Cops Wound 9

[Plane]

Quite logical that any gun that is very likly to be used irresponsibly should be more restricted .
And the scenario you cite of having your own gun turned against you is a real possibility.

So...

Since a large portion of police wounding is done by arrestees wrestling the officers own gun away from him , this is an oppurtunity.

If we quit letting Policemen carry guns none of those incidents of policedmen being shot by their own guns will happen again , thus eliminating a large category of criminal shooting.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Police are an exception. They should be taught how to thwart losing their pistols to criminals. They will not be 100% effective, but if they can succeed most of the time, then we are ahead of the odds.

Perfection is never possible at anything humans do.

[Plane]

Police are an exception. They should be taught how to thwart losing their pistols to criminals. They will not be 100% effective, but if they can succeed most of the time, then we are ahead of the odds.

Perfection is never possible at anything humans do.

Well said.

But police are not that exceptional, people in general should prepare for whatever is likely to happen.
Two weeks rations of canned food in the pantry is a good idea unless it is somehow impossible for your home to be cut off from the roads by storm or earthquake.
A pistol in a secure but handy place is a good idea unless it is somehow impossible for your home to be invaded by criminals or dangerous animals.
If you are phisicily capable lessons in martial arts might suit you better, but the frail are just as deserving of the right to defend themselves.

[sirs]

The guns that need to be regulated are those that will be used in crime, murders, accidental deaths and , of course, mass murders. Of course, if someone jumps into sirs' car, grabs his trusty Roscoe and plugs him with it, that one should have also been regulated as well, for sirs' sake.

they already are thoroughly regulated. 
there already are hundreds of laws around the ownership & usage of a firearm
more laws and regulations only makes it harder for supposed "gun nuts" like me to defend myself, since the insane and criminal will still get their deadly weapons anyway they can.  Most of the time, illegally

I doubt if he will thank me for reminding him that any gun is impartial as to whom or what it shoots.

That kind of goes under the caption, "no duh".  Good thing I've been trained so as to make sure it shoots the bad guy, in your little scenario

[sirs]

Quite logical that any gun that is very likly to be used irresponsibly should be more restricted .
And the scenario you cite of having your own gun turned against you is a real possibility.

So...

Since a large portion of police wounding is done by arrestees wrestling the officers own gun away from him , this is an oppurtunity.

If we quit letting Policemen carry guns none of those incidents of policedmen being shot by their own guns will happen again , thus eliminating a large category of criminal shooting.

Perhaps that's what BSB was trying to imply with the original post that started this thread

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am all for BSB determining what he meant.

You do not appear to excel at reading minds.

[BSB/Hero/Genius/MovieStar]

If you can't figure out what I meant in the opening post, Sirs, I'm not wasting anymore of my time explaining it to you.

BSB

[Plane]

It was apparently the cops who wounded nine people near the Empire State Bld. in NYC. After the shooter killed his boss, with whom he had a long standing feud, the cops trying to protect themselves and others wounded 9 trying to put the shooter down.

Gun nuts often say, if someone had had a gun such and such a shooting wouldn't have occurred, or been as bad. Of course that's always been nonsense and this event shows you why.  The answer is not more people carrying guns.


BSB

The answer is taking the guns away from the Cops?

In this incident the statistics are : Madmen 1 dead   no wounded
                                                : Policemen 1 dead 9 wounded

    From this small sample one would conclude that madmen are more discriminating shooters.

[sirs]

If you can't figure out what I meant in the opening post, Sirs, I'm not wasting anymore of my time explaining it to you.

BSB

I think I already figured it out...guns are bad.  Look how many folks were wounded by "cops".  Obviously they shouldn't be armed either.  Only those who "know better" than the rest of us serf should determine who should have a gun.  Folks like yourself, of course  As I said earlier, how so much easier it'd be for you, in a dictatorship

If you wish to clarify the rationale for the original posting of cops wounding 9, by all means, the floor is yours

[Xavier_Onassis]

If there had been more civilians at the Empire State Building with guns, I can't imagine how things would have gone any better.

The police who are shooting would not know whose side the extra civilian shooters were on.

I don't think that it is fair to blame the police for the number of people wounded, since bullets ricochet and the number of people in the crowd is unmentioned. There will be a hearing with witnesses and what really happened will be better known.

No one is arguing for unarmed police, other than the places in which they are already unarmed in some prison situations and such.

If there are no guns, there are no shootings, nonetheless.

[Plane]

.....................If there are no guns, there are no shootings, nonetheless.

This is a totally reverse of the truth statement.

Think about it a bit.

This happened in a place where the people had very few guns.

This attracted this fool with his gun .

I can't beleive that any American place can have gun laws more to your liking than NYNY does , and that the regulation just does not work, is not observed.

"IN the kingdom of the blind , the one eyed man is king." In New York , where all of the law abideing people are disarmed , the law breaker sees oppurtunity.
 
There has been no possibility of a ,no gun at all, situation since AD 1400, and checking the records , back when there really were no guns at all , violent deaths were much more common then than now.

I think I would like to blame the tipical cowboy movie in which fantasy a cowboy dies by gunshot every few minutes , in reality more cowboys were killed by cows and horses and disease, but that doesn't make as good of a movie. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Think about it a bit.

I did.
This happened in a place where the people had very few guns.

FEW guns is not the same thing as NO guns

This attracted this fool with his gun .

There are no fools with guns at all if there are NO GUNS.

[Plane]

Think about it a bit.

I did.
This happened in a place where the people had very few guns.

FEW guns is not the same thing as NO guns

This attracted this fool with his gun .

There are no fools with guns at all if there are NO GUNS.

Few guns is a big problem .
No guns is not possible (and is another problem).
Lots of guns is not worse than few , because when there are few they belong to the worst exclusively.
If Times Square had been filled by cowboys packing six shooters , the madman would have had much less confidence .
Perhaps inspireing prudent behavior?

[Xavier_Onassis]

No guns is not possible (and is another problem)
========================================
For generations British "Bobbies" carried nothing more deadly than a nightstick. I don't think that most Japanese cops carry firearms, either.

Again the point of THIS discussion is that the presence of armed civilians OTHER than the perp would have not almost certainly NOT have resulted in fewer people being wounded.

The police can tell the good guys (other cops) from the civilians because of uniforms, as a rule.

Times Square filled with cowboys armed with six shooters? Yeah, sure, that would have made everyone safer.
Gimme a break!

[Plane]

No guns is not possible (and is another problem)
========================================
For generations British "Bobbies" carried nothing more deadly than a nightstick. I don't think that most Japanese cops carry firearms, either.

Again the point of THIS discussion is that the presence of armed civilians OTHER than the perp would have not almost certainly NOT have resulted in fewer people being wounded.

The police can tell the good guys (other cops) from the civilians because of uniforms, as a rule.

Times Square filled with cowboys armed with six shooters? Yeah, sure, that would have made everyone safer.
Gimme a break!

True , some police do seem to have an us and them attitude twards everyone not in uniform.

I don't think you get my point.

Imagine a convention of policemen, where most of the crowd is packing heat.

Now imagine you are a murderer and you know that your target will be there.

but later your tagget will be at a school where there is a 100% ban on firearms , zero tolerance.

Perhaps you are not fully rational, but how rational will you have to be to choose between the time your target is surrounded by reasonable people with guns and the time when there will be no gun there but your own?

By far the majority of people who have guns use them responsibly better than 98%.

But of the people who want to create mayhem 100% can get a gun even when it is difficult they do.