NYC shooter: I figure that it would have been worse

[MrScorpio]

If the guy was able to gain access to his former place of work.

When he started shooting in the street, there were cops nearby. If he got into the building he would have had an easier time killing people, including the people he felt had wronged him.

He got fired a year ago, he might have planned this for a while.

On edit: Looks like the shooter, Jeffrey Johnson, 53 shot a former co worker on the street, killing him. Cops pursued, gun fire exchange, killing Johnson, several people hit.

[glacierbay]

1. According to Mayor Bloomberg

those that were wounded were shot by the NYPD.

[HappyMe]

2. No, that's not what he said.

They are still investigating.

[glacierbay]

3. What he said was that

those wounded may have been shot by the NYPD.

[onehandle]

4. Some. Not all, is what he said, as they were taking down the gun owner. nt

[glacierbay]

5. We'll know soon enough

when they recover the bullets from the victims, the shooter used a .45 while I believe the NYPD uses .40 cal.

[CabCurious]

11. We won't know for sure any time soon...

And these were officers engaging somebody already shooting civilians.

[glacierbay]

15. No he wasn't shooting civilians

he shot and killed his former manager and then left, a construction worker followed him and pointed him out to police and when they drew their guns, he drew his and the shootout ensued. He most definitely was not shooting civilians.

[CabCurious]

38. My understanding is that he shot the boss on the sidewalk/street...

Which is shooting civilians on the street... which is how the cops would have heard it explain (in so many words).

They approached him... he pulled out a gun.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but you can't blame the police for seeing him as an immediate threat.

[glacierbay]

45. Not true

a construction worker followed him and detained him for police, he pulled his gun and police pulled their guns and a shootout ensued with the shooter being killed and 9 civilians being wounded, quite possibly by the NYPD.
He wasn't walking down the street randomly shooting people like your comment seemed to suggest.

I'm not faulting the police, they had to defend themselves and all things considered, the outcome was positive in that no one else except the shooter was killed.

[CabCurious]

50. Reports indicate the initial shooting was on the sidewalk

In front of or near the Empire State Building.

THEN the construction worker pursued, etc. I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

I'm simply saying that this man shot somebody on the street... and when the police confronted him, he pulled out the gun and they all shot at each other. To me, it doesn't even matter who shot first in that case.

And I am not defending the police if they hit innocent civilians... but we don't even know who hit them.

[glacierbay]

53. Ok now I understand

yes the initial shooting did happen on the sidewalk, I thought that you were saying that he was walking down the street randomly shooting civilians. Sorry about that.

I can't really fault the police if they did hit innocent civilians, they probably were ordinary street cops who don't have the firearms training that their specialized units have, units like ESU. Most cops usually only shoot when they have to re-qualify each year whereas, ESU constantly hones their marksmenship skills.

[CabCurious]

80. Not to make excuses for the cops... but I don't envy them in that situation

I'm sure we can all argue both sides of this matter with a gunman in a busy street.

I don't envy the cop who has to make that decision. I'm not even entirely sure what the "rules of engagement" are there.

[apocalypsehow]

6. Another "law abiding gun owner" - right up until the moment he wasn't. n/t.

[Remmah2]

9. By that postulate, all men are rapist.

nt

[LanternWaste]

67. Or, more validly..

Or, more validly, all men men are law-abiding, up until they rape...

[Remmah2]

89. We should all be guilty till proven innocent.

[apocalypsehow]

125. You don't do analogy very well. Try again. n/t.

[rDigital]

136. You can't ride in on the fail boat and then tell everyone else they're "sunk". nt

[Remmah2]

143. Up the creek without a paddle. nt

nt

[apocalypsehow]

147. Again, you don't do analogy very well, as noted. And you get poorer at it,

with every subsequent attempt. Holes, shovels, continued digging, all of that.

[rDigital]

152. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia

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

[apocalypsehow]

154. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll

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

[baldguy]

142. The difference is, of course, there's no National Rapist Association to support them when they do.

[apocalypsehow]

148. Zing! That's gonna leave a mark! Spot-on reply.

[4th law of robotics]

34. Could you list one kind of criminal that wasn't law abiding prior to breaking the law?

[sibelian]

162. George Bush?

[NCTraveler]

44. I didn't think you were allowed to carry in NY.

If that is the case, he wasn't abiding by the law.

[spin]

159. You legally CAN carry in the BIg Apple ...

but you have to have a carry permit from the city.

These are largely limited to the rich, the famous and the well connected and they are expensive and VERY hard to get.

The Rich, the Famous, the Armed

By JO CRAVEN McGINTY
Published: February 18, 2011

MEN and women. Democrats and Republicans. Doctors, lawyers, merchants and moguls. A remarkable, if relatively small, cross-section of New Yorkers legally own handguns, according to public records obtained by The New York Times.

***snip***

Nearly 4,000 license holders — those who have a “carry business,” “limited carry” or “special carry” license — can legally conceal their weapons. The Times obtained the database of handgun owners from the Police Department after filing a Public Records Act request and a lawsuit; the police released ZIP codes but omitted street addresses. The database also did not include the 14,602 retired police officers who are licensed to have weapons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/nyregion/20guns.html?_r=1

Lifestyles of the rich and packin': High-profile celebrities seeking gun permits on the rise
By Rocco Parascandola AND Alison Gendar / DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Monday, September 27, 2010, 4:00 AM

J.Lo and her 2-year-old twins can rest easy at night: Daddy is packing heat.

Singer Marc Anthony is one of dozens of celebs, millionaires and high-profile athletes authorized to carry a concealed weapon in the city, records show.

***snip***

Other big names licensed to carry a gun include actor Robert De Niro, shock jock Howard Stern and supermarket mogul John Catsimatidis. Billionaire Donald Trump and his son, Donald Jr.; celebrity lawyer David Breitbart, and artificial-heart inventor Robert Jarvik can also carry steel, police records reveal.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/lifestyles-rich-packin-high-profile-celebrities-seeking-gun-permits-rise-article-1.441377

[krispos42]

76. Considering NYC's gun laws...

It would have been damn hard for him to be a law-abiding gun owner until he drew and fired.

[Remmah2]

107. It would be interesting to know his actual residence.

I have friends who work in Manhattan but have residences in Long Island, NJ and one motoring fool in PA.

[apocalypsehow]

126. And if the entire country had NYC's excellent gun laws...

...then he probably wouldn't have had a gun at all, and both he and his victim would still be alive. Along with hundreds of thousands of others...

[rDigital]

137. Excellent gun laws? Like the one where only 1%ers get carry permits?

Bloomie lets Donald Trump carry a loaded gun everywhere in NYC, but not the working stiff who lives in a rough neighborhood.

[apocalypsehow]

149. Yes, excellent gun laws. If NYC's gun laws were in place nationwide, hundreds of thousands

of victims of gun violence would be alive right now - including the innocent victim in this case, and his assailant.

But, thanks to the right-wing gun lobby and it's NRA enablers, those sensible laws are not in place nationwide, and that means the gun lobby has blood on its hands. As do, by extension, every single person who supports that lobby in any material way.

[apocalypsehow]

153. That's all yah got? A personal attack that's not even forthright, but skulks behind

a wikipedia link? Wow...I'm sure we're all duly impressed...

Laughable stuff.

[krispos42]

155. *snort*

Yeah, he would have run the guy down with his car instead.

And the thousands of people that are killed by career criminals with guns would still have been killed by career criminals with guns.

[apocalypsehow]

157. What nonsense, from stem to stern:

"Yeah, he would have run the guy down with his car instead"

You have not the slightest clue as to what would have unfolded in the confrontation between these two men in an USA with sensible gun laws like New York City's established nation-wide: Not. One. Clue.

But what we do know is this: he would have had a much harder time murdering his victim with a gun in a country that had New York City's gun laws on the books and enforced nationwide.

"And the thousands of people that are killed by career criminals with guns would still have been killed by career criminals with guns."

For starters, this guy wasn't a "career criminal"; for seconders, in a nation with sensible gun laws, it would be just that much harder for a criminal of any stripe to get his hands on firearms and, thus, just that much harder to commit criminal acts with guns.

This really isn't all that hard a concept for a reasonable intellect to grasp, at the end of the day...

It is absolutely appalling that you are a "host" of any forum on DU, even the right-wing cesspool known as the Gungeon.

[krispos42]

158. *snort* redux

A kitchen knife to the chest. But, hold on here... the shooting occurred in New York City. In other words, NYC's strict gun laws didn't prevent this from happening. This isn't Bumfuck, Nebraska... this was New Yawk!

The guy was a New Yorker. He lived and worked in Manhattan. And it still happened. Gee, what was that about intellect again?


And have criminals ever really had a problem getting their hands on guns? Ever?

Tell you what. If you want to reduce the number of people killed by gunfire, legalize drugs. This will save far more lives, far faster, than trying to make new and stricter gun laws.

[apocalypsehow]

161. It's not "redux" (Sic): it's the same old non-responsive jazz.

"A kitchen knife to the chest."

Except, a "kitchen knife to the chest" is much harder to deliver to a grown man defending himself than FIVE .45 caliber bullets to the head, as any body with a scintilla of intellectual honesty or maturity realizes. More silliness.

"But, hold on here... the shooting occurred in New York City. In other words, NYC's strict gun laws didn't prevent this from happening."

Again: New York is an island - literally - of gun control sanity surrounded by a big blob of lax gun laws that allow about any gump with about any reason to walk into a gun store in, say, Florida - which is where this "law abiding gun owner" got this gun in the first place - and buy pretty much whatever firepower they wish.

Don't you read? Can you grasp what you read? The bottom line is this: if the United States had imposed nationwide a NATIONAL version of New York City's sensible gun control laws, then any number of potential murderers would not be able to commit their intended homicides. Again, reading comprehension is needed. Or as someone recently said to me: " Gee, what was that about intellect again?"

"This isn't Bumfuck, Nebraska... this was New Yawk!"

Asked & answered, but your mocking dismissal of one of the finest cities on the planet and, incidentally, a Blue center of liberal reason and enlightenment is noted. Again: you should not be a "host" of any forum on DU, not even the right-wing cesspool of the Gungeon.

"And have criminals ever really had a problem getting their hands on guns? Ever?"

Funny about that: in countries with civilized gun control laws, they surely do. Nations like Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England, and so on. But I'll tell you what: let's just try some of those sensible gun control laws in this country that the vast majority of civilized nations and even American cities - like NYC - have on the books right now for a generation or so: if, after that time, the homicide rate remains the same, we can concede you were right! Would you go along with that? Forty years of nationwide restrictions on firearms along the lines of the NYC or Massachusetts model?

Of course, the homicide rate here would plummet, naturally, if we adopted such laws nationwide, just like it has in Japan and Australia and New Zealand and Canada and England, et al, so all we'll likely get in response here from you is more diversionary rattle & hum.

Wait for it....wait for it...

[krispos42]

168. *triple snort*

Yeah, like he'd give the guy he was stalking advance warning. Maybe time to take off his jacket, roll up his sleeve, and put up his dukes, too. Silliness? Read what you're writing. He's come up from behind and stab him in the neck, severing vital arteries and insuring the guy was dead long before EMTs could show up. This was premeditated murder, not heat-of-passion. THE GUY WOULD STILL BE DEAD.

Keep in mind that our non-gun homicide rate is as high or higher than the TOTAL murder rate of western European nations with strict gun control laws. You actually believe that, in a nation where about 14,000 people murder another a year, the 9,500 or so that do it with guns will just... what, go home and munch some potato chips?

Again: New York is an island - literally - of gun control sanity surrounded by a big blob of lax gun laws that allow about any gump with about any reason to walk into a gun store in, say, Florida - which is where this "law abiding gun owner" got this gun in the first place - and buy pretty much whatever firepower they wish.

People in New York can still own handguns legally. Was his legal? I don't know. We do know it was bought in Florida in 1991, legally. We do not know who bought it. Is this relevant?

We don't know yet. Was the gun properly registered in New York City? If it was, then it is irrelevant, because the gun would be legal, registered, certified, blessed, etc., by the city government.

If it wasn't, would he have been able to purchase a handgun legally in NYC at any time during his living there? If so, then the minor technical issue of "the NYPD didn't know he had the gun" doesn't mean anything, because he was a person with no criminal record who could have bought one legally.

Was it an "assault weapon"? No. It was a single-stack .45 pistol, presumably a 1911. Sub-ten-round magazine, no magazine outside of the pistol grip, no threads for a silencer, no barrel shroud, not a semi-auto variant of a full-auto-firearm, and an unloaded weight of less than 50oz. So that's a dead issue.

Asked & answered, but your mocking dismissal of one of the finest cities on the planet and, incidentally, a Blue center of liberal reason and enlightenment is noted. Again: you should not be a "host" of any forum on DU, not even the right-wing cesspool of the Gungeon.

Finest cities on the planet? Well, it's certainly interesting. Authoritarian police force and mayor knocks a few points off your claim of being a blue center of liberal reason and enlightenment, because, after all, you're only reasonable and enlightened if you're not being beaten into a pulp by the NYPD because you dared threaten the holiday shopping season or protest the monied interests that control the mayor and the NYPD.

Funny about that: in countries with civilized gun control laws, they surely do. Nations like Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England, and so on. But I'll tell you what: let's just try some of those sensible gun control laws in this country that the vast majority of civilized nations and even American cities - like NYC - have on the books right now for a generation or so: if, after that time, the homicide rate remains the same, we can concede you were right! Would you go along with that? Forty years of nationwide restrictions on firearms along the lines of the NYC or Massachusetts model?

Of course, the homicide rate here would plummet, naturally, if we adopted such laws nationwide, just like it has in Japan and Australia and New Zealand and Canada and England, et al, so all we'll likely get in response here from you is more diversionary rattle & hum.


Um... I'll go with 20 years of firearm law liberalization and a plummeting homicide rate, thanks.

[malaise]

144. No this gun was illegal

and he left the keys in an envelope for the landlord. He had two deaths on his mind - his former co-worker's and his own.

[apocalypsehow]

150. No, this gun was perfectly "legal" when purchased in Florida. It only became illegal when

this "law abiding gun owner" transported it to New York. That's one thing I've found about our "law abiding gun owners" over the years: they don't think the rules apply to them when the subject comes to their Phallic Replacement Devices, thanks to the bogus cover they imagine the 2nd amendment gives to their every whim when it comes to guns.

I've even seen this rule-breaking phenomenon over the years, amazingly enough, on my favorite liberal discussion board: a conservative feels aggrieved that a good number of liberals on a progressive discussion board do not share his enthusiasm for guns, so he signs up to that discussion board pretending to be a "pro gun progressive" for the explicit purpose of pretending there is such a thing as a liberal RKBA advocate in the NRA sense. There is no such thing, of course, and it is a violation of the site's stated rules for that poster to even be there. Said poster doesn't care, by Gawd: some things are just more important than being truthful and following rules in someone else's house. He's going to double and triple down, and keep right on pretending to be a "pro gun progressive" all the while bleating NRA talking points - which is to say, right wing talking points.

This "pro gun progressive" canard isn't really fooling anybody, and we all know it.

[rl6214]

163. Typical anti-gun zealot

Juvenile fucking responses and name calling is all you've got.

[apocalypsehow]

164. LOL...case in perfect point, with exactitude. You couldn't make this stuff up.

[rl6214]

169. Yes you could and you normally do

[spin]

170. I am a law abiding gun owner ...

and consequently I would NEVER live in NYC.

I enjoy exercising my rights to own firearms and enjoy the shooting sports in Florida. I find target shooting a rewarding and enjoyable hobby and I have a concealed carry license which didn't cost me a fortune and also didn't require me to rich, famous or well connected.

In the Big Apple I would be a second class citizen.

You posted the comment below and I feel I should respond to it:

I've even seen this rule-breaking phenomenon over the years, amazingly enough, on my favorite liberal discussion board: a conservative feels aggrieved that a good number of liberals on a progressive discussion board do not share his enthusiasm for guns, so he signs up to that discussion board pretending to be a "pro gun progressive" for the explicit purpose of pretending there is such a thing as a liberal RKBA advocate in the NRA sense. There is no such thing, of course, and it is a violation of the site's stated rules for that poster to even be there. Said poster doesn't care, by Gawd: some things are just more important than being truthful and following rules in someone else's house. He's going to double and triple down, and keep right on pretending to be a "pro gun progressive" all the while bleating NRA talking points - which is to say, right wing talking points.

This "pro gun progressive" canard isn't really fooling anybody, and we all know it.

I am a liberal and progressive Democrat and proudly carry that heritage from a long line of Democrats who worked in the steel mills and iron works in Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania. None of my family ever used firearms for hunting but were more experienced with handguns and owned them mainly for self defense.

My grandfather was born in the 1800s and owned a Colt .45 auto and other firearms including a .22 caliber rifle. He trained my mother who was born in 1907 to shoot the big .45 caliber pistol. She went with me to the range one time when she was in her 80s and was still able to hit a target at 25 yards with a Colt .45 pistol my step father owned for home defense. My step dad was also a Democrat and a union member despite the fact that many in his family were strong Republicans. I inherited that .45 and it is a very accurate pistol which is one of my favorite handguns.

My mother once used a .22 caliber S&W Ladysmith revolver to stop an attacker who hid behind some bushes and jumped her as she was walking home from work. She fired two shots from this tiny revolver which she carried in her purse over his head and he ran. She was born in 1907 and the incident described occurred in the 1920s. (I found where this revolver was hidden as a child and played with it when my parents were not home. I don't remember ever loading it but even if I would have it would not have fired as my father had removed the firing pin from the hammer.)

My uncle who was born in the same time frame always had a revolver available for self defense in his home. He also preferred S&W revolvers as I do for self defense. He retired from Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation in Pittsburgh in the 80s. He was a member of the union and spent many days walking on strike lines to get better benefits for his company. He stated to me that he was proud to do so because future workers would live a far better life because of his sacrifice and the sacrifice of others who did the same. Unfortunately the Republicans destroyed the unions. (In my opinion unions are largely responsible for the creation of the middle class that we once had in this nation.)

My father was born in 1900 and both he and my uncle spend hours target shooting handguns with a neighbor who was a police officer. My dad carried one when he worked for Naval Intelligence during WWII as a civilian investigator on loan from the Retail Credit Corporation. He investigated German spy rings in the Pittsburgh area and also scientists that worked on highly classified programs such as the Manhattan Project. He didn't own any firearms when I grew up but never expressed any opposition to those who did. We lived in a very peaceful rural area of Ohio where most people owned firearms for hunting. Since my father had no interest in that sport he saw no need to own one. Let me assure you that he was a STRONG Democrat. He had also worked at Jones & Laughlin and got my uncle his job. My mother and my aunt worked for H. J. Heinz corporation in Pittsburgh and both were union members and Democrats.

The area I grew up in was a strong Republican area in Ohio. Once in class I defended Social Security and my teacher called me a Communist!. I feel that I stood my ground and defended my views effectively and some of my classmates agreed with me but of course many did not. Let me assure you that peer pressure did not turn me into a Republican. I was considered to be rebellious and unpatriotic merely because I was a Democrat.

You personally might feel that everyone who owns firearms can not qualify as a progressive Democrat but you are definitely wrong. I feel that the Second Amendment is very liberal and progressive. The reason why it is the second is because the First Amendment is the most liberal and progressive.

Liberalism in the United States

The United States of America was the first country to be founded on the liberal ideas of John Locke and other philosophers of the Enlightenment, with no monarchy, no hereditary aristocracy, and no established religion. The American Bill of Rights guarantees every citizen the freedoms advocated by the liberal philosophers: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to gather in peaceful assembly, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and the right to bear arms, among other freedoms and rights. In this sense, virtually all Americans are liberals. However, questions arose, both before and after the country was founded. In the Dred Scott decision of 1856-57, the Supreme Court ruled that these rights only applied to White men, and that Blacks had no rights whatsoever that any White man was obliged to respect. Therefore the constitution was amended several times to extend these rights to ever larger classes of citizens, to all citizens in 1868, then specifically to Blacks in 1870, to women in 1919, and to people unable to afford a poll tax in 1964.
...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States

How many close elections have Democrats lost because they are disliked by gun owners who have a considerable amount of money and time invested in the shooting sports? I've talked to many gun owners and regular target shooters in Florida and they often have said they absolutely refuse to vote for ANY Democrat because of the gun control issue. Obviously they are single issue voters. When I discuss other issues with them, I often find they agree with the views of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately they do show up at the polls to vote for Republicans.

I understand that you strongly support gun control and that is your right and quite possibly you have good reason for your view.

I do not believe that firearms are for everybody and I support most current gun laws such as exist in Florida but can see how they might be improved. I know that firearms ownership can lead to tragedy and I have experienced the suffering that a misuse of a firearm can cause in my own family. On the other hand I have also seen how a firearm can be used for legitimate self defense also in my own family although I have fortunately never had to use one for such a purpose.

Good people can have far different views on some issues but agree on others. It's somewhat unwise to try to determine who is a true conservative or a true liberal or progressive based on just one issue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. So let me get this straight

People who are trained to take things like follow through hit civilians? And the usual suspects want every Dick and Harry to carry?

Carry on.

[ManiacJoe]

10. The average cop gets far less range time

than your average Dick and Harry.

[Remmah2]

14. According to the experts they're all trained.

[ManiacJoe]

18. Then you need better experts.

Assuming that "they" are the non-cops.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Wrong, they are considered trained

Period.

And the average joe goes to the tactical range? Who knew?

[SQUEE]

27. Average Joe..

I clearly do not understand the patronizing and often downright hateful responses that many here have toward your fellow Democrats, merely because they have a different view of the 2a than you.But to limit your view of me to that of a fetishist, or as Gollum because I do choose to be able to defend my life and my home is childish.

I have firearms in my home, and an extensive amount of training and familiarity with them. I am quite certain I am more proficient than any one of my local LEO, outside of an SRT or SWAT unit. Our locals do not do any comprehensive tactical training, and almost all of their required quals are from the static position as well as at short distance. I have competed in 3 gun matches and still work to maintain my abilities and marksmanship through constant range shooting. For me distance shooting has always been an exercise in meditation and focus, much as people use tai chi or needle point even.

I personally do not carry outside the home, as I find it exhausting to carry that much responsibility when I should be focusing on the lovely day, or the specials at the store or the subtext in a movie.. I believe to carry responsibly every moment has to be planned and contingencies constantly created, exactly the same as if I were patrolling in the military, to think otherwise is insane. Lets face it, death lies within every on of those rounds in your purse or on your hip.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. For the record, I am a gun owner

but not a gun fetishist, there is a difference.

The NRA and ALEC, want everybody to pack, in that fantasy of privatizing police forces, end goal.

Also they think cross my heart, that this was the case in the old west, which it wasn't.

The average gun owner is NOT as intensely trained as a cop or military, not does plinging bottles in your backyard, or targets at the range, qualify as a tactical range.

So I am punching holes at the NRA false talking point son.

[glacierbay]

32. Not as intensly trained in the laws they are sworn to uphold

Now, the military is a totally different thing.
But, I'll bet that, outside of specialized units within law enforcement depts., I can outshoot most cops in this nation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. That is good to know, I still DO NOT WANT YOU, carrying everywhere

it is THAT SIMPLE.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. wow

I still DO NOT WANT YOU, carrying everywhere it is THAT SIMPLE.

Do you work in the handgun permitting office?

[glacierbay]

41. Let me start by saying

that although I do have a ccl, I very rarely carry as it is a pain in the ass, and I do not care that you don't want me carrying everywhere.
When it comes right down to it, it's my choice, not anyone else's.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Sooner or later it will become society's choice actually

and I am looking forward to laws like the ones in places like the real Dodge City...

No, historically we have not allowed people to carry just willy nilly.

Not to say that SOME CCW are not justified, soem are, but I suspect far more are issued than should.

[glacierbay]

46. What you say may be true

but I doubt it will happen in our lifetime.
Not one state has so far even suggested repealing their cc laws and their is a good reason for that, it's what their constituents want and until that changes, no laws will be passed to restrict cc.

Forgot to add, in Dodge City, it was not illegal to carry in town as long as you were in the red light district.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. When it happens it will be sudden

the comment from one of the talking heads on the morning reminded me of 1934. To paraphrase, "people are now anxious since it can happen anywhere, not just in the hood anymore."

Those laws were passed very suddenly, after we reached a tipping point due to shooting after shooting after shooting involving tommy guns.,

Right now both parties have political cover, see Luntz's poll... if they wanted to pass a 100% background check, there would be applause in the house. Not in this house, in the country. It was what 74% approval for that among NRA members?

[glacierbay]

49. I fully support comprehensive background checks

up to and including private sales, no problem, but as far as sudden, no way, to many gun owners, and we are politically active. Then horse has left the barn on cc and I don't think you can close that door again, no one, except the usual suspects in the congress are even suggesting new gun laws.

I like the President's idea, more vigorous enforcement of the existing laws.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. It will, and the other side is getting more and more organized

but the NRA does not support background checks... I mean the leadership.

[glacierbay]

57. The other side is not getting more organized

the brady organization boasts a whooping 25,000 members with their main funding coming from pretty much one source, the Joyce Foundation and their threatening to pull that funding, they've even had to put their mailing list up for sale. The VPC is pretty much done for except for a few spasms here and there, the Million Mom March is now down to the Few Thousand Mom March with their leader in prison for shooting an innocent person.

Meanwhile, the NRA, of which I am not a member of, boasts over 4.5 million dues paying members, then there is the GOA, the SAF, and a multitude of other gun rights groups, plus there are approximently 80-90 million other gun owners in the country who pretty much vote.

You have a daunting task ahead of you to change the gun laws in this country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. It will happen and it will be sudden

that is all I can tell you.

It will happen for a multiplicity of reasons... and it will be very sudden, unless you are paying very close attention.

And I will leave it at that.

Suffice it to say, parallels to 1934 are there already.

[glacierbay]

71. That's exactly why it won't happen, suddenly or gradually

Gun owners do pay very close attention, and we vote.
Why do you think that over half of the Senate is A rated by the NRA? Or over half of the House is A rated by the NRA? Because we do pay close attention and we do vote.

I like President Obama's approach, no new gun laws and stricter enforcement of existing laws. He's a very practical man and a brilliant politician who knows that gun control is a losing proposition.
Just one of the many many reasons I'm voting for him again, not the main reason, just one of them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. It will, you will see

Sorry, but there are things that happen after you reach a certain tipping point.

[glacierbay]

86. We'll just have to agree to disagree

anyway, it's been a pleasant debate, stay safe and have a peace filled day.

[rl6214]

166. "the other side is getting more and more organized"

The other side? What other side is that, the Brady Bunch, MAIG...neither have any sort of financial support or grass roots support. You're dreaming. You write your check to the Bradies?

[spin]

172. +1000 (n/t)

[spin]

171. What type of firearm do you carry when you decide to?

When I first got a concealed weapons permit I tried to carry a .45 auto. That was indeed a real pain in the ass. It usually stayed in the safe when I left the house.'

Eventually I discovered the logic of carrying a very small and compact handgun. I have carried a S&W airweight Model 642 five shot snub nosed revolver in .38+P caliber for years. On my way out the door I merely grab it and its pocket holster and slide both into my right front pants pocket. The weapon even when loaded with five rounds is very light and I hardly notice that it is in my pocket.

This handgun is marginally powerful and difficult to shoot at a long range but it is very reliable and accurate at close range. It is a double action only revolver as it has no hammer to cock. This is an advantage for pocket carry but it takes practice to master the heavy and long double action trigger pull of this weapon. It also has a significant recoil which makes practice uncomfortable.

My son in law who also has a concealed carry permit packs a very small and light .380 Ruger LCP in his pants pocket. Yes it is a mouse gun but he doesn't go places that are dangerous and doesn't expect to ever have to use this handgun for legitimate self defense.

While it is unlikely it still is a faint possibility that a firearm might prove valuable if attacked by an individual who intends to seriously harm or kill you and has the ability to do so. Unfortunately it is impossible to predict if and when this might happen. I can't put a reminder on my computer that I need to carry my firearm on a given day. I would also feel like a total fool if I had spend the money and the time to get a carry permit and had left it behind in a safe when I found myself facing a VERY dangerous attacker.

But it is your choice if and when you decide to legally carry your firearm. The best idea is to practice situational awareness when you are out and about and that requires no weapon. Simply be alert to your surroundings and don't walk around with a cell phone glued to your ear. If for some reason your sixth sense alerts you, pay attention to it and leave the area.

[obamanut2012]

145. I know I can poutshoot quite a few

As well as have much better gun safety. Most cops, including some of my relatives, are not very good with their firearms. My uncle hasn't fired his service pistol in about ten days. He doesn't even know how to strip and clean it. This is a 25+ year cop.

[spin]

173. Do you mean 10 years? ...

I know very few if any cops who fire their weapon every 10 days.

edited to add

I also can out shoot most cops I know but to be fair I lack their training and experience in handling difficult situations. I don't know any cops who have had to shoot someone but many that I know have handled stressful situations with angry and intoxicated individuals successfully.

I would never wish to be a cop! They put their life on the line everyday they are on duty often for little pay.

[rl6214]

165. "The NRA and ALEC, want everybody to pack,"

Come on, be truthful. They want everyone to have the RIGHT to carry but I have never seen anyone advocate that everyone should carry.

"The average gun owner is NOT as intensely trained as a cop or military,"

The average gun owner does not want or try to get a concealed carry license. The ones that do are usually the ones that go thru the time, training and trouble of getting that license.

Cops are NOT intensely trained. Cops shoot once or twice a year and that is during their qualification. The average concealed carry licensee trains much mor often than the average cop. Also the average cop does not qualify at a tactical range. They qualify on paper targets, just like the backyard plinker.

And I do not belong to the NRA so no talking points here, just reality.

[Skittles]

156. "fellow Democrats"

who the fuck do you think you are kidding?

[Remmah2]

12. When the police, military and criminals give up their weapons then I can too.

Otherwise UFFDA.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. We know, precious is your friend

The one that dares nor shoot it's name.

[jeepnstein]

83. Most police officers are terrible shots.

The gun is not really all that important tool for a cop. Paperwork, knowledge of the law, and a car that runs are far more important. One of the first things to take a hit from budget cuts is range time and qualifications. I know many fellow officers who shoot to qualify annually and never even clean their weapon until the next scheduled range time. Anyone who thinks all police officers are expert marksmen watches way too much TV.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. Oh I am possitive the how many shots were fired

and how many people were actually hit, fit national stats.

That said, the drone is a trained shooter, yada, yada, yada.

These are by definition TRAINED shooters.

We call this a hand grenade into a certain talking point.

And yes, I thank the reality of those stats for NOT being hit in a few shoot outs.

[jeepnstein]

115. Poorly trained.

Nobody expects perfection, but hitting all those bystanders is really bad.

[CabCurious]

8. 9 people shot in midtown crossfire...

That's incredible.

[ManiacJoe]

13. Incredible that it is only nine, or

incredible that is was not zero?

[CabCurious]

24. Both.

I can't say I can automatically blame the NYPD for engaging in crossfire with a man openly shooting people on the streets.

However, I do find the possibility of cops shooting bystanders to be unacceptable.

[99Forever]

16. Can we talk about guncult violence and the NRA's ...

... bloody hands in it yet?

Or isn't the body count high enough yet?

[Remmah2]

17. Did the NRA mail him his gun?

Did the NRA make the police bad shots?

[99Forever]

19. Yes they did.

Next strawman, gunlover.

[michreject]

21. Wow!!!

I guess you have no problems making false statements.

[99Forever]

25. Neither does the NRA or most gun...

...fetishists. They do it all the time.

Difference is, mine was , theirs is propaganda.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. They are en force, aren't they

About to let my ignore list grow.

It has a lot of gun lovers in there.

[ellisonz]

63. They're like flies to a pile of shit. n/t

[rDigital]

138. So if we're flies.... that makes you what? nt

[ellisonz]

141. A shovel. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. another gun fetishist comes out of the wooodwork

Sorry.



Pointing the obvious is a personal attack to you folks? Cops are well trained, supposedly if everybody packed none of this would happen... well a group of WELL TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS just caught nine civilians in the cross fire, see where the irony is?

[Marinedem]

37. And you want to talk about personal attacks?

What the fuck is a "Gun fetishist"?

Why are you calling me one?

I'm a proponent of gun rights, but how the hell does that make me a "Gun fetishist"?

Last I checked, it is mostly those opposed to gun ownership that anthropomorphize guns as something more than objects.

To answer your question, I would suppose the irony lays in the fact that I routinely fire more rounds in a practice session than a NYPD officer must fire in a year of mandated training, yet they are still viewed as "Highly trained" individuals, while i am viewed as the dangerous, poorly trained, unqualified one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. I got a couple here

but I am not looking forwards to concealed carry everywhere or get myself to be a hero in the middle of a shooting. That is where the fetishism comes.

My guns are nice and secure and well maintained and cared for. Again, that does not mean I will try to get to open carry everywhere either.

That is not part of gun rights, and wasn't even that real in the mean old west. Tucson had pretty tight gun laws, that would make you blush... as well as Dodge City... of course I am talking the real ones, not the hollywood versions,

[michreject]

130. Ahhhh! The book version

Before it was made into a movie.

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. Nah the HISTORIC version

where the rare people who owned guns left their guns when coming into the city with the Sheriff. That historic version.

[4th law of robotics]

33. One of the arguments against personal gun ownership is that you should just call the cops

if the cops are incompetent that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

[glacierbay]

36. In all fairness to the cops

they were probably just ordinary street cops who didn't have the extensive firearms training like their ESU division. All in all, they did a pretty good job.

[Marinedem]

40. Jesus.

I'd hate to see the results of a bad job.

[glacierbay]

48. A bad job would have been that they killed the civilians

and only wounded the shooter.

[redqueen]

59. Agreed.

Welcome to DU!

[glacierbay]

69. Thank you

[PavePusher]

119. We had to destroy the village...

in order to save it.

[CabCurious]

51. Has it been confirmed that police hit them? All i've seen is "crossfire"

I'm curious.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Yup, the mayor admitted it

will not be 100% confirmed though until they do the ballistics tests.

Good news, all are expected to survive, and if NYC leadership is intelligent, they will pick up all medical costs. And i mean ALL, including possibly, any psychological that might be needed by the victims.

[CabCurious]

58. Tragic. I guess it doesn't even matter which bullets did what...

Once the cops started trading fire, they become liable in some sense.

I don't envy the cops in such a situation with an armed suspect in midtown on the street. I pray all of the victims survive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. They are expected to, thanks to modern medical science

[AnotherMcIntosh]

160. The cops became "liable in some sense"? No, they didn't. The City of New York, however,

may have picked up some liability.

[rl6214]

167. Thing is they weren't "trading fire"...

The only ones shooting were the cops so they are the ones that shot all of the bystanders.

[glacierbay]

73. We 100% agree on that.

And I think that's what will happen.

[ManiacJoe]

54. NYC is not an armed society.

But you knew that already.

[4th law of robotics]

62. Because they would have just started firing without aiming

possibly wounding a bunch of civilians?

Good thing the professionals at the NYPD were on the job to prevent such a thing from occurring.

[4th law of robotics]

66. None. Exactly as many as I've perpetrated

despite being one of those evil unhinged gun owners.

If only everyone could be like me. . .

[4th law of robotics]

72. Where did I claim someone knocked on my door and tried to take away my gun?

You really need to have that paranoia treated by a professional. It must awful living in that world of fear of yours.

Does your strawman know any straw-psychologists?

[4th law of robotics]

82. What you said was nonsense

you claimed I lived in a constant state of fear that someone will come to my door and take my guns away and thus I need mental help.

I never said any of that so you are simply using allegations of mental illness to make your argument.

Something that is not usually tolerated on here.

[4th law of robotics]

92. You think no one exists that is against gun ownership?

[4th law of robotics]

100. Well you'll have to be more specific

we have essentially banned many types of guns already and there are further bans in the works. Remember the Assault Weapon *BAN*? Surely you do. It wasn't that long ago.

What was that?

[4th law of robotics]

108. High powered weapons being defined as . . .?

Are they painted black? Do they have a should thing that goes up? Or do they have those magical bullets that are capable of killing cops (unlike regular bullets)?

Repeating tired old talking points with no clue as to what they mean doesn't make you an expert dear.

[4th law of robotics]

117. Classic

[glacierbay]

104. I know I'm not who you addressed

but I don't believe that guns will ever be banned. That horse left the barn a long long time ago.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. But, but, trained people...

sorry if you cannot see the irony in this event, I can't help you. NY finest just threw a hand grenade into that talking point....

And the, but civies are better trained don't wash.

[4th law of robotics]

68. I dispute that these were "new yorks finest"

And the, but civies are better trained don't wash.

People have been predicting that in response to mass shootings like this CCW holders will begin wildly firing in to crowds, escalating the death toll.

This has never happened.

And yet cops have done exactly this.

Do you dispute these facts?

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. by definition they are trained

you go ahead and dispute that fact

[4th law of robotics]

79. Do you dispute the fact

that there have been few if any instances of CCW holders shooting blindly in to crowds, escalating the violence (despite predictions to the contrary) whereas police have done exactly this?

If you don't feel you can answer honestly then don't. But do try to stay focused.

[4th law of robotics]

84. Can you prove I said there was one?

Do you understand how conversations work?

You can't just go off stuff you've pretended I have said. You really need to respond to stuff I have actually said.

So please provide relevant quotes or else drop your silly strawman routine.

[4th law of robotics]

98. Yes, that is one of the arguments people have used against personal gun ownership

how did that confuse you?

[4th law of robotics]

105. It was a silly statement on your part

since that quote is about civilian gun ownership and yet the cops caused a lot of the trouble here (while in NYC the civilians are mostly disarmed by the law).

So it didn't offend me per se. It just made you look foolish.

[4th law of robotics]

111. The validity of the meme is irrelevant when the issue is that you misused it

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. So we will not deal with the fact that these are TRAINED individuals

I can predict one thing when it comes to you... obfuscation is part of the conversation regardless of topic.

So here, for your enjoyment.

[4th law of robotics]

94. Ok, we've established that you will not answer my question

Because to answer it honestly would hurt your argument.

Fine.

I will be polite and respond to you even though you will not do me the same courtesy: I would say these are poorly trained officers.

For some reason cops become experts (on par with Navy SEALs) when the issue of gun control comes up, but then go back to donut eating high school drop outs and bullies for every other issue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Here, enjoy

Take as many as you wish.

(And since I have yet to say that they are school drop outs who eat donuts... in fact, most cops I ACTUALLY PERSONALLY KNOW, do not eat donuts... but like coffee though.)

Per GOVERNMENT DEFINITIONS cops are TRAINED shooters... so take that with the US GOVERNMENT, at MULTIPLE LEVELS, starting with the Federal on right down.

At this point you are not just predictable, but highly entertaining.

[4th law of robotics]

102. Per government regulations

TSA agents are trained.

Take from that what you will.

Do you realize you've yet to make a cogent point? Other than demonstrating an ability to do a google image search that is.

Step away from the computer. Take a deep breath and really think about what you're trying to say. Then come back and state your beliefs in some sort of clear manner.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. Gee golly, I did not realize TSA was an armed agency

thanks for the clarification.

Oh wait, they are NOT.

NIJ, you know what that is?

here more of these



You will need a lot more of those.

You are really entertaining at this point.

SO you are also anti government? Gee golly, why is this not surprising to me?

[4th law of robotics]

109. I never said it was

you made the point that if the government calls someone well-trained that must mean they are.

Are you willing to stand by that argument?

SO you are also anti government? Gee golly, why is this not surprising to me?

No, I'm anti-strawman and anti-foolishness. I don't suppose we will ever get along.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. You used the TSA as an example of a federal agency

to talk about the training of officers in the handling of guns

Logic is not your strong point son.

I am done playing with the mouse though.



As entertaining as YOU ARE... really the leaps of non logic are astounding. Have an excellent day... and remember, keep precious happy.

?width=400&height=323&crop=true

[4th law of robotics]

116. No, I used it to refute

your notion that if someone is deemed trained that means they actually are.

You should spend more time reading and less time googling pictures of cats.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. AWWW CUTE

you are really cute.

I love you man, I really do....

What you did has a name in LOGIC... it is a red herring.

Have an excellent day.

[PavePusher]

123. Some info on NYPD training and shootings...

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf

And a critique:
http://www.pointshooting.com/1arand.htm

[SQUEE]

114. And here is my confusion.

By definition, so am I, FAR MORE than these officers. I have months of MOUT training at Fort Drum, Fort McClellan, and fort Benning as well as "practical experience" while in the Green Machine. I actually see my experience and training as a deterrent to carrying. The ROE that so much of my life was lived under make me uncomfortable to go armed amongst my fellow civilians. BUT, I have undergone extensive shoot / no shoot scenarios, training and real, and have experienced situations much like this, I can say without a doubt I would not have missed a tango at the range of 5 ft.
I personally believe all CCW classes should involve 20-30 hours of practical shooting and reaction training, and not just familiarity or competence but actual graded proficiency, also all carriers should be required to carry liability insurance, everyone wants to compare a car to a gun, so be it, A person must show proficiency in driving and be insured to get a DL, same should be done with firearms, especially if you feel you have to do it in public.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. Shoud I add a couple things to the training

(mind you some municipalities actually used to do some of this)

Not only a practical static range scenario, and quals, like any officer (this is what they used to do, no longer lack of money), but I suggest that any CCW should also undergo the same dynamic tactical range shooting any officer does while in training.

Suffice it to say that many officers in the US are former military, and more than a few went though the same experience you did.

I suspect we did this, most people who have permits currently would not pass the licensing, not because they are bad people... has nothing to do with that. Tactical shooting is not the same thing as plinking targets.

But are you seriously questioning that police officers who wear a badge, are considered to be TRAINED personnel?

[SQUEE]

121. Not in the least

but they are under-trained, obviously. Also often under-gunned and underfunded when it comes to that training.
How about less money on BDUs, APC's and more on effective and realistic classes, LEOs and CCW both.
As much as I hate to say it, if you can not pass the test, well you need to leave the hawg-leg at home, if a person can not pass a realistic minimum in a training situation, then they are likely to be a liability when the metal hits the meat. I don't carry as I stated above because I do not want to kill or even injure an innocent, not even to save my own skin. This is my view on responsibility, I do not expect others to follow my tenants though

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. This is what many agencies use

[SQUEE]

124. And have for years.

Saw it in use at the U.S. Army MP school in 1990, still not a realistic system, no adreneline dump, or true surprise situation or movement for that matter.
I just think you and I are arguing past each other, you say "they are trained" and I agree but so are a multitude of other civilians (LEO are civilians) and yet you seem to not want to aknowledge that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. LEOS are NOT civilian

they are considered paramiltaries


And also part of the security apparatus

[SQUEE]

128. ParaMil ..by whom?

Not me, and not by the vast majority of the populace. They are not trained to be Mil, have no business playing with the toys of war. For someone that supports the OWS you say that like that is a good thing, we have a military, and we have a civilian police force, as it should be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. Among others International Law, as well as NATIONAL LAW

and the STATES they serve. They are LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, SWORN. There is a reason not every dick, tom and harry can pass himself as one and it is considered a CRIME to do that.

For somebody who claims to have served, you really missed that class on International Law, didn't you?

You might not consider them such, but they are...

And nice strawman with OWS... by the by.

By the way, since you obviously missed it. PARA MILITARY FORCES are not considered part of any REGULAR MILITARY FORCE under International law either. They are called PARA, for a reason. But they are not considered civilians either.

[SQUEE]

132. I am pretty versed on my Geneva Protocols

and there are 2 recognized classes, Combatants and Civilians, state and municipal recognition of the necessity of legalistic streamlining does not mean they are afforded Combatant status, therefore civilians.
In fact the LEO community should rethink its position if it wants to go down that road. Geneva is pretty specific in its protections of civilians against the power of organized Military force including oh... lachrymatory agents or hollow point ammunition just to name two.
The whole concept fosters an us vs them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

133. I am as well, I had to enforce it

and police stations are valid military targets. Care to ask why?

Or were they not considered valid targets in your version of it?

Paramilitary forces in case of war are considered combatants by the way, since well shit, they have been forced to fight with regular armies for a long time, well known examples are the liberation of where ad hoc police battalions (in police uniform no less) were thrown into the meat grinder and the front lines.

Examples for example range from the Siege of Budapest to modern interpretations under the War on Terror.

Sorry, but under many varied conditions your cops can end up as combatants and even acquire the status of POW in wartime.

[SQUEE]

134. And we are at a time of war?

This is all academic and actually interesting as it is a trend I find disturbing.
But my question still stands from earlier do you recognize that some, by no means all, but some non LEO can be trusted to carry for self defense, under solid and reasonable regulation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. Which we do not have

some folks should be granted CCWs under some circumstances, and subjected to rigorous training.
'
The problem is that is not what we have right now. And all CCWs should be up for review and if the conditions for the granting are no longer there, taken away.

And it is not academic by the way... police are considered paramilitary around the world... that includes the US.

Among other things it has to do with the UNIFORM, the ability to carry weapons, and a clear, and EASY TO UNDERSTAND rank structure.

That does not mean they are considered part of the armed forces, unless of course they happen to be part of the armed forces, the National Police in Colombia actually falls under that strange category, and if the Mexican Government has it's way so will the Mexican Police... following that one with a lot of interest, and in time of war, they are considered valid military targets.

[SQUEE]

139. Militias also

And I don't mean the Hutaree and the Michigan Militia or the whole Gadsden crowd.

I think if our party were to come forth with a reasonable and stringent process, involving some of the training we have discussed, partially funded by the tax payers we could cut the legs out from the NRA and its ILA minions. But as long as the public see the left as gun grabbers, we empower the republicans to beat us over the head with this issue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

140. That has to do with another factor... and that has a name, framing

Gun control was transformed, effectively, by the NRA into gun grabbing. So the left has to figure out how to recapture the debate.

I think it is possible, given that even NRA members now want universal background checks and are realizing how extreme their own organization is.

Now to the militias, in case of civil war, one of the things they will have to do, is to get that recognized combatant wicket.

This is done by a NATIONAL actor, like a government. This is why the Frente Farabundo Marti de Liberacion Nacional worked very hard to get that done back during the central american wars.

So lets say the Michigan Militia decides to rise up... one thing they will want (I doubt they know this) is for a national actor (that be nation state), who would see it in their interest, to recognize them as a combatant. At that point they go theoretically, from terrorist, to combatant, and they have uniforms and rank structure, so they have hit two of the three wickets.. They would fall under the Geneva Convention. Your police forces, have ranks, uniforms and recognition since they already serve the state. They are not considered part of the armed forces, but PARA as in parallel to, the military... this does not take into account national quicks like Posse Comitatus by the way, or the aforementioned Colombian National Police.

In the course in International Humanitarian Law we actually went though this as a mind game... in the 1980s. These days, well... what can I say?

For the record, I expect any of our militias to have just as good of a chance in a stand up fight as any other third world military going toe to toe with US Regular forces...

Of course in an age where Mercenary troops actually serve in the front, and are not lined up and shot on sight (Blackwater anyone?)... a lot of this will probably be revised... and I mean a lot of it.

[Paladin]

87. If A Non-Law Enforcement Individual......

...had shot the Bad Guy, AND wounded however many innocent bystanders were wounded by the NY police, you and your gun militant/cop-hating cohorts would be worshipping at that individual's feet right now. And Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent would be awarding that armed civilian with a flintlock rifle at the NRA's annual gun lust banquet. The same gun they gave Cheney a few years back......

[4th law of robotics]

95. If a non-law enforcement individual had done this

and just wildly shot up the crowd, eventually taking out the bad guy I would have the same opinion.

Lay off the strawmen for a minute.

You need to A) find examples where a non-LEO has done this and B) find evidence where I or others have supported their actions.

There's your homework. Get to it!

/is it really so much to expect people to argue based on facts and actual quotes rather than simply making up stuff as you have done?

[glacierbay]

97. If I was carrying in that situation

I wouldn't even draw my weapon, he's no threat to me, my best weapon in that situation is my brains and my cell phone. You seem to think that ccw means we would intervene in crimes, that is blatantly false, it's to give us a means of defending ourselves, not the general public.

[obamanut2012]

146. Right, and in many cases you would be arrested for drawing

In this case, you -- and others -- would not be under immediate threat of grievous body injury or death. I rarely carry outside my home, and then usually only if I'm trail running or driving alone a long distance. It would never enter my mind to draw and use my weapon.

Like you, I think many people believe we want to be vigilantes like George Zimmerman. I know there are people like him, but I don't know any, and I live in a heavily "Gun Belt" area. I have a CCW only to protect myself in very specific circumstances.

Plus, unless you are one of NYC's elite or a celeb (or a criminal), you won't be carrying in NYC anyway.

[haele]

75. Not all the wounds would be from bullets - lots of heavy stone and glass around that area.

A couple decades ago I got caught in a robbery crossfire being where I shouldn't have been and got a nasty smack and cut on the head from a 2" bit of rock siding that got chipped off the building as I ducked around a corner into an alley. It happened so suddenly, I had little time to react before the shooting started.

Ricochet is also an issue on city streets; while some surfaces (like a car tire) may absorb enough velocity to only give you a bruise when they bounce off and careen into you, but if it was a sidewalk or other hard surface it bounced off before it hit, it can break skin and bone.

The people wounded probably didn't think they were close to where the police or gunman was aiming when they got hit.

Haele

[glacierbay]

90. Good point