It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man Who Tackled Loughner Interviewed - Guess What?

page: 9
65
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedish
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

See people, there ARE responsible citizens!


Nahh we need a centralized bureacracy to do anything right? State < Jo smo.

This man is a hero if true.




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Lilitu
 


Check out the story of Angel Alvarez and the NYPD. Angel Alvarez got in to a fight with a man at a party. The guy pulled a gun on him. After the man shot Angel Alvarez, Angel took the gun from him. The cops saw Angel holding the gun and proceeded to shoot him at least 17 times. He survived, the guy the cops thought they were protecting was hit three times and died. Two cops were hit by bullets from other police officers. Three bystanders were also hit by police fire.

Of course at first the NYPD wanted to charge Alvarez for every person that got hit. However, later witness testimony came out saying that Alvarez was still fist fighting with the other gentleman when the first shot was fired. Other evidence has cleared him of shooting any officers or bystanders. He has only been charged with gun possesion because he had a firearm on his person.

So, looking at the two cases, I would say you have as much if not more to worry about with police officers.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Accidental Discharge is the same as a negligent discharge. It means that the person was handling the firearm improperly and the gun went off. The number for 2007 according to the CDC is 613. Of course 2,248 people were killed by medical mistakes. In the same year 29,846 people died from accidental poisoining. That is over 40 times more people killed by accidental poisoining in a single year. You are more likely to be killed by your doctor or poisoned than accidentally shot and killed because someone was negligent with a fire arm.


The relevant numbers here would be in percentages...

613 accidental deaths involving guns (divided by) the number of gun owners.

2,248 killed by medical mistakes (divided by) the number of people that recieved medical proceedures or treatments.

29,846 people died from accidental poisoining (divided by) the number of people that have potentially fatal substances in thier home.

Same with Auto deaths..(divided by) the number of people who own Automobiles.

Was it Mark Twain who said "There are lies, damn lies...and statistics" ?

I could ask for a comparison between gun owners and non-gun owners in terms of accidental gun death...what's that number?

How many more times likely is your child likely to die of an accidental gun discharge...if you own a gun vs. not own a gun?

In 2002 the USA led the world in Gun Deaths per capita..
www.medicinenet.com...



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


In reply to your statement regarding Loughner not showing restraint, he is 1 out of millions of gun owners...
edit on 14-1-2011 by Protostellar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Reply to post by maybereal11
 


The chances may be slightly higher simply because there is a gun.

I'd still rather have a gun in the house than a pool in the backyard if child deaths are the issue.

Statistically the parent who permits their child to visit a home with a pool is acting recklessly. Moreso than the parent of the child visiting a home with a gun in it.

freakonomicsbook.com...

But guns are oooooo scary and pools are nice and fun.


Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani’s house than in gunplay at Amy’s.



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 


edit on 14-1-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81


Please bring me some numbers to support your claim that civilians are more responsible with guns than police.


Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws, Clayton Cramer, David Kopel,
Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994

It states that studies have found about 2% of civilian shootings kill an innocent person. For police the number is 11%. So when it comes down to actually making sure it is the right person, the civilian usually gets it right. Actually they get it right 5.5 times more often.


I appreciate the effort, but this is a position paper constructed to support a given view. It is unapologetic about it's preconceptions and goals...feverishly pro-guns.

The "independance institute" is an organization dedicated to just that.
www.davekopel.com...

I have a hard time taking these kinds of sources seriously...I try not to cite the "Ban all guns..they kill children Institute" for my statistics either.

I will see what I can find from some independant research studies.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ahmonrarh
 


I can imagine, I'm definitely pro-gun sad for me we lost that battle years ago here so only police and criminals can get hold of them Even if you own a shotgun legally and you catch somebody in your house you would get charged with assault or murder if you acted it's a joke. It happened to a farmer a while back he got done for manslaughter



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by maybereal11
 


The chances may be slightly higher simply because there is a gun.

I'd still rather have a gun in the house than a pool in the backyard if child deaths are the issue.

Statistically the parent who permits their child to visit a home with a pool is acting recklessly. Moreso than the parent of the child visiting a home with a gun in it.

freakonomicsbook.com...


Yep. Wouldn't get a pool either...wouldn't send my child to go swimming unless I was present.

I am not for banning guns. I am for strict gun control laws...I want gun owners to be required to prove they are not wacko or mentally disabled. I want them to pass a quick psych screen. I want them to have a thorough criminal background check. I want them to have mandatory gun safety training...

I take issue with the argument...if criminals want a gun they will get one.

AZ is the largest exporter of guns used in crimes in the USA.

Guns used in crimes:
From the time that Gun leaves the manafucturer..it passes from a legal Dealer or legal Owner to a criminal, rarely are the guns used in crimes actually "stolen guns".

We can do better...not looking to ban guns...just looking to do better...and everyone..you, me and the NRA should be on board with that.

At some level the gun manufacturers in the USA are well aware of how many of thier gun "end-users" are criminals in the US or abroad. It represents a very large amount of profit...I don't care about thier profits.

It's that simple.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Didn't read the whole thread but.....

The title of the thread is hyperbole. Zamudo didn't tackle Loughner, he was already subdued by the time Zamudo got to him. Zamudo is a brave guy running to the sound of gunfire but it was over by the time he got there.

Yeah, he says he ALMOST shot the guy with the gun. The point is he DIDN'T shoot an innocent man. He acted responsibly and waited until he had a full understanding of the situation. As was also pointed out, the guy who picked up Loughner's gun was an idiot. If it had been police first on the scene, instead of a CCW holder, he would be dead.

Someone else asked why so much crime in the US. The answer is one we are incapable of facing honestly because it flies in the face of political correctness. If you remove violent crime committed by minorities the US crime rate is about the same as Lichenstein. You cannot point your finger at or act against some minorities without being labeled "racist" and "bigot". Those labels in todays United States will result in ended careers, loss of employment, and social ostacization. Consequently the real issue of minority driven crime is like the "elephant in the room", everyone knows it's there but no one will admit it.

I am a gun owner and CCW holder. I don't carry all the time but when I do it's a .357 Magnum revolver. I carry that because I've owned it almost 20 years and I'm good with it. Yeah, it's only six shots but the 125gr .357 Magnum JHP (jacketed hollow point) is probably the single deadliest handgun round in existence. If I do my part with shot placement I can reasonably expect the round to do it's part with disabling my attacker.

Another point. I took my CCW course, and carry, in FL. We were taught to fire until the threat is stopped. Often that does result in fatal wounds to the attacker but not always. If your attacker drops his weapon and collapses to the ground and you continue to fire you have crossed the line from self defense to murder and you will probably be prosecuted for it.

It continues to amaze me how anti-gun people keep asking, "But what good do guns do?". Repeated studies have shown guns are used about 2 MILLION times a year by legal gun owners to defend themselves or others. That figure dwarfs the 28,000 people a year killed by guns. Most of those legal uses of guns don't involve pulling the trigger, the mere presence of the gun changed the dynamics of the encounter in favor of the armed citizen.

30 years ago I was in a bad part of Savannah, GA in the middle of the night on business. A street criminal was in the process of climbing into my car when I pulled my .357 Magnum, different gun, on him. At the sight of the gun he let go of my car door and fled. Had I been unarmed I probably would have been badly hurt or killed. I was also on St. Croix immediately after Hurrican Hugo destroyed it. Twice my brother and I repelled with guns gangs of looters coming to sack my mother's destroyed house.

The gun control debate in this country is immune to reason and logic. It's not control of guns that gun grabbers in this country want but absolute control of the populace. The authors of the Constitution put the 2nd Amendment in there not to protect hunting, target shooting, or self defense. They put it in there as a last resort for the citizenry against a tyranical government. It is as valid and necessary today as it was then, maybe more so as our leaders rush headlong to embrace failed socialism.
edit on 14-1-2011 by wasco2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 





The relevant numbers here would be in percentages...


You are right it would be in the percentage of the entire population effected. Not in the number of people in sub group x, y, or z. As a whole gun deaths aren't even in the top ten causes of death in America.

There are roughly 260 million guns in America. As of 2006 there were 250,844,644 automobiles in America. Do you really want to compare the "percentages" there? It wouldn't work in your favor.



In 2002 the USA led the world in Gun Deaths per capita..


From your source,

The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths


That isn't the same as leading the world. It also includes suicides which skew the results. Suicide is rarely a snap decision and people that commit suicide would usually do so even if a gun was not available. By adding in suicides they make America look more dangerous than Mexico and Brazil. As a person related to people from Mexico, and that has spent time in Mexico, I can tell you that isn't true.

As for intentional deaths around the world in 2002, America came in behind many of the world's countries. With a percapita rate of 5.6. El Salvador, Honduras, Jamaica, Russia, Colombia, Peru, and many other nations with much stricter laws than ours had much higher per capita rates. Even if you add in the accidental deaths in America we would stay below many of those countries. Our rate would still be less than 6.5 per capita.




Was it Mark Twain who said "There are lies, damn lies...and statistics"?


Yeah, I believe it was, but you can not use statistics then put that line out there. You are either saying all statistics are lies, and thus invalidating your own argument, or implying that only your opposition's statistics are flawed. With out serious proof to back that up then you are just calling the other side liars.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Reply to post by maybereal11
 


If you want to do better lock up violent offenders for life and empower residents to be able to stand up against gang activity in their neighborhoods.

Revolving door prisons and candlelight vigils are useless.

Stacking more fees, restrictions and bureaucracy on the law abiding does nothing whatsoever to the criminal elements.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 

No problem. The main thing is that we got it sorted out and you corrected my misunderstanding of the situation. Sometimes I need a bit of a kick up the rear to take notice.


and also:
reply to post by maybereal11
 

Good points. Starred.

One of the things that puzzles me is that within the USA, a single nation with one (Federal) Constitution, there seems to be quite a variety of state-based laws and regulations concerning gun ownership and/or possession. I understand that the US Constitution allows for certain matters of law and regulation to be devolved to the various States of the Union, but in a matter as important as this I wonder why it is that these laws and regs couldn't be better standardized.

I'm not saying the various states should not be allowed to impose their own regulatory and legal standards. Far from it: it's their right. It's just that it seems much easier for people in some states to obtain and carry weapons (even concealed) than in other states. If the standards were pretty much the same everywhere, then at least it would obviate the argument that some places make it easier to obtain and carry guns.

Regards,

Mike



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 




I appreciate the effort, but this is a position paper constructed to support a given view. It is unapologetic about it's preconceptions and goals...feverishly pro-guns.





DAVID B. KOPEL is Research Director of the Independence Institute. His book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992) was chosen as Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology's Division of International Criminology.


He might have written the paper to support an ideal. However, he does have a reputation for solid scholarly work. In other words, it was an argumenative paper that used factual evidence from other people's research to prove a point.




Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal.


That bit of the paper is actually Kopel reporting the results of another academic's work. It isn't Kopel being dishonest.

He adds this bit of disclaimer from the original study.



The Missouri research does not prove that civilians are more competent than police in armed confrontations. Civilians can often choose whether or not to intervene in a crime in progress, whereas police officers are required to intervene. Being forced to intervene in all cases, police officers would naturally be expected to have a lower success rate, and to make more mistakes. Attorney Jeffrey Snyder elaborates:


So he attempts to be even handed when arguing his point. If you had read the report instead of making a snap judgement you would know that.

The telling part from that particular section of the report, in my opinion is,




The best evidence we have about what happens when people have carry permits is the experience of the 1/3 of American states that issue such permits routinely. From these states, the most detailed data are those compiled by the Dade County (Miami) police. As discussed above, the police kept track of every known incident involving the county's more than 21,000 handgun carry permitees over a six-year period. In that six-year period, there was one known incident of a crime victim having his gun taken away by the criminal. There were no known incidents of a crime victim injuring an innocent person by mistake. In some cases the handgun permit holder was successful in preventing a crime, and in some cases not, but in no case was any innocent person injured as a result of mistake by a permit-holder.


So, basically, in the first six years of CCW in Miami not one innocent person was hurt by a permit holder. Seems to me that is a pretty good record. When compared to the record of the New York and Chicago police department.

Richard Harding, "Killings by Chicago Police, 1969-70: An Empirical Study," 46 University of Southern California Law Review 284 (1973). See also Geller & Karales, "Shootings of and By Chicago Police: Uncommon Crises, Part I: Shootings by Chicago Police," 72 Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 1813 (1981).

The study shows that 14% of shootings by Chicago police officers were actually prima facie cass of murder or man slaughter.

There are also reports from 1994 that nearly 75% of LAPD officers involved in shootings were either reprimanded or retrained because the shooting was in violation of policy, proceedure, or law.

In other words, the evidence tends to show that civillian CCW permit holders are safer with their guns than cops in large departments.



edit on 14-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 





I am not for banning guns. I am for strict gun control laws...I want gun owners to be required to prove they are not wacko or mentally disabled. I want them to pass a quick psych screen. I want them to have a thorough criminal background check. I want them to have mandatory gun safety training...


More laws won't really help a whole lot. I'm sorry but most of the countries with higher murder rates than the US have terribly restrictive laws. The laws we have actually work very well, and would work better if properly enforced.

Who is going to give the quick psych screen? Who is going to pay for the screening? Will there be an exemption for women that need the gun in a hurry because of a stalker or abusive ex? How will it not add to the cost and become a prohibitive tax?

There is this thing called the NICS and it is a back ground check that must be done for every legal gun deal involving a FFL holder. The check can take any where from a few minutes to several days. It is administered by the FBI. Thousands of people are turned down for failing the NICS every year. The federal government does little or nothing to follow up on these people. Even though it is a federal crime to knowingly lie on the NICS paper work, or attempt to buy a gun using false information.

I agree with you, in a way, on one thing. If you want a CCW/CCH permit I believe you should have to take a class on proper gun safety. I also believe you should have to pass a shooting competency test. If you want a gun in your house then go for it. If you want to carry in public around me and my family, prove you can do it properly.




I take issue with the argument...if criminals want a gun they will get one.


Actually they will get one if they want it bad enough. In England they arrested a guy that was converting starter pistols in to functional firearms. He had sold more than 170 functional guns to gang members. They also arrested cops for selling confiscated guns back to gang members and drug dealers.

Prohibition didn't stop the sell of alcohol, it didn't stop the production and distribution of pornography, and it hasn't stemmed the tide of drug use in America. Prohibiting something when there is a demand for it leads to black markets, illegal economies, corruption, and crime. It makes matters much worse.

Criminals love prohibition. Just ask Al Capone, Sam Giancana, or the Mexican drug cartels. The evil make millions while thousands die or suffer.




AZ is the largest exporter of guns used in crimes in the USA.


Please cite a source. I have seen this claimed for many states. I just want to see where this particular claim comes from and their method of determining it. Most places cite "traced" guns. While the BATFE says that gun traces are by no means meant to be used as a method for determining any statistics when it comes to "crime guns."



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by maybereal11
 





The relevant numbers here would be in percentages...


You are right it would be in the percentage of the entire population effected. Not in the number of people in sub group x, y, or z. As a whole gun deaths aren't even in the top ten causes of death in America.

There are roughly 260 million guns in America. As of 2006 there were 250,844,644 automobiles in America. Do you really want to compare the "percentages" there? It wouldn't work in your favor.


260 Million guns?? Considering gun owners are apt to own multiple guns...I wouldn't use number of guns to determine a rate, but rather gun owners...ditto cars.





Was it Mark Twain who said "There are lies, damn lies...and statistics"?


Yeah, I believe it was, but you can not use statistics then put that line out there. You are either saying all statistics are lies, and thus invalidating your own argument, or implying that only your opposition's statistics are flawed. With out serious proof to back that up then you are just calling the other side liars.



Niether...just pointing out that statistics are one of those things that can be perfectly accurate and dishonest at the same time and are often used in a dishonest way by everybody in a debate...intentionally and unintentionally.

Yes...I am saying, think about my stats and whether they really represent what I am claiming. Question them...becuase I will do the same with anyone else's.

It really requires thought..

Car accidents...per hours the average driver drives? vs. Gun accidents vs. hours spent handling a gun?

Car accidents as a percentage of car owners vs. gun accidents (not just deaths) as a percentage of gun owners?

See everyone is driving all the time and everyone owns a car...not so with guns. How do we factor that in? Should we factor that in? Why or why not?

How is all that relevant...I don't have time to deep think all the facets of it all and come to an honest conclusion, but IMO there are many questions to answer before feverishly throwing out a stat and declaring it the end of the debate. Logical math to be done.
edit on 14-1-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Please cite a source. I have seen this claimed for many states. I just want to see where this particular claim comes from and their method of determining it. Most places cite "traced" guns. While the BATFE says that gun traces are by no means meant to be used as a method for determining any statistics when it comes to "crime guns."



I will when I have time later today...I have seen it in the news also, but wouldn't lean on a news story claim without a source either. My recollection was reading a research study sponsored by the BATF aimed at determining the origin of guns used in crimes where the criminal was not the registered owner and the study outlined illegal gun sales in the US/Illegal gun dealers and AZ was at the top of the list....now I have to google up the study again. I'll see if I can find the link via one of my posts from last year.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81



AZ is the largest exporter of guns used in crimes in the USA.


Please cite a source. I have seen this claimed for many states. I just want to see where this particular claim comes from and their method of determining it. Most places cite "traced" guns. While the BATFE says that gun traces are by no means meant to be used as a method for determining any statistics when it comes to "crime guns."



I was wrong

see here
www.prnewswire.com... 13464334.html

link not working...see here for a cut and paste in browser
[ www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gun-laws-examined-in-wake-of-arizona-shootings-states-with-weak-gun-laws-export-far-more-guns-used-in-crimes-11346433 4.html ]

and here
www.tracetheguns.org...

Both very interesting reading. The second link has a report available for download.

30% of the guns sold in AZ are used in a crime.

When adjusted for per capita AZ ranks 13th for crime guns exported.

They rank 1 to Mexico


edit on 14-1-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Ok I get the impression that yours and Exuberant1's dislike of police officers is more than offset by your love of Red Herring.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Lilitu
 


Actually I have no dislike of police officers. I am related to them. I have trained with them. In fact, I am in the process of moving in to the profession.

There is no red herring. People in this thread keep saying or implying that civillians with guns are more dangerous than police. When in fact that is not the case. In a single event the NYPD shot more innocent people than all of the CCW permit holders in Miami over a six year period.

I was showing that police are not exactly the most competent gun handlers in the world.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





They made no gun zones at schools to prevent school shootings. There has never been a single school shooting since. See it worked perfectly!


Really, then what are these...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.foxnews.com...

Do you need more because there is a few more that can be posted.

Sorry if you were just being sarcastic with your post then disregard this and I apologize, but if not then this a post for you.


edit on 14-1-2011 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
65
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join