Obsession Massage
Toronto Escorts

SWAT officer stops school shooting

managee

Banned
Jun 19, 2013
1,731
2
0
Oh right.

Thank goodness those 13 dead students had their second amendment rights.

Personally, I feel it’s a shame that because of someone else’s 2nd amendment rights, they don’t have or need those three inalienable rights from that independence declaration thingy. How does it go again... ”Life, liberty and pursuit of whoever you want, cuz you’ve got a gun son?”

I’d read this, but scrolling is just a pain.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,830
6,338
113
13 students shot dead in that Florida shooting, all were sitting ducks because no teacher was armed, and your biggest worry is whether someone will accidently discharge their firearm in class??!

I'm glad you have your priorities straight
Damn right. More armed teachers means more chance of an accident.

I'm more concerned about laws that allow a youth diagnosed for significant mental health issues to buy guns and keep the authorities from taking away his guns due to those issues and multiple calls from the public.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,830
6,338
113
If you're gonna do that you have to ban handguns completely across the USA, because anyone can drive cross-State where guns laws are more relaxed and fill their car up with guns and ammo.

Washington DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the US and they also have one of the highest murder rates in the US (by gun)
I wouldn't expect a ban on handguns but you are right, states with weak gun laws is part of the problem and why it would make more sense to be federal jurisdiction.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,258
3,634
113
Oh right.

Thank goodness those 13 dead students had their second amendment rights.

Personally, I feel it’s a shame that because of someone else’s 2nd amendment rights, they don’t have or need those three inalienable rights from that independence declaration thingy. How does it go again... ”Life, liberty and pursuit of whoever you want, cuz you’ve got a gun son?”

I’d read this, but scrolling is just a pain.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
Do you understand the law of deterrence:

https://www.google.ca/search?lr=&as.....0.10.1200...0i67k1j0i131i67k1.0.udJWexuV-SA

You probably don't, but in essence it states that homes which are armed with handguns do not (generally speaking) get broken into, because criminals are terrified because they dont wanna get into a gun battle with an armed home-owner.

Its called DETERRENCE!!!!!
 

managee

Banned
Jun 19, 2013
1,731
2
0
Do you understand the law of deterrence:

https://www.google.ca/search?lr=&as.....0.10.1200...0i67k1j0i131i67k1.0.udJWexuV-SA

You probably don't, but in essence it states that homes which are armed with handguns do not (generally speaking) get broken into, because criminals are terrified because they dont wanna get into a gun battle with an armed home-owner.

Its called DETERRENCE!!!!!
Cool.

But this.

Gun Laws, Deaths and Crimes
By Lori Robertson

Posted on October 4, 2015

President Barack Obama claimed that “states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths.” Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, meanwhile, has made nearly the opposite claim, saying states with stringent gun control laws have “the highest gun crime rates in the nation.”

In looking solely at the numbers of gun deaths and gun crimes, the data back up Obama, not Fiorina. But both politicians imply a causation that’s impossible to prove — that gun control laws lead to fewer or greater gun crimes or gun deaths.

Obama talked about gun deaths, while Fiorina said “gun crime rates,” which could include aggravated assault and robberies. Let’s start with gun deaths.

Obama’s Argument
The president made his comments on Oct. 1 after a mass shooting that day at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon, left 10 people dead, including the shooter.

Obama, Oct. 1: We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don’t work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals [to] still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes statistics on firearm deaths and the death rate, which would be a fairer measure in comparing states of various populations. The death rate is the number of deaths per 100,000 people. The CDC also gives age-adjusted death rates, since such rates are influenced by the age of the population. This levels the comparison between different groups.

For 2013, the 10 states with the highest firearm age-adjusted death rates were: Alaska (19.8), Louisiana (19.3), Mississippi (17.8), Alabama (17.6), Arkansas (16.8), Wyoming (16.7), Montana (16.7), Oklahoma (16.5), New Mexico (15.5) and Tennessee (15.4).

The 10 states with the lowest firearm age-adjusted death rates were, starting with the lowest: Hawaii (2.6), Massachusetts (3.1), New York (4.2), Connecticut (4.4), Rhode Island (5.3), New Jersey (5.7), New Hampshire (6.4), Minnesota (7.6), California (7.7) and Iowa (8.0).

Firearm deaths, however, include suicides, and there are a lot of them. In 2013, there were a total of 33,636 firearm deaths, and 21,175, or 63 percent, were suicides, according to the CDC. Homicides made up 11,208, or 33 percent, of those firearm deaths. The rest were unintentional discharges (505), legal intervention/war (467) and undetermined (281).

Homicide data for 2013 don’t give us a clear picture of homicides only by firearm; however, 70 percent of homicides for the year were by firearm. The 10 states with the highest homicide rates were: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri and Michigan. That lists includes six states that also have the highest firearm death rates.

The 10 states with the lowest homicide rates are: North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Utah, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Oregon.

The number of homicides that occurred in the first three states were so low that their death rates were zero. Wyoming is an interesting case, because it has one of the highest firearm death rates but a homicide rate of zero.

What role do gun control laws play in these statistics? It’s difficult to say. One news report that compiled these same CDC numbers on firearm death rates, by 24/7 Wall Street and published by USA Today, listed several reasons besides gun laws that these states might have high rates of gun deaths (suicides included). Many of the states also have higher rates of poverty, lower educational attainment and perhaps more rural areas that make getting to a hospital in time to save someone’s life difficult.

But that report also noted weaker gun laws were common among the states with higher gun death rates: “In fact, none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register their weapons in any of these states. Meanwhile, many of the states with the least gun violence require a permit or other form of identification to buy a gun,” reporter Thomas C. Frohlich wrote.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, both groups that advocate for strong gun laws, published a scorecard on state gun laws in 2013, giving higher letter grades to states with stronger gun laws. Nine of the 10 states with the highest firearm death rates, according to the CDC, got an “F” for their gun laws, and one of them got a “D-.” (Note that most states — 26 of them — received an “F.”) Seven of the states with the lowest firearm death rates got a “B” or higher; two received a “C” or “C-“; and one — New Hampshire — got a “D-.”

But again, that’s a correlation, not a causation. And the homicide rate statistics don’t show the same pattern. Eight of the 10 states with the highest homicide rates and eight of the 10 states with the lowest homicide rates all got “D” or “F” grades from the Brady Campaign analysis.

We have written before about gun control issues, and the inability to determine causation between gun laws and gun violence. As Susan B. Sorenson, a professor of social policy at the University of Pennsylvania, told us in 2012, “We really don’t have answers to a lot of the questions that we should have answers to.” And that’s partly because a scientific random study — in which one group of people had guns or permissive gun laws, and another group didn’t — isn’t possible.

When we asked the White House about Obama’s claim, a spokesman sent us links to other studies that found states with more gun restrictions had fewer gun deaths, backing up Obama’s claim that “states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths.” But it doesn’t back up his claim that “the evidence” shows there is a link between the gun deaths and gun laws.

Researchers at Boston Children’s Hospital and the Harvard School of Public Health looked at gun laws and gun deaths in all 50 states from 2007 to 2010, concluding that: “A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually.” Their research was published in JAMA Internal Medicine in May 2013. But the study said that it couldn’t determine cause-and-effect.

One of the authors, Dr. Eric Fleegler, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Boston Children’s Hospital, told the Boston Globe that “n states with the most laws, we found a dramatic decreased rate in firearm fatalities, though we can’t say for certain that these laws have led to fewer deaths.”

Fiorina’s Claim
Fiorina made her claim on Sept. 24 in a speech in Greenville, South Carolina, when asked about her views on guns (see the 43:40 mark). She said that the gun laws currently on the books aren’t enforced. “That is why you see in state after state after state with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation also having the highest gun crime rates in the nation. Chicago would be an example,” she said.

We asked the Fiorina campaign for support for that claim, and to clarify whether she meant states or cities, since she mentioned Chicago. We have not received a response, but we will update this article if we do.

Fiorina said “gun crime rates,” not just “gun deaths,” as the president claimed. The FBI has statistics on violent crimes committed with a firearm, including murder, robbery and aggravated assault, though its data come from voluntary reporting from law enforcement agencies. When we last researched firearm deaths, experts advised us to use the CDC data, since it came from required death-certificate reporting.

But what about robberies with a firearm, or aggravated assaults? We calculated firearm robbery rates for the states, using the FBI data for 2014, and the states with the highest rates are Nevada, Mississippi, Georgia, Maryland and Louisiana. Four out of five of those states received an “F” from the groups that advocate tougher gun laws. (We discounted Illinois, which reported limited data to the FBI.)

We then did the same rate calculation for aggravated assaults with a firearm in 2014. The top five states: Tennessee, South Carolina, Arkansas, Louisiana and Delaware. The last state was the only one not to receive an “F.”

As for Chicago, the Pew Research Center published a report in 2014 that found that while Chicago had seen a lot of murders in raw numbers, smaller cities had a higher rate, adjusted for population. Using FBI data — with the caveat that it is reported by local police agencies and not always consistently — the Pew Research Center determined that the top cities in 2012 for the murder rate were Flint, Michigan; Detroit; New Orleans; and Jackson, Mississippi. Chicago came in 21st.

An August 2013 CDC report looked at rates for gun homicides in the 50 most populous metropolitan areas. It found that for 2009-2010, the top gun murder rate areas were, in order: New Orleans, Memphis, Detroit, Birmingham, St. Louis, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Philadelphia and Chicago.

Six of those cities are in states with poor scores for their gun laws, while the other four get a “C” or better. Chicago, which placed last in the top 10, had a ban on handguns at the time. There’s no discernible pattern among those cities, nor clear or convincing evidence in these statistics that shows more gun laws lead to more or less gun crime.


https://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

It must be difficult for you living in Toronto with its draconian gun ‘safety’ restrictions and all those resulting home invasions due to the lack of deterrence.

It’s now been said a couple times. State-by-state restrictions don’t make sense if you’re actually trying to curtail gun violence. Piecemeal efforts play into the hands of those whose sole existence relies on flawed logic that more guns = more safety.

International comparison: National Observer - More guns, less crime? Not according to the data 2018/02/16
 

Ceiling Cat

Well-known member
Feb 25, 2009
28,231
1,127
113


People like you keep on missing the time factor. There is no warning, no threat, no RSVP cards. The shooting starts and people die immediately. By the time the SWAT team shows up, it's been over for at least half an hour. If there's a police officer on location, how does he know exactly where the shooting is taking place, if you're not dealing with a one classroom school?


So are you saying that a trigger happy johnny with 20 hours of firearms training is better than nothing. This trigger happy johnny is not a danger to himself or others? The volunteer/auxiliary deputy sheriff - daytime teacher is a prime example of incompetence. * ( post 39 ) I would not be surprised if this guy was asked to leave the volunteer/auxiliary deputy sheriffs program after this incident. The bottom line is that giving very basic firearms training to hundreds of thousands of teachers does not make even one competent person to handle firearms. Police arriving on scene may mistake the trigger happy johnny ( teacher ) and unintentionally gun him down.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,830
6,338
113
...

Its called DETERRENCE!!!!!
If it wasn't so easy to get a gun then a gun wouldn't be needed for deterrence.

BTW, in Canada (and some states) you would be charged for firing a gun because of a break in. And homes with guns are far more likely to have an accident like a kid shooting his sister over a game.
 

managee

Banned
Jun 19, 2013
1,731
2
0
If it wasn't so easy to get a gun then a gun wouldn't be needed for deterrence.

BTW, in Canada (and some states) you would be charged for firing a gun because of a break in. And homes with guns are far more likely to have an accident like a kid shooting his sister over a game.
Hey now.

It was a video game controller.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
So are you saying that a trigger happy johnny with 20 hours of firearms training is better than nothing. This trigger happy johnny is not a danger to himself or others? The volunteer/auxiliary deputy sheriff - daytime teacher is a prime example of incompetence. * ( post 39 ) I would not be surprised if this guy was asked to leave the volunteer/auxiliary deputy sheriffs program after this incident. The bottom line is that giving very basic firearms training to hundreds of thousands of teachers does not make even one competent person to handle firearms. Police arriving on scene may mistake the trigger happy johnny ( teacher ) and unintentionally gun him down.
Being taken for the perpretator by police is what the 1.8 million concealed carry licence holders in Florida clearly understand. Yet, they accept this risk as the price they may have to pay in the performance of their civic duty. Remember that, civic duty? Like stepping forward and performing CPR on an anonymous passerby who's going to croak otherwise, as everybody else gawks motionless or takes videos they'll post online, and who just assume it's not their problem because it's the government's job?

20 hours of handgun training is plenty sufficient to be proficient at the single task of self defense. You don't have to learn all of the other things law enforcement officers have to know, like the complete contents of the Criminal Code, procedures of arrest, tactical driving, rapelling, SWAT tactics etc etc etc.

Part of concealed carry training includes when NOT to draw your firearm.

You have a generally very poor impression your fellow citizen's ability to be trained and be responsible. Maybe it's because your basis of comparison is yourself, in that you recognize that you have poor judgement, poor hand-eye coordination, poor learning skills, and a complete lack of self confidence. For the sake of anybody around you, do not engage in any activity that requires skill, judgement and responsibility, because you are a danger to yourself and to others. That includes driving a car, practising medicine, handling power tools like a chain saw.

I fail to see where people with a superior level of education and intèlligence, entrusted with the education and protection of students under their care, would be incapable of showing any learning ability, any measure of responsibility and any competence.

Is that what society has become? Expecting the state to do everything for its inmates? That's what we've become: helpless like a bunch of sheep facing a wolf, bleeting and waiting for kingdom come.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
If it wasn't so easy to get a gun then a gun wouldn't be needed for deterrence.

BTW, in Canada (and some states) you would be charged for firing a gun because of a break in. And homes with guns are far more likely to have an accident like a kid shooting his sister over a game.
You might be charged with a gun offense, but in legitimate cases of self defense, Canadian courts usually throw out the charge. It might cost you 20 grand in legal costs after it's all over, but better be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,258
3,634
113
20 hours of handgun training is plenty sufficient to be proficient at the single task of self defense. You don't have to learn all of the other things law enforcement officers have to know, like the complete contents of the Criminal Code, procedures of arrest, tactical driving, rapelling, SWAT tactics etc etc etc
Exactly. You're not training to become an elite member of the Navy Seals for fuck sakes, you just need to learn the basics
 

managee

Banned
Jun 19, 2013
1,731
2
0
Exactly. You're not training to become an elite member of the Navy Seals for fuck sakes, you just need to learn the basics
If they’re just going to “learn the basics,” will that be enough to act as an effective first-line of defence against the next Cruz or Rollins?

Cruz and Rollins went to a school that had well-trained and armed deputies skulking about and still managed to kill people.

In the case of Cruz, having a teacher (or teachers) armed with, let’s say a 9mm, would IMO put them at huuuuggge risk if they attempted to confront Cruz head-on. If that teacher was firing at Cruz into a crowded hallway, I’d be more than a little concerned for the lives of those caught in the cross-fire.

Arming the teacher and adding armed security to schools is a great way to make stupid parents feel a little better about sending their kids to those kill zones we call schools up here. But, it’s not going to be a deterrence, and it really just allows Trump and whoever’s next to blame the ‘cowards’ who inevitably wont act to intervene, instead of blaming the laws and policies that allow these kids to get weapons in the first place, or the near-criminal lack of mental health funding going into these schools.

If anything, these policies will ensure that the next Cruz will be even better armed, to ensure he can effectively manage the increased threat to whatever his/her plans are.
 

Jasmine Raine

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2014
4,049
48
48
2 kids where shot and the suspect may have shot himself so how did this person stop anything???

I haven't been around so maybe I missed something.
 

managee

Banned
Jun 19, 2013
1,731
2
0
2 kids where shot and the suspect may have shot himself so how did this person stop anything???

I haven't been around so maybe I missed something.
Nope. I think you’ve got it mostly right.

Suspect was shot by the “SWAT” guy, after he fired the shot that eventually killed his ex-girlfriend and injured what would seem to be a grade 9 by-stander.

So, depending on who you’re listening to, Rollins was “stopped” which presupposes that he was going to continue on a shooting rampage after he shot his ex-girlfriend / intended target, others are saying this school resource officer killed an alleged murderer, and therefore failed to de-escalate or disarm him.

I side with the latter. All reports were saying that the final kill shots were fired almost simultaneously, so I believe the thread title would be more accurate as “SWAT Officer Almost Stops School Shooting.”
 

Jasmine Raine

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2014
4,049
48
48
Nah, suspect was shot by the “SWAT” guy, after he fired the shot that eventually killed his ex-girlfriend and injured what would seem to be a grade 9 by-stander.

So, depending on who you’re listening to, Rollins was “stopped” which presupposes that he was going to continue on a shooting rampage after he shot his ex-girlfriend / intended target, others are saying this school resource officer killed a murder suspect, and therefore failed to de-escalate or disarm him.

Shots fired in the school. People where killed, doesn't seem like a "stopped school shooting" to me.

But hey - let's big up the guy and use this for the pro gun advocacy groups. Ok?? Where is the eye rolling emoji?

Moving on now...

PS - Thanks for the clarification hon . Knew I could count on you. :)
 
Toronto Escorts