PA State Trooper shot, killed by another Trooper during firearms training

[enough]

http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-southeasternpa/Local/pa-state-trooper-killed-in-accidental-shooting-in-montgomery-county/28342926

Published: Sep 30 2014 09:00:11 PM EDT Updated On: Oct 02 2014 05:30:39 AM EDT

PLYMOUTH TWP., Pa. - The shot that killed a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper on Tuesday afternoon was accidentally fired by another PSP member, authorities confirmed.

Tpr. David Kedra, 26, was killed during a firearms training exercise at the Montgomery County Public Safety Training Complex in Plymouth Township, investigators said.

According to police, preliminary evidence indicates that the bullet was accidentally discharged by another member of the force. That member has not been identified.

Read more from WFMZ.com at: http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-southeasternpa/Local/pa-state-trooper-killed-in-accidental-shooting-in-montgomery-county/28342926

[Scuba]

1. Firearms are dangerous, even in the hands of well-trained LEO's in a controlled environment.

Yet we have nutjobs in this country carrying them around in public. No wonder we have 30K shooting deaths a year.

[acalix]

2. 19k of that is suicides.

Only 600 or so are accidental deaths. False equivalency, much?

[Scuba]

3. "Only 600". Interesting.

[upaloopa]

4. Wow am I relieved only 600 accidental shootings.

I guess we can live with that just so the country can have it's national gun orgasms each year.

[safeinOhio]

5. 3 Americans killed by terrorist last year

and we spend another trillion.

[acalix]

6. Strawman, much?

88,000 alcohol deaths each year. Not even a single peep from the usual suspects.

[upaloopa]

7. You know a gunner posted 600 gun accidents

It's just like gunners to play down the shit their fetishes cause!
And you can get rid of the "usual suspects" shit too, the last time I looked there was an amendment that came before the one you burn incense too!

[Straw Man]

13. "the shit their fetishes cause"

It's just like gunners to play down the shit their fetishes cause!

By your logic, anyone that drinks alcohol is responsible for those 88,000 deaths per year.

[acalix]

19. It's never about saving lives.

[acalix]

17. The saying goes.

One gun death is a tragedy, ten thousand alcohol deaths is a statistic.

[upaloopa]

20. Never heard that. When you deal with a problem

you don't say to yourself, maybe I shouldn't deal with this problem because there are other larger problems.
Not only are gun accidents a problem but gun violence also causes deaths. Some of us want to deal with that.
Alcohol and drug addiction are handled by trained professionals and not by a legislature. Gunner obfuscation like mixing apples and oranges is a dishonest attempt of offering self serving misinformation.

[acalix]

22. And yet

There was a proposal to increase taxes on alcohol here, the public overwhelningly rejected.

Both sides of the political spectrum claimed it was an infringement on personal freedoms and a nanny state measure.

There's no denying that society is selective about the lives it wishes to save. Nobody bats an eye about the 88,000 alcohol deaths so they can get pissed drunk with friends. Nobody calls these deaths an "epidemic."

It amazes me how people manage to be for drug legalization and don't think it will drastically increase deaths.

[beevul]

32. "Not only are gun accidents a problem but gun violence also causes deaths. Some of us want to..."

"Not only are gun accidents a problem but gun violence also causes deaths. Some of us want to deal with that."

Strange, how in spite of your claim re:gun violence that "Some of us want to deal with that", that none of you ever seem interested in ways of reducing gun violence which aren't about more gun control.

There are how many new orgs now, after newtown, and how many of them have given anything more than a passing glance at non-gun control ways of reducing gun violence?

How many of those orgs, or you or their other supporters, have done anything in the name of actual gun safety?

Your answer should be telling, since it was you that quite sarcastically said upthread that "I guess we can live with that just so the country can have it's national gun orgasms each year."

So how about it sport, what non-gun-control means are you interested in?

Or are you only interested in going after guns, like most if not all of the little astroturf orgs?

[Starboard Tack]

36. Talk about strawman.

What exactly is an "alcohol death"? People shooting each other with gin? Accidental drinking?
Or did you just conveniently leave the word "related" out?

[acalix]

64. A ton of things.

Drunk driving, accidents as a result of drinking, suicides as a result of alcohol abuse, cancers and diseases from drinking, etc.

[hack89]

9. We live with a lot of things that kill more people than that nt

[upaloopa]

12. And?

You know we also try to prevent them as much as possible don't you?
You're saying we should just live with accidental gun death because why? Because you have a right to own a gun?

[Straw Man]

14. Wrong again.

You're saying we should just live with accidental gun death because why? Because you have a right to own a gun?

Absolutely not. We should work to reduce and ultimately eliminate accidental gun deaths. Safety training is the best way to do that. Guess which organization is the biggest provider of gun safety training in the US.

Didja get it? It's the NRA.

[upaloopa]

15. Training will not prevent it.

There are too many guns that's the reason there are accidental gun deaths. It is just a fact of life.
You have a pro gun answer for every argument but most people don't buy it.

[acalix]

18. In other words.

If something can't be prevented 100%, there's no reason to do it?

Isn't that the entire premise of gun control.

600 deaths is very small despite 200 million guns.

[Straw Man]

21. It will drastically reduce it.

There are too many guns that's the reason there are accidental gun deaths.

Yet the numbers of such accidents are way down despite increasing numbers of guns in the hands of the public.

You have an pro gun answer for every argument but most people don't buy it.

And you have an anti-gun answer for every argument, but your answers are illogical and unsupported.

[Starboard Tack]

37. Right! And BP is the biggest protector of the environment.

Guess which organization is the biggest provider of gun safety training in the US.

Didja get it? It's the NRA.

We appreciate your honesty. Now we know what the real problem is.

[beevul]

38. You tell us.

Which of the so called "gun safety" astroturf groups, are actually about true gun safety?

Knowing you aren't necessarily versed on the subject matter, I'll help you:

The answer is none of them. Would you like to discuss the answer in depth?



You may not like it, but the poster you responded to is correct.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Pure tokenism.

I made no claims about other organizations. I'm unaware of any "gun safety" groups. Liking guns is one thing. Handling guns with care is very smart. Claiming the NRA, or any other group can make guns safe is beyond stupid.
Whichever side of the issue one is on, the truth is that guns are incredibly dangerous, and probably the most dangerous tool available to the average DIYer.
Calling the NRA a gun safety organization is like calling NASCAR a safe driving organization.

[beevul]

42. Pure fact.

"I made no claims about other organizations. I'm unaware of any "gun safety" groups."

Yes, I'm quite aware you didn't, I brought them up to discuss.

Strange that you seem uninterested in discussing them.

"Claiming the NRA, or any other group can make guns safe is beyond stupid."

See, this is where you crossed the line. Again. Yes, claiming that any group can make "guns safe" is beyond stupid. How fortunate for me (and unfortunate for you) that nobody made such a claim. You really thought you could ascribe to another poster an argument that they did not make, and nobody would notice or call you out on it?

You should know better than that.

"Whichever side of the issue one is on, the truth is that guns are incredibly dangerous, and probably the most dangerous tool available to the average DIYer."

They'd be a bit useless for self defense if they weren't dangerous to some degree. Also, please see:Fire. Its been around much longer than guns, takes far more lives annually to my knowledge, AND once lit, can take on a life its own - that is to say it "behaves" on its own so long as it has fuel and oxygen - UNLIKE guns. To take a closer look at your assertion, lets consider that there are over 300 million guns in America owned by 80+ million people. Lets see...10 thousandish homicides. So a percentage of 1 percent misuse them. Even if you include suicides.

Somehow, I think you gauge level of "danger" of this or that, by your approval of it.

"Calling the NRA a gun safety organization is like calling NASCAR a safe driving organization."

Not only is that completely false, but it is also where you show everyone that you know nothing about the subject matter, beyond bumper sticker slogans and insults and anti-gun talking points. No organization in America does more for gun safety training (by the actual and proper definition) than the nra, bar none. I get it you don't like it, but bumper sticker slogans insults and anti-gun talking points are not going to change the facts.

But then, the anti-gun folks have had 30 plus years to figure that out, and still haven't.

[Starboard Tack]

44. IMO there are no "gun safety groups"

To call an organization like the NRA a gun safety group is ridiculous. Yes, they teach the safe handling of guns, and that is better than teaching the careless handling of guns. The NRA also advocates carrying guns for personal defense. I consider that to be extremely irresponsible and dangerous to both the individual who carries and the people that individual comes into contact with. My position is not about "approval", as you suggest, but more about reality testing. If you genuinely fear for your life, then it makes sense to consider carrying a gun. Otherwise, you are a danger to yourself and others.

If you insist on carrying, then I agree that you should have the highest level of training. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Therefore, I suggest you have second and maybe third thoughts before venturing forth with a loaded firearm. It is your choice and has nothing to do with mine or anyone else's approval.

I have no interest in bumper stickers or organizations on any side of the issue.

Your introduction of fire into the discussion makes me wonder what you mean by "crossing the line". Are you suggesting that people use fire as a means of self-defense? Or are you suggesting we all walk around with a fire extinguisher? As you seem to be motivated by numbers, I can only assume the latter.

[pablo_marmol]

50. "I consider that to be extremely irresponsible and dangerous to both the individual

who carries and the people that individual comes into contact with."

Clearly --- since what you never consider are facts. I'm guessing that you've been hand-delivered the facts about the conviction rates of those with concealed carry permits many times, yet you still trot out this tired lie:

"Otherwise, you are a danger to yourself and others."

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

[Starboard Tack]

53. I don't base my reality on conviction rates

And if I did, the last place I would look would be Texas. Neither do I base my opinions on who has a carry permit anymore than who has a library card.

[pablo_marmol]

66. "My reality"?! As if you're entitled to your own reality!

The fact that you apparently believe that you are certainly explains why you can never back up your "feelings" and "opinions" with actual evidence.

[Starboard Tack]

69. "Entitled?" Yes, Pablo, though I must admit, it is something I take for granted.

Maybe you feel constrained to living in some reality, other than your own. I wish you luck with that.

[beevul]

72. You don't base it on empirical fact either.

So lets see, you don't base it on empirical fact or conviction rates, so whats that leave?

Personal bias and supposition.

Not like that's any surprise, really.

[beevul]

54. Crossing the line, as in attributing to someone a sentiment they did not espouse...

Crossing the line, as in attributing to someone a sentiment they did not espouse, words they did not say, or a position they do not hold.

When you said "Claiming the NRA, or any other group can make guns safe is beyond stupid" you did that, since nobody espoused that sentiment.

And you repeat that dishonest disingenuous tactic here:

"The NRA also advocates carrying guns for personal defense."

No, the nra advocates individuals being allowed to choose for themselves whether to carry a firearm for personal defense or not.

That's not the same thing as " The NRA also advocates carrying guns for personal defense", and you knew that but chose to say what you said anyway.

" As you seem to be motivated by numbers, I can only assume the latter."

Feel free to immediately point it out when I start adding suicides to homicides to generate a bigger number, since I "seem to be motivated by numbers"...

Oh wait, that's the anti-gun folks that do that. And in post number 1 of this thread. Your level of observance where "motivation by number" is concerned, seems quite selective. Feel free to reply to post number 1 of this thread pointing out how that poster "seems motivated by numbers" here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172154384#post1

I feel certain in my heart that you'll take issue with them for it, as you seem to have done with me.

So

[Starboard Tack]

62. Of course, killing oneself with a gun doesn't count. Silly me.

Not only, but 10,000 shooting deaths of others is a wonderful number, proving that others being shot to death is completely irrelevant. As are the 2 accidental gun deaths that occur daily in the land of the free, home of the brave. Bravo NRA!
If only we could apply their safety techniques to death by fire, drowning, cancer, alcohol and assorted viruses, what a wonderful world it would be.

[beevul]

68. You just can't stop can you?

"Of course, killing oneself with a gun doesn't count. Silly me."

There you go again, attributing to someone else, something they did not say, sentiments they did not intend, or a position they do not hold.

You appear to have a problem where that's concerned.

"Not only, but 10,000 shooting deaths of others is a wonderful number, proving that others being shot to death is completely irrelevant."

And again.

Keep doing it. I'll be more than happy to keep pointing it out.

[Starboard Tack]

70. Yep. Those silly facts are very annoying

I must've missed the attribution part. But feel free to address the facts.

[pablo_marmol]

67. I've always respected folks who are "motivated by numbers".

When argued with integrity, the gun restriction debate is data-driven.

Nice to see that we have so many people here who feel that it's perfectly acceptable to "go from the gut".

[Starboard Tack]

71. Says the guy who doesn't believe we are each entitled to our own reality

Enjoy the herd mentality. Lemmings are motivated by numbers too.

[pablo_marmol]

73. Might want to look up the definition of the word 'reality'.

There's no such thing as multiple 'realities'. There is just reality vs. fantasy/imagination/ideology driven bullsh*t.

Enjoy your life in FantasyLand.

No more time to waste on you at this point.

[Straw Man]

39. No. They're not. BP sells oil and pollutes the environment.

But the NRA is the largest provider of safety training and training materials in the United States -- perhaps the world.

Your cartoon heads can beat themselves against your cartoon walls for all eternity. It will not change that fact.

I'm amazed that you were unaware of that. I think your prejudices are blinding you.

[Starboard Tack]

40. I am aware that they try selling themselves as that.

The kind and gentle wingnuts. The NRA used to be a respectable organization. But feel free to keep espousing extreme right wing organizations. Meanwhile I'll let reality blind me.

[beevul]

43. It is historical fact.

Nobody does more for gun safety education than the nra in America. Maybe in the world.

Denying it isn't going to change that fact.

[Starboard Tack]

45. Accepting that as a fact leads to only one conclusion.

You live in a country where the fox guards the chickens, and are therefore beyond help. I wish you the best of luck.
The amazing thing is, that you seem to be OK with that.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

46. I'm wondering...

...if you may be confusing the NRA with the NRA-ILA...

[Starboard Tack]

47. The NRA-ILA is the lobbying arm of the NRA.They are inseparable.

What is there to be confused about?

[Straw Man]

48. One is political. The other isn't.

The NRA-ILA is the lobbying arm of the NRA.They are inseparable.

What is there to be confused about?

Apparently there is plenty that you are confused about.

There is nothing political about firearms safety education. Safety is a matter of, to use the NRA's terminology, "knowledge, skill, and attitude." The distinction is clear. Surely you can see it.

[Straw Man]

49. Your hysteria is duly noted.

Perhaps if you ever have the occasion to read NRA safety training materials, you will be so good as to point out the pernicious content by which said fox intends to devour us poor chickens. Then you could point out all the "good" safety training materials put out by the VPC, the Brady Campaign, and Moms Demand Action. I await the enlightenment. I'm afraid I'll be waiting a long, long time.

You are fearful and contemptuous of an organization about which you apparently know next to nothing. What I find amazing is that you apparently are not only OK with that, but proud of it.

[Starboard Tack]

56. "Hysteria" LOL!

Why would you assume that because I don't subscribe to your extremist organization, that I endorse your opponents?
The fact that the NRA publishes good safety training manuals is as encouraging as the KKK wearing freshly laundered sheets.

Why would the VPC and Brady etc. be interested in producing safety training manuals for gun owners? Do you expect PETA to publish training manuals on how to efficiently kill and field dress a deer?

I'm always fascinated by people who live in a black and white world, and wonder if they do it by choice.

[Straw Man]

63. Yes, hysteria.

The fact that the NRA publishes good safety training manuals is as encouraging as the KKK wearing freshly laundered sheets.

Pray tell, how do these clean sheets contribute to the common good? Gun safety training saves lives. What is it that you find objectionable about that?

Comparing the NRA to the KKK is hysteria, my friend. Hysterical hyperbole. There are no other words for it.

Why would the VPC and Brady etc. be interested in producing safety training manuals for gun owners? Do you expect PETA to publish training manuals on how to efficiently kill and field dress a deer?

You have no use for the NRA -- in fact, you use their very existence as evidence that our nation is "beyond hope." Yet there is no ideologically acceptable alternative organization that teaches gun safety. The NRA is the only game in town, and they play it well.

I'm glad to see you recognize that Brady, VPC, et al have no interest whatsoever in gun safety, despite their having adopted that phrase as a focus-tested PR alternative to the increasingly pejorative "gun control." I'm merely taking them at the word and calling them out for their utter failure in what is supposedly their mission.

You're not one to castigate others for living in a "black and white world" when you are unable to see that an organization whose politics are odious is still capable of doing a great deal of practical good in the area of gun safety.

[krispos42]

51. gun safety and responsible handling is not generally taught by, say, the Brady Campaign.

Their webpage is to "prevent gun violence"; I presume this means acts of violence by one person to another utilizing a firearm.

Nothing on their site seems to be teaching safe and responsible gun handling and use. There is a campaign underway to ASK about unsecured firearms before sending your kids over to play (only regarding firearms, though), and suicide-proofing your home.


If I want advice on how to teach my kid how to shoot safely, or the principles of firearm safety, the Brady Campaign is not for me.

The NRA )not the NRA-ILA) website, while currently promoting some political positions, also contains links to gun-related activities within XX miles of your location... including safety and training courses.


How's that reality working out for you?

[Starboard Tack]

52. Who mentioned the Brady Campaign?

Why would they teach firearm safety? Would you ask the CND for advice on how to arm a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead?
If I want my kid to shoot safely, I will teach her myself. I will not send her to a right wing indoctrination center, that poses as a safety organization.

Hows that reality working for you?

[beevul]

55. I did, when I said "gun safety" astroturf groups.

Brady being among the ones that have tried to co-opt the term "gun safety".

"If I want my kid to shoot safely, I will teach her myself."

I'm sure you're eminently more qualified than people who are trained to teach gun safety.

[Starboard Tack]

61. You got it. In spite of your sarcasm.

Enjoy your association with the NRA. Meanwhile, we'll be doing just fine.

[Straw Man]

65. More ignorance.

If I want my kid to shoot safely, I will teach her myself.

Do you consider yourself qualified? If so, let's start with you explaining what you would tell your daughter to do in the following circumstances:

a) She pulls the trigger and the hammer falls, but the round does not fire;
b) She pulls the trigger and the round fires, but with a quieter-than-normal report.

Remember, your daughter's safety depends on your knowledge. If you cheat and look it up, odds are that you'll be getting the information from the NRA anyway.

I will not send her to a right wing indoctrination center, that poses as a safety organization.

Please read the training materials and then point out the "right wing indoctrination."

[hack89]

16. Considering accidental gun deaths have been steadily falling

It would appear that there are effective measures in place to prevent them.

[Eleanors38]

28. Wow, a number which has been coming down. You know that...

but your priority is culture war, so you seem uninterested in WHY it is coming down. Most reasonable policy makers would want to find out WHY gun accidental deaths are falling when More guns are in civilian hands.

How did that "gun orgasm" work for you?

[Eleanors38]

30. Your sexual outlook is peculiar & not relevant to the OP...

You should check your own "material." Culture warriors are always slapping the "compassion" button as if it were on a pinball machine. It seems essential to demonize cultures whenever Prohibitionism is the public (and ultimately secondar) issue. In fact, demonization of whole swaths of people IS the issue.

[Straw Man]

31. Immune to facts, I see.

That the same bull shit we've read here since Sandy Hook when you didn't give a shit about the kids being murdered.

This "material" is statistical data, not "bull shit." Furthermore, I was under the impression that we were discussing accidental deaths. Are you claiming that the deaths at Sandy Hook were accidental? I hope not.

Who didn't "give a shit" about kids being murdered? You don't know me, and you don't get to say that about me. It's a disgusting lie.

Just hug your gun and get your orgasm and to hell with everyone and eveything else.

This kind of vile spew says much more about those who disseminate it than it does about those who are its target.

[oneshooter]

33. But is apparently not immune to a jury. n/t

[russ1943]

57. Fax is fax

The OP about a shooting (by gun) death in the Gun Control & RKBA (Group)
In response to a post that accurately notes there are there are 30K shooting deaths a year, yet another gun enthusiast deems it appropriate to post that since 19k of the shooting deaths are suicides the 30,000 figure is a false equivalence? There are 30,000 shooting deaths from firearms, period. It is a truth, a fact as best we can determine, there is nothing false about it.
Later a fact is presented that there are “88,000 alcohol deaths each year”. The National Vital Statistics Reports http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdfis a reputable source that provides us with the statistic that shows that there were 25,692 deaths in 2010 that were categorized as Alcohol-induced causes. There were 26,654 in 2011.
Later yet another gun enthusiast states that fire has been around longer than guns and takes far more lives annually………….
In 2010, fire departments responded to 384,000 home fires in the United States, which claimed the lives of 2,640 people (not including firefighters) ….. http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/fire-prevention/fires-factsheet.html Also, fires resulted in 3,240 civilian fire fatalities in 2013 says the National Fire Protection Association http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fires-in-the-us/overall-fire-problem/fire-loss-in-the-united-states.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12627317 Jimmy nailed it.

[russ1943]

58. Unintentionally shot & killed 4% of unintentionally shot.

Insofar as the discussion of accidental shootings, the 600 deaths are an extraordinarily miniscule example of the scope of this problem. In 2011 there were another 14,600 unintentionally shot, meaning the 600 represent less than 4% of the total accidentally shot. To describe the extent of the problem by referencing the “only 600 or so deaths” ignores 96% of accidental shootings.

[gejohnston]

59. Yes it is a false equivalence and here is why

the situation in PA was an accident, not a suicide nor was it a homicide. That would mean that the best comparison would other unintentional deaths.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

In the US, this is how it breaks down for suicides, your country will vary.
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/us-methods-suicide

[beevul]

60. You play fairly fast and loose with the facts.

"In response to a post that accurately notes there are there are 30K shooting deaths a year..."

Heres what the response is to, russ:

"Yet we have nutjobs in this country carrying them around in public. No wonder we have 30K shooting deaths a year."

The poster of the above quote was clearly referring to people that carry guns, and laid the blame for 30k gun deaths at the feet of people that carry.

There is nothing accurate about that.

Another poster accurately pointed out that 19k of the 30k are suicides, and therefore can't be laid at the feet of people that carry guns.

And you take issue with that.

"There are 30,000 shooting deaths from firearms, period. It is a truth, a fact as best we can determine, there is nothing false about it."

"Later yet another gun enthusiast states that fire has been around longer than guns and takes far more lives annually…………. "

Isn't that cute. Attributing to me, an out of context partial quote. What do the words "to my knowledge" mean to you, russ?





You, like the rest on the anti-gun side, continue to proceed from the false premise that murder deaths by gun, and suicide deaths by gun, are the same and therefore require the same solution.

They're different, and therefore require different solutions. I'm sorry you don't like that pointed out.

[ileus]

11. Only 19k....I figured it was closer to 26k.

Throw out the drug related #'s and get back to me.

[littlewolf]

8. getting back to the OP ....

I would like to know how many RSO (Range Safety Officers) there were
and what were they doing. Also what was the Range Master (the person
who runs the range ) I would like to know where they were and what
were they doing.

[enough]

23. So far, from what I can read in local media, this information has not

yet been given out. They are "investigating."

[ileus]

10. Remember only trained government peeps should have firearms.

the rest of the 99% are too dumb to be trusted with killer guns with big killer clips.

[NYC_SKP]

24. Fire Hot!

Gun Hurt!

[pablo_marmol]

25. And your point is?

Oh.....right. Teh eebil gunz iz eebilz.

[ileus]

26. It's those scary pistol grips and killer clips.

[enough]

34. First, this is very local to me, so I feel a lot of sadness for both troopers and their families.

Second, it does speak to the idea that people being armed makes people safer.

Third, since I have guns in my house, live in a hunting community, and most everyone I know around here uses guns for hunting, I am interested in any story that puts a stark focus on the crucial need for absolute attention to safety in any situation where guns are present. These stories need to be told so that everybody remembers. (Not everybody does.)

Fourth, as a citizen of Pennsylvania, I am interested in the question of how, and how well, our State Troopers are being trained with our tax money.

Fifth, as a citizen of Pennsylvania, I am interested in how well the next State Trooper I encounter has been trained.

What's yours?

[pablo_marmol]

35. Interesting that none of this was in your OP. Why is that?

Never mind – rhetorical question. Most of your “concerns” were window dressing. Everyone empathizes with the deceased officer, the most poorly trained police force is still highly unlikely to cause you any personal harm, and everyone is concerned about waste of tax dollars. You showed your cards with item #2:

Second, it does speak to the idea that people being armed makes people safer.

#1 – No. It doesn’t. Rare events have not, can not and will never speak to broad issues such as public safety. If police accidents were common you’d have a point. This unashamed dishonesty is exactly what drives the political center to the right, and keeps the cash flowing to the NRA.

#2 – Your real agenda here was to advance the bogus notion that “guns are intrinsically dangerous” and to play to emotion – a common tactic used by Controllers. As evidenced by the very first response to your OP and a later comment that was axed:

Firearms are dangerous, even in the hands of well-trained LEO’s in a controlled environment. Yet we have nutjobs in this country carrying them around in public. No wonder we have 30K shooting deaths a year.

The usual tired hocus-pocus notion of police officers being so much better trained than the commoners, and dishonest claim that concealed carry is a public threat, and......

Just hug your gun and get your orgasm and to hell with everyone and everything else.

Not much to say about this little nugget, really.

So what’s my point? Pointing out that your “point” was nothing more than the usual underhanded nonsense dressed up as social concern and responsibility. But as our POTUS once said…….”Please proceed.” With midterms coming up we can certainly afford to throw away a few congressional seats, eh?

[AtheistCrusader]

27. I know why this happened.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836