Woman Gunned Down Hours After Getting Protection Order Against Police Officer

[dixiegrrrrl]

“If you find me dead, he did it.”

That’s what Valerie Morrow told NBC10 Investigative reporter Harry Hairston just hours before she died, allegedly at the hand of the Delaware County police officer she feared.

Stephen Rozniakowski, an officer with the Colwyn Borough Police Department, wore a bulletproof vest when he kicked down the door of Morrow’s home on Glenfield Avenue in Glenolden, Pennsylvania around 9 p.m. Monday and began firing, according to investigators. The shooting came just three hours after police served Rozniakowski with an court order to stay away from Morrow, and days before he was due in court in a separate stalking case.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/Police-Officer-Accused-Stalker-Killed-Former-Girlfriend-Officials-colwyn-285971091.html

Prosecutors will ask for dearth penalty, they say.

[belzabubba333]

1. he should have already recieved it

[Ruby the Liberal]

91. He almost did

Shot her teenage daughter and then called dispatch on his police-issued radio. The wounded teen found him with the gun to his head in the hallway whining about "sorry" and kicked/slapped (different reports) the gun away, which he had to his head.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20141217_Delco_D_A___Psycho_cop_snaps__kills_woman__shoots_her_daughter.html

[TorchTheWitch]

187. what an incredibly brave kid!

Me, I'd likely be hiding under the bed soiling myself in terror. Not only brave but smart and able to keep her head together to think to disarm him so she could get out of the house.

Though a terrible part of me almost wishes he blew his brains out I'm much more relieved that her and her step-father will get to stand up to this evil cretin in court.

[ileus]

2. Good argument for having an AR as a home defense firearm.

[Doctor_J]

5. another tragedy - another opportunity to sell more guns

Those gunsters sure know how to make lemonade from lemons

[LiberalLovinLug]

68. This is a big + 1000 to HERVEPA's hidden post

Because I'm not allowed to reply to his perfectly understandable outrage.

[MrMickeysMom]

131. He had one hidden yesterday, too...

He's sure batting 1,000…

[ncjustice80]

147. That post should not have been hidden.

[Mr. Evil]

150. I didn't find anything wrong with Hervepa's response. n/t

[barbtries]

141. ditto

fuck the gun crap

[laundry_queen]

209. +1000 to this post too. nt

[Ed Suspicious]

159. +1000 to that post as well.

[L0oniX]

293. Unless she had at least as much training in the use of a gun I doubt he would have been stopped.

[Lurks Often]

294. Why do you think the average police officer is especially well trained?

I could probably teach you and 98% of the people on this board enough in two days at the range that you would be able to pass the average police qualification course. The other 2% would be people with significant disabilities, severe phobias regarding firearms or otherwise physically incapable of handling a firearm.

And yes, I've qualified with a handgun when I was in the military police and twice, with 2 different firearms when taking a civilian course taught by a police officer. I qualified on all three of them easily.

The average police officer probably qualifies once a year and fires 50 rounds at a target no farther away then 25 yards.

The biggest reason for lack of more training is apparently cost, both for the ammo and for paying the police officers to train on a day or time they would normally be off duty

[Joe Worker]

213. Not everyone who is an owner

or who believes in the second amendment is making lemonade Doc.

Just wanted to add that I enjoy your posts.

[Boreal]

311. You realize that courts have ruled

the police have no duty to protect anyone, right? So, lets say you have a daughter being stalked by a violent psycho. How would have her protect herself? Especially pertinent question when the stalker is a cop and guaranteed to come to after her with a gun.

I don't like guns but in that position I would sure as hell get one and learn to use it.

[Doctor_J]

312. I was just commenting on the fact that reply #2 to this OP was a gun ad

One man's gut-wrenching, blood-boiling tragedy is another's opportunity I guess.

[Matrosov]

12. +1 n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. It makes more sense than the usual, "Only police should have guns" snipe

that attends these sorts of stories.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. Not when you consider he could have had his gun taken away.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. He's a cop.

He's the enforcer of your gun control laws. He's the one controllers insist be armed.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

67. LOL!!! Ever watch a movie where they tell the cop to turn in his gun and badge?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. Is that the one where the "hero" then goes out and shoots all the bad guys?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

92. After he goes to his old school buddy with the unregistered arsenal hidden in the basement.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

99. And he's still an agent of the state you would employ to disarm the people.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. You might be surprised to learn, lots of hollywood memes don't actually work in real life.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

90. Actually, those were the days when the NRA was about father and son enjoying the great outdoors.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Agreed.

Sadly, it has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the RNC, and a political creature with strong right-wing beliefs.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

107. I guess you also are old enough to remember when the NRA fought polluters....

They used to work with local farmers to establish fence lines that wouldn't interfere with migrating herds of elk. They fought against acid rain. They lobbied for more free rangeland and supported healthy forests.

They wanted healthy herds to pass on the tradition of hunting to future generations.

[AtheistCrusader]

125. I'm pretty sure all the leadership in the NRA that was once invested in those issues, has been

ousted, completely.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

136. It's like if Greenpeace started hunting whales.

[gordianot]

148. There used to be an old Hollywood meme where the cop shoots an unarmed man.

They would frantically look for the weapon which was usually picked up by an accomplice. In the end the weapon would be found and the policeman reinstated. No need for that fiction today.

[shedevil69taz]

27. Well the piece of paper...

and the police certainly did an excellent job of protection...oh...wait...

[Paladin]

6. Be thankful there's not an "acting classy" requirement for gun ownership. (nt)

[sarisataka]

15. Nor is it required

to oppose gun ownership

I have often wondered about that, it should be assumed that they are potential terrorists

Maybe if a few of these jackasses get taken down maybe some of the others stop being such assholes.

Gun owners in general are cowards, one or two times should be enough to have them cowering under their bed.

So, again, I say shoot them on sight, let their bodies rot in the streets as a message to other hell-bent gunners.

Nothing but good could come of this.

*and more*

Just sayin'

[mercuryblues]

85. trust me

if that worked, this country would be doing it.

[KingCharlemagne]

9. If you bothered to read the story, you would know that the victim's husband (also a cop)

shot and critically wounded the killer cop, thereby rendering your pro-gun baloney moot.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. "rendering your pro-gun baloney moot."

Actually, that reinforces the pro-self defense argument.

[joeybee12]

83. No, she's still dead...nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. But the killer was shot.

In no way could the situation have been improved by disarming the victims or any of the hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of people who defend themselves with guns each year.

[SomethingFishy]

100. Hundreds of thousands who defend themselves with guns every year?

Maybe millions?

Yeah right. I'd bet the number isn't even 5 figures, let alone millions... Guess what? Violent crime is at it's lowest in 40 years, murders are less than half what they were 30 years ago. 2013 had just over 14,000 murders in the US.
I'd really love to see some proof that millions of people defend themselves from being killed every year[/i[] with guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

101. You're actually wishing for people to not defend themselves. Very strange. Still, you'd be wrong.

Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64–65[2][3] Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

Sorry if the thought of people defending themselves upsets you. No. Wait. No, I'm not.

[SomethingFishy]

102. The only thing that upsets me is lying about it...

Those numbers cannot possibly be right. There is no way when there are less than 20,000 violent crimes in a years time that 1 million violent crimes were stopped. You claimed hundreds of thousands, then posted low estimates of 55-80,000 then middle estimates of 1,000,000,000... How does your middle estimate go up 950,000? Those numbers are bullshit. 1 in 300 people used a gun to defend themselves last year?

I have no problems with people "defending" themselves. I do have a problem with a nation that believes everyone should be armed to the teeth.

Sorry if that offends you, but I prefer to think that I don't live in a place so dangerous that I have to carry a fucking gun around with me everywhere I go. And the fact is, for over 50 years I have not needed one. Sorry if you do, maybe you should move.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

108. "Those numbers cannot possibly be right."

Your denialism is immaterial.

You claimed hundreds of thousands, then posted low estimates of 55-80,000 then middle estimates of 1,000,000,000.

Yes, MIDDLE estimate of 1,000,000 which is actually higher than the hundreds of thousands I stated (and millions I parenthetically stated).

I do have a problem with a nation that believes everyone should be armed to the teeth.

I doubt you can even define what that means.

I don't live in a place so dangerous that I have to carry a fucking gun around with me everywhere I go.

Which is a worthless statement.

Sorry if you do, maybe you should move.

I live in the country. We have no crime. But then again, everyone has guns kept in the open in their homes.

[SomethingFishy]

116. Yeah right..

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

Take your right wing gun nut lies elsewhere...

That's from the link helpme posted. Your numbers are all bullshit. And now you are on ignore. Buh bye!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

120. You'll notice the contention in your citation centers on if the gun is "used", i.e. discharged.

Plenty of people defend themselves simply by letting it be known they are armed. Since criminals tend to be risk averse (and law-abiding gun owners are not eager to kill despite the fear-mongering of gun grabbers) informing the criminal oft times is sufficient.

Perhaps the talking points supplied to you by the Republican billionaire Bloomberg could stand revising.

[sarisataka]

121. You can read the original report here

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Priorities-for-Research-to-Reduce-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
Released: June 5, 2013
REPORT AT A GLANCE
Briefing Slides (PDF)
Press Release (HTML)
Report Brief (PDF, HTML)
Research Priorities (PDF)

In 2010, more than 105,000 people were injured or killed in the United States as the result of a firearm-related incident. Recent, highly publicized, tragic mass shootings in Newtown, CT; Aurora, CO; Oak Creek, WI; and Tucson, AZ, have sharpened the American public’s interest in protecting our children and communities from the harmful effects of firearm violence. While many Americans legally use firearms for a variety of activities, fatal and nonfatal firearm violence poses a serious threat to public safety and welfare.
In January 2013, President Barack Obama issued 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, what might help prevent it, and how to minimize its burden on public health. One of these orders directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to, along with other federal agencies, immediately begin identifying the most pressing problems in firearm violence research. The CDC and the CDC Foundation asked the IOM, in collaboration with the National Research Council, to convene a committee tasked with developing a potential research agenda that focuses on the causes of, possible interventions to, and strategies to minimize the burden of firearm-related violence. The committee’s proposed research agenda focuses on the characteristics of firearm violence, risk and protective factors, interventions and strategies, the impact of gun safety technology, and the influence of video games and other media.

[Skittles]

124. fear makes people say stupid shit

they also very much believe the garbage fed to them by the NRA

[kioa]

152. What is the basis of AWB & gun control BUT fear?

Bloomberg uses fear-mongering in order to take advantage of the ignorant.
That's why gun control gets less support in states with higher guns per capita.

Stop being afraid.
Educate yourself.

[Skittles]

182. are you fucking kidding me?

so the asshole who has to display his weapon in a fucking supermarket isn't afraid? THEY'RE COWARDS - END OF STORY.

[kioa]

199. Yet you are the one insisting that innocent Americans have to lose rights because of your irrational

fears.

There is a reason why gun control has less support in states & places with more guns per capita.

Bloomberg is using fear-mongering to take advantage of your ignorance.
Educate yourself. Stop fearing the freedoms we have in the USA & lose your distrust of your fellow citizens.
I promise, you'll be OK.

[Skittles]

205. I INSISTED NO SUCH THING

get some reading comprehension skills already

[kioa]

223. Oh? So you must oppose the AWB & the rest of the gun control nonsense.

Good to hear.

[Skittles]

257. is everything that black and white to you?

perhaps brushing up on critical thinking skills is advised too

[kioa]

259. I stated that you wanted to rights away from innocent people.

You denied it.....in ALL CAPS, no less.

Which led to conclude that you don't support the AWB-a bill that undeniably takes rights away from innocent people.

A very straight-forward conversation.

If you support taking rights away from innocent people, don't deny it.
Deal with it.

[Skittles]

260. LOL

I've never called for ANY bans - I'm just amazed how many gun humping FREAKS there are in the so-called "HOME OF THE BRAVE"

*DONE HERE* - I DETEST wasting my time

[kioa]

288. Then you are opposed to the AWB? Good to know.

[kioa]

316. It is the Home of the Brave & the land of the Free.

Gun Control Freaks would be wise to remember that....especially around election time.

Sorry, most people don't share your bizarre & irrational fears of inanimate objects nor of American rights.

[Doctor_J]

314. We take rights from innocent people all the time.

That's why I can't drive 60 mph through the middle of town, for example. Every law on the books takes rights away.

[kioa]

315. That's not a right. Nor is it a current right.

Further you are able to drive as fast as you like, just not on public roads.
Your analogy is equivalent to people not being able to shoot guns in the middle of town-which is already the case.

Some people want to take rights away from innocent Americans, thus the Patriot Act & gun control.
But most are not. Thus the election results of 2014.

[Lurks Often]

156. Ignorance also makes people say stupid shit

as does their refusal to recognize facts that disagree with their worldview that they cling to so desperately.

[helpmetohelpyou]

111. Here's a good unbiased report done on behest of President Obama

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html



Rethinking Gun Control

Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence.




Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and

[NickB79]

178. "there are less than 20,000 violent crimes in a years time"

Where the hell did you get this number from? There are around 12,000 people a year shot to death in the US. Factor in those murdered by non-gun weapons, and the MILLIONS of violent crimes that don't result always end in death (like rape), and your number is laughably off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States

The majority of rapes in the United States go unreported. The FBI recorded 85,593 rapes in 2010, while the Centers for Disease Control counted nearly 1.3 million incidents in that same year.[266]

[NickB79]

180. I used a gun in a self-defense situation when I was 17 yr old

No shots were fired, though a loaded gun was aimed at a living, breathing person until said person got out of the house.

Police were called and got there (eventually, only took them 45 minutes).

My dad didn't kill my mother, brother, sister and myself like he was screaming he would (though he did kick down the bedroom door where we were hiding, and you could see the red hand prints on my mom's neck where he almost choked her to death before my sister broke a coffee cup across his head to momentarily stun him).

The police refused to arrest him at the time, but DID threaten to arrest my mom for assault due to the goose egg on my dad's head from the coffee cup, probably because they were fucking hillbilly pigs who beat their own wives after work.

Sorry I offended you by helping to keep my family alive.

On edit: and today, while I do still own guns, I don't live in terror of needing them anytime soon. I have no desire to get a concealed-carry permit, or bankrupt myself on stockpiling bullets. The few guns I have are kept locked up at all times except when at the shooting range or in the woods, because I have a 4-yr old daughter to keep safe.

[christx30]

88. She is dead. But the thug cop cleared wanted to kill

others in the home.Because the deceased woman's husband had a weapon and fired it, those lives were saved. Instead of at least 3 funerals, there will be just one.
This wouldn't have been any better if Mr. Morrow had been disarmed.

[KingCharlemagne]

87. Not sure it does, since the killer cop assailant was critically wounded by

another cop (who presumably has specialized training in the use of firearms).

The actuarial statistics are beyond dispute: households with a firearm are eight times as likely to suffer a death or injury from the discharge of a firearm as households where there is no firearm. I'm not sure of statistics when one 'good' armed cop goes up against one 'bad' armed killer cop.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. "The actuarial statistics are beyond dispute:"

Millions of people employ guns defensively each year.

I'm not sure of statistics when one 'good' armed cop goes up against one 'bad' armed killer cop.

But both would be used to enforce gun control laws (and strangle people to death over a 50 cent cigarette).

[uberblonde]

110. You think?

The victim's husband was a cop, too. I'm sure he had a gun in the house. Didn't help, did it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

118. He wounded the killer. How would the situation have been improved by his being disarmed?

[Joe Worker]

214. Oh Pleasssse!

A woman died. How many women are married to cops?

[mythology]

10. Except her husband was there with a gun

And yet she's still dead and her daughter is still wounded. This piece of garbage is why guns need to be much harder to get.

Try reading the article before chiming in with guns will save us all.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. "This piece of garbage is why guns need to be much harder to get."

The killer is a cop. His gun was issued.

[Cerridwen]

22. "He used a private weapon in Monday’s attack, said police."

About three hours before the shooting, Norwood Police served the suspect with an emergency court order to stay away from Morrow. At the time they took away his service weapon and asked if he had any other weapons but Whelan said Rozniakowski told them he didn’t.

He used a private weapon in Monday’s attack, said police.

Quoted from the article linked in the OP.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. The point is: Cops are immune from every gun control scheme presented.

[Cerridwen]

28. More than likely.

That, however, wasn't the point you made by posting what you thought was the case rather than what was reported.

The point you made was that you replied without bothering to read the article in the OP.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. Cops are issued weapons. Even if he never bought a privately owned firearm, he would have still

access to a gun. Gun grabbing is a useless pursuit because it only disarms the victims of criminals.

[Cerridwen]

34. Uh, yes they are issued weapons. The rest of your statement made sense to someone.

I am not that someone.

Please continue with your particular conversation without me.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

40. So make him an ex-cop. No gun.

[kioa]

154. Prohibition. Real successful.

Explains why the drug war has been going so swimmingly.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

155. Are you seriously going to claim guns are a drug?

[Lurks Often]

157. The point is if we can't keep drugs from coming into the country

or being made here, how the hell are we going to stop the guns from being brought into the country or manufactured here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten is an example of a gun that could be made by any halfway decent machinist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm

[Spitfire of ATJ]

161. Guns aren't something you cook like meth.

[Lurks Often]

167. No, it's easier if you know what you are doing

if you clicked on the link regarding the Sten gun, you would have read how easy and quick it is to make a FULLY automatic sub-machine gun

[Spitfire of ATJ]

172. So, since that's illegal and they do it anyway why care about the laws?

[Lurks Often]

174. Because anarchy sucks?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

176. Not if you like guns.

[Lurks Often]

181. Anarchy sucks regardless

even if you do own guns. I'd rather not see society regress to the point where the weak, the infirm and the elderly are the victims of those are bigger and stronger.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

184. Yeah,...let's arm them all. Starting with the blind.

[Lurks Often]

232. Not that nonsense again

Find ONE post where I suggested arming everybody.

The existing gun laws on who is allowed to purchase a firearm, which really haven't changed very much since 1968, work well and would work even better if the local law enforcement and the ATF spend more time investigating and prosecuting those people barred from owning a firearm who attempt to buy a gun or are in possession of a gun.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

236. You just promoted the idea of every man for himself and may the best shot win.

[Lurks Often]

237. If that is how you read my comments then you need to work on reading comprehension

[Spitfire of ATJ]

239. Then do you daydream about being the hero with the gun defending the old folks home from "bad guys"?

[Lurks Often]

242. I see you've decided to switch to childish and delusional comments now

I hope NEVER to have to shoot any living thing, people or animals.

I read your other comments in the thread, you have no interest in actually discussing things, you attempt to twist words around to suit your biased view and aren't interested in facts. So go ahead and respond if it'll make you feel better to get the last post in, but you really aren't worth the even minimal time it takes for me to respond.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

243. This may shock you but I have a few guns myself....

They're leftovers from when I lived in the mountains and there were rattlesnakes, mountain lions, coyotes and the occasional bear.

Now that I live in civilization (AKA Suburbia) they're useless and locked away in an old steamer trunk.

Back in Michigan I used to go deer hunting with Teamsters and UAW workers.

The Right Wing turned gun ownership into a "Patriot" issue. Now you have terrified people believing their own government is coming to get them and they're creating personal arsenals with every spare dollar they have. They but bars on their windows so their view is like they're in prison and they do it all in the name of "freedom".

[kioa]

158. I'm seriously claiming that prohibition doesn't work.

If you need anymore help with English-to-English translations, you just let me know.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

162. We banned hand grenades and tommy guns. That worked.

[kioa]

164. There are somewhere around 300,000,000 privately owned guns in the US

But perhaps you could check with Mexico how well banning guns worked out. (Spoiler alert: Badly)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

173. I'd rather check with England.

[kioa]

177. Her Majesty would be most pleased by your willing submissiveness.

However, I prefer the higher levels of personal freedom & the ability to choose my own Head of State as we do in the USA.

While you are there you could ask the IRA how effective prohibition was & compare notes with the effectiveness of Mexico's gun control.

I prefer protecting the freedoms & liberties of innocent Americans.
You prefer taking rights away from innocent people, creating blackmarkets & granting more power to the 1%, terrorists, drug dealers & criminals.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

183. Owning guns are about "freedom" the same way owning an SUV is about "freedom".

[kioa]

198. The right to bear arms is the same as the right to free speech, freedom of religion...

It's almost like they were included in the same list of Rights.....

Unlike you, I don't think that life in the USA is scary.
Nor do I think that the problem with the USA is that there are too many individual rights & freedoms.

Good luck selling your bizarre ideas of promising the electorate that you will take their rights away 'for their own good'.
After all, it worked out so well last election, amirite?

In all seriousness, neither life in the USA, nor the rights we enjoy are scary.
Get out more.
Educate yourself.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

202. LOL!!! Oh sure, I'm the one who's "scared". That's really funny....

I gave up fear LONG ago.

Oh, and the 2nd was about a militia defending the government. It was written in the days when the United States was only on the East Coast and there were still Indian raids and the occasional bear attack.

[kioa]

222. Then you must not support the AWB. Good to know.

Some people are so ignorant that Bloomberg's fear-mongering convinced them that they need to take away freedoms & liberties innocent Americans enjoy today.

As for your interpretation of the 2nd...you are at odds with the Supreme Court, the American people, President Obama & the Democratic Party platform, all of whom find the Second protects an individual right.
So good luck with that one, Constitutional Scholar.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

231. I'm at odds with all of them because I'm an actual Liberal....

And we use to refuse to cave.

[kioa]

234. An actual liberal supports broad interpretations of rights &

supports the rights of innocent people.

You aren't a liberal on this issue.
You are an authoritarian.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

238. An actual Liberal also sees what happens when guns are tha CAUSE of fear....

There are plenty of cases of people living without a gun being happy and then when they get a gun the fear and paranoia kicks in that they NEED it because it's a scary world out there and you need to protect yourself. They can't imagine not having a gun and think those that don't have one are irresponsible to leave themselves unprotected against all of the imagined threats.

Gun sales went up when the media showed imaged of guys with guns in the Middle East in Toyota trucks. Granted, FOX "News" jump cut those images with pictures of the Mexican border leaving the viewer to believe ISIS was going to be driving those Toyota trucks up Main Street, USA.

Then there are the Right Wingers who claim guns are part of being an American. They're not. In most cases, they're part of being a macho asshole.

Okay,....that's pretty "American" when you think about it.

[kioa]

241. A liberal doesn't try to take rights away from innocent people because of irrational fear.

Your bizarre paranoia of life in the USA is your problem. Nobody has to give up their rights because of it.

You don't "NEED" freedom of religion. Nobody "needs" freedom of speech.
Freedom & Rights have nothing to do with "need".

An 'actual liberal' would recognize the absurdity of insisting that right be dependent on an arbitrary ascertain of 'need' .
However an 'actual authoritarian' would insist upon such an arbitrary metric.

You are an authoritarian on this issue.
Deal with it. Don't try to claim you are something you're not.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

244. Like I said, the 2nd has been twisted....

Thought I'd add this:

[kioa]

248. 2nd hasn't been "twisted". It specifically states a right.

The USA isn't Starship Troopers, rights aren't contingent on military service.

The second specifically states what the rights of the people is regarding arms.

Your authoritarian opinion doesn't change nor challenge American Rights.

As for your pic....nobody gives a shit what Europeans think.
Europeans don't have the robust freedoms the Bill of Rights provide us in the USA.
Many of them don't even have the right to choose their own Head of State.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

252. "...nobody gives a shit what Europeans think."

Uh huh....



Because they're miserable without guns.

[kioa]

254. People are happy here in the USA & they have more robust protections of rights.

On a side note, I find it odd that you chose a picture of France-a nation with a higher suicide rate than the USA.

In any case, if you prefer a more authoritarian society, you are free to go to a place that is more to your liking.
Otherwise you will just have to come to terms with the rights the American people enjoy today.

Life in the USA isn't scary. The freedoms we enjoy isn't scary.
Get out more. Learn something.
Fear-mongering doesn't work on knowledgeable people.
Stop allowing the 1% to take advantage of your ignorance.

[sarisataka]

185. This England?

U.K. Gun Curbs Mean More Violence Yet Fewer Deaths Than in U.S.
By Robert Hutton Apr 24, 2013 5:38 AM CT 19 Comments Email Print

The U.K.’s strict gun controls mean it has a lower homicide rate than the U.S. even though there’s more violent crime, according to a study that also found violence in Britain fell over the past decade.

According to the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace, the U.K. had 933 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2012, down from 1,255 in 2003. In the U.S., the figure for 2010 was 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Still, while the U.S. violent-crime rate is less than half Britain’s, its homicide rate between 2003 and 2011 was almost four times as high.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-24/u-k-gun-curbs-mean-more-violence-yet-fewer-deaths-than-in-u-s-.html
Were we to match England our non-suicide deaths from firearms would drop 12,000 annually at a cost of 1.65 million+ more violent crimes each year. The increase would include of 750k more assaults and 100k rapes.
So is it about guns or victims?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

186. So? Ever hear the old phrase, "Quit hiding behind that gun and fight like a man"?

[sarisataka]

188. Yes I have

The usual trope is the large bully backed with accomplices facing a lone opponent with a gun.

"So?"- nice dismissal of of victims. I guess to you it is all about the guns.

Sorry but I cannot support you. I find gun deaths abhorrent but I am not willing to ask millions to be victims to save thousands; especially as some of those victims will die by means of other than a gun.

To satisfy me, a policy must address all victims, not just a single category.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

189. I dismisse the two are linked....

Getting rid of guns doesn't increase violent crime.

BTW: I know that doesn't fit gun culture "common knowledge".

[sarisataka]

190. Evidence

besides your opinion?

The CDC does not dismiss a link so casually.

“almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
The report goes on to cast doubt on the three million number but also deems studies that concluded less than 500,000 DGUs were also very suspect.
Edit- consider that the average if those two numbers is 1.75 million. That would put us very close to England's violent crime rate. Maybe coincidence but maybe not.


Or do you deny that reducing crime across the board will include a drop in gun related crime.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

191. I deny that gun ownership deters crime.

[sarisataka]

192. Even if true

There is no indication that crime (outside of gun crime) will decrease.
The untested hypothesis is the opposite would happen.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

193. Crime already dropped due to people using plastic instead of cash....

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/11/welcome-sweden-electronic-money-not-so-funny

[sarisataka]

196. And what is

the price of tea in China?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

203. They aren't shooting each other over it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

204. Oh sure, and the untested hypothesis is also that's when zombies will attack.

[sarisataka]

206. Psst, zombies aren't real

[Spitfire of ATJ]

207. Which is yet another reason we don't need guns.

[sarisataka]

208. I think I'm keeping

You up past your bed time.

Go to sleep, I'll find an adult to talk to.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

219. I've come to think of the gun issue as stupid.....

Maybe because I've gone places where it's not an issue.

[kioa]

255. It is stupid. It also loses elections. Which is what the pro-rights Democrats warned you about.

There is no reason that Americans should support the infringement of any of their current rights.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

264. Oh yeah? How come some Dems ran against the NRA and WON?

[kioa]

267. And Dems were recalled & the party lost the Senate, lost seats in the House

and more state legislatures are in GOP control than at anytime since the Great Depression.

That's some winner you got there.
Be sure to let the party know that gun control played a part in the past election, and I promise to do the exact same thing

Fortunately I'm confident the party already knows the effects of gun grabbers...just like they learned after their last debacle in 1994.

Get used to irrelevancy, son.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

268. LOL!!! The NRA credited itself for that and all their sycophants agreed....

So let's continue to parrot crap from 20 YEARS AGO as if it still applies today, even though it's been debunked.

Face it. The gun lobby has lost it's power. People are more outraged that nothing happened after Sandy Hook than they are with the idea of big bad government doing a gun grab.

[kioa]

269. Bill Clinton credited 20 lost seats to the AWB.

And now gun controllers have 2014.

The party was crushed thanks to authoritarians like you.
It is the Democratic Party that lost power because of this nonsense.

Gun grabbers have-once again- proven they are political liabilities.

Enjoy irrelevancy.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

270. They call ANY regulation a "gun grab"....

Even a background check to see if someone is batshit crazy causes gun nuts to flip out.

That's because deep down they know they couldn't pass even a basic sanity test.

[kioa]

271. The "Assault Weapons BAN" unquestionably bans guns.

It even says do in its title to eliminate any confusion.

But thank you for demonstrating what many suspected; background checks wouldn't be applied fairly & can be used as de facto bans.

Its thanks to people like you that a majority of the American people think it is more important to protect gun rights than pursue the failed policies of gun control.

Keep up the good work!
Just don't expect the party to pay you any heed after the embarrassment of the last elections.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

272. Which ones? The no show, voter supressed ones or the ones where Obama won by a landslide?

[kioa]

274. Which ones? A majority.

http://m.newsok.com/pew-poll-finds-support-for-gun-rights-at-21-year-high/article/5374799
Gun control has lost support for the past 20 years, whereas gun rights have gained support.

This is why Obama was able to win in a landslide in 2012, then after his push for gun control the party got trounced in 2014, lost the Senate, lost seats in the House & left more state legislatures in GOP control than at any time since the Great Depression.

The American people increasingly support individual rights.
Those that don't are political dinosaurs.
And after the 2014 debacle gun controllers are going back to their tar pit.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

278. Keep repeating that despite the fact that the NRA is a national JOKE....

Most Americans would like SOMETHING DONE about the overabundance of guns.

The DC talking points you spew are designed to make everyone run and hide.

Hell, I'm old enough to remember when there was talk of banning HAND GUNS.

Remember that?

(Feel free to call that kinda talk a vote killer, crazy and then declare victory again.)

[kioa]

280. The election results weren't a 'joke'. They were a catastrophe, made possible thanks to you.

Hell, I'm old enough to remember when there was talk of banning HAND GUNS.

Remember that?

Why yes.
In fact, banning handguns were supported by the public 60% to 36%....in 1959.
Now banning handguns is opposed 73% to 36%......
I have no idea how you think this bolsters your argument.

The American people continue to support the rights of innocent Americans.
The fools that try to fight against individual rights, like those against equal rights, marriage rights, the right to choose & gun rights are political dinosaurs.
Enjoy the tar pot with your like-minded authoritarians.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

281. Enjoy your siding with Republicans.

[kioa]

284. Your authoritarian outlook led to GOP gains.

You are (or rather, were) the greatest asset the GOP had since 1994.

I have little doubt that the party will, once again, learn the lesson of trying to court the electorate by promising to take their rights away.....
They learned it well after 1994.
I expect this lesson will last at least as long.

Enjoy irrelevancy.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

285. Absolute, utter and complete bull....

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0119/Surprise-The-NRA-has-actually-lost-influence-on-gun-control

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/22/430560/the-myth-of-nra-dominance-part-iii-two-elections-the-nra-did-not-win/

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/145097/ready-fire-aim-in-va-dems-favored-gun-control-and-won

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115480/terry-mcauliffes-gun-control-stance-virginia-gives-issue-new-life

[kioa]

286. The only issue that led to recalls didn't play a part in the elections?

Good luck with that argument.

Is there nothing Bloomberg could tell you that you wouldn't buy?

Some are easily fooled by propaganda, but not enough to keep from getting the shit knocked out of them by elections.....

Don't worry. The party knows better.
Enjoy irrelevancy.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

287. "Enjoy irrelevancy."

Keep repeating that and people will think it's yer sig.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

273. What's stiupid is ASSUMING there are only two choices....

A totally lawless free for all or a total ban.

[kioa]

275. It's not a "total free for all" now.

'stiupid', indeed.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

277. The occasional rampage/massacre is what we ALL have to tolerate in the name of "freedumb".

[kioa]

279. The third most deadly mass killing in US history was the Happy Land Fire.

That took a gallon of gasoline & a match.
So many things we have to ban in order to be 'safe', amirite?
But nevermind that for now.....

The MOST deadly mass killing was 9/11.....
In the aftermath authoritarians said that warrants for reasonable search & seizure needed to infringed in order to be 'safe'.
I opposed such nonsense.
I can only assume you were FOR the Patriot Act.....
I was told that torture was needed 'to keep me safe'.
Again, I rejected such fear monering Bullshit...
I can only assume you were FOR infringements on the right to not recieve cruel & unusual punishments...

I would simply hate that you are exposed as a person whom think 'rights' mean 'anything that doesn't make me ascared'...,that would be really embarrassing.

In all seriousness, life in the USA isn't 'scary'
I couldn't care less how much you want to infringe on the rights of innocent Americans in the hope that you can feel safe in the USA.
Your bizarre paranoia of life in the USA doesn't infringe on the rights of innocent Americans.
That is how a free society works.
Deal with it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

282. Did you google "mass killing"?

[kioa]

289. You mean like 9/11?

You must support the Patriot Act. I'd hate for you to tolerate massacres in the name of "freedumb"

On another note, it's interesting to see someone who is so opposed to freedom that you openly mock it....
You'd think that would be something a winning party wouldn't do in a Democracy. (Hint: Voters think freedom is 'good')

[Spitfire of ATJ]

292. Gun ownership is not the same as "Freedom".

[kioa]

295. The freedom to own guns is a freedom.

You are an authoritarian that supports taking freedoms away from innocent people because of your bizarre fear of life in the USA.

I support the rights of innocent Americans.
Life in the USA isn't scary.
Get out more.
Quit allowing Bloomberg to take advantage of your ignorance.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

296. Like I said earlier about SUVs....

It's a sucker play.

Oh, and you don't "support the rights of innocent Americans".

You support the gun makers.

[kioa]

297. "SUV" is your justification for infringing on the rights of innocent Americans?

Great argument.
Really.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right. It was even written into the Bill of Rights to clear up any confusion.

Nobody has to give up any of their rights because of your irrational fears.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

298. I understand why you are confused....

Those who are scammed often refuse to accept it.

[kioa]

299. Oh? And how have I been scammed? Do tell.

While you are at it why don't you explain why you think innocent Americans should lose rights because of your irrational fears.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

300. Easy: You honestly believe a gun is proof of freedom.

[kioa]

301. The freedom to own a gun is a freedom.

However could you conclude otherwise?

Gun ownership is also a right.
That is why it is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

Bloomberg's fear mongering was able to take advantage of your abject ignorance.
Life in the US isn't scary.
Taking rights & freedoms away from innocent people won't make you safer.
Educate yourself.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

302. You're rambling....

BTW: If the Right Wing claimed eating beef jerky was a sign of "freedom" do you suppose the South would care about having teeth?

[kioa]

303. Innocent Americans have the freedom to own guns.

This is basic fact.

You want to take that freedom away because Bloomberg was able to take advantage of your ignorance.

Get out more.
I promise, life in the USA isn't scary.
The rights that Americans enjoy isn't scary either.
Stop being afraid.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

304. So that IS your sig!!!

[kioa]

306. The level of discourse the American people has come to expect from gun controllers.

It's really no surprise that your authoritarian outlook failed so hard.

Get used to irrelevancy.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

307. SQUAWK!!! Polly wanna cracker?

[kioa]

308. It seems that Bloomberg has you well trained.

Fortunately it's far more difficult to make the majority of the people of this great nation act like frightened parrots.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

309. Is Bloomberg making you parrot all of these canned talking points?

Face it.

The NRA has lost its power.

Also, The public doesn't feel "safe" knowing there are a small click of assholes running around in the woods outside of town pretending to fight "the government" in the name of "freedom" and they CERTAINLY don't feel idiots with guns are actually heroes protecting their rights.

[kioa]

310. The NRA never had power. The power is in the people of the United States.

And they support their rights.

Thus support for gun rights growing for the past 20 years & is currently at an all time high.
Thus support for gun control dropping for 2 decades.
Thus none of the national gun control bills passing.
Thus the humiliating defeat you & your fellow authoritarians orchestrated.
Thus losing the Senate.
Thus losing seats in the House.
Thus more state legislatures in GOP control than at any time since the Great Depression.

Although watching authoritarians get the beJesus knocked out of the Democratic Party was frustrating, watching the authoritarian wing of the party be discredited & humiliated was simply delightful.

Your authoritarian viewpoint is a liability, an embarrassment & a political dinosaur....and after the debacle of 2014, irrelevant, impotent & ignored.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

313. LOL!!! You really are a "one issue voter"!

BTW: Seriously, I know you have notes to copy from.

Explains why you come off like a bot.

[truebluegreen]

227. Or Australia.

You know, roughly comparable societies.

fwiw, owning firearms is legal in Mexico, with permits. Problem is, as with so many other things, laws are not enforced / the police are corrupt.

[kioa]

229. Since Australia confiscated guns the murder rate in the USA dropped 35%

35% drop without infringing on the rights of the innocent.

Odd you think that a country in a different hemisphere on the opposite side of the world is an apt comparison whereas our neighbors are not.
US & Mexico is comparable. For instance unlike Australia, neither the US nor Mexico has a foreign monarch as their head of state.

fwiw Mexico has some of the most stringent gun control in the world.
In the entire nation there is only 1 gun store.

[truebluegreen]

230. Since I live here in Mexico now, and have lived in Australia previously,

I think that you think the US and Mexico are comparable but Australia and the US are not...is riotously funny. That's the kindest I can be.

Enjoy your stay.

[kioa]

233. I think they are both comparable.

Hence the comparisons I made between the USA and Mexico and the comparisons I made between the USA and Australia.

Many comparisons to be made; for instance California (a state that is considered by the Brady Group to have the most gun control in the USA) has a higher murder rate than Texas (and 28 other states).

[truebluegreen]

235. uh huh. The culture in a "developing" nation should be compared to a "developed" nation,

because they're neighbors. Australia and the US otoh are radically different because one is on the other side of the world and has a figurehead monarchy.

Not only riotously funny, but stunningly superficial.

[kioa]

240. "developing" a poorly defined term with racial & ethnocentric overtones.

A "Head of State" is the highest title that a nation can bestow on a person.
I prefer having the Right to choose my own as opposed to having it decided by heredity.

In fact the Australian Navy's ships have it on their hulls who their Allegiance is to.

In any case the USA's murder rate dropped 35% without losing rights since Her Majesty's loyal subjects lost theirs.

Meanwhile, in Mexico their gun control has lead to a rising murder rate.

It would seem that gun control doesn't play a significant factor in preventing murders.

[truebluegreen]

246. Your arguments are pure sophistry regarding a "Head of State"

who has diddly to do with the governing said State.

You say the US murder rate dropped 35% without us "losing our rights". Meanwhile Australia's rate dropped by 2/3s for all gun deaths, from about 1/4 to 1/10th the US rate. If you focus only on homicide rates, they are 1/30th of ours. I prefer the Australian outcome. And while you are prating on about "rights" why don't you factor in the right to keep breathing?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/14/america-mass-murder-australia-gun-control-saves-lives

You need to check the facts behind the talking points if you think the rising murder rate in Mexico now is due to a tightening of regulations (not banning) in 1971, and not more to economic troubles caused by NAFTA, the import of the US War on Drugs and easily-obtained American guns....really? Is that the best you got?

I don't have time for this crap.

[kioa]

249. Australia's murder rate was lower than the US prior to their gun policy.

Strange you didn't bother mentioning how much Australia's total murder rate declined in the aftermath of their authoritarian gun confiscation.
Again, the US's murder rate dropped 35% during that time without infringing on the rights of innocent people.

"the right to keep breathing"

Hence, the crime of 'murder'.
The right to keep and bear arms doesn't infringe on anyone's 'right to keep breathing'
Lets do a quick thought experiment; I will share a jail cell with an innocent American armed with an AR-15, you can bribe him with anything you want.
Meanwhile, you sleep in a jail cell with a violent prisoner armed with a sharpened toothbrush. I will bribe him with a pack of smokes.
I will sleep like a baby & wake up refreshed the next day.
You would be lucky to manage half of that.

"easily-obtained American guns."

So you're saying that gun prohibition is easily circumvented by criminals?
Gosh, I sure do wish that had been my point

Your spirited defense of how Australia choses a Head of State, authoritarian outlook & submissiveness would greatly please Her Majesty.
Your authoritarianism makes you a good fit to be one of her loyal subjects.

However, I eschew such primitive arrangements & prefer being a free citizen of a free society, that has robust protections of individual rights & we can chose our own Head of State.

To each their own.

[truebluegreen]

256. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Try again.

[kioa]

258. Actually it is. You didn't bother listing Australia's pre & post murder rate after the passage

of their authoritarian gun policy.

Its a fairly easy answer...in fact, I noticed another poster has already provided it for you.

It is unsurprising that you neglected to mention the single most pertinent comparison.

Again, US murder rate dropped 35% since Australia's gun confiscation.

But enjoy Mexico's draconian gun control policies. Real success story, amirite?

[truebluegreen]

261. Oh, you mean when I didn't say this?

"... Meanwhile Australia's rate dropped by 2/3s for all gun deaths, from about 1/4 to 1/10th the US rate...."

[kioa]

262. "Gun deaths" isn't "murder rate"

If you need anymore help with English to English translations, you just let me know.

[truebluegreen]

263. You are tiresome, but this is too easy to pass up:

"...Meanwhile Australia's rate dropped by 2/3s for all gun deaths, from about 1/4 to 1/10th the US rate. If you focus only on homicide rates, they are 1/30th of ours...." I suppose now you are going to quibble about how that's not gun homicides--as was clear in the link--but which I inadvertently omitted. So let me just inform you: that refers to gun homicides.

Now, do you want to go on about having a purely symbolic Head of State is Tyranny! or are we done with that question?

As for the easy-availability of guns in the US being a problem in Mexico--since they are purchased in the US, often in bulk by straw buyers, and smuggled into this country, and since if caught the miscreants are thrown in jail, how is this all Mexico's fault? Especially since it is legal to own guns here--I have three myself--how is it that Mexico's draconian gun laws are the problem? Or, is there something else going on? Think about it. Seriously. Try.


Well, this has all been fun but I have to go now. I'm going to venture out on the mean streets of my city, unarmed, which, come to think of it, is not unlike what I would be doing North of the Border...but the funny thing is, even with all the troubles, I think it is far more likely that I would run into some random gun fetishist there than here. Regardless, I don't live in fear. You should try it some time.

[kioa]

266. Not only have you-once again-refused to show the pre & post murder rate, but now

you are attempting to equate total murders instead of per capita murders. The US has over 10x the population of Australia.

Again, compare the pre-confiscation murder rate in Australia to the post confiscation murder rate.
The US's murder rate dropped by 35% in that same timeframe.

I never claimed 'Tyrany'. I merely stated I prefer the freedom to chose my own Head of Stafe.
Unsurprisingly, you seem to disagree, in keeping with your authoritarian beliefs.

But thank you for taking the time to explane what a miserable failure gun control has been in Mexico.
Meanwhile, here in the USA the murder rate is low & dropping.
I have no idea how you think this helps your argument.

I too will head out unarmed & encounter people who can choose their own Head of State, enjoy far more freedom & a far lower murder rate than where you are.

Life in the USA isn't scary.
Nobody has to give up their rights because of your irrational fears.

If you think that the USA is too 'scary' because of the rights we enjoy, that's your problem.
Deal with it.

[sarisataka]

245. Or Australia

[div class="excerpt"* Conservative estimates say there are more than a quarter-of-a-million illegal firearms in Australia.
* Gun ownership in Australia is back at pre-Port Arthur massacre levels.
* Carrying a gun is becoming more common and ingrained in outlaw culture.
* Gun amnesties barely put a dent in the number of weapons.
* Innocent people are being caught up in gun battles.
* There has been a steady increase in gun-related crimes over the past seven years.
***
So far this year, there have been 39 people shot on Sydney's streets. Fourteen of those were in July. Two men were shot dead this week. One had survived another shooting just days before being killed.
***
In the seven years from 2005 to 2012, gun murders across Australia almost doubled. The incidence of guns used in kidnappings trebled. The total number of crimes in which a firearm was used rose from 823 in 2005, to 1217 in 2012, an increase of 47 per cent.
http://www.news.com.au/national/is-australia-staring-down-the-barrel-of-a-gun-crisis/story-fncynjr2-1226690018325

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

http://www.aic.gov.au/
So again, is it about guns or victims?

There is no indication from two of the "civilized" countries that draconian gun laws lower violent crime rates. Indeed they appear to increase.
By contrast rates in the country allowing gun ownership continue to decrease and has a similar decrease in overall homicide rate as the other countries.

So should we reduce gun laws? Actually rhere are a few ridiculous ones out there but in general terms no. We have seen background checks have had success therefore they should be expanded.
Training is always good; outside of a few exceptions, liberals take pride in speaking with knowledge on a subject. Gun owners who are educated on safe handling, risks, proper and legal use will tend to have a lower rate of misuse/mishandling.
While storage laws camnot be directly enforced, there are many holdhold laws, e.g. smoke detectors, we trust people to follow. As in those cases the violation is usually discovered after a tragedy occurs however most people do see the sense in the laws and will follow them.

In the end we can regulate the means of violence until a permit is needed to carry a pointed stick. Unless we can change the cultural mores and acceptance of violence we are just playing a game of whack-a-mole with people's lives.

[truebluegreen]

247. "Pre-Port Arthur levels" is still well south of our numbers.

I agree that our culture is at the root of the problem. What I don't agree with is the fatuous argument that Mexico is a comparable society to the United States, and Australia is not.

Have a good day.

[Lurks Often]

168. Wrong

Fully automatic weapons are legal in virtually every state of the country if you have the money and can pass the background checks by the ATF and local PD.

No fully automatic weapon made after 1986 can be transferred to civilian owners.

As for grenades, those would probably fall under a destructive device license, but are not generally available.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

175. You just made my argument for me.

[TorchTheWitch]

71. it's hardly just cops

Anyone could easily obtain a weapon or have one or an arsenal of them with the same charges against them. It's his being as obviously dangerous as he was and allowed out on bail that allowed this to happen as it would also be for any civilian. He didn't have any special gun privileges or being out on bail privileges that aren't par for the course for anyone just as or even more dangerous to someone.

It's guns being too easily obtainable by people that are obviously dangerous to others and domestic violence not taken seriously enough in this country. Every day some crazy person arrested for domestic violence is let back out of jail and free to kill or assault whoever they like over and over again until their finally killing them keeps them in jail. And he could have killed her any number of ways without a gun anyway... beat her to death, run her over with his car, stabbed her, blown up her house, and all the other ways that violent nuts kill the people that piss them off. The only way to stop people like him from being able to murder someone they obviously have it in for is to keep them in jail.

[christx30]

72. The actual point is that criminals are immune to every gun control scheme presented.

Criminals will always be able to get weapons. There are always unscrupulous people willing to sell weapons to people that shouldn't have them. And criminals lie to get or keep their weapons. Not much can be done about that except hope that the non-criminals are better armed than the bad guys.

[demwing]

160. Well yeah, thats your point NOW

but just up thread you were making a different point. Once your "point" was disputed, it magically wasn't the point anymore

[Nuclear Unicorn]

163. No. My point remains the same --

Disarming people in the name of keeping them safe is futile. Pretending the police are mythical defenders of the public good is delusional.

[demwing]

170. Then your comment - "The killer is a cop. His gun was issued" - was worthless

Isn't that how you respond when you disagree? Casually dismiss opposing comments as worthless?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

171. I suppose if you want to be hyper-literal.

The killer is a cop. Pointless gun laws won't touch him because he is issued a gun with the expectation he will be the enforcer of gun control laws.

This is where you have invested your safety.

Good luck.

[sarisataka]

25. To be fair

It was not an issued weapon. He resigned earlier in the day and his issued weapon was retrieved.

It is really not an issue as if he did not make that call to resign he would still have had his issued weapon.

[TorchTheWitch]

61. Norwood police took his service weapon

But they only asked him if he had a personal one. Then again, I don't know if they could legally have taken any of his personal weapons anyway, and even if they could and did he still could have easily gotten one. And that was back in April when he was arrested on stalking charges for stalking some other woman. Between then and now he could easily have gotten another gun.

The bigger problem is that he was out on bail as obviously dangerous to two different families as he was. This country doesn't take domestic violence seriously enough.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Lautenberg Amendment. If he was charged with a DV incident, they could have taken his guns.

[christx30]

93. Her husband's gun is why

her daughter and husband are still alive. If he didn't have a gun, they would both be dead too.
The cops and that restraining order didn't do squat to save them. Mr. Morrow did.

[kioa]

153. The daughter & husband is still alive because the assailant was shot & wounded.

But tell me more about your support of disarming the victims.

[Orrex]

21. Well, since a responsible gun owner would have the weapon locked and secured

With the ammo locked in a separate place, then I think that your preposterous gun fetishism makes even less sense in this case than usual.

He kicked the door down. The victim would have to have had her beloved AR-15 locked and loaded and in-hand if she were to have any hope of defending herself with it.


Never in my life do I read about any fear as deep as the fear of the self-protecting gun fetishist.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. Her husband was able to ready and fire a weapon.

Never in my life do I read about any fear as deep as the fear of the self-protecting gun fetishist.

Are you saying the fears of the woman in the OP were unfounded?

[nxylas]

50. Well, then that's the solution

Make everyone carry a gun at all times that's ready to start spitting out armour-piercing bullets the second anything alarms them. What could possibly go wrong?

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. I see you're as least as knowledgable and informed about self-defense as your interlocutor...

[Orrex]

54. By gum, you've cracked it!

At last, a sensible solution!

[Warpy]

29. She'd have been dead before she managed to pick the stupid thing up

Even a shotgun in her lap wouldn't have stopped that lunatic.

The lunatic belongs in a cage.

Guns aren't the answer to our problems, they are one of our biggest problems.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Actually, she did shoot him.

He was injured, but sadly he was not killed. He was wearing a bullet-resistant vest.

Edit: Correction, her husband shot him, ending the attack, and saving the daughter.

[TorchTheWitch]

127. what did stop him was a cop with a gun

Her husband.

The lunatic belonged in a cage with his history of harassment, stalking, abuse and being obviously dangerous to two different women and their families. Instead he was let out on bail just like so many of the rest who go and kill the object of their obsession with or without a gun.

The bigger problem here is the law protecting nuts like this over their victims who get nothing but a piece of paper to protect them that often is what tips the lunatics over the edge. This guy had a long history and was a text book case of "about to blow" yet like all the others just as bad or even worse was let out of his cage to do the inevitable as happens every day all over the country in a variety of ways.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

144. this is the point.

Legal protections for women against demonstrably violent men are flimsy. Men's rights are valued above women's lives. Women are disbelieved.

[Joe Worker]

216. That is the real lesson to be learned here

As I said before... those in uniform are here to serve and protect. Don't they do a psychological examination when they screen these lawmen for duty? Plenty of red flags to go with the blame.

[TorchTheWitch]

305. yes, they do get psychological examinations and are watched for red flags

all through schooling and training. This guy unfortunately was a known problem with two guilty verdicts for harassment already yet his chief ignored the obvious. He should have gotten the heave-ho after his first guilty verdict back in '09. Once he got the one in '10 there should have been no question whatsoever that he was a problem. But the chief ignored the obvious and even with the newer information about two different women he was harassing he STILL ignored the obvious believing that it was "bullshit". Ignoring the very real complaints of women is par for the course in this country. Though it's gotten much better than from years ago, the laws still haven't caught up and there's still plenty of people with the capacity to do something that think a woman's complaints are "bullshit".

I have no doubt that fellow officers knew all about what a nutjob this guy was, but what can co-workers EVER do about a problem employee especially when the boss doesn't see them as a problem? All the time here I see people complaining why aren't the "good" cops doing something about the "bad" cops? As if there's anything they CAN do without losing their own jobs. It's up to the bosses to do the right thing, and when they don't, just like in any other work force the rest of the employees just have to suck it up and suffer or lose their own job and maybe their entire career. Why are rank and file police officers expected to "do something" about the bad co-workers they also have to suffer with when no one in any other sort of work is expected to "do something" about their problem co-workers?

[AtheistCrusader]

78. My wife owns as many guns as I do. vOv

[AtheistCrusader]

122. Depends on what you want to do with them.

Some are suitable for some tasks and not others. We buy them for purposes. A hunting rifle for deer is inappropriate for small game and vice versa. Trap/Skeet is different from buck in the shotgun category, and if you want to do it as a couple, you need two per class of firearm. So they add up quick, but you're really just checking off a variety of capabilities, rather than acquiring X number of guns.

[Joe Worker]

212. How many owners do you know

that have gone "nuts?" I think there is another lesson here. If only illegal criminals and the police state have access to firearms then how are ordinary law abiding citizens suppose to defend themselves?

It obviously did not work out for this woman as it most likely would not work for most of us if there were severe restrictions on firearms.

[otohara]

225. My Neighbors Ex

made it to 60 years old as responsible business owner, gun owner and then one day took their adorable one and only 9 year old to the mountains and blew their brains out.

How to defend yourself without a gun....I've had peeping types twice, three men felt the need to whip out their weenies and show them to me as a child. I had a stalker living next door who did have a gun. When no one would help me, I knocked on his door and told him that if anything happens to me, I've told everyone I know "you" did it.

If I came home late and there was a stranger near my building, I'd drive around until - man was gone.

Hitler did not take everyone's gun away. I now wear my seat belt every time I'm in the car so the insane police "man" dressed like Rambo with a trigger finger won't stop me. I changed dispensaries because they've got some mall cop in a tiny store where if any small incident happened, he'd go crazy with the gun and I'd get caught in the crossfire. Fuck that!

Not every situation requires a gun and somehow I've made it to my 6th decade without shooting anyone or vice versa.

[RoccoR5955]

43. A better argument to ban guns!

ALL GUNS!

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. Which would no doubt be just as effective as bans on alcohol and certain drugs...

Pray, tell us: How is it you see your mooted Prohibition 3.0 working, exactly?

[thesquanderer]

59. Seems to work okay in the UK... (n/t)

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. Then you need to get cracking on repealing the Second Amendment...

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. And then what will you do about thousands of miles of borders and coastlines?

[thesquanderer]

81. That's a different argument. (n/t)

[TorchTheWitch]

123. there are criminals in the UK with guns

There are also police units in the UK with guns. The UK is not gun free. And it was a cop with a gun at the ready who stopped this nut from also killing her daughter and himself critically wounding the nut despite his wearing a bulletproof vest. What is it in the UK that stops nuts like this from killing them or their families?

Simply outlawing guns doesn't keep crimes with guns from happening. What would have stopped this guy was locking him up. He had a very long history of harassment, stalking, abuse, etc. and was obviously dangerous to two different women and their families. This country's laws provide more rights to dangerous nuts like this than to their victims who get no protection other than a piece of paper that just as happened in this case put a bigger target on them - he attacked them only hours after being served with a restraining order.

[RoccoR5955]

224. Funny.

Other countries have more controls on guns, and there is far less violence than there is here.
So don't tell me that it is as effective as a ban on alcohol and drugs.
Alcohol, in small doses does not kill people, bullets, no matter how small have a primary function of killing. And don't tell me that the primary function of a bullet is to shoot at a target, because that is not why they were originally made.

[friendly_iconoclast]

265. That's not what I asked. Again, how do you plan on disarming 80 million people?

[RoccoR5955]

276. Do it this way.

The same way that they do it in the rest of the CIVILIZED world!
Unless, of course, the US is uncivilized.

[friendly_iconoclast]

290. What if even 1% balk? Will your (now-disarmed) police take them by force?

[RoccoR5955]

291. I am not going to answer that

Because it is apparent that you are trolling!

[friendly_iconoclast]

317. Not trolling, just deflating your fantasy...

[Logical]

66. You really think you help your side by posting this stupid shit on this type of OP? nt

[Rex]

105. I don't think they care if it helps, they know it will piss off a lot of people

so a'stirring they will go!

[jeff47]

112. Ammosexuals aren't particularly interested in their arguments sounding logical

or making their argument in a sensible place.

[friendly_iconoclast]

197. What are ammophobes particularly interested in?

[Joe Worker]

217. If you are the voice of reason

with all your sanctimonious labeling then we are all in trouble.

[Rex]

104. LOL! Ah that canard never gets old enough to put in the vault!

You folks and your love for death machines. Never miss a moment to play NRA lobbyiest...not matter how gruesome the OP.

[belzabubba333]

126. adam lanza's mom thought the same thing - we should ask her what she thinks ...

oh that's right we cant

[ncjustice80]

146. Bettet argument for disarming cops.

[stevenleser]

165. In which case the guy would have been sure to ambush her on the street. He's trained after all.

This isn't chess. If you and a person determined to kill you both have a gun, you don't get to trade moves to see who is the smartest.

The person determined to kill you will probably succeed. That's why the best option is to try to make sure no one has a gun to begin with.

[Joe Worker]

211. Why an AR?

Any firearm that could penetrate body armor would be sufficient. And in some some cases preferable.

[ileus]

221. true enough but if I'd said scar heavy, most would have been lost.

I actually like the AR series, fun, cheap and easy to shoot for the whole family. Drop in the CMMG conversion and shoot 22 all day long (well before the ammo scare now it's cheaper to shoot 223/5.56)

Easy to put optics on, for my wife she likes punching paper so she put a 12x24x50 on it. Mine I have a simple red dot clone and a nice flip up rear sight (the kids favorite for plinking away using the 22)

For right now the kids AR has a cheapo A2 mounted on it but you can beat down the 200yd gong every shot off handed.


I also coyote hunt with the DW's and would like to get another AR in 6.8 for deer here in Va. (or maybe just an upper)

[Feral Child]

226. I think you've entirely missed the point

due to your emotionally bias.

Not everything is about gun rights. No one was shouting, "If only there were no guns..."

YOU introduced that topic, you're derailing this discussion with your extremely single-minded obsession. Have a little respect for the community. If you can't actually contribute to the discussion, you shouldn't post.

[Iggo]

4. "Prosecutors will ask for death penalty, they say."

Too late.

[etherealtruth]

7. WTF ... do police dpts purposely seek out ...

violence/rage prone psychopaths ....? Don't answer, it is apparent they do.

[bvf]

79. Not sure they actively seek them out, but

they sure fuck up in screening. What more desirable position than cop could there be to a gun psycho? Why didn't the Cleveland PD flag the unstable son of a bitch who killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice?

[etherealtruth]

80. I have become convinced it has to be purposeful

Agree with the Cleveland cop .... who the eff hires someone for a position like that after they have been deemed "mentally unstable" by another department

[Nuclear Unicorn]

137. No. Violent, rage-prone psychopaths seek out power; police departments being

one of many repositories thereof.

[KingCharlemagne]

8. Although this woman was not married to her assailant\murderer, she had

Last edited Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

been in a prior relationship with him. (Her current husband shot and wounded the killer cop.)

I mention this by way of pointing out that 40% of police families experience domestic violence at the hands of the cop, a percentage far in excess of the general population (which hovers around roughly 10%).

[markpkessinger]

13. Do you have a source for that statistic?

I believe it, but I would like to be able to cite it.

[KingCharlemagne]

86. Keeping in mind Disraeli's quip that there are "lies, damned lies and statistics," please

peruse the following:

http://jezebel.com/5991019/forty-percent-of-police-officer-families-experience-domestic-violence

which draws upon this study:

http://womenandpolicing.com/violenceFS.asp

N.B. The 40% figure may be a conservative estimate, at least if the latter source is to be believed.

Thanks to my wife for turning me on to this depressing metric.

[markpkessinger]

115. Much appreciated -- thanks! n/t

[yodermon]

14. Ok that stat is blowing my mind, i need to look that up & do some research

alarm bells going off in my head. Police forces are becoming legalized organized crime.

[shedevil69taz]

30. what do you mean BECOMING?

they have been bent at a 90 degree angle for a very very long time...

Army CID spends the majority of its time investigating Soldiers who are MPs more than ANYONE else...

[etherealtruth]

16. Police Have a Much Bigger Domestic-Abuse Problem Than the NFL Does

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/
Research suggests that family violence is two to four times higher in the law-enforcement community than in the general population. So where's the public outrage?
...
And there is another American profession that has a significantly more alarming problem with domestic abuse. I'd urge everyone who believes in zero tolerance for NFL employees caught beating their wives or girlfriends to direct as much attention—or ideally, even more attention—at police officers who assault their partners. Several studies have found that the romantic partners of police officers suffer domestic abuse at rates significantly higher than the general population. And while all partner abuse is unacceptable, it is especially problematic when domestic abusers are literally the people that battered and abused women are supposed to call for help.

If there's any job that domestic abuse should disqualify a person from holding, isn't it the one job that gives you a lethal weapon, trains you to stalk people without their noticing, and relies on your judgment and discretion to protect the abused against domestic abusers?

[jtuck004]

42. Because "good" men and women do nothing. n/t

[angrychair]

11. not shocked anymore

Would not be surprised if this turns into a "good shoot" ruling.

[Ruby the Liberal]

96. Not a chance in hades

He was about to go to court on stalking charges from another woman AND quit his cop job in the 3 hours between getting the protection order from the victim Monday when he then donned a bullet proof vest and kicked down the victim's door to shoot her, using a gun he stated to authorities that he didn't own.

Useless SOB is toast.

[nichomachus]

20. Restraining orders are irrelevant as far as violence is concerned

A restraining order is a piece of paper. All it does -- all it does -- is give the police the authority to arrest the person if he comes near you, and you call the police, and the person is still there when the police arrive.

It does not physically prevent the person from coming to your house, attacking you, or harming you. It's just a mechanism to give police probable cause to arrest.

So many people misunderstand this. "Oh, if she only gotten a restraining order, this wouldn't have happened." Nonsense. If a person is determined to harm or kill you, a piece of paper is not going to stop him.

If you are in an abusive situation, it's important to get a restraining order, but don't misunderstand the scope and power of it. It is not a magic shield.

If you think the person is going to do you harm, you really need to get out and get to a safe place.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. "It's just a mechanism to give police probable cause to arrest."

Alas, the USSC has already ruled that the police have no duty to arrest. If they ignore a call for help against someone violating a Restraining Order the victim has ZERO recourse.

[nichomachus]

38. It is important in that regard

If you call police to report a disturbance, when they show up, they have no way of knowing who is the bad guy and who is the good guy. However, if you have a restraining order, then they know who the bad guy is.

The partner of a friend of mine died suddenly. There was a dispute over his belongings and money between my friend and the partner's brothers, who were pretty bad dudes. He felt threatened by them. I took him down to the police station to tell them what the story was. The police officer took all the information and explained that it would be in the computer, so that if he called for help, it would pop up on the cops' screen and they would show up knowing who was who and wouldn't have to sort it out. He couldn't get a restraining order as such, but it was good to know that the police had been alerted.

[Initech]

24. We're seriously headed down the path toward genocide if we don't do something.

There's no overnight fix to this problem but people are getting gunned down left and right these days thanks to our loose gun laws and almost no restrictions anymore. We need to fix this and fix this quick.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. The killer is a cop -- the sort of person gun laws look towards for enforcement.

[hack89]

35. We have cut our murder rate in half and it is still declining

Genocide? Hyperbole much?

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. It is an article of faith among the firearms-averse that it's increasing...

...even though what you said is demonstrably true:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172155609

The FBI violence stats for 2013 are out

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2013 (FBI)

Total murders...................... 12,253
Handguns............................ 5,782 (47.2%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,079 (17.0%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,622 (13.2%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,490 (12.2%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 687 (5.6%)
Shotguns.............................. 308 (2.5%)
Rifles................................ 285 (2.3%)


2012 and 2010, for comparison:


Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2012 (FBI)

Total murders...................... 12,711
Handguns............................ 8,813 (49.9%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 1,848 (14.5%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,637 (12.9%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,583 (12.5%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 678 (5.3%)
Rifles................................ 320 (2.5%)
Shotguns.............................. 302 (2.4%)


Murder, by State and Types of Weapons, 2010 (FBI)

Total murders...........................12,996
Handguns.................................6,009 (46.2%)
Firearms (type unknown)..................2,035 (15.7%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc...................1,772 (13.6%)
Edged weapons............................1,704 (13.1%)
Hands, feet, etc...........................745 (5.7%)
Shotguns...................................373 (2.9%)
Rifles.....................................358 (2.8%)

The disinterested reader is invited to go here:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s

and compare results for themselves. Statistics back to 1995 are available

[Initech]

119. Yeah probably.

Last edited Thu Dec 18, 2014, 10:47 PM - Edit history (1)

What else do you call unprovoked mass murder though?

[Savannahmann]

37. I agree wholeheartedly.

Since the shooter was a police officer, I agree that we should disarm the police immediately.

[RoccoR5955]

46. Disarm ALL Police.

And test them for steroid abuse.

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. Then how will they collect the guns you want to ban?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025977605#post43

RoccoR5955
43. A better argument to ban guns!

ALL GUNS!

Harsh language? Sarcasm?

[RoccoR5955]

57. Take them to

The smelting furnace and MELT the damn things!
Yes, harsh language, NOT sarcasm.

I am getting sick of these damn cops on their 'roid rages, killing innocent people. LET THEM ALL SUFFER! Take away their damn guns, and test them ALL for steroid abuse.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. What will you do about those who decline to "donate" their guns?

I don't think you quite thought your plans all the way through...

[RoccoR5955]

133. Take them away from them.

They are obliged to "follow orders," aren't they?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

138. I believe FI is referring to the citizens you would also see disarmed. However, since you mentioned

an obligation to follow orders -- if some elements of the police refused to follow orders you would need a subsequent constabulary capable of even greater armed force to bring them to heel. All government is violence. That is why all gun control in the name of ending violence is a hypocritical farce.

[friendly_iconoclast]

195. Rocco won't admit his plans *depend* on armed agents of the state

[friendly_iconoclast]

194. At gunpoint?

[RoccoR5955]

200. No, just give them an order.

They are supposed to follow orders. They expect "us" to follow orders, they should be held to the same standard.

[friendly_iconoclast]

201. Do you expect civilians to do likewise?

[ecstatic]

283. agreed. nt

[adieu]

73. I would disarm most of the police, especially those on the beat.

There certainly should be a special unit trained and prepared for extraordinary situations that clearly calls for armed presence. A daily beat cop is not one. He is more of a danger to both himself (herself) and the public by having a gun.

What is really needed is a complete change in hiring practices. The police should work jointly with each neighborhood and hire locally. Neighborhoods should and must create their own civic group and be trained in identifying people capable of being a police officer (as well as other civic duty professions such as supervisors, aldermen, zoning commission members, etc.). Then, the police and all other public officials are actually hired from that neighborhood. If they move out, then they lose their job, as it should.

As it is today, police officers don't live anywhere near their patrol areas. They're not accountable at the end of the day for their actions. They don't have an intimate knowledge of their neighborhood and the people around there. People don't trust him (her) and (s)he doesn't trust the people. That is a recipe for a confrontation.

The police officer has no desire to help clean up the place, as he or she doesn't live there, and indeed his or her pay and career are fully dependent on having the place kept messy and partly out of control.

Ideally, the police officer should be the first person anyone should go to when trouble or concern occurs. That officer is like the village pastor, someone to come to, to admit guilt, ask for forgiveness, advice, whatever. And he will be both monetarily and spiritually rewarded for doing so. Amply.

[ArcticFox]

44. What is a dearth penalty?

Is that no penalty at all?

[Orrex]

63. It's a more severe punishment than a paucity fine.

[Enthusiast]

47. See?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

48. This is the mirror image of racist "black guy kills innocent white" crime posts

You're cherry picking a specific example - cop commits murder - and clearly trying to generalize it to a group you hate.

Stop it. It's bullshit.


I myself believe that many police departments do a poor job of weeding out sociopaths. However, this story doesn't reinforce that. In fact, it's wrong, because the man called to resign minutes before he went in and committed this murder. So he wasn't a "Police Officer" any more.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[MrScorpio]

53. Trust me, this is a much bigger problem than you think it is. Check this out:

https://twitter.com/Cloud_Writer

[RoccoR5955]

58. No shit.

I know all about the Blue Wall of Silence, and how the damn cops lie under oath. Why, may you ask? Because they can get away with it. And they do. All the time.
When these damn cops know that they have to testify under a grand jury, or an internal investigation, they get together with one another, and make damn sure that they ALL have the same exact story, so that it sounds like they are telling the truth, even though they may be lying. And there is no hope for the one who decides to go against the rest of them, and report the truth. (S)he will look like the liar, and be vilified, and more than likely be the only one to get any punishment. It has happened before, and it is continuing to happen. They will get away with it, as long as they can.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

134. Actually, that was very interesting reading. Disturbing too.

Much more more interesting than the OP, in fact.

The existence of criminals who are caught and punished, is just something we have to live with. Crime that criminals can culturally get away with is an outrage.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[TorchTheWitch]

55. OMG, that poor woman!

I live in Delaware County. I think a long time ago I did a temp job in Glenolden. Might have been Folsom... I can't remember. It's pretty far south of me, and I don't have reason to go out there.

Oh Lord, he tried to kill the whole family. Thank goodness her husband was able to stop him.

As much as I dislike the death penalty, I'd still like to see him get it I guess as more of a statement. I don't think PA has actually executed anyone in ages. I know we have the death penalty and people on death row, but I can't recall the last time we actually executed anyone.

[Mnemosyne]

69. Interestingly, it has only been used 3 times since it was reinstated in 1976. All under Gov. Ridge.

First two, both in 1995, were murdered in the electric chair. Lethal injection was used to murder the last guy in 1999.

I'm still surprised that Gov. Gashole has never done executions.

[TorchTheWitch]

76. thanks for the info - I was just going to look that up

I don't know why but I'd thought we hadn't executed anyone since it was reinstated back in the 70's. I just don't remember these three in the '90's, but at that time I wasn't really paying attention to any news for the most part, so I'm not surprised that it escaped my memory.

Were these three all under the same governor? I'll have to look into this. Now I'm curious. Gads, we used the electric chair in '95! Ugh.

[Mnemosyne]

109. I thought it had been quite awhile too, but not. I kept thinking Copenhefer would be first in many

years to be executed.

I believe all three were under Ridge.

[LittleBlue]

56. Won't shed a tear if they fry him

His whole existence seemed to be about making others miserable, tormenting them, killing them. Hope a jury shows no mercy to him.

[DeSwiss]

65. Can't wait to hear what this wonderful law officer's......

...Police Union President has to say on his behalf:

''How about this? Listen to police officer commands. Listen to what we tell you and just stop. I think that eliminates a lot of problems. Makes the chance of missing the target and hitting some stray innocent dog or cat. And better grouping results.''


- Yep.

K&R

[hifiguy]

82. And THIS is the kind of idiot bastard that WANTED to be a cop.

Says a lot, n'est pas?

Fuck the kkkops.

[Ruby the Liberal]

89. More on this from local media:

Apparently, his boss thought the former stalking complaints were "bullshit" so didn't address it.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20141217_Delco_D_A___Psycho_cop_snaps__kills_woman__shoots_her_daughter.html

[dixiegrrrrl]

97. Oh my.....that IS chilling...

Bullet proof vest, eh?
And a serial stalker....yikes.

[Ino]

103. Some would say...

"So what? The boss is still a good cop and should be applauded, admired, held up as exemplary. He doesn't have to turn on a bad cop in order to be a good cop himself."

Mullaney is representing Rozniakowski in a separate harassment and stalking case in Montgomery County involving a woman who accused him of texting her and calling her - sometimes more than 100 times a day. A pretrial conference in that case had been set for tomorrow.

Despite that arrest, Rozniakowski stayed a part-time Colwyn police officer - but not on street duty. He was found guilty of harassment in 2009 and 2010, according to court records.

Colwyn Police Chief Bryan Hills previously told the Delaware County Daily Times that he thought the most recent stalking allegations were overblown.

"Looking at the circumstances, I think a lot of this is bulls---," Hills told the newspaper in April.

I say the Police Chief is a Bad Cop too.

[TorchTheWitch]

113. that chief needs to be fired

The guy was already convicted of harassment in '09 AND '10, and he should have been sacked after the first one. How could this chief actually believed the complaints were "bullshit"? He had a long history of this for cripes sake.

[Ruby the Liberal]

114. I had the same reaction when I read this.

MontCo and DelCo are tough counties. Something tells me this won't be the end of this story.

[MrMickeysMom]

132. Gawd, that's awful...

The only way he gets the death penalty is because he RESIGNED moments before this rampage.

They are supposed to have monitors in place when someone is this bad, but again, cover up is the rule. What a waste.

[surrealAmerican]

95. Was the restraining order granted based on an arrestible offense ?

It might be helpful if, when someone poses a real and immediate threat, they could simply be detained. It could have saved this woman's life.

[TorchTheWitch]

128. that's the problem

The law protects nuts like this and lets them out on bail to freely continue their violent abusive behavior while their victims get squat. This guy had a very long history of harassment, stalking, threats and abuse and was currently engaged in this behavior against her and another woman who rejected him, but like so many others like him or even worse was let out to abuse as they see fit only getting permanently locked up when they finally kill the object/s of their obsession and sometimes anyone else in the way.

And society mostly blames the victims... why did they go out with the person, why didn't they get away from the person, why didn't they get a restraining order (never mind that a restraining order just like in this case is what tips the nut over the edge), etc.

You ask me, society's and the law's indifference is because the victims are largely female.

[Rex]

106. I finally understand what people have been telling me here about cops job

is NOT to protect and serve the population. I get it now.

[TorchTheWitch]

129. you do realize that a cop was one of this lunatic's victims?

and who kept him from killing her daughter and himself by exchanging fire with him putting him in critical condition in the hospital?

This is not a gun problem or a cop problem, it's a dangerous obsessive nut problem. They come in all walks of life and are routinely kept out of jail to freely continue to abuse their victims and anyone else in the way until killing them or attempting to finally puts them in prison. And if the victims weren't largely female we'd likely long since have better protection of victims.

[Rex]

130. For that family it was totally a cop problem.

She even said she was probably going to die, where was her protection? Why no cop cars outside waiting on the asshole to show up? He was just going to decide instead to go pick flowers in the park? Why are cops today so fucking incompetent? No excuse, she should be alive. So my point totally stands.

YES cops are the problem, I know you are incapable of seeing that.

[TorchTheWitch]

135. they cops CAN'T protect these victims!

They CAN'T sit outside her house 24/7 any more than they can any other victims of nuts like these that are let out of jail every day all over the country. The police have NEVER been in the position to personally protect anyone that feels they need it. There aren't enough of them. There already aren't enough cops in most places to deal with all the other duties they have because townships aren't willing to supply enough money through taxes for them. Most places have their local cops doing double shifts and massive overtime into exhaustion because they can't afford to hire enough.

Since WHEN have the police EVER been in a position to guard citizens against a crazy that's obsessed with them, or haven't you noticed the massive domestic violence problems we have in this country that regularly lets these people out of jail even when they have a history as bad or even worse than this guy's? Police aren't ABLE to act as personal security for ANYONE including this COP who was married to the woman and just as vulnerable and had to leap out a window to keep from getting shot by him? The police can't even protect other police and their families from these nuts for crying out loud. Acting as security guards for people has NEVER been the purview of the police. Do you have any clue as to how many officers that would take??? What township could possibly afford that when most aren't given enough funds through taxes to provide the bare necessities of their communities needs? Why do you think town watches are so popular in most places? Because there aren't enough cops to patrol the neighborhoods! Or do you just hate cops so much that you have to blame them for something they can't do, aren't authorized to do, don't have even a fraction of enough officers to do and have never done in history rather than a fucked legal system that lets these crazies out of jail to attack their victims if they want to?

How much sense does it even make to add 10 or 50 or 100 or more cops to a single force so they can start doing security protection for victims of abusers than to just keep the obvious dangerous crazies locked up? And with you hating every cop that walks the earth I can't imagine how nuts it would make you to have all those other ones added to start doing protection detail for every victim, and sure as shit you'd be just add them to the list of cops you hate since they're all on there anyway for merely existing.

I just can't imagine what in the world is taking you so long to sign up and show them all how the job's done.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

139. Moreover, it's established case law that even if a woman calls the police to report the violation of

a restraining order, to include the taking of children, the police cannot be held liable even if the violator kills the woman and children.

911 is a joke.

[TorchTheWitch]

149. and they can't be held liable because personal protection detail isn't their job

and never has been. They aren't security guards, and I can't imagine why in the world anyone would imagine they should be. The number of police officers it would take to personally protect all the people in a community with a legitimate fear of someone is beyond staggering and the cost to taxpayers to employ and equip them all is simply unattainable. Rather than protect the victims it makes far more sense to keep the obvious dangerous nuts from physically being able to get to them by locking them up, but this country doesn't take domestic violence seriously enough to have laws that can. Every day the worst of them just like this guy are let out on bail and even allowed to have as many guns and ammo as they please. Our legal system isn't designed to protect or serve victims, it's designed to protect the accused no matter how obviously dangerous they are to someone and even when they have attacked them before.

[ncjustice80]

220. Disgusting.

They should be make dereliction of duty a civil and criminal offense. You desert your post in the military you get arrested, why should it be different for cops?

[JonLP24]

215. Makes more sense than 4 or 5 cops

showing up to handle a trespassing violation.

Signing up we'd be under a chain of command being tasked to handle useless bullshit to add to the bloated courtroom dockets and to send more people away for petty offenses to our overcrowding jails & prisons.

[onethatcares]

140. does he get

to resign?

[dixiegrrrrl]

142. He DID resign...pls. read the story at link. n/t

[HoosierCowboy]

143. It used to be we were terrified of criminals

....now we're afraid of law enforcement.

[ncjustice80]

145. Another murder by cops.

He will have no charges because he kicked down the door in self defense and "feared for his life."

[gopiscrap]

151. Typical cop..they are all like that

think that the law doesn't apply to them and full of steroid induced violent rage!

[vkkv]

166. The NRA would like nothing more than a full on public arms race

It's happening right now.

Yep, you HAVE to have an AR to be safe.. no, make that a grenade launcher..

The NRA cares not if criminals have guns, more public paranoia means MORE $ $ $ Yeah baby! ! !

Me, I'm a gun owning liberal lefty. I have rifles and a shotgun for target and biodegradable clay pigeons only.
It's not a good value to get a 10 second thrill for taking the life out of another living creature when it could still have years of life left.
10 second thrill < years more of life. Think about that you hunters out there.

Owning guns strictly for home protection / self-defense is a paranoid, wannabe executioner's fantasy.

Ruger
Browning
CZ

No cheap Mossbergs or Savage..

[vkkv]

169. Republican lie # 894,356,341

It’s Safer To Have A Gun In The House, Or A Concealed Weapon On Your Person.

An actual Republican debunking this one. Here’s David Frum:

A gun in the house minimally doubles the risk that a household member will kill himself or herself. (Some studies put the increase in suicide risk as high as 10 times.)
An American is 50% more likely to be shot dead by his or her own hand than to be shot dead by a criminal assailant.
More than 30,000 Americans injure themselves with guns every year.


Read more at http://thedailybanter.com/2014/03/the-top-10-most-egregious-republican-lies/#ugHLqGx1DwLTKG3F.99

[TorchTheWitch]

179. in this case it was a cop with a gun that stopped him

Her husband. Read the article.

[Joe Worker]

210. I would not trust those "studies" anymore than the NRA

What is shocking is that this public servant was also a stalker sworn to serve and protect.

[Feral Child]

228. It amazes me

that your OP was thread-jacked.

We should be talking about the effectiveness of restraining orders.
Of the victimization of women by stalkers.
Of renegade policemen and abuse of police power.

But no, some jackanapes had to run with a personal obsession and any realistic discussion floundered.

My personal belief rejects the death penalty under any circumstances, but this guy is an absolute menace and deserves life w/o any possibility of parole ever. Since he'll be a menace in the joint, I'd like to see super-max with very limited access to other prisoners.

[dixiegrrrrl]

250. It would be nice to have a special button for thread jacked replies...

I am thinking of putting a disclaimer in posts like this....
don't know how much good it would do.

And yes....the issue IS two fold.
Primarily that protection against stalkers is not very effective, since by definition a serious stalker is unhinged
and
that those with charged up aggressiveness, like cops and soldiers, can post a problem among stalkers.

I was one of the women who helped start the first Battered Women's Shelter in Seattle back in the 70's,
and got first hand experience with all angles of the issue.
We have come a long way, but still, the solution is elusive.

[Feral Child]

253. Thread jackers are going to jack.

Some people are so fixated and self-absorbed they just feel it's their right to force discussions to revolve around their pet issues.

Gungeoneers are really bad about this, and I mean both camps. They're angry because they were forced into a Group because they were dominating GD with their issues, and they respond by threadjacking. Some enterprising pro or against gunster should start their own Forum. Gunderground would be a fine name.

They're not the only offenders, but they rank pretty high for being Most Common Offenders.

ON TOPIC:

And restraining orders are pretty ineffective as a deterrent.


Cops should have computer access to lists of restraining orders in their assigned area. Jurisdiction-wide would be best, but in active areas at least at the precinct level.
That would at least identify potential offenders and targets. There's no "record check" they can run now, so they don't even know about it until contact has been made, and then it only works if the stalker hasn't already assaulted or killed the victim, + the victim has to have the court order in their possession at the time of the offense.

Courts need to set very steep penalties for violations. A $500 fine won't scare off many stalkers. 1st violation needs to be 30 days jail-time and a steep fine, at the very least, and go up incrementally for every offense. I'm saying for being inside the prohibited zone, not just making contact. They can lock up a person for holding a Dime but seldom lock up stalkers.

I also think they should be added to Sex Offender lists. Cops will actually check SO lists on their beat because it's high profile. Popping a known child molester gets them noticed, they get awards and promotions for those sorts of arrests. They should know every stalker that lives where they patrol, just like they know every child molester.

These sorts of actions, + an actual emphasis in training on stalking would make a huge difference.

[valerief]

251. I wonder what promotion he'll get, cuz cops are NEVER punished. nt