Minneapolis cops peacefully end a stand off with a gun-waving man
,
Tragedy narrowly averted on Cecil Street SE at about 4 p.m. yesterday, where cops from Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota were able to end a stand off between a gun-waving man and some construction workers.
The call came in after the man came out of his home and fired a gun into the air. No one was hurt.Uniformed and SWAT officers took their positions, and then tried to make contact with the man via telephone. Those efforts failed. The guy hunkered down.
Just as preparations were being made to evacuate nearby homes ahead of a "dynamic entry," and four hours after the stand off began, the suspect walked out of the house, unarmed and taken into custody.
Minneapolis police said he was booked for making terroristic threats and may face more charges pending an investigation. Numerous guns were later found in the house, police said.
I would say get the ATF to clean up the problem, but they are too busy running guns to Mexico.....
ReplyDeleteIn a second, equally explosive disclosure, a law enforcement source tells Fox News, that ATF undercover agents were acting as the straw buyers and purchasing guns using government-issued false identifications and then providing those guns to cartel traffickers to gain credibility in their undercover roles. In that capacity, the ATF "provided 2, 50 cal. machine guns to traffickers that are loose in Mexico and unaccounted for," the source said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/04/1300-guns-bought-illegally-suspect-buyers-atfs-gunrunner-program/#ixzz1LUNChmoo
Meanwhile, two chiorboys killed on their way to church.....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.themonitor.com/articles/invasion-49884-members-dead.html
Oh, my goodness their killing girl scout cookies now.....
ReplyDeleteThe front door was kicked in and Woods saw two Samoans standing at his front door.....
Stop the cookie-monster, don't let him kill again....
Link to the cookie monster.....
ReplyDeletehttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2014962517_man_accused_of_shooting_two_au.html
They're killing choirboys on their way to church?
ReplyDeleteNo, it sounds like more people who shouldn't have guns misusing them - and in this case, that may be everyone involved.
It doesn't sound like
Unless you happen to LIKE having a violent society?
In contrast, I'm frequently reading the news site for the BBC London. I've seen far fewer violent deaths per capita, and those far fewer episodes of violence were not gun-related.
So in your book it's ok to murder, burgle, rob, assault and rape, just don't use a gun......
ReplyDeleteall crime is up in the UK since their gun-banning really got going in 1997...
No, none of that is acceptable. But more violence, death and injury is also not acceptable.
ReplyDeleteThere are many ways to reduce crime besides arming people with lethal weapons.
I don't see guns stopping the drug traffic as an example.
Legalizing and regulating, including taxation of most drugs might go a long way towards taking the profit out of the illegal drug trade. THAT would go far further to reduce all of the crimes related to drug traffic than more guns would.
As an example.
Relying on guns as a solution is simplistic, and not very effective.
More people are hurt or killed.
Dog Gone: “There are many ways to reduce crime besides arming people with lethal weapons.”
ReplyDeleteAnd let’s include disarming innocent civilians as a non-option.
Dog gone: “Relying on guns as a solution is simplistic, and not very effective.”
It is an individual solution, as well as the individual’s choice. I never look at personal arms for public safety, but rather personal safety.
Also, can you link us to your evidence that shows the UK as having far fewer episodes of violent crime? From what I have seen, they have fewer murders, but more total violence.
"There are many ways to reduce crime besides arming people with lethal weapons."
ReplyDeleteI don't particularly care that gun prevalence reduces certain types of crime. I care greatly that arming myself reduces crime against me.
Dog gone - you suggest legalization of drug use as a way to reduce crime but propose to criminalize more gun possession as a way to reduce crime? That does not add up.
ReplyDeleteJim, I personally am not at all in favor of drug use; I rarely take so much as an asprin medicinally. I am fairly abstemious when it comes to alcohol or even caffeine, much less 'recreational pharmaceuticals".
ReplyDeleteBut I was very impressed with the reasoning promoted by potential conservative presidential candidate, Republican former New Mexico governor, Gary Johnson.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/republican-gary-johnson-its-time-legalize-marijuana
While I have a lot of reservations about this.....he makes a lot of sense. In fact, while I disagree with some of his positions, there is a lot about the former governor I could support, maybe even vote for, btw.
As with regulating the nicotine in cigarettes, it might be possible to reglate the active ingredients in marijuana, or even on a limited basis other recreational drugs, so as to reduce the abuse and addiction, while saving a fortune in costs, and even making some public money.
It would have to be with the same or more stringent rules for things like driving under the influence of any chemical ingested or consumed......but we might be able to do that better than we are able to contend with the drug cartels. It might just take away their money and power, for the better - if not ideal.
What we are doing now isn't working the way we want it to, any more than prohibition worked to stop consumption of alcohol... maybe it is time to learn from history. The drug cartels have some commonality with bootleggers.
Dog gone - you missed my point. I agree that drugs could be legalized and alot of the crime associated with the drug cartels would be reduced. By the same notion, increasing restrictions on guns will only lead to more crimes concerning guns similar to the drug and alcohol examples you cited. But you seem to be in favor of more gun control as a method of reducing gun crimes. That just doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily Jim. Look at the Netherlands; they have relatively regulated access to drugs like marijuana.
ReplyDeletefrom wikipedia on gunlaw:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law
Netherlands
Dutch gun law is typical of the Western European approach. Firearm possession is not subject to any constitutional protections, but regulated simply in the Arms and Ammunition Act (Wet Wapens en Munitie). Weapons, including firearms, are divided into four categories, and for each of the categories a certain maximum punishment is set for "voorhanden hebben" (possession), and "dragen" (carrying in public).
Only citizens who are hunters, members of shooting sports clubs or legitimate collectors may obtain licenses for firearms. In the case of shooting club members they will get a license for category III weapons (a firearms category which includes all non- full automatic firearms up to .50 cal.). Possession is generally limited to 5 firearms per license. Collectors may obtain a license for any category of firearm, including full automatic arms, but stringent rules apply to achieving collector status. There is no limit to the number of firearms a collector may obtain. Generally the collector license does not cover shooting these weapons.
Sale/Use is only for those age 18 or over. There are a few dozen gunshops in the Netherlands. Gun ownership is extremely low with only three firearms per hundred people.
Antique firearms are exempt from regulation, antique generally meaning all pre 1945 original muzzle loading firearms or firearms designed for black powder cartridges over .22 caliber, NOT being revolvers.
Firearm possession and use by the military and the police is not subject to Arms and Ammunition Act, but regulated separately.[13]
comparative gun deaths, U.S.: United States:15.22; Netherlands:0.7
from list of countries by firearm related death rate -also wikipedia-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Why site Netherland’s laws? You are not advocating that here, are you? That doesn’t sound like “reasonable restrictions”.
ReplyDeleteI cited the Netherlands because of their more successful program regarding drugs and drug wars.
ReplyDeleteJim countered that just as making drugs more restrictive drives them to be a profitable underground trade, so would making guns more restrictive.
I used the Netherlands as an example where their treatment of marijuana is possibly even looser than what we would propose here, while their gun laws are even more restrictive. The result is a distinctly less gun-violent society; far fewer people, proportionately are shot, much less die.
My focus is for us to be a less violent and preferably less crime prone society. I believe we are all far more free when we are all safer, less at hazard for gun violence - either intentional or accidental gun violence.
It makes for a much greater chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when you don't have bullet holes in you or your loved ones, family and friends.
It addresses my argument that fewer guns do not necessarily result in greater gun related crime rates.
I believe the emphasis should be first and foremost on keeping criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, and children from having access to guns - the exact individuals who are largely addressed by the not-functioning NCIS.
I would love to see us become a society where we don't crave guns for safety, but rather they are owned and enjoyed by those who appreciate them for the sport use,for the elegance of excellent design where form follows function exquisitely well. I beleive that is encompassed quite well by the Dutch / overall western european provision for gun club membership, btw.
I happen to appreciate many aspects of firearms. Their prevalence as weapons, for use against other human beings, not so much.
The first step to becoming a less violent society is the concept that it is possible and the desire to change in that direction.
That is NOT the same thing as wishing an end to all firearms, but I see it couched in those terms repeatedly - wrongly.
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteWhen someone like TS of the gutless pos's that sign as anonymous complain about "unreasonable" restrictions they're being a bit disingenuous. For them, anu restriction on possession, sales or use of any category of firearms is unconstitutional. But then, they're scared to death of being shot down in the street or at home by the gangs of machine gun wielding thugs that infest MurKKKa. They just want to be sure that nobody will ever commit a heinous crime, like stealing their television, without forfeiting their life. Sad, sad, angry people who can never have enough guns because all of the guns in the world won't make them, or make them men.
Play nice, Democommie.
ReplyDeleteDog gone. The netherlands does not have a lot of murderous thugs- hence the low murder rate. Gun prohibition will not turn good people into murderous thugs, but rather current thugs will not only not be deterred, but rather empowered by another controlled substance of which to deal in.
ReplyDeleteSee Mexico/Brazil.
Every country has crime, and what we are talking about here are ways to both reduce crime and to reduce violence, especially gun violence.
ReplyDeleteWhat is true of the Dutch is also the case across other countries in Europe; they simply stood out to me as an example of where legalizing marijuana had been effective. They did not wholesale go to hell in a handbasket afterwards.
All of the countries with similar laws have similarly low stats for gun violence. They still have crime, but they have altered their societies into less violent ones.
We can as well, and that doesn't happen with more guns and a culture that emphasizes shooting people - like the proposed law change in MN. OTHER measures reduce crime, and violence; more guns do NOT.
The Netherlands proves that gun control works. Thanks for pointing that out Dog Gone.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous who sounds an awful lot like Weer'd, who called for a boycott of my site then pops over here anonymously, has nothing much to offer the discussion but diversions and obfuscations. Pay him no mind.
MikeB: “The Netherlands proves that gun control works.”
ReplyDeleteIf a single country with restrictive gun laws and low crime is “proof”, then what is a single country with restrictive gun laws and high crime? Apart fro examining all countries where data is available, you can also look at change- were the Dutch peaceful before enacting these laws? Would relaxing their laws suddenly cause crime to go up? Try using that as proof.
TS wrote:
ReplyDelete"If a single country with restrictive gun laws and low crime is “proof”, then what is a single country with restrictive gun laws and high crime?"
First of all, TS, it is NOT a case of a single country being offered as proof; that was clearly the point if you read my comment, for me to include that the Netherlands were representative of western europe, in their laws and in their statistics. It is FAR from true of ONLY one country. Those countries are the MOST like us of any nations on this planet, and therefore the best for comparison with us.
I don't pretend that there is only one factor in why we have crime or violence. However the availability of guns IS a HUGE part of the problem, and there is clear evidence that fewer guns works better than more guns do.
The Netherlands are the best country to use for a comparison in how we might go about reducing crime by carefully legalizing and regulating marijuana, as a means of gutting the drug cartels, in a move similar to how ending prohibition ended bootleggers running booze criminally. Ending the drug trade's monopoly on marijuana would go a long way towards ending that segment of gun violence.
I hope that is clear.
Dog gone, I know you have cited countries other than The Netherlands. The idea is usually to pick a bunch of countries with lower murder rates than the US as your comparison using some subjective criteria like “countries like us”, or “civilized”. Since killing people is uncivilized, it is a way of saying “The USA has the highest murder rate of all the countries with fewer murderers than we have.” The same criteria can be used to say “The USA has the lowest murder rate of all uncivilized countries.” How does that sound?
ReplyDeleteWhat happens when instead of picking our countries for comparison, we look at all of Europe? That means you have to take the bad with the good. Looking at this table, we see that Europe as a whole has a murder rate (actually intentional homicide so it includes justifiable among other things) of 5.4/100,000 people. That is right with the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The comparisons of eastern Europe are,I would argue, LESS like the United States than western European countries.
ReplyDeleteFurther, while I am less familiar with some of these former eastern bloc countries, I don't believe they have comparable gun restrictions to those western European countries either for purposes of a clear comparison and contrast.
I believe if you look at statistics worldwide, you will find that the number of guns in a country, other than in the hands of their legitimate military, tends to equate to high levels of gun violence.
Fewer guns = less gun violence
That doesn't solve every problem, clearly. But it appears to make a significant improvement in that particular violence problem.
If you agree that part of being free, a crucial part, is to be free from violence, free from this kind of danger as part of pursuing your lawful life and livelihood in safety, then this is a 'freedom' that needs to be balanced against the right and freedom to possess weapons without reasonable restrictions.
Yes, to the degree that we have these level of violence, we are not living in a civilized manner. Certainly we are not living as well, and as civilized as we are capable of living. Frankly, I think the expansion of guns moves us in the wrong direction of that continuum, regardless of how exemplary some individuals who own guns might be. I would like to see us improve on that, while not eliminating firearms entirely.
I don't believe you can refute what is essentially a fairly global phenomenon that in most countries, fewer guns DO equate to less gun violence (and usually to less violence of all kinds).
TS:
ReplyDeleteI have to apologize for appearing to lump you in with the others. That sentence should have read:
"When someone like TS OR the gutless pos's that sign as anonymous complain...
and the last sentence should have read:
"Sad, sad, angry people who can never have enough guns because all of the guns in the world won't make them SAFE, or make them men."
Other than that I stand by my comment. If that's not "playing nice" than you need to talk to the gutless p.o.s.'s who post here and lie through their teeth. When they stop being asshats I'll stop calling them asshats.
Dog gone, you are falling into gun control trap of only comparing gun ownership or gun laws to “gun violence”. You are trying to correlate X to X + Y (there is an obvious folly in that). When you try to correlate X to Y by itself (Y being murder rates or violence rates as a whole), things fall apart.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at the recent compilation by Howard Nemerov. You’ll notice it uses UN data, and ALL UN data. It doesn’t just select countries that compare favorably to an agenda.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/united-nations-ignores-its-own-data-to-promote-gun-ban/?singlepage=true
Dog gone: “I don't believe you can refute what is essentially a fairly global phenomenon that in most countries, fewer guns DO equate to less gun violence (and usually to less violence of all kinds).”
That last line (the one in parentheses) is a giant leap of faith. That is what I have always asked gun control to show us, and it is yet to do so. Can you? The UN data indicates otherwise.
What we have is a global homicide rate that is 50% greater than in the USA (and that doesn’t include unreported murders). Gun control has always tried to paint the USA as this dangerous place where we have to dodge bullets all the time. The reality is walking down the street here is just a safe for you and me as walking down the street in Western Europe. This is because you and I don’t engage in gang activity or dealing drugs- activities that increase the risk of being murdered. That is not to say there aren’t problems that need addressing, or that random violence is a non-factor- but when we isolate guns vs. murder or violence as a whole (forgetting the dubious “gun death”), we find that gun control is not the answer. Not that more guns is an answer to a social problem either, but it is a strong option for an individual who wants to protect him/herself from the still prevalent random acts of violence.
Democommie, thanks for the retraction. Just today over on Japete’s blog she is saying that “my side” is the mean name calling side, and I am thinking “why I just got called a ‘gutless piece of shit’ for considering Dutch gun laws unreasonable- this very same day”. But I don’t play those finger pointing games, and I don’t pretend that one side is any worse than the other... or that it matters. I didn’t call you out, and it turns out to be fortuitous because it wasn’t me you were calling a “gutless pieces of shit”, it was other people.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it more a question of whether guns do more good than harm? I mean, the idea that fewer guns gives you less gun violence, should be a given. What can be debated is whether it's worth it to also do away with all the DGUs. I say yes, to me it's obvious.
ReplyDeleteTS, You're right I can't take the Netherlands intelf as "proof" any more than you could take one single place to prove your position.
TS, before I respond to what you have written, I would like to take a moment to thank you for your excellent contribution to this discussion. You have been courteous and articulate and thoughtful. It is appreciated.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: What we have is a global homicide rate that is 50% greater than in the USA (and that doesn’t include unreported murders). Gun control has always tried to paint the USA as this dangerous place where we have to dodge bullets all the time. The reality is walking down the street here is just a safe for you and me as walking down the street in Western Europe."
With respect, NO, it is not as safe in the U.S. I am posting about the frequent shootings in Minnesota - a 'safest' state - precisely to prove that. I cannot find a similar record of gun violence in other comparable western countries to that kind of frequency of gun violence.
"This is because you and I don’t engage in gang activity or dealing drugs- activities that increase the risk of being murdered. That is not to say there aren’t problems that need addressing, or that random violence is a non-factor- but when we isolate guns vs. murder or violence as a whole (forgetting the dubious “gun death”), we find that gun control is not the answer."
Actually, when we look at the lower number of occurrences of gun violence in places that are more stringent in their gun control, and where they have overall a lower number of guns -- yes gun control does seem to be at least PART of the answer. With fewer guns owned, there seem to be far fewer guns which get into the wrong hands as well, fewer guns used in crimes, etc. This is EXACTLY why I think it is a good idea.
"Not that more guns is an answer to a social problem either, but it is a strong option for an individual who wants to protect him/herself from the still prevalent random acts of violence."
Dog gone, I’ll be brief here as this thread is getting a little stale (I’m sure this topic will come up again for me to get into more detail). I also have been enjoying our dialog, and I thank you for your kind words. I hope to one day convince you to look passed the “gun violence” measure to look at the more substantive measure of *all violence* and *all murder*. This should not discount the theme of gun control since *saving lives* is the main objective, not just reducing guns, right? Unfortunately for us, the simplest way to reduce gun violence is to reduce guns- that means for everybody. And all the examples you have been showing us are societies that reduced guns for everybody. This runs counter to what gun control advocates in this country have been telling us all along- that they are only after the criminals. More importantly, we don’t believe (as it is yet to be shown) that reducing gun availability makes a society any safer. The easiest way you to prove us wrong is to look at total murder/suicide/etc. By concentrating on gun based statistics, it leads us to believe that gun control simply “hates guns”, and that if they truly cared about saving lives and preventing violence, they would use those statistics as their measure. I don’t believe that you hate guns, Dog gone, that is why I have faith that you can look passed the typical gun control talking points.
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “TS, You're right I can't take the Netherlands intelf as "proof" any more than you could take one single place to prove your position.”
ReplyDeleteTotally agree. That is why I posted Nemerov’s complication of UN data which examines all countries that they have data on. No cherry picking.