So another nut with a gun opens fire, this time 2 doors down from Jim Hanley's Universe on 33rd Street. https://www.facebook.com/JimHanleysU...38040169672500
Looks like a number of people got shot by the shooter before the cops got him, but not before the cops themselves shot a few people in the cross fire. Was that a job well done? I guess so because no-one apart from the shooter (and his intended victim) died.
I was in a hotel one block away from there 2 weeks ago and at around 9am most mornings I would have been walking past JHU admiring the life size Silver Surfer in the window! I could have been shot by the shooter OR the cops. I'm just not sure where this leaves me on gun control. I know there is a compelling argument that if everyone was packing, these nuts could be shot dead sooner by members of the general public, cutting short any potentially large scale massacre. As a tourist though, where does that leave me? (apart from in the crossfire)
1) NYC has some of the strictest gun laws. It's difficult to merely own guns there, and unless you're rich or influential, it's nearly impossible to get a permit to carry. That didn't seem to help a damn thing.
2. This happened right outside the Empire State building, where police are permanently stationed. So the lesson is that while police will TRY to save you, you ultimately can't rely purely on them for your safety.
3) We simply don't know how the bystander injuries happened. We don't know if people were directly shot by the police, or the subject, or if the injuries were the result of fragmentation.
4) The NYPD requires their guns to have an absolutely atrocious 12 lb trigger pull. The average Glock has a 5.5 lb trigger pull. This was done to prevent negligent discharges, but it has the side effect of reducing accuracy. So if stray shots WERE fired, at least partially blame the institutional decision to change the trigger pull.
just too many wackos and I feel for the next generation growing up in the this world.
Now, for NYC, Mr. Bloomberg needs to shut his mouth about having the safest big city and how no one could sneak a gun in downtown. It's been proven to be not true over and over again.
ok - point 4) That the cops have to have a 12 lb trigger pull is fn ridiculous! Dumber than the big soda law. They should be given state of the art weaponry and weapons training! Especially in high density population areas like NYC. That is really stupid. In Australia you pretty much cannot own a pistol and our gun laws are some of the strictest in the world. I'm pretty happy with that and our gun related murders are low, but when it comes to the police THEY HAVE TO HAVE STATE OF THE ART!!! They are the peoples' defence against armed criminals.
A heavier trigger pull is fairly common for police sidearms. I do think however that all patrol cars should come equipped with a carbine. Even a great pistol with a trained shooter is only so accurate beyond 50 feet.
A heavier trigger pull is fairly common for police sidearms. I do think however that all patrol cars should come equipped with a carbine. Even a great pistol with a trained shooter is only so accurate beyond 50 feet.
It's not unheard of, but I wouldn't say it's common. Mine is the standard 5.5.
I agree about rifle, but these officers were on a foot post, so a patrol rifle in their vehicle wouldn't have helped much.
Don't get me wrong I had some fun times shooting targets but maybe they should look into banning weapons or at least make the process of getting one a lot more difficult. We still have gun clubs here btw!
I can't speak for everybody, but I simply couldn't care less what Australians think of our gun laws.
You will never, ever ban guns in the US. It's a non-starter. Any solution that starts from that position is just wasted breath. We consider it a right to bear arms (and two recent Supreme Court decisions have affirmed it to be an individual right).
I can't speak for everybody, but I simply couldn't care less what Australians think of our gun laws.
I am not speaking on behalf of of all Australians here, just my opinion in the open halls of Asgard.
With that right, there will be consquences.
PeepsChicken do you think it should remain the way it is now then? or should there be additional processes in getting a licence such as mental checks etc? would love to hear your opinion to prevent or lower the rate of gun related crimes
Last edited by Jansen; August 25th, 2012 at 12:46:20 AM..
I hope it remains the way it is, actually. Violent crime (including gun crime) has been decreasing over the past twenty years (incidentally during a period when gun ownership has surged).
Just to quote Wikipedia:
Quote:
The year 2010 was overall the safest year in almost forty years. The recent overall decrease has reflected upon all significant types of crime, with all violent and property crimes having decreased and reached an all-time low. The homicide rate in particular has decreased 51% between its record high point in 1991 and 2010.
Mass shootings make the news, but they're actually extremely rare and account for a negligible amount of crime. Making any sort of policy around a statistically unlikely event (like the massacre in Australia) is bad policy, IMO, especially when it impacts a civil right.
Guns aren't the boogeyman. Social and economic factors are. Washington DC and Chicago have the toughest gun laws in the country, and they also top the murder charts. Vermont, in contrast, lets you carry guns with no permit necessary, and it's one of the safer states. Norway, as you might have heard, has notoriously strict gun laws, which did nothing to stop the massacre in Oslo.
Gun ownership isn't the problem, and gun control isn't the answer.
I guess the reasons why I think that putting control over this will help is so it will reduce the likelihood of this event occurring as the weapon will not be so easily accessible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CougarTrace
Our country was born from freedom gun owning militia.
I knew this part of U.S history, but never thought that this was the reason many American citizens were Pro-Gun
I'll tell you one thing, if we ever get invaded by Aliens, I will be glad to have you guys to Avenge us
The main difference between Australia and US on guns is that here we don't actually consider it a civil right to own a gun as we don't have that written into a constitution. The US does. I agree with Peeps Chicken - you will never convince enough US people to give up that right. Simultaneously, you will never convince enough Australians that gun control laws should be relaxed. It's deeply entrenched cultural difference. There are a lot of similarities and common ground between Australia and the US, but this is not one of them.
My reason for starting this thread is that having been sort of close to the Empire State shooting, my support of strict gun control has been challenged. Comparing our two countries, Australia is ranked 25 in the world for gun murders, the US is rated 4: Murders with firearms statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
It be may that even stricter gun control would reduce gun related death in the US, but I doubt that will ever happen and I'm starting to think that gun laws are not what cause or prevent gun murders in the US, but they do in Australia. At its most basic, in Australia the common thinking is "guns kill people, reduce the number of guns, less people get killed". We rely on the government, laws and agents of the State (police) to prevent gun murder. And it been successful to a large degree. In New York, I spoke with a few people about guns and the then recent Colorado shootings. The recurring opinion I heard was "guns don't kill people, crazy people kill other people with guns, therefore, I better get a gun to protect myself". American citizens seem more focused on protecting themselves instead of relying on the State to do that job. As PC pointed out, that is a cultural thing. I don't think now that an Australian approach to gun murders (reduce guns) is going to actually be as successful in the US as it has been in Australia.
I also think it's impossible to prevent crims getting guns and shooting innocent people, happens here too (although I doubt this made the news in the US): 2007 Melbourne CBD shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I will be very interested to find out how the nutbag in Empire State shooting got hold of his gun and the NYC response, and whether it leans at all away from the general US way of approaching guns and gun murder.
Peeps - hypothetical question for you: if the Watcher appeared and gave you an "Ultimate Nullifier" that if activated, it would eradicate all handguns and firearms, both yours and those that are possessed by people who might shoot you, essentially reducing to nil, the possibility of any gun murder or need to defend yourself against an armed opponent, would you use it?
Peeps - hypothetical question for you: if the Watcher appeared and gave you an "Ultimate Nullifier" that if activated, it would eradicate all handguns and firearms, both yours and those that are possessed by people who might shoot you, essentially reducing to nil, the possibility of any gun murder or need to defend yourself against an armed opponent, would you use it?
Nope.
Putting aside the fact that our 2nd amendment was also designed to protect us against government tyranny, not just for self defense against crime:
Guns were invented for a reason. Guns are an equalizer.
Example: my mom is in her 70's. She'd virtually helpless against even an unarmed attacker, much less a guy armed with a knife or bat. But she's an expert shot... with her gun, she at least has a chance of defending herself.
I'm over 200 lbs, 6'1", in good physical shape, and have training in police defensive tactics and aikido, but against 2-3 unarmed people, my life is still in jeopardy. But I stand a chance with a gun.
The fact of the matter is that in a world without guns, the strong will still victimize the weak or helpless. Correct me if I'm wrong, but after Australia banned guns, didn't they have to turn around and ban knives and swords as well, because people were turning to those to victimize people?
Yep - knives and swords are banned now too, but only in some states, mostly in response to gangs that started chopping each other up at nightclubs in certain cities. This is from a survey last year:
Knives were involved in approximately 30 to 40 percent of attempted murders between 2001 and 2009. This represents a general increase in their use as a proportion of all attempted murders, with 2009 the second highest year on record (36.9%). Unlike murder, where the use of 'no weapon' generally exceeded the use of knives, knives were more commonly used in cases of attempted murder than 'no weapon' or firearms (the next most commonly used weapon) for each year between 2001 and 2009. In terms of offence numbers, there was a decrease in the use of knives in attempted murder from 151 in 2001 to 87 in 2009. Over the same period, there was an overall decline in attempted murder from 458 to 236.
The important thing there is the overall reduction in attempted murders and that murders were mostly committed without the use of weapons. Overall, homicide remains on a downward trend in Australia. And I'm sure that in America the response would be "we could reduce that further if the victims were armed". Perhaps.
Knife and sword laws are however really crazy as it is still legal to buy an axe from the hardware shop, a hatchet, a top quality 12 inch steel knife from a kitchen supply shop, or even a ceramic knife or a concealable paring knife. Machetes are ok too, which is just nuts. So you can have all those deadly weapons, but you can't have a blunt replica of sword from LOTR, 300 or whatever else is available these days. I suspect that the next thing to get banned will be LARP weapons. It would be more sensible to just outlaw carrying these things concealed or in public, but not an offence to have them on display in your home.
Empire State Building shooting
I am not speaking on behalf of of all Australians here, just my opinion in the open halls of Asgard. 
Linear Mode
