Don't go blaming guns

[chri'stina 190]

on babies, no less! oh the horror!

I know. tsk tsk.

[james&olya 1,121]

there are other things that people could use that do not involve a gun or a motor vehicle....

i was only trying to make the point that there is nothing anyone can do to stop someone that is set on destroying another if that is their intent getting rid of guns will never end the problems of the world from wack jobs

but making sure that we can protect our self makes a lot of sense

anyone that goes or has to go thru gun safety or classes to carry a weapon are taught what can and will happen to them if they use their weapon when there was another way around it

can you say the same for the wack jobs?

they simply dont care take the gun they will find another way....

or they will be the only ones that have a gun because they didn't go thru the normal checks to have one. even the ones we have in place now to purchase a hand gun will never stop a person that is determined

just my opinion

sara

for got to add the part about a motorcycle seems the terrorist in other countries kill alot of people with one

So the fact that there are far fewer murders in countries of Europe means what? They have far fewer 'wack jobs' than we do? Don't tell me it is because of minorities, they have them too. A proliferation of guns has not made us safer. It may save some lives but far more die than are saved because of guns in so many hands.

[sara..... 371]

So the fact that there are far fewer murders in countries of Europe means what? They have far fewer 'wack jobs' than we do? Don't tell me it is because of minorities, they have them too. A proliferation of guns has not made us safer. It may save some lives but far more die than are saved because of guns in so many hands.

One of the many reasons im for legal gun ownership is because a gun DID save my life so im biased on this topic

sara

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

My boyfriend's sister-in-law died in a mass murder in 2009 -- in fact, it was much-discussed on this very board since it was the massacre in Binghamton, NY where 13 people were killed in an immigrant centre. His sister-in-law by all accounts was a wonderful, beautiful and ambitious young woman getting used to life in the US. The killer was a nutjob. I don't think if anyone else had had a gun in the centre that day that things would have been otherwise.

You could say I'm decidedly biased against guns.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

So the fact that there are far fewer murders in countries of Europe means what? They have far fewer 'wack jobs' than we do? Don't tell me it is because of minorities, they have them too. A proliferation of guns has not made us safer. It may save some lives but far more die than are saved because of guns in so many hands.

you sure about that?

link

link

[slim 1,525]

minimize the potential lethality through reasonable gun laws, such as background checks, waiting periods, limited number of rounds in a magazine.

So you advocate banning private sales?

It was only then when he ran out of bullets and was attempting to reload that he was stopped.

Why didn't anyone stop that dude at Virginia Tech? He ran out of bullets several times.

Also, remember when those dudes hijacked those planes with boxcutters? Why weren't they stopped? They didn't have any bullets at all.

Ok. Hey, you gun nuts say it doesn't matter the magazine size so then you shouldn't have problem if we go back to banning the manufacturing of high capacity magazines. Problem solved.

How does that solve the problem? Murder was already illegal yet this knucklehead murdered people. Are you still on that whole "another law can stop this type of thing from happening again" kick?

I'd say the chair would give out first. sounds like a good mythbusters episode.

They probably would test that one. I love that show.

It's nice to see tree-hugging, anti-gun, vegetarian (gay) hippies in California actually approach weapons from an unbiased standpoint. And then what do they say about their results? "Man, I love shooting!"

in countries of Europe

.... far more die than are saved because of guns in so many hands.

It's interesting that you brought up Europe because I'm crunching some simple numbers here and if you add up every single one of our firearms-related deaths - including suicides - we're still far short of even one country's death toll in WWII. Had countries in Europe been privately armed, they might not have been forced to participate in that war.

My boyfriend's sister-in-law died in a mass murder in 2009 -- in fact, it was much-discussed on this very board since it was the massacre in Binghamton, NY where 13 people were killed in an immigrant centre. His sister-in-law by all accounts was a wonderful, beautiful and ambitious young woman getting used to life in the US. The killer was a nutjob. I don't think if anyone else had had a gun in the centre that day that things would have been otherwise.

You could say I'm decidedly biased against guns.

So, you don't think one of those 63 people in the basement sitting there waiting for four hours for the police to secure the scene wished they had a firearm "just in case?" I'm sure they felt really safe and secure knowing the 9-1-1 operator was talking them through it and the police were "right outside."

Since you're an expert on this situation, what did you think about the police locking down the high school? Do you agree/disagree with their decision to lock kids in their classrooms just because an incident was unfolding somewhere else in town? How about when they stopped them from sending e-mails/texts because it was interfering with official police business? (Keep in mind I just switched from 2A to 4A to 1A rights so you may have to head over to wikipedia or something.)

Since that "nutjob" barricaded the back door with an automobile shouldn't you also be decidedly biased against automobiles?

[james&olya 1,121]

It's interesting that you brought up Europe because I'm crunching some simple numbers here and if you add up every single one of our firearms-related deaths - including suicides - we're still far short of even one country's death toll in WWII. Had countries in Europe been privately armed, they might not have been forced to participate in that war.

Now that is a ridiculous argument. We weren't talking about wartime and militaries. Of course, if the Germans had no guns and were using only knives, bows and arrows... As I said, bringing up wartime deaths from guns is ridiculous and has no relevance to this discussion!!

[Krikit 1,164]

Post violating the TOS has been removed. Please refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you.

[slim 1,525]

Now that is a ridiculous argument. We weren't talking about wartime and militaries. Of course, if the Germans had no guns and were using only knives, bows and arrows... As I said, bringing up wartime deaths from guns is ridiculous and has no relevance to this discussion!!

Why is it when it comes to crime there's no difference between death by knife and death by firearm (or just death in general as opposed to shoplifting) but when it comes to death by gun in war it's different than death by gun in a crime? Isn't death by gun still death by gun? I'll concede it's not death by knife. But, still, it's death, isn't it?

In the other scenarios offered by some posters death = death. Is that different now?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Post violating the TOS has been removed. Please refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you.

Sorry. What he said was incredibly insensitive and I should have set a better example, but the people in question affected by the consequences of one nutter with a gun are part of my life now. But you were right to remove it, and I will curb my tongue in future. I do mean that sincerely.

It is silly for me to hope that he might have some sympathy for the one family I know who has been scarred by this, or to think that it might be offensive to me to dismiss my very real feelings about this incident and the trauma that someone I care for has suffered. Very silly. I only hope his life is never touched as my boyfriend's has, and I mean that sincerely as well.

[james&olya 1,121]

Why is it when it comes to crime there's no difference between death by knife and death by firearm (or just death in general as opposed to shoplifting) but when it comes to death by gun in war it's different than death by gun in a crime? Isn't death by gun still death by gun? I'll concede it's not death by knife. But, still, it's death, isn't it?

In the other scenarios offered by some posters death = death. Is that different now?

Slim, I am also a veteran, USAF. I would not have hesitated to use weapons and deadly force as a member of our armed forces in war as per orders and rules of engagement. That is different on so many levels from the issue of guns held and used by civilians whenever they decide on their own they want to!

[slim 1,525]

Sorry. What he said was incredibly insensitive and I should have set a better example, but the people in question affected by the consequences of one nutter with a gun are part of my life now. But you were right to remove it, and I will curb my tongue in future. I do mean that sincerely.

It is silly for me to hope that he might have some sympathy for the one family I know who has been scarred by this, or to think that it might be offensive to me to dismiss my very real feelings about this incident and the trauma that someone I care for has suffered. Very silly. I only hope his life is never touched as my boyfriend's has, and I mean that sincerely as well.

I'm curious what your response was.

Slim, I am also a veteran, USAF. I would not have hesitated to use weapons and deadly force as a member of our armed forces in war as per orders and rules of engagement. That is different on so many levels from the issue of guns held and used by civilians whenever they decide on their own they want to!

So you'd use deadly force in war but not to defend your own life or the lives of your family?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I'm curious what your response was.

I will not and should not repeat it. It was beneath me, and came from frustration.

[lostinblue 1,989]

My boyfriend's sister-in-law died in a mass murder in 2009 -- in fact, it was much-discussed on this very board since it was the massacre in Binghamton, NY where 13 people were killed in an immigrant centre. His sister-in-law by all accounts was a wonderful, beautiful and ambitious young woman getting used to life in the US. The killer was a nutjob. I don't think if anyone else had had a gun in the centre that day that things would have been otherwise.

You could say I'm decidedly biased against guns.

POLICE MISHANDLED BINGHAMTON RAMPAGE

I thought we learned this lesson at Columbine.

When a gunman is shooting people inside, we dont pay the police to cower behind squad cars outside.

We dont set up a perimeter, we dont wait for our sergeant to show up, we dont take the time to put on our gee-whiz SWAT gear, we bust through the front door and take the fight to the bad guy.

Apparently they forgot that in Binghamton.

And its likely that people died as a result.

I know this sounds harsh. It is meant to. The lesson is a hard and painful one, but it is an essential one. When police tactics are part of the problem instead of part of the solution, they must be directly and specifically challenged.

And in Binghamton on Friday, police tactics were part of the problem. You know the heartbreaking story. Some freak with a couple of guns and a boatload of ammunition walked in the front door of an immigrant-services charity. He shot the receptionists and then he went into a classroom and sprayed the place.

When all was said and done, he had killed 13 people and also taken his own life.

In the aftermath, details of the law-enforcement response to the rampage came out.

The second receptionist shot was a 61-year-old woman named Shirley DeLucia. She took a .40 caliber round in the abdomen and dropped to the floor playing dead. When the gunman moved past her and toward the classroom, she crawled, bleeding, under a desk and called 9-1-1.

Police arrived two minutes later.

According to the Binghamton police chief, an hour later the first officer entered the building.

An hour later.

For 60 minutes, the various law-enforcement agencies involved gathered outside and prepared.

They dont give medals for conduct like that. They just bring body bags.

As a day and then two passed after the incident, authorities twice revised downward. Finally, they settled on 39 minutes.

Personally, I dont believe it. Standing up after the incident, which he had personally supervised, the chief said an hour. Thats not something you make a mistake about.

Apparently sensing the possibility of criticism, authorities have also said that by the time they arrived, the gunman had killed himself and they couldnt have saved anyones life.

That is unlikely.

What is more likely is that during the hour it took police to begin their three-hour securing of the building, several of the gunshot victims bled to death. At the very least, the delay made sure that no wounded person inside received medical care during the crucial Golden Hour.

What is that?

Let me randomly pick a definition from the website of The University Hospital in Newark, New Jersey.

The Golden Hour is defined as the time period of one hour in which the lives of a majority of critically injured trauma patients can be saved if definitive surgical intervention is provided.

Critically injured trauma patients like gunshot victims.

A majority can be saved if definitive surgical intervention is provided.

It goes without saying that if the police dont try to retake the building for an hour that none of the wounded are going to get medical care for an hour and that means that a majority of them who otherwise had survivable injuries are going to die.

The receptionist beneath the desk lay there with a painful and potentially lethal belly wound officials said on Friday for 90 minutes before help arrived.

There is a high likelihood that more would have survived this evil attack if they had had access to medical care in a reasonable amount of time. Ten ambulances staged outside, but they couldnt get to patients.

What the police did in Binghamton was wrong. Their action was presumably a result of failed training and leadership.

Again, this is harsh, but it is true.

The correct example was set just a week before in Carthage, North Carolina, when a 25-year-old officer the only one on duty in his department heard gunshots at a nursing home and ran in the door, finding and engaging a gunman and stopping his rampage.

Similarly, in the 2007 massacre at Trolley Square in Salt Lake City, the gunman was stopped because all responding officers including an off-duty out-of-town cop eating dinner with his wife ran directly into the building to find and engage the bad guy.

That is the tactic proven effective on streets and battlefields all across the world. If ambushed, you attack. Engage and destroy, find the threat and eliminate it.

Is that dangerous?

Yes.

But law-enforcement is a dangerous profession.

And the reasoning of society is that trained and armed police officers stand a better chance in a dangerous situation than do unarmed civilians. Honor and duty require a police officer to put himself between the threat and the innocent civilian.

Inside the Binghamton building were women with headscarves. Outside were cops with guns. Its not hard to figure out which group had the better chance of surviving an encounter with a crazed gunman.

Aggressive action against a murdering attacker is desirable even if it is only a delaying action. If a police officer engages a bad guy and is unsuccessful in the resultant fight, the distraction the officer posed for the assailant may provide time for citizens to escape or other officers to close and engage. It wasnt the first guys who tried to get to the top of Mt. Suribachi who put up the flag, but because they led out, the flag eventually went up.

Cops are heroes. Its in their blood.

But sometimes policies and practices the decisions of chiefs and administrators chain them when they should be freed.

After Columbine, most of the American law-enforcement community changed its approach. Engaging the assailant as quickly and as forcefully as possible is the wisest and best move. There is even a tactical philosophy built around the concept, involving what is called an active shooter.

The Colorado Springs sheriffs office training and policy manual is an example of the common standard: When an active shooter begins his attack, it is imperative that the initial police responders immediately pursue and establish contact with the shooter at the earliest opportunity.

An Ohio police-academy director found, research has established that aggressive action, by even a solo actor, has been, and is now, the most effective countermeasure in stopping the active killer.

Thats what the North Carolina officer did at the nursing home.

Attacking the attacker is the best countermeasure in the face of an active shooter. Statistics show that of mass murders broken up, half are stopped by unarmed civilians, a quarter are stopped by armed civilians and a quarter are stopped by responding police officers.

But none are stopped by police officers who posse up outside for an hour.

The tragedy in Binghamton reminds us of that fact. http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=2600&go=4

Sorry for your loss but the police did botch things in this case.

Edited January 14, 2011 by lostinblue