Actually, it was you who profiled American gun owners and gun violence with your "Texas Good ol' boy" comment. Thats an interesting point. When I was growing up, most people I knew simply referred to themselves as American. This whole hyphenation American thing seems to be part of our great liberal muli-cultural experiment, where people cling to the identity and culture of the country they came from rather than the culture of America. Seems like that would be more up your alley, so it's odd to see you hurling it out like some sort of accusation.
Well in todays NYC shooting it seems the shooter shot a former worker and the cops shot up to 9 people in order to kill the gunman. That puts paid to the theory having armed people in that cinema would have lowered the body count I guess. It seems even trained people miss their target. Today's shooting was apparently just minutes after republican mayor bloomberg was calling for tighter gun laws on the radio.
No, it doesn't put paid to the idea any more than having your car fail to start disproves the theory of internal combustion. Cops are notoriously lousy shots. Hell, I've outshot active duty military personnel, and most permit holders practice more than cops. Might explain why in the cases where concealed permit holders foiled crimes you don't see innocent bystanders getting hit.
But you would think that a place as notorious as NYC, what with all the terrorist activity, that the cops would be trained as sharp-shooters. I'm not denying they're lousy shots, I believe that's been proven correct today.
You're welcome to cling the belief that one example makes a rule... but there are ample instances that prove otherwise. I provided videos of two above.
He is no Republican. He goes by the title independent, but I tend to disagree with his views more than I agree with them,
The report I read said Bloomberg was calling for tighter gun laws. I assumed he was a democrat and Googled to see. A Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his registration in 2001 and ran for mayor as a Republican, winning the election that year and a second term in 2005. Bloomberg left the Republican Party over policy and philosophical disagreements with national party leadership in 2007 and ran for his third term in 2009 as an independent candidate on the Republican ballot line. Sounds more republican to me, which indeed surprised me and is why I included it.
Bloomie was a Democrat, changed to GOP, now calls himself Independent. What he is... an opportunist nutjob. I'm loving the argument that because the police are incompetent, I'm supposed to disarm and place my safety in the hands of police. That argument oughta be taken out and shot. [Not by the NYPD... we don't want bystanders endangered.]
Fearstix? LOL. Cute. I like the fact that the liberal press and guys like Bloomie use this to call for more gun laws. What the guy did was already illegal, and NYC has stricter gun laws than most of the nation. Maybe the guy didn't notice. Passing more laws should fix that. You can buy pot, thought outlawed for decades, on any corner of NYC... but they firmly believe outlawing guns would make them unavailable.
Here's a 92 yr old vet vs 3 young guys in their prime breaking into his house. The 92 yr old guy is fine. The bad guys? One is dead, two are in jail. Chalk up another win for the right to bear arms. http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/region_northern_kentucky/man-shot-in-chest-in-crittenden
So a 92 yr old guy {in the dark, armed with a .22} kills a bad guy who had two men to back him up... with one shot. Meanwhile, in broad daylight, 6 trained NYPD officers fired 42 shots with service weapons to do the same thing, to ONE lone bad guy. And they injured how many other people while trying? Yeah, tell me again how it is the incredible competency of those trained policemen I should put my faith in.
Yeah, you blokes and women NEED to arm yourselves. Without a doubt the US is the most dangerous place in the world. Violent and crime ridden, its citizens should be able to protect themselves at all costs. It is the ONLY way to reduce crime. Having a cocked and loaded gun beside your lounge suite/bed each night will put the fear into all would be robbers and if a few forgetful youngsters fall by the wayside and into an early grave then that's just too bad. And if by doing so you start to cut down on the number of trained officers, that's just a bonus. Nothing wrong with cutting costs.
Hate to rain on your parade, but crime happens in other countries too. Difference is we have the right to fight back. If you read about people in what some consider "more civilized" countries being prosecuted for defending themseves in similar circumstances it makes you wonder why some people think the unarmed guy that gets viciously attacked or has a family member murdered is morally superior to a 92 yr old guy that takes out the trash without need of assistance. To each their own i guess.
Yeah, I guess if someone here gets robbed twice they go to Bunnings and get locks for their doors. Way better to buy a gun and lie in wait and blast them. Saves paperwork and the baddies wouldn't have kids or mothers or anyone who cared about them. To each their own I guess.
Ask me if i care. You wont like the answer. I care about the intended victims, not the intentional criminals that target them. Anyone that kicks down the door of a residence to rob the occupants (in this or any other country) has earned the right to be sent to hell by those who live there. I gather your point is people in the US should just buy locks. Are people in the uk too stupid to buy locks too? I can show you the same scenario there, but the difference being they guy that shot intruders after multiple thefts was also thrown in jail, despite legally owning the firearm. Seriously, i do not understand anyone whose sympathies lie with someone who breaks into an occupied house. You know it happens in Australia too, and i need not supply the news references again. People get hurt by guys like that. Why would you waste an ounce of sympathy on their fate? Removing them from the planet is a good thing. Call me callous if you want, but it's true.
You have said one example does not tell the whole story however, we have no idea what brought that young bloke and his mates to intrude, probably, as happened previously, so we can assume it was to steal more stuff. The 92yo bloke shoots one dead and scares off the other two. He'd been robbed before and didn't want to lose his stuff again. He was prepared. Now, because he didn't want to lose his stuff one mother and father loses their child, forever. No more birthdays, every xmas will be missing something, etc.. It doesn't matter right because the intruder was scum? The 92yo took a life for the sake of stuff, he may have been fully insured after previous burglaries, however, no warning shot to scare them off. Took aim at the heart and shot him dead, just like that. That's one bastard that won't get up again. We also know, as he gets older and 'nearer my God to thee" he's going to be considering that 'act' more and more. It will eat away it him and he will see it was a sin (in Godly terms), on his part. The 'act' has probably taken 10 years off his own life and that probably means he won't last much longer. Here, especially if we have been robbed before, we buy insurance and then we let the cops catch the thief and put him or her in jail whilst collecting double the real worth of the stolen stuff on insurance. I feel it's a much nicer ending all round and makes for a more civilised society.