Gunman shoots 4 officers inside Detroit precinct

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

He walked into one of the most fortified civilian buildings he could find and was able to wound four officers, including the chief before being neutralized. He obviously wasn't planning on getting out alive - he was on a suicide mission with a gun.

In a gun freaks utopian world, it's the shooter who shoots first that has the clear advantage. So much for a gun protecting ones life.

yup, he had some advantage....he's assuming room temperature, and the cops are having coffee.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Sounds like the vests as well as shear numbers were the deciding factors in this story.

Edited January 24, 2011 by ready4ONE

[Captain Oates 911]

If he wanted to be more effective he could have made a bomb and blew himself up...Isn't that how they do it in the ME? Isn't that how the "170 killed in super market bombing" and similar headlines are done?

But good thing bombs are banned here so we don't have that problem.

If law abiding people are banned from having bombs then only the bad guys will have them and that puts decent citizens at a disadvantage.

All citizens should be issued with a large box of phosphorus grenades and an RPG-7 on the day they graduate school. No need to wait for age 21 - the bad guys won't wait

Especially in Vermont

If your governmemt will not trust citizens with one of these they are up to something sinister and following the European pattern - urrgghhh >>

[james&olya 1,121]

Did the guns help the police officers or make the situation worse?

Be honest now.

Without a doubt, absolutely yes, the guns saved the officers from further injuries and loss of life. I want the police armed and able to neutralize any threat to public security!! I worry when I hear rhetoric from some quarters suggesting that fringe citizen groups have some noble duty and right to arm themselves against our government so that they can take by force what they cannot achieve by democratic means! This is basically what just happened today in the airport in Moscow where I am scheduled to meet my fiancee and her children this Friday!! They used a bomb rather than guns but a loose definition of 'arms' might include bombs! Some militia types such as Timothy McVeigh certainly seemed to see the merit in using bombs as a weapon against a supposedly tyrannical government. Society has an inherent right to take whatever steps necessary to provide for the collective security of all. Times have changed! Laws and 'rights' may need to change to keep up with new realities.

[slim 1,525]

you could have everyone packing and it's still the gunman who has the element of surprise with the clear advantage.

Surprise isn't always an advantage - just look at this case!

He walked into one of the most fortified civilian buildings he could find

By "fortified" do you mean, "it had a revolving door" or "people sitting at desks?"

In a gun freaks utopian world, it's the shooter who shoots first that has the clear advantage.

Obviously you're not a gun freak. Shooting first often has little to do with the outcome of a situation.

I'm simply pointing out that the gun freak fantasy of a utopian society where everyone is packing in order to defend themselves is a fallacy. It doesn't make you necessarily safer, nor does it give you an advantage in situations where everyone else is also armed. The gunman that shoots first has the advantage.

So, let's crunch some numbers here.....

Guy walks into a crowd and shoots random unarmed people - kills 17 and wounds several others.

Guy walks into a "fortified" building where a few armed people are sitting behind desks - wounds four and winds up dead.

Even Obama could do this math. (Well, maybe with Holder crunching the numbers for him, anyway.)

Do you think the outcome would have been the same had he walked into an office building where no-one was armed?

I didn't see him answer this question yet. Kind of tapdanced right around it.

Wrong. He did have a chance to kill 4 people. He fired 4 shots before they took him down. One of those shots struck an officer in the back, 2 other officers had bullets graze their heads. All three are lucky to be alive and it is only their luck and the shooters poor aim that can be credited.

Is it their luck or the fact that armed people returned fire and killed the perpetrator?

For some reason, they were a lot luckier than the people at Safeway. Maybe you could take a guess why?

Sounds like the vests as well as shear numbers were the deciding factors in this story.

Were they even wearing vests? What were the sheer numbers?

I think a sheer number is one shooter shooting back.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

i'm not too sure of any vests that are worn on the head.

[slim 1,525]

the guns saved the officers

Case closed.

I want the police armed and able to neutralize any threat to public security!!

I worry when... fringe citizen groups... arm themselves

Citizens armed = bad.

Police armed = good.

And you don't see how we could end up with a tyrannical government?

They used a bomb rather than guns but a loose definition of 'arms' might include bombs!

I'm no Russian scholar, but I'm pretty sure bombs aren't allowed there either.

Some militia types such as Timothy McVeigh certainly seemed to see the merit in using bombs as a weapon against a supposedly tyrannical government.

Merit does not equal constitutionally protected right.

Society has an inherent right to take whatever steps necessary to provide for the collective security of all. Times have changed! Laws and 'rights' may need to change to keep up with new realities.

Society. Not the police. Not the government. Society. We the people.

All the things that make us unsafe are already illegal, usually several times over. Yet, instead of us doing what's necessary to preserve our own public safety we insist upon the government doing it for us. Worse still, we pay them to do it.

When you entrust your security to someone else - and give up your own means to defend yourself - you've now enabled them to take away the rest of your rights as well. If you're lucky, they'll permit you to keep them. But, if they don't..... who are you to say no?

[Captain Oates 911]

i'm not too sure of any vests that are worn on the head.

You have never been to Dublin then - they even have ejector seats in helicopters there

[The_Dude 1,142]

i'm not too sure of any vests that are worn on the head.

Well, slim wears a football helmet to work, so who knows.

[slim 1,525]

Well, slim wears a football helmet to work, so who knows.

I have a kevlar helmet. It's not a vest, and not bulletproof either, but it does go on my head.

I don't wear it to work though.

[Captain Oates 911]

I spent 2 days short of 60 years in England.

I didn't have a carry gun and neither did the Police. I spent 6 years in the Police including criminal investigations (CID) in plain clothes - and I never saw a gun.

Between marriages I spent 18 years hanging out in bars and discos in big city centers (500,000 population +). I walked home down alone down dark alleyways in the city at 3am quite often (not always alone). I never saw a gun and neither did anyone I knew and nobody I knew even heard of anyone they knew first second or third hand being shot or shot at, or even hearing a gun go off

Imagine a society like that - wouldnt it be just awful ? No excuse to strut one's 'manhood'.

What would supposedly 'tough guy' Americans do without an excuse to walk around clanking along with all the guns and mags and ammo strapped to them ? They would have to watch Bruce Lee movies and imagine themselves he..

[The_Dude 1,142]

I have a kevlar helmet. It's not a vest, and not bulletproof either, but it does go on my head.

I don't wear it to work though.

Makes it too hard to cook the fries?

[james&olya 1,121]

Society. Not the police. Not the government. Society. We the people.

Government. Of the people, by the people, and for the people! Or maybe you don't believe in this. I know some on the right seem to have a problem when these 'people' are not like them. And some of us on the left have a problem when 'people' include these artificial constructs called corporations. Nonetheless, our government is supposed to function as the voice of society.

Edited January 24, 2011 by james&olya

[natty bumppo 297]

Government. Of the people, by the people, and for the people! Or maybe you don't believe in this. I know some on the right seem to have a problem when these 'people' are not like them. And some of us on the left have a problem when 'people' include these artificial constructs called corporations. Nonetheless, our government is supposed to function as the voice of society.

this oratory wasn't presented by the founding fathers ... it was presented later at a different sort of dedication

[Captain Oates 911]

I bet it stings being shot in the precinct

Almost as much as the coccyx