Insane People Will Only Attack Soft Targets, Right?

The man "somehow obtained" a weapon from a trained police officer, and we want to put these trained police officers in every school where students or the general public could "somehow obtain" a weapon from them as well.

Looks like we need the NRA to suggest putting armed guards in police stations so this will never happen again.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8934293&hpt=hp_t2

GLOUCESTER TWP., N.J. - December 28, 2012 (WPVI) -- Three officers were injured after gunfire erupted inside Gloucester Township police headquarters Friday morning.

Medics responded around 5:30 a.m. to the station, which is located on the 1200 block of Chews Landing Road in Gloucester Township, Camden County.

Sharon Lehner, who lives across the street from the station, awoke to the scream of sirens. "I kind of thought right away a police officer had been shot because of all the police that had arrived here from outside this township," said Lehner.

According to police, a suspect was being processed on domestic violence charges when a struggle ensued. The suspect then somehow obtained a weapon and opened fire.

One officer was hit twice in the abdomen, below his bullet proof vest. Two other officers, a male and female, suffered graze wounds.

The gunman was shot and killed inside the station.

"I saw them throw somebody into an ambulance," explains Lehner. "It was very, very quick. Police officers jumping in the ambulance, and then taking off very quick."

All three officers were transported to Cooper University Hospital for treatment. The officer who sustained wounds to his abdomen is in stable condition after having undergone surgery.

The other two officers were treated for their injuries and then released from the hospital.

Police have not released the identities of the officers or that of the suspect.

 

Jesus, these mindless anti-NRA rants will never end will they? The NRA is to blame for every gun-related crime, right? So f***ing stupid. It's like saying the ACLU is to blame for everything that Osama Bin Laden and his ilk say.

 

The crook somehow obtaining the weapon from a trained police officer is not much different than a crook somehow obtaining a weapon from say, a Walmart, or a McDonald's drive thru, is it.

It is funny that when the left talks about reducing the ways a crook can obtain a gun as a way of reducing the propensity of gun acquisition by crooks, the right are eager to defend convenient crook gun acquisition by pointing out the existense of inconvenient crook gun acquisition cases. It is illogical as usual.

 

Does the crazy person want to live or die? We need all the variables in your supposition.

 

I watched an interview on CNN last night of a security trainer advocating guns in schools and a teacher who wants to carry a gun on her person in school. She was a small person and when asked if she thought she could prevent a larger high school boy from taking the gun from her, she muttered something about all the self-defense classes she had taken. She didn't say what she'd do if she was ganged up on by 2 or more who wanted the gun. Maybe pull out the gun and shoot them?

 

Amen to that!!

 

Must have been one of the evil 'gun free' zones!
If only the police had some 'good guys with guns' around them this wouldn't have happened!

 

Armed teachers??!! (It's only a matter of a little time, before that shows itself to be a VERY BAD IDEA.)

 

It doesn't take more than a second for the thinking people to see how bad it is.
Low thinkers.....you never know if they will ever figure it out.

 

Did they also show a person like me who is 5 ft 9 and would have an answer to those questions? Or was it a fluff piece that proved the bias of the journalist?

 

LOL!!

Problem with many who advocate "guns" as security/protection... is that they think they are (or will be) Bruce Willis, Steve McQueen or Tom Cruise in some movie.

In reality, the collateral damage (wrongful deaths, lawsuits and murders) coming from all these guns out here... WILL eventually change both the philosophies AND laws surrounding the same. It is simply a matter of time.

 

What's the alternative? Declare all police stations a gun free zone?

 

This is just not true, Johnny. I have spent hours and hours at the range and you've never heard me say that I am Jason Bourne or Salt. I don't go around bragging. All I've said--and this is the perspective of someone who has had violent crime engaged against them is that I would shoot someone who tried to rape me and that is my right to defend my body and my life. Cops sure didn't do it. They didn't save me or prevent me from being beaten and assaulted.

Don't blow it out of proportion, please.

 

(Sorry, didn't mean to dislike your post; I added a 'like'.)

As far as the solution? I think that suspects and prisoners need to be restrained in other ways and/or only process them in areas where officers are not carrying firearms (tasers and sticks, only).

 

Banning guns will only work when there can be a 100% guarantee that nobody will have them. Since that's pretty much impossible, people need to have the right to be armed.

While I don't necessarily think arming teachers is the right way to go, further limiting guns in ways that don't do a thing to address the crimes that spur those limitations is definitely the wrong way to go.

 

So what's your point? That we should disarm police officers?

 

We disagree in principle. I do not see firearms as a good answer to anything; I see them as a necessary evil.

It's not that 'personal'; I'm not talking about you or I per se (I've spent time on the range as well). But I am virtually certain that many people will do more potential harm with that firearm in their possession, and that too many weapons are out here period.

Not about you per se.

I respect your right to self defense, and my point was about people who are more confident or cocky than they should be (I know more than a few people like that).

Again, although I've used weapons in my job and respect your right to self-defense... I don't agree that guns are as much of an answer as people have talked them up to be. We've got to do better.

I've done no such thing, IMO.

 

My point is that more guns clearly don't address gun violence; this also debunks the argument that insane people will only commit acts of violence against "soft targets."

 

Did the crazy people want to live that committed suicide after attacking "soft targets?"

 

So we should disarm cops according to your "logic" because they too create dangers to society. Try being consistent in your "reasoning".

 

Easy to say as a man, Johnny. You ever been chased or beaten by someone with twice your strength? I'd like to know what you think I should have been able to do in the 14 situations where I was mugged or assaulted. Because I tried fighting back. I tried not resisting. I tried screaming, hoping the police would come.

I was very lucky the guy who wanted to rape me couldn't. Very lucky.

I refuse to be in the situation where I have to be raped. People who want me to not have a gun seem to think that rape is no big deal and I should suck it up or something because you sure as hell don't have an answer for what I could do.

 

I'm not anti-gun, but I'm certainly anti-NRA, and for good reason.

 

I'd like that. Do I get to vote?

 

sure you do, so lets hear them then, what would you do if you were ganged up on by 4 16 year olds bigger and stronger than you cornered and you were the teacher in this situation with a gun and they want it are you gonna shoot them ? your answer is shooting a bunch of kids ? you dont see how that illustrates more guns just equals more shootings ?

 

When did I say I want to disarm police? How is that a logical extension of anything in that post? Be clear and concise, since I don't think you know what "logic" actually means.