Seven dead in Wisconsin after Deputy Sheriff opens fire.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn The reality is, that if the child who lived in the home had had access to a gun, known how to use it, and acted to do so, lives could most likely have been saved.

"Most likely"? I think that's a real stretch.

Perhaps their chances of survival would have risen slightly but only slightly and I think that's a very liberal adjective given the situation. When someone walks into a dwelling with not only the intent of killing the occupants, but also the training to do so, knowing where a gun is in your home won't help you get out of the first room to get it when the shooting first starts.

[Osborn F Enready]

donfie said: The fact is that, in the UK, if I wanted to go on a rampage (the subject of the OP), I would find it very difficult to procure anything more than an immitation katana or my mums best carving knife.

Then you obviously don't participate in the black market, as most criminals do. I would also say you discount too much the FACT that zip-guns are simple to make, and the internet and public libraries provide more than adequate information to attain to do so.

Outlawing guns assures only the criminals will have guns in most cases, and that is counter-productive to establishing a peaceful society.

donfie said: Your assertion in the OP is that, the prevalence and tendancy for people to use guns leads to the conclusion that only having more guns can keep people safe which then introduces more guns.

My point is quite simple.

If you retain a right to competent defense, and exercise that right by obtaining, training and taking seriously your personal defense, you have a better likelihood of surviving any given encounter where your rights, or life, are trying to be removed by force.

donfie said: In England I fear getting mugged probably just as much as anyone does in America, but I don't fear being killed in that mugging and I definitely don't fear being shot (especially by someone with no previous criminal tendancies simply because I happened to be there).

Its your right to "bet on faith" that you will survive, but not your right to use law or any other method that isn't voluntary to do the same.

Life is one of many things that is objectively absolute. You either are alive, or you are dead, and you only get one life as far as valid science can prove. I have one life, and am willing to risk whatever it may take to protect that life, regardless of whether or not society agrees with my methods, I am able to do so until I infringe the rights of others.

donfie said: The reality of your situation in America IS that you probably do need to arm yourself in order to provide your best chance of defence but the question must then arise, "Why has America got to that situation in the first place?"

Because common sense dictates the best defense, is a good offense.

If someone is risking their life to kill you, or remove your rights by force, they don't value life, and have no right to expect mercy.

You may wish to recall history a bit before you condemn American individual arms, as it was one thing that allowed your nation to survive to see current times. Without private arms being donated to help your cause in WWII, you most likely wouldn't be here to preach pacifism.

Regardless, common sense dictates that arms are the only insurance to protect life, liberty and empower people the right to remove by force a government that uses force to suppress them.

We were born of the gun, and some of us, such as myself, will die before losing our guns.

donfie said: Just like I could probably take my own rubbish to the local tip but would rather someone did it for me.

One of my points....

Many people shirk individual responsibility if it is "easy enough".

If people shirk it enough, they become complacent and lazy, and believe everything under the sun should be an "entitlement" by birth.

Individual safety, is an individual responsibility.

Police can't make a claim to protect people, since that would require man-to-man coverage to even have a chance of working.

Isn't that logically clear to you?

Zee said: I think it has a lot to do with the fact that some in this country are still laboring under the fantasy that the public will someday rise up in armed revolt against the ruling elite.

It has nothing to do with the "notion" or as you put it "fantasy" of revolt. It has to do with HAVING THE RIGHT TO REVOLT, should it become evident that it is necessary to retain individual rights.

Zee said: I also think the fact that the ruling elite haven't bothered to outlaw guns is clear evidence that they don't regard this sort of uprising as a serious threat.

They have the right to be naieve, and I applaud them for being so....

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaossaber said: The prior implies cop perpetrated mass shootings are common place.

Cops being corrupt, fallible as all humans, is the real issue, and as corruption spreads, and public dependency on police grows, abuse like this will become more common place.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Cops being corrupt, fallible as all humans, is the real issue, and as corruption spreads, and public dependency on police grows, abuse like this will become more common place.

I believe this is more an issue of mental illness not police corruption. Also what evidence do you have to support that police perpetrated mass shootings will become more common?

His occupation is a detail that while interesting is largely irrelevant in understanding why this happened for the following reasons.
A.) He was off duty.
B.) He did not abuse any police abilities or powers to enter the home.
C.) He was not of legal age to own or possess a handgun
D.) There was no institutional order for him to engage in these actions from a superior.

In other words he acted of his own volition regardless of his career.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaos said: "Most likely"? I think that's a real stretch. Perhaps their chances of survival would have risen slightly but only slightly and I think that's a very liberal adjective given the situation. When someone walks into a dwelling with not only the intent of killing the occupants, but also the training to do so, knowing where a gun is in your home won't help you get out of the first room to get it when the shooting first starts.

Well, I disagree on every level.

I personally go out of my way to prepare for such occurrences, and if more did, and in this case, if THEY did, this most likely would have prevented many deaths.

Chaos said: Also what evidence do you have to support that police perpetrated mass shootings will become more common?

Common sense, as more and more people lose respect for the laws, the police, and all authority figures.

Cops today operate under ridiculous expectations, and I am sure the pressure must be immense. I know the police I have talked to have trouble even dealing with the concept of the naieve thinking "police are protectors", since they are not. They are there to deal with crime that has already happened, and in some cases, when they can get there in time, they try to prevent further loss of innocent life is possible.

Individual defense is still and individual issue.

[donfie]

While I have been called a Utopian as a form of insult, I would say that anyone not aspiring to Utopian ideals has "issues" as you say in the good old US.

But, sadly, the fact remains that we do live in the world we live in with people who, as much as we would like them to be, don't always see the world as we do or act as we think they should.

To that end one has to consider what is the safest way to protect the majority.

Some state that the only good deeefence is a good offence but I find that offensive (ha ha ha ha, sorry, we're not allowed humour in this thread).

Seriously though, I think, given our innate predisposition as a race towards violence, the best course of action is to take a damage limitation approach.

If there is no access to gun then there can be no use of a gun. Ipso facto.

[donfie]

I know the police I have talked to have trouble even dealing with the concept of the naieve thinking "police are protectors", since they are not.

Then I suggest they read their motto a bit closer or change it to "Spillage on aisle 3".

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Common sense, as more and more people lose respect for the laws, the police, and all authority figures. Cops today operate under ridiculous expectations, and I am sure the pressure must be immense. I know the police I have talked to have trouble even dealing with the concept of the naieve thinking "police are protectors", since they are not. They are there to deal with crime that has already happened, and in some cases, when they can get there in time, they try to prevent further loss of innocent life is possible. Individual defense is still and individual issue.

As Chaos said, the career of the cop is an interesting detail, but not relevant to THIS case:

His occupation is a detail that while interesting is largely irrelevant in understand why this happened for the following reasons.
A.) He was off duty.
B.) He did not abuse any police abilities or powers to enter the home.
C.) He was not of legal age to own or possess a handgun
D.) There was no institutional order for him to engage in these actions from a superior.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn Well, I disagree on every level. I personally go out of my way to prepare for such occurrences, and if more did, and in this case, if THEY did, this most likely would have prevented many deaths.

Then you're not going to do yourself or your loved ones much good protecting them with such unrealistic expectations. It's completely asinine to believe that a bunch of high school children be armed, with shotguns or rifles as handguns are illegal for them anyway, and furthermore that their caregiver would be sitting over them with a gun to protect for that likely probability that the 20 year old off-duty sheriff's deputy would steal a gun and come into your own to gun down your kid's party. I respect your right to own a gun for protection but don't kid yourself about your chances.

Common sense, as more and more people lose respect for the laws, the police, and all authority figures.

So as more and more people lose respect, police departments are going to start hiring more mentally ill individuals likely to snap?

Simply put, if you don't have evidence, don't make assertions about probability.

Cops today operate under ridiculous expectations, and I am sure the pressure must be immense.

Not really. I worked and trained with the police. This isn't something that weighs heavily on them or some other nonsense. It falls under the "dealing with stupid people" part of the job.

Individual defense is still and individual issue.

And I agree with you on this point. Just don't make absolute statements about your abilities because it makes you sound like a 15 year old playing Counter-Strike. That's not an insult because I don't think that's how you actually are, but it's how you sound when you make some of these claims.

[bishop]

i'm a bit aloof when it comes to the 2nd amendment - and it has never been an issue that impacted the way i've voted in the past (and won't be in the upcoming election cycle)..

the story's a damn shame. personally, i think what's more important than using this story to argue for/against gun control is to understand why such incidents seem to happen more frequently in one country vs. another? i think this is much more of a societal issue than a gun rights issue.

[Osborn F Enready]

Some people, myself included, are willing to address the issues that bring these events about, once the strawman of "blaming the guns" is out of the way.

Arguing that removing guns solves anything, is just not in the realm of possible reality.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Some people, myself included, are willing to address the issues that bring these events about, once the strawman of "blaming the guns" is out of the way.

The strawman of "blame the policeman" is still in the way.

[Osborn F Enready]

Decider....

Don't you see the connection I was trying to point out.

Some people say "we can only trust the men in uniforms to carry guns".

This was one of many cases, where that was not the case, as it NEVER WAS THE CASE.

All people are individuals, fallible, and capable of lashing out if pushed too far, they become too emotional, or they lose their grounding to reality, or simply by not exercising sound judgement.

As individuals, we should be held accountable for our own actions.

I was making a "pre-emptive strike" , to use a "Bushism", on the gun bashers that frequent these types of events on this forum.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Decider.... Don't you see the connection I was trying to point out. Some people say "we can only trust the men in uniforms to carry guns". This was one of many cases, where that was not the case, as it NEVER WAS THE CASE.

As Chaos pointed out, the cop wasn't at the event as "a cop." He was out of uniform, off-duty, and not legally of age to carry a weapon.

[Osborn F Enready]

Decider said: As Chaos pointed out, the cop wasn't at the event as "a cop." He was out of uniform, off-duty, and not legally of age to carry a weapon.

And your point? Does he drop his "oath to support the Constitution" at the time the uniform comes off?

Did you know Sheriffs take that oath to support the Constitution?

How does this in ANY WAY affect the point I was making?

[ruksak]

Grampa, If our nation was run by people that think like you, it would fly apart within 2 weeks. Dogs and cats would be seen screwing each other in the street. Fires would burn uncontrolled. Armed thugs would beat you senseless in your own home and then rape your goldfish. You support chaos and anarchy.

Society doesn't work without authority. You are out of touch and spoiled by the society you reject.

This story has nothing to do with gun control or crooked cops. It has to do with crazy. Crazy can't be stopped. Crazy will stab you with a fork if no gun is to be found. No fork, no problem, then you get choked with a pillow. Crazy people do what crazy people do, theres no stopping it. No need to inject politics, gun control or authoritarian issues. You disrespect the lost lives of 6 kids by altering this tragedy into a form of political expression.

[Osborn F Enready]

Who are you talking to Ruksak?

I started this thread.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Who are you talking to Ruksak? I started this thread.

SORRY!
I meant to qoute Grampa .

Quote by: Grampa I just don't like the idea of relegating basic security to someone else. I think it's as inherently dangerous as anything can be. We should all know that by now. I also don't think anyone needs to "catch" and "stop" literally everyone who doesn't share mainstream values. There may be special cases for this kind of thing (serial rapists and serial murderers, for example), but a police state always emphasizes the "strength" of the measures and "punishment" against crime, but fails to consider the hypocrisy of police brutality, the inhumanity and sadism of prisons and basic questions of who will police the police. I would rather see self-government, but that's ultimately illegal. In this case, the authorities may have acted appropriately by killing this rampaging man. But again, that is something one needn't wear a badge to do. Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

No problem Ruksak, just wanted to clarify.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How does this in ANY WAY affect the point I was making?

Well, let me see if I can connect the dots...

Because one cop killed some kids while off-duty, out of uniform, and illegally possessing a firearm, we should train kids to defend their homes with firearms just in case another off-duty, out of uniform, and illegal possessor of a firearm cop happens to go nuts one day. The kids need to learn how to outdraw trained cops for the eventual dual at High Noon.

Does that approximate your point?