arma virumque cano (et alia)
They idiots were probably trying to aim for the shoulders or legs.
I have great respect for good LEOs, but too many officers, if they were shooting for shit, wouldn't get a smell. Of course, this is in the Cereal State.
So?This is what happens when people are given guns for their job, but they're not "gun people." They have no desire to better themselves and learn how to use the gun, because to them, it's just another piece of equipment on their belt.This is what happens when the police are given the monopoly on force. The ONLY ONES are carrying guns, and they like it that way. How dare you call them out of control MikeB? You encourage the state having the power to kill (or shoot up the neighborhood). You want the police to have the monopoly on force, then complain when they misuse it?This is what happens when laws are introduced to limit people's access to guns and their understanding of guns and gun safety. You fight against the idea of training people to safely handle guns. As a result, officers (drawn from the very same pool of people) are less likely to know guns, handle guns safely and far more likely to shoot first as a response. Their training is obviously deficient, and they are protected from prosecution in many cases by their brothers in blue.You praise all that, then whine about the predictable results.
Hogwash, Anonymous, and you know it. I don't believe all the folks who aren't armed for their jobs are any better. In fact, they're probably more or less the same, most are good but a few are dangerous and reckless.I never said I want the "only ones" to be the only ones with guns. You keep saying that people are saying that. But I don't hear it from anyone on our side. Who exactly is preaching for total bans on civilian guns and total gun confiscation? You keep saying we say that, but that's just part of your psychosis. You said, not realizing, I suppose, that this has nothing to do with the story, "This is what happens when laws are introduced to limit people's access to guns and their understanding of guns and gun safety." How does that fit? This guy may have done suicide by cop, but it had nothing to do with a limited access to guns or safety training.Why would you add a remark like that? Did you lose the thread of the argument in some kind of out-of-control ranting.
"Why would you add a remark like that?" Perhaps you missed this part, one sentence away:As a result, officers (drawn from the very same pool of people) are less likely to know guns, handle guns safely and far more likely to shoot first as a response.I cna get my 5-year old to explain to you if you can't follow along.As for the only ones argument, if you don't have a monopoly on force, you'll have a hard time enforcing your door-to-door searches anti-straw-buying law. That kind of thing would require massive amounts of manpower, and a monopoly on force.Your anti-straw-buying scheme requires that a lot of folks who can legally buy guns now, be not able to buy guns later. Sure, it may not be a total ban, but any effort in that direction is repugnant to freedom.Thanks for the psych-eval, doc. I appreciate it.
Anonymous, You must have missed it when I amended my anti-straw-buying law. Thanks to Zorro, I decided the door-to-door business was not advisable. Now I'm suggesting that all purchasers of guns have to report themselves to the local police three months after the purchase - with the gun and paperwork, of course. Thereafter the new law would require yearly visits in order to receive a stamp.Failure to comply would meet with that dreaded knock on the door and a good stretch in the hoosegow.Now tell me, don't you think that would cut down on the straw purchasing problem?
Nope.Well, on the off chance it could, I would ask--- at cost of a police state (which, once again brings us back to your support of a monopoly on force for the state)?I can stop all drunk driving in the USA with a similar program, that makes owning and driving automobiles completely illegal.It doesn't address the root problem any better than your idea, but it does take away the ability to drive drunk when people can't drive at all.Let's look at all the ways that your idea fails:Warranty repair because it is broken or damaged;holster being made;at a gunsmith;stolen;sold due to it not being what they wanted;sold due to financial difficulty;pawned for a quick loan at the pawnshop;and last but not least, the 4th and 5th amendments of the Constitution.All of those reasons are legitimate reasons for not having your gun with you and not showing it to the police three months (or three years, or even three days) after you purchase it.Meanwhile, those who are doing straw purchases will simply find a way to game the system, as long as there is a profit in doing so. And the more restrictions placed upon gun ownership and the more difficult it becomes to get one, the more the profit will increase. That will, in turn, increase the likelihood of people breaking the law in order to make that profit.