At least four people shot outside Empire State Building; gunman dead

It might not be a mass shooting, but a targeted workplace killing. It looks like officers wounded bystanders inadvertently in attempt to take the gunman down.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/24/shooting-reported-outside-empire-state-building/?hpt=hp_t1

As Johnson attempted to flee the scene, a construction worker across the street alerted two police officers, who pursued him up West 33rd Street, Kelly said. As Johnson pulled out a .45 caliber pistol, the officers opened fire, killing Johnson on the scene. It was unclear if Johnson managed to shoot a round.

Nine others were wounded or grazed in the exchange of gunfire, Kelly said. They were taken to local hospitals where they are expected to recover.

"Some may have been accidentally shot by police officers," Kelly said.
Click to expand...

While this is getting national attention, I think this is just as worthy as being the top story on CNN: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...st-24-violence-gunfire-20120823,0,49779.story
 
[quote name='Spokker']It might not be a mass shooting, but a targeted workplace killing. It looks like officers wounded bystanders inadvertently in attempt to take the gunman down.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/24/shooting-reported-outside-empire-state-building/?hpt=hp_t1



While this is getting national attention, I think this is just as worthy as being the top story on CNN: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...st-24-violence-gunfire-20120823,0,49779.story[/QUOTE]

Chicago is turning into a tragedy. Gangs are a huge problem in Chicago as they have been for decades but why this has spiked now I'm not sure.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/02/chicago-murder-rate-surges-as-new-york-s-drops-to-record-low.html
 
[quote name='Spokker']It might not be a mass shooting, but a targeted workplace killing. It looks like officers wounded bystanders inadvertently in attempt to take the gunman down.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/24/shooting-reported-outside-empire-state-building/?hpt=hp_t1



While this is getting national attention, I think this is just as worthy as being the top story on CNN: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...st-24-violence-gunfire-20120823,0,49779.story[/QUOTE]


^ I thought that was just part of the game?

Regardless how many of those 19 shot were shot by registered guns or people who had permits to carry those weapons?

I'm guessing slim to none... nothing gun control can or will fix
 
This is seriously messed up, especially with what happened in Chicago and what and will continue to happen everywhere in the country. But let's not talk about it because we're just too heated as gun advocates say. Ah fuck.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']^ I thought that was just part of the game?

Regardless how many of those 19 shot were shot by registered guns or people who had permits to carry those weapons?

I'm guessing slim to none... nothing gun control can or will fix[/QUOTE]

You're disgusting. I'm beginning to think you have no empathy for the victims of these crimes. First with the football and you defending child molestors just because they know how to coach a team. And your first reaction here is to worry about whether someone will come after your guns.

Why do you even need guns in the firstplace. To feel like a badass? Do us all a favor and pickup a videogame instead.
 
Put it this way, when the only people in an area with guns are criminals, it's a hell of a lot easier to spot the criminals.
 
[quote name='Clak']Put it this way, when the only people in an area with guns are criminals, it's a hell of a lot easier to spot the criminals.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, they're the ones standing over the dead bodies of their victims who weren't allowed to own guns for self defense.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Yeah, they're the ones standing over the dead bodies of their victims who weren't allowed to own guns for self defense.[/QUOTE]
What clak said went WAAYYYY over your head. I'm not surprised.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Explain it then. I'd love to hear it.[/QUOTE]
It means that non-criminals with guns are indistinguishable from criminals with guns if only criminals are the ones with guns, you moron. Cops tend to shoot first and ask questions later if you start dumping a mag in public. By calling you a moron, I mean use your fucking brains.:roll:
 
[quote name='dohdough']It means that non-criminals with guns are indistinguishable from criminals with guns if only criminals are the ones with guns, you moron. Cops tend to shoot first and ask questions later if you start dumping a mag in public. By calling you a moron, I mean use your fucking brains.:roll:[/QUOTE]

:lol:

Well no shit that's what he meant, it's exactly what he said. I ignored his point because this exact incident PROVES HIM WRONG. None of the bystanders that were shot were armed, and yet they got shot anyway. fucking retard.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']:lol:

Well no shit that's what he meant, it's exactly what he said. I ignored his point because this exact incident PROVES HIM WRONG. None of the bystanders that were shot were armed, and yet they got shot anyway. fucking retard.[/QUOTE]
This incident doesn't prove him wrong by a long shot. The police shooting and missing their target while inadvertantly hitting bystandards is different from the police shooting at several armed targets whether they hit them or not.

It's cute that you want to backtrack and try to seem like you were being sarcastic, but judging from your recent posts, it's highly unlikely that your original intent, as stated, is accurate.

You can go all in on the "it's the same shit!" argument if you want, but don't call me a fucking retard while you fail to address the nuance and differences of this incident. It's a bit hyoocritical. I'm not the one making a superficial argument here.
 
[quote name='dohdough']This incident doesn't prove him wrong by a long shot. The police shooting and missing their target while inadvertantly hitting bystandards is different from the police shooting at several armed targets whether they hit them or not.

It's cute that you want to backtrack and try to seem like you were being sarcastic, but judging from your recent posts, it's highly unlikely that your original intent, as stated, is accurate.

You can go all in on the "it's the same shit!" argument if you want, but don't call me a fucking retard while you fail to address the nuance and differences of this incident. It's a bit hyoocritical. I'm not the one making a superficial argument here.[/QUOTE]

It proves that it doesn't really matter much what the law is. This guy had committed himself to murder, do you really think a law against guns would have stopped him? All it would do was keep people who are concerned with the law from defending themselves. Just ask the perp's boss.

Let me ask you this. If you had been there, and if you had a gun on you, would you have taken it out to shoot this guy as he came running out of the building waving a gun, even at the risk of getting shot by the police, or would you have just let him continue his rampage?

354.jpg
 
[quote name='camoor']You're disgusting. I'm beginning to think you have no empathy for the victims of these crimes. First with the football and you defending child molestors just because they know how to coach a team. And your first reaction here is to worry about whether someone will come after your guns.

Why do you even need guns in the firstplace. To feel like a badass? Do us all a favor and pickup a videogame instead.[/QUOTE]


I don't own a gun and I'm indifferent towards them. I made a reference to the show the "wire" and was pointing out that without even needing confirmation that I can safely say most of the shootings that occured in Chicago were gang related and that the shooters most likely would carry firearms regardless of what the legislation was.

derp.

Edit: And because I said too much blame was put on Joe Paterno and not enough was put on the janitors, the judges, the LEO's, and ummm.. the mother of the child who was told by Sandusky himself that the abuse occurred.... 10 years ago... that makes me defend child molestors. You sir are the idiot.

Double derp.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']It proves that it doesn't really matter much what the law is. This guy had committed himself to murder, do you really think a law against guns would have stopped him? All it would do was keep people who are concerned with the law from defending themselves. Just ask the perp's boss.[/QUOTE]
This indicates to me that you either have absolutely no experience whatsoever with firearms or that you're so overconfident in your marksmanship, that you should never go near a gun.

In a situation like this, the victim would've had no time to draw, aim, and fire even if he was legally able to own a gun. Chances are that Johnson even obtained his weapon legally in Florida despite not being legally able to own one, so stricter laws on private sales would've probably prevented this especially in NYC or if there were actually resources available to track this stuff. And if Johnson didn't live in NYC proper, he could walk into any gunshop with a NY drivers license and walk out with a rifle or shotgun. But you're right, laws wouldn't have really changed anything, so I don't know why the fuck you want to discuss that aspect of it when no one is talking about restricting or banning guns in this thread. How the hell would bringing MORE guns into an already chaotic situation a rational conclusion?

Let me ask you this. If you had been there, and if you had a gun on you, would you have taken it out to shoot this guy as he came running out of the building waving a gun, even at the risk of getting shot by the police, or would you have just let him continue his rampage?
Click to expand...
Hell fucking no, I wouldn't shoot the guy. This isn't the fucking movies where every shot is dead on and cops let you go after discharging a weapon, muchless killing someone. Cops wouldn't just tell you to freeze if they saw you waving a gun around, they'd shoot first like they did to Johnson! And what rampage? Looks like Johnson got who he was looking for. One death does not make a rampage and we haven't even gotten started on my marksmanship yet.

With a 9mm semi-auto pistol on a range in optimal conditions, I can get a 2 inch group at 10ft and at 25ft, it goes to shit to about 12 inches. Provided that an AR is zeroed properly at 25 yds, I can headshot all day with iron sights and no bench, but I'm nothing special. Now what do you think would happen to my, or anyone else's aim under stress conditions with people screaming and running around with the gunman making himself a moving target as well? Lemme help you out with this one: aim turns to shit.

I'm not looking to be a hero or some kind of martyr; this is real life and I'd be no help to anyone in that situation if I'm dead. Anyone one advocating for taking the law into their own hands like they were a gunslinger in the Old West is an immature emotionally stunted man-child. Grow the fuck up.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I made a reference to the show the "wire" and was pointing out that without even needing confirmation that I can safely say most of the shootings that occured in Chicago were gang related and that the shooters most likely would carry firearms regardless of what the legislation was. [/QUOTE]

Well shit, I didn't know you watched the wire - you must be an expert on gun crimes in Chicago because you watched a fictional show set in Baltimore.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Edit: And because I said too much blame was put on Joe Paterno and not enough was put on the janitors, the judges, the LEO's, and ummm.. the mother of the child who was told by Sandusky himself that the abuse occurred.... 10 years ago... that makes me defend child molestors. [/QUOTE]

Too much blame? Poor guy ran into a little financial trouble before he passed on to wherever he was going (I'm guessing it was someplace hot). Ask any of the victims if ol' "JoePa" got too much blame.
 
Legitimate possession or not, it really doesn't seem like a good idea to be wielding a gun when police arrive. It's not like they too don't make mistakes, so why add to the confusion. Also, perhaps the criminal in one of these scenarios is more likely to shoot additional bystanders if one of the bystanders starts using a gun, too.

I can even imagine two non-perpetrators confusing each other for the offender, if either one has difficulty assessing the situation, and thus they begin shooting at each other or even someone unarmed who they falsely identify as a foe.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Legitimate possession or not, it really doesn't seem like a good idea to be wielding a gun when police arrive. It's not like they too don't make mistakes, so why add to the confusion. Also, perhaps the criminal in one of these scenarios is more likely to shoot additional bystanders if one of the bystanders starts using a gun, too.

I can even imagine two non-perpetrators confusing each other for the offender, if either one has difficulty assessing the situation, and thus they begin shooting at each other or even someone unarmed who they falsely identify as a foe.[/QUOTE]

Why can you understand this but temp 's dumb ass cannot....
 
[quote name='camoor']Well shit, I didn't know you watched the wire - you must be an expert on gun crimes in Chicago because you watched a fictional show set in Baltimore.[/QUOTE]

^ lol. So give me the skinny on the 19 "victims" in Chicago. They were all just in the wrong place at the wrong time right? I mean it's normal for drive by shooters to target people at random.

[quote name='camoor']Too much blame? Poor guy ran into a little financial trouble before he passed on to wherever he was going (I'm guessing it was someplace hot). Ask any of the victims if ol' "JoePa" got too much blame.[/QUOTE]

Boohoo... athletes get preferential treatment... boohoo (start another thread and cry some more)

Did JoePa participate in a cover up? Sure. Was he a LEO, court official or a PARENT of a child that was molested? NO... well people in each of the above categories had first hand knowledge that abuse was going on and I'd say that they have a much bigger moral legal obligation to act then a 72 year old man
 
[quote name='dohdough']This indicates to me that you either have absolutely no experience whatsoever with firearms or that you're so overconfident in your marksmanship, that you should never go near a gun.[/QUOTE]

:lol: What? How does my comment have any bearing on my marksmanship? I own many firearms. I've never had a problem with a single one as far as safety is concerned.

[quote name='dohdough']
In a situation like this, the victim would've had no time to draw, aim, and fire even if he was legally able to own a gun. Chances are that Johnson even obtained his weapon legally in Florida despite not being legally able to own one, so stricter laws on private sales would've probably prevented this especially in NYC or if there were actually resources available to track this stuff. And if Johnson didn't live in NYC proper, he could walk into any gunshop with a NY drivers license and walk out with a rifle or shotgun.
[/QUOTE]

How would you know if the guy's boss would have had time to react? Were you there? I'm not saying you're wrong, you could absolutely be right, but with NYC's nazi-style gun ban, the guy didn't even stand a chance to defend himself. Hell, even most types of knifes are banned in NYC.

[quote name='dohdough']
But you're right, laws wouldn't have really changed anything, so I don't know why the fuck you want to discuss that aspect of it when no one is talking about restricting or banning guns in this thread. How the hell would bringing MORE guns into an already chaotic situation a rational conclusion?
[/QUOTE]

Plenty of people here brought up a want for stricter gun laws. Are you just not reading all the posts?

[quote name='dohdough']
Hell fucking no, I wouldn't shoot the guy. This isn't the fucking movies where every shot is dead on and cops let you go after discharging a weapon, muchless killing someone. Cops wouldn't just tell you to freeze if they saw you waving a gun around, they'd shoot first like they did to Johnson! And what rampage? Looks like Johnson got who he was looking for. One death does not make a rampage and we haven't even gotten started on my marksmanship yet.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I simply disagree. Show me some stats on how many people get killed while intervening with a gun. I DO think that most officers will shout orders to drop a weapon before they open fire. Here's just one example where it didn't happen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g1n8cmwhIY

Does it happen across the board? Of course not, but had I been there, and had I been armed, I would have risked my life to stop a possible rampage (you mention there was no rampage in this situation, and you're right, it does look like one person was the target, but is that a risk you're willing to take? Oh wait, I forgot, you opted to run screaming in the other direction).

[quote name='dohdough']
With a 9mm semi-auto pistol on a range in optimal conditions, I can get a 2 inch group at 10ft and at 25ft, it goes to shit to about 12 inches. Provided that an AR is zeroed properly at 25 yds, I can headshot all day with iron sights and no bench, but I'm nothing special. Now what do you think would happen to my, or anyone else's aim under stress conditions with people screaming and running around with the gunman making himself a moving target as well? Lemme help you out with this one: aim turns to shit.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, but most of these encounters happen at pretty close range. Just because your aim stinks (well, to be honest, it's not horrible) doesn't mean everyone else's does.

[quote name='dohdough']
I'm not looking to be a hero or some kind of martyr; this is real life and I'd be no help to anyone in that situation if I'm dead. Anyone one advocating for taking the law into their own hands like they were a gunslinger in the Old West is an immature emotionally stunted man-child. Grow the fuck up.[/QUOTE]

Well, I can't say for sure what I would do in that situation because I've never been in that situation (and neither can you, no matter how much you claim you might). All I can say it what I think I would do, and I think I would try and stop somebody from possibly hurting more people, even if it meant my life.

As for whoever calling me a neocon. Ha, hardly. Are neocons anti-war, anti-religion, pro-abortion (mostly), pro-gay marriage, anti-death penalty, anti-drug war, anti-police, pro-environment, pro-ACLU and pro-NASA (woohoo!)? Hardly. Once again, you fail with your assumptions.
 
[quote name='Clak']Why can you understand this but temp 's dumb ass cannot....[/QUOTE]

I get the risks involved, but I'm not willing to weigh possible risks against KNOWN dangers. I don't know that pulling on a guy who might be going on a rampage might end up with more innocents being killed, but I have a pretty good inclination that the guy just killed somebody and he might kill more. I would have taken the chance to take him out, depending on the situation.

Would I have fired at him from three blocks down? No! Would I put one in him if he walked passed me and didn't see me and I could easily take him out from a few feet away? Yes! Even if it means getting shot by police. Look what happened here, people got shot anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Temporaryscars']:lol: What? How does my comment have any bearing on my marksmanship? I own many firearms. I've never had a problem with a single one as far as safety is concerned.[/QUOTE]
I know, it's funny because I'm two steps ahead of your arguments and you have no idea that I am.

Your hero complex is what makes you a safety concern, not your handling. As for your marksmanship, I'm talking about your bravado in being able to shoot someone in a stress situation.

How would you know if the guy's boss would have had time to react? Were you there? I'm not saying you're wrong, you could absolutely be right, but with NYC's nazi-style gun ban, the guy didn't even stand a chance to defend himself. Hell, even most types of knifes are banned in NYC.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you don't know anything about NYC's gun laws if you're going to describe it as Nazi-style. Unless you're referring to the permit process favoring middle to upper class white males that include taking one of many state-approved NRA gun safety classes and a couple recommendation letters, but I somehow don't think that you are. As for knives, are you a Highlander that needs to carry a sword in case another immortal wants to chop off your head? Or are you a greaser that needs a switchblade or butterfly knife in case someone besmirches you by beating you in a car race? Gimme a fucking break...you don't know shit about NYC laws.

Plenty of people here brought up a want for stricter gun laws. Are you just not reading all the posts?
Click to expand...
Two off-hand comments do not make for a deep or serious discussion especially when one of them is sardonic.

Well, I simply disagree. Show me some stats on how many people get killed while intervening with a gun. I DO think that most officers will shout orders to drop a weapon before they open fire. Here's just one example where it didn't happen:
Click to expand...
Cops tend to be reactionary goons and a fat old white guy is different from a young fit black dude in the city.

Does it happen across the board? Of course not, but had I been there, and had I been armed, I would have risked my life to stop a possible rampage (you mention there was no rampage in this situation, and you're right, it does look like one person was the target, but is that a risk you're willing to take? Oh wait, I forgot, you opted to run screaming in the other direction).
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHHA...yeah...I'm the pussy for not wanting to muzzle sweep a few dozen people and wantonly fire at a moving target while surrounded by bystandards.

Perhaps, but most of these encounters happen at pretty close range. Just because your aim stinks (well, to be honest, it's not horrible) doesn't mean everyone else's does.
Click to expand...
When it comes to situations like this, a vast majority of people can't and won't be able to shoot for shit.

Well, I can't say for sure what I would do in that situation because I've never been in that situation (and neither can you, no matter how much you claim you might). All I can say it what I think I would do, and I think I would try and stop somebody from possibly hurting more people, even if it meant my life.
Click to expand...
No, I know for a fact that I would not shoot someone in this type of situation. And like I said, given your hero complex, I hope you're never in a type of situation like this either because you might end up killing some innocent people to feed your ego to make up for some insecurities.
 
Guess we'll just have to disagree. Go figure. I admit I don't know the laws in NYC by heart, but I'm somewhat familiar with them (I do live in NY state after all). I know you need a permit to own basic rifles and shotguns (with military style being completely banned) and pistols can be owned if you're rich and famous.

What I do know is that, if somebody were armed, even if there was only a 10% chance of successfully stopping the guy, it's better than 0%, which is a guarantee if no one is armed.

Your doomsday assumption that things would be 48948329832 times worse if somebody tried to stop it is just that, an assumption.

As for your "hero complex" comment. Call it whatever you want, but if I'm in a situation where I think I can make a difference and save some lives, I'm going to take the risk. I know, what an asshole right?!

Keep claiming that people don't have a right to defend themselves. Here's hoping nobody ever tries to attack you or your family some day.
 
I think this is why the police sometimes break rank with the gun lobby, they know it's dangerous to have a bunch of dirty harry wannabes out trying to act like heroes. People who usually have far less training and experience than actual police. If someone has a gun and starts shooting, the best thing to do is to get the fuck out of there, not start a shootout like some action movie star.
 
Yep. This column notes that a 2008 study found that NYPD officers accuracy when firing in the line of duty was only 34%

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/collins-arms-and-the-duck.html?_r=1&hp

Even people trained properly aren't going to perform under stress like they do in a shooting range. One of many reasons having a more armed populace would not help prevent shootings. Having such an armed populace is the reason why we have such high gun crime rates relative to other first world nations.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']^ lol. So give me the skinny on the 19 "victims" in Chicago. They were all just in the wrong place at the wrong time right? I mean it's normal for drive by shooters to target people at random.[/QUOTE]

The early reports filtering in suggest just that - what they know about the victims so far suggests that they were either targets of a robbery or just plain shot on accident. I don't see the word 'gang' once in that report.

Of course, I'm just reading the facts being reported in the Chicago Tribune, how can I compete with a guy who has seen a few episodes of the fictional tv show The Wire that is set in Baltimore.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']The best part of your post is all the news reports that state most of the bystanders shot were shot by the police (even with all their wonderful training).[/QUOTE]
Which is the point, most people have even less training.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']As for your "hero complex" comment. Call it whatever you want, but if I'm in a situation where I think I can make a difference and save some lives, I'm going to take the risk. I know, what an asshole right?![/QUOTE]

Well, I wouldn't say "asshole," but I would say people who think that concealed carry or other firearm possession/presence don't have negative unintended consequences do indeed live in a fantasy land.

Succinctly, from the op-ed dmaul cited above:

In 2008, Al Baker reported in The Times that the accuracy rate for New York City officers firing in the line of duty was 34 percent.

And these are people trained for this kind of crisis. The moral is that if a lunatic starts shooting, you will not be made safer if your fellow average citizens are carrying concealed weapons.
Click to expand...

9 innocent bystanders shot and wounded by the *experts* in this matter (trained in all aspects of crisis situations that citizens are not). So if this is the "best" possible outcome - what would this have looked like if it were armed citizens going after Johnson instead of police?

Firearm possession for greater safety is nobly intended, but very problematic in practice.

Asshole? Nah, not really. Viewing the world and your ability to contribute as a problem solver through the rosiest of rose-colored glasses? Very much so.
 
Actually I would say asshole, because honestly he's about as likely to hurt an innocent as he is to save someone. A lot of gun owners seem to think they're sharpshooters that never miss for some reason. Sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do if your intervention is likely to make a situation worse.
 
[quote name='Clak']Actually I would say asshole, because honestly he's about as likely to hurt an innocent as he is to save someone. A lot of gun owners seem to think they're sharpshooters that never miss for some reason. Sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do if your intervention is likely to make a situation worse.[/QUOTE]

This. The average person can't even drive a car correctly, how do you think they're going to react when they have a gun? They'll be lucky if they don't shoot themselves first (see Plaxico Burress for reference).
 
I can't get behind the 'asshole' remark because I'd reserve 'asshole' for someone who should know better. Americans tend to take for granted that more weapons = less crime. They accept the premise uncritically. That certainly says something about American attitudes towards anti-intellectualism, or more simply that they accept positive information about things they like or enjoy uncritically (more guns = less crime, lower taxes = greater revenue), while things they are less emotionally receptive to they are more likely to be critical of (higher taxes on the wealthy reduces deficits, and helps spurn the economy).

So the asshole to me is the person who knows better but pursues the ideology anyway. Someone who is well read yet ignores science, someone who ignores data and studies, and encourages their colleagues and constituents to ignore science. That is the asshole to me.

But I'm not going to convince anyone that they are wrong-headed by calling them an asshole, especially if it's an idea they hold relatively dear.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Does it happen across the board? Of course not[/QUOTE]

Well at least you figured out that part. I love the right wing logic factor:
One anecdotal story can be applied across the board when it's on your side.
Anything that can be applied across the board anecdotally restricts in some way shape or form
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, I wouldn't say "asshole," but I would say people who think that concealed carry or other firearm possession/presence don't have negative unintended consequences do indeed live in a fantasy land.

Succinctly, from the op-ed dmaul cited above:



9 innocent bystanders shot and wounded by the *experts* in this matter (trained in all aspects of crisis situations that citizens are not). So if this is the "best" possible outcome - what would this have looked like if it were armed citizens going after Johnson instead of police?

Firearm possession for greater safety is nobly intended, but very problematic in practice.

Asshole? Nah, not really. Viewing the world and your ability to contribute as a problem solver through the rosiest of rose-colored glasses? Very much so.[/QUOTE]

I guess you didn't read the part where I said it wouldn't be appropriate in every situation? Whether or not someone should intervene would depend on each particular situation. Do you think that in every single situation that people should do nothing at all?

Even if you don't think armed citizens should get involved, what about the person being attacked? Do they not have a right to protect themselves? What would you do if somebody came at you with a gun and you couldn't safely get away? I look forward to hearing your answers.

[quote name='Clak']Actually I would say asshole, because honestly he's about as likely to hurt an innocent as he is to save someone. A lot of gun owners seem to think they're sharpshooters that never miss for some reason. Sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do if your intervention is likely to make a situation worse.[/QUOTE]

Any citation for any of this or am I expecting too much?

I agree with the last part though. Sometimes, doing nothing is the best thing to do. I don't want to give the impression that somebody should get involved every single time.


[quote name='mykevermin']I can't get behind the 'asshole' remark because I'd reserve 'asshole' for someone who should know better. Americans tend to take for granted that more weapons = less crime. They accept the premise uncritically. That certainly says something about American attitudes towards anti-intellectualism, or more simply that they accept positive information about things they like or enjoy uncritically (more guns = less crime, lower taxes = greater revenue), while things they are less emotionally receptive to they are more likely to be critical of (higher taxes on the wealthy reduces deficits, and helps spurn the economy).

So the asshole to me is the person who knows better but pursues the ideology anyway. Someone who is well read yet ignores science, someone who ignores data and studies, and encourages their colleagues and constituents to ignore science. That is the asshole to me.

But I'm not going to convince anyone that they are wrong-headed by calling them an asshole, especially if it's an idea they hold relatively dear.[/QUOTE]

Who refuted any studies or science? Did you even present any studies or science on the subject?

[quote name='nasum']Well at least you figured out that part. I love the right wing logic factor:
One anecdotal story can be applied across the board when it's on your side.
Anything that can be applied across the board anecdotally restricts in some way shape or form[/QUOTE]

By story I'm assuming you mean the video I posted. Did I say it was proof of my position? I simply cited it as one example and asked that something be presented in the contrary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top