I would disagree with this on two points. First, I'd argue that the stated reason was only one reason, not the entirety. If the right to bear arms was entirely dependent on the need to have a militia, there were a lot of ways to phrase that, and none of them were used. Second, I've never thought that the concern was primarily about national security, in the sense of defense against outsiders. I always assumed that the nation that had just fought its way free of its legal government, was ensuring that their people had the ability to fight their way free of the very government that was being formed, in case that government turned bad. So I could argue that the very fact of a standing army is a violation of the principle of the Second Amendment, rather than an argument for its irrelevance. I don't know if the Second Amendment is still relevant, in a world with weapons that are far bigger than any one person can carry, that can be transported in ways that populations can't stop. But I still don't accept that its possible irrelevance means that we can ignore it--I still argue that we change or eliminate it, or we comply with it. The First Amendment tells us who can't abridge. The Second Amendment just says that infringement is forbidden. Isn't there an implication that somebody else can abridge, in the case of the First Amendment, while no one can infringe, in the case of the Second? In other words, you seem to be seeing the First as more strongly phrased; I'm seeing the Second as more strongly phrased. I'm entirely prepared to accept that my lack of agreement is due to a lack of a legal education; I'm just saying that on their faces, I don't interpret the meanings the same way that you do. Those freedoms have been abridged already. You may feel that they haven't been abridged nearly enough, but it's not as if a person can walk anywhere carrying any personal weapon. Again, I don't know if I see the value of guns in our present society. But I'm not willing to start ignoring parts of the Bill of Rights that seem antiquated. I quite see that from your point of view, you're not ignoring them--your interpretation of the Second Amendment presumably allows for strict gun control. Mine definitely doesn't.
I found an FBI murder data base page for murders by state and by what type of weapon for 2012. It is interesting that yes guns do play a significant part in the percentage of murders for almost every state, that if you look at the states with some of the more lenient gun laws, they tend to have a lower percentage than the other ones. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2012.xls To better understand what I mean, here is a list of the top 10 states as far as the most lenient gun laws. http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1429/0/10-states-with-the-most-lenient-gun-laws-.html Utah who got a Brady score of '0' on the list had 49 murders with only 22 by a handgun. That's less than 50% with many of your other states with very strict gun laws like New York (682 murders/358 by hand gun) and Illinois (509 murders/429 by hand gun) are significantly higher. The Illinois numbers are based on limited data sent to the FBI but they still reflect a significant difference in percentages. Here is a list of the top 10 states with the strictest gun laws in the U.S. with California being #1. http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1428/0/10-states-with-the-strictest-gun-laws.html During my searches I found an article from 2013 about the top 9 leading causes of death in the U.S. that stated based on FBI crime statistics that: http://www.policymic.com/articles/24365/9-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-united-states So taking into account all this data, should we really be wasting so much of our time and energy on gun control instead of the other things that seem to be doing a lot more damage?
FBI database is a good place to look for gun-related incidents that result in injury or death. There is also a database on there that shows, I'm pretty sure, the frequency of gun-related incidents and/or crimes, per state/city, and also provides information on said states and their gun laws. It's been a while since I've looked at numbers, but if I remember correctly (and I'm hoping someone will correct me if I'm wrong), the percentage of deaths that have been due to weapons such as "assault rifles" and other "serious" firearms in America is less than 1 percent, when honestly compared to the sheer size of our population. Most deaths come about due to small-arms, such as handguns. The media also likes to blow the frequency of gun-related violence way out of proportion (if you keep in mind, fully, the rough number of our population and compare that to the "reported" and "recorded" deaths each year). Reality is, guns aren't exactly the issue. No matter which way you slice it. You can take whatever emotivist perspective, per usual, you'd like and try to argue against that statement, but when you strip away everything, look at statistics, and consider the facts, the problem is human. Has been and always will, no matter what. When someone is determined, they make things happen. Unfortunately, I don't really have a solution. Do I think that restrictions should be in place? Absolutely. But do I think banning them will solve all of our problems? lol.. not by a long stretch. Our problem runs much, much deeper. We've tried many, many ways to place laws and restrictions on harmful things, with little success. In the states, the legal drinking age is 21, yet thousands and thousands of teenagers drink, anyway. We have made it illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol and other substances, and yet again, thousands and thousands of people each year are arrested for doing so. Moreover, thousands of people die, as the result of accidents involving vehicles and drivers under the influence--numbers that, I'm pretty sure, surpass the number of deaths resulting from gun-related incidents, when compared to each other, per the state in question. Of course there are exceptions, such as states with very large populations and serious criminal activity (I immediately think of L.A., CA). However, look at the statistics of my home state, West Virginia (one of the states with some of the more severe penalties and strictest laws regarding driving under the influence, and still the number of deaths and alcohol-related accidents per year are super high). http://www.responsibility.org/sites/default/files/files/TCC-AIDF_2012.pdf http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pdf http://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/hsc/pubs/briefs/011/default.htm And yet, here in the states, rarely, if ever, do we hear cries of outrage like: "Ban alcohol! Ban cars!" (insert semantic variable, etc., etc., etc.). In a similar vein, we've made it illegal to smoke pot, yet millions smoke pot, anyway (though I do look forward to its legalization, specifically for its medical applications). We've made harder drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, etc., illegal, and have placed restrictions on pharmaceutical substances, YET hundreds of thousands of Americans still manage to get their hands on these drugs, with relative ease, and continue to use them, while not only harming themselves, but also in many cases, harming others. For example, since I'm well aware of its availability and intimate with its effects, Heroin has been illegal for quite some time. Hasn't really done much to prevent overdoses, nor has it made it harder to get. Not at all. I can walk into any well-populated area, obviously excluding really remote areas, and find out what's "good", within a few hours of showing up, be it for my first time, or the hundredth. But regarding this debate, for some strange reason, these types of things are ignored and/or considered irrelevant. Many claim I'm comparing apples to oranges. "I'm talking guns, not drugs!" And my response usually is, I understand that. Believe me, I do. But the same type of logic you're calling for is being, and has been applied, to other areas of human behavior. In some areas, it's had a small, albeit positive impact, while in many others, the impact has been little to none whatsoever, and sometimes negative (placing junkies in jail for a habit that is incredibly hard to stop without help does little for their recovery, and meanwhile, taxpayer dollars are being spent to more or less keep our jails over-populated, and them in the cycle, when it could have been put to better use, imo). Anyway, out of curiosity, for those members overseas, especially in areas that have very, very strict gun-laws: I heard/read/saw a statistic once upon a time in recent months regarding Scotland, which is a country that has outlawed guns, unless I'm mistaken, and statistically, it's considered one of the more 'violent' countries in that area, and that you are more likely to get mugged/robbed there, than in some parts of NYC. Is this true?
How can a people "fight their way free" of a government that they themselves have formed that governs by their own consent? Madison et al viewed standing armies as instruments of government imposed on people against their will - that is, against their collective will. As for your first point, I have never seen any other reason stated in all that I've read about that period. But I would also add that the whole notion of the defender/settler was formed at a time when we were an almost wholly rural society in an almost totally agrarian economy, in a place where land - the asset of greatest value - was nearly limitless, thereby eliminating the most common means of exploitation. Moreover, the main thing needed to take and use it was to eliminate the native peoples who lived there. Hence another use of the notion of militia. You can argue anything you wish, but history has rendered that particular one moot. The nation has made its choice in how it will defend itself. As with many other areas of the Constitution, and of the law, it has adapted to its environment. Agreed. This is not correct. The Constitution is a framework for government, and that framework states that all laws must begin with Congress. So, by saying "Congress shall make no law" we mean "the only body charged with lawmaking that is covered by this document shall make no law..." No other entity covered by the Constitution has lawmaking ability to begin with. There is no other "who".The prohibition, based on the wording of the Amendment, is absolute. That prohibition has been abridged by interpretation of the Supreme Court - first and foremost in the event of a "clear and present danger". I'm not saying to ignore the Second Amendment. I am saying there is a clear and present danger and that we need to find a way to address it. Our polity, like any other, owes its existence to the need to protect its citizenry. Each shooting increases our sense of lack of protection. The notion of the settler/militiaman is a myth - we haven't functioned that way since the last "Indians" were "pacified". So, lets rephrase this right to make it a responsible one, one that balances the desire to retain the right with the need to protect the citizenry. Alas, we are not there, yet.
So I'm just going to rant some pros and cons and some other thoughts of mine on gun control. First, pro gun control stuff: What I thought could work: Switzerland's model of everyone serving in the military, then they bring their guns home. Everyone's armed, what could go wrong? Well, this: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912 Who knew they had shootings too? Well, there goes that argument for having guns. Sadly, guns don't stop shootings Then there's that pesky second amendment, saying that the government can't stop us from having guns. So, about that: this is that pesky little document that our own government doesn't even seem to care about? Isn't privacy in the constitution *coughs* NSA and police doing illegal searches. So, what's the second amendment to them? Also, the Constitution was written by a bunch of white supremacists over 200 years ago. Many of them owned slaves. You have a right to a gun, but black people weren't people to them. Alright. There's also that whole argument of protecting ourselves from the government should they start pushing us around. Well, they have started pushing us around. There are protests all the time, and I know that during Vietnam, soldiers were told to fire on anti-war protests (It happened at a few colleges, I think). They're spying on us, not representing us, selling us out to corporations. Where are our white knight gun owners to save us? Well, they're not saving us. And, as if they could take the US government on anyway. Like your pesky AR-15s could stop a damn tank. Alright, time for the anti gun control stuff: Gun owners got the government to back down from taking that rancher's land, so says right wing media. Left wing media doesn't say much about it, and I'm not really sure who was in the right or wrong in that situation. All I saw was government soldiers standing off against gun owners, so there's that. Apparently they would have fired on the soldiers should fighting have started, but I'm still not sure. There's some standing up against the government I guess. I do actually think that teachers should be armed, or at least we need more police at schools. Shooting seem to be happening at schools only right now, so I guess we need more cops there. Good guys with guns may not always stop bad guys with guns, but it helps. Guns shouldn't be illegalized because the bad guys will just find other ways to get guns. They're about to go shoot up a goddamned school, do they really care about pesky gun laws? Nope. And it's better that they have AR-15s (semi-automatic) with small clips and identification so we can get to the bottom of who's gun it is and if the accused is really guilty, than an AK-47 with massive clips bought illegally with no identification available. 3 arguments for each that I pulled from some documents and my own opinions, trying not to be biased (and I go back and forth with gun rights so I don't think I'm too terribly biased). Now, onto video games, which people think cause violence. As a teen, here's a list of video games I've played in the last few months: - Grand Theft Auto V - RIFT (MMORPG, similar to World of Warcraft) - Various Call of Duty games Those bridge the most common form of games for PC and consoles: driving games, MMO fantasy games, and shooters. Now, I haven't been wanting to shoot cops after robbing a bank and then speed down the highway at 200 MPH (Grand Theft Auto). I haven't been wanting to fight dragons with magic (well, I DO, but I'm not actively working towards that) and swords (RIFT/MMORPGs). I haven't been wanting to go join the military and shoot guns at people (Call of Duty or general first person shooters). So, video games don't make people violent. Gun culture, or at least what people think it is, isn't real so I've seen. Yes, people have guns. Yes, people have a lot of guns. No, they don't worship it. They're trying to protect their rights so they're buying up guns with the fear of losing them. The only people I've seen who worship guns are hunters, who worship their hunting rifles, not semi-automatics. Mental illness is truly too vague. It was easy with Elliot Rodgers, since we all read his illness in the manifesto. He was sick. Adam Lanza was special (I think, not sure about it). James Holmes is taking the insanity plea, and he truly looks insane. How these people got guns, I'm not sure and it sort of scares me. In sum/tl;dr, there are equal arguments for both sides of gun control, but no matter what the constitution still stands. Video games don't cause violence. Gun culture is crap (so I've seen). Mental illness is a problem, and there SHOULD be restrictions for mentally ill persons.
My deepest condolences to the victims and their families. I hope you all know what you are doing with your laws, and whatever you decide in the end, saves lives rather than destroys them.
...and I repeat: http://www.policymic.com/articles/24365/9-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-united-states Yep, definitely an epidemic. Also if you look at the FBI data base, murder in the U.S. is actually down as much as 10% from 2003.
That's only if the armed good guys are idiots who haven't practiced the use of their firearms. Every responsible firearm owner practices the use of their weapons and follows the four basic safety rules which work to eliminate unintended casualties. If, on the other hand, we have armed idiots, i.e. people who carry a firearm without knowing how to use it properly, yeah, we'll have accidents waiting to happen. There's actually a very good reason for that and, surprisingly perhaps, it's not the fault of the good guys who own firearms: schools, universities and such are largely "gun-free zones," i.e. bringing firearms to e.g. a campus is usually forbidden unless you're an on-duty police officer or an appointed armed guard (dunno how common those are or if they even exist), so is it any wonder that school shootings aren't stopped by law-abiding gun owners? I mean, it's the laws and regulations they are following that ensure they will be unarmed when a shooter ventures to their vicinity. Again, only if the armed citizens are idiots. I understand a lot of people fall into that category, but my solution would not be banning guns, but, rather, doing thorough background checks on everyone who wants a firearm (not specifying here what that would entail), and I support mandatory annual training courses with final tests you have to pass every time if you want to keep your CCW permit. That would help to ensure the people who carry firearms also know how to use them and won't go blasting blindly into the general direction of the bad guy like headless chickens. Where would we draw the line? Some people suffering of depression get suicidal, some school shooters have probably been depressed. I've been diagnosed with depression before, so does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to own firearms? In Finland, gun owners are more heavily persecuted by the media than, say, murderers or child molesters. Equipment worth thousands have been confiscated from some people who were no danger to anyone (some might have been, not saying all were perfectly innocent), so is it a wonder that most gun owners who might benefit from psychological or psychiatric help, suffer in silence for fear of losing that one last thing in their lives that give them pleasure, shooting holes into paper targets? And since mental problems and financial problems often go hand-in-hand, losing gear that's worth thousands is also a significant financial blow to many people, so, again, no surprise nobody wants to get treated for any mental illnesses for fear of being essentially robbed by the government and labelled a possible mass murderer. There are two sides to every coin. That's a given. You can also stop a gun-toting bad guy by shoving the stick of a lollipop into his eye. That, too, is perfectly plausible. You could also shove a toilet brush down his throat etc, but it's a matter of evening the odds: I believe we can all admit that if we knew beforehand we were going head to head with a gun man, we'd choose a gun as our weapon for that fight. Wouldn't you? I know, right? I mean, how often do you hear of shootings in Finland, where gun control is insanely strict? No, wait... I already mentioned this in another thread, but as soon as the gun ban in Australia took effect, the violent crime rates skyrocketed. Sure, gun-related violent crime lessened, but murders, beatings, rapes, robberies etc. increased significantly. I wouldn't call that a success by any standard. Instead, I'd venture to say that it only goes to prove that if people have the will and intent to harm another person, they will find a way, guns or no guns. Another fact is that it doesn't take a genius to find illegal guns. All I need is a couple of internet searches and I'd find one locally. Not to mention I don't even have to contact criminals (i.e. people who sell illegal firearms) to build a homemade bomb after downloading instructions from the internet and using non-regulated, off-the-shelf materials available practically anywhere. Where there is a will... and so on. So shouldn't we focus on fixing whatever it is that makes people want to kill other people? I know it's not an easy quick fix, like banning guns would be, but it would probably yield better long-term results.
Dear Ginger, I think gun is like drug and it must not be free for citizens. Gun is very attractive and it absorbs youths and criminals. May somebodies believe, it is necessary for self defense but I say they have to look the other side of the coin. As American people want to defend themselves against criminals and gangs by guns, criminals and gangs would like to use gun to attain their goal as well. And recently you even see some mental ills use gun and shoot toward citizens unreasonably because may they suppose people are zombie. Gun is a dangerous and heartless stuff, specially for raged persons, teens, ills, and those who drink a lot of alcohol and come to streets intoxicated. such persons are very capable to attack people maniacally. The security of a society is the task of police not people themselves. So, if a police organization and department of Justice are able enough against criminals, it will not be necessary people hold a gun in their homes. In Iran according to the law, no citizen is rightful to carry arms and it has a heavy penalty, so society is clean of gun wholly. Instead, the police organization act very dominant and alerted against the probable wrongdoers . Therefore, the level of crimes and the number of guilty persons is low.
Well, whatever side of the 'gun' fence you're on, surely everybody recognises the need to address this issue. If nobody changes anything, nothing is going to change. Way I see it, you can arm everybody beyond the age of 5, make them carry a gun at all times, teach them how to shoot it, to care for it, make sure they can actually afford the gun and the ammunition in the first place, so the poor aren't disadvantaged. That way the good guys and the bad guys are on even territory, and if somebody starts shooting inside a school all the armed students and teachers can just mow that sucker down. He'll think twice next time, won't he? Oh, wait ...that's unless he's on a suicide mission in the first place. Ach well, every silver lining has a cloud... OR you can enact legislation that makes guns less generally available, and social pressures that make them less acceptable to own. Maybe cut back on the amount of violence people see on TV and in the movies on a daily basis. Make a few programmes that aren't crime shows. Offer help and a place to land for people who are depressed or otherwise mentally ill, are out of work and feeling angry at the world, make sure teenagers don't get bullied at school by teachers, staff or other students. In other words, work to reduce the easy access to weaponry and attempt to confront the issues that create the problem in the first place. I mean it's not rocket science. Something has got to change or it's all going to stay the same.
I'm sorry but I don't want other people who live in a jade palace on top of the hill telling me how I should be living my life when they aren't remotely living under the same standards I do.
And what should you do when the police can't get there in time to prevent the crime? The average response time of the police is usually a few minutes minimum just about everywhere in the world. Most violent crimes last seconds. How do you expect the police to make it everywhere in time to prevent the violent acts? The answer is simple: they can't, it's impossible. But that wouldn't change the fact that they would mow him down, only that he'd be happy about it.
I just meant it wouldn't be a deterrent. Well, heck, it might even work. Mind you, an awful lot of bystanders are going to get shot as well, but hey, they'll be dying in a good cause.
I don't think that the framers were believed that they could create a perfect, incorruptible government that would last for all time. Didn't Jefferson expect repeated revolution? And weren't the states worried and reluctant to give power to a federal government at all? I believe that at that time, most laws were expected to begin with the states, not Congress. I don't think that Congress was an inclusive term meaning "all lawmaking bodies in the United States"--I think that it meant the United States Congress. Tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States..." So the Constitution did address the states. Therefore, I don't see the flaw with the idea that "..shall not be infringed.." refers to all parties that the Constitution addresses, and "Congress shall..." refers just to congress. I could certainly be wrong, but I don't yet see how. I don't argue against rephrasing it. I only argue that we do need to rephrase it, and pass a modified version, before we can really take effective action on guns. We're not going to agree on what the Amendment means. We don't really need to agree.
I'm not sure what point you're making here, but all I'm saying is if you're happy with the status quo as far as guns and availability in the USA goes, fine. Things will go on as they are now, and these kinds of random shoot-em-ups are going to keep happening. If you think this is a price worth paying so anybody and everybody can own a gun, fair enough. If you're not happy with this situation, something has to change. It can be a change in the law, a change in the way people think, a radical change, a small change, a reasonable change a draconian change. But if there's no change at all ...well, what you see is what you get. Fortunately, I no longer live in the USA, so it's whatever whatever as far as I'm concerned. It's not up to me.
Oh, right. It's just that @Lewdog was quoting me, and I assumed it was something I said. I wasn't aware of any situation in Iran that fits into the shooting in Seattle, but I admit to skimming this thread a bit. Ah, I see he must have thought my reply was to what Mans said. In actual fact, I think Mans posted his while I was still writing mine, and I wasn't aware he'd written anything at all. I was actually responding to an earlier post from somebody else...
@T.Trian - it would not require that civilians carrying firearms be "complete idiots". It would only require that they not be crack marksmen, that they not be fully trained in knowing when to fire and when not to (even police don't always get this right), and that they not be able to remain absolutely cool and calm at a time when the adrenaline is maxing out. Are you so sure that such would never be the case? @ChickenFreak - the framers knew, because most of them had studied the ancient philosophers as well as Hobbes, Hume and other great thinkers of the Age of Reason, that man is, above all, an imperfect creature. Therefore, they conceived a government replete with checks and balances. They did not assume that the resulting government would be perfect but that it would be workable and that it would remain under the control of the governed. I'm very aware of Jefferson's quote about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of revolution, but his writings did not reflect that as an actual view of the maintenance of control by the governed (and if you have found something that contradicts that, I'd be interested to know). As president, he executed the largest single peaceful territory acquisition in our history. It's also instructive to remember that the catalyst for calling the Constitutional Convention was Shay's Rebellion. If you want to read up on how that event was perceived by people like John Adams, I suggest James MacGregor Burns' excellent work, The Vineyard of Liberty. Our Constitution exists as a reaction to and to prevent the very kind of event that you suggest the Second Amendment would have countenanced. Moreover, not even the most fervent anti-federalists of the time, including the brilliant and oft-ignored Mercy Otis Warren, ever urged citizens taking up arms against their own government. Oh, and the Fourteenth Amendment, by way of its Equal Protection Clause, makes the prohibitions of the First Amendment (as well as the rest of the rights protected by the first ten amendments) applicable to the states. I'd list specific Supreme Court cases that outlined this, but then this thread would never end. Back to @T.Trian - your question of where to draw the line is a good one. I hope our polity gets around to addressing it some day. But then, this entire issue is one of balance, of trying to decide where to draw the line. How do we balance the right of people to bear arms with the right of society to be safe? That requires asking a more fundamental question - how relevant is the right to bear arms in an industrialized, fragmented society? By what reason do we continue to believe that anyone has the right to possess weapons with the ability to destroy that very safety that the nation was formed to guarantee? What societal purpose is served by retaining such a right? John F. Kennedy once said, "Let each man follow his own course, so long as that course does not interfere with the course of others." I've always thought that was a pretty good expression of the challenge of protecting a free society. And it is with that as my guiding principle in the gun debate. At this point, I think I've said as much as I have to say on the subject. So, time to "unwatch" and get back to editing.
Oh. I messed up again. I think I need more sleep. Eeek, messed up by that saved draft feature again. Fixed now.
Well, I may be a tad more demanding of firearms owners than your average pro gun advocate. So yeah, I do classify people, be they civilians, police officers, or whatever, who aren't very adept (competitor level) at the use of their carry gun as "complete idiots," because mistakes with guns can cost lives. I view it like driving a car: you have to pass a test and in order to retain your "feel" for driving, you need to drive every now and then, preferably at least a few days a week. I believe a gun owner should practice the use of his/her firearm at least as much although a daily practice session would be preferable, even if it's just 15-30 minutes. That would help minimize the amount of accidental casualties and would also help maximize the chances of a successful intervention when a person is trying to stop a crime (be it a school shooting or an attack against their person). And for the record, I know plenty of law enforcement officers who have often lamented just how ridiculously bad some cops are at shooting/handling their firearms. Some are so bad, they are downright dangerous to themselves and those around them, so especially people who work with guns, such as LEOs, should be even more diligent and clock in more practice hours than civilians. After all, they are supposed to be professionals. As for who needs a firearm? I'd say it depends: some need one for hunting, others for sport, but if you accept the fact that a violent assault can happen to basically anyone at any time and anywhere, firearms would pretty much have the role of seat belts: you carry one and practice its use diligently and often, hoping and praying you will never have to use it outside of your training sessions. I'd also claim that firearms are the great equalizer: they make it possible for weaker/frailer individuals to defend themselves not only against stronger individuals, but against multiple assailants (whereas weapons such as tasers, knives, OC sprays etc. help but still leave you at a significant disadvantage against multiples and some of these weapons, such as OC, rely on pain compliance instead of disabling the assailant, so their chances of failing to stop an assailant are greater than those of firearms albeit even guns don't make success a certainty: they just increase your chances of survival significantly, particularly if you practice their use with the same diligence I've talked about here). Firearms level the playing field quite well between men and e.g. women, the elderly, disabled people etc.
Hmmm ...three people shot and killed in Las Vegas today. Two of them were armed policemen having lunch, the third an innocent person in WalMart. (Then the shooters killed themselves.) The 'good guy' police were armed and trained—so how did this happen? It just goes on...
Do you know if they were trained well? Let me clarify: being a police officer in no way guarantees the person knows jack about how to handle a firearm or how to conduct themselves in a violent encounter. Sure, every LEO is taught the basics, but like I said before, I know plenty of LEOs who constantly encounter colleagues who are so bad at gun handling, they are dangerous and pretty much useless in a gun fight. I would imagine that in this case, either the two officers weren't well-trained or the bad guys just got the drop on them. Fact is, be it with a gun, knife, or rock, if I want to kill someone, I can kill them. Just walk up to them, pretending to be up to something normal, and when they aren't looking, crack their skull open with the rock. All it takes is the intent and a tiny bit of cunning. The sad fact is, there is no such thing as being able to prevent 100% of violence. The only thing anyone can do, no matter how much or how well they train, is to increase their chances of survival. That's all. However, that does not mean we shouldn't try our best to maximize those chances with the proper training and gear, i.e. preparation, since the better prepared you are, the more aware you are of your surroundings, the more difficult it is to harm you. The key word being "more difficult," and not "impossible." That being said, these police officers might just as well have been top level guys, they might have done everything right, but the bad guys just came out on top simply because the person who knows what's going on while the other guy has no idea is always at a significant advantage, and if they play their cards right, their success is almost guaranteed. Yes, it's sad, and yes, it sucks, but again, the bad guys could've used other weapons as well. The problem isn't what they use, it's what they do, it's their desire, their intent to hurt people that's the issue here, not their gear, their clothes, or whatever. And yes, it will go on as long as people want to hurt each other. Unless we can change that, incidents like this will keep happening until the end of the world. Sure, the equipment used might vary through the ages, be it a rock, sword, pistol, or laser gun, but the end result will be the same. As for the three victims, all I can say is RIP.
Well, it's starting to look like the two 'revolutionaries' who did the shooting before committing suicide were well-known white supremist supporters who often bragged about planning to kill police officers. A simple background check before selling them guns would have been a good idea, hey? But as I said before ...this is going to continue to happen until people finally wake up and decide to make changes in how easily people can acquire guns in the USA. That's two unconnected 'shooting sprees' in less than a week. One by a person who was known to be unstable—and was eventually stopped by a guy using a can of pepper spray. The other by people who had threatened to shoot police officers—and did. But ...if this is the price people are willing to pay, to stubbornly stick to their 'guns' and refuse to allow any regulation at all ...well fair enough. It's going to keep happening.
And I hope that when this happens in the US (all states follow New York's or California's example), they won't take after Finland and start seriously mass shooting after gun control's made extra stringent. 'Cause then I'm out of ideas, don't know how to stop it anymore. On a side note, a friend of mine just came from an interview for a rifle permit, and they asked her there if she was an optimist. She replied she's a realist and is now hoping they won't turn down the permit based on that.
