|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 17, 2007 19:08:37 GMT -4
Heh, when did a conspricist ever need evidence? The Govt did it until proven 100% otherwise.
You wouldn't make such a fatuous statement if you lived in Los Angeles. Lots of us fear being pulled over because the cops here are so trigger happy. You don't dare reach into your purse or pocket for your license. It's safer to have it in your hand by the time you stop your car.
From the FBI stats: In 2005, 34 of the 55 officers murdered were on traffic duty, 15 of them during a traffic stop. 10 of them were killed with guns, the other 5 by being hit with a vehicle. 11.1% of all assualts on Officers were during traffic stops, the only higher incidents being attending a domestic violence situation or dealing with prisoners. US law enforcement has a name for the area between the officer's car and the driver's door, it's called the kill zone because that is where an officer is most likely to be killed. Traffic stops are considered the most dangerous duty an officer has in the US. Given the statistics and the amount of people who carry guns, wouldn't you be a little trigger happy if someone inside a car started going for their purse or glovebox without telling you what they were doing?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 17, 2007 19:15:40 GMT -4
I was going to edit my above post but decided not too.
In the ten years from 1996 to 2005, 102 officers were killed during traffic stopsd. 60 of those officers were killed on what were considered routine traffic violations. That is 150% of the killed during Felony stops!!!! In 2005, ten of the 15 killed in traffic stops were at stops for nothing more then a traffic violation. That is they got killed because they stopped someone for speeding or going through a stop sign!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 17, 2007 19:27:02 GMT -4
In my experience gun owners in Utah are usually very conscious of the fact that they are dealing with dangerous weapons...
Agreed, with certain notable exceptions (cough, "Super" Dell Schanze, cough). I've dealt with him and his cadre, and I don't consider him (them) especially responsible where firearms are concerned. But such people are exceptions. Utah is primarily a rural state where keeping and bearing arms is still necessary to protect against natural threats and therefore where pragmatic precautions prevail. What works in Parawan may not work in West Valley, but the overriding culture in Utah is one that respects firearms.
Even though it's "only a .22" I treat it with respect.
The safe storage and handling of a firearm so as to preclude inadvertent harm arising from negligence or carelessness, is a different issue. On that point the hunter's safety course in Utah is excellent, probably exceeding the norm for the United States. If one understands and applies the principles taught in that course, one will be quite unlikely to harm another inadvertently with a firearm.
But I believe an armed civilian response to an ad hoc threat is another animal altogether. Even if one treats his firearm with respect, how will he be expected to react appropriately when the intent is to harm an attacker? I don't see any provision of law that certifies an individual reasonably able to fend off an attacker, say, at school or work. And maybe no such certification is allowed under the Second Amendment; but it would be, in my opinion, a good idea.
I think, in short, that I favor what I surmise you believe the concealed-carry certification is currently. Let someone who wishes to carry a concealed firearm demonstrate proficiency in using it to engage the kinds of threat he expects may arise. That's not the same requirement as a hunter using a hunting rifle or a sportsman hunting tin cans out on the farm.
I won't argue that someone who doesn't feel comfortable with a gun and the attendent responsibilty should own one, or that there are some people who probably shouldn't own a gun.
Current law explicitly provides that certain people shouldn't own guns. That doesn't stop them from obtaining and using them, and my family is the victim of just such an incident. Clearly the current laws aren't being properly enforced, so I see no point in passing more restrictive laws in the belief that such a ploy will reduce gun violence.
I don't currently own a firearm of any kind, but I grew up around them and am quite competent to keep and bear one safely. My family's military tradition (scant as it is, but there we are) ensures that we know about them, treat them with due respect, and understand how to employ them in defense. That doesn't mean I think I need one at the present time. In my current situation the potential danger outweighs the perceived need.
I just hapen to think that there are civilians out there who can make good use of guns in personal defense...
Agreed, but the law does not currently attempt to distinguish between them and those who cannot in how it regulates who can own them. Thus there are some who propose to solve the problem by denying to all the use of firearms.
...and incidents like these might have ended differently if there had been some around.
Maybe, or maybe it would have been worse. That uncertainty is what makes gun control one of the Great Debates.
The Founding Fathers (well, at least the Federalists) clearly intended the right to keep and bear arms to effect a sort of balance of power where there would be no oppression from armed factions that could not be opposed with armed resistance. Whether that sentiment applies to all the conflict into which our society has evolved is part of the ongoing Great Debate. The Federalists had to give way a bit, which leaves the door open to reinterpret their notions in light of the domestic conflict into which our American society has grown.
...Larry Hincker, said "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Those words certainly ring ironic in light of yesterday's events.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 17, 2007 19:34:34 GMT -4
...were at stops for nothing more then a traffic violation.
There are other statistics hiding inside that one. You have to examine whether the offender was presently guilty of other crimes. If, in addition to running a red light, the offender also had an open container of alcohol, illegal drugs, or oustanding arrest warrants on other charges, the traffic stop is hardly innocuous. The officer who stops a car for a traffic violation has probable cause thereby to look for those other signs of lawbreaking, and this is by design.
A traffic stop is dangerous precisely because so many of them lead to discovery of other pending legal troubles that raise the stakes, not because the offenders are trigger-happy and will shoot a policeman rather than pay a fine for driving with expired license plates.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 17, 2007 19:38:52 GMT -4
Oh, and one more thing. Califorina has the highest murder count for Police in any US state. 51 officers in the 10 years between 1996 and 2005 (not including those who died on 9/11).
That is higher then the entire 9 Northeast states who only managed 50 between them!
In 2005 Califorina had 6 police officers murdered, the highest of any state (though equal with Mississippi with Georgia coming third with 5) and still higher than the Northeastern States which managed only 5 between them (2 in New York, 2 in Pennsylvania and 1 in Rhode Island)
The five worst States are Califorina (51), Texas (49), Georgia (28), North Carolina (24), and then New York (22).
As far as assaults go, Califorina has the second highest number, at over 7,000 assults on officers in 2005 (total not just traffic.) Florida has the highest at over 8,000.
I haven't done a weighing based on population yet, which is likely to downgrade Califorina due to its high population (it has 2 million less people that the Northeastern states) whereas Georgia has only 1/10th Califorina's population but half the Officer murders, but I'll post when I've figured it out.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 17, 2007 19:42:06 GMT -4
...were at stops for nothing more then a traffic violation.There are other statistics hiding inside that one. You have to examine whether the offender was presently guilty of other crimes. If, in addition to running a red light, the offender also had an open container of alcohol, illegal drugs, or oustanding arrest warrants on other charges, the traffic stop is hardly innocuous. The officer who stops a car for a traffic violation has probable cause thereby to look for those other signs of lawbreaking, and this is by design. A traffic stop is dangerous precisely because so many of them lead to discovery of other pending legal troubles that raise the stakes, not because the offenders are trigger-happy and will shoot a policeman rather than pay a fine for driving with expired license plates. This I know, but from the point of view of the officer, the stop is nothing more than a moving violation even if the offender shoots because they happen to have a dead body in the boot (trunk for you USAers ) That means that they have to approach -every- traffic stop as if they are stopping a gun wielding drug runner who is willing to shoot at the drop of a pin, or they are risking their own lives.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 17, 2007 19:48:33 GMT -4
You know, I used to live in LA, and I assure you, I feared the gangbangers at my high school more'n I feared the cops. The cops weren't pistol-whipping the principal's secretary in the parking lot and stealing her car.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 17, 2007 20:23:18 GMT -4
Okay so here's the results on population. ie, where not to be a cop. (Note: Statistics for Illinois, Montana, and West Virginia were not available.) Top 5 States for police Murders 1996-2005 by Pop.Mississippi Alaska Louisiana Kentucky Arkansas Top 5 States for Police Murders 2005 by Pop.Mississippi Kentucky New Mexico Georgia Rhode Island Top 5 States for Police Assults 2005 by Pop.Maryland Louisiana Delaware New Mexico Florida Chance of being Officer assulted (based on number of officers)Maryland New Mexico Missouri Florida Delaware Califorina rated at 31st, 18th, 20th, and 26th respectively New York Rated at 17th, 17th, 43rd, and 45th respectively
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 17, 2007 20:34:22 GMT -4
Oh, one last one for luck
Number of Police Assults per Police Murder (2005).
Mississippi (43.83) Minnesota (114.50) Georgia (132.00) Rhode Island (138.00) (possiby distorted due to there being just 1 murder here) Kentucky (267.50)
New York was 8th at just 358.50 assualts for every murder and Califorina is 18 at 1208.33 assaults for every murder.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 17, 2007 21:32:53 GMT -4
In my experience gun owners in Utah are usually very conscious of the fact that they are dealing with dangerous weapons...Agreed, with certain notable exceptions (cough, "Super" Dell Schanze, cough). Ahhh, man! You had to go there, huh? How can I forget how annoying that guy is if people keep bringing him up again?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 17, 2007 22:39:43 GMT -4
How can I forget how annoying that guy is if people keep bringing him up again?
Do you want to explain to everyone who he is, or do you want me to?
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Apr 17, 2007 23:15:56 GMT -4
i posted this on the issue on another forum.
In the case of a shooting in an apartment building in which the police do not know if the shooter has left the building they would stop everyone from entering or exiting until it could be confirmed.
they don't want more people coming in since a) if the shooter is still there, more people=more targets b) more people in the building = more people to check out
They don't want people leaving because if the shooter is still there it would be better not to let him bloody well leave.
Since police simply cannot be every where all the time, unfortubnatly you are responsible for your own safety if there is a shooter in your building. The best thing you could do in such a case would be to lock your door and stand away from the door. If you feel the need to arm yourself do so in case the shooter manages to break into your apartment.
You do not go prowling the hall to see if you can be a hero. 1) the police will not make a distinction between you with a gun and the bad guy with a gun. All they will see is a person with a gun. How do you think that might work out for you? 2) if you see someone with a gun will you shoot? The person you see with a gun may be a plainclothes police officer. How do you think that would work out for you if you shoot him? the person you see may well be another would-be hero. Would you shoot him? How do you think that would work out for you? Will you call out for the person with the gun to drop it? Neither of you knows the other isn't the shooter why should he comply if he has any thought that you may be the bad guy? How do think this situation might turn out for you.
Will you wait for confirmation that the person with the gun is a bad guy such as to witness him shooting an innocent(someone you can readily see is an innocent and not the actual bad guy)? That opens you up to being the next victim and supplying the shooter with another weapon.
Unless you have training in such matters it may well be better to let the people who do perform their job than to have loose cannons running about would it not?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 18, 2007 0:13:18 GMT -4
A few idle thoughts on the topic, if I may…
I’m firmly on the side of those who support stronger gun control.
I think JayUtah and jaydeehess have made the points about the dangers posed by armed civilians roaming around the site where a gunman is on the loose. Simply put, if you see someone with a gun, how do you work out whether they’re an armed civilian like you, or the original gunman?
As far as using a firearm to protect my property, exactly how is that supposed to work? If someone came to my front door with the intent of committing a violent crime, they’re not going to give me time to retrieve my own firearm and ammunition, especially if they’re stored in different places.
In the case of the one assault I’ve been involved in, firearms wouldn’t have provided any assistance to me or my friends. The assault was an attempted bag snatch of one of two women I was walking with one Saturday night. If I’d had the gun, I wouldn’t have been able to use it for fear of shooting one of my friends. If the assaulted woman had been armed, the gun would have been in her handbag, and so it wouldn’t have prevented the assault, and she could easily have lost the gun if the man assaulting her had managed to take her handbag off her.
And, Dead Hoosiers, do you believe that it’s possible for individuals to sometimes go off the rails and decide to shoot people at random? If so, how do you know this isn’t one of these situations?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Apr 18, 2007 1:32:33 GMT -4
A few idle thoughts on the topic, if I may… ... And, Dead Hoosiers, do you believe that it’s possible for individuals to sometimes go off the rails and decide to shoot people at random? If so, how do you know this isn’t one of these situations? Sure, it happens, and I don't know for sure that this isn't one of those cases. But there's something fishy about the whole thing. For starters, why were the students warned by email? The only people who would receive the warning would be those who had their computers turned on and were checking their email. Not very effective. Why didn't they use the public address system? Everyone would have heard it. And you can hear what's going on in the classrooms that way, too. If there was some kind of emergency situation in the building where you worked, would security send you an email or would they make an announcement over the public address system? The public address system, of course. As for the alleged difficulty in warning the inbound students, haven't the cops in Virginia heard of roadblocks? No need to call anyone, no need to email them. Just stop them. But they didn't. Some people on this forum believe that authorities are really that stupid. I don't. There were all sorts of badges there due to the prior bomb threats. When there are several law enforcement agencies on site and the school administration, which is supposed to be trained for emergencies, all fumble and drop the ball like that, well, I don't believe it was a fumble.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 18, 2007 2:08:01 GMT -4
Dead Hoosiers said:
Good point. I don’t know. Perhaps there isn’t a public address system which covers the whole campus. Presumably each building has its own PA system, but that would require relevant people in each building to be informed.
How big is the campus? How many ways are there of entering it? If the Australian National University (near where I work) is any guide, people walk into the campus from literally every direction. At a rough guess, you’d need 200 police to set up a perimeter that was relatively leak proof.
The other point which has been raised somewhere (I can’t remember whether it was here or elsewhere) – the population of the university was larger than many small towns. You don’t lock down an entire town if there’s been a murder somewhere in it – you concentrate your efforts around where the gunman was reported to have been. Accordingly, there was no logical reason to lock down the entire university because a couple of people were killed in a single location on one side of it.
When people are primed for a particular event, and something very different happens, it can take time to react to the actual circumstances. Also, my understanding is that most of the killings happened within a short period of time – it doesn’t take long to shoot 40 or 50 people when you have automatic weapons.
|
|