Monday, March 21, 2011

Why? Who benefits from this?

From my morning peruse of the Mpls. MN STrib (Star Tribune):
Fond du Lac police Officer Craig Birkholz, 28, was shot in the upper chest and killed, police Chief Tony Barthuly said. K-9 Officer Ryan Williams was shot twice and was taken to an area hospital, where he was in critical condition, Barthuly said. Williams' dog, Grendel, also was shot.
A third officer, Zach Schultz, was injured on a stairwell in the house. Police say Schultz was not injured by gunfire.
Birkholz had been with the Fond du Lac Police Department for two years and had served in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Army. He is survived by his wife, his parents and a brother.
I was struck this morning while having the news on in the background that this man, this police officer, who was killed survived our military conflicts only to be killed back home in Wisconsin, by a man with prior criminal problems who was being investigated for a sexual assualt.  The police officer's death occurred despite bullet proof vests.

What a terrible waste.  It puts the issue of our gun ownership in starker perspective, given the statistics for fire arm deaths in other, comparable western / industrialized counries.

Is our gun ownership policy worth this?


  1. doggone: You have to realize no price is too great for fat, middle-aged white men with small penises to feel better about themselves.

  2. The term 'blood treasure' was used here recently in commenting on a different post.

    I just wondered why it is that no one uses that term when these brave men and women are killed HERE in the United States by our citizens with guns?

    Are they any less bloody deaths? Are they any less treasured HERE protecting people and engaging in conflict with bad people?

  3. A further thought, Jadegold - if someone needs a gun to feel powerful, they're really not; with OR without a gun.

  4. When I read the story I wondered if the cops training and expertise was insufficient compared to that of the bad guy who killed him.

    More training for cops, more screening too, is what I say.

  5. dg: True.

    Whenever I attend a gun show, I'm struck by the number of fat, white, infirm middle-aged males who dress up in t-shirts promising violence or mayhem on their perceived enemies. To my mind, it's like those alienated teenagers who dress up as Darth Vader and stand in line to see the next Star Wars movie. It's funny--but sad.

  6. IF the cops woulda had enuff "personal" weppins they woulda blowed that perp away before he got 'em.

    Oh, nobody's come by to say that, yet? Gosh, why is that?

  7. "Is our gun ownership policy worth this? "

    Since all of the restrictions didn't work, no it's not worth it. Let's get rid of all gun control and just prosecute the criminals.

    Ooh, but then you won't get your power trip. Maybe you can switch to crack, Jesus, or war as your drug of choice?

  8. Or, anonymous, given what has resulted in far far fewer gun deaths in nearly every other civilized country in the world - as distinct from say, a country in chaos like Somalia - we could adopt laws like they do.

    And be a civilized country.

    Unless you can show me where more guns have equated to fewer deaths of anyone, law enforcement or civilian, anywhere else?

    Because you have no factual basis to assert that less gun regulation would equate to fewer gun deaths OR less crime.

    Gun Deaths - United States Tops The List
    The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

    The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69.

    To address your assertion that we just need to prosecute criminals more - we have more people behind bars than any country in the WORLD.
    And red states where there tends to be more gun availability tend to have the most people behind bars. However the studies show that they also tend to have the highest crime, and that as a country overall we have more crime than comparable countries. Every study I found showed that your suggestion gave us the LEAST value in terms of public safety and crime reduction.

    "new national and state research shows that we are well past the point of diminishing returns, where more imprisonment will prevent less and less crime"
    "The 10 states with the largest number of people in the corrections system include those with reputations for toughness, like Texas and Louisiana, but also Idaho, Ohio and Massachusetts."

    Those quotes were from the Pew Center on the States report on our corrections system/ incarcerations.

    Doing what you suggest Anon is costly. Those red states with the loose gun laws, and big prison populations? They had the poorest schools too - because they didn't have the money or apparently the public desire - to spend it there instead.

    Give me a better answer, and I challenge you to back it up with better statistics than the usual ones offered.

  9. dog gone:

    Why do you suppose that mikeyw or one of his sockpuppets signs as anonymous? It's because he has nothing, save firmly held, unsupported beliefs in the efficacy of the gun in PREVENTING violence.

    His arguments for a gun in every closet (and two hidden on your person) are about as compelling as an argument that increasing the volume of unprotected sexual intercourse without genuine sex education or birth control will drive down teen pregnancys and STD's. Of course this very argument is at the root of the "Abstinence only" meme pushed by the religious wrong.