The Trayvon Amendment

The good news is that this is going precisely nowhere. So the only use it has is to give us something to point and laugh at.

House Democrats said Tuesday they will offer an amendment to push to overturn stand-your-ground self-defense laws in states like Florida.

The amendment, which would withhold some grants from states that have such laws, will come as part of the House’s debate on the Commerce Department spending bill.

Well, apart from the Trayvon case having nothing to do with “Stand Your Ground”, apart from SYG being in no way a “shoot first” law, apart from the utter bogosity of the claim that self-defense killings have tripled in the last decade … apart from all that … this is the sort of federalist blackmail I despise. The Democrats point out that this has been done before. Indeed, it has — it’s how we got the nationwide 21-year drinking age. And thanks a lot for that piece of shit, fuckwads.

Glad to see the tradition of useless, stupid and doomed legislation is alive and well in the Democratic Party. It almost gives me a sense of comfort and stability in these troubled times.

Comments are closed.

  1. Section8

    Nice, when are these assholes going to focus on cutting down the crime that would lead to protecting yourself in the first place? I’m so sick of this shit. Hell, if you dig beyond the mainstream press, you could fine much more horrible crimes than the Trayvon case on a daily basis.

    I must say though that I’m glad to hear about those two reports who were beat in the name of Trayvon. Yes, glad to hear it. What better people to be beaten by the stirred up anger than those assholes. They want to play the guilt card, well why not them? What’s so special? They don’t have cell phone, all the gadgets, a nice place to sleep at night because all the horrors the white man has brought for all the goodies at life? Yeah right. But they are exempt because they argue the case. Bullshit. They should be the first to take any beating, fucking hypocrites. We have some who post here with the same mentality. When was the last time you tried to help inner city businesses? Yeah you’ll drive 40 miles for some organic bullshit market, but you won’t dare step into the inner city to help out the economy there. Why? Because you’re a racist fuck right? Just admit it.

    Thumb up 3

  2. Mississippi Yankee

    Toldja!
    From the moment this Zimmerman/Martin case hit the national airwaves this was going to be a left-handed attempt at gun control. A failed one at that.

    This is also a perfect example of just how aloof and/or arrogant this WH and DNC are. Gun control has always been the very last thing democrats want brought up in any election year. But here we go with the whole “it’s only failed before because WE didn’t try it”. story. Has anyone in politics evah read a history book?

    Thumb up 3

  3. sahrab

    And on the flip side, non-exisitent reporting (in the US for the most part) of a situation tailored for the Stand Your Gun Law.

    Link

    An 85-year-old woman was sexually assaulted and battered to death by a home invader who also shot her 90-year-old husband in the face with a BB gun.

    Nancy and Bob Strait, who had celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary in December, were discovered by their daughter at their home in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

    Both the pensioners were rushed to hospital where Mrs Strait, who was nearly blind, died from her injuries.

    Mr Strait, who served in the 101st Airborne Division in World War II, suffered a broken jaw, broken ribs and severe bleeding. He is in a serious condition in hospital.

    Police have arrested 20-year-old Tyrone Dale David Woodfork in connection with the case.

    The Straits’ distraught family today paid tribute to the pair, who grew up in poverty in rural Oklahoma during the Great Depression.

    They met each other on a blind date on Thanksgiving 1946, married a month later and went on to have six children, 18 grandchildren and about 50 great and great-great grandchildren. They had recently welcomed a great-great-great grandchild.

    Note this article was from March 20th (how many have heard about it?) Mr. Strait passed away, from his injuries, Friday afternoon.

    What are the chances the Congress/Senate pass a Strait Amendment?

    Thumb up 11

  4. AlexInCT

    What are the chances the Congress/Senate pass a Strait Amendment?

    None.

    The agenda is to disarm the people so they can not give their credentialed betters a hard time when things go really south, as they indubitably always do, when the house of collectivist cards comes crashing down. Only liars and fools pretend that a disarmed citizenry results in more safety for that citizenry. Ask the Brits how they like their armed criminals running rampant while law abiding citizens can’t arm themselves, and worse, would be treated like criminals if they did try to protect themselves.

    Thumb up 6

  5. Monolith

    Mr. Strait passed away, from his injuries, Friday afternoon.

    Damn, I was aware of this case, but didn’t know the husband died. They were old, but no one deserves to go out like that.

    Thumb up 1

  6. CM

    Only liars and fools pretend that a disarmed citizenry results in more safety for that citizenry. Ask the Brits how they like their armed criminals running rampant while law abiding citizens can’t arm themselves, and worse, would be treated like criminals if they did try to protect themselves.

    Or you could ask us here. We’d overwhelmingly say we feel safer with a disarmed citizenry. It’s not that people aren’t allowed to own guns for self-defence, it’s much more that they don’t feel they need to. Obviously you guys are in an entirely different situation, which is one reason why I don’t get involved in discussions about US gun control.

    Thumb up 1

  7. Poosh

    nly liars and fools pretend that a disarmed citizenry results in more safety for that citizenry. Ask the Brits how they like their armed criminals running rampant while law abiding citizens can’t arm themselves, and worse, would be treated like criminals if they did try to protect themselves.

    Many of us feel unsafe and feel the law will punish us for defending ourselves. Many of us live in fear every day. Violence and murder is constantly covered up by the media to make us feel safe. It’s a bad joke.

    Just as in some parts of America, even though you have the right to arm and protect yourself, you may well feel you don’t need a gun (because it’s so safe), in the UK many parts are pretty safe. But many parts are not.

    But saying that, we don’t have those horrific school massacres that seem to be a regular occurrence in the US (though that seems like idiotic law and failed regulation, rather than “the right to be armed”‘s fault.

    Thumb up 1

  8. Mississippi Yankee

    But saying that, we don’t have those horrific school massacres that seem to be a regular occurrence in the US

    Yes Pooch, but you take into account all schools are “No Guns Allowed Zones”. Or as it’s known in the vernacular… ‘victim only zones’.

    So a little CCW in the schools by admin just might deter the crazies. Our teachers (mostly female) fuck children they don’t shoot them.

    Thumb up 1

  9. CM

    Aren’t schools in the UK effectively “no guns allowed zones”? Weapons are certainly banned from all our schools. As people are therefore unable to defend themselves, shouldn’t that mean more “horrific school massacres” (as opposed to none)?

    Thumb up 0

  10. AlexInCT

    Aren’t schools in the UK effectively “no guns allowed zones”?

    I think they defenitly are “no guns allowed zones” in Norway, but Brevik didn’t give a fuck. Then again, I can’t recall when it happened, but some dude in Germany hacked a whole bunch of kids up in a school too. Didn’t need a gun to do that. Then there also was that muslim fanatic that murdered some Jews just a few months ago in France and videoed it.

    Criminals will always be able to get guns if they want them, banned or not, and evil crazy people will find a way to kill when they want to. But the fact that the anti gun media has been successful in demonizing guns by bringing up & sensationalizing the few and far in between incidents where body counts are high, while ignoring the slew of low body count incidents that happen more frequently in areas where guns are banned, is why people think the risk of not being able to defend yourself is worth it. Take a count of how many people get murdered by guns, illegal guns practically always, in the big liberal bastions where guns are banned – like Chicago, Detroit, DC, and Los Angeles here in the US or the rougher areas of western Euorpe – and add them up and they will surpass the body count of the much sensationalized occasional school shooting tragedies.

    Thumb up 6

  11. Mississippi Yankee

    Poosh, apologies for mistyping your name. It was not intentional.

    My point was in a free society having a ‘victims only zone’ is counter-productive.

    Thumb up 0

  12. HARLEY

    As people are therefore unable to defend themselves, shouldn’t that mean more “horrific school massacres” (as opposed to none)?

    Only if you believe that citizens that own and posses firearms are more likely to commit acts of murder at random, just because they have a fire arm……by the same logic police should be disallowed use of firearms…

    Thumb up 4

  13. CM

    The theory seems to be that massacres only occur because there aren’t enough armed ‘good guys’ to stop them in time. I’m saying there are NO ‘good guys to stop them here. So where are all the massacres? Here, we have a disarmed citizenry (people have guns, they just use them for hunting and at ranges, not often for massacres) and a pretty safe citizenry. I feel safer without guns everywhere. I’m pretty sure I’m not alone.
    Police ARE mostly unarmed here. Although how long that will last is a good question.
    Again, if this place was awash with people carrying guns everywhere, I’d probably hold an anti-gun control opinion too. But mainly from a ‘i give up, the horse has already bolted’ perspective.

    Thumb up 0

  14. Kimpost

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  15. Poosh

    When guns were legal in the UK we did have quite a horrible school shooting (which kicked off the ban on handguns). We had another school massacre before that, which caused a ban on automatic and “military” weapons and such.

    It’s hard to compare country to country with these sorts of issues though I think culturally we are similar to US (in terms of the types of degeneracies, such as gangs), and we have very large, multi-cultural populations given the spaces that are populated – however Britain is a very small Island, and in theory should be able to hold its boarders (clearly that isn’t happening though). Gun crime has apparently gone up in the UK in the past decade.

    There were two cases this decade at least. I seem to remember, of two “regular” people going on shooting sprees.1, 2.. I do wonder, given the pat number of shootings in the UK on a large scale, if anything has actually changed at all? These two chaps – one of which was clearly a threat and should have been clocked earlier – easily managed to kill.

    It feels intuitive that making guns illegal makes us safer, but I constantly wonder if this is just the way my consciousness has beens shaped in the UK. The two massacres above are the FLIP SIDE, had the lawful, stable, sane, members of the population been armed they probably could have taken out the murders before the police even arrived.

    NP, Mississippi Yankee

    Thumb up 3

  16. Poosh

    Ignoring school-shootings in the US which as you point out are controlled guns-free environments (no idea why the teachers aren’t armed, given they work in what seems to be such a favored target), have there been any “Regular” massacres in the United States, where someone goes on a shooting spree in normal space such as a town etc (that isn’t related to a gang or other crime) – on par with the two shootings in the UK described above, i.e a systematic killing in your neighborhood or a village etc). Do you have villages in the US !?

    Thumb up 0

  17. Seattle Outcast

    I think that it’s probably better, generally speaking, for ordinary people to stay unarmed, providing that they live in a relatively peaceful and unarmed society. Thus, avoiding accidents and random gun violence stemming out of passion

    By this logic all sharp objects and improvised clubs need to be removed from society. Your treatment of people as generally incapable of halting themselves from using guns to murder each other is juvenile.

    Thumb up 2

  18. AlexInCT

    The theory seems to be that massacres only occur because there aren’t enough armed ‘good guys’ to stop them in time.

    This is not a theory. In areas where people can carry, especially conceal carry, the criminals take the risk of getting shot dead. Only the stupid and insane will take that risk, and the statistics bear that out in the US. Contrast that with the many “gun free zones” the left has established and the amount of crime in these bastions of liberal doctrine – Detroit, Chicago, Miami, LA, Washington DC – where people deal with crime rates that are astronomical, gun crime is still prevalent despite the bans, and the murder count is ridiculously high.

    When you guarantee a disarmed citizenry, and criminal are armed because they don’t give a rat’s ass about the laws in the first place, the citizens lose. Period. Anyone that doesn’t see this is either doing so on purpose, because of an agenda, or stupid enough to also believe such idiotic notions that as long as government engages in downright tyrannical behavior, for the right motives, it should be given a pass.

    A disarmed citizenry is not a boon for tyrannical government by accident or coincidence, and progressives do not want their citizenry disarmed by accident or coincidence, either. There is a purpose there, and it is masked by invoking safety. After all, the rubes can’t be trusted.

    By this logic all sharp objects and improvised clubs need to be removed from society.

    That’s not necessary. You just turn anyone that tries to defend themselves, in any way, into criminals, and then bring down the total power of government and its propaganda machine to make them the bad guys.

    Does that sound familiar? Just think back to how the left felt Zimmerman was immediately to blame, because he would not back off after being told by some phone operator with no authority to do so, after the racist angle blew up in their face. Unfortunately for them, even that ray of hope to turn this tragedy into another gun grabbing & freedom robbing campaign blew up when it became obvious Zimmerman seems to have been attacked while walking back to his car.

    The left wants the citizenry disarmed and dependant on them. That way they are easier to control. If they give the bosses to much lip, they just back off and let the criminals rough the people up a little, throw anyone that dares to defend themselves into jail to make an example, then get the sheep to fall in line so they can again receive protection. It’s a protection racket that would make the old mob jealous.

    Thumb up 2

  19. AlexInCT

    no idea why the teachers aren’t armed, given they work in what seems to be such a favored target

    Most of them are leftist true believers, deathly afraid of guns, and hell bent on making sure none of their conservative colleagues get to have them either, since they know damn well these crazies go for the weakest link. The only people they feel are sanctioned to use guns are those that the credentialed masters in government control. Everyone else should be sheep.

    Thumb up 2

  20. Argive

    In areas where people can carry, especially conceal carry, the criminals take the risk of getting shot dead. Only the stupid and insane will take that risk, and the statistics bear that out in the US. Contrast that with the many “gun free zones” the left has established and the amount of crime in these bastions of liberal doctrine – Detroit, Chicago, Miami, LA, Washington DC – where people deal with crime rates that are astronomical, gun crime is still prevalent despite the bans, and the murder count is ridiculously high.

    I don’t think it’s quite that simple. I live in Philadelphia, where the gun laws are generally pretty lax. While it can be pretty difficult to get a PA concealed carry permit here (the Philadelphia PD can reject your application if they think you have “poor character” which can mean anything including an unpaid parking ticket), that doesn’t matter so much because PA and FL have an agreement to honor each other’s concealed carry permits. So if you get rejected for a permit here, that’s no problem; just get a FL permit and you’re all set. Sounds good, right? Well, we had the highest per-capita homicide rate in the country last year.

    To be clear, I’m not calling for gun control. It wouldn’t work and there are a lot of law abiding gun owners here who I don’t want to see disarmed. I just don’t think that the statistics always back up the idea that areas with high rates of private gun ownership see less crime.

    Thumb up 0

  21. AlexInCT

    I don’t think it’s quite that simple. I live in Philadelphia, where the gun laws are generally pretty lax. While it can be pretty difficult to get a PA concealed carry permit here (the Philadelphia PD can reject your application if they think you have “poor character” which can mean anything including an unpaid parking ticket), that doesn’t matter so much because PA and FL have an agreement to honor each other’s concealed carry permits.

    I left Philly of the list for a reason, but I bolded the part that I think makes a difference in our discussion, Argive. The areas where they have seen a downtick in crime are the ones where concealed carry permits are easy to get. My state allows concealed carry, but I know that the process is purposefully so dense that the only people that get it are those that are connected and/or willing to pony up enough cash to buy a politician to get it. Hence the number of people with concealed carry permits tends to be so low as to be negligible. And it shows.

    Now, if you look at Hartford, most homicides are gang or drug related here too, and one could make the case that even if people could carry concealed these numbers would stay high. The only reason that there isn’t much other crime in Hartford is that the place empties up after the work day is over and is a virtual desert of buildings on weekends. Sane people avoid the place like the plague.

    So if you get rejected for a permit here, that’s no problem; just get a FL permit and you’re all set. Sounds good, right? Well, we had the highest per-capita homicide rate in the country last year.

    I think another factor however is just the simple nature of Philly. The place is a freaking jungle, like Hartford in CT. How much of that killing is gang and/or drug related violence?

    I need to stress that I am specifically focusing on crime where criminals use weapons to rob innocent people. My bet is that if you filter for that factor most of the deaths that make up Philly’s homicide rate are exempted.

    The question to ask is how much higher would crime rates against civilians and be if there was no chance to concealed carry. We will never be able to control gang violence by banning honest and decent citizens from owning weapons to protect themselves, and that’s the point I am making. The criminals, like the tyrannical government, will always find ways to arm themselves. Even police states like the USSR, where they controlled all apsects of people’s lives, couldn’t prevent hard core criminals from being armed.

    Thumb up 0

  22. CM

    You 2 are as clueless as Joe Biden about gun control facts.

    What ‘gun-control facts’ do I have wrong?
    (Any of the four cowards who thumbs-upped this claim should also feel free to clarify)

    Thumb up 0

  23. CM

    When you guarantee a disarmed citizenry, and criminal are armed because they don’t give a rat’s ass about the laws in the first place, the citizens lose. Period. Anyone that doesn’t see this is either doing so on purpose, because of an agenda, or stupid enough to also believe such idiotic notions that as long as government engages in downright tyrannical behavior, for the right motives, it should be given a pass.

    People most certainly don’t carry guns around here like they do in the US (I’ve never seen one in my life outside a range or hunting context), and yet criminals don’t over-run the place because they’ve got guns. The citizens aren’t losing because they don’t have guns. I certainly wouldn’t argue that the citizens are ‘winning’ BECAUSE of a lack of guns, but that’s not a ridiculous theory.
    Also, the lack of people wandering around with guns hasn’t lead to the government engaging in “downright tyrannical behavior”. In fact, as Kimpost pointed out recently (which you didn’t bother to read and assumed the opposite) this is now one of the most ‘free’ countries in the world.
    So how does that work, if your theory is correct?

    A disarmed citizenry is not a boon for tyrannical government by accident or coincidence, and progressives do not want their citizenry disarmed by accident or coincidence, either. There is a purpose there, and it is masked by invoking safety. After all, the rubes can’t be trusted.

    Again, the country in which I live would seem to be strong evidence against that.

    Thumb up 0

  24. Kimpost

    You 2 are as clueless as Joe Biden about gun control facts.

    No, I just don’t think that the “facts” are clear one way or another. Regardless, I don’t want the government to take your guns away.

    Thumb up 0

  25. Kimpost

    By this logic all sharp objects and improvised clubs need to be removed from society. Your treatment of people as generally incapable of halting themselves from using guns to murder each other is juvenile.

    People are generally capable, but extraordinary circumstances sometimes lead to accidental deaths. Deaths that wouldn’t have happened if there wasn’t a gun involved. I’d imagine that we would agree on that.

    On the other hand guns can also save lives, which isn’t hard to grasp, not even for a Euro liberal like myself. I just pointed out a scenario where being unarmed could be safer.

    Thumb up 0

  26. CM

    I just pointed out a scenario where being unarmed could be safer.

    Having fewer guns inevitably (and inarguably) leads to fewer accidental gun related deaths for a start. And, as you say, there are circumstances where the availability of a gun may mean the difference between life and death (or serious injury) – e.g. in a confrontation, where tempers rise. Not that I think this happens very often.
    As mentioned, I also certainly agree when you said “If one, however, lives in a violent or a largely armed society, then it’s a different story” and therefore also “I don’t want the government to take your guns away”.

    Thumb up 0

  27. balthazar

    Oh and the “accidental death” shit is so awesome. If we get rid of cars the death do to automobile accidents will go down as well. Lets do that too!!!! Idiots.

    Thumb up 4

  28. Poosh

    Has anyone got an answer to my question? Has there, in America, been a case in recent times, where someone has gone on a killing spree in open areas where weapons were legal? (so not a school etc). Where the event has not been crime/gang related either.

    Thumb up 0

  29. sahrab

    Has there, in America, been a case in recent times, where someone has gone on a killing spree in open areas where weapons were legal?

    Waco – oh wait that was the ATF

    Ruby Ridge – oh wait that was the ATF & the FBI

    The Davila incident – oh wait that was 2 border patrol agents (note i distinguished the 2 of them from the Border Patrol as a whole, especially since they were not supported by their fellow Border Patrol officers)

    Thumb up 2

  30. Argive

    I left Philly of the list for a reason, but I bolded the part that I think makes a difference in our discussion, Argive. The areas where they have seen a downtick in crime are the ones where concealed carry permits are easy to get.

    Right, but concealed carry permits are easy to get here. You just go through Florida, not PA.

    I think another factor however is just the simple nature of Philly. The place is a freaking jungle, like Hartford in CT. How much of that killing is gang and/or drug related violence?

    I need to stress that I am specifically focusing on crime where criminals use weapons to rob innocent people. My bet is that if you filter for that factor most of the deaths that make up Philly’s homicide rate are exempted.

    A lot of the homicides are gang or drug-prohibition related. But armed robbery is also pretty bad here. The real problem is that I don’t think criminals tend to take into consideration that someone might or might not be armed when they try to commit crimes. Your previous statement that “Only the stupid and insane will take that risk” applies when people act rationally, which criminals don’t always do. People who grow up in high-crime, high-stress environments tend to be a lot more prone to violence as a response to any kind of stress (basically, when the fight-or-flight response kicks in, they go with fight all the time). And many homicides here happen as a result of arguments which go bad, or someone insulting someone else, not necessarily people actively deciding to commit a crime. Two armed dudes get into an argument about something, someone takes it a little too far and the guns come out.

    Thumb up 0

  31. Argive

    Has there, in America, been a case in recent times, where someone has gone on a killing spree in open areas where weapons were legal? (so not a school etc). Where the event has not been crime/gang related either.

    Yeah, Jared Lee Loughner in Arizona. In fact, someone at the Giffords rally was armed, but did not shoot. This turned out to be a good thing because he said later that he identified the wrong guy as the shooter. Of course, Loughner is probably criminally insane, and I doubt if he thought about whether or not someone might be armed at the event.

    Thumb up 1

  32. HARLEY

    Number of Doctors in the U.S. – 700,000

    Accidental Deaths caused by Doctors in the U.S. per year – 120,000
    Accidental gun deaths? hmmm you think we are that accident prone.. with the MILLIONS of fire arms in this nation and billion and billions of rounds of ammo…………..

    a quick search….

    and ….

    Number of Gun Owners in the U.S. – 80,000,000 (yes, eighty-million)

    Number of Accidental Gun Deaths per year in the U.S. – 1,500

    Accidental deaths per doctor: 0.171

    Accidental deaths per Gun Owner: 0.000188

    Source: U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services

    Thumb up 1

  33. Poosh

    So no one can give an example of a US citizen in an area when guns are legal – going on a killing spree, where it was not gang related, or actually political now that you mention it. (Serial killers excluded also). ?

    Thumb up 0

  34. Mississippi Yankee

    Kimpost
    Ft’ Hood technically does not qualify because soldiers are not allowed to walk around base with a loaded weapon. Again a “victims only” scenario. Sad as that may be.
    Captain Hassan’s choice of of handguns is what made this a massacre though. His FN 5.7 held a 20 rnd mag and he had three magazines. However his other gun was a .357 that he never fired was only a 5 shot revolver.
    BTW even though he repeatedly yelled “Alla Acbar” his crime, to this day, is NOT considered an act of terrorism by the DHS, State Dept. or the Apologizer-in-Chief.

    Your next ‘fer instance’ was Luby’s which happened 21 years ago.
    And let me add the Texas Watchtower sniper in 1966.

    The Texas Tower Sniper.August 1 1966 Charles Whitman
    began a shooting spree from the University of Texas Tower in Austin Texas.

    Obviously these aren’t everyday occurrences but I’m sure some nit-picking will yield a few more.

    Thumb up 0

  35. Tool

    Ruby Ridge – oh wait that was the ATF & the FBI

    Hey Sarhab, that was quite a nice blurb of extremist propaganda. Aren’t you conveniently leaving out the Deputy U.S. Marshal who was shot in the head by Weaver’s shitheaded bastard of a son. Some innoncent god fearing family the Federal Government was dealing with right? You want to talk about massacres fine, but don’t bring up an example where a law enforcement officer doing his job was murdered by a family of extremist shits in a standoff, then call it a “killing spree”.

    Try doing some research before you spew intellectual vomit and sound like a complete fuck.

    Thumb up 0

  36. CM

    I see the CM kimpost circlejerk about shit they obviously know nothing about is just roaring right along.

    As you must have missed it, I’ll re-post my question:

    What ‘gun-control facts’ do I have wrong?

    Oh and the “accidental death” shit is so awesome. If we get rid of cars the death do to automobile accidents will go down as well. Lets do that too!!!! Idiots.

    That’s such ridiculous nonsense it’s hard to know where to start…..
    However the best place is probably this – nobody is suggesting getting rid of your guns – both Kimpost and I have said the exact opposite.

    Thumb up 0

  37. HARLEY

    Kim.
    the Lubys restaurant expressly forbid, as was their right, the carry of concealed handgun guns in the restaurant, there was one person in there at the time that had left their hand gun in there car, as per the requirements of the restaurants policy.
    Again it was a safe zone for a shooter, everyone was disarmed.
    now there are cases of people walking into police stations and shooting, but a vast majority of these are what we call suicide by cop situations.

    Thumb up 1

  38. gitarcarver

    So no one can give an example of a US citizen in an area when guns are legal – going on a killing spree, where it was not gang related, or actually political now

    The Tacoma Mall shootings are one example.

    Thumb up 0

  39. Poosh

    I ignore political shootings because they are political and they will always happen.

    It followed that if no massacres happened in the US where arms were legal, yet happened in the UK at a time when they were illegal (in recent times), then well you can draw the obvious conclusions. But now two people have highlighted equivalent examples in the US of the shootings in the UK (non-crime related, non-political, shootings in populated areas) that disproves the obvious conclusions I was entertaining. However, at least in the US cases, people had the chance to shoot back at the shooter.

    Thumb up 0

  40. HARLEY

    uhm? I am pretty sure that the Tacoma mall, like every other mall in the USA legally restricts CCW use in their facilities..pretty much ALL retail stores do so for liability reasons.

    Thumb up 1

  41. HARLEY

    Salinger, every one of those cited examples except the church shooting are private of state/federal facilities where fire arms are legally restricted. EDIT. I LOVE how the Huff post story refers to the handguns as having HIGH capacity mags… LOL those are STANDARD capacity mags…

    Thumb up 1

  42. Tool

    Yes, I know exactly why Ruby Ridge happened, did the government make some huge mistakes prior to the stand off, absolutely. That being said the Weaver’s decision to engage in an armed standoff with the Federal Government was insane. Everything horrible that happened to that family occurred after they decided to go around patrolling their property with rifles, subsequently shooting and killing a Deputy Marshal. Were Sammy Weaver and Vicky Weaver’s death’s tragic and avoidable, absolutely, however if you decide to murder Law Enforcement Officers, terrible things usually result.

    Maybe Randy Weaver should have taught his son not to be an absent headed moron who went around patrolling his property with a mini-14. Some poor innocent kid right.

    Thumb up 0

  43. salinger

    Salinger, every one of those cited examples except the church shooting are private of state/federal facilities where fire arms are legally restricted.

    I misunderstood the premise of the question then. (I am also having a bit of trouble ciphering out what you’ve actually said here Harley. What do you mean by “are private of state/federal?) I was assuming the original question was asking about where guns were legal to own – i.e. the United States.

    Seems to me if none of these cases fit the bill the question has been framed to make it impossible to answer. One might as well ask where have murders been committed where the act of murder is sanctioned.

    Thumb up 0

  44. Mississippi Yankee

    Sally, stop be-clowning yourself.

    This discussion has been about ‘gun-free zones’ as apposed to places where one might legally care a firearm whether openly or concealed, Which is not the case through-out all of the US.

    Thumb up 1

  45. HARLEY

    Sal, may i cal you sal?
    here in the United States, federal and state/local gov, buildings are no go zones for CCW, it seem they dont trust us that far. Private facilities, businesses, homes EC. are the domain of the owner and can restrict whom may posses and carry on their property, many such business simply have a blanket policy of no CCW on their premises, this includes ALL the faculties mentioned in your article save the church, Most churches simply do not have a policy on that well maybe the urban area ones do, but then again most of this problem is in urban areas.. so.. there is that.

    Most of the massacres have happened in side or on the grounds of places that habitually restrict the private citizen from possession of a fire arm for self defense.

    Thumb up 1

  46. HARLEY

    TOOL the kid was pout there because the dogs sensed some one or something was out inthe woods near the cabin, in those woods you do not go anywhere with out a firearm, you bears, cougars OH mY!
    As for the actual start of the stand off,well it seems the Fed agent decided to start thing off with killing the kids dog…. standard police tactic. the kid just saw someone shooting his dog….and it went down hill from there.. if the ATF and all really wanted Weaver, they could have waited, much like WACO, again the agency wanted some trigger time and action something splashy to show the taxpayers and congress critters, and it blew up on them…
    Now im not defending Weaver, hes fucking trash, but even here we have the right to be trash…

    Thumb up 2

  47. salinger

    Most of the massacres have happened in side or on the grounds of places that habitually restrict the private citizen from possession of a fire arm

    In other words – where people are.
    I just don’t get the gist of the question – or what it is trying to prove.

    Thumb up 0

  48. Poosh

    Basically twice in the UK since the gun-ban, you’ve had two citizens tool themselves up and drive around in their car – in villages, roads, going up to people’s houses, taxi-ranks, and doing the killing spree thing.

    Not gang related, not crime related, not political (all things which I bracket out).

    I wondered if the same thing happened in America, if it didn’t, that would mean an armed population had some sort of affect on semi-sane individuals who wanted to go on killing sprees.

    In your list of ten, the guy who shot co-workers comes under that classification imo, and the Xerox one, the church and the railroard one, the cafe and lawfirm, however areas of work are “no guns” environments.

    Thumb up 0

  49. Tool

    TOOL the kid was pout there because the dogs sensed some one or something was out inthe woods near the cabin, in those woods you do not go anywhere with out a firearm, you bears, cougars OH mY!
    As for the actual start of the stand off,well it seems the Fed agent decided to start thing off with killing the kids dog…. standard police tactic. the kid just saw someone shooting his dog….and it went down hill from there.. if the ATF and all really wanted Weaver, they could have waited, much like WACO, again the agency wanted some trigger time and action something splashy to show the taxpayers and congress critters, and it blew up on them…
    Now im not defending Weaver, hes fucking trash, but even here we have the right to be trash…

    Really Harley, you obviously are knowledgeable about this subject so to say, “killing a dog standard police tactic” is just asinine. The Marshals were waiting, they were attempting to set up an ambush point to arrest Weaver. When a dog came bounding towards them they shot the dog rather than be bitten and attacked by the dog. I seriously doubt if you were in the same position ( a police officer with a dog about to bite you) you would do anything different. As for Sammy Weaver being a fuckheaded idiot, that statement still stands. Somebody shot his dog so he attempted to murder them? Brilliant kid. Again Weaver trained his kid to be a fucking moron who thought he could run around shooting people on his property. By no means was that group of extremists innocent like Sarhab was so thoughtfully asserting. They shot and killed Deputy Marshal, period. Typically when you murder police officers terrible things end up occurring.

    The other statement, about waiting Weaver out, that is absolutely ridiculous, his little posse extremist fucks fucking murdered a U.S. Marshal. Look at the pictures of Deputy Marshal Bill Degan after his head was blown apart by a 30-06 rifle, and tell me if you think Weaver and Harris should have been allowed to just walk around free for another 6 months while the USMS, and FBI ignored their duties and “waited him out”.

    As much as I think Waco was an absolute catastrophe, and bungled by the Federal Government, again when you decide to engage in a shootout and murder four police officers, horrible things happen. Whatever you want to say about the ATF waiting events out, 4 of their agents were dead, and they still had a job to do by arresting Koresh. His little band decided to shoot at police with anti-material rifles. They could have avoided everything by letting the police lawfully do their job and not killing them.

    I know everything i am saying doesn’t sync well with right wing propaganda about heavy handed government actions, but analyze things rationally.

    Thumb up 0

  50. HARLEY

    No one was in danger til the agency decided to jump up there in the hills and go after weaver… They pushed for a violent action and got one. a massive fuck up.all this was over some shotgun barrels that were sawed off.
    What i was saying is the ATF should have waited for the man to leave and go shopping like they did the first time they arrested him.
    The whole operation was a fuck up of epic proportions… and the sniper that poped Wevers wife was never charged, and apparently got away with shooting a unarmed person…

    As for the kid and dog, if you were walking thought the woods and some ope opens fire on you and your dog, what do you do? shoot back..
    much of your statement hinges on the criminal act of killing a fed agent…ok yeah that very wrong, but it would never had happened if the agencys in charge had acted like rational people…
    YOU DO NOT FUCKING LAY SIEGE TO A FUCKING WELL ARMED NUT CASE IN THE WOODS. Holy fuck any first year armchair strategist can tell you that..
    as for shooting the dog as being a standard procedure….. yes it is..
    read your own comment about shooting the dog coming at them…
    thanks for you time.

    Thumb up 2

  51. HARLEY

    I wondered if the same thing happened in America, if it didn’t, that would mean an armed population had some sort of affect on semi-sane individuals who wanted to go on killing sprees.

    Sadly there have been a few, most were stopped by police, a few by armed citizens…

    Thumb up 0

  52. Tool

    As for the kid and dog, if you were walking thought the woods and some ope opens fire on you and your dog, what do you do? shoot back..
    much of your statement hinges on the criminal act of killing a fed agent…ok yeah that very wrong, but it would never had happened if the agencys in charge had acted like rational people…
    YOU DO NOT FUCKING LAY SIEGE TO A FUCKING WELL ARMED NUT CASE IN THE WOODS. Holy fuck any first year armchair strategist can tell you that..
    as for shooting the dog as being a standard procedure….. yes it is..
    read your own comment about shooting the dog coming at them…
    thanks for you time.

    So the USMS should have ignored their duty and not acted upon an arrest warrant which is their job? Also, the government only “laid seige” to Weaver AFTER DUSM Bill Degan was MURDERED. The government doesn’t let people who SHOOT COPS IN THE HEAD WALK AROUND FREE. That is the only reason the FBI was called in. Yes my statements hinge on how the Weaver group murdered a Deputy because Sarhab asserted it was a “killing spree,” conducted by the government. Competely ignoring the fact that it was in actuality a two sided shootout and siege.

    I know shooting dogs is not standard procedure because police tase or spray dogs far more often than shooting them, but those options don’t always work, or are not always available.

    As for the kid and dog, if you were walking thought the woods and some ope opens fire on you and your dog, what do you do? shoot back

    When the Deputies opened fire they only shot at the dog first because it was charging at them. They didn’t start shooting at either Sammy Weaver or Kevin Harris. But hey somebody shot Sammy’s dog so it made sense for that kid to try and kill whoever it was right? If my dog charged after someone in the woods and got shot yes I would be upset, but I would not start shooting at anyone, I would try to figure out what was going on. Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris didn’t do that, they just started shooting at people. Like I said, it was a tragic incident, and it was avoidable, but it was definitely not a “killing spree,” conducted by the government.

    Thumb up 0

  53. Tool

    What i was saying is the ATF should have waited for the man to leave and go shopping like they did the first time they arrested him.

    No argument on that one. But that being said the Branch Davidians also should have stepped aside and let the ATF agents do their job even if the ATF agents chose an extremely unwise course of action.

    Thumb up 0

  54. sahrab

    Hey Sarhab, that was quite a nice blurb of extremist propaganda. Aren’t you conveniently leaving out the Deputy U.S. Marshal who was shot in the head by Weaver’s shitheaded bastard of a son

    None of the various law enforcement agencies involved came out of Ruby Ridge looking good, except for those who will make excuses for Law Enforcement at the drop of a hat (Rich will be glad to know he’s got company). The one constant from Ruby Ridge is the numerous versions of stories and excuses made by the Agencies and Agents involved.

    But one story that didnt change was Marshall Roderick initiating the confrontation by shooting and killing Weavers dog. Dont take my word on, we only have to read FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson words on the initial incident (about whether Weaver was guilty)

    We know this from . Some guys in camys shot his dog. Started shooting at him. Killed his son. Harris did the shooting [of Degan].

    But since you decide to gloss over the events of Ruby Ridge, what i was specifically addressing was the sniper killing his Wife after shooting blindly through the door (you know this, especially since its a common complaint about what happened at Ruby Ridge, but decided to ignore it)

    Probably doesnt help the FBI and other agencies changed their Rule of Engagement from:

    Agents are not to use deadly force against any person except as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another, when they have reason to believe they or another are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm. Whenever feasible, verbal warning should be given before deadly force is applied

    To:

    If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement, deadly force can and should be employed, if the shot can be taken without endangering any children (oops on that one). If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made, and is not attempting to surrender, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize the individual. If compromised by any animal, particularly the dogs, that animal should be eliminated. Any subjects other than Randall Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin Harris, presenting threats of death or grievous bodily harm, the FBI rules of deadly force are in effect. Deadly force can be utilized to prevent the death or grievous bodily injury to oneself or that of another.

    Thumb up 3

  55. sahrab

    The Marshals were waiting, they were attempting to set up an ambush point to arrest Weaver.

    Move goal posts much? If it was so important for the Marshalls to do their job (your take) then why were they waiting to set up an ambush point?

    In 1990, when the ATF tried to get Weaver to be an informant, and was refused. Now they did trump up some charges against Weaver and attempt to claim he was goign to be charged for a bank robbery, but they didnt have to wait and setup an ambush.

    Now In 1991, when the ATF Weaver arrested him and his wife, the ATF did pose as motorists. But the Weavers made bail and were free on their own.

    When a dog came bounding towards them they shot the dog rather than be bitten and attacked by the dog.I seriously doubt if you were in the same position ( a police officer with a dog about to bite you) you would do anything different. As for Sammy Weaver being a fuckheaded idiot, that statement still stands. Somebody shot his dog so he attempted to murder them? Brilliant kid. Again Weaver trained his kid to be a fucking moron who thought he could run around shooting people on his property.

    Maybe if the various Law Enforcement agencies, involved, spent more time upholding the Constitution and less time acting like the Military, they would have served Weaver the bench warrant instead of setting up an ambush. Especially since there was nothing in Weavers history to suggest a live shooter assault action was warranted.

    At what point would it take for you to see the Law Enforcement agencies escalated this tragedy, not the Weavers.

    By no means was that group of extremists innocent like Sarhab was so thoughtfully asserting. They shot and killed Deputy Marshal, period. Typically when you murder police officers terrible things end up occurring.

    By no means does being an Extremist, Arryan, or Asshole name Tool warrant Law Enforcement agencies tactics taken out of the Marine Force Recon play book. Sadly for the Law Enforcement involved they were and are US Citizens and should have been protected from the actions of the various Law Enforcement agencies involved.

    The other statement, about waiting Weaver out, that is absolutely ridiculous, his little posse extremist fucks fucking murdered a U.S. Marshal. Look at the pictures of Deputy Marshal Bill Degan after his head was blown apart by a 30-06 rifle, and tell me if you think Weaver and Harris should have been allowed to just walk around free for another 6 months while the USMS, and FBI ignored their duties and “waited him out”.

    Why not? They were willing to wait and build their ambush.

    Marshal Degan, Weavers son and his Wife were all victims of an over zealous Marshalls Service, FBI and ATF.

    As much as I think Waco was an absolute catastrophe, and bungled by the Federal Government, again when you decide to engage in a shootout and murder four police officers, horrible things happen. Whatever you want to say about the ATF waiting events out, 4 of their agents were dead, and they still had a job to do by arresting Koresh. His little band decided to shoot at police with anti-material rifles. They could have avoided everything by letting the police lawfully do their job and not killing them.

    Aww you good little Cop Apologist you. Yet another example of the fine Law Enforcement military tactics in action.

    Why didnt them fucking Branch Davidians learn the lesson taught to the Weavers eh?

    I know everything i am saying doesn’t sync well with right wing propaganda about heavy handed government actions, but analyze things rationally.

    Let us know when your going to start the Rational part sparky

    Thumb up 1

  56. balthazar

    The 1993 trial jury accepted the defense theory of the firefight and acquitted Harris on grounds of self-defense.
    Weaver was acquitted of all charges except missing his original court date and violating his bail conditions.

    That is all… Now GFY you Tool

    All easily locatable on the interwebs, educate yourself you idiot.

    Thumb up 1

  57. balthazar

    Oh and another tidbit for you, from the governments own investigation….

    We also found serious problems with the terms of the Rules of Engagement in force at Ruby Ridge. Certain portions of these Rules not only departed from the FBI’s standard deadly force policy but also contravened the Constitution of the United States.

    The government totally fucked up, ROYALLY, and the sniper should have been charged and convicted of manslaughter.

    Thumb up 1

  58. HARLEY

    very nice pick up guys.. i for got about the acquittal…

    The government totally fucked up, ROYALLY, and the sniper should have been charged and convicted of manslaughter.

    He was at WACO too,and there were a number of claims on that as well.

    Thumb up 0

  59. HARLEY

    The theory seems to be that massacres only occur because there aren’t enough armed ‘good guys’ to stop them in time. I’m saying there are NO ‘good guys to stop them here. So where are all the massacres

    You dont have “Mexico on your border and a massive federally funded “war on drugs” coupled with a “great society” program that breads malcontents.

    Yeah us…………………..

    Thumb up 0

  60. Mississippi Yankee

    Maybe if the various Law Enforcement agencies, involved, spent more time upholding the Constitution and less time acting like the Military…

    sahrab sir

    Law Enforcement in every village, town and city in America is now attempting to become a para-military unit. It’s starting to look like feudalism 101 everywhere I look.

    Thanks for sharing your in depth knowledge of Ruby Ridge. Anyone who didn’t learn something from that just didn’t want the knowledge to begin with.

    Thumb up 0

  61. Tool

    Maybe if the various Law Enforcement agencies, involved, spent more time upholding the Constitution and less time acting like the Military, they would have served Weaver the bench warrant instead of

    Upholding the constitution? The Marshals were serving an arrest warrant issued in Federal Court (you know the court established by the constitution). How were they not upholding the constitution?

    Serving a bench warrant for somebody’s arrest means you go and arrest the person and bring them before a judge. They only “acted like the military” because Weaver was a heavily armed survivalist who they thought would engage in violence. I would say the firefight and dead deputy bore that out line of thinking out.

    By no means does being an Extremist, Arryan, or Asshole name Tool warrant Law Enforcement agencies tactics taken out of the Marine Force Recon play book. Sadly for the Law Enforcement involved they were and are US Citizens and should have been protected from the actions of the various Law Enforcement agencies involved.

    Right, the deputies have walked up to Weaver’s front door and knocked and asked politely if he would come outside and be arrested. Please expound further on police tactics. I love hearing about how the Marshals “should have conducted themselvs” because obviously Sarhab knows better than the deputies that had 10+ years in law enforcement. You don’t know anything about law enforcement or how warrants are served, that is painfully obvious.

    Aww you good little Cop Apologist you. Yet another example of the fine Law Enforcement military tactics in action.

    Why didnt them fucking Branch Davidians learn the lesson taught to the Weavers eh?

    Cop apologist? Apparently cops are comparable to communists and terrorists now. Sorry for criticizing the Weaver’s and Branch Davidians, they apparently didn’t do anything wrong according to your assertions.

    Strange though, I thought not shooting at police was something most people knew not to do automatically.
    I already said ATF bungled that incident horribly, but it could have been avoided by the Davidians not shooting at the ATF.

    Thumb up 0

  62. Tool

    None of the various law enforcement agencies involved came out of Ruby Ridge looking good, except for those who will make excuses for Law Enforcement at the drop of a hat (Rich will be glad to know he’s got company). The one constant from Ruby Ridge is the numerous versions of stories and excuses made by the Agencies and Agents involved.

    Did I say anyone “looked good” coming out of that incident? No, simply pointed out that it wasn’t a killing spree conducted by the Government because people were killed on both sides of that incident. Sorry if pointing that fact out ruined your ideological narrative.

    The 1993 trial jury accepted the defense theory of the firefight and acquitted Harris on grounds of self-defense.
    Weaver was acquitted of all charges except missing his original court date and violating his bail conditions.

    That is all… Now GFY you Tool

    All easily locatable on the interwebs, educate yourself you idiot.

    Odd, I could have sworn I responded to Sarhab calling ruby ridge a “killing spree,” conducted by the U.S. Government, by pointing out there was a firefight where the Weaver’s Son and Kevin Harris made extremely poor decisions which led to death on both sides. Not whether or not a jury in Idaho was vindicated in its decision.

    Apparently you missed where I said,

    Were Sammy Weaver and Vicky Weaver’s death’s tragic and avoidable

    As much as I think Waco was an absolute catastrophe, and bungled by the Federal Government,

    Yes, I know exactly why Ruby Ridge happened, did the government make some huge mistakesprior to the stand off, absolutely

    What do I need to educate myself about? Some silly propaganda where the Weaver’s were just an innocent family harassed by the Federal Government. They just “happened” to shoot at a deputy over a dog. I knew about the aquittal and the FBI’s bungled use of force policy, I have read plenty of publications decrying the Government’s actions. However, I am not predisposed to defend people who engage in shootouts with police, regardless of whether or not the police are dressed up in scary looking camoflauge.

    Also, I was only defending the Deputies who were conducting surveillance for an arrest location. I never mentioned anything about Lon Horiuchi or the FBI except that it was only called to the scene after Degan was murdered.

    Thumb up 0

  63. Tool

    very nice pick up guys.. i for got about the acquittal…

    Right I also forgot about the LAPD officers who very nearly killed Rodney King and were also acquitted of any wrongdoing in State Court by a jury.

    Thumb up 0

  64. HARLEY

    Serving a bench warrant for somebody’s arrest means you go and arrest the person and bring them before a judge. They only “acted like the military” because Weaver was a heavily armed survivalist who they thought would engage in violence. I would say the firefight and dead deputy bore that out line of thinking out.

    Another reason not to go jumping into that briar patch…

    Thumb up 3

  65. balthazar

    Right I also forgot about the LAPD officers who very nearly killed Rodney King and were also acquitted of any wrongdoing in State Court by a jury.

    Which has exactly zero relevance to the discussion, thanks for playing, hope you take your loss well.

    Thumb up 1

  66. blameme

    Tool – I think what posters are getting at is that there many options to capture Weaver without a confrontation.

    There was no immediate need to force the issue. In potentially violent cases, many times “sting” operations are used to capture the person offsite and unarmed.

    Yes, they had a constitutional mandate to serve the warrant. This does not mean that common sense is thrown out the window. Warrens are served everyday in parking lots, grocery stores etc with no fanfare.

    Forcing the issue when you KNOW the persons are capable of violence and stand offs is truly ridiculous and as a result led to loss of innocent livs on both sides.

    It didn’t have to be that way but it was due to the law enforcement team forcing the issue. They could, and in retrospect agree they should have done an offsite serve.

    Thumb up 1

  67. blameme

    Sorry for the typos. I was on an iPad and the ability to edit wouldn’t work. Contrary to popular belief, I am not as ignorant as my typing suggests. I hope.

    Thumb up 0

  68. Tool

    Which has exactly zero relevance to the discussion, thanks for playing, hope you take your loss well.

    Yes just as whether or not a jury judged members of the Weaver group innocent regarding a killing has zero relevance on whether or not the group actually killed Bill Degan, which was the entire point of my posting (and isn’t disputed). Its not a killing spree when people are getting shot and killed on both sides. Its a two sided-firefight.

    Hope you take being a ideologically blinded moron well. Thanks for opining about points I didn’t make! Please publish some more 10 word posts, so I can gain true insight into what “really happened” at Ruby Ridge.

    Tool – I think what posters are getting at is that there many options to capture Weaver without a confrontation.

    There was no immediate need to force the issue. In potentially violent cases, many times “sting” operations are used to capture the person offsite and unarmed.

    Yes, they had a constitutional mandate to serve the warrant. This does not mean that common sense is thrown out the window. Warrens are served everyday in parking lots, grocery stores etc with no fanfare.

    Forcing the issue when you KNOW the persons are capable of violence and stand offs is truly ridiculous and as a result led to loss of innocent livs on both sides.

    I agree, that confrontations shouldn’t be forced, the Marshals actually recommended against initially serving the bench warrant due to Weaver being so set on confrontation. Directly from an article regarding Ruby Ridge (link below),

    SOG Deputy Commander Louis E. Stagg briefed Commander John Haynes and Idaho’s U.S. Attorney Maurice Ellsworth about his findings. Stagg recommended against a tactical assault on the Weaver compound and recommended that the indictment be dismissed and the files sealed. Stagg then requested an opportunity to present his findings to Chief Judge Ryan, however Ellsworth refused the request. Stagg then said that this “was the worse (sic) situation he had seen in 23 years.”

    http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/8.html

    The bottom line is there was a confrontation, Weaver and his group were armed and did kill a Deputy Marshal. That fact alone negates the premise that Ruby Ridge was a “killing spree” conducted by the government.

    Has there, in America, been a case in recent times, where someone has gone on a killing spree in open areas where weapons were legal?

    Thumb up 0

  69. Seattle Outcast

    The bottom line is there was a confrontation, Weaver and his group were armed and did kill a Deputy Marshal. That fact alone negates the premise that Ruby Ridge was a “killing spree” conducted by the government.

    Apart from the facts that the FBI started shooting first, were issued unconstitutional “kill on sight” orders, killed Weaver’s family members without cause, shot his dog, and were slapped by the courts repeatedly for illegal conduct?

    You might want to consider that killing law enforcement officers that are actively trying to kill you in an ambush to be justified.

    Thumb up 2

  70. blameme

    Tool – I think we agree mostly then. I think it was a series of bad decisions that led to this confrontation.

    In my mind, however, the “fault” lies with the police force via forcing the issue -even though Weaver was guilty (so to speak) and they had a warrant – so how could the law be “wrong” in forcing the issue? Strange dichotomy, but even though Weaver was at fault for having illegal weapons (and whatever else), it doesn’t absolve the government from the fact that they pushed the issue in ways that ultimately led to innocent lives being lost. And, it certainly doesn’t absolve the sniper shooting women holding babies – no matter the circumstance, that just cannot happen in this country. The burden of law enforcement is to literally be reactive in those situations – they cannot and should not shoot first (in the case of Weaver’s wife etc) and ask questions later – even if there is a gunfight occurring. This is one of many reasons that I can’t be a law officer – I couldn’t handle it – but they should and must for the populace to trust them. Are they then in the line of fire – your damn right they are, but again, that is the price for wearing a badge and for those that do honorably should command our full respect.

    Anyway, battles fought in a war to me are similar in nature. The Army may have been after some really bad guys, but if we use terrible tactics in getting those bad guys and lives are lost, then the blame is at least shared by both sides – the side who was “in the wrong in the first place” for the incident to even exist and the “good guys” for being, well, stupid and reckless in going after the bad guys.

    There will always be people and organizations etc that exist outside the law. The burden and the expectation for law enforcement is to use force when only necessary, use it wisely with forethought and to explore less violent and risky means to achieve the goal of apprehension.

    Thumb up 1