• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

And again, a nutcase with a gun. (Sacramento)

tbburg

NAXJA Forum User
Location
Scottsdale AZ
Oh S**T. Why can't we find these lunatics and lock them up? :doh:

The New Year’s Eve celebration in Old Sacramento was violently interrupted by a wild scene on Monday night when five people were shot, including at least two people who died.

The violence erupted in the 1000 block of 2nd Street at the Sports Corner Cafe near Fanny Ann’s Saloon at about 9:38 p.m., according to the Sacramento Police Department. It wasn’t clear if the shootings happened inside or in front of the establishment.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/12/31/4-shot-during-new-years-eve-gathering-in-old-sacramento/
 
Or allow people to defend themselves, reduce the death toll, and save the taxpayers money spent on trial & imprisonment.

Hasn't it been shown that an active shooter stopped by an armed citizen results in a death toll a little under one-fifth as opposed to when the police have to stop them - including killing the shooter?!?

Leaving aside the other statistics -
- You're something like one-twentieth as likely to be a victim of "mistaken identity" with an armed citizen than a police officer
- The "spray and pray" doctrine doesn't get used by armed citizens anywhere near as much as with police officers (cf: Amadou Diallo, North Hollywood, Platt & Matix)
- The cops have to show up. Often, they have to set up C&C posts for their response - can taken anywhere between 5 and 45 minutes before a response can be mounted. Armed citizens are often on-scene - available immediately.

Given a choice, I'd much rather carry my own sidearm and handle the situation myself. I'm not averse to calling for help, but there are situations that demand immediate response - I'd rather keep the death toll down to about two than let it go up to two dozen (the first person the shooter kills, and the shooter himself.)
 
oh jesus, not again. My condolences... :(
 
way to go with biased reporting again, what exactly makes it sound like a glock, I hear that a bushmaster sounds the same, I am so tired of news reporting
 
Wait. Don't all those places have very tight gun control? I thought gun laws were supposed to protect people?

I was thinking the same thing. I'm not a gun enthusiast, I do have a couple for self defense, but regardless I don't like seeing rights getting trampled. It always seems the places with the tightest control has the most victim generating attacks. School, army base, etc. Places guns just aren't allowed. Sounds like a case study in itself.
 
Or allow people to defend themselves, reduce the death toll, and save the taxpayers money spent on trial & imprisonment.

Hasn't it been shown that an active shooter stopped by an armed citizen results in a death toll a little under one-fifth as opposed to when the police have to stop them - including killing the shooter?!?

Leaving aside the other statistics -
- You're something like one-twentieth as likely to be a victim of "mistaken identity" with an armed citizen than a police officer
- The "spray and pray" doctrine doesn't get used by armed citizens anywhere near as much as with police officers (cf: Amadou Diallo, North Hollywood, Platt & Matix)
- The cops have to show up. Often, they have to set up C&C posts for their response - can taken anywhere between 5 and 45 minutes before a response can be mounted. Armed citizens are often on-scene - available immediately.

Given a choice, I'd much rather carry my own sidearm and handle the situation myself. I'm not averse to calling for help, but there are situations that demand immediate response - I'd rather keep the death toll down to about two than let it go up to two dozen (the first person the shooter kills, and the shooter himself.)
I'm not talking about people with guns. I'm wondering if there's some way we can lock up the lunatics. In so many of these cases that come up there were obvious signs that the perpetrators had problems, and all we hear is "Well, we can't violate their civil rights!" So instead the safety nannies propose laws to violate everyone elses civil rights.
 
Wait. Don't all those places have very tight gun control? I thought gun laws were supposed to protect people?

Guns do protect people here also; except its the bad guys being protected from their victims getting the upper hand.
 
I'm not talking about people with guns. I'm wondering if there's some way we can lock up the lunatics. In so many of these cases that come up there were obvious signs that the perpetrators had problems, and all we hear is "Well, we can't violate their civil rights!" So instead the safety nannies propose laws to violate everyone elses civil rights.

I understand where you're coming from - it's just that we're probably not going to be able to catch these people before they become a problem.

So, let's create an environment where they can get weeded out in jig time...
 
Every incident in the past few months have happened in a gun free zone, When are people gonna realize people that want to kill others, then themselves don't give a shit about gun laws.
 
Back
Top