But along with faulting the authorities for this cock-up (to borrow a phrase from Laci), the thoughts occurred to me - where did this guy get the gun?
And how would the result have been different if this man couldn't get his hands on a gun (or at least, not as easily)?
From MSNBC.com
NC, NYC let accused cop killer slip away
NEW YORK -- New phone records between NYPD and Greensboro Police, and between the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office and Greensboro Police, appear to show the ball was dropped in two separate cases involving accused cop killer Lamont Pride.
Authorities apparently had several opportunities to keep the career criminal locked up before the fatal shooting Monday of a New York City police officer.
Phone records obtained by NBC New York show that NYPD did in fact reach out to North Carolina Police on Nov. 3 while Lamont Pride was still locked up in Brooklyn. The NYPD said it wanted Greensboro police to upgrade their warrant immediately so they could keep the allegedly armed and dangerous man behind bars in New York.Jessie Ward / Pool via APLamont Pride stands at his arraignment for the shooting and death of a New York Police Department officer, Peter Figoski.
NBCNewYork.com: NYC mayor blasts judge over accused cop killer's release
Until Wednesday night, the Greensboro Police Department has insisted the NYPD didn't call them until after Brooklyn Judge Evelyn Laport released him on Nov. 4. Had the warrant been upgraded right away, Lamont Pride would not have been released -- and may never have had the opportunity to fire the shot that killed Officer Peter Figoski.
"We don't want to get into a match with Greensboro," Ray Kelly said at a press conference Wednesday. "A police officer was killed here, that is the reality."
After a second call from the NYPD to Greensboro, the warrant was finally upgraded on Nov. 8 to apply outside the state of North Carolina.
Until Wednesday night, the Brooklyn District Attorney's office has insisted it never received a phone call about that important change. But phone records show that within minutes after the warrant was upgraded, Greensboro Police called the Brooklyn DA's office and spoke for almost 11 minutes.
And when Lamont Pride failed to show up at a scheduled court appearance in Brooklyn on Nov. 15, there seemed to be no urgency in going after Pride. Judge Shari Michels seemed unaware of Pride's status as a violent fugitive, and the prosecutor never mentioned it, according to a court transcription. The defense attorney did say she had Pride's contact information -- but the judge said not to bother issuing a bench warrant.
Wednesday, Bloomberg unleashed on Judge Evelyn Laporte for initially setting Lamont Pride loose on Nov. 4.
"A judge here in New York not only didn't put him behind bars, didn't even think it was appropriate for bail," Bloomberg said.
"The rap sheet in front of you shows this potentially dangerous person has a gun, has a criminal history," said Bloomberg. "Common sense says don't let him out until you make one phone call. It's not a lot of work to do to protect the public. It was not done."
Jeff Kern, a veteran prosecutor in Brooklyn DA's office who now works as an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, disagreed. "Judges during arraignments, it's hectic, there's a lot of pressure," he said. "In this case, there's not a lot the judge could have done for the warrant to hold Pride."
More gun control FAIL.
ReplyDeleteYeah really sounds like the gun was the root problem here.
ReplyDeleteYup. I guess NC must have failed to enforce their gun control laws.
ReplyDeleteIf this guy hadn't been able to acquire guns, he might not have been a 'career' criminal.
ReplyDeleteThis is an example of how a government procedure/system didn't work as it should. Frequent failures of government are a big reason why I don't trust government to "get the job done". And that is a big reason why many people want to be armed. It is a "stop gap" measure for the instances where government has failed.
ReplyDelete"This is an example of how a government procedure/system didn't work as it should. Frequent failures of government are a big reason why I don't trust government to "get the job done". And that is a big reason why many people want to be armed. It is a "stop gap" measure for the instances where government has failed."
ReplyDeleteThere is a pattern of thinking that says, "Shit doesn't work, so let's scrap the program, instead of fixing it." Conservatives often use this justification when they want to cut social welfare programs. Oddly, it never seems to be a problem for the same conservatives when defense budgets are presented (well, I will give them that they have consistently vilified everything that has been proposed in Congress, by democrats, since about 1980).
When the gunzloonz decry gun control they always say it doesn't work. The reality is that it can't possibly work without a federal program that puts sensible controls in place and enforces the rules.
Of course when I think about what happens without gun control--about 30K deaths and an indeterminate number of wounded per annum. Well, that shit REALLY ain't workin'.
The problem is Crunchy, that you have to make the time for citizenry to patrol if you want an armed public to perform law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't so much that government isn't efficient as much as it's people who don't want government to work.
So, who you gonna call if there isn't a government to perform these jobs--big business?
Of course when I think about what happens without gun control--about 30K deaths and an indeterminate number of wounded per annum. Well, that shit REALLY ain't workin'.
ReplyDeleteToo true!
"If this guy hadn't been able to acquire guns, he might not have been a 'career' criminal."
ReplyDeleteThank you for my morning LOL. That was hilarious.
"Of course when I think about what happens without gun control--about 30K deaths and an indeterminate number of wounded per annum. Well, that shit REALLY ain't workin'."
ReplyDeleteYeah about two thirds of which are suicides. If only we had strict Japan-style gun control, we wouldn't have suicides anymore.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the intention of most armed citizens is to enforce laws. It is almost exclusively for personal protection when something goes horribly wrong. And such armed citizens may occasionally intervene for another citizen who is the subject of an attack. An example would be the estranged (or maybe ex) husband who entered a Wal Mart store set out to murder his wife (an employee) with a large knife. A man heard the screams and saw the husband stabbing the wife repeatedly. The man went over and shot the husband with his pistol until the husband stopped stabbing his wife. That man simply acted to save that woman's life, not enforce laws.
Nevertheless, I believe the public, whether armed or not, must be willing at times to take an active role. Two cases in point:
(1) A neighbor noticed a home invasion/robbery at a local home. The neighbor used her car to block the get away vehicle for the 10 minutes it took our County Sheriff's deputies to arrive. That neighbor put her safety on the line and was instrumental in stopping a string of recent home invasions.
(2) Hundreds/thousands of citizens now patrol the streets of Detroit on "Devils Night" (the night before Halloween). Arsonists would set hundreds of fires in mostly abandoned homes on Devil's Night. Now that citizens patrol the streets, there are virtually no fires any more.
MA gunner, the shooter might have still gotten into trouble,of course.
ReplyDeleteBut there is something enabling,a quality about firearms, that encourages people to commit suicide by making it easier to do. It has been the topic and conclusion of numerous studies.
It is not a stretch to believe the same is true with firearms, and that if the shooter had to put himself more at risk with less lethal weapons available to him, at least some of his crimes might not have happened, or the ones that did may have been more minor.
Thanks for prompting me to elaborate on the thought behind the earlier comment.
GC wrote:
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the intention of most armed citizens is to enforce laws. It is almost exclusively for personal protection when something goes horribly wrong.
However you parse it, it IS enforcing the law against whatever is going horribly wrong, as contrasted to law enforcement doing so. That you are acting primarily on your own behalf, or secondarily on behalf of someone else isn't really all that important a distinction. What matters for purposes of argument or discussion is that it is you, not law enforcement.
And such armed citizens may occasionally intervene for another citizen who is the subject of an attack. See above.
An example would be the estranged (or maybe ex) husband who entered a Wal Mart store set out to murder his wife (an employee) with a large knife. A man heard the screams and saw the husband stabbing the wife repeatedly. The man went over and shot the husband with his pistol until the husband stopped stabbing his wife. That man simply acted to save that woman's life, not enforce laws.
Walmarts are public places which have people in them 24 hours a day nearly 365 days a year. I have a real problem with this example you provide that illustrates two recurring objections to the actions of people with firearms, either concealed carry OR open carry.
The first is that in an enclosed space with hard surfaces - Wally worlds are essentially slightly dressed up warehouses effectively - and with people who may be behind a barrier like a display of merchandise who cannot be seen, this doesn't strike me as a safe place to discharge a firearm, even to save this woman.
I also have to wonder why it wouldn't have been just as practical to use non-lethal force, such as a taser. Even whacking the guy upside the head with something large and substantial would have done the trick without using more lethal force. Hell, just throwing small hard objects, like aerosol cans or canned food items at him, particularly his head would have stopped this violence as well.
And at what point did anyone call 911? Before, or after shooting this guy?
Which goes back in part to who should be enforcing laws and safety, on the basis of who does it better - private citizens or professional law enforcement.
GC wrote:
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the intention of most armed citizens is to enforce laws. It is almost exclusively for personal protection when something goes horribly wrong.
However you parse it, it IS enforcing the law against whatever is going horribly wrong, as contrasted to law enforcement doing so. That you are acting primarily on your own behalf, or secondarily on behalf of someone else isn't really all that important a distinction. What matters for purposes of argument or discussion is that it is you, not law enforcement.
And such armed citizens may occasionally intervene for another citizen who is the subject of an attack. See above.
An example would be the estranged (or maybe ex) husband who entered a Wal Mart store set out to murder his wife (an employee) with a large knife. A man heard the screams and saw the husband stabbing the wife repeatedly. The man went over and shot the husband with his pistol until the husband stopped stabbing his wife. That man simply acted to save that woman's life, not enforce laws.
Walmarts are public places which have people in them 24 hours a day nearly 365 days a year. I have a real problem with this example you provide that illustrates two recurring objections to the actions of people with firearms, either concealed carry OR open carry.
The first is that in an enclosed space with hard surfaces - Wally worlds are essentially slightly dressed up warehouses effectively - and with people who may be behind a barrier like a display of merchandise who cannot be seen, this doesn't strike me as a safe place to discharge a firearm, even to save this woman.
I also have to wonder why it wouldn't have been just as practical to use non-lethal force, such as a taser. Even whacking the guy upside the head with something large and substantial would have done the trick without using more lethal force. Hell, just throwing small hard objects, like aerosol cans or canned food items at him, particularly his head would have stopped this violence as well.
And at what point did anyone call 911? Before, or after shooting this guy?
Which goes back in part to who should be enforcing laws and safety, on the basis of who does it better - private citizens or professional law enforcement.
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteYour concerns about the construction of Wal Mart stores and discharging a firearm safely inside them are valid. In this instance (I saw the video), the armed citizen positioned himself with respect to the victim, attacker, and other store patrons in a very safe manner. As for trying to use another object to stop the husband's attack, there were no large objects nearby that anyone could use as an "improvised baseball bat" to immediately subdue the husband. And in that situation, fractions of a second count since the husband had already stabbed his wife multiple times. I hate to be graphic, but a fraction of a second could be the difference between stopping another thrust or limiting the depth of a thrust currently in progress at the time of application of force. Attempting to "distract" the husband with cans or something would have been fatal.
And there is a huge danger in getting close enough to club an attacker. Please understand that a sharp knife is incredibly lethal: if you are close enough to club the attacker, they are close enough to stab you. If you failed to knock the attacker unconscious with the first strike, they could stab you in less than half a second which could easily lead to your death in less than two minutes.
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteBased on all of your comments that I have read, it sounds like you really value an educated approach to looking at and trying to solve problems. And I have heard you be critical of the way that many victims or concerned citizens have responded to violent attacks. How much education and experience do you have with violent attacks?
Ooooooppp!
ReplyDeleteMy bad - apologies to Greg and Crunchy, for confusing them with each other. That last comment was misdirected.
My bad; please consider this a correction.
Crunch writes:
ReplyDeleteHow much education and experience do you have with violent attacks?
A fair amount Crunchy. While I do not claim to hold any formal degree in Criminal Justice studies, I have done quite a bit of reading on the topic, and known a few university professors in that specialty. Their books and lectures, and extended dinner conversations,have been enlightening and contributed to forming my opinion.
As to personal experience with violence, I'm not sure how much detail can fit into a comment. Enough to have had a civil and criminal restraining order against someone threatening, a number of other incidents.
I've seen someone killed by defenestration.
(And NO, Laci, not in Prague - that was a LONG time ago, longer than my life experience - but I love that you know the reference.)
How much education and experience do you have with violent attacks?
ReplyDeleteWould 6 years in the British Army with 2 tours of Northern Ireland Count?
Add in that I was a bystander at a few IRA bombings (usually after the fact): Most notably the Paddington Bombing.
Add in that I have worked as a criminal defence lawyer for 20 years.
I think I have some experience in the field.
Cap'n Crunch:
ReplyDeleteWhere is the video? When and where did the attack happen?
I don't know if the woman who was being stabbed could have defended herself, it sounds like she could not. On the other hand a guy with a gun has to fire multiple shots to bring the guy down? Was the attacker whacked out on drugs, mentally deranged or what.
"Yeah about two thirds of which are suicides. If only we had strict Japan-style gun control, we wouldn't have suicides anymore."
But we'd still have the homicides, stupid. Of course that's always okay with you vigilantewannabes. How, btw, have you managed to live in a hellhole (by your self report) for so long without having to whip it out and blast a perp? Or, have you done it and just not bothered to let anyone know about your civic service?
Capn Crunch,
ReplyDeleteNote that she doesn't answer your question any better than she answers it for me. She says that she knows a couple of professors that she had dinner with. She tells us that she filed a restraining order against someone. And yet, somehow, she's more qualified to carry and, if necessary, use a handgun than the rest of us are.
Dog Gone,
You do keep confusing me with others. I hope that you've disposed of that handgun safely. Otherwise, you might make a wrong identification of someone.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to the video and news story on YouTube of the husband stabbing his wife:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soZT__WQKsM
dog gone, please pay very close attention to the statements the wife makes about how horribly the attack has affected her life. That is why fractions of a second count.
Amazingly, while searching for the YouTube video of the stabbing at Walmart, I found news of another stabbing just four days ago at another Walmart.
ReplyDeleteTragically, the wounds were fatal and the woman died at the hospital. Again, that is why fractions of a second count during an attack.
And because no one incapacitated the attacker, he sped away in his car and crashed putting additional lives in jeopardy.
According to one news account I found, someone saw the attacker stomping on the victim and then hit the attacker with a chair. (I would be interested to know if the person who intervened knew the attacker had a knife or thought the attacker was unarmed and only stomping on the victim.) At that point the attacker, having already inflicted mortal wounds, headed for the store exit. When a store patron tried to stop the attacker at the exit, the attacker pulled out another knife to stab the store patron. At that point the store patron retreated and the attacker went to his car. And like I said earlier, the attacker put many more lives in jeopardy as he sped away and crashed his car.
GC writes: Capn Crunch,
ReplyDeleteNote that she doesn't answer your question any better than she answers it for me.
Part of my not answering in more detail is precisely because I'm not going to provide you with an answer, in the course of replying to someone else, until you meet my challenge. You have yet to do so.
She says that she knows a couple of professors that she had dinner with.
Not quite. I've known and had conversations with a professor in the sociology department who has written a number of books, including textbooks, on criminal justice over a period of 20 years. I indicated that was formative to my thoughts on criminal justice (in particular requiring an objective measurement to what works and what does not). That differs from a couple of casual conversations as Greg seem to characterize my statements. (Another example of why my co-bloggers and I regard him as intellectually dishonest.)
She tells us that she filed a restraining order against someone. And yet, somehow, she's more qualified to carry and, if necessary, use a handgun than the rest of us are.
While the bare bones of that statement has a few details correct, it has substantial sections which are substantively inaccurate. There is a very good reason I can assert I'm better qualified than you are Greg. You've demonstrated right here how many legal aspects of carrying you don't understand at all, or understand incorrectly or incompletely.
Ah, you're fishing Greg. There are no short cuts, no end runs to either admitting you are wrong on an entire range of topics, where you are either ignorant or incorrect, or producing credible sources supporting the claims you've made that we have challenged
Dog Gone,You do keep confusing me with others. I hope that you've disposed of that handgun safely. Otherwise, you might make a wrong identification of someone.
Oh, I do take my time with identifications where lethal force might be used. And I tend to be very good with observing pertinent information correctly, and with using sound logic and critical thinking. I'm able to think quickly and clearly on my feet, including during a critical situation. I've been in more than a few.
Perhaps it is time to repost my adventures babysitting my younger sibling at home on a Friday night when I was 11 years old, when two intruders attempted to enter through the window of my father's den, and my quite successful response - using less than lethal force....
no, I think I will wait patiently for Greg to put up or back down on those earlier claims. THEN I will supply the information.
And yes, I do store all weapons securely.
Here is a link to a news story about the stabbing/murder that happened four days ago at Walmart:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wistv.com/story/16301282/husband-charged-in-walmart-stabbing-death
It still sounds like a much better incident where a taser would be useful to incapacitate the attacker than a firearm.
ReplyDeleteNone of you seem willing to address the issue of a shot at an attacker that misses, or one that becomes a dangerous ricochet.
Funny how you just skip over the firearm safety that requires you to know where your bullets could go. Not a good or safe choice in a Walmart or in a parking lot either for that matter.
No comment on that? crickets....crickets....
You don't have an answer for that do you?
All you can focus on is why a gun had to be the correct response.
Clearly it was not.
Even pepper spray would have been a better choice. Or knocking him senseless by throwing a largish can of baked beans so as to knock him unconscious or at least dizzy.
One of the problems which distinguishes you as a gun lunatic instead of a person who is armed is that you consistently focus on a firearm solution, a lethal solution, instead of other alternatives.
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteI was at training and my instructor wanted to impress two things upon us in addition to the other class material.
(1) He mentioned that there is a legal standard in our area that defines when it is justifiable to use deadly force against a person with a knife. The legal justification of that "standard" is that a person with a knife could "lunge" at you from 21 feet away and stab you before you could draw a pistol and shoot. However, there was a lot of evidence to suggest 21 feet wasn't adequate and the powers that be are considering changing the distance to 30 feet.
(2) Even 30 feet isn't enough. The instructor had a student hold a pistol at a "ready" position (pistol in both hands in front of them pointing generally forward at the waist). The instructor stood next to the student and instructed her to raise up her pistol and shoot the target as fast as possible when he lifted his hand off of her shoulder. Upon lifting his hand, he ran away from her as fast as possible. He was 40 feet away before she shot the target.
And neither exercise takes into account the fact that gunshots which do not damage the central nervous system take at least 10 seconds to cause an average male to lose consciousness from blood loss.
My point here is that we should respond to an attacker with a knife no different than we would respond to an attacker with a firearm if the attacker with the knife is within 50 feet of us.
And yet this sounds as if the attacker had the woman down on the floor, and so I would argue that your example of how far and fast someone can move is different when they are standing than when they are down and grappling with another person.
ReplyDeleteNot the least of the issues are identifying someone as having a firearm out of all the other things and people competing with the focus of his attention.
You still fail to address the issues of ricochet and being able to see where your bullet(s) would go, under the rules of firearm safety,posing a threat to other people than the victim and her assailant. Btw - I'd also argue that while the attacker was grappling with his victim it was too dangerous to shoot, and that after he had ceased doing so, he was fleeing and NOT an appropriate target for lethal force.)
My point remains that there are other options to intervene on behalf of a person being attacked, using non-lethal force to incapacitate and subsequently restrain someone.
You and Greg, Crunc; still waiting for you to address the issue of fundamental rules of firearm safety applying here, and the risk of shooting the victim instead of or in addition to the guy wielding the knife.
ah, those pesky cricket noises....cricket cricket cricket
My impression is that you guys don't think through the implications of these events and actions properly even when you are reading about them at leisure, therefore you are far more likely to act wrongly - more wrongly - in the heat of the moment.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI was turning in final grades. You aren't the center of my universe.
But to answer your question:
1. I use hollowpoint bullets, precisely because the have a lower chance of overpenetration and of ricochet.
2. I practice shooting regularly, both because I enjoy it, but also to maintain my accuracy.
3. Cooper's Rule Four states that we are to identify our target and what's around and beyond. Taking a shot at an attacker isn't just a matter of whipping out the gun and blasting away. If I don't have the shot, I won't shoot.
The odds of having a safe shot in a large store with people and thin barriers, as well as surfaces like concrete floors which could result in a ricochet makes the scenario an UNLIKELY one for use of a carry - open or concealed -to be practical.
ReplyDeleteBut all you will acknowledge until pushed is why it would be better to shoot the attacker.
You represented these walmart shootings as cases where carry was useful.
I put it to you they are NOT, for the reasons of firearm safety.
I also put it to you that there are other, BETTER alternatives to a firearm to come to the aid of the victims.
All you seem able to think of is shooting someone in a crisis.
ReplyDeleteI don't.
One of the reasons I thought of the potential effectiveness, for example, of 'beaning' the guy by a hard throw of a can of baked beans - as just one example - was my experience traveling in the middle east, places like Ramla and Hebron.
Thrown rocks can do a heulluva lot more damage than people think they do to another human being, especially when they hit someone in parts of the head or face. Hard heavy thrown objects which strike the ear are particularly painful and can be quite disabling.
I don't rely on having a gun. I trust that I am sufficiently self-reliant and resourceful to respond appropriately.
The two intruders I mentioned earlier, the ones where I was babysitting, they had lifelong scars from their misadventure. And they died in prison, although for other- but related- crimes. Their setences were, like Madoff's, longer than a single life sentence. They were not what you would describe as your average casual burglar.
Far from my only 'adventure' btw.
How do you tough guys feel about rats?
Big wet shiny sewer rats the size of groundhogs, all swarming over piles of garbage in the dark in a feeding frenzy at 2 a.m.?
Need a gun for that too, do you?
I did it with just a camera, for what I considered a good cause at the time.
Or what about taking a 4 am shortcut through the dark winding narrow alleyways of a foreign city back to your hotel? Say, the Plaka, part of the most ancient sections of Athens, Greece?
Need a gun to do that? I didn't.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThis is another reason why we don't trust you. You want concealed carry only in cases of need, but you tell us that we don't really ever need a firearm. Doesn't that mean that you oppose carry altogether? (You still haven't explained why you carried.) What about a security guard or a police officer? Does that person have a use for a gun in Wal-Mart? If there are better alternatives, then cops should use those always and never carry guns, either.
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteI am glad to hear that you survived your adventures without serious damage -- and apparently without using a firearm.
I am well aware of the potential for "collateral damage" when using a firearm ... missed shots, ricochets, etc. The potential certainly exists. At the same time, I cannot find any documented cases of it happening once, much less dozens or hundreds of times per year. Please provide links to the hundreds of documented instances where this has happened.
I am not arguing that using a firearm is the only option. Rather, I have three concerns:
(1) You condemn every situation where anyone used a firearm to end a violent attack.
(2) Many people are not physically capable of administering your alternate applications of force.
(3) Your alternate applications of force carry considerable risk for the victim as well as the "good samaritan" who intervenes. The risk does not lie in the the alternate force harming the victim or themselves. Rather that risk lies in the alternate force being ineffective or taking much longer to apply. Or in the recent stabbing case, of not only being ineffective at ending the attack, but allowing the attacker to get away and harm more people.
I have mentioned it several times and I haven't heard you address how critical fractions of a second are once an attacker has started stabbing or shooting a victim. Extra seconds to locate a hard object and throw it -- versus drawing and shooting -- could very well be the difference between the victim surviving and the victim not surviving.
And you created a paradox. You expect an armed citizen to miss the 11 inch wide by 20 inch high torso of an attacker but you figure a citizen can throw an odd shaped hard object and hit the much smaller target area of the attacker's head. And if you miss with that can of beans, how long does it take for a follow-up throw? I can guarantee you that most armed citizens can follow up with another shot from their pistol much faster than someone could locate a second hard object and throw it accurately enough to hit the attacker's head.
About the time the video shows the "samaritan" shooting the assailant, the voice over says that, amazingly, the woman was not shot. Based on the video I'd say that's certainly the case.
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp appears to be a ballistics expert as well as expert in so many other areas. I don't know, Greg, I kinda see you doin' those homemade dum-dums so's you can inflict MAXIMUM DEATH on the perps. I think you're gonna have to move to east LA or someplace like it. You spend way too much time thinking about how you're gonna KILL the people who would threaten you.
More food for thought. If I were obsessed that guns are the only possible response to an attack, I wouldn't be taking marshal arts classes and sustaining minor injuries while honing my skills. And keep in mind that I am in my mid 40s -- not exactly a Spring chicken.
ReplyDeleteWhile physical training is fine now, I know a day is coming (maybe when I am in my 70s!) when I will not be able to deliver decisive blows; thus I am hedging my bets with "force multipliers" such as canes and firearms.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteHollowpoints are much safer for those around, but I wouldn't expect you to know that. Most police departments use them these days, for example.
Lamont probably has owned a dozen different guns during his criminal career. Every one of those weapons started out the legal property of somebody. Guys like Lamont cannot be reasoned with, but what's the problem with all those legal gun owners who somehow let their guns slip into criminal hands?
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp:
ReplyDeleteLike most gunzloonz you make the mistake of assuming that non-gunzloonz can't read or understand published information re: ballistics and other gunzinfo. As is the case in most other instances, you're wrong.
I was making fun of you, I was mocking you, I was pointing and laughing. Do you get that or do you need a more detailed explanation?
Crunch writes:
ReplyDeleteWhile physical training is fine now, I know a day is coming (maybe when I am in my 70s!) when I will not be able to deliver decisive blows; thus I am hedging my bets with "force multipliers" such as canes and firearms.
Crunch, how many criminals have you ever confronted in any kind of physical interaction, or with any kind of a weapon, in your life?
What makes you think when you are in your 70s that when you are unable to deliver a blow with force, that you will also have the quick responses and heck - the EYESIGHT - to effectively use your firearm?
Good for you for doing the physical training; it will keep you young longer, and it will give you - hopefully - a better mindset.
You still don't get around the issue however that for most of us, that threat of physical violence from a stranger is pretty damn low, making the central premise of your desire to carry pretty silly.
Which is why I have argued that I would like reasonable qualifying for carrying either open or concealed, including an eye test similar to drivers licenses, a mental health screening, and a demonstration that there is a real, reasonable threat, not some free-floating non-specific anxiety about an incident occurring that is highly unlikely.
I would argue to you that without that last component - a demonstrable reason to show you would be a probable target or that there is a genuine valid threat - that the people who carry somehow feel they need to do so because it makes them feel more important, not because it makes them actually safer.
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteAs our abilities (mental processing, eyesight, strength, reflexes,)deteriorate, the threat profile and engagement tactics have to change accordingly. Right now, I can shoot a 3 inch balloon at 20 yards on the first shot with my pistol every time. When I am in my 70s, I will probably be constrained to shooting at that balloon at 5 yards. And there is no doubt that there will be a point when I can no longer use any firearm for any purpose at all. Of course exactly when that happens varies greatly depending on genetics and lifestyle choices. For reference my father is in his mid 70s and his reflexes are unbelievable. I do realize though that he is exceptional. The good news is that I am pretty sure I inherited that trait!
Fortunately, the threat of violence is fairly low for many people. However it is not zero. I have a few experiences that made me aware of how vulnerable we are at times, including a carjacking, a 140 pound German Shepherd attack, a crazy person who attacked me with their car, and threats from a team member after I had to turn them in for being heavily intoxicated on the job. I also hunt with archery equipment and in my state, you cannot legally carry a firearm while hunting with archery equipment unless you have concealed carry license. (And while in the woods in the dark, hunting regulations require that your arrows are in a quiver. It is a useless proposition to attempt to remove an arrow from a quiver, knock it, draw, aim, and release in a sudden attack from a wild animal.) Walking through dark forests at night where there are cougars, black bears, wild hogs, and feral dogs has its risks and many a hunter has used a sidearm to fend off such beasts. I also work occasionally in neighborhoods with very high crime rates and peers have been robbed and/or assaulted on occasion.
I understand the appeal of your last thought where you wish people had to demonstrate a reason for needing their concealed carry license. I have several thoughts on the pros and cons as well as the risks and benefits. That would be an entire topic in and of itself.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteAnd you don't get that we find your paranoia about our carrying to be damned silly. We see your desire to keep us from doing so as your fear that other people have freedom. We read your insistence that you don't want to ban guns as disingenuous. We read your proposed qualifications for gun ownership and carry as an obvious attempt to restrict those to the smallest number possible. No compromises; no deals.
Democommie,
We make the mistake of thinking that you can't read and understand information? You make the same about us. As for your laughter, the mocking of fools only serves to confirm us in how right we are.
No Greg, my goal is exactly what I say it is. There's no hidden agenda with me and any thoughts you have about that are further evidence that you're a tiny bit paranoid.
ReplyDeleteWhat I propose is eminently reasonable and therefore you have to invent exaggerated possibilities in order to argue against them. To argue against what I really do propose would make you sound too unreasonable.
I want unfit gun owners disarmed, not by force of the gun-control authorities but by the systematic implementation of proper gun control laws which include screening and qualification requirements.
Assuming you yourself are a fit and responsible gun owner, why do you object to that? You and your friends would be the biggest winners. You'd have us off your backs.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteWe've seen the tactics of the Brady Bunch, et al. over the years. We've seen the seemingly rational pleas for some gun control that then get turned into bans in other countries, and we've seen what some jurisdictions have done here. The Assault Weapons Ban, for example, is a case of fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
I don't worry about you. You strike me as a reasonable person. But when I read what Laci and Dog Gone have to say, and when I read the vitriol of Democommie, and when I see the extreme measures that other people on your side propose, I find the whole group of gun control supporters to be untrustworthy.
That's the problem. My side needs to see a whole lot of give from yours before we'll agree to any take. Name the protections for our rights and desires that you'll agree to. Will you agree to universal concealed carry for anyone who gets trained and who is without a criminal record, for example? (Don't bring in mental health screening--that's another area of mistrust.) That's what I mean. Everything that your side proposes is about what we have to give up to make you happy. We never hear you name anything that you're willing to give up. Why should we lose what we already have?
Greg Camp:
ReplyDelete"We've seen the tactics of the Brady Bunch, et al. over the years."
And I'm sure you can provide a list of all the states and municipalities in the U.S. that ban gunz.
"I don't worry about you. You strike me as a reasonable person. But when I read what Laci and Dog Gone have to say, and when I read the vitriol of Democommie, and when I see the extreme measures that other people on your side propose, I find the whole group of gun control supporters to be untrustworthy."
Oh, I'm sure that Mikeb302000 is SOOOOOOOOOO fucking happy that you don't worry about him. Why is that, because he doesn't call you a FUCKING LIAR and a paranoid coward?
Neither myself, Laci The Dog or dog gone is on record as wanting to ban gunz, confiscate gunz or limit the size of people's gunz collectionz. What we all, I think, would like to see is for wannabe poseurs like you to be forced to have some accountability when you openly admit to thinking it's okay to kill people for theft. You're a douchebag and I have more respect for my dog than I would for you. For you all I have is a balance of disdain and pity--and the pity is on the short side of that balance.
Greg, as democommie said, no one on this blog wants to ban and confiscate weapons from responsible people. We want to raise the bar as to what constitutes responsible, but that's it. I think I can say the same for the Bradys.
ReplyDeleteI really don't understand all the insistence on exaggerating our position.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThere are two reasons:
1. We don't trust you. We never see you speak favorably about gun owners, in support of gun rights, or about gun usage. You're like the vegetarian who sneers at the local butcher's shop--sure, you may not want to drive the shop out of business, but you don't like it. You wouldn't grieve over its loss. We know where your sympathies lie.
2. The practical effect of your proposals would be a whole lot like a total ban. A mountain can be blown up, or it can be worn away bit by bit.
"I really don't understand all the insistence on exaggerating our position."
ReplyDeleteIt's the only way that their arguments can get a hearing from people who otherwise would laugh at their obvious delusional fantasizing and paranoia. Well, they'd laugh at them if they weren't afraid, just a little bit, of getting shot by those Type 2A's that get a bit "excercised" on the subject.