It just goes to show you. You can't stop it. More guns, less guns. Nobody has the right answer.

This is only the 2nd mass shooting since 1950 where guns were allowed. Ft. Hood was a no gun zone where the man opened fire. He knew they'd be unarmed. The Gabby Giffords shooting was the only one where guns were not prohibited in the area of the shooting. And this, if I'm not mistaken, is not a "mass shooting' because not enough people were shot. EVEN IF it does qualify statistically, it will be only the 2nd to lay claim to a place where guns were allowed and yet a mass shooting occured. That's 2 ever, out of on average 20 a year (and that's our new very low average...they used to happen at a lot more than that, and in fact peaked in the late 1920s).

So no, not "so much for more guns". The overall statistic still stands until hundreds more mass shootings happen in gun allowable zones and hundreds of them don't happen in gun-free zones. That isn't likely to happen. Clearly, to anyone with an actual open mind, criminals tend to pick targets that are "soft"...where no guns to stop them will likely be present.

And stats still show that in areas of the country (and world, actually) where gun ownership is highest and prohibitions to carry guns are lowest you have the lowest crime rates, violent crime rates, murder rates, and gun murder rates. Obama's own school (Harvard Law and Public Policy) put out a study showing there is NO correlation between nations with high gun ownership rates and nations with high murder and suicide rates. In fact, the corollary is negative.

But feel free to cherry pick the stats to make a political point instead of looking at all the facts in perspective and seeing "less guns does NOT equal less crime". It doesn't even equal less murder or violent crime!

There are at least 14 other studies I'm aware of that show this negative corollary (none are NRA or GOA affiliated, BTW). The same number of studies show even privately owned guns save more lives than they take. But we can't have guns being a net gain to life come into the debate...oh no, that might desttroy every silly gun control fear tactic argument ever.

Thanks Hal. . .but I still wish you would have opened the pod bay doors.

These video games have to stop..

You mean the same video games that in studies have been shown to actually correlate with LOWER murder rates and lower violent crime rates?

How could it be that giving hormonal young men who have violent tendancies a harmless outlet for that natural violent impulse, and keeps them indoors and not in the street hurting people, could possibly be correlated to lower murder and violent crime rates? They logic and rational thought that requires just goes above my head.

Did you notice the sarcasm in the paragraph? I noticed yours.

TFNJ

<sarcasm>

These video games have to stop..

I know, video games inspired violence is destroying Japan...</sarcasm>

The London police are not armed and they have very few gun related deaths.

Guess you didn't notice when i said :

But feel free to cherry pick the stats to make a political point instead of looking at all the facts in perspective and seeing "less guns does NOT equal less crime". It doesn't even equal less murder or violent crime!

Or maybe you didn't notice the sarcasm when I said it...

Good one Hal.

If you want our rate of murder to decrease via guns you don't take away guns, you end the Drug War (it is responsible for 40-70% of gun murders in the USA annually, and the same abroad). If you have any doubts about this go look at the murder rates after alcohol Prohibition began, and then after it ended. Also look at countries that have already ended their Drug Wars.

Crime rates in Prohibition rose immediately 78%, 24% in just one year from 1920-1921 (the first year)

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/...Crime_Rate.htm

The murder rate was cut in nearly half (40% decline), from 10 per 100,000 to 6 per 100,000 when Prohibition ended. This was directly caused by the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.

http://www.cato.org/publications/pol...on-was-failure

If we want to half our gun murders, legalize drugs. If you want to further bring it down address the next major cause; domestic violence. Spanking children leads to many issues surrounding violence, but especially domestic violence. If domestic violence is how you raise children, then expect them to use it themselves as adults. A small number of those people will kill a domestic relative or partner. The gun simply facilitates it.

The final point I'll make is that if only .026% of gun owners murder someone with a gun, then 99.974% of gun owners don't kill someone with a gun. It's hard to argue we need to punish the 99.974% for what the .026% do. That kind of illogic is used in schools to punish classrooms full of kids for what one anonymous child has done...and it leads to bullying, because children then ostracize their peers who are guilty (and they don't know how to ostracize responsibly, so it ends up in bullying). We should use a more logical approach on adults. In a nation of 315 million people, with a Drug War raging and domestic violence against kids being the norm, a 99.974% responsible gun owner rate is unbelievably good. Perspective, instead of irrational fear and knee-jerk reaction, is what helps here.

A study done by the Harvard Jounal of Law and Public Policy reports some interesting statistics.

The study, which appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

right... Prohibition stats. No tommy guns !

If America is really interested in stopping this madnessbegin inviting God back into our government, schools and universes.

As much as I appreciate your fairytales and stuff, I'd sooner trust the actual facts and studies done on the subject as to the causes of murder rates and violent crime rates. I'd say less drug war and less prayer will still equal lower murder rates and violent crime rates. More prayer and still the same drug war will not significantly descrease murder and violent crime rates.

Oh, and sin doesn't cause disease...it's these things called germs. You can't see them, but they are real, and unlike the existence of any religious Deity, any great significance of the usefullness of prayer, the existence of real miracles, etc., etc., you can see them under a microscope and prove they exist.

BTW, I'm not an atheist...but can we use the logic and reason the Creator gave us to solve these problems, and rely less on mythology, please?

for the first time i have to acknowledge that someone who believes in GOD has their own thoughts...i am glad to see someone having their belief but able to keep things in perspective... good luck in your life .... you seem to have a good head on your shoulders ...and i would like to thank all in your upbringing ...

So God will come in to the schools and stop a mass shooter?? Now that is one thing I will have to see to believe!!!

Some people are really delusional when it comes to reality. I suppose these people who truly believe God can stop anything bad then they must never have committed a sin in their entire lives!?!?!?! God stopped them before they could do anything wrong, right?!?! Now that is delusional!!

ProIndividual-3906907 you are really wrong for trying to use logic, statistics and reason to state your point of view. Anti-gun population acts on emotion instead of hard facts. Most of them jump on the bandwagon and support whatever point of view everyone around them supports without doing their own research. They are too weak to think for themselves. So if you want to argue on this forum you gotta fight on their turf (so to speak). Use emotions instead of facts and you will win. =) And you did make some really good points by the way. Too bad that those who need to know that kind of information will just ignore it...

:) Story updated while typing.

@ ProIndividual-3906907--- I grew up being spanked and I haven't gone out and killed any relatives or anyone else. Fact is if you kill someone,it's because of 1of 2 reasons. You have an anger problem and you have no control over it or there is something mentally wrong with you. Any normal sane person doesn't just grab a gun and start shooting people. Unfortunately the more the population raises,the more angry and insane people we have. Not to mention the way the media is today and the ease of getting information out,just about all shootings will be reported now making it seem like more than say 30 years ago.

ProIndividual - your post is thoughtful and on subject, which is rare. I do, however, take issue with some of the facts you cite:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

Sweden does have a higher murder rate per capita than does Norway, but there are few material differences in their gun laws, and in fact, Swedish law does not technically forbid ownership of fully automatic weapons.

Both countries have relatively high levels of gun ownership. Both tightly restrict the carrying of loaded weapons on one's person.

Other factors could conceivably cause Norway to have a lower murder rate. One is its relatively lower population density (35 per sq. mile vs 53 per sq. mile) and the degree of urbanization. Oslo, Norway's largest city has approximately 600,000 inhabitants. Stockholm, Sweden's largest city is more than 3 times as populous.

Holland, which you cite as a country with "nearly the worst" rate is not even an independent nation, but a region of the Netherlands, which despite its far greater population density (1,049.5/sq mi), has a murder rate of 1.1 per hundred thousand citizens.

Denmark another nation you cite as having a "high murder rate", has a homicide rate of .9 per hundred thousand people.

Germany, which you do not cite, has had stringent gun control laws for decades. It's murder rate is .8 per hundred thousand.

Norway, by comparison, has a murder rate of .6.

With regard to your main premise, that simply repealing all drug laws will greatly decrease the murder rate, I would advise caution. Whereas the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s was an attempt to change human behavior patterns established thousands of years in the past, the prohibition of certain drugs is an attempt to prevent the spread of such behavior. It remains to be seen to what degree drug use would escalate in the absence of all prohibiting laws, and to what extent this would impact human society.

In that context, the only nation I can call to mind which has largely repealed its drug laws, the Netherlands, encompasses Holland

A more challenging question relating to this, most recent, shooting event, is whether these types of tragedies are occurring more frequently over the last several months, and if so why?

After all, neither gun laws, nor the number of guns in our society are changing in any dramatic fashion. So one has to ask, what is changing?

pavel

you are really wrong for trying to use logic, statistics and reason to state your point of view. Anti-gun population acts on emotion instead of hard facts.

What facts?

Like this one? "Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not."

bull@!$%#!

Murder rate in US 15.4%, in Europe 3.5%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

I guess most of you only glanced over the article.

The shooter did not have a gun legally or illegally, prior to going to the police station, He grabbed a police officer's gun and started shooting.

So in short this story has nothing to do with private gun ownership or the NRA. The NRA has nothing to do with police guns. It has everything to do with a violent person grabbing an Officer's weapon and injuring people prior to being killed by police.

I think the point about God is being missed. It is about moral/virtuous teachings and living. I don't recall the founding father who said it but basically a Republic is only as good as the virtue of the people in it. The entire bible\christian concept can be boiled down to two "commandments", Love the Lord thy god with all thy heart" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Any biblical principle can find a home under one of those two principles. When we decided to remove the 10 commandments from public view in the name of church separation, we removed half that do not have anything to do with a relationship with God but rather a relationship with our fellow man. That was a big social failure.

KDF
Thank you!
Yours was the first post that looked like it actually read the story! Here I thought the forum was full of bickering for bickering's sake.

Flnobody... I would probably be banned from the forums if I typed what I'd like about how bad your post is. I mean really... just... I'm impressed you can even type. The murder rate you're quoting for the US is for "the Americas" which if you look at the map present includes Mexico and South America too- areas which have a drastically higher murder rate than the US. If you actually look down at the US statistic you'll see 4.2 murders per 100000 people. The world average is 6.9 per 100000.
You know the funny thing about Mexico, it has a huge war going on with drug cartels supplying illegal substances to the US... it also has laws saying citizens can't own guns. I think you just proved proindividual right.

@Hal

No, you idiot. The point of arming people is not to PREVENT tragedy, only a fool who's head in the clouds think that's possible, the point is to MINIMIZE the injuries and loss of life due to tragedies. So.. two cops received minor injuries while other's being patched up. Did a slew of helpless people get gunned down one after another here? No. The guy was shot up and stopped short before he could do any more damage. And THAT is why more people need to be armed. Anyone who thinks these situations can be prevented altogether is living a pipe-dream.

a lapse of security protocol, around persons being detained, you must always be on alert, it can happen in a second; many booking areas, require officers to lock their piece in a outside lock box, do to the violent nature in a booking area; hope the officer comes out O.K. , police work is a dangerous profession, no matter how well trained you are, a moment lapse can be tragic.

Let's see. . . there is this progun segment that wants to get rid of the First Amendment--force Christianity on people especially in the schools(establishment clause), control speech (video games)--often the same people who express irritation over due process (5th and 6th Amendments) for someone accused of a crime. Often the same people who think the Second Amendment calls for armed populace so the Constitutionally-established government can be overthrown by means of force (the Civil War established that the people and their militias do not have the right to overthrown the federal government even in their own states) are saying said government should post its armed agents in every school, church, and shopping mall (approaching elimination of the 3rd amendment). I get it, let's just replace the ENTIRE Constitution with the 2nd amendment and leave it at that. Heck, why have a Constitution at all? A fully armed public can duke it out and establish warlord regions to enforce order as local warlords see fit, seeing as how they figure the government for pretty much useless anyway.

All of those good guys with guns, and one bad guy w/o a gun who then takes a gun from a good guy and does bad things. Pretty much sums it up for me.

Guns are used to bad things. Guns don't prevent bad things, while they do end them; two wrongs don't make a right.

Who is to blame here the shooter or the officer who supplied him with the gun? How about both?

"The man was able to grab a gun and then opened fire."

Zero guns on the street would not have prevented this - for all you social engineers.

It would be interesting to see the stats on law enforcement officers who are careless with their guns or who succomb to personal problems and commit gun homicides. This this week we have a local cop who got drunk, was shooting his weapon and threatening suicide. Nobody got hurt (and he has been arrested on gun charges). In recent years we had a deputy whose gun went off in a courthouse bathroom. We had a detective who left his patrol car unlocked, resulting in the theft of body armor, handcuffs, and ammo clips. We had a cop who flipped out and shot his wife. Out east we had a military vet ambush his cop wife and leave her dead body riddled with bullets. Elsewhere, we've had cops leave their guns where their toddler children find them and end up dead.

We had NYC cops hit and wound 9 bystanders in the face of a guy who shot his boss, yet we think a school principal is going to be able to take out a gunman like a TV SWAT team sniper in a school full of little kids and mostly women who signed up to teach first grade, not learn SWAT tactics.

I don't know how much increased gun control would change our world; I believe the SCOTUS spin on personal protection (as opposed to the security of a free state) is not even what the Second Amendment says (nor, I think, is it talking about overthrowing tyranny, given that it lays out rules for a government that is NOT a tyranny) but I am pretty sure that the NRA version of what should be done would not make for a better world.

Note to the above--after 9/11 Congress authorized all law enforcement officers concealed carry rights when off duty. Wonder, but do not know, what kinds of stats have been affected by that--in terms of accidental and intentional shootings of innocent people, loss or theft of weapons, etc.

Bad guys will always find ways to do bad things.

Sandy Hook - the shooter didn't own the guns, but knew where they were located and killed the own to get them. The police has never stated if these guns were laying out in the open or if there was a gun safe in the house (atleast not that I have seen). So why is everyone in favor of publishing "where gun owner's live?" Gun owners don't stay at home 24/7 and any gun safe can be broken into - if you have enough time. Your just making it easier for the criminals to find guns that they can't obtain legally. And then you'll blame the gun owner if their guns are stolen, but you'll won't except any blame because you wanted the location of those guns released.

But it you believe you have a right to know who is and isn't armed, I believe I have the right to know who is and isn't being treated for mental depression, in case they decide to go "postal".

If you want to go through life being the potential victim, that's fine..... but that doesn't mean I have too.

Anyway, the Police Station shooter arrived UNARMED, but was able to take an officer's gun away and shoot three cops. It means the officers got lazy in their procedures and didn't follow their own SOP for handling suspects.

Banning guns won't work.... just like banning drugs didn't work. "The war on drugs" which has been on going for forty years and cost over ONE and a half TRILLION DOLLARS. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/10/chart-says-war-drugs-isnt-working/57913/ Banning guns will only drive them underground, where none of them will be tracked or controlled.

if these cops couldn't search and contain a subject, and had their firearms on them while booking someone in.... its on them.... thats incompetence

there are 310 million guns in this country.... gun control will not work.... it will just kill off another industry..

you know what else it will do?

right now Hillary is the surest slam dunk in election history to become president in 2016... if Obama bans guns.... in one stroke he reunifies the GOP and puts a Dem presidency on the line....

a ban won't happen.... mark it down.....

Can we say IMPROPER POLICE PROCEDURES..

When a subject is being booked or interrogated the officer doing so is to be unarmed at the point of removing the handcuffs.. There is also to be 1 other officer monitoring the unhandcuffed subject with 2 preferred, 1 in the room unarmed [tazer permitted] and the other outside the room is permitted to have his weapon..

The second you slack could be your last.. Knives and guns missed in sloppy searches used to be a big problem.. Relying on metal scanners is also causing lax behavior.. Surprise a ceramic knife or a polymer gun..

Beyond this we have so many laws and law suits that favor criminals over those who protect and serve causing kid glove handling of a$$holes like this..

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is to have an entire police station of good guys with guns!

...However, the good guys should still expect to have heavy losses.

</sarcasm>

PS: Also, lots of good points made by ProIndividual-3906907.

KDFman

I guess most of you only glanced over the article.

The shooter did not have a gun legally or illegally, prior to going to the police station, He grabbed a police officer's gun and started shooting.

So in short this story has nothing to do with private gun ownership or the NRA. The NRA has nothing to do with police guns. It has everything to do with a violent person grabbing an Officer's weapon and injuring people prior to being killed by police.

-----------------------------------

I think many people got that part of the story and it is relevant in this way: NRA and gun supporters have always used the mantra that more guns will save lives. If a cop had his gun grabbed by a bad guy, a gun carrying citizen on the street can also have his gun taken by a bad guy. In this, having more people armed increases the pool of weapons and the opportunity for criminals to get a hold of them.

This story proves that there is a hole in the logic that arming everyone is the answer to disarming the bad guys. The more guns, the more opportunity for a bad guy to obtain one.

I don't think anyone is under the delusion that all guns are going to go away or people are going to lose their right to carry but lets not also be under the delusion that guns are the only or even the best answer to self defense.

There are some truly scary defensive weapons that will be widely available in the next few years. Those who support the current weapons such as guns will find that their same ideals of right to carry will translate to these new weapons. Let me tell you now, that is the point that they will realize they where wrong. There is some truly scary stuff coming. Guns will be outmoded this century, but their legacy will lead to some truly scary times ahead.

What we need is not just control of weapons, but control of ourselves. Failing that, I would not like to guess at our future.

One more criminal we the taxpayers don't have to provide for.

there are 310 million guns in this country.... gun control will not work.... it will just kill off another industry..

I believe it has already send that industry to Mexico, the land where "no guns" are allowed, yet is the hottest market for guns on the continent.

The cartels have seen the light... Americans have pushed for legalizing pot and with some states defying federal law and doing so, and with the president saying that other things have higher priority than going after smokers, they have set up assembly plants to manufacture guns for sale on the black market here in the US.

Hysterics such as listing everyone in the newspapers who own a gun, tighter gun laws (that only work on citizens who follow already existing laws), will lead to even legal gun owners buying them under the table in the future. Cartels, losing revenue on pot, will need a new cash cow, and we have handed them their new revenue source, albeit an even deadlier and more productive one.

Guns are not that hard to make, you cannot keep them out of the hands of people who want them. You can site statistics from other countries all you want, but you keep forgetting the essential, one thing that we have that other countries don't... AMERICANS. And we have had our guns for as long as we have had our country. You say we have a love affair with guns. We equate guns with freedom. You can poke fun at us, call us names, whatever.

The essential, fundamental fact is that other countries could take guns away from their citizens and make their citizens swallow it because their citizens were not citizens of the United States of America. Well, WE ARE! And you can't take our guns without a revolution.

You say we are foolish to think we have a chance against the greatest army in the world. Well, that army is made up of our brothers, husbands, fathers, sisters... when it comes right down to it, do you think they are going to fire upon us in their home towns? Over the right to keep a gun when we aren't criminals?

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

Lets let the NRA decide how many guns are out there to kill us. After all they need money to run those attack ads so they can get more tnuts in washington to promote their huge death machine! Take our guns without a revolution? The pop guns we are allowed to own are no match for the firepower even of a small army let alone what we have get real

Guns will never replace pot as a blackmarket product of choice because pot is far simpler and cheaper to produce and has a higher demand than guns (not everyone feels the need to kill someone or "defend" themselves by using a non-defensive weapon that can only be used to kill or injure, but lots of people want to get high). Will there be a blackmarket for guns if they're banned? Probably, but I doubt that it will be as lucrative as pot.

Want to hurt drug dealers and reduce gun violence from drug cartels? Legalize drugs and you'll accomplish both.

zorloc Comment collapsed by the community

Everyone wants to imply every single time there is a shooting that had their been an armed citizen the threat would have been immediately neutralized.

I've never heard a single person make that claim. Maybe your point would seem more valid if it wasn't full of @!$%#. What I hear people saying is that things might not have been as bad as this example CLEARLY demonstrates. If the gunman had walked into the station with a gun and no officers were carrying their sidearms how many would have been shot? Just the three? Doubtful. People who were legally carrying a sidearm stopped this guy from doing even more damage. There is NO denying this FACT.

If the gunman had walked into the station with a gun and no officers were carrying their sidearms how many would have been shot? Just the three? Doubtful. People who were legally carrying a sidearm stopped this guy from doing even more damage. There is NO denying this FACT.

The point you leave out of your undeniable fact is that the police officers are trained in the use of weapons; they were not just legally authorized.

Talk about your @!$%#.

If guns were outlawed, it wouldn't be necessary for governmental law enforcement agencies to have them either, would it?

Just some correction of wikipidia facts:

Someone stated that the murder rate in the US is over 15% using a link to wikipidia, well here is a direct link to the stats at the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

Appears they have it at less than 5 per 100,000 or .00005%, guess whomever stated 15% would have been a follower of Hitler.

Finally, somebody read the article, the perp did not have a gun, he took it from a cop. The only gun control issue here is, why didn't the cop have control?

I agree Lynseypug,

If only the police had armed guards this wouldnt have happened...

smh

Where was a good guy with a gun when you needed one?!?!?!

Yesterday I posted the following opinion on a different thread only to see it collapsed quickly by the 400 hard-working paid NRA 'minders':

"Since the conversation went immediately to guns.....

It's two days after Christmas and the NRA's Wayne LaPierre is STILL the anti-Christ.

Happy New Year!"

It seems that the NRA is asking us to rally around their support for the 2nd Amendment by subverting our rights under the 1st.

So let me reiterate: It's now THREE days after Christmas and Wayne LaPierre is STILL the anti-Christ, but now he has retained the services of 400 paid minions to do his bidding.

Sieg Heil, Wayne!

The guy was being processed for a "domestic Incident" when he attacked the cops. His wife was not imagining things...........................

WOw, I actually got light-headed from all of the oxygen thieves on this thread. Seriously. There are some posting on here that actually think the NRA stated that there should be armed guards at the police station........my head hurts now. Sad thing is that their ignorance is what has made them lucky so far but once they are put in a threatening situation they of course will blame someone else for this happening. Unreal...or should I say....it is turning out to be the overall reality as sad as that is...... you voted for it...now sit back and take the blame!

@-353357

The point you leave out of your undeniable fact is that the police officers are trained in the use of weapons; they were not just legally authorized.

Just exactly how much training do you think is required to point and shoot at someone who is 3 feet away from you? Because the undeniable fact that you are omitting is that untrained people can and have done just that many times.

CommonSense_not2Common Those people were being sarcastic, like I was when I said that video games were to blame for all the gun violence in Japan ( the country with the one of the most prevalent video game subculture).

Debi-1314897

If guns were outlawed, it wouldn't be necessary for governmental law enforcement agencies to have them either, would it?

Well that certainly was an effective way of dealing with drugs... oh, wait.

Or did you think there is a "gun fairy" who is going to magically whisk them all away if we outlaw them?

Honestly, I almost thought your comment was supposed to be sarcastic.

QE137 - I agree 100%, Thanks for the comment.

Gunner, the articles I read said it was unknown whether a suspect was in custody or not. Do you have updated information?

strongandfree - How the hell is Gunner's comment a deflection?

joemike,

The article above stated that the gunman was shot dead by the cops. So there is proof that having a gun did in fact, saved the lives of those 3 officers.

strongandfree...apparently you are the one who has not read the article correctly. Since this article was short and sweet, your attention span is not so. Here is what the article said about the gunman, "The shooter was killed during the confrontation at the station, said police chief W. Harry Earle."

thumper- a gun that was, as the article states, grabbed in a confrontation with the officer while the violent suspect was being processed. The gun control debate would not be stopping officers from owning guns, it would not even end gun ownership... SIMPLY FUTURE SALES.

Littlechanges: So police should buy insurance to protect your lives? I mean, i find it incredulous that half of these comments could be so ... uninformed. The story is clear cut.

Man arrested. Man processed. Man gets in struggle. Man grabs gun. Man injures three officers (1 seriously). Man killed.

Guess the cops couldnt help themselves though.

@littlechanges

Agreed, Gunner. Condolences to the families of the slain and injured law enforcement.

No officers were killed!

Time to make gun owners buy insurance. Enough of these guys simply can't control themselves not to kill others, and the good people in society pay for that, over and over and over while getting nothing in return but pain.

Might not be a bad idea to make parents that give birth to males buy insurance, as well, considering that's who creates nearly all of the chaos, misery and violence, as well as filling up (expensive) prisons faster than they can be built.

Those are both some seriously deranged statements. You seem to have some real issues with men. Perhaps you should consider therapy.

littlechange, read the article again, the suspect was in the police station, he grabbed an officer's gun.

only men are violent? w w w.fbi.gov/wanted

and gun ban works very well, check Chicago they have 500 homiced this year..

Have any of you thought that this could have actually been a sue-aside by police ?????

Crazy people do crazy things. He was not the first one nor will he be the last to do that. Could also have been a bad drug trip. That will make a person do strange things also.

Tom in Everett wrong -

That is the point. Trained cops got killed by a mental job. In the end Wayne was right. THE ONLY THAT STOPPED THE BAD GUY WITH THE GUN WAS THE GOOD GUY WITH THE GUN.

Imagine if this Mental job had grabbed a knife and gone to a school, or drove his car into a crowd or started a building on fire or ??? Thousands of things he could have done or used to cause death and destruction. He was MENTAL. He wanted to HURT people and he DID NOT CARE WHAT HAPPENED TO HIMSELF.

All the gun laws in the world won't stop the MENTALLY ILL. They will just find another way.

THUS WHY PUNISH THE 99.9% that are not breaking the law with more laws and restrictions.

We don't take alcohol away everytime there is a drunk driver that kills a family.

We don't take cars away everytime a mentally ill mother drives her car into a lake and kills her kids.

We don't take bath tubs away evertime a mentally ill person drowns her kids, wife, sister, husband etc.

We don't ban knives when some is stabbed.

We don't ban base ball bats every time a guy beats the @!$%# out of someone.

We are not banning gas because some mental guy started a lady on fire this week. (Oh by the way - there was no fewer then three articles this week alone about people startign other people on fire.)

WHY THEN DO ALL YOU LIBERALS HAVE A FACINATION WITH BLAMING THE GUN AND WANTING TO BAN THEM.

Bad guys, mentally ill people and criminals don't care about your laws. They do what they want when they want. If onie method is not available then they use another.

WAKE UP

He should have been handcuffed in the station. A bit harder to grab a gun with your hands handcuffed behind your back.

Do not make this about whether or not guns should be carried by teachers or administrators. This is an example of poor police practices. WHY was this guy given the opportunity to get his hand on one of their weapons? Why was he not secured? If is was at a point when he was not secured, why were the police officer's guns accessible. The point of arming teachers, etc. is to stop in their tracks someone coming at them or he children, armed with an intent to kill. It is not about a unarmed person coming into the school and taking their weapon by force. Exactly how many mentally stable, honest law abiding gun owners do you see attacking children, the general public, police officers, firefighters? Gun manufacturers and dealers would not be in business if there was no market. There is a market for sporting (hunting, target, etc.). There is a market for self protection and protecting our loved ones and our property, because we cannot rely on the police to do so - nor can we rely on our lawmakers or courts to keep the criminals off the streets (the nut job that shot the firefighters should have been locked up for life and not on the street). There is a market because many believe, as did the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that an armed citizenry would keep the government in check and if the government ever overstepped itself, the citizens would be able to fight back - do you know what one of the first actions of the British was to subdue and subjugate the colonists? The confiscated ammunition and attempted to confiscate all of their guns. A government that attempts to disarm its citizens in fact, fears its citizens - in other words, they do not want the citizens to be able to contest their actions. Just because it has not happened here, does not mean it won't. It has happened throughout history in every corner of the world.

Read this paragraph from the story:

"A violent struggle occurred while the suspect was being processed," Deputy Chief David Harkins said. The man was able to grab a gun and then opened fire.

Based on this I'm going to say that the suspect grabbed a gun from one of the cops during the struggle. Any further comment about "gun control" has no merit in this thread.

joeyfromcali, try to actually read the article, try to actually learn something of what happened in that police station, before you open your mouth (set fingers to keyboard) again.

It's damn hard to process a suspect -- i.e., fingerprint them -- when their hands are cuffed behind their back.

Yesterday I posted the following opinion on a different thread only to see it collapsed quickly by the 400 hard-working paid NRA 'minders':

"Since the conversation went immediately to guns.....

It's two days after Christmas and the NRA's Wayne LaPierre is STILL the anti-Christ.

Happy New Year!"

It seems that the NRA is asking us to rally around their support for the 2nd Amendment by subverting our rights under the 1st.

So let me reiterate: It's now THREE days after Christmas and Wayne LaPierre is STILL the anti-Christ, but now he has retained the services of 400 paid minions to do his bidding.

Sieg Heil, Wayne!

@JKSD2009

We don't take alcohol away everytime there is a drunk driver that kills a family.

No, but we do make harsher laws to regulate alcohol consumption (where I live we can't even be caught standing outside a pub with a beer bottle in our hand anymore without getting a $500 fine) and punish drunk driving. Which is what (most) people in general are really talking about, not "banning" guns or anything else that may facilitate a crime.

Bad guys, mentally ill people and criminals don't care about your laws. They do what they want when they want. If onie method is not available then they use another.

So clearly, the answer is no laws?

30 people were killed by John Wayne Gacy and he didn't use a gun.

906 people died at Jonestown and only two were shot - 308 of these people were children.

2,799 died on Sep 11th and not a single shot was fired.

169 people died in the Oklahoma City bombing and not a single shot was fired.

30 people were killed by Ted Bundy and he didn't use a gun.

If a bad person wants to do bad things, they don't need a gun to do it...... by removing the gun from the law abibing citizen, your going to make it easier for the bad person to do more.

I will closely follow this story because i can't wait to find out this guys criminal past.

Spot the mackin dog.

Well here we have an example of highly trained personal...gun crabbed by crimnal..shoot 3 only wounding them but makes ya think about guns in schools with teachers who are semi highly trained doesn't it.

Alvin the Chipmunk.....hmmmm

@AL-1735815

30 people were killed by John Wayne Gacy and he didn't use a gun.

906 people died at Jonestown and only two were shot - 308 of these people were children.

2,799 died on Sep 11th and not a single shot was fired.

169 people died in the Oklahoma City bombing and not a single shot was fired.

30 people were killed by Ted Bundy and he didn't use a gun.

If a bad person wants to do bad things, they don't need a gun to do it......

Which would be a valid point if someone had claimed that guns were the only means to kill someone, which I believe no one has--only that guns are an easier and more effective means to cause harm than just about anything ealse, which happens to be true.

by removing the gun from the law abibing citizen, your going to make it easier for the bad person to do more.

I don't see how that would be the case, seeing as an unarmed "bad person" just took a gun from trained police officers and shot them with it. I imagine that it would have been easier for him to take the gun away from an untrained "law abiding citizen", but if they didn't have a gun to take, the "bad person" would only be more limited in their options, not have more of them.

irrefutable proof that arming anyone and everyone is not a deterrent.

if these cops couldn't search and contain a subject, and had their firearms on them while booking someone in.... its on them.... thats incompetence

there are 310 million guns in this country.... gun control will not work.... it will just kill off another industry..

you know what else it will do?

right now Hillary is the surest slam dunk in election history to become president in 2016... if Obama bans guns.... in one stroke he reunifies the GOP and puts a Dem presidency on the line....

a ban won't happen.... mark it down.....

a ban won't happen.... mark it down.....

You are absolutely correct, but legislation again gun violence will happen. We will have stricter licensing laws, more mental health facilities, and better background checks. We as a people, must work to find a solution to the violence that we are seeing.

By gun control you mean officers not losing control of their guns ?
God speed be careful , don't let family arguments turn into family tragedies

I don't understand what the libtards are making a hissy fit about, the armed police were able to put this scumbag down and nobody died. Also, Camden county where this police station is has strict gun control laws. A lot of good it did, eh?

huskergal - there are already plenty of laws on the books against gun violence, the problem is because of the very same bleeding hearts who yell for more laws, the existing ones are not enforced.

The only reason three cops were injured is that they didn't miss the gun this guy has in his pocket/belt and he was unable to shoot himself in the head while he was handcuffed int the back of the squad car.

Back to reality....

For a suspect to disarm a trained officer and shoot three individuals prior to being fatally shot speaks only to the sloppy and lacksadaisacal processing and actions of the police.

I sure don't want the cop whose weapon was taken patrolling MY neighborhood.....let alone YOURS...

For a suspect to disarm a trained officer and shoot three individuals prior to being fatally shot speaks only to the sloppy and lacksadaisacal processing and actions of the police.

I sure don't want the cop whose weapon was taken patrolling MY neighborhood.....let alone YOURS...

My understanding of the situation is that the officer handling the suspect at the moment he lashed out, possibly as he was about to be fingerprinted, as a petite woman who he was able to physically overpower by hitting her hard enough to knock her to the floor. When she was down, he was able to remove her service pistol from its holster and start shooting it. The whole thing was over in no more than a few seconds as other officers were present and able to react.

I know of many departments where sidearms are to be locked in a wall locker before suspects are removed from the back of patrol vehicles and the guns stay locked up until the suspect is in a holding cell. Many departments also issue what are known as 'retention holsters' which have various mechanisms in them which make it extremely difficult for anyone but the wearer of the holster to withdraw the pistol...and even the person wearing it needs to practice drawing from it in order to get the technique needed down pat! It would seem that perhaps a retention holster wasn't being worn here. At least bullet resistant vests were.

The only "gun control" that works is"

Sight Alignment

Sight Picture

Breathe

and squeeze the trigger.

That's because they want the story to be about the guns not about the story. I am sure if the reporter was interested in doing real journalism he/she would know if the suspect is in custody or not.

No, they wanted to be clear that the cops were not arguing over who ate the last donut, and one got way too upset and started shooting. Hate it when someone takes the last Boston Creme

Sign this petition to 'clarify' gun ownership requirements:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/create-28th-amendment-gun-ownership-privilege/tRJtD6L7

They are clear,They are our Right as law abiding citizen's to keep Tyrant governments in check,looks more and more necessary with the current dictator and chief mr O,Davey

Cops are especially not safe in their own house now. Out of all the names of CCW Permit holder that were recently published in that "newspaper" in New York, it's estimated that 40% are active and retired Law Enforcement Officers. Great job putting people's lives at risk to make a political point!

Great point Cnorton, But someone also published the names, phone number and were they live, of the reporter and all the editors. Come to find out the reporter is a permit holder as well. He didnt mark himself. He carrys a 357 mag. what an idiot news paper

what God are you talking about ...got any proof ? ... or are you just following a man-made fairytale. relying on faith? hope whatever you do to help yourself works... but there is no god and no person live or dead can show concrete proof that there ever was... however you keep believing in the bible so i can go on continuing my new chapter and milk all you little sheep into believing that i am your one and true god....

that is why it is called Faith. Concrete proof would make it too easy for you none believers, and even then, you would probably not believe, because you choose not to. It is your choice. I have had things happen in my life that I cannot explain, and yet I still struggle with my mustard seed sized faith to believe. I choose to believe, that is my choice. I also choose to own a firearm to put me on equal footing against those that would choose to harm my family.

and why not bring God back into our schools, our government, our one nation under God? What harm is there? and it won't cost a dime.

monties1, exellent point!

Monties1... I agree 100%. Bring back God.

I propose Zeus. It will make studying Greek mythology even more fun. Zeus it is. What? You don't believe in Zeus? Well, too bad. It's the God I want. What? You believe in Zeus but not the same version I believe in? Too bad. My version of Zeus is the truth. You are simply a blasphemer.

You see, which God do you pick? Which version of God? Who decides which God to bring back to the classroom? Who decides which version of God or Gods?

What are the penalties for someone who does not go along your decision of the kind or version of God you bring in the public school classroom?

LaDolceVita1

What are the penalties for someone who does not go along your decision of the kind or version of God you bring in the public school classroom?

If we go by the god I think monties1 means, I believe that would be burning at the stake, or maybe stoning to death. I also heard they they used to cut off your fingers if you wrote something they didn't like.

Monties1... I agree 100%. Bring back God.

God never left. In my opinion, God is within all of us. We just have to keep him alive. I still pray wherever I want to, but in private. If you believe in God, teach your children your belief. It's fine. Atheists and Agnostics can believe they way they want. It is a free country and we are assured religious freedom. Keep God inside of you at all times-if you believe.

This is a bad time to laugh but I just did. That's funny in a sick sort of way. All seriousness aside, you would think that's the last place someone would attack.....like an Army post in Texas.

They were armed, but they couldnt get that one bullet out of there shirt pocket in time. Andy should let Barney have at least one bullet in his wepon

I agree. If we arm our police, this wouldn't have happened.

4 morons in a row! That might be a new record.

Old Dog. LOL

uh...which fully automatics are you talking about? Crimes committed with legal full autos are almost non existant...like less than five in the last 40+ years. I won't even go into the "clip" thing.

Spot. I am not a member of the NRA and never will be. I will fight with them to keep our second Amendment intact as is. We really do need a heavily armed Militia just incase the Republicans ever win another Presidential Election.

Spot,

They haven't released what type of firearm was used in this attack or even how it was executed. Your kneee jerk reaction to take a pair of scissors to the Constitution just because you read a story in the news is far more dangerous than any firearm could ever be. The pen is only mightier than the sword for as long as there are idiots dumb enough to believe and overreact to everything they read.

The murder rate in the U.S. is 4.2 per 100,000. Great Britain is 1.2 and Germany 0.8. I guess people don't find a way if they don't have guns.

Larry with all due respect check out the highest violent crime rate countries. Both countries are in the top ten. Britian is number one.

In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

• The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
• It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
• The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
• It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,6776

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

You guys need to see what are considered "offenses" before you post "statistics" . " Statistics never lie, but liars often use statistics".

" Get rid of these fully automatic and semi-automatics, and the extended clips period."

Yep, you sure know a lot about guns. You sure know it all. If you want an expert opinion, ask a donkey (Spot-1951183).

You're calling someone else a dumbass and idiot after saying, "Get rid of these fully automatic (weapons)"... smh.

Pot, meet kettle.

So your comment is not about the article you are commenting on? It was also not provoked in any way as a spin off of another comment. Then you call the person that corrects you and tries to bring you back to the subject of the article an idiot and dumbass. So is your comment as a whole not about the article or did your first statement pertain to this? Sorry for all the questions, just trying to figure out what kind of moron we are dealing with.

Funny you should mention that Jackal. In an article yesterday, most commentors seemed so appalled that a few were turning the story about the homeless woman set on fire into a political commentary. BUt of course no guns were invovled.

TODAY, with this story, there has only been one comment regarding the improvement of health of the officers injured. No griping about the political spin though, because it was a gun crime. Had the guy set a few officers on fire, I have determined that the discussion on here would be drastically different.

I just don't get why people drag politics into every story. I saw a picture online of Obama drinking a pepsi and the captions was something along the lines "NBC: Obama claims Pepsi is the best; CNN: Obama sides with Pepsi; FOX: Obama declares war on Coke; BBC: US drones kill in Pakistan". I love it because it shows just how messed up our society is becoming. We no longer are looking at making ourselves as a nation and world better, we just care that our side won and their side lost. Who cares if the leaders make the same mistakes and do the same things as their predecessors of the other party, I still won, and you still lost. Deal with it. Another favorite line is "I had to deal with Bush for 8 years so you should have to suffer for 8 years under Obama." I've seen that so much and it just makes me feel sorry for the way this once great country is going. It's sad when you hope not to live long so you won't have to worry about the worse part that looks to be coming up.

Sorry for the rant, there are so many things we need to fix in our government before thinking of fixing the nation. People more days are just trying to fill up the tank and not worry about the flat tire.

Pay no attention to Spot people, he does this all the time. Soils the carpet too! Don't get too close or he'll try to hump your leg!

That would be the most action I've gotten in a long time so I might stick around and play.

Let's not forget "friendly fire".

Are you the traffic lady?

No, it's scarcasism. Isn't that what your boy decided after the Ft. Hood shootings, work place violence?

No, it's scarcasism.

What's scarcasism?

I don't have a boy and you sound like the traffic lady.

-god

OBAMA referred to the shooting and killings at Ft. Hood as "workplace violence". Guess you missed him downplaying that terrorist attack, huh? Just like Benghazi. Terrorists? WHAT terrorist?

Aggie, your bitterness is as sweet as honey!

I'd say pretty good. It was an ambush with no officer deaths and a gunman down.

This isn't a new phenomenon, this is being over reported of late due to the amount of money raised during the recent violence and the media will play this tune as long as the money is pouring in!!! Violence is not a new occurence nor is people shooting people, we're hearing about everything and it's all being clumped together as one HUGE incident. This is the culture of "shock and awe" and becoming famous for being a violent sick P.O.S.

"This has become a daily occurence lately and is no longer the top story of the day............."

Wow, what neck of the woods are you from?

So disarm the police? Brilliant.

I'm guessing you were late to the sarcasm party or you weren't invited.

He grabbed one of the officers guns. No amount of gun laws would have stopped this.

Right......... cause if you need a gun, just head over to your local PD.

JCnGAM, some one WAS killed - the perp, who was being processed for domestic violence. He grabbed an officer's gun during a 'violent struggle', got off at least three shots, and was shot dead by other cops. This is a local story for me. Gloucester Township (not Gloucester City - different place) is a suburban community in Camden County. Radio and TV and on-line newspaper here in South Jersey have a lot more information than this article. 2 cops treated and released, one is in surgery from the bullet entering his abdomen BELOW his bullet proolf vest. County detectives are leading the investigation, with a news conference at 3pm for more details.

Did you even read any of the previous comments? You're about number 20 to make that same STUPID comment!

And if they were too slow what difference does it make. Does it change anything because you didn't know he was dead?

Because a police station is NOT a gun-free zone. The shooter is dead because of that. NBC will delay that part as long as they can.

Clearly a case of suicide by cop.

Originality has gone by the way side.

Originality? We don't need no stinking originality!

Apparently it worked. The shooter died at the site and no one else did. Someone else who had a gun stopped him before he could kill anyone. I know it's a wonder for some people that a person with a gun is a good choice to stop a person with a gun.

I wonder why this guy wasn't in handcuffs.....????

If the intruder was shooting at you, of course not...ever hear about "self defense"?

Not too logical...

The courts are set up to defend the criminals.

No, not close to being correct. Any intruder in your home is a legal death waiting to happen. Regardless of existing law, you would have to be extreme in your actions to be charged.

Your next post is even more off base. Courts are not set up to defend criminals. Our justice system protects our rights. Have you heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? A person is not presumed guilty, it must be proved in court. Too many innocent men have been the victims of wrongful convictions brought on by careless police and prosecutors. And yes, the victims are almost always men...

Obviously some of you don't live in the wrong state or city. Depending on where you live you certainly can be charged for killing someone shooting at you. Even when it's in your own home. Some states have a mandatory retreat law.

The world isn't getting crazier, news media is just covering crazy people more.

Overall, you are safer in the US from violent crime than you were around 20 years ago.

All this bitterness and bile! Cool!!!

You may continue to eat your heart out now.

You remind me of a cook book.

How to simmer ans stew.

I love it! The righties lost the election, and it is eating them up inside.

Right Wing ignorance knows no bounds- its's the red states, especially the confederate states, that have the highest unemployment (along with highest domestic violence and divorce rates, as well as worst education) and collect the most hand-outs from the federal government, which is of course paid for by the Blue States from the coasts and upper midwest. Been this way for 30 years and only getting worse.

JXC...Chicago.

Now that I've proved you are a moron, feel free to be ashamed.

@JXC

I don't know where you have been for the last 4 years but Texas is a red state & had the lowest unemployment rate during most of that time. People have been moving to TX by the truck loads from all over the country due to the economy being so good down here, especially to Austin. Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, & especially Austin have been rocking the whole time.

Texas also wasn't hit hard at all by the housing market bust.

You're entitled to facts but not your own facts.

JXC, please provide a link to your sources?

JXC: New Jersey. Highest unemployement in the nation. Blue state. Also third most stringent gun laws. 3 major cities in NJ routinely among the top in most dangerous (annually). All blue cities.

Hypothetical ... not a state. Now that I've proved you're a moron, feel free to move on.

Ban knee jerk reactions.

nonononononononononono.

Ban RWNJs and deport conservatives- see there, all social and economic problems solved.

But without knee-jerk reactions how will the rest of be able to spot complete idiots the first time they post?

Oh, Nevermind, idiots are easy to spot.

Ban takenaka

yeah, rite!! like the criminals r going to give theirs upor not find a way to obtain them illegally. you sir, r an idiot and very naive. r u a grown-up or 10 yrs old????? rm, bsba; mba!!!!!

takenaka, did you just learn recently how to copy and paste? You've posted the exact same comment on every thread for the last two days! You need to delete it from your computer now and think of another one to post over and over.

The real point is that crazy people are going to do crazy things. The FACTS are this: He engaged police in a violent struggle. He was able to wrest a gun away from one of th ecops and start shooting. Another or other cops WITH guns were able to kill him. Anyone here want to argue either: a) If the cops had been unarmed, he wouldn't have been able to shoot anyone? After all, that could be said to be true. Or, would you like to suggest that if he had gone to a police station armed, with the intent of killing as many people as he could, it would be better if the cops were NOT armed? The truth is that the guy started shooting, with someone else's gun (heard that one before, recently?) and someone else WITH A GUN, ended his rampage. CASE CLOSED. As for any conclusions YOU want to reach, you're free to speculate.

He was able to wrest a gun away from one of th ecops and start shooting

Under NRA suggestions, the same thing can happen at schools.

Any school with an armed guard is a school I will have actual peace of mind sending my ten year old daughter to.

Columbine had an armed guard. Your peace of mind would not be justified.

dp

I grew up in a city area, and had two armed police offers stationed there full time. In my 4 years there were 3 murders and countless other crimes. The armed officers solved nothing, except to break up the crowds faster.

Let's see...... I believe the argument REALLY is that an assailant gets off a couple of rounds and then people who have guns shoot him to stop him. Here we have a person with a gun get a couple of rounds off and people with guns did what? They stopped him. Chalk one up for the support of armed people......

What do we also have? The anti-gunners ignoring what stopped him from killing anyone.

Did he leave the daughter in the house with mom's drunk, violent friends?

You need new friends.

Yeah, a gun at a party, especially when alcohol is involved, is such a good idea. Wow!

I can do the same thing with a baseball bat. One whack to the head and he will drop his knife.

No he was taking his daughter back to her moms house. her mom had the friends over for a party, they are seperated. The guy was there when he pulled up. that guy started crap with a non drinking sober guy with a right to carry . But john here is the point. do you carry a bat in your car. can you get to your bat before this guy attacks you. And no I dont need new friends this guy was court orderd to take his daughter home. but after the incident he didnt have to leave her there. he took her with him back to a safe place. his home. like is said would banning all weapons help him or did it save him and prevent his daughter from being harmed as well

John I am quite certain that by the time you swing your back your belly would have already have been stabbed.

Try a brick instead. You get better range and can do more damage while planning your next attack from a distance.

Yeah, bricks & bats are much better than guns for self defense. It is very convenient to carry 3 or 4 bricks in the waistband of your pants. Hiding a bat in your back pocket is no problem either.

ACTUALLY carrying a bat in most places is a FELONY where even in Ca carrying a gun is NOT....

Oneslackr, is that a bat in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?...

LOL JK

Yeah, a gun at a party, especially when alcohol is involved, is such a good idea. Wow!

Apparently it was. Especially since, by the sounds of it, the boyfriend in question wasn't attending the party, merely dropping someone off.... (The mom being his ex and all I doubt he was invited.)

Way to misconstrue what really happened.

Like a kindergarten class? You gun owners are real brave. My heroes.

How is your comment an appropriate response to my post?

It wasn't!

The best part: the police killed the assailant so tax payers dont have to waste a dime on putting him in jail for life. Score.

If the teacher in this kindergarten class TFNJ refers to had a firearm and was trained to use it; those children may be alive today.

Logic seems to escape these anti-gun activists. Thank goodness there were enough guns in the room to handle the evil individual in the police station.

Your problem is there is a giant IF to all the scenarios you dream up. Like IF that shooter didnt take them by surprise and having a gun on them would be worthless against the AR-15. But you keep living that dream.

There is no IF at all, an armed person has a 100% better chance of stopping the killer than an un-armed one. They would not be facing off for a shootout like the OK Coral, so the chance that the teacher could put themself in position to take out the killer is pretty good, a hell of a lot better than no chance at all, like the three teachers that rushed the gunman and got mowed down. I'll bet if they had a choice they would have wanted a gun when the guy was murdering the children right in front of them.

If being defenseless is your dream, you keep on living that dream

Even TRAINED cops are vulnerable in their own stations. Does ANYONE believe that teachers must be required to stay trained and carry a weapon, adding yet another responsibility to their already over-stretched schedules, in order to SAFELY operate as a cop in their classrooms? Teachers are already responsible for teaching, protecting health (keeping away allergens from certain students, etc), keeping order (disciplining), creating lesson plans, dealing with parents and other after-school extra-curricular activities, and grading papers. They are already GROSSLY overworked and UNDERPAID.

If there had been No guns, the guy would have been put in a cell and the officers would have gone home to their families. I think that's a better outcome.

We would have to ship all the liberals to Canada.

And you'd be left with nothing but retards.

BAN COMPUTERS!!! Way too many people with keyboards and smartphones making making dumb comments about tragedies.

making making dumb comments

Would one of those people making dumb comments possibly be yourself?

Ragnar-1366349 is a @!$%#ing toad.

Ragnar-1366349 is a @!$%#ing toad.

Classic liberal debate technique!