have killed the other guy if it was unnecessary- shoot him in the legs- disables him and allows the courts to decide his fate- not vigilante justice.

You don't have to be a trained marksman to own a gun in many countries, so in this case, tha old man could have missed and hit someone else instead. Then who would be celebrating guns?

*sticks her tongue out at ianarabia*

He has a very good point. Do you believe a woman's life is more important than a man's life? You sure made it sound that way.

P.S. Guns should be permitted. They allow innocent people to defend themselves in dangerous situations. Also, criminals will not be stopped simply because a certain weapon is illegal. On the contrary, the crime rate might even increase.

The guy got 12 stabs in before the gun saved her? So it was as much his failure to stab her properly than the gun that saved her. I'm sure you can find a better pro-gun arguement than this...

He has a very good point. Do you believe a woman's life is more important than a man's life? You sure made it sound that way.
if you had paid attention to the story, it was a WOMAN'S life that was saved. thats why i wrote it that way.

if a disgruntled ex wife was in walmart stabbing her husband to death and a 72 year old woman jumped over the counter to shoot her dead before she could finish the job it would also have been a good thing.

justice after the fact is nice but stopping a murder is better.

Well me, myself, would rather see the violent husband bleeding than the female victim. But thats not how you should view the world. It's not black and white. I bet there is a better solution to the situation than someone being carried out. If the old man would have had an non-lethal weapon everybody would be happy.

justice after the fact is nice but stopping a murder is better.

And what about stopping a murder commiting another murder?

The guy got 12 stabs in before the gun saved her? So it was as much his failure to stab her properly than the gun that saved her. I'm sure you can find a better pro-gun arguement than this...
i expect he was a little over excited.

The guy got 12 stabs in before the gun saved her? So it was as much his failure to stab her properly than the gun that saved her. I'm sure you can find a better pro-gun arguement than this...

Good point...if the guy was just about to stab the woman then that would have been great...a bit more tricky trying to explain it but...

And what about stopping a murder commiting another murder?
so for you there is no such thing as justifiable homicide? you must let another person be murdered if the only way to stop the murder is by killing the killer?

Well me, myself, would rather see the violent husband bleeding than the female victim. But thats not how you should view the world. It's not black and white. I bet there is a better solution to the situation than someone being carried out. If the old man would have had an non-lethal weapon everybody would be happy.Or, alternatively, the woman could have kept the non-lethal weapon herself, thus preventing the need for a third person.

Seriously, people, if you'd put the effort into stun guns that you had into nuclear weaponry, no-one would experience any more than a night's unconsciousness followed by a few years in a jail cell any more.

If you'd just finished researching non-lethal weaponry, the woman would have been able to disable the husband, without the assistance of the other man, and no-one would have been hurt or killed. You'd just have one man in prison for attempted assault.
My thoughts as well. If this third party had chosen to restrain this attacker, or (if gunplay it must be :rolleyes: ) had chosen to disable him rather than kill him, perhaps there might have been a positive outcome. This is cold comfort.

What if the ex-husband would have bought a gun and shot the women 12 times before he was shot down (she would have been killed)? That is just as likely if not even more likely to happen. All criminals do not plan their deeds. Many are just angry, mad or/and emotional Or in need of money. When they have a weapon at home, that makes them so much more dangerous. Think of every fight between family members that could end up in violence. When you have a gun at hom to "defend" yourself, it could end real bad, which it often does.

What if the ex-husband would have bought a gun and shot the women 12 times before he was shot down? That is just as likely if not even more likely to happen. All criminals do not plan their deeds. Many are just angry, mad or/and emotional Or in need of money. When they have a weapon at home, that makes them so much more dangerous. Think of every fight between family members that could end up in violence. When you have a gun at hom to "defend" yourself, it could end real bad, which it often does.

And he had a perfectly legal knife. She had a restraining order. Lots of good it did her.

It "could" end real bad?, It "often" does? Compared to how many legally owned guns in the US?

I really get a kick out of the individuals on this board defending the ex-husband who was attempting to kill his ex-wife and was stopped.

Yep, guns sure are great! Why, I reckon everyone should carry a gun! But then, of course, the husband would have had a gun, and would have just shot his ex! Sure she'd be dead before the old man would have leapt to her aid, killing the ex husband, and maybe the husband would have had enough time to get off a shot in his direction too, but hey, we've got to do all we can to protect a law written centuries ago because god knows those british are just itching to re-invade!




"Guns don't kill people, people kill people.... yeah, but I think the gun helps! I mean, I don't think it'd work quite the same if you pointed your finger at them and went "BANG!"" - Eddie Izzard

so for you there is no such thing as justifiable homicide?

No, there isn't. An homicide is a punishable crime, whaetever I did it because I liked to do, I had, I was forced, I was menaced...

if you had paid attention to the story, it was a WOMAN'S life that was saved. thats why i wrote it that way.

if a disgruntled ex wife was in walmart stabbing her husband to death and a 72 year old woman jumped over the counter to shoot her dead before she could finish the job it would also have been a good thing.

justice after the fact is nice but stopping a murder is better.

Damn, you're hostile. I understood the story just fine, and thought I'd let you know that the way your response was written could be misinterpreted as believing a woman's life is more important than a man's.

"Saving a woman's life is a good thing to do."

Replace woman with person, and everything's dandy. It would have saved you a lot of explaining.

but wouldn't it of been allot better if the woman would of used a baseball bat I'm not saying that she should carry one around but Wal-Mart does sell allot of goods and the woman did have time to find a weapon

You don't have to be a trained marksman to own a gun in many countries, so in this case, tha old man could have missed and hit someone else instead. Then who would be celebrating guns?

And the police & military never miss?

And he had a perfectly legal knife. She had a restraining order. Lots of good it did her.

It "could" end real bad?, It "often" does? Compared to how many legally owned guns in the US?

I really get a kick out of the individuals on this board defending the ex-husband who was attempting to kill his ex-wife and was stopped.

i agree with what you said. the husband was murdering his wife. why should the third party use a "non-lethal" way to end the attack?

but wouldn't it of been allot better if the woman would of used a baseball bat I'm not saying that she should carry one around but Wal-Mart does sell allot of goods and the woman did have time to find a weapon

Where in the article does it say that? Did she have time to go over to sporting goods?

The guy got 12 stabs in before the gun saved her? So it was as much his failure to stab her properly than the gun that saved her. I'm sure you can find a better pro-gun arguement than this...
Well, to be honest, there are certain situations
where not even a gun can save you from a knife
waving manic.
I have been training myself a little
from a Krav Maga book on self defense.
They teach this form of self defense that anyone can
learn and protect yourself from guns and knives.
They have tested in the police forces that when
a man with a knife lunges at an officer, the cop has a better chance
of getting stabbed than the bad guy getting shot, cause it takes longer to draw and fire. So they are tought hoe to fight hand to knife!

i agree with what you said. the husband was murdering his wife. why should the third party use a "non-lethal" way to end the attack?

And the police ( those individuals that Hoplophobes believe should be the ONLY ones to defend victims) agree:

?It?s probably a very good thing he (Moore) was there,? says APD Sgt. Trish Hoffman. ?Ms. Cordova may not be here today if it had not been for him.?

i agree with what you said. the husband was murdering his wife. why should the third party use a "non-lethal" way to end the attack?

common sense says, sometimes only brute force can be met
with brute force. I see a guy about to stab an innocent person, or rob them,
and I have a gun by my side...... ready, aim, FIRE!!!!

No, there isn't. An homicide is a punishable crime, whaetever I did it because I liked to do, I had, I was forced, I was menaced...
wow
so if it had been your MOTHER and you had been the man with the gun, you would have let her die? or, if you had killed her attacker, you would expect to spend a very long time in prison for murder?

i agree with what you said. the husband was murdering his wife. why should the third party use a "non-lethal" way to end the attack?What, kill him and get him out of the repercussions of his actions? How very generous of you. ¬_¬

Several reasons. Revenge, justice, cheap manual labour, the hope of rehabilitation and making him into a decent member of society once again, the possibility that he might have some skills to add to the community...

And the police ( those individuals that Hoplophobes believe should be the ONLY ones to defend victims) agree:

?It?s probably a very good thing he (Moore) was there,? says APD Sgt. Trish Hoffman. ?Ms. Cordova may not be here today if it had not been for him.?

We all know the American police. That is not a valid point.

Curious. But not convincent.

Blood ran anyways. And because of a gun.

Blood ran because of a deranged individual w/ a knife. A life was saved because of a gun.

Curious. But not convincent.

Blood ran anyways. And because of a gun.

I suppose her dying would have been more acceptable
than a murderer dying?

but wouldn't it of been allot better if the woman would of used a baseball bat I'm not saying that she should carry one around but Wal-Mart does sell allot of goods and the woman did have time to find a weapon
they dont keep bats behind the deli counter at walmart and if she had had time to go looking for one, she would have had time to call 911 and get proper help.

wow
so if it had been your MOTHER and you had been the man with the gun, you would have let her die? or, if you had killed her attacker, you would expect to spend a very long time in prison for murder?

Don't make the imagination fly. We are not talking about our mothers. And it was not a man, it was her husband, so you should ask what would happen if your father tried to kill your mother...

Something too much out of context.

Weapons are BAD.

We all know the American police. That is not a valid point.

And now we get to the America bashing. This gets old quick.

What, kill him and get him out of the repercussions of his actions? How very generous of you. ¬_¬

Several reasons. Revenge, justice, cheap manual labour, the hope of rehabilitation and making him into a decent member of society once again, the possibility that he might have some skills to add to the community...

gee, and how much of my taxdollars are going to go into some murder's getting help, when there is a damn good chance he'll do it again?
Rehab on serial murders doesn't work as well as you think, not even prison incarceration.

No, there isn't. An homicide is a punishable crime, whaetever I did it because I liked to do, I had, I was forced, I was menaced... Yes, there is. It's known as self-defence, the defence of others, even war. The question is not whether you have a right to kill, but instead, whether you have a right to let a murder of the innocent take place. Which is worse? An innocent's death or a guilty man's death?

Having said that, I'm still not in favour of guns - they cause far more problems than they solve.

Don't make the imagination fly. We are not talking about our mothers. And it was not a man, it was her husband, so you should ask what would happen if your father tried to kill your mother...

Something too much out of context.

Weapons are BAD.

Her husband wasn't a "man"?

If the old guy shot the ex husband sooner she'd probably be out of the hospital already and if he were unarmed she'd be dead.


Nor better, nor worse.

There were a woman, and two stupids.

And allowing that gun didn't save any life.

What, kill him and get him out of the repercussions of his actions? How very generous of you. ¬_¬

Several reasons. Revenge, justice, cheap manual labour, the hope of rehabilitation and making him into a decent member of society once again, the possibility that he might have some skills to add to the community...

The woman was in the act of being killed. generous to save a woman from death.

they dont keep bats behind the deli counter at walmart and if she had had time to go looking for one, she would have had time to call 911 and get proper help.
By the way, do you know what the response
time from the police is? A good time is like 5-10 mins.
I want you to stop now, take a timer, set it for about 7 mins.
Then just sit there and imagin a deranged lunatic
slashing at you with a knife about to jump over the counter.
Try it and then get back to me.

@ Kecibukia fancy meeting you here. :)

If the old guy shot the ex husband sooner she'd probably be out of the hospital already and if he were unarmed she'd be dead. And if the ex-husband had a gun…

Yes, there is. It's known as self-defence, the defence of others, even war. The question is not whether you have a right to kill, but instead, whether you have a right to let a murder of the innocent take place. Which is worse? An innocent's death or a guilty man's death?

Having said that, I'm still not in favour of guns - they cause far more problems than they solve.
Hear , hear!!!
Aside from that anti-gun comment.

Her husband wasn't a "man"?

Hmm. maybe he was some weird mutant?

The woman was in the act of being killed. generous to save a woman from death.

But we need to think of the deranged ex-husband w/ multiple counts of domestic violence. He's the "real" victim here.
:rolleyes:

Don't make the imagination fly. We are not talking about our mothers. And it was not a man, it was her husband, so you should ask what would happen if your father tried to kill your mother...

Something too much out of context.

Weapons are BAD.
i was trying to make it more personal for you.

the notion that it is NEVER justified to interfere with a murder by killing the killer is very foreign to me.

so i want to see where you would really draw the line. i think that you would defend your mother or your sister or your wife. i think that you would then be outraged if you were sent to prison for saving someones life.

the man in this story is facing NO charges, he wont have to hire a lawyer, he wont ever go to court because of it.

And what about stopping a murder commiting another murder?
So... if you were being attacked and stabbed to death by someone, and you had the means to save yourself, but it required killing them, you'd just let them stab you to death? :rolleyes:

@ Kecibukia fancy meeting you here. :)

Yeah, go figure.
;)

When they invent a non lethal weapon to disable a man as effectivly as a .45
I'll carry that, also.



If you'd just finished researching non-lethal weaponry, the woman would have been able to disable the husband, without the assistance of the other man, and no-one would have been hurt or killed. You'd just have one man in prison for attempted assault.

But we need to think of the deranged ex-husband w/ multiple counts of domestic violence. He's the "real" victim here.
:rolleyes:

of course, lets not forget that... :rolleyes:

And if the ex-husband had a gun…

who would be the faster draw?
If I saw I guy sticking a gun in a woman's face,
and I had a gun with me, you'd be sure as hell
he'd drop dead before he'd pull the trigger.

And if the ex-husband had a gun?

Then the Ex-wife would still have holes in her and the Law-Abiding Citizen that came to her rescue could still have shot him.

And the Restraining Order still wouldn't have protected her.

When they invent a non lethal weapon to disable a man as effectivly as a .45
I'll carry that, also.

*laughs*

But we need to think of the deranged ex-husband w/ multiple counts of domestic violence. He's the "real" victim here.
:rolleyes:

A victim of his stupidity, yes.
He made the stupid desicion to go and kill
and innocent person, and paid for it
with his own instead.
True justice has been served.
What if that woman was your mother?
You'd let her get killed while you are just
standing there with an oppertunity to stop it
by any means nessesary?
Boy, it never hits a person until they are in the
same shoes!

Yes, there is. It's known as self-defence, the defence of others, even war. The question is not whether you have a right to kill, but instead, whether you have a right to let a murder of the innocent take place. Which is worse? An innocent's death or a guilty man's death?

Having said that, I'm still not in favour of guns - they cause far more problems than they solve.


First, self-defence had been if only if the woman had killed her husband.

Second, the guy was nor guilty. At the instant of his death, he had not commited any crime. Principle of innocency, you may have intention of killing one million people but, if you don't touch nobody, you CAN'T be judged for assasination, even if you wanted to do.

You could be judged for intention... but that's other history.

A victim of his stupidity, yes.
He made the stupid desicion to go and kill
and innocent person, and paid for it
with his own instead.
True justice has been served.
What if that woman was your mother?
You'd let her get killed while you are just
standing there with an oppertunity to stop it
by any means nessesary?
Boy, it never hits a person until they are in the
same shoes!

While you try to put that woman as my mother, are you asking me if I would shoot to my own father?? Remember they were married. Would you shoot your father to protect your mother?

First, self-defence had been if only if the woman had killed her husband.

Second, the guy was nor guilty. At the instant of his death, he had not commited any crime. Principle of innocency, you may have intention of killing one million people but, if you don't touch nobody, you CAN'T be judged for assasination, even if you wanted to do.

You could be judged for intention... but that's other history.

so, what you are saying it would have been better had he stabbed the life of the woman util she's dead and cold and THEN you go and shoot the bad guy?
Remind me to never ask you to watch my back on a police force.

While you try to put that woman as my mother, are you asking me if I would shoot to my own father?? Remember they were married. Would you shoot your father to protect your mother?

would you let your father kill your mother? i would shoot.

First, self-defence had been if only if the woman had killed her husband.

Second, the guy was nor guilty. At the instant of his death, he had not commited any crime. Principle of innocency, you may have intention of killing one million people but, if you don't touch nobody, you CAN'T be judged for assasination, even if you wanted to do.

You could be judged for intention... but that's other history. No, technically he wasn't guilty. But as they say, prevention is better than cure.

First, self-defence had been if only if the woman had killed her husband.

Second, the guy was nor guilty. At the instant of his death, he had not commited any crime. Principle of innocency, you may have intention of killing one million people but, if you don't touch nobody, you CAN'T be judged for assasination, even if you wanted to do.

You could be judged for intention... but that's other history.

He HADN'T COMMITTED A CRIME!!!!??? Are you honestly that stupid or are you blatantly being ignorant? In full view of the public he:

1: Violated a restraining order

2: Committed assault w/ intent to kill.

Where in the world did you get that he didn't "touch" her?

He hadn't been "convicted" of a crime but he was in the middle of committing several.

While you try to put that woman as my mother, are you asking me if I would shoot to my own father?? Remember they were married. Would you shoot your father to protect your mother?

Once again, you would just stand there and watch an innocent life get killed.
Boy that is just sad. If it was my father trying to kill my mother, I probably would shoot as well, not to kill, but to stop him from killing my mother.
I cannot believe you would just stand there and watch an innocent life get taken.

First, self-defence had been if only if the woman had killed her husband.

Second, the guy was nor guilty. At the instant of his death, he had not commited any crime. Principle of innocency, you may have intention of killing one million people but, if you don't touch nobody, you CAN'T be judged for assasination, even if you wanted to do.

You could be judged for intention... but that's other history.
i believe you misunderstood

the ex husband STABBED the woman 12 times! he was in the middle of murder when he was stopped

if he had not yet struck a blow, then yes, the other man would have been in some trouble for shooting on the assumption that there was going to be a murder in a moment.

he probably would still have not faced charges here in new mexico though.

No, technically he wasn't guilty. But as they say, prevention is better than cure.

If he didnt kill her, or was stopped before the stabbing, it would be known as attempted murder. That is a crime.

The woman was in the act of being killed. generous to save a woman from death.Shoot him twice. Once in the shoulder of his forearm, once in the thigh. That's him disabled. While he's down, kick him in the face once. That's him unconscious. The Woman is just as saved as she would be with the husband dead, the husband lives to pay for the wife's hospital bills, experience whatever vengeance the woman would wreak upon him and, if he cleans his act up, gets another chance at leading a decent life later on.

That's not my point though. It shouldn't be a choice between the two lives. Both victim and onlooker need a way to disable at will without having the potential to kill at will. Something like this, in fact (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/mg18725126.300), only in a concealable handgun format. Electric bullets that, on contact anywhere with the target, render them completely immobile.

And if the focus of your weaponry development was shifted to this sort of thing rather than more deadly tools of war, you wouldn't have any problems like the one this topic suggests. Why didn't the woman carry a gun of her own? Probably because the idea of killing someone worried her. Give her a projectile immobiliser and she'd take the attacker down herself.

No mess, no guilt, no loss of life.

While you try to put that woman as my mother, are you asking me if I would shoot to my own father?? Remember they were married. Would you shoot your father to protect your mother?

According to the report they were divorced.

If my father was stabbing my mother... Yes.

Asking again... Would you let your mother (or your father viceacversa) die?

if he had not yet struck a blow, then yes, the other man would have been in some trouble for shooting on the assumption that there was going to be a murder in a moment.

he probably would still have not faced charges here in new mexico though. Although a crazy man attempting to attack a woman with a knife is certainly grounds for a reasonable assumption.

While you try to put that woman as my mother, are you asking me if I would shoot to my own father?? Remember they were married. Would you shoot your father to protect your mother?
plenty of people have had to do just that. some very young. when your abusive father is in the process of killing your mother, yes you do do whatever you have to do to save her life.

the lucky ones use a gun.

Although a crazy man attempting to attack a woman with a knife is certainly grounds for a reasonable assumption.
it would be in new mexico, im not so sure about places like new york.

Guys, I didn't know he stabbed the woman... OK.

But, you are saying you would kill your father if he tries to kill your mother... wow.

I'd probably try to hurt him with something until he gets unconscious, and then call the police. I just can't kill my father.

Shoot him twice. Once in the shoulder of his forearm, once in the thigh. That's him disabled. While he's down, kick him in the face once. That's him unconscious. The Woman is just as saved as she would be with the husband dead, the husband lives to pay for the wife's hospital bills, experience whatever vengeance the woman would wreak upon him and, if he cleans his act up, gets another chance at leading a decent life later on.

That's not my point though. It shouldn't be a choice between the two lives. Both victim and onlooker need a way to disable at will without having the potential to kill at will. Something like this, in fact (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/mg18725126.300), only in a concealable handgun format. Electric bullets that, on contact anywhere with the target, render them completely immobile.

And if the focus of your weaponry development was shifted to this sort of thing rather than more deadly tools of war, you wouldn't have any problems like the one this topic suggests. Why didn't the woman carry a gun of her own? Probably because the idea of killing someone worried her. Give her a projectile immobiliser and she'd take the attacker down herself.

No mess, no guilt, no loss of life.


Did you know that many police departments are abandoning the use of "non-lethals" as they are being abused, are not effective, or aren't "non-lethal"?

Shoot him twice. Once in the shoulder of his forearm, once in the thigh. That's him disabled. While he's down, kick him in the face once. That's him unconscious. The Woman is just as saved as she would be with the husband dead, the husband lives to pay for the wife's hospital bills, experience whatever vengeance the woman would wreak upon him and, if he cleans his act up, gets another chance at leading a decent life later on.

That's not my point though. It shouldn't be a choice between the two lives. Both victim and onlooker need a way to disable at will without having the potential to kill at will. Something like this, in fact (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/mg18725126.300), only in a concealable handgun format. Electric bullets that, on contact anywhere with the target, render them completely immobile.

And if the focus of your weaponry development was shifted to this sort of thing rather than more deadly tools of war, you wouldn't have any problems like the one this topic suggests. Why didn't the woman carry a gun of her own? Probably because the idea of killing someone worried her. Give her a projectile immobiliser and she'd take the attacker down herself.

No mess, no guilt, no loss of life.

I like the idea behind that, but murderers are not going to wait until that
comes out on the civilian market. They will keep on killin regardless.
I'll stick with smith and wesson for protection now!

I am an expert with firearms. I've been a rifle and pistol coach and taught close combat pistol skills, at 30 yards I can fire a less than fist sizes group with almost zero effort I was even offered a spot at the USMC sniper school would I have reenlisted. I'm not bragging that was a preface to this.
It is absolutly irresposncable for any shooter reguardless of skill to aim anyplace other than center mass in handgun combat. I'm not pulling this out of my ass when the blood is pumping and you are shooting at a moving target in close proximity to bystanders to prevent anybody from accidently being injured through overpenitration of if he moves and you miss or you flinch...what ever you have to maximise you hitting potenial by aiming center mass, unfortunatly thing like the heart and lungs tend to be center mass too.





I don't say it is good. But if I was the one with the gun, I hadn't shot. I don't want to be called "killer", you know.

And it is not revenge; Ianarabia. Revenge had been if it was the woman who killed her husband.

Couldn't the 72 years old man shoot the husband's legs? Thus nobody had died.

Guys, I didn't know he stabbed the woman... OK.

But, you are saying you would kill your father if he tries to kill your mother... wow.

I'd probably try to hurt him with something until he gets unconscious, and then call the police. I just can't kill my father.

Dont, worry, i wouldnt shoot to kill either.
But I would disable him with a gun if I had to.

a good side to allowing guns ?!

i beg to differ...when a gun is involved someone dies...Thats not good.

Guys, I didn't know he stabbed the woman... OK.

But, you are saying you would kill your father if he tries to kill your mother... wow.

I'd probably try to hurt him with something until he gets unconscious, and then call the police. I just can't kill my father.
i would suggest that thats because your father is a good man who only deserves your love and respect.

if THIS man were your father you would already have to have thought about what you would do if he tried to kill your mother. she had a restraining order for good reason (a restraining order is a legal document that says that he cannot come withing 100 feet of her EVER without being arrested) you would have already decided if you would kill him or not.

many people who were raised in an abusive environment have made the decision that they would never let their mother die.

a good side to allowing guns ?!

i beg to differ...when a gun is involved someone dies...Thats not good.

In this case, a deranged individual that was attempting to kill his ex-wife died. You would rather he continued w/ the knife?

Wow...

There is actually people here defending an ex-wife stabbing psycho. What the hell has this world come to?

Canada City']Wow...

There is actually people here defending an ex-wife stabbing psycho. What the hell has this world come to?

It's all because of the evil, scary gun that forced the old man to blatanly murder the "ex-wife stabbing psycho" in cold blood.

If the gun was not present, the ex-husband would never have violated the restraining order and try to kill his wife.

Did you know that many police departments are abandoning the use of "non-lethals" as they are being abused, are not effective, or aren't "non-lethal"?Oh. Then... I dunno... maybe... develop ones that are effective and non-lethal? And I know I'd rather have someone abuse the use of a stun-gun on me than the use of a conventional pistol; at least with the former I have a reasonable chance of making it out alive at the end of it all.

Oh. Then... I dunno... maybe... develop ones that are effective and non-lethal? And I know I'd rather have someone abuse the use of a stun-gun on me than the use of a conventional pistol; at least with the former I have a reasonable chance of making it out alive at the end of it all.

The majority of firearm wounds are not fatal.

I actually have "less than lethals" in the shotgun I keep loaded at home. A pepper round (shotshell filled w/ cayane pepper) and a rubber ball round. After that, it gets into regular shot or slugs.

The development on non-lethals should continue. I agree w/ that wholeheartedly. THere are situations where they wouldn't work in any case.

Did you also know that several US states (mostly the ones that restrict firearms) also heavily restrict the use/possesion of items such as mace, pepper spray, and tasers by civilians?

I've read your link, a key word is less lethal not non lethal and see my other post about shooting people in the arm.


Shoot him twice. Once in the shoulder of his forearm, once in the thigh. That's him disabled. While he's down, kick him in the face once. That's him unconscious. The Woman is just as saved as she would be with the husband dead, the husband lives to pay for the wife's hospital bills, experience whatever vengeance the woman would wreak upon him and, if he cleans his act up, gets another chance at leading a decent life later on.

That's not my point though. It shouldn't be a choice between the two lives. Both victim and onlooker need a way to disable at will without having the potential to kill at will. Something like this, in fact (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/mg18725126.300), only in a concealable handgun format. Electric bullets that, on contact anywhere with the target, render them completely immobile.

And if the focus of your weaponry development was shifted to this sort of thing rather than more deadly tools of war, you wouldn't have any problems like the one this topic suggests. Why didn't the woman carry a gun of her own? Probably because the idea of killing someone worried her. Give her a projectile immobiliser and she'd take the attacker down herself.

No mess, no guilt, no loss of life.

I think it's pretty black-and-white to claim that anyone here has defended the husband. They're talking about the ethics of killing someone, even if that person is a fuckwit. Another issue for me is that this post is claiming that this is an example of why it's good that the public can carry concealed guns. If the husband had been carrying a pistol the chance that the wife's life could be saved would be very low.

I don't think that this guy's death is tragic, as this would have been a pre-meditated and brutal murder. The fact he just did it in public makes it hard to see how he could be rehabilitated. But in general, guns just increase the chances of completely unecessary deaths. Not that there's any good way to change matters once guns are widely available.

I've read your link, a key word is less lethal not non lethal and see my other post about shooting people in the arm.Fair enough; at the minute, they're not exactly safe to launch into each other. But give it time and divert some of your arms money at it and you'll see results, I reckon.

And as for the arm thing, you could always aim for the shoulder. That thing has stopping potential, provides a reasonably immobile target, stops the attack dead, is close to his centre of mass and doesn't hit any vital organs in the process. If you're a good shot, there's no reason not to, is there?

The majority of firearm wounds are not fatal.

I actually have "less than lethals" in the shotgun I keep loaded at home. A pepper round (shotshell filled w/ cayane pepper) and a rubber ball round. After that, it gets into regular shot or slugs.

The development on non-lethals should continue. I agree w/ that wholeheartedly. THere are situations where they wouldn't work in any case.

Did you also know that several US states (mostly the ones that restrict firearms) also heavily restrict the use/possesion of items such as mace, pepper spray, and tasers by civilians?

so what the heck can we use to defend ourselves?
Just walk and pray that we get missed?
Argh, what idiots do that sort of thing?

I am an expert with firearms. I've been a rifle and pistol coach and taught close combat pistol skills, at 30 yards I can fire a less than fist sizes group with almost zero effort I was even offered a spot at the USMC sniper school would I have reenlisted. I'm not bragging that was a preface to this.
It is absolutly irresposncable for any shooter reguardless of skill to aim anyplace other than center mass in handgun combat. I'm not pulling this out of my ass when the blood is pumping and you are shooting at a moving target in close proximity to bystanders to prevent anybody from accidently being injured through overpenitration of if he moves and you miss or you flinch...what ever you have to maximise you hitting potenial by aiming center mass, unfortunatly thing like the heart and lungs tend to be center mass too.


Why are you talking about a moving target? If a man is stabing someone 12 times, I don't think he is runnin around in the room ok? his probably leaned over the body. and in that cvase you wouldn't have such a problem immobilising him.

To the others, we are not talking about defending a pchyco, we are talking about saving a life. But I do not understand when you guys talk about saving a life when someone is dead.

We can't assume this man was a total monster either (even if he was a potential killer), because these two persons were able to love each other once.

I've read your link, a key word is less lethal not non lethal and see my other post about shooting people in the arm.

Less lethal has also killed as well.
When it comes to stopping people, sometimes
you gotta hurt them bad to stop.
You dont shoot a peashooter at a charging
rhino or elephant.
You use a heavy duty rifle to get them to stop
even if it means killing them.

I would never shoot at anything other than center mass with a pistol, ever.Fair enough; at the minute, they're not exactly safe to launch into each other. But give it time and divert some of your arms money at it and you'll see results, I reckon.

And as for the arm thing, you could always aim for the shoulder. That thing has stopping potential, provides a reasonably immobile target, stops the attack dead, is close to his centre of mass and doesn't hit any vital organs in the process. If you're a good shot, there's no reason not to, is there?

I would never shoot at anything other than center mass with a pistol, ever.Even if there was a near certainty that hitting him where you aimed would stop them in their tracks while sparing their life, and if you missed, there's a reasonable chance you'd hit him in his vital organs anyway?

Why are you talking about a moving target? If a man is stabing someone 12 times, I don't think he is runnin around in the room ok? his probably leaned over the body. and in that cvase you wouldn't have such a problem immobilising him.

To the others, we are not talking about defending a pchyco, we are talking about saving a life. But I do not understand when you guys talk about saving a life when someone is dead.

We can't assume this man was a total monster either (even if he was a potential killer), because these two persons were able to love each other once.
I think what he ment was, when you have a guy stabbing a girl with a knife, there is some movement of the arms and legs, and thrashing, and it would harder to aim at someone's arm or leg when they are moving their extremities.
Its easier to hit a solid mass than an arm or a leg thats moving.

The majority of firearm wounds are not fatal.

I actually have "less than lethals" in the shotgun I keep loaded at home. A pepper round (shotshell filled w/ cayane pepper) and a rubber ball round. After that, it gets into regular shot or slugs.

The development on non-lethals should continue. I agree w/ that wholeheartedly. THere are situations where they wouldn't work in any case.

Did you also know that several US states (mostly the ones that restrict firearms) also heavily restrict the use/possesion of items such as mace, pepper spray, and tasers by

Why the hell would you need a shotgun in your home. Are you in a state of war with some other nation?
If you feel the need to have such weapons in your home, you must really live in fear, and there is no saying no to that. It's really sad.

In a ten year span, 1988 to 1997, 633 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed by firearms in America. A handgun was the murder weapon in 78% (492 victims) of the fatal incidents. Over the same period of time, rifles killed 106 officers and shotguns killed 35 officers. A total of 253 law enforcement officers were slain while equipped with body armor.
- U.S. Department of Justice

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 1999, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 28,874,a 6% decrease from 1998 figures.
- Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No. 8

Data from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention show that:
Everyday in the United States, 8 young Americans ages 19 and under are killed in gun homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.
For every child killed by a gun, four more are wounded.

I would never shoot at anything other than center mass with a pistol, ever.
so true

Why the hell would you need a shotgun in your home. Are you in a state of war with some other nation?
If you feel the need to have such weapons in your home, you must really live in fear, and there is no saying no to that. It's really sad.

I dunno, for hunting, for target shooting, recreation.
Protection. My dad's got two of them, one 12gauge the other a double
barrel. The 12's got a nice kick to it even though its almost 30 years old.

Have you ever fired a handgun? I suggest you you try this.
Go to a range get a target at 3m. Make sur you pistol is loaded now before you shoot run around the buildings a few times to get you blood going. Now shoot for the arms and legs after you start the targt swaying to simulate movement and ever road you shoot that doesn't hit paper has potentially richocheted into a child's head. Now where do you aim? Me, I aim center mass.




Why are you talking about a moving target? If a man is stabing someone 12 times, I don't think he is runnin around in the room ok? his probably leaned over the body. and in that cvase you wouldn't have such a problem immobilising him.

To the others, we are not talking about defending a pchyco, we are talking about saving a life. But I do not understand when you guys talk about saving a life when someone is dead.

We can't assume this man was a total monster either (even if he was a potential killer), because these two persons were able to love each other once.

In a ten year span, 1988 to 1997, 633 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed by firearms in America. A handgun was the murder weapon in 78% (492 victims) of the fatal incidents. Over the same period of time, rifles killed 106 officers and shotguns killed 35 officers. A total of 253 law enforcement officers were slain while equipped with body armor.
- U.S. Department of Justice

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 1999, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 28,874,a 6% decrease from 1998 figures.
- Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No. 8

Data from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention show that:
Everyday in the United States, 8 young Americans ages 19 and under are killed in gun homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.
For every child killed by a gun, four more are wounded.

has it been mentioned that someof these "kids" are gang bangers
or in a home with gangbanger family members? How many more are stabbed, drowned, strangled, starved, beaten, shaken, hit by cars, attacked by dogs, etc?

Have you ever fired a handgun? I suggest you you try this.
Go to a range get a target at 3m. Make sur you pistol is loaded now before you shoot run around the buildings a few times to get you blood going. Now shoot for the arms and legs after you start the targt swaying to simulate movement and ever road you shoot that doesn't hit paper has potentially richocheted into a child's head. Now where do you aim? Me, I aim center mass.

Thats a no brainer.
Whats easier hit, the broadside of a barn at 10 feet, or a stick swinging in the breeze?

Center mass, his life has become less import than that of any bystander. Center mass unless blocked by a hostage.


Even if there was a near certainty that hitting him where you aimed would stop them in their tracks while sparing their life, and if you missed, there's a reasonable chance you'd hit him in his vital organs anyway?

has it been mentioned that someof these "kids" are gang bangers
or in a home with gangbanger family members? How many more are stabbed, drowned, strangled, starved, beaten, shaken, hit by cars, attacked by dogs, etc?


Im sure some of the police officers could have been corrupt too,
you think that makes it alright do you?

Center mass, his life has become less import than that of any bystander. Center mass unless blocked by a hostage.
Then you aim for head if possible.

Im sure some of the police officers could have been corrupt too,
you think that makes it alright do you?

as to what?

Why the hell would you need a shotgun in your home. Are you in a state of war with some other nation?
If you feel the need to have such weapons in your home, you must really live in fear, and there is no saying no to that. It's really sad.

I also have a fire extinguisher in my home and locks on my doors. It's called preparation. Shotguns have a myriad of uses. One of the least of them is use in warfare.

We also have coyotes and wild dogs around here not to mention the occasional robber.

What's sad is the fact that you would rather my family be defensless against individuals that would cause them harm.

I also have a fire extinguisher in my home and locks on my doors. It's called preparation. Shotguns have a myriad of uses. One of the least of them is use in warfare.

We also have coyotes and wild dogs around here not to mention the occasional robber.

What's sad is the fact that you would rather my family be defensless against individuals that would cause them harm.

Well, they do use shotguns in war, but only in close combat. :)

In a ten year span, 1988 to 1997, 633 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed by firearms in America. A handgun was the murder weapon in 78% (492 victims) of the fatal incidents. Over the same period of time, rifles killed 106 officers and shotguns killed 35 officers. A total of 253 law enforcement officers were slain while equipped with body armor.
- U.S. Department of Justice

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 1999, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 28,874,a 6% decrease from 1998 figures.
- Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No. 8

Data from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention show that:
Everyday in the United States, 8 young Americans ages 19 and under are killed in gun homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.
For every child killed by a gun, four more are wounded.


Ah yes, the CDC. One of the most famously anti-gun data skewers there is. How many of those "children" were killed due to the fact they were in gangs? How many of those deaths were suicide? How many of all those firearms were legally owned?

Roughly 2.5 million crimes were prevented by firearms weilded by Law-Abiding Citizens.

There are over 300 million legally owned firearms in the US and 80 million legal owners.

as to what?

short term memory problems going on here or what?



In a ten year span, 1988 to 1997, 633 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed by firearms in America. A handgun was the murder weapon in 78% (492 victims) of the fatal incidents. Over the same period of time, rifles killed 106 officers and shotguns killed 35 officers. A total of 253 law enforcement officers were slain while equipped with body armor.
- U.S. Department of Justice

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 1999, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 28,874,a 6% decrease from 1998 figures.
- Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No. 8

Data from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention show that:
Everyday in the United States, 8 young Americans ages 19 and under are killed in gun homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.
For every child killed by a gun, four more are wounded.



Originally Posted by Bluzblekistan
has it been mentioned that someof these "kids" are gang bangers
or in a home with gangbanger family members? How many more are stabbed, drowned, strangled, starved, beaten, shaken, hit by cars, attacked by dogs, etc?



I'm sure some of the police officers could have been corrupt too,
you think that makes it alright do you?


and then again your gem of a response
as to what?

Guns are used to kill lots and lots of people
about half the deaths as a result of firearms are due to suicide
but that isn't a mitigation

Finding the odd occasion where someone with a gun saved someone from
a bad guy doesn't stack up against the sheer scale of death that
guns bring to the U.S.
What do you find hard to understand about that?

Well, they do use shotguns in war, but only in close combat. :)

Well sure, ironically it's one of the reasons that the US v Miller decision was flawed.

Ah yes, the CDC. One of the most famously anti-gun data skewers there is. How many of those "children" were killed due to the fact they were in gangs? How many of those deaths were suicide? How many of all those firearms were legally owned?

Roughly 2.5 million crimes were prevented by firearms weilded by Law-Abiding Citizens.

There are over 300 million legally owned firearms in the US and 80 million legal owners.

Quite apart from the fact that you don't even provide a source for your figures, you also chose to ignore the deaths of law enforcement officers.
You also seem to think that deaths being due to suicide somehow make it
less, guns make it easy to kill
whether yourself or someone else isn't all that important.
What counts is that so many people die.

Finding the odd occasion where someone with a gun saved someone from
a bad guy doesn't stack up against the sheer scale of death that
guns bring to the U.S.
What do you find hard to understand about that?

2.5 million uses per year is the "odd occasion" to you. I could post hundreds of "odd occasions" where citizens defended their lives against criminals.

Criminals bring the death, not the guns.

Quite apart from the fact that you don't even provide a source for your figures, you also chose to ignore the deaths of law enforcement officers.
You also seem to think that deaths being due to suicide somehow make it
less, guns make it easy to kill
whether yourself or someone else isn't all that important.
What counts is that so many people die.

A source war? Alrighty. As for the police, had all the "gun-control" laws worked in the first place, the criminals who used them wouldn't have had them.




Guns, Gun Ownership, & RTC at All-Time Highs, Less "Gun Control," and Violent Crime at 27-Year Low

Guns. The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that there were about 215 million guns in 1999,1 when the number of new guns was averaging about 4.5 million (about 2%) annually.2 A report for the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million.3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 30.7 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 2000 2003.4

Gun Owners. The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (about 294 million), and rises about 1% annually.5 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have indicated that just under half of all households have at least one gun owner.6 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,7 probably because of some respondents' concerns about "gun control," due perhaps to the policies of the Clinton Administration.

Right-to-Carry. The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.8 In 2003, states with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average. Total violent crime was lower by 27%, murder by 32%, robbery by 45%, and aggravated assault by 20%.9

"Less Gun Control." As violent crime has declined, many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. Many states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of RTC laws. The federal Brady Act's waiting period on handgun sales ended in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check, and some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, or other laws delaying gun sales. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired. All states now have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 45 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and 33 prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.10

Studies by and for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and researchers who support "gun control," have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.11

Crime. The FBI reports that the nation's total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991 200312 and in the first six months of 2004.13 In 2003, the violent crime rate fell to a 27-year low, lower than any time since 1976. Murder rates, while fluctuating slightly, have been lower in recent years than at any time since 1965. The 2003 robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower than any time since 1968 and 1984, respectively. Since 1991, total violent crime has decreased 37%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 43%; rape, 24%; robbery, 48%; and aggravated assault, 32%.14

1. BATF, "Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report," Nov. 2000, p. ix (www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm).
2. BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002" (www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms).
3. National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005.
4. BJS, "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2003" (www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/abstract/bcft03.htm).
5. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html).
6. Gary Kleck, Targeting Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, pp. 94, 98-100.
7. E.g., BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002, Table 2.58, (www.albany.edu/sourcebook/).
8. See NRA RTC fact sheet (within www.nraila.org/Issues/Filter.aspx?ID=003).
9. See FBI, Crime in the United States 2003 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius) for state crime statistics.
10. See NRA-ILA Compendium of State Firearms Laws (www.nraila.org/media/misc/compendium.htm).
11. Federal "assault weapon" ban: Roth, Koper, et al., Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, March 13, 1997 (www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797); Reedy and Koper, "Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes: a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers," Injury Prevention 2003, (http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/2/151); Koper et al., Report to the National Institute of Justice, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, June 2004 (www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/jlc-new/Research/Koper_aw_final.pdf); Wm. J. Krouse, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban," Dec. 16, 2004. "Gun control," generally: Library of Congress, Report for Congress: Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998, LL98-3, 97-2010; Task Force on Community Preventive Service, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," Morbidity and Mortaility Weekly Report, Oct. 3, 2003 (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm); National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/index.html).
12. Note 9 and BJS (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/).
13. FBI (www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel04/pressrel121304.htm and www.fbi.gov/ucr/2004/6mosprelim04.pdf).
14. Note 10. Condensed at www.nraila.org, click on "Research," then "Crime Statistics." Note that National Crime Victimization Surveys indicate violent crime at a 30-year low (www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/press/cv03pr.htm).




As for the 2.5 million uses / year:

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86(1):150-187 (Fall 1995). The survey is also reported in chapter 5 of Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997), a revision of his award-winning Point Blank.

2.5 million uses per year is the "odd occasion" to you. I could post hundreds of "odd occasions" where citizens defended their lives against criminals.

Criminals bring the death, not the guns.


again you give no source for that figure, if you have one then quote it.

Quite apart from the fact that you don't even provide a source for your figures, you also chose to ignore the deaths of law enforcement officers.
You also seem to think that deaths being due to suicide somehow make it
less, guns make it easy to kill
whether yourself or someone else isn't all that important.
What counts is that so many people die.

Check the ATF agency.
They'll be happy to show you the statistics.
Or the FBI

Guns are used to kill lots and lots of people
about half the deaths as a result of firearms are due to suicide
but that isn't a mitigation

Finding the odd occasion where someone with a gun saved someone from
a bad guy doesn't stack up against the sheer scale of death that
guns bring to the U.S.
What do you find hard to understand about that?


Guns aren't the problem,it's the ease at which they seem to be available to those with malicious tendencies.It should be made very difficult be purchase a gun,even legally.At the same time less lethal methods of self protection should be made widely available and much easier to get hold of.i know that may not be viable at the moment as many of them are still quite expensive and dont have all the bugs worked out yet,but consider it a plan for the near future.

oh ya,on the topic of less lethal weaponry
How Stun Guns Work (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/stun-gun.htm)

EDIT:oh and since someone mentioned it How Shotguns Work (http://science.howstuffworks.com/shotgun.htm)

A source war? Alrighty. As for the police, had all the "gun-control" laws worked in the first place, the criminals who used them wouldn't have had them.



Sorry I had to delete most of it but you just took the words out of my mouth.
:)
To think that the ATF would have all of the information as well
as the FBI!!
How many times have guns saved a police officer's life?

again you give no source for that figure, if you have one then quote it.

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86(1):150-187 (Fall 1995). The survey is also reported in chapter 5 of Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997), a revision of his award-winning Point Blank.



and it's been peer reviewed:

the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology invited Marvin Wolfgang to submit comments on the Kleck-Gertz study.5 The late Prof. Wolfgang was one of the most prominent criminologists in the world. His "round criticism" speaks for itself:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people . . . . What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator . . . . I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research.

"Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not contravene this latest research . . . .

"The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

A source war? Alrighty. As for the police, had all the "gun-control" laws worked in the first place, the criminals who used them wouldn't have had them.


Instead of pasting a page from the nra website you should simply
have put the url up.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

Like so.

Although unnecessary as I had asked you to back up your 2.5 million uses/ year

Which you then provide although I might point out that in the way you presented it it could have been missed by most and is actually
your best point.
So I will repeat it for you, where people can see it


As for the 2.5 million uses / year:

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86(1):150-187 (Fall 1995). The survey is also reported in chapter 5 of Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997), a revision of his award-winning Point Blank.

Sorry I had to delete most of it but you just took the words out of my mouth.
:)
To think that the ATF would have all of the information as well
as the FBI!!
How many times have guns saved a police officer's life?

It's also interesting to note that the CDC (amongst others) have found that the "evidence" showing "gun control" works in "inconclusive".

Coming from them, that translates to non-existant.

Also, just a few days ago there was a police shooting in Chicago.
An off-duty Chicago PD officer was heading home one day
and he saw a group of men beating another man over the head with clubs
bats and fists.
There was three of them and one of him. He identified himself
as an officer, drew his gun, and shown his badge.
One of the suspect charged at him with the Club and struck
the officer in the head. the officer stepped back and fired, killing
the s.o.b. After wards he had to be hospitalized for a few days
because of the blow to his head.
The family on the slain guy wondered why did he have to kill him?
Relative Power, what would have done in his shoes?

Instead of pasting a page from the nra website you should simply
have put the url up.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

Like so.

Although unnecessary as I had asked you to back up your 2.5 million uses/ year

Which you then provide although I might point out that in the way you presented it it could have been missed by most and is actually
your best point.
So I will repeat it for you, where people can see it

And where did you cutnpaste your info from?

It's also interesting to note that the CDC (amongst others) have found that the "evidence" showing "gun control" works in "inconclusive".

Coming from them, that translates to non-existant.

exactly. The drop in crime here in Chicago is being flouted
as a result of the gun control. Yes it has gone down
but thats also to police work as well.
Hell, so there are less shootings, big deal. I have been hearing
of more stabbings
and strangulations and beatings.
I dont think that is an improvement over all.

exactly. The drop in crime here in Chicago is being flouted
as a result of the gun control. Yes it has gone down
but thats also to police work as well.
Hell, so there are less shootings, big deal. I have been hearing
of more stabbings
and strangulations and beatings.
I dont think that is an improvement over all.

The question I always ask is "What "gun control" measure was introduced that caused the drop in crime?

If this were the case, why did crime keep increasing after the defacto ban in the early 80's?

The question I always ask is "What "gun control" measure was introduced that caused the drop in crime?

If this were the case, why did crime keep increasing after the defacto ban in the early 80's?

I'll be damned if I know.
Why was there a huge increase in petty
crime in Britain when their gun ban went into play?(70% increase)
So shooting has gone down, big deal.
Now there are more home invasions there.
And they think they are so smart.

Over here in Chicago its been the same.
What new legislation? who knows?
I never heard of anything new.
The only difference is it is harder
for me to get a gun, than it is
for a criminal to get one illeagly.

To:Relative Power


That's not what I asked and you know it.

Since I doubt you typed all that information out w/o separate souces, what website did you cutnpaste it from?

its cool

well, guess this threads done for.
Progun - 1
anti - 0

Also, just a few days ago there was a police shooting in Chicago.
An off-duty Chicago PD officer was heading home one day
and he saw a group of men beating another man over the head with clubs
bats and fists.
There was three of them and one of him. He identified himself
as an officer, drew his gun, and shown his badge.
One of the suspect charged at him with the Club and struck
the officer in the head. the officer stepped back and fired, killing
the s.o.b. After wards he had to be hospitalized for a few days
because of the blow to his head.
The family on the slain guy wondered why did he have to kill him?
Relative Power, what would have done in his shoes?

Oh don't you worry, I don't even know why I am bothering to point out the
downside.
The more us citizens kill themselves and each other, the fewer people you'll have available to send out to kill people in other countries.
I'm sure the price is worth it to you and it is certainly no skin off my nose.
There are police in other countries who are not generally
armed with guns and I don't think they have more deaths by number
or percentage than your police officers have. Gun related or not.

But it is possible that US citizens are just more violent than other people.

For example in 2000, on conservative figures US had more homicides
(normalized to 100,000 population) by
a factor of 1.5 to Germany
and 5.0 to Japan.

But then Germans and Japanese have a history I guess of being less
aggressive and likely to use weapons than the citizens of the United States.

well, guess this threads done for.
Progun - 1
anti - 0

LOL.

I am not convinced. In Spain weapons are strongly illegal, and the assasination rate is incredibly slow. In 2004 in this country of 40 million people there were like 100 assasinations, which is one of the highest numbers ever, counting both with and without firearms.

Over here in Chicago its been the same.
What new legislation? who knows?
I never heard of anything new.
The only difference is it is harder
for me to get a gun, than it is
for a criminal to get one illeagly.


I dont trust english people with guns.on the news i once saw a police offcer,who one assumes was trained in the use of the weapon he was holding,with a sub-machine gun beside his head pointed in the air.a monumentally stupid thing to do,if the gun went off he could blow his brains out or the stray bullet could kill an innocent bystander.if the police are so careless with their powerful automatic weapons,even when their are news cameras around(i assume they'd try not to embarrass themselves on tv)i shudder to think how an untrained criminal would handle an illegal firearm

Ah, quoting myself; I am against weapons-4-all because, then, that number had increased... Just imagine one of those animal nazi groups near the football stadiums, drunk, with a gun...

Oh don't you worry, I don't even know why I am bothering to point out the
downside.
The more us citizens kill themselves and each other, the fewer people you'll have available to send out to kill people in other countries.
I'm sure the price is worth it to you and it is certainly no skin off my nose.
There are police in other countries who are not generally
armed with guns and I don't think they have more deaths by number
or percentage than your police officers have. Gun related or not.

But it is possible that US citizens are just more violent than other people.

For example in 2000, on conservative figures US had more homicides
(normalized to 100,000 population) by
a factor of 1.5 to Germany
and 5.0 to Japan.

But then Germans and Japanese have a history I guess of being less
aggressive and likely to use weapons than the citizens of the United States.


When the going gets tough, resort to US bashing. *yawn*

LOL.

I am not convinced. In Spain weapons are strongly illegal, and the assasination rate is incredibly slow. In 2004 in this country of 40 million people there were like 100 assasinations, which is one of the highest numbers ever, counting both with and without firearms.


I've always wondered something about spain,wht's the difference between the Guaria Civil and the Policia Local(excuse spellin errors).When i was in spain over the summer i was in a fairly big town(Torrevieja,i thinks its not far from Alicante.i don't know much about Spanish geography)I was suprised to find this town had two armed police forces.That seemed like overkill to me,but maybe i'm missing something

I dont trust english people with guns.on the news i once saw a police offcer,who one assumes was trained in the use of the weapon he was holding,with a sub-machine gun beside his head pointed in the air.a monumentally stupid thing to do,if the gun went off he could blow his brains out or the stray bullet could kill an innocent bystander.if the police are so careless with their powerful automatic weapons,even when their are news cameras around(i assume they'd try not to embarrass themselves on tv)i shudder to think how an untrained criminal would handle an illegal firearm

So you propose disarming the police?

Ah, quoting myself; I am against weapons-4-all because, then, that number had increased... Just imagine one of those animal nazi groups near the football stadiums, drunk, with a gun...

And assuming he had it illegally in the first place, what would the citizens be able to do when he does start shooting?

So you propose disarming the police?

Not at all,with the current terrorist threats in england they need armed police if ever a country did.i propose they be properly trained how to use their weapons safely.

and i pre-emptively concede that this may have been a slip up on the part of a single officer and not indicative of the gun safety training english police undergo

When the going gets tough, resort to US bashing. *yawn*

Yah you view it that way if you feel like it.

Not at all,with the current terrorist threats in england they need armed police if ever a country did.i propose they be properly trained how to use their weapons safely.

and i pre-emptively concede that this may have been a slip up on the part of a single officer and not indicative of the gun safety training english police undergo

Sorry, I got a little snide.

I think police need to be better trained here as well. The average officer shoots less than 100 rounds / year in practice.

You average gun owner shoots that many in an afternoon several times a year.

Not at all,with the current terrorist threats in england they need armed police if ever a country did.i propose they be properly trained how to use their weapons safely.

and i pre-emptively concede that this may have been a slip up on the part of a single officer and not indicative of the gun safety training english police undergo

Given the only "terrorist threat" killed by police gunfire was an entirely
innocent of terrorist activity Brazilian student who was shot 7 times
in the head.
I think the British police would be doing a better job
if they stuck to not being armed.

In Iowa they have no laws prohibiting use, ownership, or carry of firearms. people can carry sixguns around on their hips. one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation. Washington DC disallows guns of all kinds. among the highest violent crime in the nation. Japan has no guns, lower violent crime than America.

the reasoning behind Gun=crime and guns=no crime is bullshit. in some places the people are just less rowdy, in other placest the people are way too rowdy, in other places the only way to get people to behave is the idea that if they got out of hand you'd blow them away. different regions require different things. what's good for one area at one time isn't nessisarily good for another at a different time.

Sorry, I got a little snide.

I think police need to be better trained here as well. The average officer shoots less than 100 rounds / year in practice.

You average gun owner shoots that many in an afternoon several times a year.

Perhaps police should only be allowed carry a weapon after they have passed a test of some sort.if they were tested 2 or 3 times a year,and only officers who passed were allowed carry weapons on duty,then only the ones that could use a gun safely would have them

Perhaps police should only be allowed carry a weapon after they have passed a test of some sort.if they were tested 2 or 3 times a year,and only officers who passed were allowed carry weapons on duty,then only the ones that could use a gun safely would have them

and then the cops without guns would get thier a$$ beat by criminals...

Perhaps police should only be allowed carry a weapon after they have passed a test of some sort.if they were tested 2 or 3 times a year,and only officers who passed were allowed carry weapons on duty,then only the ones that could use a gun safely would have them

Qualifying is done once or twice a year in most instances. I don't know what happens if they fail.
Besides safety classes, I feel there should be more availability for the officers to practice w/ their servicearm w/o them having to pay for it themselves.

and then the cops without guns would get thier a$$ beat by criminals... Indeed true, but only because every criminal can now easily get a gun in America. Vicious circle.

In Iowa they have no laws prohibiting use, ownership, or carry of firearms. people can carry sixguns around on their hips. one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation. Washington DC disallows guns of all kinds. among the highest violent crime in the nation. Japan has no guns, lower violent crime than America.

the reasoning behind Gun=crime and guns=no crime is bullshit. in some places the people are just less rowdy, in other placest the people are way too rowdy, in other places the only way to get people to behave is the idea that if they got out of hand you'd blow them away. different regions require different things. what's good for one area at one time isn't nessisarily good for another at a different time.

Incorrect on the Iowa laws.

Carry is not generally allowed
Concealed carry w/ a permit
Handgun purchase w/ a permit.

I do agree on the lack of causality.

and then the cops without guns would get thier a$$ beat by criminals...

I cannot find any survey more recently so it would be interesting
to know how the figures have altered over the last 10 yrs
but
In Britain
A survey (1995) of police attitudes to armed patrols found:
79% of police officers said they were not in favour of being routinely armed
But 40% said more officers should be trained to use firearms
42% felt their life had been in serious danger as a result of personal threat in the previous two years
39% had been threatened with firearm, knife or other weapon in the previous two years
In the event of a decision to arm all officers 43% said they would be prepared to carry firearms on duty or all of the time
6% said they would resign from the police service if they were ordered to wear a firearm.
source - police federation
quoting from bbc website

The police in 1995 at least, did not agree with the above sentiment

Indeed true, but only because every criminal can now easily get a gun in America. Vicious circle.

They wouldn't need them. Only superior numbers or just being stronger or having a knife, etc.

I cannot find any survey more recently so it would be interesting
to know how the figures have altered over the last 10 yrs
but
In Britain
A survey (1995) of police attitudes to armed patrols found:
79% of police officers said they were not in favour of being routinely armed
But 40% said more officers should be trained to use firearms
42% felt their life had been in serious danger as a result of personal threat in the previous two years
39% had been threatened with firearm, knife or other weapon in the previous two years
In the event of a decision to arm all officers 43% said they would be prepared to carry firearms on duty or all of the time
6% said they would resign from the police service if they were ordered to wear a firearm.
source - police federation
quoting from bbc website

The police in 1995 at least, did not agree with the above sentiment

I would fear for a police officer that didnt wear a gun on duty.

I would fear for a police officer that didnt wear a gun on duty.

It's the norm in britain and also in the irish republic

It's the norm in britain and also in the irish republic

so what do they do when things go bad? how does a police officer defend himself when a gun is pointed in his face?

so what do they do when things go bad? how does a police officer defend himself when a gun is pointed in his face?

Pray.

They wouldn't need them. Only superior numbers or just being stronger or having a knife, etc. Superior number. You mean like… gangs? Another problem that is far greater in much of America than it is in places without guns (although there was the very odd case of the Lithuanian gang in Ireland recently).

Incorrect on the Iowa laws.

Carry is not generally allowed
Concealed carry w/ a permit
Handgun purchase w/ a permit.

I do agree on the lack of causality.


Oh, then which state was it that i thinking of that has no gun laws? i know there's one around.

ah well, my point is still valid.


on the topic of police, they have to test evry year. SWAT is more frequent, i think. if they fail the test they lose their gun, and they can't go out on patrol, i think.

of course, you know what really works for less-than-lethal force? Saps. they got rid of them though because of the PC shock troops kept comparing the police to the Gestapo.

Pray.

heh, how about an atheist police officer then...

It's the norm in britain and also in the irish republic
Are all english police armed?or is it only a certain unit?thats how it is in ireland(as i may have mentioned here already.either here or the other gun thread,well forgive me for repeating myself if i have posted it here already)in ireland the police are armed only with batons and radios(and hi-vis jackets),there is also an armed Emergency Response Unit.It makes sense to me,if the police arent armed then the criminals might think they dont need guns.if they do then theres the ERU.but that might not work in every case.

I can see everyones point about getting rid of all guns, but its kinda like nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to be first. And also, I'm just not willing to give mine up.

I think its kinda funny that the same people who say drugs should be legal, even though a lot of people die from them, are the same who say guns should be illegal because people die from them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but drugs and alcohol kill ALOT more people each year than guns, right? How can you justify this?

By the way, I'm pro-gun and pro-marijuana, but against hard drug legalizations, such as crack, heroine, or meth.

Are all english police armed?or is it only a certain unit?thats how it is in ireland(as i may have mentioned here already.either here or the other gun thread,well forgive me for repeating myself if i have posted it here already)in ireland the police are armed only with batons and radios(and hi-vis jackets),there is also an armed Emergency Response Unit.It makes sense to me,if the police arent armed then the criminals might think they dont need guns.if they do then theres the ERU.but that might not work in every case.

if criminals know the police dont carry guns, they would want them all the more because it puts them at a huge advantage. wouldnt you think?

Are all english police armed?or is it only a certain unit?thats how it is in ireland(as i may have mentioned here already.either here or the other gun thread,well forgive me for repeating myself if i have posted it here already)in ireland the police are armed only with batons and radios(and hi-vis jackets),there is also an armed Emergency Response Unit.It makes sense to me,if the police arent armed then the criminals might think they dont need guns.if they do then theres the ERU.but that might not work in every case. It's much harder to get guns in the UK than it is in America, and your average criminal certainly won't have one. Police aren't armed with guns as standard, but specially trained ones are. I think standard police are armed with batons and truncheons and suchlike.
And the British get on well with their police, more so than countries with more armed police.

if criminals know the police dont carry guns, they would want them all the more because it puts them at a huge advantage. wouldnt you think?

That's why i said it might not work in all cases.but think of it from a criminals point of view,a gun is another expense/task when planning a robbery,for example.why buy/steal a gun if that just means the armed police will be called if something goes wrong?

Only the police on the streets aren't carrying guns,as i said there is an armed emergency response unit.And what about if an officers gun is taken off him?how many police have been shot by their own guns?

It's much harder to get guns in the UK than it is in America, and your average criminal certainly won't have one. Police aren't armed with guns as standard, but specially trained ones are. I think standard police are armed with batons and truncheons and suchlike.
And the British get on well with their police, more so than countries with more armed police.


At the end of the day most people want the police to make things safer
waving around guns and killing people doesn't make normal people feel safe.

When the laws punish criminals much more severely for carrying and/or
using a weapon there is a strong incentive for them to not do so
and police not being generally armed means they don't have to be armed
either because being caught by the police won't be a life or death matter.

In Iowa they have no laws prohibiting use, ownership, or carry of firearms. people can carry sixguns around on their hips. one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation. Washington DC disallows guns of all kinds. among the highest violent crime in the nation. Japan has no guns, lower violent crime than America.

the reasoning behind Gun=crime and guns=no crime is bullshit. in some places the people are just less rowdy, in other placest the people are way too rowdy, in other places the only way to get people to behave is the idea that if they got out of hand you'd blow them away. different regions require different things. what's good for one area at one time isn't nessisarily good for another at a different time.

Vermont has no restricions on firearms ownership. I had to jump thru a lot of hoops to get my carry license in Iowa, but the upside of that is that most states recognise an Iowa carry license.

Do you want to know why Iowa has one of the lowest crime rates in the US?
1. Criminals are shitbags, and we treat them like it. None of this " I steal/kill/rape/ect. because I'm a victim." Try that here and a judge will laugh his ass off at you and your lawyer.
2. We know our neighbors. How many of you who live in city know the names of your neighbors, let alone anything else about them.
3. You break into a house around here while the owners are home, you will not come out alive. Fact of life around here.
4. You break into a house around here while the owners are gone, and the neighbors will probably come hold you at gunpoint until the police arrive.

If more areas just followed 1 and 2 above, crime would drop.

LOL.

I am not convinced. In Spain weapons are strongly illegal, and the assasination rate is incredibly slow. In 2004 in this country of 40 million people there were like 100 assasinations, which is one of the highest numbers ever, counting both with and without firearms.

excuse me, when was the last assaination in America?
One that mattered?

That's why i said it might not work in all cases.but think of it from a criminals point of view,a gun is another expense/task when planning a robbery,for example.why buy/steal a gun if that just means the armed police will be called if something goes wrong?

Only the police on the streets aren't carrying guns,as i said there is an armed emergency response unit.And what about if an officers gun is taken off him?how many police have been shot by their own guns?

the same can be said with other weapons though. a cops mistake leads to his own gun/club/stun gun or whatever to be taken and then used on his or her self. but how long does it take for the ERU to get to the scene of the crime? a police officer on the streets is a sitting duck.

I dont trust english people with guns.on the news i once saw a police offcer,who one assumes was trained in the use of the weapon he was holding,with a sub-machine gun beside his head pointed in the air.a monumentally stupid thing to do,if the gun went off he could blow his brains out or the stray bullet could kill an innocent bystander.if the police are so careless with their powerful automatic weapons,even when their are news cameras around(i assume they'd try not to embarrass themselves on tv)i shudder to think how an untrained criminal would handle an illegal firearm
Woah, woah, woah, now when the hell did that happen in the US?
I saw that happen in some asian country on TV once. NOT in the US!

It's much harder to get guns in the UK than it is in America, and your average criminal certainly won't have one. Police aren't armed with guns as standard, but specially trained ones are. I think standard police are armed with batons and truncheons and suchlike.
And the British get on well with their police, more so than countries with more armed police.

Ahh but see, if cops use those batons and truncheons here in the states on a criminal its seen as police brutality. Then Jessie Jacksin gets in on it and well, it all goes to hell. So, we are back to square one. The cop acts the right way, its wrong. The cop does nothing, its still wrong.

At the end of the day most people want the police to make things safer
waving around guns and killing people doesn't make normal people feel safe.

When the laws punish criminals much more severely for carrying and/or
using a weapon there is a strong incentive for them to not do so
and police not being generally armed means they don't have to be armed
either because being caught by the police won't be a life or death matter.

I feel safer knowing that police have guns.

the same can be said with other weapons though. a cops mistake leads to his own gun/club/stun gun or whatever to be taken and then used on his or her self. but how long does it take for the ERU to get to the scene of the crime? a police officer on the streets is a sitting duck.

When a police officer loses his weapon, it has more to do with laws that tie the officers hands in how they can handle pontentaly dangerous situations. I also think that the amount of money that is spent federally on local law enforcement is crimnally low. More funding for training would go a long ways.

In many midwestern states, police officers spend alot of time on PUBLIC shooting ranges, spending thier own money on ammo to stay sharp.

When the laws punish criminals much more severely for carrying and/or
using a weapon there is a strong incentive for them to not do so
and police not being generally armed means they don't have to be armed
either because being caught by the police won't be a life or death matter.

Um. no it doesnt.
Over here when cops bag a criminal
they have a rap sheet a mile long, with charges including
unlawful use of a weapon, or carrying a weapon, or the likes.
Yet they still havent learned the first time.
Hell, it on the news only everyday here.

Woah, woah, woah, now when the hell did that happen in the US?
I saw that happen in some asian country on TV once. NOT in the US!

i nevrer said it happened in the us.in fact i dont think i ever mentioned the us in that post,after checkin i didnt.the first words are i dont trust english people with guns.this is thread is about the good side of allowing guns,nothing got to do with america specifically.

I feel safer knowing that police have guns.

me too!

i nevrer said it happened in the us.in fact i dont think i ever mentioned the us in that post,after checkin i didnt.the first words are i dont trust english people with guns.this is thread is about the good side of allowing guns,nothing got to do with america specifically.

Well, it sounded like it did because you mentioned english people, and right after that you said that cop had a gun waving by his head on the news.
It just sounded as if you meant that happened in the US.
Sorry if I misunderstood your post.
My bad!

the same can be said with other weapons though. a cops mistake leads to his own gun/club/stun gun or whatever to be taken and then used on his or her self. but how long does it take for the ERU to get to the scene of the crime? a police officer on the streets is a sitting duck.

I dont know how long it takes,i havent been able to find any information about it.but ill keep looking.

a sitting duck?it's not like police are a target for armed robbery.an officer on the street would surely have the sense not to go rushing unarmed into a bank being robbed,or any other situation where the ERU would be sent for.he/she would no doubt call for armed back up and get to a safe distance.if the criminals made their escape before the ERU arrived they'd be followed by helicopter.

Well, it sounded like it did because you mentioned english people, and right after that you said that cop had a gun waving by his head on the news.
It just sounded as if you meant that happened in the US.
Sorry if I misunderstood your post.
My bad!

I dont know how you thought it had anything to do with america,i saw it on an english channel(we get english tv in ireland).but apology accepted.

I dont know how long it takes,i havent been able to find any information about it.but ill keep looking.

a sitting duck?it's not like police are a target for armed robbery.an officer on the street would surely have the sense not to go rushing unarmed into a bank being robbed,or any other situation where the ERU would be sent for.he/she would no doubt call for armed back up and get to a safe distance.if the criminals made their escape before the ERU arrived they'd be followed by helicopter.

but that the whole purpose for police, to keep the public safe. the officer cant stop the robbery because he has no gun, so he has to keep a safe distance and wait for back up and wait for a helicopter. in the meantime the robbers are waving guns in the air and are putting civilians in a situation that could lead to thier death.

Thank yew Ifreann!!
:)

but that the whole purpose for police, to keep the public safe. the officer cant stop the robbery because he has no gun, so he has to keep a safe distance and wait for back up and wait for a helicopter. in the meantime the robbers are waving guns in the air and are putting civilians in a situation that could lead to thier death.


and yet it just doesn't seem to happen that in countries where the police
are not armed as a general rule that more robberies or other types of crime
occur or that more people get hurt injured or killed.

By the way Ifreann.
Is crime this bad over there?
Did The IRA finally give it up and its cooled
down enough to be safe or are there still
Catholic and Protestant showdowns?
I still cant understand the logic behind that whole
situation.

By the way Ifreann.
Is crime this bad over there?
Did The IRA finally give it up and its cooled
down enough to be safe or are there still
Catholic and Protestant showdowns?
I still cant understand the logic behind that whole
situation.
The IRA doesn't blow people up anymore, and it's at least going in the right direction now.

Come now, since when have people needed logic to slaughter each other?

and yet it just doesn't seem to happen that in countries where the police
are not armed as a general rule that more robberies or other types of crime
occur or that more people get hurt injured or killed.

yet it puts people in dangerous situations. it endangers the police officer and the civilians. it gives the upper hand to the criminals who are holding more cards than the police force. police cannot always protect and serve with empty hands.

and yet it just doesn't seem to happen that in countries where the police
are not armed as a general rule that more robberies or other types of crime
occur or that more people get hurt injured or killed.

Take a look at England.
70% increase in crime since the gun ban
was declaired.
Home invasion through the roof.
Petty theft up.
It was all over the news a few months ago.
Check the web. I think on BBC or one of those
news sites.

The IRA doesn't blow people up anymore, and it's at least going in the right direction now.

Come now, since when have people needed logic to slaughter each other?

Well, thats good news. Ireland is a pretty cool
country and I would like to see it one day.
I just didnt want to get shot for being a Catholic.

yet it puts people in dangerous situations. it endangers the police officer and the civilians. it gives the upper hand to the criminals who are holding more cards than the police force. police cannot always protect and serve with empty hands.


As I said previously the most recent death by shooting at the hands
of armed british police was a brazilian student with no connection
to terrorism who was shot to death , 7 times in the head and once
in the shoulder because for some reason it was thought he might be
a suicide bomber.

Criminals and terrorists might kill innocent people
having the police cut out the middleman
I would suggest is a bad idea.

Take a look at England.
70% increase in crime since the gun ban
was declaired.
Home invasion through the roof.
Petty theft up.
It was all over the news a few months ago.
Check the web. I think on BBC or one of those
news sites.


And still below american levels despite increases.

Britain has always had strong gun controls, they tightened them
after a man killed a lot of very small children in their school.
With his legally held weapons

As I said previously the most recent death by shooting at the hands
of armed british police was a brazilian student with no connection
to terrorism who was shot to death , 7 times in the head and once
in the shoulder because for some reason it was thought he might be
a suicide bomber.

Criminals and terrorists might kill innocent people
having the police cut out the middleman
I would suggest is a bad idea.

those types of actions i dont agree with, that to me is an abuse of force. there are stupid cops and stupid criminals.

but that the whole purpose for police, to keep the public safe. the officer cant stop the robbery because he has no gun, so he has to keep a safe distance and wait for back up and wait for a helicopter. in the meantime the robbers are waving guns in the air and are putting civilians in a situation that could lead to thier death.


What about in america where the police are armed?when they're out-gunned they have to wait for SWAT teams to arrive.in the meantime the robbers are waving their guns in the air and are putting civilians in a situation that could lead to their death



By the way Ifreann.
Is crime this bad over there?
Did The IRA finally give it up and its cooled
down enough to be safe or are there still
Catholic and Protestant showdowns?
I still cant understand the logic behind that whole
situation.
There never was much logic in that situation,but the IRA have agreed to decommision their arms and stopped thier armed campaign.essentially surrendered.but 'the troubles' only affects the north of Irealnd,mostly.

And still below american levels despite increases.

Britain has always had strong gun controls, they tightened them
after a man killed a lot of very small children in their school.
With his legally held weapons

Well, how about the fact that America is way larger than Britain
in population, not to mention the large amounts of illegal aliens pouring through our southern border, a lot of which are criminals themselves.

What about in america where the police are armed?when they're out-gunned they have to wait for SWAT teams to arrive.in the meantime the robbers are waving their guns in the air and are putting civilians in a situation that could lead to their death

so what is better in that situation. unarmed cops waiting for SWAT or armed? the cops that are armed may be outgunned but still have the potential chance to keep things from going even further out of control.

What about in america where the police are armed?when they're out-gunned they have to wait for SWAT teams to arrive.in the meantime the robbers are waving their guns in the air and are putting civilians in a situation that could lead to their death




There never was much logic in that situation,but the IRA have agreed to decommision their arms and stopped thier armed campaign.essentially surrendered.but 'the troubles' only affects the north of Irealnd,mostly.

ahh, that cleared it up!

As I said previously the most recent death by shooting at the hands
of armed british police was a brazilian student with no connection
to terrorism who was shot to death , 7 times in the head and once
in the shoulder because for some reason it was thought he might be
a suicide bomber.

Criminals and terrorists might kill innocent people
having the police cut out the middleman
I would suggest is a bad idea.
my question is why did the guy run like a deer when the cops approached him?

What about in america where the police are armed?when they're out-gunned they have to wait for SWAT teams to arrive.in the meantime the robbers are waving their guns in the air and are putting civilians in a situation that could lead to their death




There never was much logic in that situation,but the IRA have agreed to decommision their arms and stopped thier armed campaign.essentially surrendered.but 'the troubles' only affects the north of Irealnd,mostly.


On the other hand it is supposed to be a political solution and as the DUP,
the biggest unionist party is refusing to share power with Sinn Fein,
the largest republican party,
in the assembly as is required by the agreement.
The future does not look all that positive.

my question is why did the guy run like a deer when the cops approached him?


My question is why do you think he did.

The stories that he was wearing bulky clothing, ran into the tube
station and vaulted over the turnstiles have now all been disproven.

Causing a rather major fuss and likely resignation of senior officers who
did not dispel those rumours.

so what is better in that situation. unarmed cops waiting for SWAT or armed? the cops that are armed may be outgunned but still have the potential chance to keep things from going even further out of control.

I think we can agree that the armed police would fire at the criminals in question.the criminals would then most likely fire back.which could kill bystanders,police,hostages.and the unarmed police might not be sitting idle,im not a member of the garda siochana,i dont know there policies and procedures.they might set up road blocks,they might start negotiations.

so what is better in that situation. unarmed cops waiting for SWAT or armed? the cops that are armed may be outgunned but still have the potential chance to keep things from going even further out of control.

Remeber that massive shoot out in LA a few years ago with those heavily armed bankrobbers? They were wearing body armor. WHY THE HELL did the cops not use armor piercing rounds on them???? The police were way out gunned!

I think we can agree that the armed police would fire at the criminals in question.the criminals would then most likely fire back.which could kill bystanders,police,hostages.and the unarmed police might not be sitting idle,im not a member of the garda siochana,i dont know there policies and procedures.they might set up road blocks,they might start negotiations.

well, you said the police would fire back. what would unarmed police do? nothing, because they have no way to stop the shooters from killing them or civilians.

On the other hand it is supposed to be a political solution and as the DUP,
the biggest unionist party is refusing to share power with Sinn Fein,
the largest republican party,
in the assembly as is required by the agreement.
The future does not look all that positive.

Surely a political power struggle is better than a guerilla war,where innocents are blown apart,regardless of religion or political beliefs.

My question is why do you think he did.

The stories that he was wearing bulky clothing, ran into the tube
station and vaulted over the turnstiles have now all been disproven.

Causing a rather major fuss and likely resignation of senior officers who
did not dispel those rumours.

So in other words, you think he was just standing there minding his own business when all of a sudden a few cops came up to him and put 7 rounds into his head. Gee you make it sound like it was a mob hit. He had to have done something that was perceived as a threat to the police. I thought thats what they do, respond to the threat before them in an orderly fashion.

Surely a political power struggle is better than a guerilla war,where innocents are blown apart,regardless of religion or political beliefs.


The only reason there was a political process was due to there being
an armed struggle. Remember it didn't start off that way.
There were peaceful marches to begin with.

Then came bloody sunday and all the rest followed with a horrible inevitablity.

Republicans are likely not to be terribly keen on ceasing to struggle
and have the unionists refuse to fulfill their part of the deal.

The DUP of course were never in favour of the agreement.

If it all falls apart what do you expect republicans to do?

well, you said the police would fire back. what would unarmed police do? nothing, because they have no way to stop the shooters from killing them or civilians.

as i thought i made clear,returning fire would only escalate the situation,making it more likely that someone would be killed.and as i said,they could negotiate with the shooters,who might be more inclined to listen to unarmed police,as opposed to police who were just trying to kill them.

as i thought i made clear,returning fire would only escalate the situation,making it more likely that someone would be killed.and as i said,they could negotiate with the shooters,who might be more inclined to listen to unarmed police,as opposed to police who were just trying to kill them.

the police will try to resolve the situation the best they can, fireing a gun is a last resort. the point i was making is that unarmed police could not prevent the bankrobbers from walking out and spraying bullets left and right.

The only reason there was a political process was due to there being
an armed struggle. Remember it didn't start off that way.
There were peaceful marches to begin with.

Then came bloody sunday and all the rest followed with a horrible inevitablity.

Republicans are likely not to be terribly keen on ceasing to struggle
and have the unionists refuse to fulfill their part of the deal.

The DUP of course were never in favour of the agreement.

If it all falls apart what do you expect republicans to do?

True,but still i'm happeir knowing there won't be anymore bombings or killings.well hopefully there wont,at the time i was sure there would be hardcore members who had no intention of decommisioning there arms and would join together and form yet another IRA off-shoot.i havent heard anything of the sort emerging yet,with any luck it will stay that way

So in other words, you think he was just standing there minding his own business when all of a sudden a few cops came up to him and put 7 rounds into his head. Gee you make it sound like it was a mob hit. He had to have done something that was perceived as a threat to the police. I thought thats what they do, respond to the threat before them in an orderly fashion.

Actually he wasn't standing there.

He was sitting.

You can look it up you know, you've got the power of the internet at your
fingertips.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4176148.stm

True,but still i'm happeir knowing there won't be anymore bombings or killings.well hopefully there wont,at the time i was sure there would be hardcore members who had no intention of decommisioning there arms and would join together and form yet another IRA off-shoot.i havent heard anything of the sort emerging yet,with any luck it will stay that way


I'd be happier if someone would get the DUP to form an assembly government with the other parties as required by the agreement.

the police will try to resolve the situation the best they can, fireing a gun is a last resort. the point i was making is that unarmed police could not prevent the bankrobbers from walking out and spraying bullets left and right.

thats true,there isnt really much unarmed police could do in that situation.but i'm still happier having an unarmed police force.

Actually he wasn't standing there.

He was sitting.

You can look it up you know, you've got the power of the internet at your
fingertips.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4176148.stm

Something is still not adding up.
Why would they just shoot him while hes sitting there?

Something is still not adding up.
Why would they just shoot him while hes sitting there?


It didn't add up from the start.

We are all hoping to find out, what it is that the police
thought they were doing.

Shooting someone 7 times in the head
doesn't add up any way you look at it.

disgruntled ex-husband decides today is the day to kill the bitch who divorced him. he takes a knife to the local wal-mart where she works, walks behind the counter and proceeds to stab her 12 times.

a 72-year-old man with a concealed-carry permit jumps over the counter and shoots the ex-husband dead.

the woman is in the hospital recovering from her ordeal.

http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=11742

the woman had a restraining order against her ex. of course it did no good. the only thing that saved her life was the legal gun carried by a stranger.

IF guns would provide any kind of safety USA would be the most safe country in the world. But it isn't, on the contrary. Canada has a lot of guns as well but isn't near the appaling crime statistic of the USA. The problem in the states isn't just the guns...it's mostly the people. Mostly. I still rank USA as one of the worst countries in the world as any dumb nutfucker can own a gun. Guns aren't that expensive and ain't that hard to get. I used to love C. Heston, nowadays I just think he is a spineless NRA dumbfuck.

Something is still not adding up.
Why would they just shoot him while hes sitting there?

well thats the big question isnt it?answer that and you can name your price for the story.whatever way you look at it,however it turns out the whole thing has been a royal fuck up on the part of the metropolitan police.

IF guns would provide any kind of safety USA would be the most safe country in the world. But it isn't, on the contrary. Canada has a lot of guns as well but isn't near the appaling crime statistic of the USA. The problem in the states isn't just the guns...it's mostly the people. Mostly. I still rank USA as one of the worst countries in the world as any dumb nutfucker can own a gun. Guns aren't that expensive and ain't that hard to get. I used to love C. Heston, nowadays I just think he is a spineless NRA dumbfuck.

Not anyone can own guns legally-felons, illegals, and domest abusers cannot.

FYI guns do provide an umbrella of safety which would be greatly extended if the person you just shot for trying to murder you with a knife wasn't released on bail less than 8 hours later. Yup, it's happened.

And BTW, The guy who shot the man trying to kill his ex-wife did a good deed. One less thug sucking air and he got some justification for buying a Pistola and carrying concealed.

BTW, it sounds like he did a 'mozambique'-2 shots to the chest and 1 to the head :D ! Good shooting man!

Not anyone can own guns legally-felons, illegals, and domest abusers cannot.

FYI guns do provide an umbrella of safety which would be greatly extended if the person you just shot for trying to murder you with a knife wasn't released on bail less than 8 hours later. Yup, it's happened.

And BTW, The guy who shot the man trying to kill his ex-wife did a good deed. One less thug sucking air and he got some justification for buying a Pistola and carrying concealed.

BTW, it sounds like he did a 'mozambique'-2 shots to the chest and 1 to the head :D ! Good shooting man!

Guns dont provide security.a gun might kill an intruder.but it might kill your child,your wife,your husband,you.

and what if he missed?what if he did a 'mozambique' on someone else.he didnt have to draw his gun to stop him,he could have just dived on him.or someone else that wasn 72,so probably more able to wrestle a knife away from a man,could have

Umbrella of safety? Guns just mean that in any given violent/angry situation someone is more likely to die, and not necessarily a would-be murderer either. It's just complete crap that more guns means more safety. I'll concede that once the police and public have easy access to guns, there's no point banning them, but a society with less access to guns is safer. Here in New Zealand our police don't carry guns on patrol, they only take guns when called out for specific situations.

Guns dont provide security.a gun might kill an intruder.but it might kill your child,your wife,your husband,you.

and what if he missed?what if he did a 'mozambique' on someone else.he didnt have to draw his gun to stop him,he could have just dived on him.or someone else that wasn 72,so probably more able to wrestle a knife away from a man,could have

Do you want to risk getting AIDS from someone with a knife?

He didn't miss. End of question, because he PRACTICED.

You do know that because you have a swimming pool, you very well could drown in it right? You are 100% MORE LIKELY to drown in a swimming pool than someone who doesn't own/use a swimming pool! BAN SWIMMING POOLS! Do it for the children! We must BAN these horrible instruments of DEATH!

It's sort of hard to mis-mozambique someone when they're in the same aisle with you. It's not like he was doing the beirut offhand around the corner. He clearly hit the guy with 3 shots, which is 100%.

Dive on him? Are you NUTS? You do not dive on a person with a knife. All they have to do is lift the knife up and you have a sucking chest wound.
Please, this isn't hollywood. You can't wrestle things away from people without getting severely injured.

Molon Labe

Guns dont provide security.a gun might kill an intruder.but it might kill your child,your wife,your husband,you.

and what if he missed?what if he did a 'mozambique' on someone else.he didnt have to draw his gun to stop him,he could have just dived on him.or someone else that wasn 72,so probably more able to wrestle a knife away from a man,could have

That same intruder might also kill my children or wife. Between my aim and the intentions of someone who has broken into my home to steal/rob/rape, I'll trust my aim.

And yet noone did those things. It took a 72 year old man w/ a pistol to save the womans' life.

IF guns would provide any kind of safety USA would be the most safe country in the world. But it isn't, on the contrary. Canada has a lot of guns as well but isn't near the appaling crime statistic of the USA. The problem in the states isn't just the guns...it's mostly the people. Mostly. I still rank USA as one of the worst countries in the world as any dumb nutfucker can own a gun. Guns aren't that expensive and ain't that hard to get. I used to love C. Heston, nowadays I just think he is a spineless NRA dumbfuck.

Of course Heston hasn't been in charge of the NRA for several years now.

The lesson of the day is not "it's good to carry guns", it's "think seriously about who you marry and how you divorce".

disgruntled ex-husband decides today is the day to kill the bitch who divorced him. he takes a knife to the local wal-mart where she works, walks behind the counter and proceeds to stab her 12 times.

a 72-year-old man with a concealed-carry permit jumps over the counter and shoots the ex-husband dead.

the woman is in the hospital recovering from her ordeal.

http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=11742

the woman had a restraining order against her ex. of course it did no good. the only thing that saved her life was the legal gun carried by a stranger.
more weapon its not the answer! I now many people think only everybody have gun the world were secure.

I dont think so becuse you more weapon you have in the community the risk enlarge to the criminal got one.

If you dont want the criminal to have weapon you have to reduce
quantity of veapon in community.

Its not good if everybody are going to be judge/jury and executioner. were is the justice in that.

I think olso more weapon are going to enlarge the mortality not reduce it. why? becuse if it is a fight and some one have a gun its bigger risk some one
dies and if its not a gun in the fight.

I olso thin knives shall be forbidden in public place ( you can have knife only if you need that in the work but you ned permission from police).

I think only arme,police and hunters have the right to have firearm.

Yes guns have in some case save people, but moste guns kille people and if thay dont have been in the community this people must likely been alive to day.

The guy got 12 stabs in before the gun saved her? So it was as much his failure to stab her properly than the gun that saved her. I'm sure you can find a better pro-gun arguement than this...

I have a better one:

It allows citizens to defend themselves against the state.

In fact there is an even better one!

The State(which has many guns) can't rightfully threaten someone(with violence ultimately) to keep them from owning a gun. Thus banning guns would be immoral and hypocritical.

more weapon its not the answer! I now many people think
only everybody have gun the world were secure.

Do you think a rapist would want to mess with an armed woman? Remember, 99.9 percent of Rapists polled prefer UNARMED women. It's just safer for THEM

I dont think so becuse you more weapon you have in the community the risk enlarge to the criminal got one.

No comment, I don't get what you are saying.

If you dont want the criminal to have weapon you have to reduce
quantity of veapon in community.

No, you enforce laws and put criminals behind bars. Criminals will ALWAYS have guns, period.

Its not good if everybody are going to be judge/jury and executioner. were is the justice in that.
He wasn't playing judge,jury, and executioner. He was playing 'Concerned citizen' and 'Hero'. So if someone comes and begins to beat you with a golf wood and I shoot the guy, am I guilty of playing Judge, jury, and executioner? No, I saved your life. Confucious said "If a man is trying to kill you with his gun, it would be wise to shoot back with your own gun

I think olso more weapon are going to enlarge the mortality not reduce it. why? becuse if it is a fight and some one have a gun its bigger risk some one
dies and if its not a gun in the fight.

I don't see a problem here. With crime in some areas being a problem, many criminals who rape, murder, and burglarize peoples home's deserve to die.


I olso thin knives shall be forbidden in public place ( you can have knife only if you need that in the work but you ned permission from police).

I must say WTF? Maybe in Sweden, but not in the USA. Do you need a swimming pool? I hope you have permission from the police, because Drowing and Falls were (Not sure if the are now) one of the TOP KILLERS of children.
So the comrade vants a pool, ja?

I think only arme,police and hunters have the right to have firearm.

In Sweden? Go right ahead. Not here though, we have a Bill of rights that allows ANYONE to own a gun provided they're legally able to. The second Amendment was NOT about hunting. It's about stopping thugs in your house at 2AM from hunting YOUR family.

Yes guns have in some case save people, but moste guns kille people and if thay dont have been in the community this people must likely been alive to day.

There were over 2 million defensive gun uses last year that went unreported. Noone was hurt, noone was shot, and the crime was stopped. Somehow I don't think you thought out your cunning plan very well.....

What the heck, for hilarity here is one of my 200 yard targets from the range a month ago. Yup, that's a torso target. I have some UN targets but I don't have a color printer to properly print out the UN blue....

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/2903/dec220148cq.th.jpg (http://img398.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dec220148cq.jpg)


My rant for the day.

Pittholm this is for you

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_baaad.jpg

Australia - After the Martin Bryant incident (Port Arthur Massacre; 35 dead and 18 wounded), Australia tightened its gun laws. Any similar incidents since? Very little

America - Relaxed gun laws; Number of incidents/massacres/shootings: countless.
I think its time America tightened gun laws.

IMHO, that was barely justified murder.



One person surely dead. What if that man had not had concealed gun: there would be only probably on person dead.

We have sure death versus only probable one. Tighten gun laws!

IMHO, that was barely justified murder.



One person surely dead. What if that man had not had concealed gun: there would be only probably on person dead.

We have sure death versus only probable one. Tighten gun laws!

What the hell are you trying to say? Tighten gun laws so the woman would DEFINATELY been killed by her ex-husband?

Good plan.

Australia - After the Martin Bryant incident (Port Arthur Massacre; 35 dead and 18 wounded), Australia tightened its gun laws. Any similar incidents since? Very little

America - Relaxed gun laws; Number of incidents/massacres/shootings: countless.
I think its time America tightened gun laws.

Have the new laws reduced crime?

In the US, you don't hear about the cases where people have been saved using firearms that often. It's just not good news. Quite a few shootings have been STOPPED by people with firearms.

Australia - After the Martin Bryant incident (Port Arthur Massacre; 35 dead and 18 wounded), Australia tightened its gun laws. Any similar incidents since? Very little

America - Relaxed gun laws; Number of incidents/massacres/shootings: countless.
I think its time America tightened gun laws.

WTF are you thinking? America already has over 20,000 gun laws on the books!

You can't tighten laws and expect criminals to follow them, because by definition criminals are law breakers right?

Have the new laws reduced crime?

In the US, you don't hear about the cases where people have been saved using firearms that often. It's just not good news. Quite a few shootings have been STOPPED by people with firearms.

There were 2 million defensive gun uses last year, all without firing a shot.

I don't say it is good. But if I was the one with the gun, I hadn't shot. I don't want to be called "killer", you know.

And it is not revenge; Ianarabia. Revenge had been if it was the woman who killed her husband.

Couldn't the 72 years old man shoot the husband's legs? Thus nobody had died.

Some guy walk up to a random woman and starts stabbing her. Since the shooter was 72 it would be unrealistic to expect to use physical force.
Also from the report the woman was stabbed 12 times before the gun wielder shot the husband.
I would attempt to physical restain the husband if possible, but there was no way for the shooter to know he was going to stop after the woman was dead, and there was obviously no evidence of a problem before the stabbing or security would have been called before the shooter would have drawn a weapon

WTF are you thinking? America already has over 20,000 gun laws on the books!

You can't tighten laws and expect criminals to follow them, because by definition criminals are law breakers right?

Depends, for Australia I believe a clearer term would be restrictions.
In Australia, civilians are not permitted to posess fully or semi automatics, except sporting pistols, and hence they are not available to civilians.
America has laws that supoesedly controll them, but because they are generally available, it is less enforcable, and hence more shootings involve these weapons.
The last mass killings from firearms in Australia was Port Arthur, in 1998

Some guy walk up to a random woman and starts stabbing her. Since the shooter was 72 it would be unrealistic to expect to use physical force.


Also from the report the woman was stabbed 12 times before the gun wielder shot the husband.
I would attempt to physical restain the husband if possible,


You are nuts if you think you would try to physically restrain someone who has a knife and is out to murder his ex wife. Placing your life on the line to save a stranger is the most noble thing anyone can do.


but there was no way for the shooter to know he was going to stop after the woman was dead,

I'm sort of confused-you're saying the shooter should have let the guy kill the woman because he didn't know if the knifer would stop after he killed the woman?

and there was obviously no evidence of a problem before the stabbing or security would have been called before the shooter would have drawn a weapon

What would Walmart security do if they were called? They don't carry weapons and they are pretty underpaid. Unarmed security is a joke. "Stop! Or will I have to say STOP again? Don't make me say STOP again!"

The cops were jumpy and too inexpierenced with guns. If he doesn't carry a gun every day he shouldn't carry it any day.


It didn't add up from the start.

We are all hoping to find out, what it is that the police
thought they were doing.

Shooting someone 7 times in the head
doesn't add up any way you look at it.

So better the inoccent exwife die that the knife weilding psycho?


IMHO, that was barely justified murder.



One person surely dead. What if that man had not had concealed gun: there would be only probably on person dead.

We have sure death versus only probable one. Tighten gun laws!

So better the inoccent exwife die that the knife weilding psycho?

Yup. Apparently the Life of the Innoccent woman and knife wielding pyscho are equal to some members of this board.