dozens of good guys with guns fail to stop single bad guy with gun

[UncleBuck]

They had him surrounded, where was he going to go? He wasn't getting away, he was holed up in a fucking garage surrounded by cops remember? Infact, he was so cornered that they were able to just drive a fucking little remote control device right up to him and blow his ass up.

If they thought more people were involved, why the fuck did they blow up the one person they had cornered? Now we will never know for sure, cause they blowed him into pieces.

He couldn't of been carrying but a few hundred rounds tops, shit is heavy. He wasn't going to hang out in the garage for long, especially if that robot had dropped off some tear gas, concussive grenades, aids virus, etc.

Send nothing in, just wait for him to come out. He might have rushed out guns blazing, but sniper fire would of rained in on him.

Blowing people up is just not okay, period. This isn't a war zone...yet. Its not at all that he's dead, its how he is dead. Fuck him and his couch, but they still did it wrong.






Should of just arrested all of them peacefully and cleared that place out. That was a clown show played out by all parties involved.

is that how the police force that you are a part of would have handled it?

 

[Fogdog]

They would never need to overthrow the government, is the core difference. Brazil has huge stability issues in many areas, that often leads to higher rates of EVERY crime. Ireland for example during the most dark years, naturally had an increase in gun crime and explosives.

Yes, you are taught well to hate the British from a young age, you are conditioned to always hold that grudge, never be second best again because after all, America is the greatest country on earth.

You can learn from England because you are, to your despise an extension of it, a far older and wiser culture that has already avoided/evolved from most of the mistakes you have or will make. That is until Amerca became hell bent on making it's own identity to the almost opposite of England from what can only be considered ego of the elite. That has passed down to a civilian level, leading back to your statement. Meanwhile England still make mistakes, such as following you into an illegal war. Nobody is perfect.

“Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.”

I agree that England and most developed western nations are farther evolved than the US is in terms of attitudes towards violence, especially gun related violence. England has long held a legal obligation for private citizens to retreat if at all possible instead of using lethal force. The US has a tradition of "no obligation to retreat", exactly opposite of English traditions. This is the root of our problem and fascination with guns as well as our tolerance for firearm related deaths.

Over the past 40 years, the number of gun owning households has decreased from nearly 50% to about 33% and the downward trend continues. Eventually, we will evolve to more civilized attitudes towards gun ownership and violence.

I think it would be better if gun owners took the issue of how to reduce gun related deaths as their own to solve. Suggesting just this to gun nuts initiates reactionary right wing NRA bullshit responses. Dam, we learn slow. We seem to be the fool who can't even learn from our own mistakes.

 

[Chunky Stool]

Thats 30 pounds of just ammo weight. If he was expecting that type of shoot out, he fucked up bad and died carrying a lot of useless weight.

WTF is a clip? Like what girls put in their hair? Or did you mean magazine...

7.62 at jack rabbits? Holy shit, what were they, 500 yards away?

Yes, "magazine" -- my bad.
I try not to take 500 yard shots with open sights (wink).
Near or far, it didn't matter. We walked in a straight line for safety. What a hoot! In addition to the 300 rounds of rifle ammo, I also carried 45 rounds of 9mm and always ran out before we got back to the vehicles. Only the guys with shotguns could hit anything. My average was around 8. Those little fuckers are fast!

 

[testiclees]

We have more military trained men on the streets than the military we can most definitely take on the government. I don't care if they build skynet we will fight and die until every last government robot is dead. Lol

Just look around we could not beat the Vietcong we could not beat the Taliban. The government should fear the people not the other way around.

I agree on the fear part but people of influence and means will not have the stomach for self sacrifice on a massive scale

 

[testiclees]

Thank you for realizing.

Greatest how? For who?

 

[Flowki]

Over the past 40 years, the number of gun owning households has decreased from nearly 50% to about 33% and the downward trend continues. Eventually, we will evolve to more civilized attitudes towards gun ownership and violence.

That is a promising trend, obviously not from the perspective of a constant, as it would take about another 100 years at that rate. But, things like this can spike and come to a head under the right circumstance (Berlin wall).

However at current, with terrorism and random acts of violence derived from inflated inaccurate statistics such as the reasoning behind this case, the gun corps still have plenty to play on. The real hurdle is accurate news reporting, the lack of rather. Even the BBC are at it and they use to be the definition of impartial.

 

[Fogdog]

That is a promising trend, obviously not from the perspective of a constant, as it would take about another 100 years at that rate. But, things like this can spike and come to a head under the right circumstance (Berlin wall).

However at current, with terrorism and random acts of violence derived from inflated inaccurate statistics such as the reasoning behind this case, the gun corps still have plenty to play on. The real hurdle is accurate news reporting, the lack of rather.

We will reach a tipping point where the super majority takes up the issue before too long. Not that I'm predicting there will be a movement to remove all guns from the public, just that laws will be put in place to reduce gun violence that apply to irresponsible gun owners. The remaining gun nuts will cry like bitches if that happens. I'd rather they be part of the solution but for now, they hold the advantage because even non-gun owning households still support the relatively lax gun laws in place.

 

[Flowki]

We will reach a tipping point where the super majority takes up the issue before too long. Not that I'm predicting there will be a movement to remove all guns from the public, just that laws will be put in place to reduce gun violence that apply to irresponsible gun owners. The remaining gun nuts will cry like bitches if that happens. I'd rather they be part of the solution but for now, they hold the advantage because even non-gun owning households still support the relatively lax gun laws in place.

That's all true but sometimes (and I use this strictly for the most extreme cases) a government needs to openly admit democratic debate over long ingrained social tradition/behavior is not the best answer for changing flawed beliefs. I suppose your statistics back that up and is somewhat depressing to think how many more deaths will continue over that slow down trend should it remain the solution. Enough people have been shot in America, including children where I think the avg American is too hardened to it. If you dropped the American gun laws and consequent crime on England in the morning, guns would be banned by night fall. It's really that bad from the outside looking in.

It's rare I would suggest democracy is not the answer but in this case, a dash of dictatorship is actually ''one'' better option. It would not surprise me if the American government do that in the next 5 years, set a date, give notice and then enforce the ban. But then again it's a truly unpredictable country that does defy most logic.

 

[Fogdog]

That's all true but sometimes (and I use this strictly for the most extreme cases) a government needs to openly admit democratic debate over long ingrained social tradition/behavior is not the best answer for changing flawed beliefs. I suppose your statistics back that up and is somewhat depressing to think how many more deaths will continue over that slow down trend should it remain the solution. Enough people have been shot in America, including children where I think the avg American is too hardened to it. If you dropped the American gun laws and consequent crime on England in the morning, guns would be banned by night fall. It's really that bad from the outside looking in.

It's rare I would suggest democracy is not the answer but in this case, a dash of dictatorship is actually the better option. It would not surprise me if the American government do that in the next 5 years, set a date, give notice and then enforce the ban.

We aren't going to do what you propose. The debate will rage on and eventually an honest attempt to solve the problem will take place. Right now nobody is credibly suggesting banning firearms from the general public. Not even a non gun owner who considers the current death toll unacceptable, like me.

 

[Flowki]

We aren't going to do what you propose. The debate will rage on and eventually an honest attempt to solve the problem will take place. Right now nobody is credibly suggesting banning firearms from the general public. Not even a non gun owner who considers the current death toll unacceptable, like me.

I understand that now. Before we started this talk I figured most people who intentionally didn't own a gun would be in favor of gun bans (derived from my spending a life time of having no fear of gun crime). As you've pointed out that does not seem to be the case and although we will agree to disagree I think the idea of having guns with ''more strict laws'' as the answer, is not enough. Even that could take who knows how long to achieve.

If a person loses their marbles in England they are most likely to use a knife or some form of bat as a weapon, if any. It's too up close and personal for them to do the kind of damage one could do with a ranged weapon. I've personally been stabbed multiple occasions and ofc survived, mostly down to the ability to fight back. You can not fight back when the guy is 6 foot away unloading into you.

I do get it that a gun can empower a person to defend in a situation he/she is out numbered or muscled. But that also empowers the flip side incapable lunatic who can now kill 5 people instead of one.

 

[Fogdog]

I understand that now. Before we started this talk I figured most people who intentionally didn't own a gun would be in favor of gun bans (derived from my spending a life time of having no fear of gun crime). As you've pointed out that does not seem to be the case and although we will agree to disagree I think the idea of having guns with ''more strict laws'' as the answer, is not enough. Even that could take who knows how long to achieve.

If a person loses their marbles in England they are most likely to use a knife or some form of bat as a weapon, if any. It's too up close and personal for them to do the kind of damage one could do with a ranged weapon. I've personally been stabbed multiple occasions and ofc survived, mostly down to the ability to fight back. You can not fight back when the guy is 6 foot away unloading into you.

I do get it that a gun can empower a person to defend in a situation he/she is out numbered or muscled. But that also empowers the flip side incapable lunatic who can now kill 5 people instead of one.

The legal principle of "no obligation to retreat" is about 200 years old in this country. We aren't going to change that concept and because of that we have become what some people describe as a "gunfighter nation". I'm not proclaiming this a some great concept, I'm just recognizing that this way of thinking is dominating the political landscape at this time. And so, outright bans as in England aren't going to happen here, probably ever.

That's not to say we can't reduce gun related deaths in this country, but we have to find a different way to do so. There are some good ideas being floated. But not the "semi automatic assault rifle ban" that failed before and will fail again if Hillary and Obama get their way. That proposal is just being put up right now because the legislation was already written and it makes easy political points.

Tightening laws that hold gun owners responsible for their weapons even if they are stolen is one avenue that would reduce the number of stolen guns in the hands of criminals. Guns can't be easily stolen if they are in a safe. At this time, about 30% of all hand guns are stored in a non-secure manner, either loaded or with the ammunition in the same location. Also, smart recognition systems that prevent anybody other than the owner from firing a firearm is another.

I'm not saying I have an answer, just that there can be creative ways to attack this problem without draconian laws that prevent the 99.9% of all gun owners who never give cause for concern from owning a gun.

 

[testiclees]

The legal principle of "no obligation to retreat" is about 200 years old in this country. We aren't going to change that concept and because of that we have become what some people describe as a "gunfighter nation". I'm not proclaiming this a some great concept, I'm just recognizing that this way of thinking is dominating the political landscape at this time. And so, outright bans as in England aren't going to happen here, probably ever.

That's not to say we can't reduce gun related deaths in this country, but we have to find a different way to do so. There are some good ideas being floated. But not the "semi automatic assault rifle ban" that failed before and will fail again if Hillary and Obama get their way. That proposal is just being put up right now because the legislation was already written and it makes easy political points.

Tightening laws that hold gun owners responsible for their weapons even if they are stolen is one avenue that would reduce the number of stolen guns in the hands of criminals. Guns can't be easily stolen if they are in a safe. At this time, about 30% of all hand guns are stored in a non-secure manner, either loaded or with the ammunition in the same location. Also, smart recognition systems that prevent anybody other than the owner from firing a firearm is another.

I'm not saying I have an answer, just that there can be creative ways to attack this problem without draconian laws that prevent the 99.9% of all gun owners who never give cause for concern from owning a gun.

I grew up around guns and enjoy hunting and sport shooting but I am very in favor of bans , extreme scrutiny and mandatory training. I think that dramatic change is very possible. I dont think that the next gen will be committed or beholden to the NRA or 5th grade interpretations of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Fogdog]

I grew up around guns and enjoy hunting and sport shooting but I am very in favor of bans , extreme scrutiny and mandatory training. I think that dramatic change is very possible. I dont think that the next gen will be committed or beholden to the NRA or 5th grade interpretations of the 2nd amendment.

I think this will be a hard fought topic in this country and I also think that change is not only inevitable but will happen sooner rather than later.

Sport shooting and hunting, I hope, will continue to be a recreational activity that goes on for the ages. The stuff I see advertised in "sporting goods stores" are not hunting gear, so the push back from the gun lobby to keep that stuff on store shelves is part of the reason we haven't seen progress yet. What I hope we manage to do is bring forth reasonable laws that address the availability of guns to be used in crimes, make mass murders hard to carry out, address issues of gun safety and storage in the home yet keep guns available to those with traditional sporting use.

 

[Flowki]

The legal principle of "no obligation to retreat" is about 200 years old in this country. We aren't going to change that concept and because of that we have become what some people describe as a "gunfighter nation". I'm not proclaiming this a some great concept, I'm just recognizing that this way of thinking is dominating the political landscape at this time. And so, outright bans as in England aren't going to happen here, probably ever.

That's not to say we can't reduce gun related deaths in this country, but we have to find a different way to do so. There are some good ideas being floated. But not the "semi automatic assault rifle ban" that failed before and will fail again if Hillary and Obama get their way. That proposal is just being put up right now because the legislation was already written and it makes easy political points.

Tightening laws that hold gun owners responsible for their weapons even if they are stolen is one avenue that would reduce the number of stolen guns in the hands of criminals. Guns can't be easily stolen if they are in a safe. At this time, about 30% of all hand guns are stored in a non-secure manner, either loaded or with the ammunition in the same location. Also, smart recognition systems that prevent anybody other than the owner from firing a firearm is another.

I'm not saying I have an answer, just that there can be creative ways to attack this problem without draconian laws that prevent the 99.9% of all gun owners who never give cause for concern from owning a gun.

The remaining risk is a once trusted person pushed over the edge, none of the proposed or current gun laws can stop him/her. How would you stop that person?. Personally I feel it's an all or nothing deal. I would not like to live in a country where select common civilians can posses guns, meaning if somebody flips I am defenseless should I not be eligible or to afford one.

However the hunting side of things rings a few bells for England. In country side areas the upper class (mostly) do hunt but with very strict procedures. Something like that could be pulled off in America but the mentality of the two country's is worlds apart it seems, as you don't hear of many farmers on a multi kill streak. Probably should not be joking about this ;p.

 

[bluntmassa1]

Greatest how? For who?

It is better than Europe but not much. Although you are probably less likely to end up in prison in Europe our cops are way worse. But war NATO is in on all that bullshit and corporations fuck the Europeans too. So only thing worse about America is cops.

 

[OddBall1st]

I grew up around guns and enjoy hunting and sport shooting but I am very in favor of bans , extreme scrutiny and mandatory training. I think that dramatic change is very possible. I dont think that the next gen will be committed or beholden to the NRA or 5th grade interpretations of the 2nd amendment.

Wow, I agree with this guy. When it comes to guns, there will be a lot of.... "you betters"....if "you`re gonna"

Should have been done a long time ago.

 

[bluntmassa1]

That's because we need the military and police to preserve our liberty and maintain order. Ever see the movie Mad Max?

Really?? Mad Max? That movie is a joke.

It would be more like Gangs Of New York even though most of the people lived free and peaceful.

 

[Fogdog]

The remaining risk is a once trusted person pushed over the edge, none of the proposed or current gun laws can stop him/her. How would you stop that person?. Personally I feel it's an all or nothing deal. I would not like to live in a country where select common civilians can posses guns, meaning if somebody flips I am defenseless should I not be eligible or to afford one.

However the hunting side of things rings a few bells for England. In country side areas the upper class (mostly) do hunt but with very strict procedures. Something like that could be pulled off in America but the mentality of the two country's is worlds apart it seems, as you don't hear of many farmers on a multi kill streak. Probably should not be joking about this ;p.

Most firearm related deaths are not due to mass murderers or disturbed people. It's usually related to criminal activity, suicide, domestic violence, or accidental shootings. Proportional to population, the US has 45 times the number of these kinds of deaths compared to the UK. Mass shootings or a disturbed person shooter are much less common. The Pareto principle where 80% of the problems are due to a few causes holds here. This is why the semi automatic rifle ban is not effective at denting the rate US gun deaths. It addresses the headline grabbing episodes but not gun deaths that are related to majority of the issues.

We already have laws in place that can be used to screen people but the screenings are woefully underfunded, and constrained to be completed in three days, these constraints were deliberately set in place to defeat screening procedures by the GOP congress.

I'm sure it all sounds crazy to somebody living in a practically gun free society. We've allowed this to get out of hand and as Testicles says, it won't be long before we reach a tipping point where actions are taken to reduce the violence. If the gun lobby and owners take this issue on as their own to solve, we can reach the goal of parity with other developed western nations sooner and probably with more rational laws but they are fighting any attempts to bring the death toll down, tooth and nail.

Hunting in England or in most places in Europe looks nothing at all like the in the US. My father in law went hunting with his German father-in- law a while ago. He said it wasn't anything at all like what he did growing up in remote Alaska where the hunt was more for food than a sport. The dress, environment, attitude, and the whole ritual were much more gentrified than a back country Alaska boy was used to. We've had a few good laughs over the difference. Whiskey was involved in those discussions. I say this to give you an appreciation for why our attitudes regarding firearms is different from yours. Common people have hunted in the US for food for generations. It has only been recently that the number of hunters have decreased.

Before we started this talk I figured most people who intentionally didn't own a gun would be in favor of gun bans (derived from my spending a life time of having no fear of gun crime). .

I don't life in fear of guns or gun violence. I don't own a gun because I don't hunt and am convinced that owning a gun "for protection" makes the average gun owner less safe. Except for very high crime areas, a person has many other potential risks confronting them before anything related to a firearm. Simply driving a car puts a person at higher risk and very few would say they live in fear of that.

 

[Chunky Stool]

Really?? Mad Max? That movie is a joke.

It would be more like Gangs Of New York even though most of the people lived free and peaceful.

So if we got rid of the military & police, we would live free & peaceful??? What planet are you from?

 

[bluntmassa1]

So if we got rid of the military & police, we would live free & peaceful??? What planet are you from?

We can keep the military at home and reduce spending like a bastard and not keep so many full time soldiers. Russia won't attack us if so they certainly won't win. And we don't need that many police just legalize drugs and let the people be free. Then people will like police because they would only go after bad people. The government won't need half the tax money and we can have free health care for all. Possibly even free electricity for all Tesla seemed to think it was possible but the government has a bunch of his work classified.

We can cut the government down to 1/16th of the size and live much better than any other nation. But we won't live better with militarized police and endless wars.