Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

A Question About The NY Shooting

People who want to take guns away from citizens often argue that it’s dangerous for citizens to have guns. They will say, “innocent people will get shot in the crossfire” in the event an armed civilian uses a gun to stop an armed criminal.


I wonder what they’ll say about what just happened in NYC?


According to reports, a laid-off women’s clothing designer named Jeffrey Johnson, 58, decided to shoot his ex-boss. He pulled out a .45 pistol and did so – and was himself almost immediately gunned down by a gaggle of city cops. Problem is, the cops ending up shooting more people than the gunman. Eight people were shot – by the cops. (news story here.)


More

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

What they will say is if trained cops injured 9, imagine how many civilians would be dead right now if civilians would have started shooting up NYC. And they would be right.

Anonymous said...

im waiting for the lawsuits to pop up

Anonymous said...

12:46, I think you're wrong. That may well be the rhetoric, but if a citizen would be forced to take out a shooter, he'd be damned careful to hit his marks and no others, as the lwasuits would ruin his life!

Anonymous said...

there are many cases each year all over this country where an armed citizen intervenes in a situation to protect others or acts with their personal firearm to defend themselves. you just don't hear stories of armed citizens accidentally shooting bystanders. believe me, if it happened the liberal media would be all over it, but it isn't, because it doesn't happen.

Anonymous said...

3:05,
So you are saying untrained civilians would have better reactions than highly trained NYC cops? Please. The truth is that under the stress of a guy shooting up a room, it does not matter how highly armed the room is: look at what happened on a military base in Texas. If a guy can shoot up a military base, you are just giving yourself false confidence in thinking that a highly armed civilian population is going to do any better. Instead, you will have more cases of 4 year olds accidentally shooting dad, a father accidentally shooting his teenage son who he thought was an intruder, and people killing themselves or others due to the easy availability of handguns and a stupid drunken impulse. Those stories are all over the news and far outnumber the cases where someone did successfully fight off somoene with a gun (which are reported, which is how you know about it).

Anonymous said...

I think Obama made them do it to lessen the votes against Obama.

Anonymous said...

Ah, 404, 149 here! WRONG! We armed citizens are NOT untrained! We take lessons. Hunter safety. Yearly hunting trips. Range practice. Safety, safety, safety. You totally off base with that remark!
On top of that, at the military base, everyone in the room was UNARMED BY THE RULES! Cheese, don't you read the reports?
Go back and check your facts, and we'll chat later when you can hold a candle to the conversation.

Anonymous said...

@404 (funny, internet jargon for file not found, oddly fitting in this situation)3:05 here. do your homework.the victims at FT Hood were unarmed because they are barred from carrying on base while off duty.

p.s. 149, see you at the range...

Anonymous said...

And yet some lady in the posts just above this one shot her husband instead of a skunk, and an officer shot himself in the leg. Highly trained indeed, and that is just today. My point on the military base is that there were armed people all around there, even though they were not in that room. Your presumption is that you will be in the room at the time. Ok, let's imagine that scenario. Thanks to the NRA's unwillingness to have ANY limits on guns, a shooter can fire off 20 rounds before you highly trained civilians will get out your guns and maybe, just maybe stop him (that is, if you aren't the first victim). But remember that when you are at the shooting range, you are not being shot at, and you did not just see your best friend's head explode. You aren't hearing screams, and you are not in shock. I'm going to guess that your accuracy is going to be a little different in a real world scenario, just as it was for the highly trained police officers who accidentally shot 9 civilians. Keep in mind I am not blaming the police--they did their jobs. My point is that there is no way the vast majority of civilians would do better, even if you took a gun safety course andd spent time at a shooting range. The scenarios are totally different.

Anonymous said...

What's incredible is that none were seriously wounded. So much for accuracy>