Jump to content
qwertyK

Three mass shootings in America in one day

Recommended Posts

Two in Pennsylvannia alone. Man kills his two parents and shoots and injures his wife. Antoher where a gunman kills one person and injures three, including a police officer, at a Masontown court house. Another in Wisonsin when a gunman shoots four people at a software company - no fatalities. Seems recently there's been a lot more of these shootings. This month has already seen a shooting in Cincinatti and Bakersfield. What is going on ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, qwertyK said:

Two in Pennsylvannia alone. Man kills his two parents and shoots and injures his wife. Antoher where a gunman kills one person and injures three, including a police officer, at a Masontown court house. Another in Wisonsin when a gunman shoots four people at a software company - no fatalities. Seems recently there's been a lot more of these shootings. This month has already seen a shooting in Cincinatti and Bakersfield. What is going on ?

 

Links to all of these would be nice.

 

Here's the link to the Wisconsin software company incident - https://www.channel3000.com/news/crime/police-respond-to-report-of-shooter-at-middleton-commercial-building/797200969

 

Considering they have not named the shooter, either the person is a juvenile, or there is much more to this that the authorities are aware of and investigating. Could be a bullshit article and there's another article names him.

 

Here's the one about the Masontown court house:  https://observer-reporter.com/news/localnews/shooting-at-fayette-county-magistrate-s-office-reported/article_36e7c6a8-bc3a-11e8-8562-73b2c405b567.html

 

The gunman had been scheduled to appear that afternoon before District Judge Daniel Shimshock as the suspect in a domestic assault case when he opened fire while chasing a woman into the building, witnesses and investigators said.

 

Just want to point this out.  The court house was not the target, the woman - who was probably the victim from the DV (domestic violence) case - was the target and she just happened to run into the court house for protection.

 

Dowdell was scheduled to appear at 1 p.m. Wednesday before Shimshock on charges of aggravated assault, strangulation, making terroristic threats, simple assault and harassment

 

TheHerald-Standard in Uniontown reported Aug. 27, citing court records, that Dowdell had been accused of choking his wife, Crystal, with a belt and threatening to kill her after she told him she planned to divorce him.

 

I'm so shocked he escalated to blatant, out in the open murder! /s

 

A man who identified himself only as Todd was in the district court lobby, waiting with about 60 other people, when a blonde woman in a pink shirt ran into the building, down a hallway and into the court’s packed waiting room.

 

Okay, I get the woman was scared, but if you're being chased by someone violent who may or may not have a gun (not confirmed if she knew he was armed), don't run into a group of people and make them the targets as well.

 

“He (the gunman) was targeting her but got other people,” Todd said.

 

Exactly my point!

 

Trooper Robert Broadwater said mass shootings such as these are “happening far too often” nowadays.



“It’s getting out of hand,” he said.

 

If I had a shot of whiskey for every mass shooting we've had as of recent, I'd probably be dead from alcohol poisoning.  This shit needs to stop.

 

I can't find a link for the last article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, qwertyK said:

Two in Pennsylvannia alone. Man kills his two parents and shoots and injures his wife. Antoher where a gunman kills one person and injures three, including a police officer, at a Masontown court house. Another in Wisonsin when a gunman shoots four people at a software company - no fatalities. Seems recently there's been a lot more of these shootings. This month has already seen a shooting in Cincinatti and Bakersfield. What is going on ?

Giordano hits all of the points in a good manner. The term 'mass-shooting' is not exactly agreed on how many deaths it takes, however many institutes have classified it to be around three deaths, excluding the suspect. Some links would be very helpful for this information, so some breaking down or other important critiques can be made. 


Seasoned_Shrimp
Livery-Maker and Law Enforcement Enthusiast

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, ffs another one has happened today in Baltimore, 3 dead. No other country has this problem. Your health system is broken, putting people on pills rather than the actual treatment they need, and you give these nutters guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, qwertyK said:

Guys, ffs another one has happened today in Baltimore, 3 dead. No other country has this problem. Your health system is broken, putting people on pills rather than the actual treatment they need, and you give these nutters guns. 


Lets start out with this.

 

After the United Kingdoms firearm ban, crime rates have increased. Gun Violence, Knife Violence, and many other weapons-related crime have seen substantial growth in numbers. As the article in the credits states, "Violent crime in England and Wales is rising at an accelerating pace, according to police figures showing a 22% increase in knife crime and 11% rise in gun crime." 

Meanwhile, the Torries decides its a great idea to remove twenty-one thousand officers from their duties.

Is it not frightening when you hear your own officers say they wish they had handguns and other weaponry to defend themselves with? I find it absolutely horrific that these brave men and women run into scenes of terrorism or stabbings and simply cannot do anything.


Regardless of political views, every country has its own problems. However, guns here are *not* the problem.
The United States sees millions of people register firearms for self use and protection. 500,000 to 3 Million lives are saved by those who properly use their firearms, compared to the 300,000 crimes using firearms.


Oh, and if you would kindly provide sources for our health system problem, How easy you think it is to get a firearm, and the 'pill' problem. Thanks :^)



Sources : 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/26/surge-in-knife-offences-fuels-rise-in-violent
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500
https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/crime-criminal-justice/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#ccdc0ed5edc5
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls


 

Edited by seasonedshrimp
Added a note.

Seasoned_Shrimp
Livery-Maker and Law Enforcement Enthusiast

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, seasonedshrimp said:


Lets start out with this.

 

...

 

Not going to debate the gun issue, been over that countless times before, especially as it relates to the UK: https://www.lcpdfr.com/forums/topic/83855-texas-school-shooting/?do=findComment&comment=547070

 

 

It's totally incorrect to suggest that our police fear for their lives and are begging for guns, though.  The Police Federation often surveys the police on this and there's little appetite for all police officers to be issued with guns with the most recent survey suggesting two thirds remain opposed to it.  It's an idea similarly opposed by the vast majority of senior police officers (if not all of them) and I think that just about everyone here embraces the unique model of policing that we have - I think you have to understand that it's very different to what you have in the US, especially as it relates to using force.  Indeed, it is frequently reported that police forces throughout England & Wales are actually struggling to recruit enough firearms officers - the vast majority just don't want to carry guns.  Even drawing the gun would be considered a reportable use of force here where paperwork must be filed after...  You simply couldn't do that in the US - you'd probably run out of paper.

 

On the contrary, you are entirely correct when you say that the Conservative government has cut police funding, and these cuts do appear to be having a worrying impact - especially as it relates to the numbers of officers.  I think that there's much greater public awareness of this now (it is frequently reported throughout the media, and it's not a left wing or right wing issue) and I'd be surprised if the government doesn't allocate extra funding in the next budget as they are starting to see the blowback from it.


"You tell me exactly what you want, and I will very carefully explain to you why it cannot be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sam said:

 

Not going to debate the gun issue, been over that countless times before, especially as it relates to the UK: https://www.lcpdfr.com/forums/topic/83855-texas-school-shooting/?do=findComment&comment=547070

 

 

It's totally incorrect to suggest that our police fear for their lives and are begging for guns, though.  The Police Federation often surveys the police on this and there's little appetite for all police officers to be issued with guns with the most recent survey suggesting two thirds remain opposed to it.  It's an idea similarly opposed by the vast majority of senior police officers (if not all of them) and I think that just about everyone here embraces the unique model of policing that we have - I think you have to understand that it's very different to what you have in the US, especially as it relates to using force.  Indeed, it is frequently reported that police forces throughout England & Wales are actually struggling to recruit enough firearms officers - the vast majority just don't want to carry guns.  Even drawing the gun would be considered a reportable use of force here where paperwork must be filed after...  You simply couldn't do that in the US - you'd probably run out of paper.

 

On the contrary, you are entirely correct when you say that the Conservative government has cut police funding, and these cuts do appear to be having a worrying impact - especially as it relates to the numbers of officers.  I think that there's much greater public awareness of this now (it is frequently reported throughout the media, and it's not a left wing or right wing issue) and I'd be surprised if the government doesn't allocate extra funding in the next budget as they are starting to see the blowback from it.


Thank you for letting me know more on the U.K. firearm/police issue, I always appreciate insight, especially being across the ocean.

On the other hand, I find it shocking to see that numerous officers do not wish to handle firearms, however looking through the very podcast that I enjoyed watching myself, he (the British officer) does bring up a good point about the difference in culture between US and UK officers. It's difficult to look at both sides of the fence, considering that fence is a vast and large ocean. I'm glad to hear the government is starting to realize their mistake of the cutting of the officers. Less officers is never a good thing, nor should it occur in a world where crime is vastly changing and adapting to the new age. 

 


Seasoned_Shrimp
Livery-Maker and Law Enforcement Enthusiast

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to take a deeper look into the idea of British Police officers not wishing to carry firearms.

From my sources, I found an interesting list. A lot of this information is becoming dated (over 10 years old), so if you do have recent statistics, please let me know.
 

Quote

A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years.


Considering this information is twelve years old, I'd like to see more recent information, especially with the recent events unfolding in the U.K. I'd assume that this 82% would have decreased, and those who do want firearms have increased.
 

Quote

An ICM poll in April 2004 found 47% supported arming all police, compared with 48% against.

 

Quote

In 2007, the centre-right think-tank Policy Exchange found 72% of 2,156 adults wanted to see more armed police patrols.


Both of these quotes are interesting to look at. Again, old information.
 

Quote

"There's a general recognition that if the police are walking around with guns it changes things," says Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.


However, I found this quote to be generally concerning. If an officer, or even a normal citizen, doesn't feel safe carrying a firearm, then they shouldn't handle a firearm. Although I would like to see what he means by 'it changes things', does he mean behavior differences?  

 

Quote

While British officials have long since accepted that an attack is "highly likely," they believe that intelligence-gathering and stronger links with the community — rather than gun-toting cops — will do more to keep the city safer.


I have to unfortunately disagree with this statement. Although the United Kingdom is quite successful with their disarming tactics, as a gun toting freedom loving American, I personally feel that a handgun, or some sort of defense from any sort of emergency, is well needed for these men and women who uphold the law. Until I can see any statistics that prove that officers not carrying a service firearm (or any sort of defense) prevent more crimes than those in a select area (or that of a closest resemblance to a UK city) to the United States.
 

10 hours ago, Sam said:

Even drawing the gun would be considered a reportable use of force here where paperwork must be filed after...  You simply couldn't do that in the US - you'd probably run out of paper.


I also found something similar to this on the articles I've been skimming through. Again, culture difference between the two countries. 


Sources :

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-london-won-t-arm-all-police-despite-severe-terror-n737551

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19641398


Seasoned_Shrimp
Livery-Maker and Law Enforcement Enthusiast

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, seasonedshrimp said:

"While British officials have long since accepted that an attack is "highly likely," they believe that intelligence-gathering and stronger links with the community — rather than gun-toting cops — will do more to keep the city safer."


I have to unfortunately disagree with this statement. Although the United Kingdom is quite successful with their disarming tactics, as a gun toting freedom loving American, I personally feel that a handgun, or some sort of defense from any sort of emergency, is well needed for these men and women who uphold the law. Until I can see any statistics that prove that officers not carrying a service firearm (or any sort of defense) prevent more crimes than those in a select area (or that of a closest resemblance to a UK city) to the United States.

 

I think you missed the point the article you quoted was trying to make there. They seemed to specifically talk about terrorist attacks, in which case I definitely agree that an excellent intelligence and better community policing are the ways to go, rather than arming a larger portion of officers. Acting preemptively to avoid those attacks from happening is much better than letting them happen and just hope to be able to deal with it with armed officers once they occur. Good intelligence services allow for better tracking of dangerous individuals, and proper community policing can prevent some people in poor or segregated communities to fall into extremism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

I think you missed the point the article you quoted was trying to make there. They seemed to specifically talk about terrorist attacks, in which case I definitely agree that an excellent intelligence and better community policing are the ways to go, rather than arming a larger portion of officers. Acting preemptively to avoid those attacks from happening is much better than letting them happen and just hope to be able to deal with it with armed officers once they occur. Good intelligence services allow for better tracking of dangerous individuals, and proper community policing can prevent some people in poor or segregated communities to fall into extremism.


May have. Full honesty, was busy at work lol. 

But yes, you do make quite a good statement. Working to stop the issue before it occurs is always the best plan of action.


Seasoned_Shrimp
Livery-Maker and Law Enforcement Enthusiast

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 or 3 people being shot is by no means a "mass shooting". Gun violence is something that happens every day, the media just selectively covers what will get them the most views, clicks, or towards a certain political viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, liverlande said:

2 or 3 people being shot is by no means a "mass shooting". Gun violence is something that happens every day, the media just selectively covers what will get them the most views, clicks, or towards a certain political viewpoint.

 

"A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence. The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting" as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition of the term "mass murder". However, according to the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, signed into law in January 2013, a mass killing is defined as a killing with at least three deaths, excluding the perpetrator."

 

So yes, 3+ victims can perfectly and objectively be called a mass shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2018 at 11:03 AM, qwertyK said:

Guys, ffs another one has happened today in Baltimore, 3 dead. No other country has this problem. Your health system is broken, putting people on pills rather than the actual treatment they need, and you give these nutters guns. 

  Every country has unbelievable amounts of violence.  Violence cannot be subjugated without proper definition.  It doesn't matter what is used in the role of violence, to separate violence with a gun from violence with a knife, bat, tire iron, sword, or a brick is targeting an object that you don't like, or understand.  If it is not a gun that they use, it will be a knife, or a bat, or a brick.  So bottom line, "Violence is Violence" and you cannot separate it into categories. 

 

 Second,

You have no idea how our health system works, there is help for people, but the issue is the person accepting that they have an issue and admitting  them accordingly.   Unless you get a court order to admit someone, it is up to the individual to commit themselves.  Learn about our heath system and then flap your lips.  And you do have to go through a list of things to get a gun, depending on the state that you live.  

 

  I don't claim to act as if I know how your system works, don't act as if you know how mine works.  The shit you hear on the news is 95% bullshit and lies, and that is not to mention that they news channels air stuff that flows to their political belief so that they can push their own agenda.  

 

  So how about everyone here stop talking about gun violence, and start addressing it for what it is "VIOLENCE".  I've done research between 2 major city's in this world, 1) New York and 2) London, and after looking at what these 2 city's police departments have posted about the crime they have, London is far more violent than New York.  Take note, I did not say anything about guns, I only mentioned violence.  Violence is the issue, not guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

<...>

  So how about everyone here stop talking about gun violence, and start addressing it for what it is "VIOLENCE".  I've done research between 2 major city's in this world, 1) New York and 2) London, and after looking at what these 2 city's police departments have posted about the crime they have, London is far more violent than New York.  Take note, I did not say anything about guns, I only mentioned violence.  Violence is the issue, not guns.

Guns in the hands of mentally unstable people is the issue, and is a correctable one. 

 

There is a huge difference between many types of violence. I'm not a saint and I honestly don't care about gang violence, for example, when they kill each other, as long as it doesn't affect normal citizens. On the other hand, cases like above affect innocent people for no reason. It is a problem, and is mainly US problem (almost never happens in my home country, a real rare occurrence in many European countries). 

 

Simply speaking, you have almost nonexisting chance getting shot just because in a mall, in a school or in an office in Russia. Do you see my point? 

Edited by Hastings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Hastings said:

Guns in the hands of mentally unstable people is the issue, and is a correctable one. 

 

There is a huge difference between many types of violence. I'm not a saint and I honestly don't care about gang violence, for example, when they kill each other, as long as it doesn't affect normal citizens. On the other hand, cases like above affect innocent people for no reason. It is a problem, and is mainly US problem (almost never happens in my home country, a real rare occurrence in many European countries). 

 

Simply speaking, you have almost nonexisting chance getting shot just because in a mall, in a school or in an office in Russia. Do you see my point? 

  I understand that you don't have to worry about getting shot, but what about everything else?  You can get your ass whooped, you can get stabbed, beat to death, and mobbed.  

 

  All that people are worried about is getting shot, they are not accepting the reality of being attacked in any other way.  It is no ones business to ask me why I need a gun, bottom line.  

 

  I am tired of people wanting people to do something that wont do nothing but subjugate innocent individuals to the will of others.

Edited by ToeBius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

I am tired of people wanting people to do something that wont do nothing but subjugate innocent individuals to the will of others.

 

Oh yes, I am terribly subjugated at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  I understand that you don't have to worry about getting shot, but what about everything else?  You can get your ass whooped, you can get stabbed, beat to death, and mobbed.  

 

  All that people are worried about is getting shot, they are not accepting the reality of being attacked in any other way.  It is no ones business to ask me why I need a gun, bottom line.  

 

  I am tired of people wanting people to do something that wont do nothing but subjugate innocent individuals to the will of others.


I can likely outrun someone with a knife, have the potential to outfight someone in a fist-fight, but I can't outrun a bullet. Obviously, the whole European point of things would never work in the United States, simply because how many guns are already out there, most other countries I'd argue a case could be made that it is safer to have no guns or strict limitations, but the numbers in the United States simply means that either way you'd struggle to make a difference.


Why even have signatures-....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2018 at 2:21 PM, Ben said:


I can likely outrun someone with a knife, have the potential to outfight someone in a fist-fight, but I can't outrun a bullet. Obviously, the whole European point of things would never work in the United States, simply because how many guns are already out there, most other countries I'd argue a case could be made that it is safer to have no guns or strict limitations, but the numbers in the United States simply means that either way you'd struggle to make a difference.

  It's not just the number of guns here, but you have to look at how many people use these weapons in self defense, recreation, and sport.  The actions of the few do not represent the actions or will of the many.  The gun is a equalizer for the weak and helpless, and the strong but the outnumbered.  My grandmother cannot fight someone off if they break into her house, her gun helps her win the fight.

On 9/23/2018 at 2:08 PM, Hystery said:

 

Oh yes, I am terribly subjugated at the moment.

  What?  You subjugated because you cannot have the "FEELING" that you soo desire?  You want to feel safe at the cost of others?  Would you like to go through this again or should I just point you to our last convo we had on this whole issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ToeBius said:

  It's not just the number of guns here, but you have to look at how many people use these weapons in self defense, recreation, and sport.  The actions of the few do not represent the actions or will of the many.  The gun is a equalizer for the weak and helpless, and the strong but the outnumbered.  My grandmother cannot fight someone off if they break into her house, her gun helps her win the fight.

 

  What?  You subjugated because you cannot have the "FEELING" that you soo desire?  You want to feel safe at the cost of others?  Would you like to go through this again or should I just point you to our last convo we had on this whole issue?

I, for one, never said that a total gun ban is a good thing. Again, it depends on the traditional approach of given society (that works in the UK won't work in the US and vice versa), but I never understood why Americans are so opposed to, for example, certain health standards for firearm owners. Usually they reply that it's a constitutional right and cannot be limited (which is somewhat weak to me as rights are subject to reasonable limitation: for example, as far as I know, certain states have 'stand your ground laws' while others don't. Would you say that those other states violate your rights to own property?)

 

The other argument is that the government would be able to control who gets a gun and who doesn't, but for me that's kinda the whole point.. 

 

As far as the 'grandmother argument' goes (no offence meant, it's just I keep seeing this argument in all gun control debates), well, if I were to break into a house knowing I might get shot I would shoot to kill first. We had an interesting precedent in Russia: in 1960's they introduced a death penalty for rape. As a result, numbers of rape&murder skyrocketed. If you get a bullet for rape, you might as well kill first to negate that risk. Just an analogy. 

Edited by Hastings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hastings said:

I, for one, never said that a total gun ban is a good thing. Again, it depends on the traditional approach of given society (that works in the UK won't work in the US and vice versa), but I never understood why Americans are so opposed to, for example, certain health standards for firearm owners.

One of the reasons why people are opposed to it is because it wont work.  Just because someone is stable today, does not mean that they will not have a mental episode tomorrow.  Another reason why we are not willing to give more ground is because Every time we give some they want more and more and more.  We have seen as examples, in other societies, how this will create a system that is not in favor of these weapons.

 

10 hours ago, Hastings said:

Usually they reply that it's a constitutional right and cannot be limited (which is somewhat weak to me as rights are subject to reasonable limitation: for example, as far as I know, certain states have 'stand your ground laws' while others don't. Would you say that those other states violate your rights to own property?)

  First and foremost, Stand your ground law is about self defence not protection of property.  And I would say that is is a violation of peoples rights if the state stands in and says that you have a duty to retreat and are shunned uppon for defending yourself.

 

  One of the largest reasons, for people getting guns, is for self preservation, not recreational.  No one should be denied, have to ask premonition, or have to go through a background check (That may be bias) or a waiting period to obtain a weapon to defend themselves, and the best weapon is gun.  

10 hours ago, Hastings said:

The other argument is that the government would be able to control who gets a gun and who doesn't, but for me that's kinda the whole point..

  There is no reason for anyone, not even the government, to know if I have a gun or not.  The only people that know i have a gun is who I choose to tell.  The government is the most powerful evil force that anyone has ever seen.

 

10 hours ago, Hastings said:

As far as the 'grandmother argument' goes (no offence meant, it's just I keep seeing this argument in all gun control debates), well, if I were to break into a house knowing I might get shot I would shoot to kill first. 

  If no one knows that someone has a gun, how would you know they have one unless you have been told about it?  Most people are not trying to get into a gun fight when they break into someones home.  They are looking for victims that wont fight back.  

 

10 hours ago, Hastings said:

We had an interesting precedent in Russia: in 1960's they introduced a death penalty for rape. As a result, numbers of rape&murder skyrocketed. If you get a bullet for rape, you might as well kill first to negate that risk. Just an analogy

  I dont know how this has anything to do with an indevidual owning a gun without the government knowing.  I mean, you could some how ask all the rapists come in and register themselves so that, when a rape is commuted, you could go get them?

 

  And to counter that, that same government enslaved my family and everyone else in there region because they were of german decent.  That is a good reason right there to not let the government know what you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ToeBius said:

We have seen as examples, in other societies, how this will create a system that is not in favor of these weapons.

 

Ah yes, those damn societies not in favor of these weapons, relying on trained officers to uphold the law, such savages, totally subjugated by invaders and by "the most powerful evil force that anyone has ever seen." Modern time slaves obviously, let's never look their way, it can't be good no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

Ah yes, those damn societies not in favor of these weapons, relying on trained officers to uphold the law, such savages, totally subjugated by invaders and by "the most powerful evil force that anyone has ever seen." Modern time slaves obviously, let's never look their way, it can't be good no matter what.

  Are you getting butt hurt Histaria?  We have law enforcement officers that are train and do the best to uphold the law, but by no means can they protect everyone.  Officer's usually, even in your country, show up after the fact.  

 

  Your countries take and take and will continue to take until there is nothing left.  Thats why we dont give any space.

 

  So tell me this, if someone comes up and starts to attack you and fighting back with your fist isnt working so you end up in the hospital.  How did the cops save you?

 

  If a gang of people are breaking into your house, they beat you, rape you, and leave you for dead. All the while you were unable to make a phone call to the police.

  How did they save or help you? The damage is already done and you were left without a means to defend yourself.

 

  Or how about, 7 people are wanting to beat the shit out of you, they dont care if you die, and a wall is in between you and them.  Wouldn't you having access to a gun to protect yourself save you? Or is it the cops that Will save you?  I know for a fact, because this happend to me, that the cops would not save you.  You would get the shit beat out of you, then paramedics would come pick you up, the cops would take a police report, but no justice would happen because you didnt know those people.  

 

  The cops show up after a crime is done, they cannot and will not protect you.  Even if you have a cop one cop for every one person in your country, you will still have people lurking to commit violent act's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ToeBius said:

 <..>  We have law enforcement officers that are train and do the best to uphold the law, but by no means can they protect everyone.  Officer's usually, even in your country, show up after the fact.  

 

<...>

 

  The cops show up after a crime is done, they cannot and will not protect you.  Even if you have a cop one cop for every one person in your country, you will still have people lurking to commit violent act's.  

That's definitely a valid point, police work is more often about handling the consequences than stopping crimes in progress.

 

Re your other arguments, their persuasiveness obviously depends on one's opinion so I'm not going to argue further. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...