We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → NYC and Chicago Shootings.
| 55 | 5878 |
Well, we shared our thoughts on the "Batman" Shootings.
Chicago: lice say 13 people were shot and wounded in a 30-minute spate of violence in Chicago, including eight gunned down on a single street.
olice say a drive-by shooting on Chicago's South Side late Thursday wounded seven men and one woman ranging in age from 14 to 20 years. Two of the victims were taken to Comer Children's Hospital. Most are in stable condition. Police say the 19-year-old woman wounded was shot in the arm while walking to work.
Five people were wounded in three other shootings around the same time.
Police say 19 people were shot in Chicago on Thursday night and early Friday.
Source.
NYC: Shots fired by a man who had been fired from his job (a year ago) - killed two people, once being his 'ex'-boss. The numbers of injured people shot may include accidental shots from the police. (Says Mayor Bloomberg in his statement). By. The. Police.
Views? Thoughts? Gun law arguments? Thoughts for the people affected?
- 55 Replies
Well erm, lice say nothing, but i believe the police do, sorry !
I really don't think gun laws have much to do with killings like "a guy killed his boss who just fired him". If some psycho has a specific person in their head that they want to kill, they are going to kill that person. Think about it, if you really wanted to kill someone, it would be extremely easy, gun or no gun.
I really don't think gun laws have much to do with killings like "a guy killed his boss who just fired him". If some psycho has a specific person in their head that they want to kill, they are going to kill that person. Think about it, if you really wanted to kill someone, it would be extremely easy, gun or no gun.
I hold the same opinion - If guns weren't as accessible, surely he would have grabbed a knife. But i think guns are in a different league, as it made it easier for him to injure more people. With a knife, this might not have happened.
I really don't think gun laws have much to do with killings like "a guy killed his boss who just fired him".
if guns were not around everywhere then he could not just get 1.
he might have attacked him but thats noting like BOOM! HeAdShOT!!!
Maybe you know my stance on this... where I live we have stricter gun laws and absolutely no problem..
.. but I'm almost more afflicted by how badly the police behaves recently. Heard of two cases where a person was shot to death by a ridiculous amount of shots after a conflict with the police, now this.. don't they have anger management or something?
sorry to tell you, you dont hear about people shooting in center of cities in Israel because they got fired/got domped/are crazy. in Israel, they do what they do in the rest of the plante, the unarmed plante. they suicide. its sound horrible, butfrom time to time you hear about a man got fired in Usa and start shooting people in rage. its even more Frustrating when the coward kill himself after it, not able to confront his deeds. i mean, god dammet! you are sad? go talk about it with someone, why killing peoples? why destroing other peoples life?
its just such an egoistic view "i feel bad so everyone need to feel bad too".
and yea hahiha, its does seems like the policemans are affraid too now, after all these shooting. but dont forget, the ystand against a man, who can suddenly reveal he have a bomb of a gun. they risk there life against a potential crazy man, like in the batman massacer.
Despite the overwhelming number of guns in America, we're still pretty safe. When someone freaks out and kills other people, it's always going to be a shock. They're sick, twisted, individuals who will find a way to kill if they really want to. Guns don't lead people to violence, they simply provide a means of violence to the super few sick and twisted people. That being said, we can't cater to the super few, because most gun owners are not sick and twisted by any means at all.
Innocent, good, people use guns to defend themselves and their loved ones. We can not take away these guns, used for self defense, because some people are sick and twisted ********.
its sound horrible, butfrom time to time you hear about a man got fired in Usa and start shooting people in rage.
Considering the absolute redicilous size of the human population, on top of the efficiency to spread news, we're going to hear more about these crimes.
Hearing about more crime doesn't mean there actually is more crime, not statistically at least.
I don't buy the whole "it will make guns harder to obtain" argument, because most people use guns for self defense or hunting. If you want to stop gun crimes, look for solutions that don't restrict our freedoms.
NYC: Shots fired by a man who had been fired from his job (a year ago) - killed two people, once being his 'ex'-boss. The numbers of injured people shot may include accidental shots from the police. (Says Mayor Bloomberg in his statement). By. The. Police.
Friendly fire is a very real threat whenever guns are used in a combat situation. If well trained, well equipped soldiers in a combat situation with few civilians can end up hitting things they do not want, then comparatively poorly trained, poorly equipped people who are basically civilians with a ton of actual civilians between them in the enemy will defiantly hit a few friendly targets. It would be stupid to think that they would not.
I hold the same opinion - If guns weren't as accessible, surely he would have grabbed a knife. But i think guns are in a different league, as it made it easier for him to injure more people. With a knife, this might not have happened.
And if someone else had a gun- and was trained well with it, he could have just been shot saving EVERYONE. He could have, just as easily, killed the same amount of people using a knife. There was an example of this in China not to long ago. I would take the chance of him getting shot and saving everyone above him getting a knife and maybe killing less people.
if guns were not around everywhere then he could not just get 1.
he might have attacked him but thats noting like BOOM! HeAdShOT!!!
Humans have been using blades and such since the very start of our civilization. We use them because they are extremely effective. Shooting into a crowd is essentially just as effective as stabbing into an unarmed crowd.
Maybe you know my stance on this... where I live we have stricter gun laws and absolutely no problem..
Where I live we have less strict gun laws and no problem. Maybe gun laws are not the problem?
.. but I'm almost more afflicted by how badly the police behaves recently. Heard of two cases where a person was shot to death by a ridiculous amount of shots after a conflict with the police, now this.. don't they have anger management or something?
Yeah! How dare they not be perfect shots? Trying to save more people but doing it somewhat poorly, for shame. After all, it is extremely easy for a poorly trained man to shoot at a small target from a distance using a hand gun, right?
Yeah! How dare they not be perfect shots? Trying to save more people but doing it somewhat poorly, for shame. After all, it is extremely easy for a poorly trained man to shoot at a small target from a distance using a hand gun, right?
All I'm saying is, when a man is literally surrounded by policemen and still doesn't want to calm down (not: lay any weapons down or anything, but simply: calm down), after the police gave a few warnings, they could of simply shoot him in the legs instead of transforming him into Swiss cheese. Seriously.
All I'm saying is, when a man is literally surrounded by policemen and still doesn't want to calm down (not: lay any weapons down or anything, but simply: calm down), after the police gave a few warnings, they could of simply shoot him in the legs instead of transforming him into Swiss cheese. Seriously.
Are they not kind of, trained to do this? I mean, is there a reason why firing means killing someone, minus protection of course?
All I'm saying is, when a man is literally surrounded by policemen and still doesn't want to calm down (not: lay any weapons down or anything, but simply: calm down), after the police gave a few warnings, they could of simply shoot him in the legs instead of transforming him into Swiss cheese. Seriously.
What the hell do you think policemen are? Like I said, they are pretty much civilians. When facing down an armed criminal, they are likely scared out of their mind. Now please tell me, how in the hell do you just shoot out someone's leg? This is not a movie, getting hit by a bullet is really hearts. "Just" a shot to the leg could kill him anyway...
Here, lets give an example. Me and my brother where playing the game "Army of Two: 40 Day". During part of the game, you can sneak up behind the leader and keep him hostage, making the others surrender and allowing you to capture them all, which opens up a chest. During one of these particular times, I had the leader captured and the other two guys where surrendering. But then the building blew up as an effect. My brother, being an untrained civilian who was started in what was basically a combat situation, opened fire and killed the two guys who had already surrendered, closing the chests. The cops are the same way, even if they have pretty much beat the guy, if something startles them (Like say gunfire of the one cop trying to shoot down his legs) then they will open fire as well.
Not to mention the difficulties of not killing him outright, it would be difficult to cripple him temporarily without hitting an artery or something. He would easily have bleed to death, assuming that he was still armed and angry it would be difficult to get him to the hospital. Really, I can't see how it would be even possible to do anything of the sort, unless you have the world's greatest sniper team or something like that.
In my opinion, guns should be legal. Not only would banning firearms obliterate the hunting industry in America (as well as cripple the firearm and ammunition suppliers), but it would be unconstitutional. Through many various house rulings and bills, our government has been creating laws to bypass the "law of the land", most heinously the Bill of Rights (Patriot Act for example). To openly challenge the constitution and take away a citizen's right to bear arms is to open the door to repealing our rights to free speech, religion, natural-born equality, and all of our other liberties.
Not to mention the difficulties of not killing him outright, it would be difficult to cripple him temporarily without hitting an artery or something. He would easily have bleed to death, assuming that he was still armed and angry it would be difficult to get him to the hospital. Really, I can't see how it would be even possible to do anything of the sort, unless you have the world's greatest sniper team or something like that.
Even then, it does not justify shooting 50+ times on someone. Shoot him in the leg, or in the chest if you're bad, but why do they, like, empty their barrels to make sure the guy is dead? Policemen have the right to be afraid too, but they should be trained to handle such situations even though they occur rarely.
Seeing as how illinois has the ninth strictest gun laws in the nation, and how New York has the fifth strictst gun laws in the nation (Source), shouldn't these crimes not have happened?
shouldn't these crimes not have happened?
The problem is, even if you place strict gun laws upon a state, people are still going to find ways to obtain, sell, and use guns by their own devices.
You must be logged in to post a reply!