This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Many Shot In Front Of Empire State Building - Live Chopper Webcam

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Update: from NYPD scanner:

U/D Manhattan: 5 Ave & West 34 St/Empire State Bldg Total of 7 people shot Perp DOA 1 in serious condition All others in stable condition.

Also, according to ABC, the shooting was apparently a result of a "workplace dispute":

A workplace dispute that erupted in gunfire left as many as ten people have been injured, at least four of them shot, near the Empire State building in Midtown.

 

A fire department spokesman says it received a call about the shooting just after at 9 a.m. Friday and that emergency units were on the scene at Fifth Avenue and West 34th Street within minutes.

Breaking news that the 5th Avenue and 34th street area in New York has been closed after 5 people were shot outside of the Empire state victim, including the gunman. According to police scanner reports, the perpetrator has been shot by NYPD ans is is DOA on scene, with EMS assistance requested.

From Reuters:

Two people have been killed and at least eight others were wounded in a shooting outside of the Empire State Building in New York City on Friday, according to a New York police source.

 

One of the dead was the shooter, the source said, adding that there was no apparent link to terrorism.

From NBC New York:

Police say at least two people were shot outside the Empire State Building Friday morning.

 

Authorities said emergency personnel received a call about the shooting at Fifth Avenue and 34th Street just after 9 a.m.

 

The circumstances of the shooting weren't immediately clear. The conditions of the people shot also weren't known.

 

At least one person was seen being taken away in a stretcher.

And from Fox NY:

There are reports of multiple people shot outside the Empire State Building.  FOX 5 News has learned that at least three people have been shot. The scene is chaotic as people make their way to work in the heavily trafficked area. One person is in police custody. FOX 5 News and SkyFoxHD are headed to the scene.  MyFoxNY.com is updating this story.

Live webcam from the SkyFox helicopter:


 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:31 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Wasn't the mayor recently bragging about how "secure" his fascist piece of shit city was?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:35 | Link to Comment Stackers
Stackers's picture

It's a good thing its illegal to own, possess or carry a gun in New York City .........        (sarc.)

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:37 | Link to Comment What does it al...
What does it all mean's picture

8 people shot.... at least!

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:40 | Link to Comment Dalago
Dalago's picture

There was a shooting because the person shooting knew people would be victims of restrictive gun laws.  These law biting people were victims of horrible laws that rendered them defenseless.  If conceal carry was instated this bitch would have thought twice about shooting people.  He would have been shot after the first round.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:42 | Link to Comment Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

I drastically curtailed my visits to NYC years ago. One big reason was their retarded gun laws.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:47 | Link to Comment Precious
Precious's picture

Somebody ordered a 32 ounce Coke.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:49 | Link to Comment malikai
malikai's picture

Wait, how could that happen? Guns are illegal there!

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:52 | Link to Comment SeverinSlade
SeverinSlade's picture

This is most likely another false flag.  Betting on another "lone gunman" case despite multiple eyewitnesses saying otherwise, only to get zero coverage in the MSM.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:54 | Link to Comment Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

Come on guys, the UN gun ban wont pass itself!

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:58 | Link to Comment Comay Mierda
Comay Mierda's picture

luckliy, the police department will respond in time and save lives, so law abiding citizens need not worry about protecting themselves, their children, their spouses, etc

ok i couldnt type that with a straight face

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:59 | Link to Comment GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Hope so....if not the disarmed citizens are going to be like ducks in a barrel.

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:17 | Link to Comment Manthong
Manthong's picture

If guns are outlawed then only hot dog vendors will have guns.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/video-food-cart-vendors-fight-over-spot-bullets-fly-two-bystanders-shot

--  I just yanked the first story that popped up on that food cart story from yesterday..

Check out the graphic..  the artist might want to check out how a cartridge works.  : )

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:48 | Link to Comment Red Heeler
Red Heeler's picture

Maybe this is the lady who compiled that image: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:47 | Link to Comment The Big Ching-aso
The Big Ching-aso's picture

 

 

Mayor Boom-Boomberg?

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 10:50 | Link to Comment goat
goat's picture

Re: Empire State Building shootings (as reported by CBS-New York): Maybe some of the reported details have changed now, but I found the same parts interesting that this commentor did:

"At least nine other people on the street were also s

hot..."

"Police said it is unlikely that Johnson fired during the shootout. One witness told investigators that Johnson fired, but ballistics tests don’t back that up, authorities said."

“This is a terrible tragedy and there’s no doubt that the situation would’ve been even more tragic but for some extraordinary acts of heroism”

So... Stay with me... The shooter didn't fire during the shootout, and 9 people were shot??? That means the cops shot 9 people!!! And Bloomberg says the situation would have been even more tragic but for the extraordinary acts of heroism of the cops who shot 9 unarmed civilians? Are you kidding me?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/08/24/multiple-people-reported-shot-near-empire-state-building/

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:21 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Crazy, the volume of "Git them thar guns" type incidents. Shameless. 

Crazy country in a crazy world.

Because of course, as someone pointed out above, IS IT EVEN REAL?

 

Or just another piece of media fakery...

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1375

Check out the link above, the more curious, intelligent and cynical ones will have their minds blown.

ori

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:37 | Link to Comment DRT RD
DRT RD's picture

fish in a barrell. I fixed it for ya!

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:28 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

On that very topic - - lives lost waiting for the police to arrive:

http://www.hardtactics.com/Blog/

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:41 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

I didn't read this (sorry) cause I'm kind of busy, but... I have to wonder whether it tries to factor in how many people die because of all the (mis-)allocated police funds for all those tanks and whatnot.  Opportunity cost.  How much food or medical assistance wasn't available because those $$s went to buy toys for the police?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:49 | Link to Comment Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

The police in my area, as well as other areas around the country, are more concerned about generating revenue than they are as it relates to protecting and serving - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWk1_Tgj-Fo&list=UUK7Q9Kl6xWpDtLIineKSgnw&index=1&feature=plcp

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:16 | Link to Comment Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

That video was my awakening about how to handle police stops to a point. 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:50 | Link to Comment Red Heeler
Red Heeler's picture

When seconds count, the police will be there in minutes.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:13 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

And, really, it's always been a pretty stupid concept (misperception?) that the police can STOP crime.  Hm... perhaps it's just taken a LONG time for the programming to take affect?  With the recent strides in thought crime I suppose that they're now poised on fulfilling the "stop crime" propaganda...

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:57 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

"One person is in police custody."

"One of the dead was the shooter, the source said, adding that there was no apparent link to terrorism."

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:14 | Link to Comment Precious
Precious's picture

They have the corpse of the perpetrator in custody and will conduct further interrogation at the police station with his lawyer present.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:19 | Link to Comment sickofthepunx
sickofthepunx's picture

"doesn't apper to be terror related"

 

translation:  the shooter was not brown

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:30 | Link to Comment john39
john39's picture

or a libertarian.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:19 | Link to Comment sickofthepunx
sickofthepunx's picture

"doesn't apper to be terror related"

 

translation:  the shooter was not brown

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:20 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

Well that wraps it up, danish?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:08 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

And then the "word" gets mangled and it comes out as "link to terrorism"...  OK, effective propaganda doesn't really require such manglings, only the mention of the word ("terrorism") is sufficient to build on prior programming, as it triggers the reflex over the word.

Or think of it as being, "there's no apparent link to the NRA."  Well, if there's no apparent link then why mention it?  See how it works?  They've got us programmed to always expect it to be about terrorism...

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:17 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

Whorfianism?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:06 | Link to Comment Ace Ventura
Ace Ventura's picture

Same here. Additionally, the obvious corruption of the NYC cops who look the other way while contraband/counterfeit products are sold on every street corner, but stand ready to haul a visiting tourist aside for daring to drink a beer on a sidewalk outside a manhattan storefront.....after local vendors told said tourist it was perfectly OK as long as the can was 'brown-bagged'.

Hilariously, street-side restaurants have tables on the very same sidewalks, with customers happily chugging away all sorts of alcohol. The ridiculousness blatantness of it all was enough for me.

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:17 | Link to Comment malikai
malikai's picture

LAW: If you don't do it my way, you're going to the Gulag!

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:07 | Link to Comment bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

Yeah, if they had much more liberal gun rights like they have in Colorado where there have been several mass shootings...I seem to have lost my train of thought. I think you did too.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:15 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

Yeah, if they had much more liberal gun rights like they have in Colorado where there have been several mass shootings...I seem to have lost my train of thought. I think you did too.

 

Did you leave off your SARC tag?.

Colorado does not allow CCW permits.

Ever wonder why these mass shootings occur at places where they know they will be free to murder at will?, because their chicken shits, and they have the upper hand for WAY too much time.

IF they thought they would be having to cover their six, do you think they would choose these places where the lambs gather?.

Police are reactive, not proactive at these events.They are not responsible for your safety and protection............SCOTUS ruled on that a long time ago.

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:30 | Link to Comment A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Anybody who looks to the State for either protection or permission to protect oneself deserves to be shot. I don't give a shit if Colorado "allows" CCW. We have a RIGHT to defend our life and liberty anywhere at any time in this country. Obviously the criminal element is not law abiding..............

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:18 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

And, really, CCW means Concealed Carry... it doesn't mean that you canNOT carry!  I'd think that a possible nut would be deterred more by seeing a bunch of armed people than a bunch that have bulging bodies (most of which are more likely from being obese than carrying [CCW]).

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:04 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

It's possible to get a CCW in NYC.

Have you ever been correct about ANYTHING?  Maybe by accident.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 16:49 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Show me someone who has done it and 1) is not a millionaire or heir of same and 2) does not own or work for a security/secure transportation company of some sort and 3) is not a retired cop.

Totally disingenuous to compare getting a CCW in NYC, or any part of NY, to, say, Arizona or Texas.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 18:29 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I don't see how I could "show you" anything, but I did used to drink with a guy who had one.  He was retired Army, did work as a bounty hunter.  Big tall fat Latin guy.  His name was Michael. Funny thing--he didn't carry often.

I remember watching him lock up a rowdy drunk one night and escort him out of the bar.  He was very protective of the young waitresses.

The big catch for most folks is some kind of criminal record.  Even just a "drunk and disorderly" makes the whole process a royal pain in the ass, not unlike going through admissions for the police academy.

MUCH easier just to get an illegal pistola, ese.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:12 | Link to Comment bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

''Colorado does not allow CCW permits.''

Well, that certainly seems to be doing a lot of good there, huh? Didn't seem to stop those mass shootings, or any other shootings there.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:42 | Link to Comment StormShadow
StormShadow's picture

Colorado does allow concealed carry. It's been a shall issue state since 2003. Perhaps the previous posters meant the theater management doesn't allow ccw, which is correct.

The only state w/o ccw is Illinois.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:11 | Link to Comment Chump
Chump's picture

Aurora has a municipal ban on CCW.

http://www.coloradoceasefire.org/munilaws.htm

Although the state says such laws are unenforceable, that would hardly matter to someone who actually obeys the law and would like to avoid confrontations with the police.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 13:33 | Link to Comment TraitorsHang
TraitorsHang's picture

Chump and StormShadow are correct. CO enacted a preemption law in 2003. For those who don't know, preemption laws cause the state law to override the laws of the municipalities within it when there is conflict. IL is *NOT* a preemption state. CO is. So Denver can pass all the gun laws it wants, but if it came down to it in court (hopefully) the gun carrying in public would win the argument.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:28 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Hey BobNoxious, why don't you add to your credibility here and tell us all once again how Ron Paul is opposed to ending the Federal Reserve, despite him having made such a call innumerable times for nearly 40 years and even after having written an entire book advocating exactly that.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:58 | Link to Comment bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

Well, first off, thank you for using my proper name. As for the rest, where in this thread did I refer to him? Or any thread in here? Confused again?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:48 | Link to Comment Renewable Life
Renewable Life's picture

Ok I'm for CCW and actually I would feel safer if we could just all wear a sidearm on the hip, for all the cops and criminals to plainly see!

However........to say that phychopaths and mass murderers "think" about the gun laws of a state before they do a mass shooting, is insane also!!!!

The Columbine shooters were in CO, because their parents worked at Lockheed Martin, the Aurora shooter was in CO because he was a student at U of C for the last several years, this idiot today in NY, I'm sure we will find out, has been living and working in NY! Terrorist might sit around and "pick" their targets from a militarily vulnerable standpoint, but then again, the only terrorist attack since 911 that did any damage in this Country was at Fort Hood Texas and the shooter was on a military base and killed 13, wounded 30+, and still walked out alive!!!! That place had more guns, with experts who are trained to kill, then anywhere in this Country!! Explain that shit???

So to pretend that gun laws have a single fucking thing to do with where the next mass shooting will occur, is dillusionsl and nieve, and frankly is nothing more then political bullshit invented to get cash donations for politicians and organizations who bankroll themselves ON BOTH SIDES of this issue!!!!!

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:19 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

right on

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 13:40 | Link to Comment TraitorsHang
TraitorsHang's picture

It's not so much a question of "where" or "if" someone decides to break down and shoot up a bunch of people. That is not the argument many of the pro-CCW people care about. That *might* matter if the shooter wanted to get out alive, but (I agree) that this is not always the case.

The thing that you have not addressed is:
How many innocent people get cut down before someone who is willing and able to take responsibility for their surroundings kills the shooter?
Look at the case in AZ where Congresswoman Giffords was shot. Go read about the circumstances that stopped the guy.

http://1withabullet.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/concealed-carry-permit-hold...

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:47 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

You got rats on the West Side,

bed bugs uptown

What a mess, this town's in tatters

I've been shattered, my brain's been battered

Splattered all over Manhattan

Shadoobie...

~~~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYvy3kBYN4Q

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:49 | Link to Comment BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

Getting a gun here is damn near impossible, the fingerprint your whole damn hand and dig for anything in your record to disqualify you, then interview you personally, then take your gun to shoot a round for a ballistic match, then return it to you so you can keep it only at home or on the way to the range. weak.

It's the illegal guns that are the problem, because almost no one can get one legally it's an unfair fight.  In the south people know better than to break in to a house.  In Brooklyn, it's another story.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:55 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

Getting a gun here legally is damn near impossible.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:57 | Link to Comment GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Only if you're law abiding.

 

Pretty easy if you're a crook.

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:12 | Link to Comment e_goldstein
e_goldstein's picture

or a hot dog vendor.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:07 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

It's strange they would take your gun to catalog the ballistics when they were probably tested by the manufacturer before shipping on most guns made since the 70s...  you get the empty shell case with your gun...  the bullet on the other hand...

the process typically works like this: (1) pull bullet out of crime scene; (2) send off to crime lab for ballistics match; (3) track down last known owner of registered firearm, charge with crime...

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:23 | Link to Comment BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

I bought a nice used Springfield XD45 and it didnt' have the shell with it, but even if you buy new, they get their own shell when you turn the gun over for inspection.  The analysis of the shell casing is still ballistics, from my understanding.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:25 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Interesting view of how the Swiss deal with gun "management:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:46 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Nah, that's silly.  Everyone who lives in NYC knows there are guns everywhere.  (I'm always a bit amused that people who don't know anything about this town take the laws so seriously.)

The thing is, when someone's prepared to shoot people, they're not usually doing a cost/benefit analysis beforehand.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:50 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Dalago

So you have the ability to view alternate timelines where events happened as you stated?

Because factually you can't prove your claim.

While I support the second ammendment, there is no way in hell you can prove what you claim. You can't even extraploate from previous events as each and every situation is new with different variables.

But if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy then by all means follow the narrative you imagine.



Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:03 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

-1 for your unnecessarily haughty attitude.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:09 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

LowProfile

I forgot I posted to the white version of Idiocracy.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:29 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

What's next?  Will you start correcting our grammar?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:22 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

No, that's my job.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:52 | Link to Comment drivenZ
drivenZ's picture

uhh no. you could go into any public place anywhere in the country and start firing and kill a bunch of people regardless of what the gun laws are...seeing as there are cops on every corner in NYC one would assume this person knew they would be killed. which they were. 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:07 | Link to Comment drivenZ
drivenZ's picture

Case in point...the Colorado Batman shooting. Colorado has pretty lax gun laws. 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:09 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

actually the theater forbade its patrons from packing...

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:20 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Yes, ignorance is spouting shit before actually checking your facts.  Nice work MM.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:12 | Link to Comment drivenZ
drivenZ's picture

ok, fine... how about the Tucson shooting then. Or the latest Wisconsin shooting. Most of the time the shooters have a death wish, do you really think they care whether other people may or may not have a gun on them? 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:24 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

"Most of the time the shooters have a death wish"

Could you show me those statistics? (The plural of anecdote is not data.)

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 14:14 | Link to Comment drivenZ
drivenZ's picture

well then they're certainly irrational...no normal person would think they could go on a shooting rampage in public without either being killed by the cops or dying in jail. agree? Then why would they sit there and rationaly think about whether there may be someone with a concealed weapon that'll shoot back after theyve already killed 3-4 people.  makes no sense. 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 16:18 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

No I don't agree. The Colorado Batman shooter was walking back to his car, and would have driven off if a cop had not stopped him because the cop recognized that the gas mask and equipment wasn't local police issue.  Again, anecdotes are not data.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:43 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Actually, they may start out with the expectation of dying, but once bullets start whizzing at them or they're otherwise shown counter force, the body's desire to stay alive tends to overcome the trappings of the mind.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:28 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

actually the theater forbade its patrons from packing...

And they are liable,and responsible  for your saftey...............lawsuits here we come.

Tons of stores and restaurants in Texas put up NO WEAPONS allowed after the CCW Law passed here.

As soon as they started losing  a lot of business, and they found out they WERE liable for the safety and protection of their patrons,the signs QUICKLY came down.

Every theater I have been into here,off duty armed officers are hired and overseeing the goings on.

The patrons are also armed and carrying, and shit like this does not happen here any longer.It's different when it's a two way leadfest.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:29 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

"this person knew they would be killed."

Yup, it's called "suicide by cop" (or thatabouts).  Many folks have a deathwish not just for others but for themselves...  When you [think you] have nothing left to lose...

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 09:59 | Link to Comment Tinky
Tinky's picture

Breathtaking ignorance. The notion that these type of mass shootings would have been prevented had the shooter been concerned about the possibility that others might be carrying is sheer fantasy.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:14 | Link to Comment Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

But he would have been become preoccupied after the first shot.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:11 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Bernard Goetz, the "Subway Vigilante" proves you wrong.

Subway crime dropped off a cliff while he was on the loose.

NYPD in private were pissed as Hell he turned himself in.

One of the fine young men Goetz perforated recently killed himself.  Check his record http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-12-22/news/30548821_1_goetz-victim-...

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:13 | Link to Comment Tinky
Tinky's picture

Plenty of down arrows, I see, but of course no one has the courage or ability to actually articulate a serious argument.

The notion that easier access to guns leads to greater safety is absurd on its face. The U.S. has the most permissive laws in the world, and by far the highest rate of gun violence and murder (outside of war zones).

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:17 | Link to Comment LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

Gee, TINKY, have you seen the latest FBI reports showing that in areas where Concealed Handgun Permits and/or firearm sales have significantly INCREASED, crime has significantly DECREASED?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:26 | Link to Comment Precious
Precious's picture

Sodas don't kill people.  Tyrants kill people.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:00 | Link to Comment Oldrepublic
Oldrepublic's picture

funny thing about gun laws and culture, people are very polite in Texas not so much in New York. Wonder why?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:19 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

The notion that easier access to guns leads to greater safety is absurd on its face. The U.S. has the most permissive laws in the world, and by far the highest rate of gun violence and murder (outside of war zones).

Remove the Gang shootings, and Druggies, the stats GO WAY down.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:22 | Link to Comment Tinky
Tinky's picture

I agree with that. However, these increasingly frequent mass killings are not a result of those sub-categories. They are disturbed individuals who are too easily able to access high powered arsenals.

And they will become more frequent.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:55 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

what if we actually tried to cure the disease instead of just treat the symptoms?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 13:07 | Link to Comment SubjectivObject
SubjectivObject's picture

Mass killings will become more frequent.

Society IS breaking down.  There IS a war going on right now.

Each citizen is responsible to understand cause and current condition for this state of things.

Any persisting ignorance they retain is their responsibility.

As such, the threat of incidental and discrete rampages pales in comparison to the threat of organized state oppression.   We have media hysteria over dramatic things of no fundamental consequence and we have a media gag on All the incremental things things tha are of fundamental consequence.

I think you suffer the status quo media bias on this topic.

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 13:15 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

 

We have media hysteria over dramatic things of no fundamental consequence and we have a media gag on all the incremental things things that are of fundamental consequence.

A very cogent and insightful comment.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:32 | Link to Comment Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

Two dead today but without an armed populace it will two million tomorrow, 20 million next year-remember it was jew supremacists like Bloomberg who carried out the Red Terror 90 years ago in Russia where the people coudn't defend themselves:

Atrocities

At these times, there were numerous reports that Cheka interrogators utilized torture method  At Odessa  the Cheka tied White officers to planks and slowly fed them into furnaces or tanks of boiling water; In Kharkiv , scalpings and hand-flayings were commonplace: the skin was peeled off victims' hands to produce "gloves"; The Voronezh  Cheka rolled naked people around in barrels studded internally with nails; victims were crucified or stoned to death at Dnipropetrovsk ; the Cheka at Kremenchuk  impaled members of the clergy and buried alive rebelling peasants; in Orel , water was poured on naked prisoners bound in the winter streets until they became living ice statues; in Kiev , Chinese Cheka detachments  placed rats in iron tubes sealed at one end with wire netting and the other placed against the body of a prisoner, with the tubes being heated until the rats gnawed through the victim's body in an effort to escape.[26] 

 

Executions  took place in prison cellars or courtyards, or occasionally on the outskirts of town, during the Red Terror and Russian civil war . After the condemned were stripped of their clothing and other belongings, which were shared among the Cheka executioners, they were either machine-gunned in batches or dispatched individually with a revolver. Those killed in prison were usually shot in the back of the neck as they entered the execution cellar, which became littered with corpses and soaked with blood. Victims killed outside the town were conveyed by lorry , bound and gagged, to their place of execution, where they sometimes were made to dig their own graves.[27] 

According to

Edvard Radzinsky , "it became a common practice to take a husband hostage and wait for his wife to come and purchase his life with her body".[3] During Decossackization, there were massacres, according to historian Robert Gellately, "on an unheard of scale." The Pyatigorsk Cheka organized a "day of Red Terror" to execute 300 people in one day, and took quotas from each part of town. According to the Chekist Karl Lander, the Cheka in Kislovodsk, "for lack of a better idea," killed all the patients in the hospital. In October 1920 alone more than 6,000 people were executed. Gellately adds that Communist leaders "sought to justify their ethnic-based massacres by incorporating them into the rubric of the 'class struggle'".[28]

Members of the clergy were subjected to particularly brutal abuse. According to documents cited by the late

Alexander Yakovlev, then head of the Presidential Committee for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, priests, monks and nuns were crucified, thrown into cauldrons of boiling tar, scalped, strangled, given Communion with melted lead and drowned in holes in the ice.[29]

An estimated 3,000 were put to death in 1918 alone

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror

 

 

 

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:21 | Link to Comment LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

I will take you on anytime, TINKY, because your so-called argument(s) are totally subjective and devoid of objective/empirical data/facts.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:23 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

 

Plenty of down arrows, I see, but of course no one has the courage or ability to actually articulate a serious argument.

The notion that easier access to guns leads to greater safety is absurd on its face.

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

-=-=-

...You rancid motherfucking statist cunt.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:25 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

In short, when there is no rule of law and moral hazard has been unleashed, possession is the law and chance will always favor the prepared mind and person.   Same as it ever was.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:23 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

It's a nice story, but there's no strong basis for comparison between a small town and the big cities.

When you KNOW many of the people around you, it's a lot harder to get away with shit.  Big cities, because of much higher populations, make all forms of crime a lot more practical.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:40 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

Could you clarify your statement, please?  I could interpret it several ways. Are you saying that if someone knows the victim they are less likely to do violence on them?  Or that in a small town there are a more nosy old ladies watching everything that is going on?  Or that the nosy old ladies can identify everyone by name? What does the crime rate vs city size graph look like? Straight? Log? Hockey stick? 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 13:33 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

In small towns, there is far more likely to be  SOME kind of direct personal relationship between a criminal and his victims and/or the witnesses.

In the town I grew up in, going out and about for errands or chores or whatever, it was very likely to bump into someone that personally knew ME, recognized my face from the high-school, or knew my family.  As a result, IF I WERE the kind of person who got into fights a lot, it would've been a fairly short period of time (about a month or two) before "everyone in town" knew to be on guard when I showed up.

In a big city, you have your local consorts--the people who live nearby and frequent the same businesses--but once you leave your local turf, you're effectively a stranger.  If I walk into a deli in the Upper East Side, I may as well be coming from Finland.  There's virtually NO CHANCE anyone who saw me enter/leave/commit crimes would be able to say, "Oh, yeah, it was that blunderdog guy went in to the dry-cleaners and came running out a minute later."

That's what I mean.  It's more a question of statistics than anything else.  The "average person" can be expected to "know" up to about 1500 people.  In a town with fewer people, it's literally possible to "know everyone in town."  Not so in NYC or Houston.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 14:40 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

By this reasoning family violence should be zero since you know your family big city or not.  Also child sexual abuse, where up to 90% of victims know their attacker should be zero.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 15:37 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Kind of a different subject, but hey, if you don't agree with me, fine. 

The statistics do show that violent crime rates are higher in the cities than rural/suburban areas, so I'm curious what your preferred explanation would be for that.

Maybe something like fluoridated water or cell phone radiation?  Traffic noise?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 16:25 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

You made the statement, it is not my job to come up with an alternate theory. It is your job to back up what you said. You say there are statistics, then lets have them. And they must back up your statement that it is because people know each other and eliminate other reasons as the cause. 

Making (false) suppositions about my beliefs is not a defense of your statement.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 18:32 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Nah, you can find the info if you care.  I'm not going to do your homework for you.  It was OBVIOUS TROLLERY to claim crime within families wouldn't happen just because crime rates are higher in the cities.

There's no connection at all.  Pathetic.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 23:14 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

You made the statement, you can't back it up. You lose. It isn't my homework to do, it is yours. Trying to make it my job to defend your statements is just bizarre. And again trying ad hominem attacks just adds to the proof of your failure to back up your statement. Not even a good try.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 23:22 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You, on the other hand, have said nothing.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:15 | Link to Comment Pairadimes
Pairadimes's picture

Absent magical thinking, how would you cure the situation? Firearms are everywhere. There are 90 guns for every 100 citizens in the United States. I know a fellow who builds them from bar stock and other materials in his machine shop. The idea that legislation of any kind is a cure is extremely unserious and dangerous thinking.

It is also worth considering that the 2nd Amendment was put there for a reason. Decades ago, I would not have been able to envision a nation that needed it. Today?

The real issue is our society's collective fear of the consequences of freedom. Shall we take automobiles away from people who we think might drive them too fast? Swimming pools away from single mothers who might not be able to check on their children every moment? Big Macs away from kids whose BMI is too high?

If it is the ubiquitous presence of guns which leads to violence, how then do you account for the situation in Switzerland, for example? Turns out that culture has much more to do with the incidence of gun violence than the mere access to firearms. In Switzerland, there is a strong link between gun ownership and individual responsibility.

It is also worth pointing out that humans are generally terrible at risk assessment. We tend to focus on events like these for the qualities of the story, but are inattentive to the statistical realities of risk in our country. There are a great many things we permit or even embrace which have far deadlier consequences at the population level.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 14:09 | Link to Comment Overfed
Overfed's picture

C'mon, dontcha know we're just one more law away from total paradise? Just one more law! And we'll all be safe, and free, and rich, and perfectly healthy! Just one more law!

 

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:45 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

From Urban, Suburban, and Rural Victimization, 1993-98 (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=812):

The average annual 1993-98 violent crime rate in urban areas was about 74% higher than the rural rate and 37% higher than the suburban rate.

I'd suppose that on a per-capita basis there are more "guns" in the rural areas than in urban or suburban ones.  Is this is true, and I believe it to be the case, then this right here pretty much nullifies your assertion.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:18 | Link to Comment LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

Tell me something, TINKY, when was the last mass shooting perpetrated in the PRESENCE of ARMED cops? Gee! Could it be the fact that ARMED cops just MIGHT return fire, TINKY?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:20 | Link to Comment Tinky
Tinky's picture

Cops are TRAINED to deal with such situations, in blinding contrast to gun-toting private citizens.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:22 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

So are many private citzens and former military personnel.  Did you have a point?  Still want to ignore the issue of independent responsibility and moral hazard?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:26 | Link to Comment LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

RECENT NEWS: Salt Lake City - man with knife stabbing customers apprehended by citizen with firearm ..... Saganaw(?), Michigan - man with knife shot by SIX COPS who EMPTIED all their mags into him ..... Brownwood, Texas - man in mobile home park shoots shooter and PROTECTED police officer ..... shall I go on, TINKY?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:33 | Link to Comment Tinky
Tinky's picture

Three examples, one of which is meaningless because it was a cop?

How about something a bit more substantial:

A study of firearm deaths in high income countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), United Kingdom (Scotland), and the United States) was conducted with data from the World Health Organization assembled by the WHO from the official national statistics of each individual country from 2003 (Richardson and Hemenway, 2011). The total population for the United States for 2003 was 290.8 million while the combined population for the other 22 countries was 563.5 million. There were 29,771 firearm deaths in the US and 7,653 firearm deaths in the 22 other countries. 

Let's put more guns on the streets of the U.S.! That's the ticket! It's sure to make everyone much safer.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:53 | Link to Comment Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

Your need to feel safe does not supercede my right to defend myself.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:47 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Very trenchant!

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:16 | Link to Comment 11th_hour
11th_hour's picture

America has long been a melting pot of other cultures as we all know. 

The problem I have with your argument is :

comparison of the population of slovakia isn't on par with that of, say, Alabama.

comparison of the population of Sweden isn't on par with that of, say, Missisippi.

comparison of the population of Iceland isn't on par with that of, say, Texas. (Do they have a problem with the drug cartels spilling violence on both sides of the border?)

Etc., etc., etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep/27/gun-crime-map-statistics

Gun violence is too high in the US.  Agreed.  It is too high everywhere in the world.  It is due to a host of factors. Where different cultures come together there are always problems and, in my opinion, where the most conflict occurs.  We are chock full of such diversity.  Diversity is a strength.  Diversity is a weakness in this regard.  

The socio-economic disparity cannot be forgotten.  The criminal element of any society will capitalize on the benefit of a firearm when given the opportunity.   

I have seen first hand the use of firearms in civilian and military situations.  I witnessed a man shot and killed for leaving an illegal game of craps without settling his debt first (occurred across the street from my house).  I had a white football player get shot (not fatally) by a scrawny black kid while standing at my locker in high school as revenge for prior intimidation. 

I have also witnessed hundreds of people enjoy the security of generations of private gun ownership.  I have felt the security of being able to work late and know that my wife has a firearm for protection in case she may ever need it.  Typical sherriff office response time to our home would be a minimum of 45 minutes. 

I am not willing to support any political solution that would hinder our second amendment rights any further.  The original intent of the second amendment is still valid and my experience tells me it is worth the risk to have a legally armed citizenry.

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:46 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

Could it be that Switzerland was left off because it didn't fit the narrative?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 13:57 | Link to Comment RallyRoundTheFamily
RallyRoundTheFamily's picture

Spin Zone

Those figures include suicides, death by cop, justified homicides, hunting accidents etc

How many people were killed by autos or prescription drugs?

You cherry picked a bunch of countries w/ stringent gun laws also.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 13:57 | Link to Comment JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

You are comparing relatively homogenous societies to a multi-culltural society like the US, and that amounts to apples and oranges bad analogy.

And studies dont mean shit when some group has a motive to produce a decision supporting one thing or another. How many studies did the tobaco industry conduct showing that cigarette smoking was healthy for you? Or by the oatmeal industry that showed the same results fo oatmeal?

There are plenty of examples of people stopping mass crimes because they had a gun that your bullshit studies will never take into account. How many people have NOT been killed because the criminal knew it was likely the target had a gun?

In contrast with schools, churches and places that ban guns, how many massacres have taken place at police stations, gun ranges, NRA meetings or in front of armed cops?

Simple logic defies you, and such inability to make common sense decisions is an overwhelming indicator for being a fucking retarded ass-hat troll.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 13:21 | Link to Comment SubjectivObject
SubjectivObject's picture

Do you pay attention at all to what regularly occurs for (US aided and supported)  cops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

In the progression of social dissolution, how will it be different here?

And about cop training, look up the number of their bullets expended versus their effedtiveness.  I saw it somewhere, you can too. 

The real force of the cop is the state power apparatus that back them up. 

It's interesting to note that for the 99%, 99% of the time, cops are not at the moment where a crime is being commited, and how those numbers are inverted for the 1%.  That would be the 1% that owns the media you give creedence to.

edit:  reponse intended for Tinky

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 13:40 | Link to Comment dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

Troll alert

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:13 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Breathtaking ignorance regarding moral hazard and actually enforcing laws that are already on the books.

comingling client accounts anyone?  Laws are for the little people.

But I digress and beg to differ and had someone with a concealed carry (law enforcement or not) been close by he may have ended the whole thing with considerably less causualties.

Wake the fuck up.  once people recognize that we live in a lawless society (where the fuck is John Corzine?) it will get worse.

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:15 | Link to Comment Tinky
Tinky's picture

The problem with your supposition is that it almost never works out that way in real life, and virtually anyone involved in the study of Law Enforcement would disagree with the claim that such carry laws make citizens safer.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:18 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

NO, it actually does work out that way.  The data is very clear on that.  Better still, go walk into a policeman's ball and start shooting.

The real issue is the moral hazard, something you also convienently avoided.  Where the fuck is John Corzine?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:35 | Link to Comment fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

LOP I think you are dead on correct but am curious as to what you think of this following scenario that happened near where I live. Bad guy robs a pharmacy. Off duty cop sees robbery in action and gets involved. Shots get fired outside the pharmacy. Retired cop with a permit to carry sees this going on and shoots the off duty cop and kills him thinking he was the perp.

I am very much in the camp that people should be able to defend themselves but it's not always as clear as some crazy asshole in a theatre that everyone can identify as the bad guy. I don't even know what I am really asking here other than to state that if I had a weapon and the balls to get involved I wonder how much I would hesitate to commit to any action unless it was really clear who the perp was because I would not want some stupid cop to blow me way by accident.

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:43 | Link to Comment Precious
Precious's picture

Your scenario is kind of an abberation.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:50 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

First some perspective. I am former ARMY AMEDD.  My job was to retreat with wounded.  Should I happen to be pursued, then I would use deadly force.  I carry now, but my strategy would be the same.  Retreat, but survive if cornered.  I have the training.

Intelligence, education and training do matter, period.

In a lawsless society, where theft continues in broad daylight and no one goes to fucking jail.  Possession becomes the law and desparate people will do desparate things.

I have no answers for you, life is hard, deal with it, but recognize that chance will always favor the prepared mind and person.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:55 | Link to Comment fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

fair enough. i think precious is off base thinking a robbery setting is an abberation and the movie theatre scenario is the norm. i know i would rather have a fighting chance than be unprepared and i don't know how anyone can dispute that

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:54 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

Bad things happen in a free (such as it is) society. That bad things can happen is insufficient reason for it to be less free.  The groups of people that think they can guarantee good results for all are deluded.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:39 | Link to Comment Tinky
Tinky's picture

The data is very clear? That's interesting...

 

Several studies have analyzed the impact of permissive CCW laws. The Violence Policy Center examined a CCW law adopted in Texas in 1995 to overturn the state’s 125-year ban on concealed weapons.2 The study found that between January 1, 1996 and August 31, 2001, Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for 5,314 crimes, including murder, rape, kidnapping and theft.3 The investigation discovered that some license holders had been arrested for more than two crimes per day, and for more than four drunk driving offenses per week. From 1996 to 2000, license holders were arrested for weapons-related crimes at a rate 81% higher than that of the state’s general population age 21 and older.4

On October 3, 2000, the Los Angeles Times published the results of a yearlong investigation of the Texas law. That investigation found that since the law took effect, more than 400 criminals – including rapists and armed robbers – had been issued CCW permits. The investigation also found that thousands of the 215,000 permit holders in Texas had been arrested for criminal behavior or found to be mentally unstable.5 The investigation specifically noted that the “largest category of problem licensees involve[d] those who committed crimes after getting their state” permits.6

In an investigation of Florida’s concealed weapons system, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel found that those licensed to carry guns in the first half of 2006 included more than 1,400 individuals who had pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies, 216 individuals with outstanding warrants, 128 people with active domestic violence injunctions against them, and six registered sex offenders.7

The number of defensive gun uses is dwarfed by the frequency of crimes committed with guns. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports, the number of crime victims who successfully use firearms to defend themselves is very small. Of the 30,694 Americans who died by gunfire in 2005, only 147 were shot in justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms.

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:55 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Evil doers do evil moron.  Only when laws are not enforced does it become a problem.  In every single case you site the person in question should have been in jail already.  Sorry were you trying to further support my original point regarding Moral Hazard?

 

More people are killed by automobiles.

Perhaps cars should be outlawed?

Your pussy liberal need to feel safe does not trump my right to defend myself.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:41 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Hey, I'm totally opposed to ANY kind of gun control myself, but the facts are the facts. 

In states where it is very easy for anyone to legally get and carry a gun, there is generally MORE gun crime.

There are some exceptions--some states where it's easy to legally get a gun have small rural populations (like Vermont).  Where you don't have big groups of people and high population density, there's LESS CRIME.

DC is an aberration because it's not a State.  It's an urban part of MD, basically, and the cities are where most of the gun crimes occur.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 13:10 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

You offer no "facts".  Depending on the situtation, it goes either way.  Again, the real issue is independent responsibility and enforcing the fucking rule of law to begin with.  Anyone who talks about anything else is simply trying to manipulate the discussion in their favor for a hidden agenda that benefits them.

 

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 13:37 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I do, actually, you just didn't bother with the link I provided elsewhere.  Here's a breakdown of statistics collated by the FBI.  Maybe it's all lies.  The Guardian is a moonbat rag.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:06 | Link to Comment psychobilly
psychobilly's picture

"The number of defensive gun uses is dwarfed by the frequency of crimes committed with guns."

Lying troll.

"According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports, the number of crime victims who successfully use firearms to defend themselves is very small. Of the 30,694 Americans who died by gunfire in 2005, only 147 were shot in justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms."

When you include all defensive uses, and not just those where someone was killed as you have deceptively attempted here, it's 3-4 defensive uses for every criminal use.

See:

"Victim resistance and offender weapon effects in robbery." Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9(1):55-82.

"Rape and resistance." Social Problems 37(2):149-162.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:21 | Link to Comment Agent P
Agent P's picture

"The number of defensive gun uses is dwarfed by the frequency of crimes committed with guns. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports, the number of crime victims who successfully use firearms to defend themselves is very small. Of the 30,694 Americans who died by gunfire in 2005, only 147 were shot in justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms."

Do you suppose this statistic could be skewed just a bit by the fact that those committing gun crimes (a.k.a. criminals) by definition are carrying firearms, where as most law abiding citizens do not?  Even where CCW is available, most people go without carrying.  Now, I can't argue the fact that there are a lot of gun crimes in America because there are a lot of guns in America, but trying to take away gun access to those who want it (and are constitutionally guaranteed the right to it) for personal protection reasons vs. criminal intent, is tantamount to closing the barn door after the horses have already gotten out.  Guns (legal and illegal) are out there...criminals have them...I damn sure have the right to have them to in order to protect myself and my family.  Get it?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:34 | Link to Comment rehypothecator
rehypothecator's picture

The Violence Policy Center is disinformation.  CCW holders, as a group, are more law-abiding than regular citizens, and even than police - but the VPC won't say so.  The stat about Florida is the same - no comparison to other people.  The fact that defensive gun uses (DGUs) are outnumbered by firearms crimes is meaningless.  The number of crimes outnumbers the number of arrests, too - shall we do away with arresting criminals? Furthermore, if the VPC had its way, the number of lawful DGUs would be zero, in which case the number of firearms crimes would exceed the number of DGUs by an even greater margin, except that they can't have it both ways.  VPC is funded by the likes of Soros, if not Soros directly.  They are enemy, and only fools or other enemies support them. Which are you?   

 

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 13:43 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Well, of course a lot of CCW holders are in law enforcement, too, so they're more likely to commit crimes and not be PROSECUTED because their buddies are on the force.

When everyone's drunk and it's a long drive home, you ALWAYS put the cop behind the wheel.  It's just common sense.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:54 | Link to Comment Overfed
Overfed's picture

You are several times more likely to be shot as an innocent bystander by a cop than by a CCW permitee. Also many times more likely to be shot in a case of mistaken identity by a cop than by a private citizen.

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:57 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Data?  Have any data?  OK, here we go (in case you're not able to see my response above):

From Urban, Suburban, and Rural Victimization, 1993-98 (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=812):

The average annual 1993-98 violent crime rate in urban areas was about 74% higher than the rural rate and 37% higher than the suburban rate.

Just in case you can't put two and two together... from http://www.gallup.com/poll/14509/americans-guns-danger-defense.aspx

more than half of those living in rural areas (56%) own a gun, compared with 40% of suburbanites and 29% of those living in urban areas.

Check, and Mate.

Thanks for playing!

BTW - I won't argue that violent crime is higher in the US than many other countries (who cage their citizens), but this, I'd argue, is due to the saturation of violent themes in US society, such as the military and in entertainment, and NOT about how many guns there are.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:10 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

In case Tink (and other folks) still persist in the notion that it's the lack of gun laws in the US that are the problem:

Fromhttps://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/rcrp.pdf (National Institute of Justice - Research in Action [Canada]):

The belief that crime is less frequent
in rural areas is supported by recent
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) data
that present crime by type and population
group.

Availability of guns. The presence of
guns is another area in which rural and
urban populations differ. It has been
observed that gun ownership is much
more prevalent in rural areas where more
than double the number of residents
owned guns than their urban counterparts.
40 While many of the rural gun
owners are hunters who use rifles or
shotguns, the percentage of citizens
owning handguns has also been higher in
rural areas than in central cities (23 percent
versus 15 percent). It is sometimes
assumed that the availability of guns is
relevant to gun-related violence, but the
case of rural areas shows that the relationship
is far more complex.

Cry "Uncle!"  You've fucking lost your argument, badly.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:15 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The issue isn't so much whether it would occur or not...  someone willing to risk his or her own life can initiate virtually anything...  however, there is a common theme among mass shooters...  once there is the first hint of danger, they break down...  either their lethal threat becomes mitigated or they kill themselves...  the quicker this counter threat is presented, the better off we'll be.

Regardless of how prepared they may be...  regardless of how deranged...  once the bullets start whizzing back at them, the game changes...  plans get thrown out the window...  and the situation is whittled down to primal instincts.

That is not to say that just because someone presents a counter threat that they will necessarily kill the shooter...  rather, in order to be incredibly valuable, all they would need to do was mitigate the shooter's lethal abilities...  ANY mitigation being helpful...

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:18 | Link to Comment Tinky
Tinky's picture

Great! Let's have good samaritans shooting back in crowded streets (or theaters), etc. What could possibly go wrong?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:35 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Funny, this old man recently opened up on some armed felons in an Internet cafe, and managed to only shoot THEM...

http://www.inquisitr.com/278528/senior-citizen-samuel-williams-shoots-ro...

You rancid statitst cunt.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 11:20 | Link to Comment goat
goat's picture

Repat of my post above...

 

Re: Empire State Building shootings (as reported by CBS-New York): Maybe some of the reported details have changed now, but I found the same parts interesting that this commentor did:

"At least nine other people on the street were also s

hot..."

"Police said it is unlikely that Johnson fired during the shootout. One witness told investigators that Johnson fired, but ballistics tests don’t back that up, authorities said."

“This is a terrible tragedy and there’s no doubt that the situation would’ve been even more tragic but for some extraordinary acts of heroism”

So... Stay with me... The shooter didn't fire during the shootout, and 9 people were shot??? That means the cops shot 9 people!!! And Bloomberg says the situation would have been even more tragic but for the extraordinary acts of heroism of the cops who shot 9 unarmed civilians? Are you kidding me?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/08/24/multiple-people-reported-shot-near-empire-state-building/

 

 

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:59 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

"someone willing to risk his or her own life can initiate virtually anything"

The Thought Police are working on this, with the excellent help from recruits such as Tinky...

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:15 | Link to Comment Ace Ventura
Ace Ventura's picture

Yes, because these type of shootings regularly occur in places where concealed carry is freely exercised. /sarc

Breathtaking ignorance indeed.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:24 | Link to Comment Tinky
Tinky's picture

Really? They don't occur in such places? Like Arizona, where the Congresswoman and many others were shot?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 12:13 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

So, you're admitting that the world isn't but black and white?  See my posts above for ABSOLUTE destruction of your position.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:09 | Link to Comment bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

Yes sir, just like in the Colorado cinema shooting where gun laws are far more friendly, or in Texas where the good guys shoot the bad guys on a rampage all the time.

Dumb fuckers.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:14 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Aurora, Colorado has strict gun control laws.

You fucking moron.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:38 | Link to Comment bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

No, you fucking moron, in this country, nobody has strict gun control laws, which is why there are so many shootings! You want to see strict gun control laws?

Look to Japan, where guns are illegal, and on average, less than 10 people a year get shot. Those are strict gun control laws, not ones where you have to fill out a form and wait three days before picking up a dozen guns!

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 10:44 | Link to Comment Precious
Precious's picture

In Japan they kill each other with knives instead, moron.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!