Saturday, December 29, 2012

In Camden - 3 Cops Shot - Shooter Dead


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It was a domestic violence call that started the whole thing. I wonder if the dead guy was a lawful gun owner or an already disqualified person who had a gun anyway.  Either way he was unfit.  Proper gun control laws would identify some of his type and prohibit them from owning guns in the first place.

Why do gun-rights advocates resist that?

Please leave a comment.

16 comments:

  1. You effing retarded asswipe....


    You do realize that this incident took place in the police station.... WHILE HE WAS BEING PROCESSED!!!!

    Did the UN only hire you because you are just that frigging stupid....

    In custody, do you get it he hated the po-po so much that in the course of in-processing his arrest he got control of an officers weapon and started shooting.....

    Fuck him, a scumbag wife beater is dead and no officers died.

    Funny how Mr. Beats His Wife A-lot didn't gave a shit about being in police custody.....

    I don't know how you can take this incident and say, "oh hey I wonder if he was a lawful gun owner?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't know how? Well, think about this. Many of the mass shooters were lawful gun owners right up until the moment they made the international news. Just like many of the lesser publicized gun criminals were. You guys want the bar to be as low as possible for qualifying for gun ownership. This is the result.

      Delete
  2. Mikeb, did you watch the video? The thug grabbed a gun. It wasn't his. That's defined as unlawful possessor of a gun. So proper gun control laws will stop a criminal being processed by the police from grabbing a gun? I try to give you credit for some intelligence, but you're making this difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  3. See mike Thomas is such a smartie!!! If these stupid Cops hadn't made their lockup and processing area a "GUN FREE ZONE" they would have been able to shoot him with their guns!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uh, Gene, they did shoot him with their guns.

      Delete
  4. Hey Gene,
    It was not a gun free zone, they did shoot him with their guns, you mouth breathing short bus window-licker, now please go die in a fire, while playing in traffic....


    ReplyDelete
  5. In NJ he is a prohibited from owning firearms if he has been convicted of domestic violence...

    New Jersey prohibits the purchase, ownership, possession or control of a firearm by persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses.1 The state also authorizes courts to prohibit defendants from purchasing or possessing firearms in cases where the defendant is charged with (but not yet convicted of) a domestic violence crime or offense.


    http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-new-jersey/

    ReplyDelete
  6. When I made the post and wrote the comment I thought the shooter used his own gun. I missed the idea that he grabbed a policeman's gun.

    Sorry about that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for being honest MikeB.

      There are two important lessons here.
      (a) A criminal acquired a gun in a "secure" location (because of either incompetence or brute force) and attacked people.
      (b) A criminal took a police officer's gun and began what should have been a mass murder. While the criminal did manage to shoot three people, the criminal didn't kill anyone and his rampage was over momentarily because several people in that building were armed and stopped the criminal!

      Are any lights coming on yet? Do you now see why my wife and I are armed when we go to a store, restaurant, park, etc?

      Delete
    2. Thank you Mike, for admitting the error.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, someday if, god forbid, a bad guy grabs your gun and shoots three people before you wife shoots him dead, you can tell us how much good your gun ownership did.

      My belief is guns do more harm than good. Every day we see many examples of this and few examples of the opposite.

      Delete
    4. Mike, if we lived in a world with zero guns, then I would be able to whole-hartedly agree with you.

      But we do not and that is not going to change no matter what gun-control measures the US government decides to try to implement.

      Given that reality, and it is reality, then you are wrong. Because the US recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms, firearms in the US are far more protective than destructive.

      Now, in other parts of the world where that right is not recognized, you are still correct. To this day, oppressive regimes use arms daily to inflict great harm upon their own people. And non-oppressive regimes who restrict the right of arms to their people subject them to the terror of the criminal.

      Delete
    5. "But we do not and that is not going to change no matter what gun-control measures the US government decides to try to implement.

      Given that reality, and it is reality,"

      Oh, really?

      Delete
    6. You think otherwise? Somehow all guns in the world will be eliminated?

      Delete
    7. Sorry, I misread your statement. Of course nothing is going to remove all the guns. But, given that reality, what am I wrong about? I lost the thread.

      Delete