Legal gun owner kills policeman

[Scoop 0]

I would guess that once the armed response arrived he realised that one way or another it was all over for him. We can see which path he chose

[billvon 2,400]

>Only because the guy decided to NOT use the rifle on THEM...not BECAUSE they were unarmed...

I didn't say "because." The unarmed people in this incident were, in fact, safer than the armed people, as evinced by the fact that one of the armed people was killed and none of the unarmed people were. You can come up with any explanation you like.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Only because the guy decided to NOT use the rifle on THEM...not BECAUSE they were unarmed...

I didn't say "because." The unarmed people in this incident were, in fact, safer than the armed people, as evinced by the fact that one of the armed people was killed and none of the unarmed people were. You can come up with any explanation you like.

As, obviously, can you.... I would say that history supports my viewpoint rather than yours, though.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>I would say that history supports my viewpoint rather than yours, though.

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. Come on, that can't be that hard to acknowledge, can it? I'm sure by tomorrow John Rich will post some other "gun saves little old lady" story.

[The111 0]

Quote

wow talk about havin ammo for YOUR arguement.. go to bonfire & read bout zhills incident...if John would have had a gun who knows how many people woulda been killed.....or if everyone else had a gun ...mebbe John woulda been stopped ///interesting quandry we have here huh ???

Please explain how saying "somebody just got hurt without a gun, and could have been hurt worse with one" is any sort of "ammo" for your argument? I don't think anybody will disagree with that assertion, it's pretty clear guns do, surprisingly enough, inflict potentially mortal damage.

And, if you knew John you knew he worked full time in the firearms safety field and was a gun fanatic. Every conversation I ever had with him was either about salsa, skydiving, or guns. Fortunately, regardless of what mistakes he made, he still was wise enough not to pull a gun, which he certainly knows how to do.

And I want to point out there is a glaring distinction between "pro-gun" (the phrase some love to throw around) and "pro-freedom," even if both types necessarily reside on the same side of the fence. Some of you treat anybody who dares to advocate personal freedom as a gun-loving militant. I'm not particularly fond of guns, but they have their uses, and in a free country adults should not have their liberties trampled upon, even if people are dying because of a misuse of that liberty. It is one of the prices we pay for freedom. As skydivers, we should recognize that better than most.

Repeating myself from another thread:

I think it's also worth pointing out that stupidity is far more deadly than malice. Tens of thousands of people die every year because someone can't control his car properly. But the idea of being intentionally gunned down is somehow more offensive to us than the idea of being accidentally run over. And we somehow place a much greater value on the necessity of personal transportation over the right to bear arms. Why?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>I would say that history supports my viewpoint rather than yours, though.

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. Come on, that can't be that hard to acknowledge, can it? I'm sure by tomorrow John Rich will post some other "gun saves little old lady" story.

They were under the same threat that the armed policeman was, only he decided NOT to shoot the unarmed police ...that's the ONLY reason they were unharmed...they weren't any "SAFER".

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

[billvon 2,400]

Wow, you really can't bring yourself to admit this! Pretty remarkable.

Is it your opinion that the dead cop was in fact as safe than the other two? In most people's books, the guy who ends up dead is considered less safe than the people who live. And unless you want to start redefining words (always a popular pastime both here and in politics) you're sort of stuck with that definition.

That's not to say that guns always make things less (or more) safe in a given situation. One thing we know for sure is that SOMETIMES carrying a gun will get you killed, and not carrying a gun will allow you to live. Sometimes the opposite is true. But had this incident happened to a friend of yours, I am sure you would now be glad that he was unarmed, rather than dead.

[JohnRich 4]

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.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the argument caused the neighbours to call the police, the usual unarmed police turned up and he didn't kill them, he only decided to use his gun when faced with an armed policeman. he shot the policeman dead and then killed himself

from this i'd say a few things....

1. he hadn't intended to kill anybody initially
2. when faced with an armed policeman, he decided to kill by using his gun
3. he wouldn't, and didn't, kill untill a gun came in to the senario (the armed policeman)
4. he wouldn't have killed anybody unless he had had the gun
5. the policeman would still be alive today if the guy hadn't been legally able to own a gun

My goodness, you're sure jumping to a lot of conclusions there.

How do you know he wouldn't have killed both of the original unarmed policemen anyway?

It could well be that the armed response unit, by their arrival and engagement, prevented him from carrying out an even greater evil.

You certainly have no basis to conclude anything from the available facts, because you don't know what was going on inside his head.

You do great harm to your credibility by making such great unfounded leaps of illogic.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

how many people on here think he would have killed the armed policeman even if he didn't have a gun? keep in mind he would be unarmed, facing an armed policeman

That's a darned good argument for all British police officers to be armed, isn't it?

Or do you prefer your police to be helpless against dangerous criminals?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the pro-gun crowd would like you to believe that every innocent person killed by a gun would have been killed anyway... 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

So then, you believe that the gun is what makes people want to kill?

I always thought that the urge to murder came from the heart...

The homicide statistics show a lot of murders being committed by things other than guns too, so there's a problem with your theory.

Take knives, for example. Most everyone uses them in the kitchen every day, without wanting to stab someone to death. Yet a few people commit murder with knives. So you can't blame that urge to kill on the knives. It comes from the person.

An inanimate lump of steel does not make people want to kill.

[AS1 0]

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). We have a culture of gun control. Very few people own guns. Very few criminals have guns. 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. 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).

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Now please explain to me how making a population helpless, makes them safer.

This incident is an example of how the unarmed people were, in fact, safer.

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

Fact is, those first two officers were just plain lucky. Their lives were in the criminal's hands, and they were at his mercy. That's not something that should be accepted as a legitimate philosophy of policing. If you depend upon the good will and charity of criminals, you're going to have a lot of dead officers.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>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%.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Wow, you really can't bring yourself to admit this! Pretty remarkable.

Is it your opinion that the dead cop was in fact as safe than the other two? In most people's books, the guy who ends up dead is considered less safe than the people who live. And unless you want to start redefining words (always a popular pastime both here and in politics) you're sort of stuck with that definition.

All of the police were under the same threat - the only "safer" in this instance was that the shooter decided NOT to unload on the unarmed policemen - that's it.

I know that I'm not explaining myself well - but I'm not sure HOW I can explain it to make my view any more clear.

Quote

That's not to say that guns always make things less (or more) safe in a given situation. One thing we know for sure is that SOMETIMES carrying a gun will get you killed, and not carrying a gun will allow you to live. Sometimes the opposite is true. But had this incident happened to a friend of yours, I am sure you would now be glad that he was unarmed, rather than dead.

Agreed.

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Only because the guy decided to NOT use the rifle on THEM...not BECAUSE they were unarmed...

I didn't say "because." The unarmed people in this incident were, in fact, safer than the armed people, as evinced by the fact that one of the armed people was killed and none of the unarmed people were. You can come up with any explanation you like.

You cannot conclude that. You don't know what his intentions were had the armed response unit not arrived. It could have been worse.

What did the Virginia Tech shooter do when the armed response arrived? He killed himself. Up until then, he kept on killing others. The way to stop criminals from maximizing their damage, is to confront them with force. Period. That's the only thing they respect.

[kallend 1,625]

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.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

>You cannot conclude that.

I can conclude that BECAUSE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

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

You can postulate any other hypothetical situation you like. But in this case, what ACTUALLY happened was that the unarmed cop was safer.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

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

Nope. I prefer them alive.

And which option gives them the best odds against criminals: Armed, or Unarmed?

Quote

>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%.

Making decisions after the fact, when the outcome is already known, is worthless. And making decisions about a single known incident is also worthless, as it does nothing to say what is best overall.

Why don't you dare to take a chance and make a judgement about whether or not the greater good is served by armed policemen, or unarmed policemen.

Go ahead, I double-dog dare you.

[mnealtx 0]

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). We have a culture of gun control. Very few people own guns. Very few criminals have guns. 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. 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).

And even with those bans, you say yourself that your gun crime is growing... makes perfect sense...get rid of the guns so that we can have even MORE gun crime.

I notice that the anti-gunners STILL can't tell me how being defenseless against a criminal is going to prevent crime.

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>You cannot conclude that.

I can conclude that BECAUSE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

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

You can postulate any other hypothetical situation you like. But in this case, what ACTUALLY happened was that the unarmed cop was safer.

Nope, you do not have the benefit of a time machine to see how alternative scenarios would have turned out. Just because one thing happened in one instance, proves absolutely nothing about either this incident, nor about overall safety.

[billvon 2,400]

>And which option gives them the best odds against criminals: Armed, or Unarmed?

I'd say it depends on the situation. The best case would be to have both sorts available.

>Making decisions after the fact, when the outcome is already known, is worthless.

This, from the king of quoting statistics about self-defense well after the fact? From the man who regularly posts about previous acts by gun owners, where the outcome is already known? Are you turning over a new leaf here?

>Why don't you dare to take a chance and make a judgement
>about whether or not the greater good is served by armed policemen, or
>unarmed policemen.

The greatest good would be served by (in my opinion) a mix of both.

[billvon 2,400]

>Just because one thing happened in one instance, proves
>absolutely nothing about either this incident, nor about overall safety.

The actual outcome of an incident has nothing to do with the incident? I will have to remember that the next time you post a "gun owner defends himself" story! Because even if he defends himself, he might have been killed!

[Douva 0]

Quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/6632017.stm

and people say gun controls are not needed this policeman would still be alive if that gun hadn't been around

The officer was shot with a relatively small caliber hunting rifle, so if you want a ban that would encompass the gun used to kill that police officer, you'll have to implement an outright ban on all firearms. Good luck.

Sometimes bad stuff happens to good people. When it does, it's not always a sign that we need more laws. Sometimes that's just the way life is.

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

[crotalus01 0]

Suprise JohnRich, we are in total agreement. As for guns, they kill noone, the person using the gun kills people. If you want to take it a step farther, the projectile fired from the gun kills people. Why not ban ammunition? Of course, ammunition has a very broad definition, could mean anything from bullets to boomerangs to throwing knives to rocks...
a gun is a tool just like a hammer or a screwdriver (both of which have been used as murder weapons BTW).
Does England ban crossbows, or bows for that matter? I know shit about British law. Do they ban catapults? Slingshots? Throwing stars? Shuriken?
If someone wants to kill, there is no end to the methods they can (and will ) use. Killers will always find a way, and an armed citizenry can actually make a difference for the better, European sentiments be damned.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...