What the hell, gun people!?!

[soxfan]

As the wife of a police officer-ya don't bring a knife to a gun fight. If the criminals have high weaponry, and he's got a BB gun (or ooooo would ya'll be so kind as to allow him a .22), is my husband coming home? They're armed to the teeth now b/c the criminals are armed to the teeth. Not b/c Jane Smith wrote a bad check at the grocery store. But [censored] whatever dudes, let the cops go out and fight the ****ing fight and risk their goddamned lives to try and keep YOU safe, feck em. After a bombing in a city, do YOU know what's coming next? i'm kinda betting the answer is gonna be um...NO. If YOUR job were to try and keep people safe, and possibly have to deal w/more bombs, death, destruction, would YOU want to be running around in your undies or would you like to be in full gear and have weapons at the ready to protect the citizens? Would your spouse and kids maybe want you to be protected or no?

Ask me how many times my HUSBAND and father of our two kids has had to pull his gun, and how many times he has been FIRED AT and THEN you ****ing tell me that bullshit.

Nobody can fricken win can they? Seriously. Mass chaos after a ****ing BOMB goes off, and we're PISSED b/c law enforcement is taking measures to keep others SAFE?

[censored] a goddamned duck. Would it be better if they'd stood back and said woooooahhh dudes, YOU figure it out. If you think the streets are safe (when they weren't just a second ago after yanno that fing BOMB just went off) then continue your run, by all means...would that have been better?

How did they know it wasn't another 9-11 and MORE bombs in MORE cities weren't going to go off?

And just for good measure, [censored] [censored] ****ity [censored].



And, ETA, JD said AK47's and Uzi's are not used anywhere in the United States Law Enforcement AT ALL. The Uzi is an Israeli army weapon. We use AR15's.

And, his final answer is WE CAN'T PROTECT THE PUBLIC IF WE'RE DEAD. WE DON'T HAVE THE OPTION OF RUNNING AWAY FROM GUNFIRE, WE RUN TOWARD IT.

I agree with you.

 

[Maria D]

Packrat, I'm trying to figure out what possible word you could be writing that is popping up as [censored]! Is there some great new curse word that I'm unaware of? Do tell please!

Or are you peppering your posts with the [censored] stamp?

 

[packrat]

Ahem, the F word. It's apparently only censored the four letter way b/c the f-ing's show up.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Hi,

Ksingers point about the changes in the types of buyers who go to gun shows is just another interest group protecting itself against its fear, which seems to be the Gov't. mainly. I used to think of those people as the crazies, but now that we know that our gov't has surveillance on all of us, perhaps they are justified. I see America as such a changing society today, where no one can agree on much.
For a democracy to stand it needs consensus on most issues or at the very least a set of rules one plays by. I really think it is crumbling, and with so much disagreement in the society, many look to protect themselves the best way they can think of. Guns are it for many. I think this is a bad thing, but I myself am looking to feel protected, both from the criminals and the gov't. So I have decided on an Uzi, or an AK47. Its on my Christmas list. Then I will feel safe. I am willing to take a safety course.


Annette

You need an Uzi to protect yourself from the government? What do you see them doing to you that you would have to shoot off multiple rounds of bullets?

I dunno about an Uzi, but I know many people who have AK47s and feel much better because of it. And can we be 100% sure of what will happen in the future? I just read an article about a young girl who was "accidentally" shot to death for seeking help at a private home. She was unarmed.

What was your point in mentioning this? Are you saying she was shot by the police?

 

[packrat]

The whole lock down thing, I get that in the aftermath it seemed like a huge deal and that they went overboard--but what if they hadn't and shit had hit the fan? What if there were thousands of people in the streets, running errands, to and from work, taking their kids to school, kids on busses...better safe than sorry, and better too much than too little. Better 1 million people (or however many) pissed off (of course at those trying to keep them safe) than 100,000 dead from terrorists.

And, if they hadn't locked the city down and shit had happened, then I can 100% guarandamntee you that it would be a holy shitstorm for the law enforcement in that city. People wringing their hands, screaming, bawling, calling for their heads to roll b/c they didn't do their job and protect them.

Like I say ya can't win for losing.

 

[packrat]

Here's some things JD learned at the academy, and from the job. When you're in law enforcement the only people who care if you come home are your family, your coworkers and you. People want you to protect them, at the cost of your life, at the drop of a hat---but they want it done in a civilized, non violent, peaceful, way. And they want it 100% on THEIR terms. Like the officer should say hey, I understand this gentleman is chasing you around w/a claw hammer and wants to kill you and your daughter sooooo just to be sure...shall I kick him in the shin or give him a wet willy?

 

[soxfan]

Ahem, the F word. It's apparently only censored the four letter way b/c the f-ing's show up.

I LOVE the f word.

 

[soxfan]

Hi,

Ksingers point about the changes in the types of buyers who go to gun shows is just another interest group protecting itself against its fear, which seems to be the Gov't. mainly. I used to think of those people as the crazies, but now that we know that our gov't has surveillance on all of us, perhaps they are justified. I see America as such a changing society today, where no one can agree on much.
For a democracy to stand it needs consensus on most issues or at the very least a set of rules one plays by. I really think it is crumbling, and with so much disagreement in the society, many look to protect themselves the best way they can think of. Guns are it for many. I think this is a bad thing, but I myself am looking to feel protected, both from the criminals and the gov't. So I have decided on an Uzi, or an AK47. Its on my Christmas list. Then I will feel safe. I am willing to take a safety course.


Annette

You need an Uzi to protect yourself from the government? What do you see them doing to you that you would have to shoot off multiple rounds of bullets?

I dunno about an Uzi, but I know many people who have AK47s and feel much better because of it. And can we be 100% sure of what will happen in the future? I just read an article about a young girl who was "accidentally" shot to death for seeking help at a private home. She was unarmed.

What was your point in mentioning this? Are you saying she was shot by the police?

The person who shot her thought she was breaking in. I think this was a tragedy...

 

[Karl_K]

Here's some things JD learned at the academy, and from the job. When you're in law enforcement the only people who care if you come home are your family, your coworkers and you.

That is because the many police treat everyone as an enemy.
I grew up knowing and respecting a lot of cops and deputies.
They were totally different than today's cops.
They treated everyone with respect and when possible kindness.
If you got in trouble you knew you deserved it, not because the city needed more revenue from tickets.

Frankly the attitude many cops have these days really bugs me.
Many don't respect we the people then I have 0 respect for them.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Hi,

Ksingers point about the changes in the types of buyers who go to gun shows is just another interest group protecting itself against its fear, which seems to be the Gov't. mainly. I used to think of those people as the crazies, but now that we know that our gov't has surveillance on all of us, perhaps they are justified. I see America as such a changing society today, where no one can agree on much.
For a democracy to stand it needs consensus on most issues or at the very least a set of rules one plays by. I really think it is crumbling, and with so much disagreement in the society, many look to protect themselves the best way they can think of. Guns are it for many. I think this is a bad thing, but I myself am looking to feel protected, both from the criminals and the gov't. So I have decided on an Uzi, or an AK47. Its on my Christmas list. Then I will feel safe. I am willing to take a safety course.


Annette

You need an Uzi to protect yourself from the government? What do you see them doing to you that you would have to shoot off multiple rounds of bullets?

I dunno about an Uzi, but I know many people who have AK47s and feel much better because of it. And can we be 100% sure of what will happen in the future? I just read an article about a young girl who was "accidentally" shot to death for seeking help at a private home. She was unarmed.

What was your point in mentioning this? Are you saying she was shot by the police?

The person who shot her thought she was breaking in. I think this was a tragedy...

It is tragic, though I do not know any of the details of the story. Obviously, the tragedy would not have occurred if the homeowner did not have a gun, so that's why I did not understand why DF mentioned it, especially in the context of the rest of the above quoted.

 

[Karl_K]

<snip> but they want it done in a civilized, non violent, peaceful, way. And they want it 100% on THEIR terms. Like the officer should say hey, I understand this gentleman is chasing you around w/a claw hammer and wants to kill you and your daughter sooooo just to be sure...shall I kick him in the shin or give him a wet willy?

I do get that one and it makes me feel bad for them at times.
But then one of them goes totally overboard yet again and then not so much.
What is so hard to understand about the hitting stops when the cuffs go on?
Whats so hard about not misusing a taser just because someone called you a name?
Whats so hard about not killing non-threatening unarmed people?
What is so hard about actually holding bad cops accountable instead of getting a free pass to kill more people?
What is so hard about treating people with respect instead of as an enemy?

 

[soxfan]

Here's some things JD learned at the academy, and from the job. When you're in law enforcement the only people who care if you come home are your family, your coworkers and you.

That is because the many police treat everyone as an enemy.
I grew up knowing and respecting a lot of cops and deputies.
They were totally different than today's cops.
They treated everyone with respect and when possible kindness.
If you got in trouble you knew you deserved it, not because the city needed more revenue from tickets.

Frankly the attitude many cops have these days really bugs me.
Many don't respect we the people then I have 0 respect for them.

I have not encountered that in the least. I am VERY close friends with our police chief. And I have had lots of traffic stops, etc in college. I have not seen that attitude.

 

[packrat]

Here's some things JD learned at the academy, and from the job. When you're in law enforcement the only people who care if you come home are your family, your coworkers and you.

That is because the many police treat everyone as an enemy.
I grew up knowing and respecting a lot of cops and deputies.
They were totally different than today's cops.
They treated everyone with respect and when possible kindness.
If you got in trouble you knew you deserved it, not because the city needed more revenue from tickets.

Frankly the attitude many cops have these days really bugs me.
Many don't respect we the people then I have 0 respect for them.

maybe b/c we live in the middle of nowhere, we're decades behind everyone else..we don't have that attitude around here. Here, it's the good ole boy, taking pride in your uniform, your badge, your training and what you do for the city.

And I wonder if some of the prevailing attitude elsewhere partially has to do w/the attitudes law enforcement gets from the citizenry? if one cop does something, the entire nation is out for blood, knocking the system as a whole and condemning everyone who is a part of it. We know better. We should, anyway, but we do this all the time. After a while when you're getting the shaft all the time and the media portrays everyone in law enforcement as worthless, it wears on you. There's a reason why most members of law enforcement associate off the job w/other members of law enforcement. The general public doesn't understand the job and what it entails, the toll it takes on you and your family. And if law enforcement views the general public as the enemy...can anyone show me where there's been a resounding HOO RAH for law enforcement?? they're viewed w/suspicion and disdain, everywhere. That's sad. And STILL they risk their lives.

There's a reason why the spouse and extended family is interviewed during interviews for the jobs. It's not nessecarily a source of pride to have a husband or father on the police force, according to others. You can do your job 100% right and still lose your job, at any time, b/c of the prevailing attitudes towards law enforcement. You're putting your life on the line every single time you shut the squad vehicle door, and there are a lot of people who do-not-care. There's a lot you have to be prepared to handle-and it's hard to do your job when you're getting backlash from bazillions of people who DON'T do your job, would NEVER do your job, and don't know a thing ABOUT your job.

How many people SERIOUSLY would run TOWARD gunfire, risking their own lives, taking a chance of leaving behind a spouse and children, for people they don't know, and have never met? To try and save someone ELSE's spouse and children? JD would do it even if he weren't on duty and didn't have his vest on. A lot of people in law enforcement would. I guarantee it.

We can't judge millions who do what's right and try to save others, keep others from harm, by the actions of a few, and we can't judge when we don't know the why's and wherefore's of the situations those officers have dealt with. They're scrutinized in minute detail, every little thing they do, and there are people who will find fault no matter what. So, you saved 47 children on a school bus from crashing into the nun's orphanage, while simultaneously stopping a human trafficking ring and clearing $300million in heroin off the streets? Oh PUH-LEEEAZE...you scared the kids and made them cry, the nuns were horrified, you weren't super rico suave w/the victims of the traffickers and you roughed up the heroin dealers. Temporary leave for you, sucka.

It's their jobs, yanno? Their career's. A lot of them, it's their calling, what they're meant to do in their lives. That's JD. He had the shittiest upbringing, and he's overcome a lot, to get where he is right now. It's hard when people knock it, when they don't know what it entails. I myself was like..eyes the size of dinner plates, some of the stuff we talked about during his academy days, things I'd never known, things the general public doesn't know, that really is sooo not what a wife wants to hear or even to know.

7 yard rule, 21 ft rule. A suspect w/a knife or hammer is 7 yards or 21 feet away. By the time you draw your weapon, that suspect has had sufficient time to cross that length and attack you. Guess who's husband got to put THAT rule to the test last night?

Guess how many husbands/fathers put that rule to the test every single day?

 

[packrat]

Ahem, the F word. It's apparently only censored the four letter way b/c the f-ing's show up.

I LOVE the f word.

I do too. You should see the sailors blush when I get wound up about something.

 

[packrat]

<snip> but they want it done in a civilized, non violent, peaceful, way. And they want it 100% on THEIR terms. Like the officer should say hey, I understand this gentleman is chasing you around w/a claw hammer and wants to kill you and your daughter sooooo just to be sure...shall I kick him in the shin or give him a wet willy?

I do get that one and it makes me feel bad for them at times.
But then one of them goes totally overboard yet again and then not so much.
What is so hard to understand about the hitting stops when the cuffs go on?
Whats so hard about not misusing a taser just because someone called you a name?
Whats so hard about not killing non-threatening unarmed people?
What is so hard about actually holding bad cops accountable instead of getting a free pass to kill more people?
What is so hard about treating people with respect instead of as an enemy?

The respect/enemy thing goes both ways. Their reputations are at stake every time they step foot out the door, their jobs as well. the prevailing attitude anymore is us/them.

and I get that some of them are shitty, I do. We all know it. There are shitty doctors, shitty husbands, shitty wives, there are shitty people in every walk of life. there are shitty gun owners. shitty non gun owners. shitty people who send money to charity-they're still shitty.

None of those things is hard to understand--until you're in a heated situation. if you're dealing w/a guy who is resisting arrest who just killed his entire family including his newborn, and you saw that aftermath, it's hard to turn that off in your head right that very second. can you fault a cop for that, really? yes they have training and yes sometimes that training goes right out the window.

JD had a class taught by an officer who got the fantastic job of searching a conveyor belt that ran thru a grinder/chopper thing. For pieces of a baby. it's hard to turn that switch off.

and you don't always know when people are non threatening/unarmed. sometimes you have to make a snap decision and sometimes that decision is the wrong one. there are some things that are a part of the job that are completely unavoidable. Non threatening/ unarmed people don't walk around w/a sign. Lots of armed people can or will be a threat don't walk around w/a sign either.

Cops should be held accountable by all means...but then I think everyone should, criminals most of all, and that doesn't seem to happen very often, if you think about it. A lot of what I've seen is mass vilification of officers w/out all the facts right from the getgo.

 

[TooPatient]

<snip> but they want it done in a civilized, non violent, peaceful, way. And they want it 100% on THEIR terms. Like the officer should say hey, I understand this gentleman is chasing you around w/a claw hammer and wants to kill you and your daughter sooooo just to be sure...shall I kick him in the shin or give him a wet willy?

I do get that one and it makes me feel bad for them at times.
But then one of them goes totally overboard yet again and then not so much.
What is so hard to understand about the hitting stops when the cuffs go on?
Whats so hard about not misusing a taser just because someone called you a name?
Whats so hard about not killing non-threatening unarmed people?
What is so hard about actually holding bad cops accountable instead of getting a free pass to kill more people?
What is so hard about treating people with respect instead of as an enemy?

The respect/enemy thing goes both ways. Their reputations are at stake every time they step foot out the door, their jobs as well. the prevailing attitude anymore is us/them.

and I get that some of them are shitty, I do. We all know it. There are shitty doctors, shitty husbands, shitty wives, there are shitty people in every walk of life. there are shitty gun owners. shitty non gun owners. shitty people who send money to charity-they're still shitty.

None of those things is hard to understand--until you're in a heated situation. if you're dealing w/a guy who is resisting arrest who just killed his entire family including his newborn, and you saw that aftermath, it's hard to turn that off in your head right that very second. can you fault a cop for that, really? yes they have training and yes sometimes that training goes right out the window.

JD had a class taught by an officer who got the fantastic job of searching a conveyor belt that ran thru a grinder/chopper thing. For pieces of a baby. it's hard to turn that switch off.

and you don't always know when people are non threatening/unarmed. sometimes you have to make a snap decision and sometimes that decision is the wrong one. there are some things that are a part of the job that are completely unavoidable. Non threatening/ unarmed people don't walk around w/a sign. Lots of armed people can or will be a threat don't walk around w/a sign either.

Cops should be held accountable by all means...but then I think everyone should, criminals most of all, and that doesn't seem to happen very often, if you think about it. A lot of what I've seen is mass vilification of officers w/out all the facts right from the getgo.

Packrat,

I do think a lot of the feelings have to do with where you live. I've been lucky enough to have cops as friends in a small-ish city where they were respected and liked. I've also seen how people around here (Seattle area) have a very different attitude. I can't say if one or the other "started" the feelings, simply that they seem to feed off of each other. If you're looked at as a scary-enemy-non-person then you're going to lose touch with people. Of course if you show massive disrespect (yelling, threatening, ignoring instructions) then you're not going to see the friendly side of the cop.

The reality is that we NEED these men and women who are able to go through the training and put up with the job. I've known cops who went out and purchased their own guns because the one that was offered wasn't good enough. The hours can be long. The job is dangerous. I would NEVER want to be the wife of a cop because of the stress and danger that comes with the job -- and I have nothing but respect for those women (and men) who have a spouse who serves our communities.

There have been several incidents in Seattle over the last couple of years where a cop has had to make a decision and then was blamed for it after the fact. This is SO wrong.

We have "volunteer police" organizations in the area that work with the city (and county?). They want to encourage civilians to volunteer to provide additional security in our community in coordination with the police. DH and I had been talking at length about how they should have such a thing to take some of the pressure off of the regular police -- make their lives a little easier. Now that there is such a thing, I have to say that I have NOT signed up to be a part of this. The incidents that you've seen are just what I've been watching in the local news. I don't want to have to go through the dumb blame thing that the police have to put up with. If you've had to pull your gun in protection of yourself and your community, the LAST thing you should be stuck hearing is that you should have or shouldn't have and now you're being sued because the man who was coming at you with a knife is upset.


I don't mind the police being well armed. I'd love to see them even better armed around here! The police here are given the bare minimums when it comes to training and practice. They get ONE box of ammunition to practice with each month! Any more than that and they have to buy it out of their own money. Same thing if they want a nicer gun.

BUT -- I'd like to have the same stuff available for civilians to purchase. Maybe with restrictions, but available.

 

[packrat]

Thanks TP. Even in a small community, we've had shit go down. Scary stuff. Our deputies have 6 bullets. that's all their allowed. 6. And there are hours during the night that no county guys (deputies) are on duty. And one city cop. So for an entire county of 50,000 people or whatever, we have ONE officer. Many times they're called out in the middle of the night and informed a suspect has heavy artillery...and yanno, our guys have 6 bullets. So yeah, there are times they are out manned and out gunned and I can say in instances like that, shit is going to happen, snap judgments are going to be made b/c they HAVE to be made. *I* don't want to be the one making those decisions. Most officers, that I know anyway, do buy a lot of their own equipment b/c what they are issued isn't good enough..and a lot of that has to do w/the budgets the city allows them. Don't want to spend too much on the ones sworn to serve and protect of course...bare minimum, cheapest possible.

We have a...jeez I forget already what it's called-oh, reserve...Our city department has a Reserve Department. JD was on the Reserves for two years before getting hired, riding along w/the other officers quite often. Unpaid, of course. JD took a lot of flak for that too. "why would you do that? you're not getting paid? what if you get shot? what if you get killed? what about your kids?" and JD would say "that's why I do it." he's helped put drug dealers in jail, he's put people who beat their spouse and kids, have sexually abused their kids, into jail, for no pay b/c he wants his kids and other's kids to be safe(er). Now he gets paid to do it.

We're too quick to make snap judgments, the whole lot of us.

 

[JaneSmith]

So to whoever started this. What the hell gun people?! is a little bit ridiculous and insensitive. We own guns to hunt and to protect ourselves. I'm sorry you seem to think that means that we are as bad as the activists who took guns to a restaurant.

Me. I started this. I said 'gun people' referring to the crowd in the picture. I can see how that may have read as 'all people everywhere who own guns', however, that was not what I meant.

I've since seen the other picture of this protest group where they are posing with their guns and a big American flag. I still say that a group of forty armed people standing outside a restaurant where four people were meeting is gross intimidation, deliberate scare tactics, and if not clearly against the law then brushing very close to the line.
I posted it here because of the diverse group at PS and I was interested in people's views on this.
I knew there was a very good chance that it would turn into a gun control thread, but I was optimistic that most posters would comment on the protestors, their actions, and the effect it had on the people in the restaurant.
When the conversation turned to blaming mental health on all shootings, I added references to address that notion and then commented on the legality of their openly carrying firearms in public.
The gun control debate rages on.

Dragonfly, I'm so very sorry those horrible things happened to your family. What an awful ordeal.

 

[TooPatient]

Thanks TP. Even in a small community, we've had shit go down. Scary stuff. Our deputies have 6 bullets. that's all their allowed. 6. And there are hours during the night that no county guys (deputies) are on duty. And one city cop. So for an entire county of 50,000 people or whatever, we have ONE officer. Many times they're called out in the middle of the night and informed a suspect has heavy artillery...and yanno, our guys have 6 bullets. So yeah, there are times they are out manned and out gunned and I can say in instances like that, shit is going to happen, snap judgments are going to be made b/c they HAVE to be made. *I* don't want to be the one making those decisions. Most officers, that I know anyway, do buy a lot of their own equipment b/c what they are issued isn't good enough..and a lot of that has to do w/the budgets the city allows them. Don't want to spend too much on the ones sworn to serve and protect of course...bare minimum, cheapest possible.

We have a...jeez I forget already what it's called-oh, reserve...Our city department has a Reserve Department. JD was on the Reserves for two years before getting hired, riding along w/the other officers quite often. Unpaid, of course. JD took a lot of flak for that too. "why would you do that? you're not getting paid? what if you get shot? what if you get killed? what about your kids?" and JD would say "that's why I do it." he's helped put drug dealers in jail, he's put people who beat their spouse and kids, have sexually abused their kids, into jail, for no pay b/c he wants his kids and other's kids to be safe(er). Now he gets paid to do it.

We're too quick to make snap judgments, the whole lot of us.

SIX!?!
That is just wrong. In every class I've taken and from every defense speaker we've had in, they require a minimum of three FULL magazines. Most suggest this as just the start and that you should also have a rifle with that many magazines ready too.
Asking a cop to face a criminal with only six rounds is just


This is one of the most outrageous things I've heard in our gun club meetings. We have met different officers from different departments and the story is the same each time. We're sitting in a room where people routinely buy 500-2,000+ rounds at a time and don't think anything about going to the range and shooting 300-400 (and more!) per trip (multiple times per week) and there is a man in uniform who is risking his life to protect our communities and he gets a whole 50 rounds per MONTH

I know a lot of the guys in the club give ammunition to cops in the area so they can practice more than that. I also know that they are given free access to the ranges (at least the two I am familiar with). It seems so small in comparison to what is expected of them.

One of the reasons I feel so strongly about protecting our rights to own guns is because I have seen what these men and women have to work with. Through no fault of their own, they are just not able to respond immediately to every last call. There are so few of them that they will be at least a few minutes away -- at a time when a few minutes could be the difference between your family living or dying.


I hate the "police fundraisers" that go on in this area. Every last one I've looked into has all of the funds going into the administrative stuff like printers and office furniture -- at best "expenses". I would LOVE to have something around where we could contribute ammunition and other tangible supplies or at least a fund that allowed officers to purchase what they need.

 

[aljdewey]

When the conversation turned to blaming mental health on all shootings, I added references to address that notion and then commented on the legality of their openly carrying firearms in public.
The gun control debate rages on.

This is the type of gross exaggeration that makes it difficult to find middle ground. ALL shootings? Who in this thread ever said all shootings are perpetrated by mentally ill people? I pretty clearly also noted those who engage in criminal activity as well, but passing restrictive legislation is wholly ineffective on people who already don't give a whit about what's lawful.

For at least the past five years, the average number of gun fatatlies is 32,000 annually, and a whopping 60+% of those are attributed to suicide. It is against every basic survival instinct to terminate one's own life, right? So people who do so are clearly in emotional pain or distressed. Do you honestly think that improving mental health resources and/or empowering people to more aggressively help and treat people who are struggling won't have an impact on this?

I pointed to several recent public mass casualty events; in all of which, the shooters didn't know the victims at all. I also pointed to the alarmingly repeatable quotes from people who said those shooters were either 1) hearing voice, 2) talking about killing people, or 3) vocalizing extreme feelings of hopelessness or despair. Doing so is not blaming *all* shootings on mental health, but YES, I emphatically do believe that most balanced people don't run around mowing down scores of people they don't know. Can't even find an article detailing such an event.

 

[aljdewey]

Here is a document prepared by a group called "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." The information from this document comes from the FBI.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/S...s/US-news-PDFs/Analysis_of_Mass_Shootings.pdf

And here is the Mass Killings Database:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/16/mass-killings-data-map/2820423/

I'm going to go ahead and allow the facts to speak for themselves when it comes to the idea that mentally ill people are responsible for a majority of these kinds of killings.

I think some of the discord here lies in varying definition of what constitutes "these kinds of killings". For me personally, "these kinds of killings' means mass casualty shootings where the shooters don't know those they kill....events like Columbine, Newtown, the Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and the Canada mall shooting. In "these kinds of killings", there seems to be a consistent pattern of reports after the events that people who knew the shooters saw warning signs/alarming behavior in the periods prior to the shootings.

The analysis report you linked above covers considerably more ground than those kinds of killings. Even still, it contains some very important facts.

Less than 1% of gun murder victims were killed in mass shooting events (defined as incidents with 4 or more victims) in that year (2010). There were 93 events in a 5-year span...about one every 2 weeks.

85% of those events did not involve high-capacity weapons. So all the intense focus on the all-caps "SEMI-AUTOMATIC" guns wouldn't impact the overwhelming majority of these shootings.

57% of the 93 mass shootings were attributed to domestic violence. While definitely part of the problem, these shootings are defineably different from events like Newton, et al. where shooters don't know their victims. What does make some of them similar, though, is the predictability/warning signs of the impending behavior; 17 of the 53 domestic violence shootings were done by people with prior domestic violence charges. Again here, hard to see how targeting SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons is going to have much impact in stopping this.

in 11% of the cases, reports of concerning behavior by shooters was brought to the attention of law enforcement or medical professional. And, as we've seen, it would appear most of those authorities lacked empowerment to act on them preventatively.

In 43% of the shootings, the shooter committed suicide. It's worth repeating - killing one's self goes against basic human survival instinct. Getting help for these people could have significant impact on reducing these events.

Look at the specific data behind the cumulative numbers. These are just the last 10 events.

* DC Navy yard shooting - handgun/shotgun (not semi-automatic); shooter allowed to possess guns despite mental health treatment history
* Crab Orchard, TN - handgun; criminal activity (drug transaction gone bad)
*Oklahoma City - semiautomatic; father says son was schizophrenic (mental health) but not adjudicated and therefore allowed to own.
* Dallas - pistol; domestic violence event - prior criminal domestic violence history, but charges expunged.
*Clarksburg, WV - pistol; criminal activity (drug transaction gone bad)
*Hileah, FL - semiautomatic; pattern of harassment (predictive) but not prohibited to own.
* Santa Monica - semiautomatic and non-semi weapons *already prohibited by CA law*; history of mental health
*Fenley, NV - handgun; criminal activity (robbery) and prior criminal record
*Waynesville, IN - handgun; criminal activity (meth house). Shooter had prior criminal record and wasn't legal gun owner.
*Ottawa, KS - gun type unspecified; criminal activity (unlawful gun owner; prior attempted murder conviction) and mental health (mother's concerns about mental health reported and dismissed).

Every one of these events was either criminal in nature or had mental health issues. I'm genuinely interested to hear how legislation restricting semi-automatic or high capacity weapons (which weren't used in the majority of these) or limiting gun ownership is going to touch cases like these.

If I have to live in a society where people are toting around firearms, it isn't the law abiding citizens that I am worried about. It is the criminals and the people lacking empathy in a way that makes them think that people are their property (the ones I suspect thought they had a right to shoot their families time and again.)

Me either.......but those are the only people who are going to be impacted by restrictions on weapons based on type. Criminals are already well comfortable operating outside the law, so gun control legislation isn't going to impact them (though I do think that changes that make it harder to drop priors that *should* prevent gun ownership is a step in the right path, but I'm not sure how impactful it would be overall.)

 

[aljdewey]

I just read an article about a young girl who was "accidentally" shot to death for seeking help at a private home. She was unarmed.

She *was* unarmed, but the homeowner didn't know that until after the event.

What he did know was this: there was a person he didn't know on his porch......in *Detroit* (not Mayberry).......at 3:30 a.m.

Have you ever been in a situation where someone was trying to get into your house in the wee morning hours that you didn't know? I have. About 3-4 years ago, I woke up at 4:50 a.m. to the sound of someone trying to come into the front door of my house. From my 2nd story bedroom window that looks down on the front door, I saw a man in his late 20s/early 30s had my storm door open and was trying to open the front door.

Like the total idiot I am, I flung the window open and asked "what the eff are you doing at my front door at 5 a.m.?" Turns out the guy was drunk off his ass; I suspect he was meaning to access a house behind mine and likely ended up on the wrong street. He mumbled an apology and staggered off.

My heart raced for just more than an hour after that, part of which was spent thinking how incredibly stupid I'd been to do what I'd done.

I live in a reasonably safe small city (not Mayberry-sized but definitely Mayberry feel)--nowhere near like Detroit - and I was scared s@#$less in that moment.

 

[Loves Vintage]

I just read an article about a young girl who was "accidentally" shot to death for seeking help at a private home. She was unarmed.

She *was* unarmed, but the homeowner didn't know that until after the event.

What he did know was this: there was a person he didn't know on his porch......in *Detroit* (not Mayberry).......at 3:30 a.m.

Have you ever been in a situation where someone was trying to get into your house in the wee morning hours that you didn't know? I have. About 3-4 years ago, I woke up at 4:50 a.m. to the sound of someone trying to come into the front door of my house. From my 2nd story bedroom window that looks down on the front door, I saw a man in his late 20s/early 30s had my storm door open and was trying to open the front door.

Like the total idiot I am, I flung the window open and asked "what the eff are you doing at my front door at 5 a.m.?" Turns out the guy was drunk off his a$$; I suspect he was meaning to access a house behind mine and likely ended up on the wrong street. He mumbled an apology and staggered off.

My heart raced for just more than an hour after that, part of which was spent thinking how incredibly stupid I'd been to do what I'd done.

I live in a reasonably safe small city (not Mayberry-sized but definitely Mayberry feel)--nowhere near like Detroit - and I was scared s@#$less in that moment.

And, this was the porch. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prosecutors-mull-charges-detroit-porch-shooting-20876268 I assumed after reading the above comment, that the victim was inside of a screened porch?? There was no screened porch. She was outside his house when he shot her. He, the homeowner, appears to have been a law-abiding citizen before this. But, of course, we don't need to worry about law-abiding citizens, and it was Detroit after all, so of course it's reasonable to shoot first and ask questions later!

And, I still don't understand how this supports the proposition that we cannot be 100% sure what will happen in the future and many people have AK47s and feel much better because of it. I know this was not your point, ALJ, but just trying to understand the original post that introduced this unfortunate event and misuse of a firearm, by an otherwise presumably law-abiding citizen.

 

[House Cat]

Here is a document prepared by a group called "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." The information from this document comes from the FBI.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/S...s/US-news-PDFs/Analysis_of_Mass_Shootings.pdf

And here is the Mass Killings Database:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/16/mass-killings-data-map/2820423/

I'm going to go ahead and allow the facts to speak for themselves when it comes to the idea that mentally ill people are responsible for a majority of these kinds of killings.

I think some of the discord here lies in varying definition of what constitutes "these kinds of killings". For me personally, "these kinds of killings' means mass casualty shootings where the shooters don't know those they kill....events like Columbine, Newtown, the Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and the Canada mall shooting. In "these kinds of killings", there seems to be a consistent pattern of reports after the events that people who knew the shooters saw warning signs/alarming behavior in the periods prior to the shootings.

The analysis report you linked above covers considerably more ground than those kinds of killings. Even still, it contains some very important facts.

Less than 1% of gun murder victims were killed in mass shooting events (defined as incidents with 4 or more victims) in that year (2010). There were 93 events in a 5-year span...about one every 2 weeks.

85% of those events did not involve high-capacity weapons. So all the intense focus on the all-caps "SEMI-AUTOMATIC" guns wouldn't impact the overwhelming majority of these shootings.

57% of the 93 mass shootings were attributed to domestic violence. While definitely part of the problem, these shootings are defineably different from events like Newton, et al. where shooters don't know their victims. What does make some of them similar, though, is the predictability/warning signs of the impending behavior; 17 of the 53 domestic violence shootings were done by people with prior domestic violence charges. Again here, hard to see how targeting SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons is going to have much impact in stopping this.

in 11% of the cases, reports of concerning behavior by shooters was brought to the attention of law enforcement or medical professional. And, as we've seen, it would appear most of those authorities lacked empowerment to act on them preventatively.

In 43% of the shootings, the shooter committed suicide. It's worth repeating - killing one's self goes against basic human survival instinct. Getting help for these people could have significant impact on reducing these events.

Look at the specific data behind the cumulative numbers. These are just the last 10 events.

* DC Navy yard shooting - handgun/shotgun (not semi-automatic); shooter allowed to possess guns despite mental health treatment history
* Crab Orchard, TN - handgun; criminal activity (drug transaction gone bad)
*Oklahoma City - semiautomatic; father says son was schizophrenic (mental health) but not adjudicated and therefore allowed to own.
* Dallas - pistol; domestic violence event - prior criminal domestic violence history, but charges expunged.
*Clarksburg, WV - pistol; criminal activity (drug transaction gone bad)
*Hileah, FL - semiautomatic; pattern of harassment (predictive) but not prohibited to own.
* Santa Monica - semiautomatic and non-semi weapons *already prohibited by CA law*; history of mental health
*Fenley, NV - handgun; criminal activity (robbery) and prior criminal record
*Waynesville, IN - handgun; criminal activity (meth house). Shooter had prior criminal record and wasn't legal gun owner.
*Ottawa, KS - gun type unspecified; criminal activity (unlawful gun owner; prior attempted murder conviction) and mental health (mother's concerns about mental health reported and dismissed).

Every one of these events was either criminal in nature or had mental health issues. I'm genuinely interested to hear how legislation restricting semi-automatic or high capacity weapons (which weren't used in the majority of these) or limiting gun ownership is going to touch cases like these.

If I have to live in a society where people are toting around firearms, it isn't the law abiding citizens that I am worried about. It is the criminals and the people lacking empathy in a way that makes them think that people are their property (the ones I suspect thought they had a right to shoot their families time and again.)

Me either.......but those are the only people who are going to be impacted by restrictions on weapons based on type. Criminals are already well comfortable operating outside the law, so gun control legislation isn't going to impact them (though I do think that changes that make it harder to drop priors that *should* prevent gun ownership is a step in the right path, but I'm not sure how impactful it would be overall.)

Why are you focusing on the mental health aspect of this issue when you have clearly read and quoted that only 11% of these shootings involved people who had prior mental health issues.

Simple math: 89% of the rest of killers did not have prior mental health issues.

Can we please move on from this subject? The statistics have proven you wrong. To continue to call mass killings a mental health issue is stigmatizing and harmful.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Woke up this morning to another public/school shooting in the States. It's become so routine, no one on a thread about guns has posted about it, nor was it the subject of any of the news/updates on my FB feed. What a mess things have become.

Yes, I was completely unaware of this, until I saw your post. That shooting appears to have had very limited media coverage here, for a few reasons, I think: The shooting did not take place in a school, just near the school; none of the victims died; and, there appears to be some indication that it may have been drug-related. Most people do not care about drug-related shootings. Those occur in another world that do not typically affect the rest of us. Plus, we have too many other shootings to worry about. Can't give 'em all air time, especially the ones where no one winds up dead or even those with just one or two dead people.

 

[TooPatient]

Here is a document prepared by a group called "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." The information from this document comes from the FBI.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/S...s/US-news-PDFs/Analysis_of_Mass_Shootings.pdf

And here is the Mass Killings Database:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/16/mass-killings-data-map/2820423/

I'm going to go ahead and allow the facts to speak for themselves when it comes to the idea that mentally ill people are responsible for a majority of these kinds of killings.

There is a statistic in the document about people who weren't allowed by law to have firearms and had them anyway, convicts, domestic abusers, mentally ill, etc. But I don't understand how that works for states that don't do background checks. Do they use the honor system?


If I have to live in a society where people are toting around firearms, it isn't the law abiding citizens that I am worried about. It is the criminals and the people lacking empathy in a way that makes them think that people are their property (the ones I suspect thought they had a right to shoot their families time and again.) It is so very rare that an armed citizen stops any crime, let alone a mass killing.

Dragonfly, I have thought about your situation again and again. I must say that I don't have a solution that doesn't involve what already happened. I am so sorry for you and your family.

26 mass killings involved a knife (not a gun)
14 were done by blunt force
22 using smoke inhalation & burns

174 involved guns:
82 of those were family killings (who kills their own family? That doesn't sound "normal" or "healthy" to me...)
24 were in burglaries -- They don't call out how many times the criminal who was killed when a family defended itself (since they are doing killings of 4+ people and NOT counting the criminal). Or how many of these victims would be alive if they had the means to defend themselves (I'm looking at those with 5-7 people killed and assuming that was probably people in the home who were murdered)


Take a look at the CDC website for a great table of homicides and suicides involving guns broken down by age and year. They even break down according to locations.

 

[yssie]

I have nothing substantive to say - I'm not entirely sure how I feel, to be honest, and I certainly can't claim to have any answers. Packrat, TooPatient, JustGinger, KSinger, HouseCat - coming from someone who grew up in countries that did not permit civillians to bear arms and so does not understand (and yes, instinctually fears) guns, thank you for your reasonable, rational, and informative arguments. Some of what's been said in this thread... good grief... has lowered my regard for both the point of view represented and the person doing the representing, as I simply cannot attribute much of it to the opinion of a healthy and balanced adult.

ETA: Packy - I sorta just want to go through and quote all your posts. I put law enforcement and military personnel on pedestals. My DH questions this sometimes - the respect and acclaim I automatically consider some people worthy of just by virtue of their professions - his point is that without knowing why they chose that profession, or what they've accomplished, I have no way of knowing whether my admiration is entirely misguided. My response is that none of that really matters to me: those groups of people are doing (or may be called on to do) something for me and my loved ones that I couldn't do, or have chosen not to do, but still expect to benefit from. Sure, some of them are "dirty", but I think it's a pitiful society that can conscientiously stoop to judging the majority by those standards. IMO that sort of cynicism isn't an academically open-minded forward-thinking reality-check - it's degenerate self-indulgent pretentiousness.

 

[TooPatient]

From our Declaration of Independence:
(For anyone who is interested, you should read the whole text! It is quite good: Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.



The 2nd Amendment (full text & history )

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed



ETA:
Posting these texts to show how important the men who founded our country thought this right is. They actually saw first hand the need for citizens to be armed and that sometimes the citizens have to protect themselves -- even from their own government.

I'm not saying our government is or is not corrupt or should or should not be overthrown. Simply that these men who helped create our country thought that some situations are so serious that they can't be ignored and the only way to be able to do anything is if citizens are armed. If you look further into it, you'll find more information from them and others stating that the mere presence of armed citizens keeps a government from going bad and that without armed citizens a government would drift in that direction.


Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? Do you plan to use it? If you have need for it someday, I'm sure you'll be glad it was there so that a small fire doesn't turn into a big one while you wait the 2 minutes for the fire department.

 

[liaerfbv]

From our Declaration of Independence:
(For anyone who is interested, you should read the whole text! It is quite good: Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.



The 2nd Amendment (full text & history )

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Definition of militia (n)

mi·li·tia
[ mə líshə ]

1.soldiers who are also civilians: an army of soldiers who are civilians but take military training and can serve full-time during emergencies
2.reserve military force: a reserve army that is not part of the regular armed forces but can be called up in an emergency
3.unauthorized quasi-military group: an unauthorized group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training

ETA: I saw your edit, and I understand the point you're trying to make. But I think there's a very big difference in the type of weapons manufactured today and the type of violence in our society vs. the time of the framers. I don't think our founding fathers believed you needed an AK-47 to protect your home and family, if that's your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[nkarma]

I just read an article about a young girl who was "accidentally" shot to death for seeking help at a private home. She was unarmed.

She *was* unarmed, but the homeowner didn't know that until after the event.

What he did know was this: there was a person he didn't know on his porch......in *Detroit* (not Mayberry).......at 3:30 a.m.

Have you ever been in a situation where someone was trying to get into your house in the wee morning hours that you didn't know? I have. About 3-4 years ago, I woke up at 4:50 a.m. to the sound of someone trying to come into the front door of my house. From my 2nd story bedroom window that looks down on the front door, I saw a man in his late 20s/early 30s had my storm door open and was trying to open the front door.

Like the total idiot I am, I flung the window open and asked "what the eff are you doing at my front door at 5 a.m.?" Turns out the guy was drunk off his a$$; I suspect he was meaning to access a house behind mine and likely ended up on the wrong street. He mumbled an apology and staggered off.

My heart raced for just more than an hour after that, part of which was spent thinking how incredibly stupid I'd been to do what I'd done.

I live in a reasonably safe small city (not Mayberry-sized but definitely Mayberry feel)--nowhere near like Detroit - and I was scared s@#$less in that moment.

I want to thank you and TooPatient for allowing me to try to put myself in the shoes of a responsible gunowners. I have learned a lot. For one, I would crouch in a corner and cry a scream no one would want to hear out of complete terror if a group of people had guns outside my restaurant, but there are people out there that trust that someone with a deadly weapon will not accidentally or purposefully shoot them. I am assuming this is because they have been exposed to responsible gun owners before.

First off, the diversity in the U.S is unlike most other countries. Every city/county/state feels entirely different than the next (and has wildly different laws) and my perspective is limited from the like thinking people I tend to surround myself with which tend to not be gun owners so thank you for your perspectives.

I think responsible gun owners are (rightfully) getting defensive when someone brings up gun safety or laws that restrict access to guns. That's because you and huge vast majority of gun owners give guns the respect they deserve. Nobody (by this I mean 99%) of the population wants to take that away from responsible gun owners.

But does anyone not see what a combination of every citizen owning a gun and fearing that every other person has a gun & intends to do harm brings? A lot of dead loved ones. What if you shot the drunk guy at your door at 5am? Would he deserve that for being drunk and stupid? A stupid mistake costs you your life and forever alters the lives of everyone he has touched. Or is this (as it already has) going to be common place thinking? You accidentally or stupidly make me scared and you pay the ultimate price?

For the gun owners out there, is there some sort of admission that guns can cause harm (intentionally or not) and a willingness for them to be regulated (background checks, types of guns you can buy, no online sales, no private sales, etc...) for the general safety of all? There is no the government shall not restrict the right to "driving a car, drinking alcohol, etc..." in the constitution so this means there can be laws in place for people to do these activities but restrict the harm to others and themselves in the process. Or is every new law going to be fear that if you let this very good gun safety law pass, there will be another one that is unreasonable or entirely make access to guns illegal?