Seven dead in Wisconsin after Deputy Sheriff opens fire.

[Zeebadee]

I think I could also go along with that.

[donfie]

The argument that the easy availability of guns would in any way reduce the number of incidents of THIS nature is laughable.

Tyler Peterson and the vast majority (if not all) perpetrators of these instances are NOT hardened criminals or third world war lords.

The inclusion of those people into the debate of THIS incident is irrelevant.

With that in mind, how easy would it have been for Tyler Peterson (no one else) to commit this crime in the UK where there is strict gun control.

As a member of the police force he WOULD NOT have had access to any guns unless he was a member of the armed responce unit which he could not have been at age 20.

As he was a member of the police force he would also not have been able to justify the ownership of a gun for personal use due to profession as he was not a farmer or game keeper.

So, in both his professional and private lives he would not have had legal access to a gun and would have had no reason to have bought one illegally before this incident.

In the UK (with it's gun control) he would have found it very difficult to procure a gun.

The average person (including members of the police force many of whom I know) do not have contacts amongst hardened criminals whom they can ring up and get a gun within minutes or hours.

The procurement would take days if not weeks (if at all). The same can be said with him making his own gun and ammunition (especially the ammunition).

Is it not reasonable to assume that his murderous rage might have calmed in this time or that he would have attempted this incident with a knife instead?

The simple fact is that in ALL of the cases like this, it is the ease of access to a gun that allows the person to act on impulse.

This is clearly backed up by the evidence which is widely available on the internet. The VAST majority of impulse, rage killings like this are committed in the USA. And the difference in numbers is huge.

This is because guns are available equally to the people who commit these crimes as they are to the victims.

You can say what you like about being able to out shoot people, about the police not being trustable, or whether or not training should be offered to children.

You can not possibly argue that these crimes were made less easy to commit with the wide availablity of guns than they would have been without them.

Remember, these were not "criminals" before the event. They were regular people, many of whom (or whose parents) had bought guns for the same reasons that you would.

People in America are no less prone to muderous rages than people in the UK. The reason that these murderous rages don't manifest themselves in gun-related killing sprees is that the people in the rage don't have easy acces to a gun.

In summary, the ease of access to guns makes these incidents easier to commit. Any argument against that being true can not be valid.

Stricter gun control would not necessarily stop criminals. It may even give them the edge. But that is NOT what this thread is about.

Stricter gun control would and can be seen to have a great impact on the reduction of incidents of this type.

[Osborn F Enready]

donfie, you still ignore the OBVIOUS flaws in your argument.

I don't need access to guns or ammunition to kill people with a propelled projectile weapon. Guns can be fabricated in a common shed with common items, if people so desire and have common sense.

Access to firearms, at any level, won't change the FACT that the knowledge on how to build, use and be effective with firearms exists.

The logic in your argument is beyond repair, and if what I just pointed out doesn't prove it, you are in denial of reality.

[another day]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Seven dead in Wisconsin after deputy opens fire - Yahoo! News FOXNews.com - Seven Dead, Including Shooter, After Wisconsin Rampage - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...-WISCONSIN.xml What a damn shame. And, these are the people, the only people, some want to have guns. All people have a right to defense, for reasons exactly like this. :(

Hah. I said it in another thread but it's even more fitting here...

"I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where only the cops and the military are allowed guns." - William S. Burroughs.

[Chris]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I would like to show you what real training does, if I may. In this video clip, which is from a Miami Vice episode, Jim Zubiena, a professional gun handler demonstrates a flawless "Mozambique" draw, aquire, fire technique. His speed and accuracy are contest winning, prime example of what proper training and regular practice can provide. The Gun Zone -- Miami Vice Obviously, if you watched the film clip, you can see that within the span of slightly over one second, he completes a "clear, draw, raise, aquire, fire-fire-fire" series of actions, terminating a person who slightly over one second ago, had complete control of the situation.(enough time to foolishly take his eyes off the assasin, also enough time to die) With training and proper weapon handling, as Mr Zubiena demonstrates, you can expect all three shots to be within a 4"X5" index card using a .45 ACP, which is a kill. This is an example of "the high end" that you can attain through proper training. Having the ability to do the same within 5-10 or even 15 seconds, would have saved lives in the Wisconsin shooting, and if a responsible adult was present, this could have been possible.

I agree in that case. But I was merely highlighting that had you been there, apparently to party, you may not have been able to react quickly enough. Plus who carries a sidearm in their shorts 24/7?

This young punk ass would have been dropped quick, had there been a trained person, who was sober, AND that person was number 2,3 on the killing order.

Quote by: BugsBunny07 pt.s taken. I'd only seen what was on the tele in the chow hall, less details about the shooting itself. Okay, so lets go with the idea that he was going to succeed in killing everybody, regardless. Still, my main concern with this case is the illustration of flaw in the whole idea of "only the army and cops should be trusted with weapons". Apparently they cant be trusted 100% either. Here is what I gather from all this: Cops are human. They pull thier pants down to shit just like we do (usually). There should be no asumption that just because someone graduates police academy that they WONT do something bad. The idea should reciprocate, i.e. just because someone is NOT a cop doesnt mean they WILL do something bad.

I agree. This dumbass should have never been allowed to graduate as he had clear mental issues and very immature.