Multiple People Reported Shot Near Empire State Building

There is a site with a lot of interesting stats on guns and US stats from how many in various categories to ranking and dollars with import/export and regulation specifics. this is one section of particular interest, but it's certainly worth going to as there are several more tabs with additional data.


Source - gunpolicy.org

If one puts aside rights, the law and just general common sense on ability for self defense in a dangerous world, the math itself dictates what is possible or realistic and what isn't.

When you look at it directly, as those stats show, even confiscation becomes a thing that would require the active cooperation of the population. Numbers wouldn't allow it to be forced...and nearly half the nation that comprise the gun owners, will never hand over a Constitutional Right by choice.

So....... I guess we go after the evil men do and not the tool they pick up to do it with. It's about all that remains.

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by Sly1one

 

On the contrary. I may be one of the few using logic here. By the logic of gun nutters (more guns make us safer), there should thus also be NO limit on what weapon one can own, right? Why not mini nukes? I am serious. Why stop at guns? I always love how the Second Amendment lovers say they should have as many and as much guns as they want but somehow they draw a line at what even they think to be reasonable, such as not being able to personally own a howitzer. Why? The line you draw is 100% subjective and arbitrary, as the line is not drawn in the Amendment. So if you acknowledge there should be a line, then saying let make guns easier to own is 100% contradictory to your logic.

you are boring me with your trivial nonsense reaching to make a point and its just a waste of time at this point...not to mention were going off-topic so I'm done with this on this thread, you can open up another for this discussion if you like tho

In any event, It is a ridiculous argument to say arming more of the population would stop bad guys on the street. All you'd get is shoot outs by a bunch of wannabe warriors with rounds hitting innocents left and right. Multiple people drawing weapons until no one knows who the bad guys are and who are the good guys. The cops arrive an they'd have no clue who is the "shooter" and who are the defenders, so they'd start blasting away at them too. Maybe we make the bad guys where strobe lights on their heads.

Your point is devoid of logic.

again reaching and fabricating nonsense to try and paint some unrealistic picture of chaos around gun ownership. We have owned guns for hundreds of years and the above situation you just illustrated has never happened, there isn't pure chaos in the streets with people running around shooting people because they don't know whose good or bad...it just doesn't happen that way...I'm sure this won't sway you though you seem to have your mind pretty fixed on how un-inventing the gun would bring about some utopian wet dream...

Sorry to the op and everyone for derailing this thread-discussion I'm finished with it

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by Sly1one

 

On the contrary. I may be one of the few using logic here. By the logic of gun nutters (more guns make us safer), there should thus also be NO limit on what weapon one can own, right? Why not mini nukes? I am serious. Why stop at guns? I always love how the Second Amendment lovers say they should have as many and as much guns as they want but somehow they draw a line at what even they think to be reasonable, such as not being able to personally own a howitzer. Why? The line you draw is 100% subjective and arbitrary, as the line is not drawn in the Amendment. So if you acknowledge there should be a line, then saying let make guns easier to own is 100% contradictory to your logic.

In any event, It is a ridiculous argument to say arming more of the population would stop bad guys on the street. All you'd get is shoot outs by a bunch of wannabe warriors with rounds hitting innocents left and right. Multiple people drawing weapons until no one knows who the bad guys are and who are the good guys. The cops arrive an they'd have no clue who is the "shooter" and who are the defenders, so they'd start blasting away at them too. Maybe we make the bad guys where strobe lights on their heads.

Your point is devoid of logic.

Logic or no, I seriously doubt you can back up your statement with any fact whatsoever and it amount to nothing more than rambling opinion, a wrong one at that!

And yes 2A does not detail what weapons are covered, the fairest OPINION I've seen says it should be standard light infantry weapons of the day. However precedent was somewhat set when private citizens did in fact own cannons.

Some of the injured were accidentally shot by police?

Originally posted by tport17
Some of the injured were accidentally shot by police?

yikes

Originally posted by tport17
Some of the injured were accidentally shot by police?

Is there a source to this? That is quite a serious claim.

reply to post by BlackProjects


Listening to the newsreports this morning, a couple of thoughts came to mind.

In thinking about the folks in the Middle East, and how they kill each other on a daily basis. They are constantly murdering one another.

Are we becoming the same way? Are we going to start murdering one another on a daily basis like they do in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Also, I was listening to a woman speak who had observed the event. She ran across the street after thinking she would be safe. First thing she saw was a woman on the ground who had been shot in the foot. Then, she turned and began "taking pictures of the scene".

"Taking pictures of the scene". Instead of trying to comfort, calm, or assist the woman who had been shot?
Why? Did she want to keep the photo's in an album? Did she think she could/will gain money by selling her photos to a magazine or newspaper?

WTH is going to become of us. We seem to be reaching, yet, a new low.

Bloomberg might want to disarm his police. Looks like they might have done more of the damage.

reply to post by rottenrascals


The mayor just said this in the news briefing.

One shot, One kill

isn't the NYPD motto.

The zealot pro-gun rabble get put on overdrive every time an incident of gun violence makes its way into the media,

And with the same unenlightened arguments and witticisms.

There is something disturbing about beliefs that have to be so excessively defended that the person loses sight of the 'bigger picture'

Many Christian's infantile beliefs fall into the same category,

people who clutch their bibles all day long, quoting passages verbatim to try and get others to acknowledge the 'truth' by repetition...

The point is, when you have to try so hard something is obviously not working right with you.

friendly fire says the mayor?

and theres video ...

reply to post by BellaSabre


This is not a new low. It really grinds my gears when people act so suprised that others can be so violent.

We are humans. In New York, in Chicago, in Norway, and in the Middle East. All humans. We are prone to violence. There are about 50 murders committed each day in the US. Some are publicized, others are not.

And as for the taking a picture thing, that you can blame the Bystander Effect for. This was near the Empire State Building. Thousands of people are right next to it at any given time. The lady just assumed there was someone else who would help.

Originally posted by tport17
Some of the injured were accidentally shot by police?

Just heard that t00, l00king f0r s0urce.

I w0nder h0w many, 6 maybe 7 they sh0t

Originally posted by tport17
reply to post by rottenrascals

 

The mayor just said this in the news briefing.

Oh wow. Bloomberg is usually the first to defend his personal army, seems they might have royally muffed this one up for him to be stating that.

If they start widely reporting that cops are shooting civilians, things could get really ugly here.

Conference basically said the shooter was Jeffery Johnson. He did not work at the Empire State Building but at a local store. He was fired last year. He shot the manager three times and then attempted to shoot the police who then shot him. People were apparently in the middle of the shooting and were shot. No one is in critical condition. 9 people were shot, 2 women and 7 men all middle aged.


That about right, to those that watched?

Originally posted by djr33222
The point is, when you have to try so hard something is obviously not working right with you.

edit on 24-8-2012 by djr33222 because: (no reason given)

Where were you during America's Revolutionary War? Boy you could've talked some sense into those hard working revolutionaries no? How about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I'm pretty sure he put quite a bit of effort into his movement, was something not right about it? In fact I'm pretty sure that every human advancement could be attributed to people that tried hard to bring their ideas to fruition.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


As yet the mass media has been unable to link the shooter to either Iran or Syria. -Must be so frustrating.

Originally posted by spaceg0at
friendly fire says the mayor?

and theres video ...

CCTV 0r s0me numb nut wh0 yanked their cam ph0ne 0ut while the sh00ting was g0ing 0n./