Three more Police Officers Killed (2 Viewers)

[gk5717]

Sorry to report 3 Pittsburg, Pa. police officers were shot and killed this morning as they responded to a disturbance call.
Suspect was armed with an ak-47 and a rifle.
Maybe since they were ambushed it might not of helped, but it's about time officers are on a level field in regards to the weapons they carry.
Gary

 

[4th Hussar]

I am appalled that big cities with high crime rates do not provide their police the training and weaponry they need. Are they afraid of lawsuit or citizen complaints about militarizing the police ?

 

[Spitfrnd]

I am appalled that big cities with high crime rates do not provide their police the training and weaponry they need. Are they afraid of lawsuit or citizen complaints about militarizing the police ?

It is always sad and appalling to hear such news but I don't think an arms race is the answer. Training of course is key, as is protection but larger caliber weapons with higher rates of fire would seem like something citizens should worry about. That is what special units are for.

 

[kilted vampire]

Unfortunately there is no training for being ambushed. Things are going a little haywire right now. People are scared and not thinking straight. This does not make sense to me. I can not begin to understand why people think this is ok behavior. What gives them the right to respond this way?

 

[Cardigan600]

Yo Troopers, very sad news about the three officers, just doing there job. But as I see it over here its never going to go away. Whats that four in two weeks now, God knows how many innocents in the last couple of years, schools etc. Watching Fox news about the Mexico border problem and how many have been killed hundreds, and you cannot buy a gun in Mexico, so they just cross the border and buy an Arsenal of weapons in the states its so easy. While the Americans have this love affair with guns, I expect to see this happening all the time it never surprises me. As soon as some Bozo gets miffed of about something, they just go out and take out as many innocent people as they can for no reason. Somebody over there has got to wake up one day..
Bernard.

 

[Capitolron]

Yo Troopers, very sad news about the three officers, just doing there job. But as I see it over here its never going to go away. Whats that four in two weeks now, God knows how many innocents in the last couple of years, schools etc. Watching Fox news about the Mexico border problem and how many have been killed hundreds, and you cannot buy a gun in Mexico, so they just cross the border and buy an Arsenal of weapons in the states its so easy. While the Americans have this love affair with guns, I expect to see this happening all the time it never surprises me. As soon as some Bozo gets miffed of about something, they just go out and take out as many innocent people as they can for no reason. Somebody over there has got to wake up one day..
Bernard.

Bernard

I don't want to start a long drawn out fight over the American's Rights to own Firearms - but, you made a statement that is simply not true.

You cannot just cross over the US Border and buy a Weapon like it was a Cheeseburger. Understanding you Europeans have had your Guns stripped away from you a long time ago by your socialist governments - that is not how Weapons Sales are done in the United States.

We have laws which people who want to buy Guns must adhere to - like any commodity - yes, there is some illegal trade - probally the same like Drugs or Even Televisions in your Country - however, this is the very rare and usually the exception - not the rule with Guns in the US.

Anti-Gun advocates believe if you simply took everyones Gun away - all crime would go away too. Yea, Right

Regards, Ron

 

[Rob]

I must say i was saddened to hear of these recent deaths and also to hear whats going on in Phoenix Ariz right now.I have twice had the pleasure of visiting this city and to hear of the everyday kidnappings that are going on is a real shock.I hope the US government can perhaps increase security around the border with Mexico and try and get this under control,did i hear the army are being brought in to help the situation?.

Rob

 

[VIRIATO]

To me it's hard to understand why one needs to have an AK 47 at home. My deceased father was a hunter and he had hunting shotguns at home, as well as a personal defense revolver, all legal of course. Once he passed away, me and my Mother just sold it all away (legally, of course). But a machine gun? What for? Why? To shoot who? Is it that the only reason that a normal citizen needs an AK 47 is because many others have the same firepower, put in other words, the arms race?

Paulo

 

[theBaron]

Well, actually, it wasn't a normal citizen who had the weapon, it was a criminal, and chances are, he didn't obtain it legally.

If I wanted to own an AK-47 (which is actually an assault rifle, btw, not a machine gun), I have to obtain a federal permit for it. The problem is that if someone breaks into my home and steals it, the trail ends there.

And why would a citizen in good standing want one? You have to be an American, with our history, to understand that fully. A healthy distrust of government is part of our political culture. The Founders were deathly afraid of big government, because they knew how oppressive it can be. The idea was that an armed citizenry is a check on the tyranny of a large government.

Totalitarian governments all understand this, instinctively. That's why, when they have come to power in countries where there was private ownership of firearms, they confiscate them.

 

[Spitfrnd]

To me it's hard to understand why one needs to have an AK 47 at home. My deceased father was a hunter and he had hunting shotguns at home, as well as a personal defense revolver, all legal of course. Once he passed away, me and my Mother just sold it all away (legally, of course). But a machine gun? What for? Why? To shoot who? Is it that the only reason that a normal citizen needs an AK 47 is because many others have the same firepower, put in other words, the arms race?

Paulo

Well Paulo, you cannot buy an AK 47 enabled for automatic fire LEGALLY in this country. So if the one use had that capability, then it was either illegally modified or illegally purchased. The AK 47s you can legally buy here are no more dangerous than any other semi automatic rifle commonly used for hunting. As to why an AK 47 and not a browning; simple collector's interest I would say. So this is not really the arms race issue of which I spoke.

Benard, it is fortunate for you that the UK has no crimes of violence and shootings I suppose but the short answer remains that people kill, whatever the tool.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Well, actually, it wasn't a normal citizen who had the weapon, it was a criminal, and chances are, he didn't obtain it legally.

If I wanted to own an AK-47 (which is actually an assault rifle, btw, not a machine gun), I have to obtain a federal permit for it. The problem is that if someone breaks into my home and steals it, the trail ends there.

And why would a citizen in good standing want one? You have to be an American, with our history, to understand that fully. A healthy distrust of government is part of our political culture. The Founders were deathly afraid of big government, because they knew how oppressive it can be. The idea was that an armed citizenry is a check on the tyranny of a large government.

Totalitarian governments all understand this, instinctively. That's why, when they have come to power in countries where there was private ownership of firearms, they confiscate them.

You are absolutely correct concerning the rationale for the right to bear arms, but it is a rationale that is sadly outdated in our world. In a country where the government controls M1A2 Abrams Tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, F15 Fighter Planes, and nuclear weapons, not to mention soldeirs with body armor and the best automatic weapons, the days of the government being afraid of its citizens are long gone. In our lifetime, when a citizen seeks to stand up to the government, he ends up both demonized and dead.

 

[marco55]

A few years ago I heard of one country in the caribbean outlawing guns.The result,less shootings,more stabbings.If people want to kill they will one way or another.A major problem in the US is the resentment of authority,especially when you see many,many people of authority being arrested everyday.The gap between the have's and have nots is widening and this is turning into despair and hatred and this is going to get much worse if they don't start leveling the field a little bit.
Mark

 

[trooper]

I was always under the impression that the right to keep and bear arms in the US was to make provision for an active militia, not to protect the citizens from government, but I bow to the knowledge of our American friends.
Over here the British government made an instant knee jerk reaction to a terrible incident at Dunblane and banned all legally held handguns overnight. The end result has been that there has been an upsurge in shootings including some involving automatic weapons. According to our politicians this is down to deactivated weapons being reworked and BB guns being converted to live fire, despite official reports which deny this. Nevertheless they are using this as an excuse to bring in yet more legislation which will affect law abiding collectors, re-enactors and airgun shooters. And the use of illegal arms still carries on. I don't know what the answer to all the violence is, but the British experience would indicate that removing legally held weapons has little effect on the criminal elements among us.

 

[OzDigger]

Imo if you can't kill an animal with a bolt action rifle then you are either a poor shot or using the wrong caliber. Therefore there is little doubt in my mind that there is no reason for the use of semi/automatic weapons in other than military situations.

You will never stop criminals getting hold of weapons. However you will find that most random serial killings are done by people without serious criminal records. Consequently the banning of semi/automatic weapons will limit the damage done by the average Joe that just went nuts one day.

 

[1879fanatic]

I find that folks arguments from other countries debating my rights, to be...boring. You're already clamped down, Little too political to be discussing on the forum for me, but I won't %itch.
Mike

 

[VIRIATO]

Mistrust of government, now that's something I can identify with...
I believe OZDigger makes a good point, but our American friends have enlightened me on their regulations, especially on automatic fire weapons. Contrary to what many people think, this is not just an American problem but a global one. Have you heard of the shooting cases in Germany or Finland recently? So to me this is just another question of building a fine balance between rights, liberties and security restrictions, American or non American. I don't take the view that this is an American thing or European thing or believe in any kind of moral superiority on this coming from either side of the pond.


Paulo

 

[Spitfrnd]

Imo if you can't kill an animal with a bolt action rifle then you are either a poor shot or using the wrong caliber. Therefore there is little doubt in my mind that there is no reason for the use of semi/automatic weapons in other than military situations.

You will never stop criminals getting hold of weapons. However you will find that most random serial killings are done by people without serious criminal records. Consequently the banning of semi/automatic weapons will limit the damage done by the average Joe that just went nuts one day.

Sadly that is completely wrong. First off, there is little difference between an semi automatic rifle and a pistol of any kind; they both fire their next shot without cocking. Even revolvers can do that and there are few bolt action pistols. Of course a rifle gives more range but pistols can be retrofited with barrel extensions to partial make up for that. A ban on higher calibers might be helpful, especially those that defeat body armor but even that is a slippery slope. The simple truth is that if there is a will, the so-called average Joe that goes nuts will find a way and the experience here has been that those nut cases are not so average in their gun collecting. Such a ban would make it more difficult for the non nut cases to legitimately obtain weapons for collection or otherwise but have little effect of averting mass killings.

 

[jrsteel]

Well, actually, it wasn't a normal citizen who had the weapon, it was a criminal, and chances are, he didn't obtain it legally.

If I wanted to own an AK-47 (which is actually an assault rifle, btw, not a machine gun), I have to obtain a federal permit for it. The problem is that if someone breaks into my home and steals it, the trail ends there.

And why would a citizen in good standing want one? You have to be an American, with our history, to understand that fully. A healthy distrust of government is part of our political culture. The Founders were deathly afraid of big government, because they knew how oppressive it can be. The idea was that an armed citizenry is a check on the tyranny of a large government.

Totalitarian governments all understand this, instinctively. That's why, when they have come to power in countries where there was private ownership of firearms, they confiscate them.

Sorry there is NO reason for anyone to own an AK-47. I can see owning a rifle for hunting but there's no reason for a civilian to own assault rifles. You want to fire assault rifles, have some guts and join the military. Most of the people who own these things are gun nut cowards, like the wacko in Pittsburgh.

 

[Sahara]

My two cents on this is simple. The guy had it all prepared and planned way before the actual incident actually occurred. You hear all the time about individuals carrying assault rifles that lead to shootings but it is very rare that those individuals are wearing body armor.
The average US citizen doesn't wake up every morning and think to himself "I need Body Armor". This person clearly had it in his mindset that one day he would need that BA because he believed that he had the potential of being shot. This individual knew one day he would place himself in a very dangerous situation and he wanted to take all the precaution that he could.
As far as fire power goes I must say I work for a Dept. that is very aware of the dangers out there and supports their officers by supplying the right equipment. Myself in particular I carry an assortment of weapons while on duty (2 glocks, 1 shotgun with buck and slug and an AR-15 with no less then 5 Mags of 30).
I hate to say this but I believe officers killed in the line of duty is just gonna go up. Its a shame but more and more officers are more afraid of the legality of the incident and fail to act and that quick second where they stop and think to themselves am I gonna get sued will get them killed. Every time you turn around someone is take some officer to ct. for something.

 

[Sahara]

I don't think it really matters much if a person is told he can't have an AK-47 etc... Its not the guns that are responsible its the people that use them. If not with an AK-47 then they will find another means a simple 22, a knife etc... If the person has the determination and the means to kill someone then they will do it with or with out an assault rifle.

When I worked with the Detroit police Dept. I worked on a three man car. Both of my partners loss their spouses in the line of duty. Do you think I am mad at the gun or the gun supplier. No I'm pissed at the knuckle head that killed my friends!

JW/MS Rest in Peace you will never be forgotten.