On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 13:45:40 -0700, Winston_Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:09:21 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:29:14 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:44:56 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:

The civilian passer-by is the one who shot the attacker of the officer.

Yes. That's what I said. Just that the media doesn't like to say
citizens with guns is a good thing.

If the first citizen didn't have a gun perhaps the second would not
have been required to have one?????

The "first citizen" was a criminal. There are lots of ways to attack
and harm a cop. The gun is one way. But FIRST it requires a criminal.
The criminal will find something. Do you assume if everyone were
disarmed, the criminal would not find a way to get a gun?

The cop would not have been shot
and would most likely NOT have required assistance of the lethal
variety from a bystander.

Your attacking criminal would have gotten lethal attention from the
cop. (And the left would be down one voter.)

You "alt right" guys

Whatever that is, I doubt it's me. I doubt it's either of the
responsible citizens in this event either. Just a "hate" term the left
likes to use. (NOTE: The left is all love and despises hate. /sarcasm)

need to understand the concept of cause and effect.

Cause: A criminal refused to stop trying to kill a cop.
Effect: He was shot and killed.


Nothing about "refusing to stop" or any indication there was a
"criminal" involved untill after the cop stopped to investigate an
"accident" and was attacked by a man with a gun - Chances are pretty
good the cop would have stood a good chance on his own if he had not
been shot -

I'm NOT saying anything about gun laws etc - but will repeat what has
been said many times before - when it is illegal for the public to
carry guns, then only criminals will carry guns - and that can be
taken (at least) 2 ways.

Don't get too far astray from the facts. From B1ack's post it appears
there are three citizens. The perp who was attacking the cop. A second
who shot the perp because he wouldn't call off his attack. A third who
used the police radio to summon assistance.

One criminal, two responsible citizens, at least one armed. One live
cop; one dead criminal. Not too bad a ratio as the world goes today.

Somehow you think it's the guns fault because a citizen did what the
cop would have done if he could. That's why we arm cops.
I never said it was "the gun's fault" - in fact I never assigned
blame. I just stated the undisputable fact that if the first (crook)
had not had a gun, the second (armed citizen) would not have required
a gun.

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 17:22:04 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 13:45:40 -0700, Winston_Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:09:21 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:29:14 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:44:56 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:

The civilian passer-by is the one who shot the attacker of the officer.

Yes. That's what I said. Just that the media doesn't like to say
citizens with guns is a good thing.

If the first citizen didn't have a gun perhaps the second would not
have been required to have one?????

The "first citizen" was a criminal. There are lots of ways to attack
and harm a cop. The gun is one way. But FIRST it requires a criminal.
The criminal will find something. Do you assume if everyone were
disarmed, the criminal would not find a way to get a gun?

The cop would not have been shot
and would most likely NOT have required assistance of the lethal
variety from a bystander.

If the criminal didn't have a gun, he would have attacked the cop with
whatever he could. Bad guys are like that.


Your attacking criminal would have gotten lethal attention from the
cop. (And the left would be down one voter.)

You "alt right" guys

Whatever that is, I doubt it's me. I doubt it's either of the
responsible citizens in this event either. Just a "hate" term the left
likes to use. (NOTE: The left is all love and despises hate. /sarcasm)

need to understand the concept of cause and effect.

Cause: A criminal refused to stop trying to kill a cop.
Effect: He was shot and killed.


Nothing about "refusing to stop" or any indication there was a
"criminal" involved untill after the cop stopped to investigate an
"accident" and was attacked by a man with a gun - Chances are pretty
good the cop would have stood a good chance on his own if he had not
been shot -

A "pretty good chance" isn't enough for law enforcement, either by the
officer or the public. And a person who shoots a cop is even worse.
We definitely want them off the streets for good. It's sad that the 3
Strikes law doesn't have a death penalty with it. We could make it 5
Strikes, but by then, the perp likely would have killed someone. Let's
make sure it's them who goes, not the innocent citizens.


I'm NOT saying anything about gun laws etc - but will repeat what has
been said many times before - when it is illegal for the public to
carry guns, then only criminals will carry guns - and that can be
taken (at least) 2 ways.

Both wrong.


Don't get too far astray from the facts. From B1ack's post it appears
there are three citizens. The perp who was attacking the cop. A second
who shot the perp because he wouldn't call off his attack. A third who
used the police radio to summon assistance.

One criminal, two responsible citizens, at least one armed. One live
cop; one dead criminal. Not too bad a ratio as the world goes today.

Works for me.


Somehow you think it's the guns fault because a citizen did what the
cop would have done if he could. That's why we arm cops.
I never said it was "the gun's fault" - in fact I never assigned
blame. I just stated the undisputable fact that if the first (crook)
had not had a gun, the second (armed citizen) would not have required
a gun.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! It is absolutely disputable, clare. That is
certainly -not- always true. Perps jump cops with baseball bats,
steel bars, rocks, knives, multiple other perps, or whatever is handy.
Cops need the capability to escalate to -always- win a battle with a
perp because that's the only way they can protect the public, period.
Guns are used defensively millions of times a year here (US, and
probably more than you know there in CA), even when they're not fired.
Just seeing any kind of gun will stop lots of crimes from ever
happening, and/or they can be used to hold criminals while the cops
drive over if a crime has been committed. For perps who won't stop
their attacks, a gun stops it for them.

--
There is s no such thing as a hyphenated American who is
a good American.* The only man who is a good American is
the man who is an American and nothing else.* We are a
nation, not a hodge-podge of foreign nationalities.* We
are a people, and not a polyglot boarding house.
--Theodore Roosevelt