What the hell is going on? Another senseless killing

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Most of the time they are more deadly though. Let's not beat around the bush here..

[natty bumppo 297]

Most of the time they are more deadly though. Let's not beat around the bush here..

um ... bush is out of office

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Most of the time they are more deadly though. Let's not beat around the bush here..

Yep. These are military style assaults. Our regular police officers have little to no protection against this type of savagery. Should police now answer every 911 call by storming the door in SWAT gear?

[natty bumppo 297]

Most of the time they are more deadly though. Let's not beat around the bush here..

Yep. These are military style assaults. Our regular police officers have little to no protection against this type of savagery. Should police now answer every 911 call by storming the door in SWAT gear?

Are you indicating the regular LEO has no training or has not received proper training?

How is this instance a "regular 911" call? Or are your being an extremist again?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Most of the time they are more deadly though. Let's not beat around the bush here..

Yep. These are military style assaults. Our regular police officers have little to no protection against this type of savagery. Should police now answer every 911 call by storming the door in SWAT gear?

Are you indicating the regular LEO has no training or has not received proper training?

How is this instance a "regular 911" call? Or are your being an extremist again?

So it was the police officers fault for getting shot like that? Interesting.

[natty bumppo 297]

Most of the time they are more deadly though. Let's not beat around the bush here..

Yep. These are military style assaults. Our regular police officers have little to no protection against this type of savagery. Should police now answer every 911 call by storming the door in SWAT gear?

Are you indicating the regular LEO has no training or has not received proper training?

How is this instance a "regular 911" call? Or are your being an extremist again?

So it was the police officers fault for getting shot like that? Interesting.

I didn't say that ... you did.

Do I need to repeat the question? Or ... do you think you can answer this time?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Most of the time they are more deadly though. Let's not beat around the bush here..

Yep. These are military style assaults. Our regular police officers have little to no protection against this type of savagery. Should police now answer every 911 call by storming the door in SWAT gear?

Are you indicating the regular LEO has no training or has not received proper training?

How is this instance a "regular 911" call? Or are your being an extremist again?

So it was the police officers fault for getting shot like that? Interesting.

I didn't say that ... you did.

Do I need to repeat the question? Or ... do you think you can answer this time?

Ok, Natty, if you want to play, 'you must answer everything I frame as a question', then answer my question since mine came first. See the question above in red.

[natty bumppo 297]

Most of the time they are more deadly though. Let's not beat around the bush here..

Yep. These are military style assaults. Our regular police officers have little to no protection against this type of savagery. Should police now answer every 911 call by storming the door in SWAT gear?

Are you indicating the regular LEO has no training or has not received proper training?

How is this instance a "regular 911" call? Or are your being an extremist again?

So it was the police officers fault for getting shot like that? Interesting.

I didn't say that ... you did.

Do I need to repeat the question? Or ... do you think you can answer this time?

Ok, Natty, if you want to play, 'you must answer everything I frame as a question', then answer my question since mine came first. See the question above in red.

A DD call ... officers aren't prepared for anything as they approach the door? SWAT gear is not needed if the officers are mentally prepared. Why should an officer "storm the door" on a typical DD? They can always turn away and rethink the situation. Training is lacking.

I just answered you question ... your turn.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Most of the time they are more deadly though. Let's not beat around the bush here..

Yep. These are military style assaults. Our regular police officers have little to no protection against this type of savagery. Should police now answer every 911 call by storming the door in SWAT gear?

Maybe police do need tougher and more protective body armor. If criminals are using weapons that cause a deadly threat to police officers, then the correct response would be to upgrade the armor worn by officers.

Taking away weapons won't solve a whole lot. Most gun owners are unlikely to have a sudden urge to kill everything in sight. Most criminals, however, will be armed and feel little-to-no remorse at having to kill someone. The only way guns could be completely banned from use would be to enforce a police state.

Psychological exams would be a good start, but there's virtually no way to tell if someone who's normally well-adjusted may go crazy one day. You can't pick and choose who may own guns based upon what they "might do." Using the "might do" approach could justify nearly any action.

[Ban Hammer 13,746]

like what?

Dude there were guns for sale that where bigger than me. And I am 6 foot.

Man was it an awesome gun though. Totally ridiculous but awesome.

so size matters with guns, eh?

[Caladan 19]

The officers were well-prepared for the 911 call they received, which was for a domestic disturbance. They were not well-prepared for some nutjob lying in wait to shoot them in the head when they entered the house. This was not the fault of the police; it would not be a good policy to respond to every domestic disturbance 911 with tear gas just in case there was another nutjob. Let's not blame the victims.

[Heracles 417]

so size matters with guns, eh?

I'll put it another way. Either the NRA and allowing any and every guuuuuuun to be sold ideologically wrong. Or the rest of the developed world who bans most semi-auto and all fully-auto guns is wrong. Most definitely including assault riffles. There is absolutely no excuse for anyone to carry a gun that can fire multiple shoots under a minute. Or own a gun that is powerful enough to blow a hole throw a concrete pylon.

As I said in the other thread and much like in this case, gun related deaths are usually attributed to domestic violence, gang activity, some kid blowing his head of or the latest trend of people deciding to maul as many innocent people as they can down.

Anyone who cannot see the logic in banning such guns to protect innocent people like our police should go back to listening to some high dropout like Limbaugh.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Constellation

[Heracles 417]

Maybe police do need tougher and more protective body armor. If criminals are using weapons that cause a deadly threat to police officers, then the correct response would be to upgrade the armor worn by officers.

Taking away weapons won't solve a whole lot. Most gun owners are unlikely to have a sudden urge to kill everything in sight. Most criminals, however, will be armed and feel little-to-no remorse at having to kill someone. The only way guns could be completely banned from use would be to enforce a police state.

Psychological exams would be a good start, but there's virtually no way to tell if someone who's normally well-adjusted may go crazy one day. You can't pick and choose who may own guns based upon what they "might do." Using the "might do" approach could justify nearly any action.

It's not even a complete ban. It's about a restriction. Otherwise I would really like to own a surface-to-air missile and use it to hunt eagles. While ridiculous, really, what is the difference. I would also like a M60. That's a gun after all.

The stats from around the world prove that gun restrictions are effective. To the contrary look at all of the countries with no gun restrictions, they also have the highest murder rates.

Some people need to realize this is not the wild wild west cowboy days.

[DeadPoolX 9]

The officers were well-prepared for the 911 call they received, which was for a domestic disturbance. They were not well-prepared for some nutjob lying in wait to shoot them in the head when they entered the house. This was not the fault of the police; it would not be a good policy to respond to every domestic disturbance 911 with tear gas just in case there was another nutjob. Let's not blame the victims.

I don't know if that was directed at me, but if it was, I wasn't blaming the victims. I really do think police need better armor. In some cases it might be overkill, but better off prepared.

Maybe police do need tougher and more protective body armor. If criminals are using weapons that cause a deadly threat to police officers, then the correct response would be to upgrade the armor worn by officers.

Taking away weapons won't solve a whole lot. Most gun owners are unlikely to have a sudden urge to kill everything in sight. Most criminals, however, will be armed and feel little-to-no remorse at having to kill someone. The only way guns could be completely banned from use would be to enforce a police state.

Psychological exams would be a good start, but there's virtually no way to tell if someone who's normally well-adjusted may go crazy one day. You can't pick and choose who may own guns based upon what they "might do." Using the "might do" approach could justify nearly any action.

It's not even a complete ban. It's about a restriction. Otherwise I would really like to own a surface-to-air missile and use it to hunt eagles. While ridiculous, really, what is the difference. I would also like a M60. That's a gun after all.

The stats from around the world prove that gun restrictions are effective. To the contrary look at all of the countries with no gun restrictions, they also have the highest murder rates.

Some people need to realize this is not the wild wild west cowboy days.

There are differences between an owning a SAM installation or an M60 over a handgun. Although some part of me feels that having my own SAM site would be beyond cool (that's probably the same part of me that likes this too), it'd also be beyond illegal, completely over-the-top and wouldn't help in any home defense situation -- unless the military were after you, I suppose.

I don't think anyone needs more than a handgun to provide "home defense." It's unlikely that the "average criminal" would be wielding an AK-47 and once again, if the military is after you, well... even with the necessary firepower to fight them, you'd probably still lose.

I'm all for logical restrictions. That's the key term there: logical. For instance, I think taking firearm classes (both written and practical) should be a necessary part of the background check. Even if it were somewhat ineffective at reducing the crime rate, it'd at least train new gun owners on how to properly use and care for their gun. I'd like to think that's worth something.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If guns are outlawed, only pigs will have guns.