Authorities don’t yet know what sparked this weekend’s tragic shooting by an off duty Pierce County deputy of his in-laws and himself. But we do know what enabled the shootings: a gun.
I’m not pointing this out as an argument for gun control. The guy was a police officer after all, so it’s kinda unrealistic to expect him not to have a weapon.
But I would argue that this tragedy once again points out that generally, guns do not make us safer. Had this man not had easy access to a weapon, he would not have shot his in-laws or himself. He might still have gotten physically violent, but the result would likely not have been nearly as tragic.
I mean, honestly, how many shootings do we read of that are the result of horrible accidents or crazed crimes of passion? And how many are legitimate acts of self defense?
So own a gun if you want. It’s your 2nd Amendment right, the current Supreme Court tells us, and both hunting and target shooting can be reasonable pastimes, and even downright fun. Just know that your number one risk factor for being involved in a shooting is to own gun.
Cops don’t carry guns in Great Britain if I’m not mistaken.
Do autos make us safer? Why do you endanger your daughter by letting her ride in a car?
@1..some police do, some dont…..but what does that have to do with anything?
YLB,
There are many armed cops in the U.K. They don’t screw around. When armed they carry MP-5s.
tenderhands YLB isnt going to know what an MP-5 is, you will just confuse him.
like goldy, YLB is of the “gunz are teh scaireey” llk.
but like you said earlier, neither has any problems stuffing the wife and kids into a piece of shit car and zooming down I-5….
ignorance is bliss I suppose….
Study after study has shown guns do make us safer. Less restrictive gun laws= lower crime rates. This has been consistently shown. Im not advocating allowing insane people or criminals to have guns, but gun laws dont work because criminals will find ways to get them. “outlaw guns and only outlaws have guns.” If you believe gun laws work in stopping bad people from having them, then I guess you also believe no one uses illegal drugs, since they being illegal would stop people from using them.
@3 Uh did you say something?
yep..sure did.
imitation is a great form of flattery….
5 – Grew up with weapons in the house a good part of my life. I have no issues with responsible gun owners. Unlike the dead people and those close to them have with irresponsible, intoxicated or momentarily insane gun owners.
By the way did you say something?
9 – Huh?
I grew up shooting guns, but I still don’t see any legitimate purpose behind allowing civilians to own assault rifle. If you like to hunt but can’t hit your target with your first round, you really shouldn’t be out hunting until you can.
Likewise, the best weapon for home defense isn’t an assault rifle, it’s a double-barrelled shotgun. That way you can more efficiently dispatch your son who’s trying to sneak into your house late at night, whom you thought was a burglar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....ed_Kingdom
There you go. If it was a British cop, some people might be hurt but most likely alive.
Chris
????
Can you cite any such evidence?
I just assume keep my long rifles and assault rifles, TYVM.
If you dont like them, then dont own one.
and before anyone pipes in with “ya, but machine guns arent legal”….yes, they are – if you have the proper licence.
Now THIS is a fucking gun….20mm sniper rifle…order yours today.
http://www.anzioironworks.com/
http://www.anzioironworks.com/Anzio-20-50.html
this thing probably weighs more than Tenderhands YLBleeder soaking wet..
Since pansy-assed girly-man Goldy couldn’t defend himself against a wet paper bag, perhaps he of all people should look into the purchase of a firearm.
@5
From Goldy’s post.
****************
From what I’ve read of this, chronic pain, depression, economic stress and a failing marriage played a big role in this.
@15
Goldy’s just saying think things through and make decisions based on facts. He had a pic up at one point of his daughter in summer camp learning how to shoot a .22.
Add me to the list of folks that grew up in a cast and blast for recreation family. Other than an antique Winchester (1885 made in 1913) that belonged to my grandpa, I got rid of my guns about a decade ago.
“guns do not make us safer. Had this man not had easy access to a weapon, he would not have shot his in-laws or himself. ”
Not logical. Having or not having a gun has no logical relationship to the intent to kill. It’s just a tool, not a desire or motivation.
1) He might not have shot his in-laws, but that wouldn’t have saved them. He might have stabbed them to death, beat them with a brick, poisoned them, ran over them with a car, tied them up and drowned them. Millions were murdered before the gun was invented.
2) If his ‘victims’ ALSO had a gun, they might have been able to defend themselves.
If this guy, a “hero”, was in such a mental state he intended to commit multiple murders, of his family even, then what WOULD have saved them? It’s PURE conjecture to say if he didn’t have a gun (like most cops in England) that he wouldn’t have harmed his family. Nice to “imagine” but just pulling that out of your ass. He might have done like the crazy lady who tied up her kids, put them in a car and drove it into a lake. You can’t stop crazy.
Well, the off duty cop was no pansy ass — and his in laws could attest to that if he had not killed them with a pistol.
They probably could have defended themselves with their own guns if they had had time to take them out of the gun safe and remove the trigger locks.
The point being that gun safety and self defense are often at odds with each other. A couple of large dogs and a stout stick would be a better defense from a home invasion than a gun locked in a safe.
@17
And yet he’s somehow made it to the ripe old age of 48 (or somewhere around there)…
@21
You can often catch it and fix things before they get to the point of killing people.
Alki @21,
I might be wrong, but it doesn’t sound to me like a premeditated crime. Rather a crime of impulse and opportunity. And guns are the perfect impulse weapon.
And while it’s true that, if perhaps his in-laws had been equally armed, they might have defended themselves, if everybody was armed in anticipation that a loved one might go crazy and shoot them, then just think of how many more of these crimes of impulse and opportunity there would be. Not to mention tragic accidents.
I believe I am mostly ok with gun ownership as a right, but I feel strongly that strict laws and regulations for their purchase and use are important for the reason of increasing the likelihood that people will take these dangerous tools seriously. When I was young, I went through a hunter’s safety course and was part of a family that hunted and had guns.
People here have brought up the car analogy. Sure, we stuff our kids into these dangerous metal boxes and hurtle ourselves down the road at high speeds, but those speeds are regulated and enforced. People can’t drive until they get a license and there are many laws in force which dictate how we can use our automobiles. Without these, death tolls would likely be much higher. Alternatively, having such well spelled out rules allows for people to take for granted that things will always work in expected ways, which can tend to increase accidents.
We’ll never totally be able to eliminate the randomness of a messed up individual, but emphasizing the seriousness of a subject can have a positive effect on safety.
“…the current Supreme Court tells us…”
You expecting some changes along those lines, Goldy?
Goldy and Alki
PULEEZ ….
Is there even one example where the presence of guns in the home have stopped an impulse murder?
About the only way I can imagine this happening is if Ma, Pa and the kids have their peacemakers belted to their thighs, gun slinger style.
Even then, all confrontations woudl have to be done at ten paces. It would be unfair to sneak up on your unfaithful spice at night and shoot her in the back while she slept!
Even cops do not carry guns to protect themselves .. Real cops, as opposed to the TV kind, carry guns as a show of force. “Stop or I will shoot!” is a lot more likely to have an effect than “Don’t shoot me first cuz if you miss I will shoot back!.”
BTW, in Israel there are LOTS of guns everywhere. I do not remember of reading of any examples where a gun has blocked someone else’s bullet.
26
Well-said.
SJ @ 28
Your post brings this awful/hilarious image to mind. Picture this: the family reunion where everyone is packing. Once the beers kick in, and old family squabbles are raised yet again, everyone would be aiming at everyone else. I’m quite sure that such a family reunion would be a safer place to be than a reunion where no one was packing.
Elmlish,
They don’t even enforce the traffic laws. You know what happened when an uninsured driver totalled my car? The SPD wrote a ticket and let him drive off. You know what happened when I was hit buy an unlicened, uninsured driver that ultimately left the scene? SPD asked why I didn’t take his keys from him. Do you remember the caterwalling about it being unfair when they started impounding the cars of unlicensed drivers in Seattle? That is now well they enforce the law.
PL @ 30:
Sounds like a lot of family reunions where I grew up. The news reports had quite a few stories of one guy getting mad, another pulling a gun and tilling the first to “git”, the first guy does “git”, but only far enough to retrieve his own gun from the car… And then the bullets started flying. The only thing which kept the kill count down was the amount of alchohol which had been consumed previously (it’s surprising how many rounds those guys could shoot and miss every time).
Of course, the holidays around here aren’t much better.
There used to be a kindly, widowed elderly woman who lived across the street from us when I was growing up. One night she thought someone was trying to break into the house, so she called my Dad, then she called her sons. By the time my Dad had his clothes and shoes on, and had walked across the street, her sons had arrived and were roaming around the house and the adjoining woods, armed to the teeth.
My Dad, a combat veteran of Korea with a Silver Star and a Purple Heart, came back into the house a few minutes later, looking concerned. My Mom and asked him what was happening. “Those idiots are going to shoot themselves or somebody else before they ever find a burglar!” he announced. He then had us all go into the basement, because he was concerned that a stray bullet would end up in our house.
Shortly thereafter, there was a commotion, shouting, one shot, then a whole bunch of shots. About then the police arrived, who were very concerned about the armed men roaming around in the dark around the house and the adjoining woods. They ordered everyone to come out – with their weapons over their heads.
Turns out the only casualty was a stump of a tree, mistaken for the burglar. It had about six rounds in it, but the house on the other side of the woods had three rounds in it (those were discovered the next day).
Goldy, you always brag about the lefts great brainpower and reliance on science and facts versus us great unwashed knuckledraggers
I don’t think you have evidence that supports “#1 risk factor is to own a gun”
I suspect its “be proximate to a gun, especially by living in a lower income , possibly gang infested neighborhoodd.” The accidental, family, and other shootings are far less common than the liquor store, gang bang, drive by, etc.
@2
In 2005 there were 30,694 fatalities caused by firearms in the U.S. In the same year there were 43,443 vehicular deaths.
Now for a second, compare the number of operators and operated hours of vehicles vs operators and operated hours of handguns and you’ll realize your comparison is not only rediculous, it’s the crappiest soundbite driven bit of illogic involved in the gun debate.
Are you suggesting that 70% of automobile users are also firearms owners?
@34 Righton
Suspect what you want but where is there data that packing guns makes anyone safer?
Of course it is perfectly fair to ask about the evidejnce form the other side. Are Americans more endangered because of the gins than Canadians are w/o them?
Maybe it really does not matter? I tend to think the best idea is to have better controls on who can and can nto have guns and who can and can not have ammo.
As a Jefferonian, I tend to think that the 2nd Amednment is there to preserve some balance between the State and the individual. I am not sure just what that means today but if Tom wanted it, I can see it as being at least symbolic.
@14 type myths lies and downright stupidity into youtube, and youll see a 20/20 segment about it. A little after the 4 minute mark it is mentioned that the national academy of sciences reviewed hundreds of gun control laws and could not find one time where increased restrictions reduced crime. Somone being interviewed asks, if someone wants to kill or rob you do you want a telephone or a gun?
Are you kidding? A telephone!
sj, 36; i agree a reading of the 2nd amend, and its original intent is to arm state militias, and preserve some rights. Robert Bork says such too.
Now since lefties have gutted all our states rights, i’m not prepared to give up this right…that is, give me back all our stolen prohibitions from federal laws…and i’ll give you 2nd is for the militas only.
yes, its not logical, but doggone, you’ve ripped apart the entire constitution over the years.
@37
As a middle aged, suburban, white guy, I’m far more likely to die from a slip in the shower or a car wreck than I am from gun violence. I’m not “anti-gun” I grew up around them, did a little hunting, have been on target shooting teams. But, the idea that I need a gun to protect my self or to be safe is myth.
http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod/index.htm
SeattleJew…
In 1995 Texas passed a concealed carry law. The Uniform Crime Report from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) indicated in 2004 the overall crime rate in Texas dropped over the 7 years. In 1997, DPS reported 5,478 crimes per 100,000 Texans, based on a population of 19,355,427 peeps. With almost 3 million more Texans in 2004, the crime rate is 5,032 per 100,000.
Hope that helps SJ!
so….like….should we have gun laws like china?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35.....iapacific/
Dr Dre,
And you found it in the arschloch’s favrit useless news service… PMSNBC! Good catch!
@41
Puddy doesn’t do analysis (numbers rounded for ease of digestion.)
Violent crime nationwide in 1995 685 per 100,000 citizens. In 2005, 469 per 100,000 citizens. But in Texas, the drop CAN ONLY be attributed to concealed carry in Puddyworld.
Putting the lie to the theory that Texas’ concealed carry keeps Texans safer than say non concealed carry states…
The crime rate in Texas is 23% higher than the national average. The violent crime rate is 14% hihger than the national average. In 1995, Texas ranked 17th in the nation in violent crime rates. By 2004, Texas ranked 12th. Why was the crime rate going down at a more rapid rate in other states if Texas’ concealed carry law was so effective?
That’s an issue Puddy won’t get into ’cause it would take some actual critical thought or GASP, analysis.
Polst-hoc ergo propter hoc. Puddy’s particular specialty among logical falacies.
@38 A telephone as in calling the police. You can either use a gun to shoot an intruder or use a telephone to call 911 and then the police can arrive and take a picture of your dead body.
“generally, guns do not make us safer.” False. In the US the crime rate has dropped drastically for 25 years. During this same period gun ownership has increased by 10’s of millions, and 40 states have passed laws allowing any law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed firearm. Meanwhile, in cities, states and countries that have passed increasingly strict gun control laws, crime rates have increased. Instead of publishing your feelings, why not check the facts?
46 – ehh. Someone earlier posted contradictory evidence that crime in Texas has stayed stubbornly higher than the national average despite a concealed carry law.
Guess border state/drug trade blows that one out of the water. Those narco pistoleros brook no quarter in pursuit of profit.
Good old chechsez doesn’t do ANAL-ysis well. He does ANAL superbly as evidenced by the manure left here as a HorsesASS!
Of course the FOOL misses the big one from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and their Uniform Crime Report. FBI’s UCR demonstrated an 18% drop in handgun murders. It was 838 in 1995 in Texas to 688 in 2004. There was a 13% drop in handgun murders per 100,000 population. It went from 4.5 murders in 1995 per 100,000 peeps to 3.95 murders per 100,000 in 2004.
“As you know, I was very outspoken in my opposition to the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act. I did not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets,” Holmes wrote. “Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County , and indeed state-wide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless.” – John Holmes, Harris County district attorney
“I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn’t happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen. No bogeyman. I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.” Glenn White, Dallas Police Association President
“Many predicted that minor incidents would escalate into bloody shootouts if Texas passed a concealed-carry law. That prediction was dead wrong.” – H. Sterling Burnett, National Center for Policy Analysis senior policy analyst
Notice who brought up the rear… the caboose AKA the arschloch@47. Never an original thought!
Puddy uses the FBI. Always have, always will checksez.
Take a look at the well-known libtardo led sanctuary cities with “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” policies, Houston and the capital city of Austin where the University of Texas is. They both experienced violent crime rates. Houston experienced an additional 314 violent crimes in 2007 over 2006. Austin had 213 more violent crimes in 2007 over 2006.
One other thing checksez, the drooling moron. Violent crime went up in Texas after the friendly N’Awlins folk arrived after Katrina. Google it FOOL!
What chechsez FORGETS to tell you in regards to the prison population is the violence by his good buds the illegal aliens. Google search it fool. Your EYES will be opened more than the libtardo arschloch guy with the left porn eye, the caboose of every thread!
Puddy once again uses a falacious argument and poorly selects his “facts”.
Cherry-picking two cites, failure to cite statistics in other cities, using raw numbers without a comparison – you flunk Puddy. You just screwed every major statistical analysis rule.
And the drop in murders from 1995 – 2004- hmm, wasn’t that pretty much everywhere the crime rate went down during Clintons term because the economy was up?
Yup, the murder rates went down in Connecticut too and in almost every state from 1995-2004. I don’t seem to recall every state with a concealed weapons law.
Once again, Puddy uses statistics wrong and fails to grasp the big picture.
Should we trust ANYTHING Puddy writes when he puts out this kind of BS?
However, you are good at calling people names, changing the topic when wrong and pretending to be intelligent.
Oh, forgot the link:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or.....-and-state
Oh Pudddddddyyyyyyy?
Did you by any chance look up post-hoc ergo propter hoc? Your cite of the arrival of Katrina victims is a classic example.
Were the increases in crimes committed BY Katrina Victims or AGAINST them? Puddy doesn’t know. Puddy doesn’t think about it. Did the handgun murder rate drop at a slower rate in Texas than the U.S. as a whole BECUASE of concealed carry or did federal funding of increased police officers play a role in the decline? Did socio-economic factors come into play? In Puddyworld, nope. Just concealed carry.
Careful when you ask for someone to google. It comes up with a study that a crime wave in Texas post Katrina was “non-existent.” (But naturally, it turns up a Brietbart story that also fails to consider how many Katrina evacuees were victims vs. suspects. They use the convenient phrase “Katrina evacuee as either victim or suspect” but no breakdown.)
Puddy doesn’t think about complex issues. Nope. It’s concealed carry. That’s the ONLY explanation. Post-hoc ergo propter hoc.
And in the same period how many successful defenses were there?
I would guess without taking the time to research that the stupid, ignorant, impulsive, drunken, or willfully malicious uses of handguns FAR outnumber the legitimate self-defense uses.
And in a timely bit of irony, it is indisputable fact that if a certain Washington resident didn’t own guns, he would be alive today.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/94133739.html
Bet he used them to protect his property exactly never.
@54,
Accidents will happen. Life is eventually fatal for all of us whether or not we own guns or not.
We need guns to protect ourselves from porcupines!
By the way, I’ve known quite a few policemen, and while they all are quite happy having firearms for their own protection, none of them I’ve known thought that having a firearm in a home for personal protection was a good idea.
Every one of them said that the odds of using one for successful defense of home and family were far outweighed by the likelihood that the same firearm would be (a) stolen during a burglary while the house was unoccupied; or (b) that it would be taken by a kid for play purposes; or (c) that a friend or family member would be mistaken for a burglar and shot; or (d) the firearm would be accidently discharged resulting in death or serious injury; or (e) the firearm would be retrieved and used in a family argument; or (f) the homeowner would be disarmed and the gun used against them by the burlars.
Perhaps they might feel differently if all gun owners were adequately trained, but currently there is no requirement to that effect (and the NRA would have a fit at any attempt to do so, which would ammount to a licensing of gun ownership).
I’m sure that there are some officers who believe differently, but I’ve been surprised at the consistency of the answers from those who have talked about it.
@54
But accidents are not all equal. Some are 100% preventable. In this case the gentleman had three opportunities to keep this from happening.
1. Not owning a gun (covered already)
2. Not keeping a gun loaded
3. Making sure rounds or shells are removed before transporting a gun.
There are behaviors that increase the likelyhood of accidental death. Things like skydiving, motorcycle riding, free diving and careless gun ownership.
@58…or the biggest of them all: driving a car.
@56…darwinism in full effect….
@59
Back on that? See #35.
The percentage of car users who kill or are killed in cars is but a miniscule fraction of the number of gun users who kill or are killed by guns.
It’s a B.S. comparison.
tell that to the people who are killed by cars.
if you dont like guns, then dont own one. pretty simple enough….because you sure as fuck arent going to be able to outlaw and confiscate them.
@62
Don’t want to. Have one. Have a concealed carry permit too. Used to work the kind of job that involved handling large sums of cash late at night after closing. Haven’t carried since I got out of that business because I’m not a paranoid who worries that every day might be the day I’m in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But when you say driving a car is the “biggest one of all,” you’re horribly incorrect. There are many, many, many human activities that are more likely to cause your death if you engage in them than car driver/ridership.
But it’s a good soundbite the true gun nuts like to spout.
By the way, the home invasion is the scenario most favored by gun advocates who see their gun as giving them the opportunity to defend their family from criminals.
Despite the news they generate, home invasion robberies are incredibly rare, and usually focus on minorities who are known to keep large amounts of cash in the home.
More importantly, criminals involved in a home invasion robbery are concerned about the possibility that a gun is present in the home. That’s why they make sure they have the element of surprise, and immediately take a family member hostage in order to force the remaining family members into compliance. An armed homeowner (if he is able to get to the gun in time) is then faced with an ultimatum: your gun or your kid’s life. In the meantime they are faced with three or more other guns pointed at him, knowing that any attempt to fire on one will probably result in the death of himself and several other of his family members. Most (wisely) surrender the gun at that point.
So despite visions of heroic actions by the homeowner, guns are almost never successful at stopping a home invasion.
Take a look at the Sarah Palin pic and tell me what’s wrong with this picture?
http://www.opposingviews.com/i.....er-nothing
no clip.
@66
Since there’s someone she’s not intending to shoot in front of her I’d hope there no magazine in that rifle. Try again.
http://www.techeblog.com/index.....nstration-
holy shit! now that is big….
@66
Trigger finger isn’t indexed.
czechsaaz,
You want to define hours of “using” the gun? I have one being “used” much more an I am driving. The weapon is sitting there at the ready in case it is needed….that makes it many more hours in the day than I drive. I hope it is not needed. I have had to use one once (to save a pet from a predator). I have been injured more times in vehicle accidents than by firearms.
@66..ahhhhh