> http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-shoots-firefighters-kills-trap-webster-ny-blaze/story?id=18055594 > > 2 firemen killed, 2 more injured after going out to do their job. They were killed by > a convicted criminal who set up a sniping position nearby after setting the fire. > Even though he wasn't allowed to have the gun, we all know there's no practical > difficulty in getting one, in a country where guns outnumber people. > > Eventually 7 houses were destroyed because the firemen were kept away by the lunatic. > > I await the usual madman response from the NRA. I suppose that firemen should all > carry guns while trying to put out fires, and do their duties from within a tank.
The NRA has NEVER said anything remotely like that. Any statement they might make would reference whatever the source of the weapon was. Unsecured weapons in a home, lax enforcement of laws, etc.
> This gun madness has gone on for far too long.
Well then stop being insane. Go get counseling to deal with your hoplophobia.
> > I await the usual madman response from the NRA. I suppose that firemen should all > > carry guns while trying to put out fires, and do their duties from within a tank. > > The NRA has NEVER said anything remotely like that. Any statement they might make > would reference whatever the source of the weapon was. Unsecured weapons in a home, > lax enforcement of laws, etc.
Oh come on. When has the NRA ever said anything other than "more guns would have prevented this"? That's their standard line.
> > > I await the usual madman response from the NRA. I suppose that firemen should all > > > carry guns while trying to put out fires, and do their duties from within a tank. > > > > The NRA has NEVER said anything remotely like that. Any statement they might make > > would reference whatever the source of the weapon was. Unsecured weapons in a home, > > lax enforcement of laws, etc. > > Oh come on. When has the NRA ever said anything other than "more guns would have > prevented this"? That's their standard line.
When? Always. Enforce the laws that exist, rather than creating these situations so you can take away more guns.
Where did the gun(s) come from? He didn't buy it legally. It was stolen from a place that was not sufficiently secure, or sold by someone who either didn't run proper checks or ran those checks through a government agent/agency that didn't actually perform them the way they are required to, or acquired by some other means that shouldn't have existed.
Securing firearms with a safe that actually works for the purpose, rather than, say, a glass-fronted wooden case with a lock, would be an obvious move for anyone who had had training that isn't required or even offered by most states. The NRA offers that training, by the way.
New York apparently has laws that allow violent murderers to get out of prison, where "life" is only 17 years. That's the first place they failed, and they haven't gotten any other information to show what else went wrong.
Nor is that what he said. His line was attempting to blame the victims, where blame is properly laid at the feet of the system that makes every effort to turn more people into potential victims with every passing day. Besides, the concept of bringing a gun into a fire is ludicrous, and such a statement is akin to blaming the six-year-olds shot in a structure where the government has banned possession of firearms.
> > Well then stop being insane. Go get counseling to deal with your hoplophobia. > > Pretty hard to get treatment for a "condition" invented by a writer.
You think "irrational fear of" a thing doesn't exist? For every thing that exists, there is someone who loves it, hates it, or fears it. The only thing "invented" was the NAME of the condition. Words don't exist until someone creates them, and then the word exists. That's separate from the condition, which clearly does exist, in an era when people freak out if they see even a picture of a gun. If you've seen another name for that phobia, it was also invented by someone.
eta: just my opinion, but why isn't stuff like this in the War Room? It is a type of debate. It falls into beliefs (as in what rights we have) and politics (what should or shouldn't be done).
> Securing firearms with a safe that actually works for the purpose, rather than, say, > a glass-fronted wooden case with a lock, would be an obvious move for anyone who had > had training that isn't required or even offered by most states. The NRA offers that > training, by the way.
Most safes are rated in hours of attack. A determined person with time on his hands can get into Fort Knox.
People think of security as something that others will not try to work around. For example encryption. http://xkcd.com/538/
What would stop someone from bashing on someones toes with a hammer until they gave up the keys or combo?
There is no such thing as a 'safe gun'. Bottom line is we are allowed to have guns. Now it is just a matter of how well trained do we want everyone.
> > Oh come on. When has the NRA ever said anything other than "more guns would have > > prevented this"? That's their standard line. > > When? Always. Enforce the laws that exist, rather than creating these situations so > you can take away more guns.
Their responses to the school shooting and the cinema shooting were that more guns would've prevented it. If you can't see that you're in denial
> Securing firearms with a safe that actually works for the purpose, rather than, say, > a glass-fronted wooden case with a lock, would be an obvious move for anyone who had > had training that isn't required or even offered by most states. The NRA offers that > training, by the way.
A gun safe isn't very effective against a determined thief. Most safes aren't very effective against simple power tools. Even safes that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars won't keep someone out for very long - it's just to give you time to notice and get security in to apprehend them.
> Nor is that what he said. His line was attempting to blame the victims, where blame > is properly laid at the feet of the system that makes every effort to turn more > people into potential victims with every passing day. Besides, the concept of > bringing a gun into a fire is ludicrous, and such a statement is akin to blaming the > six-year-olds shot in a structure where the government has banned possession of > firearms.
Columbine had armed security guards on premises, but that didn't help. The kids stole grandpa's guns by cutting his gun safe open with power tools.
The more guns there are in the community, the more chance there is that violent people will get their hands on them. If you don't want to restrict the number of guns, you need to accept that regular shootings are the price you have to pay for your "liberty". Eighty people are shot to death every day in the US. That's what you'll have to live with.
I agree with a number of his points. In particular, gun-free zones in a country full of guns are completely pointless. But he's another person claiming the gun law reforms in Australia did no good. Your own NIH disagrees, and has statistics to back it up: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/
Quote: The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and ongoing decline in mass shootings and accelerating declines in total firearm‐related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.
The figures speak for themselves.
Do not believe anything the NRA says, as they only act in a way to increase their membership. They lie and manipulate in order to mislead the sheeples.
> The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from > a community can be associated with a sudden and ongoing decline in mass shootings and > accelerating declines in total firearm‐related deaths, firearm homicides and > firearm suicides. > > The figures speak for themselves. > > Do not believe anything the NRA says, as they only act in a way to increase their > membership. They lie and manipulate in order to mislead the sheeples.
Brrr. Feeling a bit shilly in here.
Forget the NRA. This is about the 2nd Amendment. Granted, the language of it states that we should be granted the right to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government, but everyone should have the right to defend themselves, their family, and their property from ANYONE.
> http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847 > > While a gun ban may decrease gun related crimes, other types of crimes can increase > since victims don't have a way to defend themselves. > > I realize "guns" aren't the only option for self defense, but there are times when > lethal force is required to protect yourself or someone else.
That's bullshit. Sexual assault covers far more than just rape. WIlfully exposing yourself to someone who doesn't want to see can count as sexual assault, as well as hundreds of other things. Claiming "Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women" by treating sexual assault in Australia as equivalent to rape in US shows that they're willing to play fast and loose with data to get soundbites that support the conclusion they want. (Besides which, the increase in sexual assault charges in recent years here can be largely attributed to broader legal definitions of sexual assault being introduced, and better victim support leading to a higher proportion of offences being reported.)
edit: According to Wikipedia, the NCPA is an "American conservative think tank whose goals are to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control" - hardly the kind of group you could expect to be unbiased.
edit again: Even if violent crime has increased here we still have a far lower murder rate than the US - you have over four times the murder rate per capita. If guns are readily available, it's easy for someone to snap and kill someone. No amount of training will prevent that. If someone snaps, by definition they are not acting rationally. It's also easier for mentally unstable people to get guns, and if they're determined, they will get them.
> Well, being a citizen of a safer country, I had to read up on what the 2nd amendment > is. >
When you say "Safer Country" would that happen to be one of those countries where if a hoodlum should attack you - you would be arrested for trying to protect yourself? Not saying you'd use a weapon, but maybe just fighting back.
I'm not saying that to make fun, I'm serious, because that's what I've heard about some places. And I think Britain is one of them.
> Seems it is the 2nd of 10 amendments comprising a bill of rights. They were drafted > at a time before an organised police force or army existed, when the only defence was > your own (the wild west). Of course times have changed, and logically it is no longer > needed. Note that it is an amendment to the constitution, so obviously not important > enough to be included originally. > > The reasons then, were > * deterring tyrannical government; (how far do you think that would get you?)
> * repelling invasion; (who would invade America?) > * suppressing insurrection; (the established armed forces can handle that)
If you think about it - there's a bit of a gray area here. Who would be doing the act of 'insurrection'? A group of people against another? Or people against a government or oppressive, ruling body? [/rhetorical question]
> * facilitating a natural right of self-defense; (no longer relevant - call the > police)
If a person which has a licensed, open or concealed gun is at or near the scene of a crime - they can act within seconds as opposed to the police who could take minutes... let's say, on average, 10 minutes to get to the scene of a crime. How many people can a gun toting maniac take out in that 10 minutes it took the police to get there? Now explain to the families of the dead people why the 2nd Amendment isn't relevant.
> > > > Forget the NRA. This is about the 2nd Amendment. Granted, the language of it states > > that we should be granted the right to defend ourselves from a tyrannical > government, > > but everyone should have the right to defend themselves, their family, and their > > property from ANYONE. > > Well, being a citizen of a safer country, I had to read up on what the 2nd amendment > is. > > ...obviously not important enough to be included originally.
Important enough that it had to exist BEFORE the original document was ratified by two of the 13 states.
> The reasons then, were > * deterring tyrannical government; (how far do you think that would get you?) > * repelling invasion; (who would invade America?) > * suppressing insurrection; (the established armed forces can handle that) > * facilitating a natural right of self-defense; (no longer relevant - call the > police) > * participating in law enforcement; (I doubt the police would want you) > * enabling the people to organize a militia system. (you would be arrested)
Wow. You don't need the ability to fight the government, because the government will fight you for you. You think several of the reasons that are "being separate and/or safe from the government" aren't needed because the government exists. Also, you think the police can actually respond to emergency calls in time to protect people. They are only required to show up afterward, and maybe conduct an investigation.
Last year (2011 for the time travelers), NYPD took, on average, 8.4 minutes to respond to a crime "in progress." NYC is one of those places where you have no option other than that call. You can only get a gun if you're "important" enough.
> As I understand it, it would take a majority of voters in a majority of states to get > rid of it. However, while voters are happy for the underhanded removal of rights, > they would not stir themselves to make themselves safer. Doing nothing is easiest. > Such is the life of sheeples. > > So, the 'right' to 'bear arms' will not be going away anytime soon. Requiring > training or a licence or a safe only affects those unlikely to shoot someone.
You have a narrow definition of "affect." Training "affects" the guy who picks a target that knows what he's doing. More training means that happens more. Training "affects" the guy that gives up and looks for another source of income because there aren't enough untrained targets. Training "affects" people who haven't got a clue what they're talking about when they say stupid things about how evil, bad, and scary guns are. Maybe it could even affect people who think there's some actual functional difference between guns depending on the color or the shape of the stock.
Licenses are required in most states, because they get money from them. They're nowhere near as important. Some states do quite well without them.
> Basically, anyone can get a lethal weapon at any place at any time, and store it > however they like.
They're called knives and bats, yeah. I can get them at Walmart. Guess what I can't get there.
> Some states allow the carrying of concealed weapons which are > loaded ready to kill.
Those are the safer states. The majority of the gun crimes happen outside them.
> The place is a quagmire. Over 9000 gun-related deaths in a year. The UK had 15.
Irrelevant statistics. Break it down. Who was killed by whom, when, where, why. "9000 deaths" includes those shot by police, shot by people defending themselves or their homes, shot by themselves, and even not shot, but dead in the vicinity of a gun. 15 deaths in the UK? 2003:
Quote: Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.
It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.
The rise wasn't entirely real, though. It was aided by "new procedures". Which means actually keeping records. And again, that was 2003. 2009 has that number down... by about 100. So that's 9,000+ times a gun was used without a death in the UK. But they haven't got a problem, because they're so damned cowed by the criminals that they hand everything over if they just see a gun. When someone there tries to defend themselves, THEY get arrested. (now I'll search for an example... Here's the top one at Google. He used a knife to defend himself. Took them a month to decide not to charge him with murder. That's not one of the "15" in the UK, but it would part of the "9000" in the US.)
Guns in civilian hands STOP* over 2.5 million crimes* in the US every year. An obviously small fraction of those include some of those "9000 gun-related deaths."
This is when people are getting tired of running and hiding. Be a wake up call when they running toward to the killer with a gun. I promise it will happen. Don't even need a fucking police too. If there anything to pick up and throw then do it. If there a lady bag with junk in it then throw at the killer face as hard as you can. Got him to nowhere to run then throw his ass into glass window. Killer just a pussy with a gun with 2 to 6 rounds. Stump his ass hard.
According to the CDC, there were 16,799 homicides in the US in 2009 and firearms were used in 11,493 of them. There were also 18,735 suicides by firearm, so we're more likely to kill ourselves with our guns than we are to be intentionally killed by someone else by any method. In fact, there were 31,758 accidental poisoning deaths, so we're nearly 3 times more likely to accidentally poison ourselves than we are to be intentionally killed by someone else's gun. Of course, those numbers pale in comparison to the overall number of deaths, many of which can be linked to lifestyle, like being overweight/obese/morbidly obese/John Candy and sedentary. Basically, if there were no madmen with guns, we'd find some other preventable way to die. We're a very resourceful people.
Wound up, can't sleep, can't do anything right, little honey / Oh, since I set my eyes on you. / I tell you the truth. I can't get it right / Get it right / Since I met you...
What this fucking idiot doesn't TELL you is that that date isn't the date it was "published to GOOGLE" (there's no such thing) but the date Google THINKS that page was most recently updated / discovered - and it is VERY FREQUENTLY wrong, take it from me. And there's a MILLION things that website admins can do by accident to make Google think that.
I only made it through the first 10 seconds of his video before I saw what was coming...
> > Liken to WTC7. > > What this fucking idiot doesn't TELL you is that that date isn't the date it was > "published to GOOGLE" (there's no such thing) but the date Google THINKS that page > was most recently updated / discovered - and it is VERY FREQUENTLY wrong, take it > from me. And there's a MILLION things that website admins can do by accident to make > Google think that. > > I only made it through the first 10 seconds of his video before I saw what was > coming...
Here's some discussion on this very thing in 2010 that basically says that what Google thinks of as your thread start date, or your page creation date, or something may be something else entirely.
Index 
Threaded 
Firemen shot dead in another gun crime
Reply
[Re: 
