Legal gun owner kills policeman

[Douva 0]

Okay, I'll start by admitting that I got bored and skimmed the posts on the last half of this page. These gun debates tend to get a little repetitive and hung up on semantics.

You gun rights advocates who can't accept that the officer probably died because he was armed, find some way to deal with it. Guns don't ALWAYS make you safer, so if that was your argument for gun rights, find a new argument.

You gun control advocates who think every firearm related death is a call for more laws, I suggest you wake up and smell the reality. As someone already stated quite eloquently, "Shit happens." Sometimes it happens with a gun; sometimes it happens with a car; sometimes it happens with a golf club. We can't create a utopian world where nobody ever gets hurt, through either negligence or malice, so come to grips with it and move on.

If this had happened in America, proponents of gun control would have argued that it proves the inherent danger of America's lax gun laws. But it didn't happen in America. It happened in a country with relatively stringent gun laws.

If this had happened with an illegally obtained weapon, proponents of gun rights would have argued that it proves that gun control doesn't work. But it didn't happen with an illegally obtained weapon. The assailant had a legal right to possess the weapon he used to kill the police officer.

If it had happened with an "assault weapon," proponents of gun control would have argued that it proves the danger of assault weapons. But it didn't happen with an "assault weapon," a "sniper rifle," or "cop killer bullets." It happened with a small caliber hunting rifle, using standard ammunition.

If the same man had used the gun to defend himself against an armed intruder, proponents of gun rights would have argued that it proves the merits of being armed for personal protection. But he didn't use the gun to defend himself. He used the gun to kill a police officer.

So what is my point? My point is that, although isolated incidents like this offer useful case studies to both sides of the debate, this type of incident doesn't PROVE anything we didn't already know. The only thing this case proves is that guns can be used to kill people. And as pundits on both side will probably agree, sometimes that's a good thing, and sometimes it's a bad thing.

If, tomorrow, a man chooses to drive his SUV through a crowd of children on the playground, what does that really prove? What new laws should be implemented as a result of that action? And if, a week later, somebody walks into a college classroom with a garden sprayer full of kerosene and a soldering torch, what will that prove? What laws should be implemented as a result of that action? Surely concrete barriers around playgrounds and bag searches at the entrances to campus buildings could prevent those types of tragedies.

What if a family dies because their car stalled on the railroad tracks? Shouldn't there be some sort of emergency car moving device in place at all railroad crossings? And shouldn't cars be equipped with emergency flotation devices that inflate and keep them afloat if they go off a bridge and into water? And shouldn't nail guns require registration, background checks, and waiting periods? In fact, should we even let people under the age of twenty-one into Home Depot? WD-40 is like napalm if you light it, so why is that shit still legal? A foul ball can kill someone, so why aren't our little leaguers using Nerf equipment? Actually, wouldn't the world be safer if EVERYTHING was coated in foam rubber? If the world is overpopulated and AIDS and rape are both worldwide epidemics, why don't we require all boys to make periodic sperm bank deposits, between the ages of thirteen and fourteen, and then castrate them when they turn fourteen? Wouldn't many of the terrorist threats we currently face simply go away if we all just adopted our enemies' religious beliefs?

There are lots of ways to save lives, so why are so many of you so hung up on guns?

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don’t think blame can be given to an object thats all.

So then, you disagree with MDMA that the gun is what caused the policeman's death, and instead blame it on the criminal who pulled the gun's trigger.

Of course, he wasn't a criminal previously. Funny how the "law abiding gun owner" can so quickly transform.

Would you be happier if the crimnal beat the cop to death with a pillow case full of doorknobs?

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

You gun rights advocates who can't accept that the officer probably died because he was armed, find some way to deal with it. Guns don't ALWAYS make you safer,

The cop was armed because the man was armed.
The cop was in a special armed response squad.
The cop chose to take exceptional risks in the line of his special duties to protect others.
Guns are necessary tools, they are RARE in the UK but the balance is at best on the side of too restrictive if you've ever lived rurally.
It would be untenable to ban weapons of the sort used in this case, they are already well controlled and have significant utility.
Given that guns have a legitimate role in society we need armed police volunteers like this man to go in and deal with the situation as he'd done on several occasions.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

You gun rights advocates who can't accept that the officer probably died because he was armed, find some way to deal with it. Guns don't ALWAYS make you safer,

The cop was armed because the man was armed.
The cop was in a special armed response squad.
The cop chose to take exceptional risks in the line of his special duties to protect others.
Guns are necessary tools, they are RARE in the UK but the balance is at best on the side of too restrictive if you've ever lived rurally.
It would be untenable to ban weapons of the sort used in this case, they are already well controlled and have significant utility.
Given that guns have a legitimate role in society we need armed police volunteers like this man to go in and deal with the situation as he'd done on several occasions.

I think you're missing the point of my post.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[mnealtx 0]

If the gun crime is so low in the UK, why do you NEED the armed officers in the first place?

edit to add: I'm not being snarky with this - you folks from the UK are saying how few guns there are...why do you need the armed response teams now, when the unarmed bobbies sufficed before?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dorbie 0]

Quote

I think you're missing the point of my post.

Not really, I'm saying that claiming a member of an armed response team was placed at additional risk because he carried a gun doesn't make much sense. It's what he does, sending unarmed men into such situations would not present much of an alternative to beat cops.

...to put it another way sending an unarmed response team to specialize in confronting armed men would be a greater risk.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

If the gun crime is so low in the UK, why do you NEED the armed officers in the first place?

For the rare occasions they are needed. If you think a gun ban would mean they would no longer be required then you are simply wrong.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

If the gun crime is so low in the UK, why do you NEED the armed officers in the first place?

For the rare occasions they are needed. If you think a gun ban would mean they would no longer be required then you are simply wrong.

Ah, you answered before I edited for clarity... to wit: Y'all say that gun crime is lower...why the armed teams now (or *increase in the number of armed teams, perhaps*), when the bobbies were sufficient before? Or am I entirely off base?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

the pro-gun crowd would like you to believe that every innocent person killed by a gun would have been killed anyway, they just happened to have been killed by gun by their killer, and that their killer would have used another methos anyway if he hadn't had a gun

they simply will not admit people die due to guns, those people were going to die and just happened to have met their death by gun..... they will not admit that somebody would not have killed if they didn't have a gun, they will not admit gun deaths are carried out by people taking the opportunity to kill by the fact they have a gun, and wouldn;t kill if they didn't have the gun

Wow, now I know where you live. that place is inside killers (who have guns) heads.

Gotta be a spooky place

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[The111 0]

Quote

I can conclude that BECAUSE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Unarmed cops: 100% survival rate.
Armed cops: 50% survival rate.

Bill, how can you conclude that the presence (or lack) of a gun in the officer's possession was the leading factor in whether or not he got shot? Did the shooter admit to this?

2 people in blue shirts and 1 person in red shirt all make a skydive. Person in red shirt goes in. Conclusion = red shirts create higher risk?

I realize the example I gave is absurd and you do have some logical reasons to believe that the cop who carried the gun "attracted" more hostile fire. But I don't believe, even with regard to that one incident, you can say for sure that the risk was associated entirely with that one variable. Maybe the cop carrying the gun had some other characteristic that drew the shooter's attention to him.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[rushmc 18]

Again, I was not expressing a viewpoint, just stating what actually happened. The unarmed police officers were safer in this instance than the armed ones.

Quote

Noooo, not simply stating what actually happend. You are drawing (and expressing) a conclusion based on..........................wait for it............................................your opinion.

Hmm, seems to debunk your defense me thinks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[rushmc 18]

Quote

How many times do we go round and round this arguement.

Talk about two nations divided by a single language.

In the UK we have and need gun control. Gun crime is rare (but growing). Help me here. How can gun crime be growing if the law says you can't have guns??We have a culture of gun control. Very few people own guns. Very few criminals have guns. Then, again, how is gun crime, huh, to use your word, growing??Very few police have guns. (Before we brits get all smug remember our knife crime rate is worse.)

I've only visited the US occasionally but it seems that there are so many guns out there and the level of gun crime is so high that some people need the security of gun ownership. YOU'VE SEEN ALL THOSE GUNS???Seems reasonable. It also appears that with the sheer quantity of guns in the public domain any attempt at banning them would not remove them from criminal hands. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. It never got that bad in the UK before they were banned.

It's worth bearing in mind that Hungerford in the 80s and Dunblane in the 90s were both atrocities committed with legally held weapons. Both led to control (semi automatic and assault rifles and handguns respectively).

Oh, and that is how gun crime is, huh, growind??

I am so confused

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>So you prefer that police officers be helpless against criminals too!

Nope. I prefer them alive.

>That's not something that should be accepted as a legitimate philosophy of policing.

That's an ego driven decision, not a results-driven one. The decision the UK has made with respect to their cops works for them.

>Given a choice, as a police officer going up against a violent
>criminal, would you prefer to be unarmed, or armed?

In this case? Unarmed, because my odds of survival would have been 100%.

WOW, here is the one data point driven conclusion. Dam, you are good

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Stumpy 256]

There have been armed response teams for a long long time. (since long before the ban i believe). Its still not a large proportion of the police force, but i think most major cities have one or two. 99.99 per cent of the time, the normal bobbies are all that is required.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If the gun crime is so low in the UK, why do you NEED the armed officers in the first place?

For the rare occasions they are needed. If you think a gun ban would mean they would no longer be required then you are simply wrong.

Ah, you answered before I edited for clarity... to wit: Y'all say that gun crime is lower...why the armed teams now (or *increase in the number of armed teams, perhaps*), when the bobbies were sufficient before? Or am I entirely off base?

I think there have been some high profile incidents, that raised public & political awareness but it's not a clear transition AFAIK. I remember controversial police shooting incidents a couple of decades ago and armed robbery is not a new phenomenon, there's a hackneyed tradition of the old sawn-off shotgun down the local post office in Britain. It is considered a very serious crime. SOME police have had guns for a long time, even if they were lock & key down the station (and I don't know they were), but weapons, tactics, training, organization and professionalism have morphed like every place else. But really I have no clear knowledge of the history, best ask someone with closer ties.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

There have been armed response teams for a long long time. (since long before the ban i believe). Its still not a large proportion of the police force, but i think most major cities have one or two. 99.99 per cent of the time, the normal bobbies are all that is required.

"Stop, or I'll say 'Stop' again!!!"

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

"Stop, or I'll say 'Stop' again!!!"

http://www.videovat.com/videos/1040/british-police-arrest.aspx

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

"Stop, or I'll say 'Stop' again!!!"

http://www.videovat.com/videos/1040/british-police-arrest.aspx

That's why Tasers should be standard issue.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[mnealtx 0]

I appreciate the honest answer....thank you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

<>

Basically because gun crime is low, not none existent.

At the moment, on balance, I think that we have it about right. We do not need a fully armed police force but we do have armed response teams for the (thankfully) rare occasions that they are needed.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

I think you're missing the point of my post.

Not really, I'm saying that claiming a member of an armed response team was placed at additional risk because he carried a gun doesn't make much sense. It's what he does, sending unarmed men into such situations would not present much of an alternative to beat cops.

...to put it another way sending an unarmed response team to specialize in confronting armed men would be a greater risk.

I agree.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[SkyjunkySean 0]

"your" equaled "her"...was ammo for her arguement that had he had a gun someone may have been killed...was pointing the paradox of this discussion & no I do not know john & therefore will not pass judgement, not my place, but I will say this...he brandished & used a weapon against & unarmed man. had it been a gun probably would have been worse. this is of course pure yet sensible speculation. hee hee another paradox

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

I can conclude that BECAUSE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Unarmed cops: 100% survival rate.
Armed cops: 50% survival rate.

Bill, how can you conclude that the presence (or lack) of a gun in the officer's possession was the leading factor in whether or not he got shot? Did the shooter admit to this?

2 people in blue shirts and 1 person in red shirt all make a skydive. Person in red shirt goes in. Conclusion = red shirts create higher risk?

I realize the example I gave is absurd and you do have some logical reasons to believe that the cop who carried the gun "attracted" more hostile fire. But I don't believe, even with regard to that one incident, you can say for sure that the risk was associated entirely with that one variable. Maybe the cop carrying the gun had some other characteristic that drew the shooter's attention to him.

This is one of the points I was trying to make in my post--Quit making this ridiculous argument as if the entire case for gun rights hinged on it. Admitting that the assailant very likely chose his target based on the fact that that officer was armed and the others weren't does not automatically destroy your credibility as a gun rights advocate.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[dorbie 0]

It's called an anecdote, it has no value w.r.t. drawing general conclusions and Bill knows it, so don't bite.

[AS1 0]

Quote

Quote

How many times do we go round and round this arguement.

Talk about two nations divided by a single language.

In the UK we have and need gun control. Gun crime is rare (but growing). Help me here. How can gun crime be growing if the law says you can't have guns??We have a culture of gun control. Very few people own guns. Very few criminals have guns. Then, again, how is gun crime, huh, to use your word, growing??Very few police have guns. (Before we brits get all smug remember our knife crime rate is worse.)

I've only visited the US occasionally but it seems that there are so many guns out there and the level of gun crime is so high that some people need the security of gun ownership. YOU'VE SEEN ALL THOSE GUNS???Seems reasonable. It also appears that with the sheer quantity of guns in the public domain any attempt at banning them would not remove them from criminal hands. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. It never got that bad in the UK before they were banned.

It's worth bearing in mind that Hungerford in the 80s and Dunblane in the 90s were both atrocities committed with legally held weapons. Both led to control (semi automatic and assault rifles and handguns respectively).

Oh, and that is how gun crime is, huh, growind??

I am so confused

Sorry to have confused you.

Gun crime in growing for a number of very complex reasons including having porous borders with no effective control and a rise in drug related crime. If you want to massively over simplify the discussion of UK crime to "Gun crime is growing so we should all be armed" you need to spend more time in the UK.

An small increase in a very small number of crimes is still a low figure.

Of course I haven't seem all the guns in the US. In the same way that you have a twisted view on the UK I am happy to admit I don't have all (or even most) of the facts about the US.

That was the point of my post. Americans cannot use their position to pass judgement on the position in the UK. Apples and Oranges.