MyE28.com

So the guy gang banged his co-worker....broad day light on the street.....but the real news is not a mass shooting but cops overreacting and causing a shoot out. Most of the victims were shot by cops, according to latest report.....

How could this happen? Bloomberg's New York is a safe, gun free zone. It is scary though that the cops hit innocent bystanders. Every bullet has a lawyer attached.

carnutdallas wrote:gang banged his co-worker

I do not think that means what you think it means.

mooseheadm5 wrote:

carnutdallas wrote:gang banged his co-worker

I do not think that means what you think it means.

Well that can be group sex or as in the old East L.A. 187 days, Gang Bangers went around shooting other non-members in cold blood and generally in the wide open. You need to see Sean Penns only good movie - Colors.....Sam Jackson's 187 is not bad either.

If he was not in a gang or participating in group sex with said co-worker, he didn't gang bang anyone.

Now, let me preface this next comment with the fact that I am pro-gun.

Nearly everyone that said that if they had a gun they could have taken out that guy in Aurora without hurting any innocent bystanders is largely mistaken. Anyone that said that if there were off-duty police on site who were allowed to have a gun that those hypothetical police officers could have easily taken out the kid, wrong again. In that case there was darkness, smoke, tear gas (if I am not mistaken), loud noise, confusion, much higher density of innocent bystanders, a heavily armed and possibly armored assailant. In this case, multiple NYPD officers couldn't take out a single shooter who had a single gun in broad daylight in an open area on a clear day with no smoke or explosions without hitting maybe half a dozen innocent bystanders. These are trained law enforcement officers who are required to practice marksmanship to keep their jobs.

mooseheadm5 wrote:....These are trained law enforcement officers who are required to practice marksmanship to keep their jobs.

Apparently not....

carnutdallas wrote:

mooseheadm5 wrote:....These are trained law enforcement officers who are required to practice marksmanship to keep their jobs.

Apparently not....

+1

Duke wrote:

carnutdallas wrote:

mooseheadm5 wrote:....These are trained law enforcement officers who are required to practice marksmanship to keep their jobs.

Apparently not....

+1

If that had been a non-LEO with a conceal carry permit that had fired rounds that hit innocent bystanders like that, the legal ramifications would be crushing.

I know there are lots of LEOs that are not "gun" people and can barely qualify each year with their firearm.

Brad D. wrote:I know there are lots of LEOs that are not "gun" people and can barely qualify each year with their firearm.

That is sad. This, coupled with the fact that it is apparently legal for police departments to discriminate against hiring someone whose intelligence level is above their departmental range. Just shows that they are happy to arm people that don't know how to properly use the tools they need to do their jobs properly and are not smart enough to know that they really should learn how and when to use these tools.

I posted in the past, that my background was LEO. Degrees in Criminology, aced the civil service Exam, top in class, but washed out. I was told I used too many critical thinking skill, that I was not a fit for the average department. Spent 5 years of my life to be a LEO, only to be told in essence I was too smart for my own good. Hence why I have an unhealthy disrespect for most coppers. I know it is wrong, but I find most of them to be just slightly smarter than a TSA agent.

mooseheadm5 wrote:

Brad D. wrote:I know there are lots of LEOs that are not "gun" people and can barely qualify each year with their firearm.

That is sad. This, coupled with the fact that it is apparently legal for police departments to discriminate against hiring someone whose intelligence level is above their departmental range. Just shows that they are happy to arm people that don't know how to properly use the tools they need to do their jobs properly and are not smart enough to know that they really should learn how and when to use these tools.

It is sad and it's a pretty common thing. The qualifier that they barely pass is the only shooting they will do all year. And when they have to, it's a stressful event because they actually might not pass. Poor decision making under pressure coupled with poor gun handling skills equals a situation like this.

mooseheadm5 wrote:

Brad D. wrote:I know there are lots of LEOs that are not "gun" people and can barely qualify each year with their firearm.

That is sad. This, coupled with the fact that it is apparently legal for police departments to discriminate against hiring someone whose intelligence level is above their departmental range. Just shows that they are happy to arm people that don't know how to properly use the tools they need to do their jobs properly and are not smart enough to know that they really should learn how and when to use these tools.

Ding! Winner.

A friend of mine is a former Secret Service guy. He is a marksman - amazing. Most regular cops, not at all. I refer again to the guy at the Gabby Giffords shooting who WAS armed and chose not to shoot because he couldn't read the situation. Very wise and he did the right thing ... and just more proof that armed civilians don't stop these things from happening.

-tammer

also remember the guy who got caught with a bag of guns at the movie theatre had planned to sit in the back where people could not get a shot at him easily, even if they HAD been carrying......

carnutdallas wrote:So the guy gang banged his co-worker....broad day light on the street.....but the real news is not a mass shooting but cops overreacting and causing a shoot out. Most of the victims were shot by cops, according to latest report.....

I think it would be prudent to allow the investigation to determine whether and if so to what extent the police acted inappropriately. People want to use these events to justify their pre-existing convictions, political and otherwise, but the reality is that until the facts are determined it is all just speculation. So far I see the pro-gun folks looking to pre-empt any admittedly predictable gun control angle from the press, as well as the standard contingent of those who dislike the police. I am sure more will weigh in shortly and provide additional viewpoints for consideration.

Given the report that a surveillance vid shows the suspect pulling a gun on the police I don't think they overreacted in shooting him. Their aim and the sheer number of rounds fired are the issue.

Tammer in Philly wrote: just more proof that armed civilians don't stop these things from happening.

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.3

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.3


I just don't understand how you can form such huge blanket statements over a single event (where you admit that the legally armed civilian made the right choice!). I'll never understand the rational that says that waiting for 911 to be called, waiting for the cop to put his doughnut down, drive to the scene, stand around outside to "assess" the situation in progress, decide how to react, get approval to react, and then finally do something is faster that having a trained, armed civilian on the scene at the moment it occurs, who is already acutely aware of what is happening.

How is it a mass shooting if 2.3 people are killed?

Edit, I'm reading the article where this statistic came from and would like to point out that in 10 of the 15 cases studied, the citizens that stopped a gunman from potentially killing more people were not armed in any way. The data analysis, while thorough, does not take into account any of the details of the shootings. Some killers plan their attacks in a way that will not allow access (like Whitman) while others just up and start shooting while carrying a single handgun, which allows people time to react during a reload event.

mooseheadm5 wrote:How is it a mass shooting if 2.3 people are killed?

Based on the intent to commit more murders if they hadn't been stopped.

tsmall07 wrote:

mooseheadm5 wrote:How is it a mass shooting if 2.3 people are killed?

Based on the intent to commit more murders if they hadn't been stopped.

That in itself is tricky to prove. Reading the original article, it is not clear whether or not the shooter in any case had a desire or ability to continue their rampage.

mooseheadm5 wrote:

tsmall07 wrote:

mooseheadm5 wrote:How is it a mass shooting if 2.3 people are killed?

Based on the intent to commit more murders if they hadn't been stopped.

That in itself is tricky to prove. Reading the original article, it is not clear whether or not the shooter in any case had a desire or ability to continue their rampage.

I'll concede that. Perhaps the word "mass" is misused since, technically, a shooting doesn't become a "mass" shooting until 4 or more people are killed. (it really bothers me that we really have a definition like that) Either way, there was a shooting where 2 people died and there were obviously more people that could have been killed since there was someone there to stop the shooter.

At Virginia Tech, at least one of those killed was a Corps of Cadets member. Military trained. He was shot multiple times as he charged the shooter. I often think about how things may have been different had that man been better equipped. Shooters don't always throw tear gas and go into dark movie theaters. It would have been easy to take out the VT shooter as he entered the classrooms since they all knew what was coming already after it started. It was easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

Considering the environment at colleges and universities, I'm not sure that having students armed is a path to prevent things like that happening. Schools tend to be gun free because youngsters are more often than not rather reckless wrt weapons. Professors, OTOH, if properly trained I don't think I'd have a problem there. Even the Corps of Cadets members are not necessarily level headed enough to be armed on grounds. Hell, a friend of my brother's at VT discharged his firearm through the driver's window of his friend's car while sitting in the passenger seat, essentially firing right past his friend's face. He was in the corps at the time.

mooseheadm5 wrote:Considering the environment at colleges and universities, I'm not sure that having students armed is a path to prevent things like that happening. Schools tend to be gun free because youngsters are more often than not rather reckless wrt weapons. Professors, OTOH, if properly trained I don't think I'd have a problem there. Even the Corps of Cadets members are not necessarily level headed enough to be armed on grounds. Hell, a friend of my brother's at VT discharged his firearm through the driver's window of his friend's car while sitting in the passenger seat, essentially firing right past his friend's face. He was in the corps at the time.

I completely understand your concern, however that's just more relying on someone else for protection. Most professors wouldn't carry, either. I think people should have the right to protect themselves. If they abuse that right and damage property or people, penalties should be severe. I am a proponent of concealed carry licenses (shall issue states) that require training. Those who go through the steps to get their license tend to understand the respondibility more and act appropriately.

I would allow a law that allows professors to carry. Maybe there should be a law that requires professors to be armed.

tsmall07 wrote: Maybe there should be a law that requires professors to be armed.

Brilliant. Next, we'll have a law that requires all school teachers to be fundamentalist Christians. Then all our problems will be solved, won't they, Tyler?

C.R. Krieger wrote:

tsmall07 wrote: Maybe there should be a law that requires professors to be armed.

Brilliant. Next, we'll have a law that requires all school teachers to be fundamentalist Christians. Then all our problems will be solved, won't they, Tyler?

Excuse the hyperbole. It makes about as much sense as laws that prohibit everyone from being able to protect themselves.

tsmall07 wrote:Most professors wouldn't carry, either.

So you're saying that, in general, the most intelligent person in the room wouldn't choose to carry?

All nine people wounded during a dramatic confrontation between police and a gunman outside the Empire State Building were struck by bullets fired by the two officers, police said Saturday, citing ballistics evidence.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nypd ... Dkq_aOzJ8F

snakebrain wrote:

tsmall07 wrote:Most professors wouldn't carry, either.

So you're saying that, in general, the most intelligent person in the room wouldn't choose to carry?

Why would you assume a professor to be the most intelligent person in a classroom?

snakebrain wrote:

tsmall07 wrote:Most professors wouldn't carry, either.

So you're saying that, in general, the most intelligent person in the room wouldn't choose to carry?

Some of the most book smart people out there do the the dumbest stuff. A few times I found my professors to be miserably lacking intelligence.

I don't really give a shit if a professor would carry or not. I was in the building next door to the one where the 'tech shootings happened with my (now) wife. She had a class in Norris hall the next period. Either one or both of us could have easily been killed if things happened slightly differently. I think it is wrong that people can make it illegal for me to be able to protect myself and the people I care about, should the need arise. I bet Profs, Liviu Librescu , G. V. Loganathan, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, amongst others wished someone had a gun that day.

tsmall07 wrote:I think it is wrong that people can make it illegal for me to be able to protect myself and the people I care about, should the need arise.

Should it be illegal to miss and hit an innocent bystander? Do innocent bystanders need protecting from well-meaning folks who just happen to be a lousy shot under pressure?