"Police: Woman killed man who fired AR-15-style rifle into party crowd

[Revoltingest]

The first thing police do is draw a weapon
It should be a last resort not the first.

In the UK most officers are not armed. If a situation escalates they can call in fire arm officers.
Most of the time that is all that is necessary.

If an officer is shot or shoots someone it becomes a rare major news event.

That seems the better approach.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't disagree about biased conclusions, but common sensically, it seems that gun defense incidents would have to be very largely higher than gun related violence to sway folks who want to limit guns.

That is indeed the case with Gary Kleck's research.
Of course, anti-gun researchers criticize his work.
But even if his conclusions are reduced by a factor
of 10, armed self defense incidents still outnumber
wrongful shootings by civilians.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're looking at basic numbers.

Duh.
I stated that.
And I addressed disparate percentages with the provided
link. Did you not read it?
Why is it that people (especially liberals) entirely ignore
the undisputed fact that cops kill more whites than blacks?
Perhaps to make it solely about race, they must focus
upon the percentage, to the exclusion of all other views.
It's ridiculous to ignore large numbers of people killed by
cops simply because they're not black.
Again, that's likely behind why policing reform is stalled.
More people should be motivated, eg, whites, Asians.

Women need to ramp up their violence and criminal tendencies.

To you, it's just a joke.
But we should recognize & address why cops are so prone
to shooting males. This is the area where the greatest harm
is done, & therefore offers the greatest room for improvement.

This idea suggests brown people are a threat, and this attitude surely influences the policing where that idea is prevalent.

Men in general are the greatest
threat from the cops' perspective.

 

[We Never Know]

"Know" or "believe"?
Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun | Office of Justice Programs

Simulations have some value, but real world data
are better. A problem is that sources one would
expect to have an agenda pro or con gun rights
typically have research results supporting the
expected conclusion, eg, Gary Kleck vs Harvard.

One thing is clear...it, that guns are often used
for good, & often used for evil. Given that in our
culture & legal environment, guns won't be
eliminated, the issues are about curbing the
evil usage, & keeping the good.

"the evil usage"

 

[We Never Know]

The truth is sometimes in the middle.

For the record, I am not against gun ownership, or even carry for self-defense (especially for disabled or elderly folk who may struggle physically), however I think it should be regulated.

For instance, if you want to carry for self-defense, maybe you need training in first aid, deescalation techniques, and non-lethal self-defense, and undergo a more extensive background check.

In my opinion this says it best..

 

[Revoltingest]

"the evil usage"

View attachment 63331

Evil can be discouraged.

 

[F1fan]

In my opinion this says it best..

View attachment 63334

It says our society is too dangerous to leave the house without a gun. Why is it too dangerous? Too many guns. Hmmm.

The quote assumes the armed guy isn't the first one shot by a killer with a high powered rifle that's way more lethal at distance than the guy with a pistol. The quote assumes a lot of luck.

 

[Truth in love]

So we are evil because we believe in preventing unnecessary loss of life?

In my opinion.

The anti gun folks make an effort to prevent a person from protecting themselves and other innocent lives.
How is this not evil?

 

[crossfire]

The guy was a felon who wasn't supposed to have any firearms. The fact that he didn't hit anyone after firing "multiple shots" into the crowd makes me think there is more to this story than is being told in the news.

 

[danieldemol]

The anti gun folks make an effort to prevent a person from protecting themselves and other innocent lives.
How is this not evil?

It is the pro-gun people who are against legislation which protects themselves and the innocent.

Do your research on gun crime in Australia and other civilised countries that prevent civilians from owning guns with only certain exceptions and then come back and tell me if legislation protects innocents or not.

In my opinion.

 

[Truth in love]

It is the pro-gun people who are against legislation which protects themselves and the innocent.

Do your research on gun crime in Australia and other civilised countries that prevent civilians from owning guns with only certain exceptions and then come back and tell me if legislation protects innocents or not.

In my opinion.

I lived in Australia for a few years. I also ran a correlation study on about 190 nations. Gun ownership by civilians had a slight negative correlation to murder rates. So no stopping a good person from having a gun does not protect the innocent.

 

[Revoltingest]

It says our society is too dangerous to leave the house without a gun. Why is it too dangerous? Too many guns. Hmmm.

A common misconception.
It's not "too many guns".
It's about in whose hands they're allowed.

The quote assumes the armed guy isn't the first one shot by a killer with a high powered rifle that's way more lethal at distance than the guy with a pistol. The quote assumes a lot of luck.

One can always construct ad hoc scenarios to
show guns being either effective or worse than
useless. The real world shows that in the hands
of good skilled people, guns tend towards useful.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So we should give them the worst easiest most convenient means of doing it possible?

In my opinion.

It's not the worst or the easiest and it obviously isn't legal to shoot into a crowd. Making things illegal doesn't stop people who don't care about laws.

 

[F1fan]

A common misconception.
It's not "too many guns".
It's about in whose hands they're allowed.

It's because there are so many guns available that they are easily in the hands of those who both legally and illegal get them. So we live in a dangerous world because laws allow legal access to guns in some cases, like the two 18 year olds who committed mass murder in the last few weeks.

If the minimum age was 21, or a mental health screening was required, would these two events have been prevented? Yes. That would be three fewer guns in society, and 31 people still alive.

 

[Truth in love]

It's because there are so many guns available that they are easily in the hands of those who both legally and illegal get them. So we live in a dangerous world because laws allow legal access to guns in some cases, like the two 18 year olds who committed mass murder in the last few weeks.

If the minimum age was 21, or a mental health screening was required, would these two events have been prevented? Yes. That would be three fewer guns in society, and 31 people still alive.

I’m fine with 21 as long as that is also the age for sex, smoking, contracts etc. Requiring the permission of someone to exercise a right demotes it to a privilege.

 

[F1fan]

It's not the worst or the easiest and it obviously isn't legal to shoot into a crowd. Making things illegal doesn't stop people who don't care about laws.

Then shouldn't we prevent people who don't care about laws from getting guns? Do you agree?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Then shouldn't we prevent people who don't care about laws from getting guns? Do you agree?

That impossible.

 

[Truth in love]

Then shouldn't we prevent people who don't care about laws from getting guns? Do you agree?

How? We require background checks and only let a licensed dealer transfer guns. Private gifts are about the only exception. What else are you going to do? Frisk everyone? Spy camera in every home? Go full 1984?

 

[F1fan]

I’m fine with 21 as long as that is also the age for sex, smoking, contracts etc.

Good luck regulating sex when hormones get flowing in puberty. And humans brains aren't fully developed until about 27. So the big issue here is whether a person can understand the circumstances and consequences of sex, contacts, drinking, smoking, etc. Some behaviors are socially learned, like smoking. So you might have to highly regulate access to cigarettes in your town. Same with alcohol. Same with the opposite sex. It's better to tach kids how to reason, how to assess risk, how to understand their own lives experiences and feelings, and then prepare them to make better judgments in life rather than prohibit.

Requiring the permission of someone to exercise a right demotes it to a privilege.

With rights comes civil responsibility. Citizens are given rights with an expectation that they understand their role in society as a citizen with rights. Rights can be limited and taken away from those who do not use them responsibly or with adequate understanding.

We see many citizens able to take their right to gun ownership seriously and responsibly. We as a society are not requiring the level of responsibility seriously. As we know two 18 year olds bought guns legally and murdered 31 people. If these people had been screened adequately to determine their capacity for responsible ownership these murders would not have happened. We as a society reserve the right to assess if gun buyers are adequately responsible citizens for this huge right. We citizens have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and if we allow irresponsible citizens to get guns, then the rights of life are threatened.

The compromise should not be risking the life of citizens in schools and church and grocery stores, the burden should be on gun buyers to demonstrate their level of responsibility.

 

[F1fan]

That impossible.

You think a God exists, but that gun regulation isn't possible.

Read my post 159, and then think about it.