What happens with too many guns is NOT greater safety, it is greater violence, it is greater numbers of guns in the hands of criminals. It is lawlessness, it is violence, it is the erosion of a civil society.
From the news site NJ.com:
N.J. State Police dispatches troopers to Camden to help quell homicide spree
Published: Monday, December 12, 2011, 6:00 PM
TRENTON — The New Jersey State Police will send additional troopers to Camden to help quell the latest spree of homicides, Gov. Chris Christie announced this evening.
Enlarge A Camden Police Department officer patrols along Broadway in Camden on Thursday, 2 December 2010. The state has approved a plan to lay off over 300 public workers in Camden, including about half of the police department. (Noah Addis/For The Star-Ledger) Camden faces massive cuts to police force gallery (8 photos)
The troopers will target crime "hot spots" and assist local officers as city officials and the county work toward forming a county-wide force, Christie said in a news release. He declined to say how many troopers will be stationed in the crime-plagued city, or for how long they will stay.
“As Mayor (Dana) Redd and county officials are taking bold, necessary action to implement a long term policing strategy centered on a regionalized police force, I am taking action to deploy additional resources to support the public safety needs of Camden right now,” Christie said in the release.
Attorney General Paula Dow last week met with Redd and Camden County Prosecutor Warren W. Faulk to discuss options for addressing violent crime in the city .
The State Police's presence in Camden is nothing new. The division has kept a contingent of troopers in the city for the past nine years, and it helps investigate about 70 percent of the shootings in the city, the governor said in his release.
Related coverage:
• Analysis: N.J. police layoffs lead to fewer arrests for minor offenses
• Camden County to form regional police department
• Camden council nixes hiring of police director
• Crime in Camden up since police layoffs
The news article was about budget cuts, not about guns particularly. The problem in Camden, as elsewhere, is not too many guns. It's bad people doing bad things with guns. Show me how we change that, without harming good people, and I'll listen.
ReplyDelete"Show me how we change that, without harming good people, and I'll listen."
ReplyDeleteProve a negative? Not possible, even a fucking moron like you probably knows that.
Otoh, why don't you SHOW us how people not having gunz is hurting them. Be specific.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteYou ask me to prove negatives from time to time. But how would taking guns away from good people harm them? Let's see--violation of rights, loss of property, loss of effective self defense tools, etc.
will the monkey's ever put it together and say enough. This is about "and I say this with reservations" protection. Now how about our education system that has been devastated as well.
ReplyDeleteThe Empire is in severe decline and the 1% continues to win it's war against "We the People".
"Prove a negative? Not possible, even a fucking moron like you probably knows that.
ReplyDeleteOtoh, why don't you SHOW us how people not having gunz is hurting them. Be specific."
Did anyone else see the humor in that?
"Otoh, why don't you SHOW us how people not having gunz is hurting them. Be specific."
ReplyDeleteI would say the victims of every crime reported on this blog are an example of where not having a gun potentially hurt them.
Jim:
ReplyDeletePotentiality is not evidence of cause.
MAgunzloon:
It wasn't intended to be humorous, idiot. Greg Camp insists that he KNOWS when people are going to be a threat to him (something he shares with a lot you idiots) and yet he doesn't think competent vetting of who and who is not safe with a gun in their hands is even possible. English teacher, shootist, costume designer, master armorer and NOW psych evaluation specialist. I can't even begin to guess what SuperGreg does that he's too modest to share with us.
Funny how to show we have too many guns causing to much violence they always have to point to a story from one of the states with the strongest gun control. Of course, it is always someone else's fault.
ReplyDeletewell as MA points out you are asking us to prove a negative. As you note "Prove a negative? Not possible, even a fucking moron like you probably knows that."
ReplyDeleteSo you just called yourself a fucking moron and MA got a chuckle out of it. I can't blame him really... kind of sad that I missed that observation.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteLet's see: If someone shouts, "I'm going to kill you" and runs at me, that might be a threat. If someone says, "Give me your wallet, or I'll stab you," that might be a threat. If someone pulls a gun, that might be a threat. Are you suggesting that identifying an immediate threat to my life is as complex a task as predicting what someone will do in the future?
It was funny because you said it was impossible to prove a negative (which is not true, btw), then you placed the burden on Greg to prove a negative.
ReplyDeletedog gone wrote in the opening statement of the blog,
ReplyDelete"What happens with too many guns is NOT greater safety, it is greater violence, it is greater numbers of guns in the hands of criminals. It is lawlessness, it is violence, it is the erosion of a civil society."
The crazy thing is that the solution is to place more people with guns in Camden. And to create more violence with guns in Camden. They just happen to be police officers. And you know, I cannot remember the last time there were murder sprees at shooting ranges where just about everyone has guns.
The actual problem is not more guns; it is more criminals with guns who can operate without fear of getting captured or killed.
But everyone already knows that.
democommie asked about examples where it hurt people not to have guns. I can state two off the top of my head.
ReplyDeleteA man drove his truck into a Luby's cafeteria. According to wikipedia, "He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people while wounding another 20 before committing suicide by shooting himself." One of the patrons, Dr. Suzanna Hupp, left her pistol out in her car to comply with Texas law at that time. She is convinced she would have shot the criminal and incapacitated him -- saving many lives and injuries -- if she had it with her. Instead, the criminal executed her parents. And yes there was ample time for her to respond as the criminal had to reload several times. By the way the criminal did not commit suicide until police finally arrived, cornered him, and wounded him with their guns. That also tells us there was ample time for Dr. Hupp to shoot the criminal. It takes several minutes for police to show up in ample numbers to storm a building with an active shooter.
In the book Policewoman One: My 20 Years on the LAPD, the author (Gayleen Hays) tells about a woman who rushed into her police station while her estranged or ex-husband chased her. She got a restraining order for her ex but the author warned her that a restraining order was a worthless piece of paper. The ex husband murdered the unarmed woman a short time later.
Yes, there are lots of instances where unarmed people are severely injured or killed and would have survived if they were armed.
We can also use simple reasoning. I have listened to audio recordings of 911 calls where victims waited, barricaded somewhere in their home, while a violent criminal methodically broke through multiple windows and doors to get to the victims. In spite of the barriers and the victim's shouts to the invaders to stay away, the invaders went straight for the victims. Where the victims were armed, they stopped the attackers and avoided serious injury or death. It is obvious that NOT having a firearm would have hurt them.
FWM, I see now why you have to stick to the bullshit story that gun control doesn't work. Otherwise, you'd be forced to admit that it is your fault, you and all the other self-serving gun-rights advocates.
ReplyDeleteProper gun control cuts down on gun violence, reasonable people agree. Therefore, those who oppose those controls are partly to blame. It's so simple.
My original comment to the Rennaisance Gunzman, Greg Camp, was intended as sarcasm. Apparently Greg Camp is not the only person who missed that.
ReplyDeleteI see that Greg Camp's got his goalposts rolling once again.
This;
"Let's see: If someone shouts, "I'm going to kill you" and runs at me, that might be a threat. If someone says, "Give me your wallet, or I'll stab you," that might be a threat. If someone pulls a gun, that might be a threat. Are you suggesting that identifying an immediate threat to my life is as complex a task as predicting what someone will do in the future?"
is a a considerably different justification for being a vigilante than what he was spewing a month or so back. He's still full of shit, just in a different way.
Cap'n Crunch:
The doctor says she would have killed the attacker. You say you would shoot someone holding one of your children as a shield. She didn't, you haven't. Perhaps she would have killed the man, perhaps she would have missed him and he would have killed her--impossible to know how that would have worked out. Why didn't she try to leave the cafeteria and get her gun? Why didn't she or other people try to overpower the shooter when he paused in his killing spree to reload his weapon(s)? Again, impossible to know.
This:
"We can also use simple reasoning. I have listened to audio recordings of 911 calls where victims waited, barricaded somewhere in their home, while a violent criminal methodically broke through multiple windows and doors to get to the victims. In spite of the barriers and the victim's shouts to the invaders to stay away, the invaders went straight for the victims. Where the victims were armed, they stopped the attackers and avoided serious injury or death. It is obvious that NOT having a firearm would have hurt them."
is not evidence, it is hearsay. If you have links to the calls and citations for the cases where you say a person shot their attacker, please provide them.
There are, undoubtedly, situations where people have defended themselves with guns. They have also defended themselves with household items.
If guns were harder to get (as they are in a number of countries) fewer people will have them--not just fewer of the right kind of people, fewer people.
Well then democommie, using your standard, you have no basis for taking guns away from me because you cannot absolutely prove that I would use it irresponsibly. Until I actually do something stupid, any assertion you make is speculation.
ReplyDeleteSo can anyone tell me why our country would be any more successful at removing guns than we are at removing illegal drugs?
And can anyone give me a clear answer about the goal of gun control? I asked in another post:
Is the goal to reduce gun violence?
Is the goal to reduce overall violent crime?
Is the goal to reduce overall violent crime against citizens who have not broken any laws?
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI've said the same thing all along. I'm not going to shoot someone or even draw my gun unless that person is posing an immediate and credible threat to my life or the life of another. It's your insistence that I don't know what I'm talking about that keeps you from seeing what I've said on this subject.
democommie,
ReplyDeleteRegarding Dr. Hupp at the Luby's restaurant mass shooting, her father did try rushing the shooter who shot him. Dr. Hupp could not get out of the restaurant to retrieve her pistol because she believed the shooter would have shot her while trying to run away. (She was hiding behind a table.) As for your doubt that Dr. Hupp would have shot and stopped the shooter, you are trying to argue that Dr. Hupp would be unable to shoot/stop the criminal who had no trouble shooting 43 people.
Here are links to 911 audio recordings that I referenced earlier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgKk6c4J9iA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ExC7fE1LaY
Note that the circumstances of the second audio recording are a man that has been stalking a woman, he broke through the door of the home, then he broke through her bedroom or bathroom door to reach her and started strangling her. She shot him while he was strangling her.
Greg says, "I'm not going to shoot someone or even draw my gun unless that person is posing an immediate and credible threat to my life or the life of another."
ReplyDeleteThe only problem with that is you're not capable of making that determination, no one is. Therefore you'd be forced to act prematurely. If push ever comes to shove in your life, which is quite possible some day, we'll never know whether or not the "credible lethal threat" was really there or not.
mikeb302000 said...
ReplyDelete"Greg says, 'I'm not going to shoot someone or even draw my gun unless that person is posing an immediate and credible threat to my life or the life of another.'
The only problem with that is you're not capable of making that determination, no one is."
No one is capable of determining if their life is in danger? Then why aren't all of the police officers that killed someone locked up in prison? Before you hurt your head trying to figure that out, I'll tell you. Because laws are in place that allow a homicide to be justified. You don't have to know for certain, only reasonably believe that your life is in danger.
If someone breaks into your house with a gun, will he kill you or just try to scare you? Who knows until he pulls the trigger, but by that time, it's too late to protect yourself. That's why states have adopted the Castle Doctrine and they legally define when it's proper to use lethal force. Hell, in California (one of the least gun friendly states)not only can a homeowner protect his property from and intruder, he has the right to pursue the intruder.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThe doctrine that you're asserting is that I have to wait until I have a bullet in me before I know that someone's threatening my life. That's insanity.
someguy now says, "If someone breaks into your house with a gun."
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't there before. You guys never qualified your right to kill the bad guy to his having a gun in his hand. For you, his having a gun is not necessary, why are you putting that in there now?
Greg, your exaggerating what I say and putting words in my mouth is getting really tedious.
I don't say you have to take a bullet to know there's true lethal threat. But it seems to me you lean too far the other way.
MAssholegunzloon says something pretty stupid, after saying I said something pretty stupid, here:
ReplyDelete"Show me how we change that, without harming good people, and I'll listen."
Prove a negative? Not possible, even a fucking moron like you probably knows that.
Otoh, why don't you SHOW us how people not having gunz is hurting them. Be specific.
December 29, 2011 4:43 PM"
which was explained--apparently not clearly enough for his low wattage intellect to parse--here:
"My original comment to the Rennaisance Gunzman, Greg Camp, was intended as sarcasm. Apparently Greg Camp is not the only person who missed that."
Mikeb302000:
You know as well as I do that Greg Camp has said in previous threads that he would kill someone if they attempted to take his money. He views the act of attempted robbery as a capital crime, which crime requires immediate application of the vigilante death penalty statute. Obviously he would have to shoot the "threat" dead to preserve his perfect record of facing and eliminating all possible "threats" to his LIFE*.
*His LIFE apparently encompassing his material possessions as well as the animate force of his shootist's body.