Conference back40::soapbox

Where's Mailroom when we really need him?

Is it correct that no one, with the exception of the two perps now in
the hospital, was hit by stray bullets from the security guard's weapon?
I thought that that was what I'd heard. That being the case, I find it hard
to believe that anyone is getting bent out of shape because the guard
fired in the course of his duty. Especially where his actions resulted
in the capture of 66% of the felons.

If he hadn't fired, someone would be ragging on the poor man for NOT
doing his job.

Sounds like the typical Hahvahd Squay-uh liberals at work.

>>Sounds like the typical Hahvahd Squay-uh liberals at work.

	Interestingly enough, the conservative this morning (Whitley)
	was saying the guard shouldn't have fired with all those
	people around, and the guest liberal dj (Mike Goldman) was
	supporting his actions (but only because the perps fired first).

I only caught a few minutes of the show while in the shower this AM, and
I thought that that was what I was hearing, too, but was unsure.

Pat leaves something to be desired as a conservative, however, . . . 

    Pat only looks conservative because they put him with Ms. Claptrap  and
    she off the scale to the left, so anyone appears to be conservative
    next to her. I think the guard should be given a medal for removing
    those felons from the streets of Boston, and Maybe it will send a
    warning to others of their ilk.

    
    
    	The fact is, he didn't hit any bystanders and he prevented ARMED
    FELONS from escaping to rob again (possibly killing someone the next
    time). I feel this shooting was justified.
    
    
    jim

|   That being the case, I find it hard to believe that anyone is getting
|   bent out of shape because the guard fired in the course of his duty.
    
    If you regularly walked through the square with your toddler on
    your shoulders, you might feel a little differently.
    
    
    As I said before, somebody was looking out for good things to happen
    that day.  Very very bad things could have easily happened that morning.
    
    Ask yourself a simple question.  How would you have felt if your
    toddler was shot and killed by the security guard performing his duty?
    
    Who would have been at fault?
    
    My head says the three scum townies.  But I'm not sure about my
    heart.
    
    Would I feel that my child's death would be the cost to pay for
    apprehending the three scum?
    
    Or would I question the wisdom of the guard in charging after the
    fleeing scum in the first place?
    
    Would I question the wisdom of returning fire at that site?
    
    Would I question the quantity of return fire?
    
    
    Finally....
    
    Compare and contrast the actions of the guard in Harvard Square
    to the off duty police officer on the north shore.  The off duty
    police officer had his two children in his seat of his car
    when he observed a bank robbery.  He did absolutely nothing
    which might have endangered anyone.  He followed the scum - from
    a very safe distance - and called the police on his cell phone.
    They got the scum at a roadblock.
    
    Then again, nobody put a gun to the head of the off-duty cop.
    
    
    Frankly, I wouldn't have wanted to be the guard that day.  But I also
    would not have wanted to be in the square with my son that day.
    
    If you can't see both sides of this issue, you just aren't looking
    very hard.
    
    								-mr. bill
              

Yes, I can see that side as well, Bill. But the fact of the matter is
that no one did get hurt, perhaps due to luck, perhaps due to expert
marksmanship on the part of the security guard, perhaps due to whatever.
My feeling is that since no one got hurt, in this instance, attempting to
make a federal case out of the matter to the detriment of the guard
is not really going to prove beneficial to anyone. If it had been an
on duty police officer who fired with the same results, would the
issue still be addressed to the same extent?

   Has anyone reported where all the guard's shots hit?  There are two
   ways to respond by firing a weapon.  They are:
   
   	1) Spray and Pray
   
   	2) Aim and Squeeze
   
   If the guard responded with #1, then I too would be upset with the
   response.  I feel #1 is never acceptable in a non-combat situation. 
   If the guard responded with #2, then I would have no trouble with it
   since people skilled in small arms would present little threat to me
   if I were there.

    
    No doubt George will now enter to say the robbers should sue the
    guard for medical expenses on grounds of use of excessive force.
    
      bb

    
    they probably will anyway.

   > My head says the three scum townies.  But I'm not sure about my
   > heart.
 
   Would it make you feel any better if they were allowed to escape 
   to kill again (perhaps they already had - are they responsible for the
   Hudson NH robbery in which two guards were shot?)? Would it make you 
   feel any better if your son was shot by the perps instead of the guard? 
   Or shot by a policeman trying to apprehend the perps? Remember, the 
   guard is someone's son as well.

   Why not just tell the criminal elements of the world that we'll never
   shoot back!

   > Would I feel that my child's death would be the cost to pay for
   > apprehending the three scum?
 
   The heart doesn't enter into it. When it does, it clouds judgement.
   There is no hard an fast charge (your sons death) for the apprehension
   of the perps. It's a matter of fate which we all face every momment of
   our lives.


   Doug.
    
  

    >If you can't see both sides of this issue, you just aren't looking
    >very hard.
    
     Sure there are two sides, but nobody but the perps got hurt so the
    handwringing over what might have happened is a little overblown. The
    scum townies might have elected to get a job instead of robbing a bank,
    but they didn't. Innocent people might have gotten hurt, but they
    didn't. Maybe, just maybe, the next group of jokers looking for wasy
    pickings won't try robbing a bank out of fear of getting shot. Clearly
    that's preferable to a continuation of the robberies.

>>  Maybe, just maybe, the next group of jokers looking for wasy
>>  pickings won't try robbing a bank out of fear of getting shot. 

	Whitley was sort of arguing the flip side of that - that this
	will inspire security guards to go blithely firing away whenever
	they feel like it.  
 

    What I think Bill's trying to ask is that while THIS instance
    of shooting proved harmful only to the perps, what should the
    GENERAL response to armed-robbery-in-a-very-very-crowded-place
    be?

    I'd have to say that it's a judgement call.  If the shooter
    believes he can discharge his weapon without endangering bystanders,
    he should go for it.  Otherwise, he should spend his time IDing the
    car, perps, etc.  What should happen if he "believes" it's safe, and
    hits a bystander?  Tough call.  He's surely responsible, but with
    what currency would he pay off the mother of a kid he killed accidently?
    
    \john

        What I think Bill's trying to ask is that while THIS instance
        of shooting proved harmful only to the perps, what should the
        GENERAL response to armed-robbery-in-a-very-very-crowded-place
        be?
    
        I'd have to say that it's a judgement call.
    
     works for me.

    .18
    
    let's all bear in mind that if more citizens were armed, the incidence
    of armed robbery would likely decrease.

	.19  with any luck, we can all bear that in mind without turning
	this into another should-everyone-and-their-grandmothers-own-a-gun?
	discussion.

    But then, the incidence of gunshot injuries would likely increase.  How
    does the licensing process test coolness under fire?

       <<< Note 330.10 by DYPSS1::COGHILL "Steve Coghill, Luke 14:28" >>>

>   If the guard responded with #1, then I too would be upset with the
>   response.  I feel #1 is never acceptable in a non-combat situation. 
>   If the guard responded with #2, then I would have no trouble with it
>   since people skilled in small arms would present little threat to me
>   if I were there.


	From the description of events it sounds like he did both. It
	sounded like he sprayed 14 rounds (a 9mm Hi-Cap duty gun?), then
	went to his backup piece (5 or 6 shot revolver?) and FINALLY
	figured out what that bump on the front of the barrel is for.

	Please note that this kind of shooting is not unusual for
	average law enforcement personnel. The last police shooting
	we had here in the Springs, the cop went one for three at
	15 feet.

Jim

    .21
    
    no, the incidence of injuries would not likely increase.  perps would
    know that they risked return fire, and they would be less likely to use
    their own armament.
    
    that's why there has been a noticeable shift in mugging tactics in the
    miami area - the muggers more often hit tourists, especially foreign
    ones, who are not legally able to carry firearms.

    I would imagine that finding yourself in the middle of a gun-fight,
    whether you're armed or not, can be one of those short-staining
    experiences.
    
    But consider this, if society is going to keep moving in the
    direction that shooting at armed criminals is a bad thing,
    what do we expect the result to be? Is it possible that this
    will lead to bolder criminals, who know they can get away
    from an armed robbery without fear of being killed? Doesn't
    that fear serve as a deterent to at least some portion of
    the potential criminal population?
    
    Also, I have to comment on my frustration with the media,
    yet again, going into public opinion formation mode. The
    press around this shooting has been a classic example of
    how bad things really are...
    
    -b

    Shoot first and say "Ooops" later.

      Re: Note 330.22 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO"


�	Please note that this kind of shooting is not unusual for
�	average law enforcement personnel. The last police shooting
�	we had here in the Springs, the cop went one for three at
�	15 feet.

   That's a shame.  All the law enforcement folks I personally know (at
   both the local and federal levels) take great pride in their firearms
   proficiency.  Of course, I know 90% of these people through
   organizations that espouse firearms proficiency, so I probably don't
   travel in circles frequented by cops like the one you cited.

    .26
    
    there is a disconnect, steve.  one can be a FABULOUS shot, on the
    target range or even in simulated combat, but still really stink when a
    real firefight goes down.  simply put, the level of stress when you
    know you can't be shot isn't anything like the level when you hear a
    bullet punch a hole in your hat.  under that kind of stress, some
    people don't perform well at all.  and it's often too late to make that
    discovery.

       <<< Note 330.26 by DYPSS1::COGHILL "Steve Coghill, Luke 14:28" >>>

>   That's a shame.  All the law enforcement folks I personally know (at
>   both the local and federal levels) take great pride in their firearms
>   proficiency.  Of course, I know 90% of these people through
>   organizations that espouse firearms proficiency, so I probably don't
>   travel in circles frequented by cops like the one you cited.

	A restricted sample. In our IPSC club there are a number
	of current sworn officers. They are all very proficient.
	But we only have one or two cops and one deputy out of
	two departments totaling about 400 sworn officers.

Jim

    Wonder if future armored car robbers will shoot first in light
    of the results of Harvard Square???? Talk about a catch 22.
    
    Phil

    
    There is another thing to consider that must be part of every law
    enforcement officer's on the spot decision to shoot or not to shoot.
    
    From what I have read here the perps opened fire first, then the guard
    returned fire. With a large number of civilians in the area the guard
    not only has his own survival at risk but if he doesn't respond what is
    the likelihood that continued fire from the perps might hit some of the
    citizens. Once they opened fire I would say the risk was the same
    and maybe even greater than if he had not returned fire. I say greater
    because criminals are not usually as well trained in the use of weapons
    as an officer is and normally have less regard for human life, civilian
    or police officer.
    
    There are more regulations, procedures and policies that keep officers
    from firing their weapon while the criminals are not encumbered by any. 
    Once the criminals used their weapons I would say the officer had no
    choice but to return fire unless you believe he should run away from
    the confrontation.
    
    JLB
    
    

    Re: .23
    
    >perps would know that they risked return fire
    
    So, you're saying that if we had more average citizens carrying guns,
    those citizens would only shoot at perpetrators who fired at them
    first?  I see no reason to make that assumption.
    
    Your .27 explains my position pretty well.  The licensing process
    cannot determine how someone will react when the possibility of
    shooting a perpetrator rears up.  Therefore, since the odds are good
    that some people will react inappropriately under stress, the odds are
    good that gunshot injuries will increase.  The question is whether you
    find this an acceptable tradeoff.

    
    
>Therefore, since the odds are good
>    that some people will react inappropriately under stress, the odds are
>    good that gunshot injuries will increase.  The question is whether you
>    find this an acceptable tradeoff.
    
    	If more bad guys than good guys get shot, I'm all for it. Most cops
    I know can't shoot worth a crap and I'd feel safer with one of the guys
    from the club. Citizens shoot 3X the amount of bad guys per year that
    cops shoot....and they shoot less innocent people (source is the FBI
    Uniformed Crime Report I believe).
    
    
    jim

    .31
    
    > So, you're saying that if we had more average citizens carrying guns,
    > those citizens would only shoot at perpetrators who fired at them
    > first?  I see no reason to make that assumption.
    
    where did i make that assumption?  i said that if a perp DOES fire at
    someone who's packing heat - or even if the perp threatens someone
    who's packing, the victim may suddenly turn out to be a wolf in sheep's
    clothing.
    
    now you may notice, if you care to read the fbi's uniform crime
    reports, that there has been a dramatic decrease in gun-related
    violence in florida, where approximately 2% of the population are
    licensed for concealed carry.  most criminals aren't so dumb as to
    believe that someone who went to the trouble to get a carry permit is
    going to hand over the valuables without taking any available
    opportunity to hand over some lead instead.  and, interestingly enough,
    the perps don't simply shoot first and pick pockets afterward.  they
    avoid the occasion of potential death.  which is, as i said, why the
    mugging business in florida has shifted its target population to those
    who are most assuredly not packing heat.

    Re: .33
    
    >where did i make that assumption?
    
    That was my question.
    
    >i said that if a perp DOES fire at someone who's packing heat - or even 
    >if the perp threatens someone who's packing, the victim may suddenly
    >turn out to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
    
    Let's see.  I say gunshot injuries will go up, because of people
    reacting badly in tense situations.  You say, as if refuting my
    position, that perpetrators will hesitate to fire if they know they
    might get return fire.  The _only_ way that statement refutes my
    position is if you assume that people will only fire on perpetrators
    who fire on them first.

>    Let's see.  I say gunshot injuries will go up, because of people
>    reacting badly in tense situations.  You say, as if refuting my
>    position, that perpetrators will hesitate to fire if they know they
>    might get return fire.  The _only_ way that statement refutes my
>    position is if you assume that people will only fire on perpetrators
>    who fire on them first.
    
    	I think the point he was trying to make was that there will be less
    violent crime (since the criminals won't know who's packing),
    henceforth, less armed confrontations and therefore less "bad
    reactions" under stress. I wonder if there has been a sharp rise in
    accidental shootings in Florida?
    
    jim
       

re: .31

>    So, you're saying that if we had more average citizens carrying guns,
>    those citizens would only shoot at perpetrators who fired at them
>    first?  I see no reason to make that assumption.

No need to make any assumption.  Check the stats for states that have passed
liberal concealed carry laws.  Not a single state turned into the 'Wild West'
that the Pro-criminals keep warning about.  The Pro-criminals don't want
facts.  They would prove them wrong.  Instead, they want people like you to
react with your emotions and ignore reason.  Sounds like you bought it,
hook, line, and sinker.

Bob

    From the original story.
    
    The security guard did very well at carrying out his job. He appears
    to have had a just reason to fire upon the 'a*holes' and I for one
    would shake his hand and pat him on the back.
    
    Well done to him.

            <<< Note 330.31 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

    
>    Your .27 explains my position pretty well.  The licensing process
>    cannot determine how someone will react when the possibility of
>    shooting a perpetrator rears up.  Therefore, since the odds are good
>    that some people will react inappropriately under stress, the odds are
>    good that gunshot injuries will increase.  The question is whether you
>    find this an acceptable tradeoff.

	Sometimes intutition is insufficient. Twenty two states have
	changed their laws regarding concealed carry. None of these
	states has seen an increase in firearms injuries related
	to license holders.

Jim

    >The _only_ way that statement refutes my position is if you assume that 
    >people will only fire on perpetrators who fire on them first.
    
     No. You miss the fact that the vast majority of instances where guns
    are used to stop an assault or robbery that the mere presence of the
    gun stops the attack. Shots are (thankfully) not fired each and every
    time someone pulls a gun on someone else. Usually it is a simple show
    of force.

    RE: 34
    
    Interesting presumption "that gunshot injuries will go up due to people
    reacting badly in tense situations". Unfortunately your theory has not
    been supported in the slightest by the facts in those states that have
    passed a concealed carry law. Shootings and muggings are down in those
    states over a two year period and noone is even suggesting that it's due to
    all of that social rehabilitation claptrap foisted by the pro-criminal 
    do-gooders. In fact, they are strangely silent about whats happening in
    those states, I guess they are sorta hoping it will just dry up and blow 
    away. It's tough for them to say anything when the overwhelming majority of
    armed law-abiding citizens appear to be reeacting responsibly, cooly
    and properly in those "tense situations" you describe. And for the would
    be criminals, well those sheep suddenly started sporting fangs.   
    
    As a previous note suggested you appear to have fallen for the pro-criminal
    media and pro-criminal do-gooders which dote on the relatively few
    incidents of shootings instead of the growing number of armed citizens who 
    acted properly in situations where they normally would have been a victim. 
    
    Citizens are now legally becoming able to excercise their right of self 
    defense that they had surrendered to law enforcement agencies and the 
    criminal justice system. More importantly they are able to excercise
    that right on more equal terms with an armed criminal. They are taking it 
    back because the police can't be in enough places fast enough to provide 
    that defense and when they are the liberal courts release the scum with 
    nary a pat on the behind. 
    
    It must really be sticking in the craw of the anti-gun lobby that they
    are being proven wrong by the facts.                            
    
    JLB
    
     

    Re: .36
    
    >Not a single state turned into the 'Wild West'
    
    I have not predicted a "Wild West."
    
    >Sounds like you bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
    
    First, I didn't base my opinion on anything anyone said to me.  Second,
    anyone who uses the term "Pro-criminal" is as much of a propagandist as
    those he claims to discredit, and is therefore as trustworthy.

    Re: .39
    
    >You miss the fact that the vast majority of instances ....
    
    No, you miss the thrust of the argument.  His point was made in attempt
    to refute, which means it must (if it is to succeed) contradict
    something I said.  The only way it makes that contradiction is if one
    makes that assumption.

    Re: .40
    
    >when the overwhelming majority of armed law-abiding citizens appear to 
    >be reeacting responsibly, cooly and properly in those "tense situations" 
    >you describe
    
    Has the overwhelming majority of armed law-abiding citizens even
    participated in those "tense situations"?  
    
    Here these other folks have been telling me that those "tense
    situations" aren't occurring because criminals are picking on those 
    unlikely to be carrying.  Now you're telling me that these situations
    _are_ occurring (on a sufficient basis that most armed law-abiding
    citizens have participated in one).  Get your stories straight.
    
    >As a previous note suggested
    
    As a previous note suggested, you have more than a taste for
    propaganda.

>Therefore, since the odds are good
>    that some people will react inappropriately under stress, the odds are
>    good that gunshot injuries will increase.  The question is whether you
>    find this an acceptable tradeoff.

Since most crimes are commited by repeat offender, and that criminals that have
demonstrated their willingness to shoot are likely to commit more crimes 
involving shooting, the odds are good that gunshot injuries are already
near a plateau.

Now, if a percentage of these criminals were confronted by joe average packing
some heat of his own, I would expect the number of gunshot injuries to go
DOWN (The NYC train, the restaurants, the schoolyards).

What really tick me off is that these guys tried to rob a bankcar in broad 
daylight in a crowed area and only ONE person responded. Those criminals should
have been surrounded (and dispatched!).

Doug. 

re: .41

>Second, anyone who uses the term "Pro-criminal" is as much of a propagandist as
>those he claims to discredit, and is therefore as trustworthy.

You have a more accurate term for someone who wants to ensure that the criminals
can't be stopped from commiting their crimes?  Why else would they wish to make
the law-abiding citizens defenseless against criminals if they aren't
Pro-criminal?

I don't give a #$%^&* if you consider me trustworthy.  You can check the
factualness of my statements, unlike yours which are only poorly thought-out,
emotion-laden opinions.

Bob

    >I say gunshot injuries will go up, because of people
    >reacting badly in tense situations.  You say, as if refuting my
    >position, that perpetrators will hesitate to fire if they know they
    >might get return fire.  The _only_ way that statement refutes my
    >position is if you assume that people will only fire on
    >perpetrators who fire on them first.
    
     No. You didn't read ALL of what he wrote. Let me emphasize the salient
    point: "or even if the perp threatens someone who's packing". Which, of
    course, goes back to the point I made in my last note, which apparently
    eluded you.
    
    

	I'm on the side of the guard.

	As for the question re: my toddler...

	If such a dreadful thing ever happened, I'd likely blame the
	criminals that shot first, not the guard doing his job.

	Karen

|  Would it make you feel any better if they were allowed to escape 
|  to kill again (perhaps they already had - are they responsible for the
|  Hudson NH robbery in which two guards were shot?)?
    
    You know, this kind of crap just makes you seem so thoughtful.  For
    what it's worth, the scum who is still at large (and hiding safely
    more than likely somewhere in Charlestown) is known to have killed
    before.  For a further clue, the last name of the man who he murdered
    was named "***KANE***".  Yes, a distant cousin, you stupid idiot.
    
    What would I like?  I'd like the townie code-of-silence broken so that
    total scum can't walk into a resturaunt, kill a man, and yet nobody
    there had eyes and nobody there had ears.  That's what I'd like.
    
    
    As far as the assorted usual suspects proclaiming that these things
    wouldn't happen if more people were armed, because afterall, scum would
    think twice before attacking if they thought there might be
    armed people about.
    
    NEWS FLASH FOR THE TERMINALLY DENSE.  THE SCUM KNEW THE SECURITY GUARD
    WAS ARMED.  DUH!  THEY ATTACKED HIM ANYWAY!  GOT IT?
    
    
    Finally, to the thoughtful gun supporters out there....  Returning fire
    was no doubt justified.  But returning fire was probably not something
    you want to put up on a fireams safety poster.
    
    The guard has stated that he thought the people behind him were more at
    risk than the people behind the fleeing scum.  Perhaps.  But perhaps a
    self justifying belief.  The guard also thought the scum fired
    at him a number of times.  All evidence points to the scum
    shooting ONCE and the security guard returning fire and shooting
    nineteen times.  If the guard actually heard shots, he probably
    heard echos off the buildings across the street.
    
    
    I've said before, somebody was looking after us that day.  The bad
    guys got hurt, nobody else did.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >NEWS FLASH FOR THE TERMINALLY DENSE.  THE SCUM KNEW THE SECURITY GUARD
    >WAS ARMED.  DUH!  THEY ATTACKED HIM ANYWAY!  GOT IT?
    
    A question: if Harvard square were lined with armed police/soldiers,
    do you think the scum would have pulled their stunt? probably not, eh?
    Why not? Because getting away from 1 guy with a gun is lots easier than
    getting away from 1000 guys with guns. Ok, istead of putting 1000
    armed people in harvard square (which would be just a leetle stifling),
    we're going to place a number of guns in the hands of the good guys,
    only they aren't going to be identified. So scum doesn't have a uniform
    to serve as a target and warning. Somehow it eludes you that not
    knowing the location of potential countervailing force is a deterrent
    to attack. I think the technical term is "walking into an ambush" also
    know as the Butch Cassidy effect.
    

Re           <<< Note 330.49 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    A question: if Harvard square were lined with armed police/soldiers,
>    do you think the scum would have pulled their stunt? probably not, eh?

  Actually I have to agree with you there.

  If Harvard square were lined with armed police, the people who currently go
there would go somewhere else. The shops would fail for lack of business there
would be no need for an armored car thus no target for the thieves.

  Of course then people would be asking why all those armed guards were
watching over a ghost town.

  George

    
    
    	why would people go somewhere else George? do you normally turn and
    walk the other way when confronted with an armed police officer? I
    would think the people who were most afraid of crime in the area would
    feel much safer actually. Don't most folks say they want more cops on
    the beat?
    
    
    jim

    Yeah, all those scum selling "Spare Change" and "Socialist Workers" and
    trying to shove a buy one pair get another half off shoe coupon at
    me really scare the daylights out of me.  Not to mention all those
    terrifying folks playing chess.  And the street performers?  Brrrrech.
    They scare me so much it makes my flesh crawl.  I do my best not to
    spend any time at all in Harvard Square, because, well, you know,
    the kind of folk who are attracted to stores like "LearningJones"
    and "Craight & Boreall".
    
    ----
    
    The scum picked Harvard Square to hit because they wanted a tough
    job to pull off and because they wanted to brag all about it to
    all their friends because they have friends who don't talk.
    Got it?  The harder to pull off the better.  So they didn't
    pull it off.  So they got shot.  So they'll do some time.
    Almost as good as getting away with it.  In the crowd they hang
    with.
    
    One letter to the Globe got it right.  How the hell did they paahk
    the getaway caah on Dunstaah Street?  And how stupid can you get
    to paahk a getaway caah on Dunstaah Street.  After 10 minutes of
    driving, they might have made it as far as the Hasty Pudding.
    
    ----
    
    And spare me the Herald weepy stories of what went wrong here's the
    photo of the nice boy with Raybo, how did he turn into scum?  (When
    was the last time you saw a picture of a black armed robber on the
    front page of the Herald with 40 graph cry fest for the poor "victim"
    who got shot just because he tried to kill somebody?)
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Mr. Bill, is *everyone* but you and yours, scum?
    
    jeff

                            
    A smart person would have said something like "I'm sorry."
    
    So, since you are so damn confused....
    
    Distant cousin was eating in a Charlestown resturaunt.  Distant cousin
    gets in argument with the now hiding and recoverring from wounds safely
    somewhere armed robbing scum.  Scum goes home, gets gun, and comes
    back.  Distant cousin was blown away in *front* of several concealed
    carrying (some with permits, some without) law abiding patrons.
    
    Who did nothing.  Who saw nothing.  Who heard nothing.
    
    More guns did not save this guy.  More guns would not have
    stopped his murderer.  They didn't in the resturaunt.  They didn't
    in Harvard Square.
    
    The most powerful weapon against this guy?  A mouth that opens and
    closes.  Just one mouth.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Sure is a good thing this didn't happen up here in Canada, or the
    results would have been considerably different:
                        
    The Guard would have been arrested, and received a sentence in
    accordance with his crimes against the unfortunate perpetrators, to be
    served in a Maximum Security Prison.
    
    The Perpetrators would have been wisked off to hospital, and upon
    making a full recovery, would go to a show-cause hearing.  Of course
    all they would need to say is that they needed the money, and they
    would be sent off to holiday camp (Retention Center) where they could
    learn new skills in locksmithing or security system installations to
    help them readjust upon completion of the chosen career.
    
    A truck load of Social Workers would be dispatched immediately to the
    site to council all the spectators and their immediate families,
    aquaintances,pets, and any unfortunate passerby that may have strayed
    onto the scene accidently within the prescribed 72 hour cool down
    period.
    
    
    Rod (Tongue in Cheek-but only slightly so... On the other hand...Good
    for the Guard, to bad he missed one!) Clinton oughta give him an award!

<---- A non-fan of Canadian gun control, I presume?

    <----- I firmly believe along with the rest of the mindless, that guns 
    	   should be banned from the general public.  That way there is no
           danger of returning fire on aan armed criminal, and risk hurting 
    	   the poor sop.
    
    	But I digress!...This note is really about the Guard who I believe
    	should receive a medal for his actions!
    
    
    	Rod (Armed and Gangerous)

              <<< Note 330.59 by CTUADM::MALONE "Always Obtuse" >>>

>    	But I digress!...This note is really about the Guard who I believe
>    	should receive a medal for his actions!
 
ex


	The guard should be slapped. Anyone that requires 14+ rounds to 
	hit 3 targets needs to practice more.

   	Mr Bill, as much as I hate to admit it, has a point when he points out
	that someone was watching out for this guy and all of the bystanders
	in the area.



Jim

    
  >  So, since you are so damn confused....
   
    Yup. I read thru your reply too quickly and confused it's content
    with the Hundson inncident. My mistake.
    Thanks for the clarification.
    At any rate, the example is valid, as you have shown.
    
  > A smart person would have said something like "I'm sorry."
 
  Apologies go both ways my friend. What I wrote was not intentionally
  hurtful, can you say the same? P+K perhaps ...

  > Distant cousin was blown away in *front* of several concealed
  > carrying (some with permits, some without) law abiding patrons.
   
   Which demonstrates just how badly our society has deteriorated ...

   (Which brings up the separate issues of laws which inhibit envolvement)
   
   It is a tragedy and I feel for your loss, but that doesn't change the 
   issue any.

   Doug.

    
      The title of this note reminds me of a "comedy shootout" I once
     took small children to at one of those Western theme parks.  The
     sheriff-actor is trying to instruct two ignorant gunslingers in
     the refinements of genteel dueling.  He tells them at the count
     of ten to "turn and fire at will".  Naturally, after ten paces,
     the two guys plug the town drunk, whose name is Will...
    
      bb

    Re: .45
    
    >You have a more accurate term for someone who wants to ensure that the 
    >criminals can't be stopped from commiting their crimes?
    
    Once again, you prate propaganda.  Do you really believe that these
    people _want_ to make sure criminals aren't stopped?  Or is it possible
    that they have other intentions, which you've chosen to recast in a
    light that serves your own purpose, and inaccuracy be damned?

    
    
>    Once again, you prate propaganda.  Do you really believe that these
>    people _want_ to make sure criminals aren't stopped?  
    
    	I wouldn't say the people want the criminals to get away with the
    crime, just that they don't want to see the poor misunderstood
    criminals get hurt. (gawd forbid) Society has wronged them so....
    
    
    jim

re: .63

Well, given that gun control laws don't lower crime, why else would a supposedly
intelligent person support laws that make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding
citizens and ensure that criminals won't encounter any on-the-job injuries?

Wait a minute!  That's it!  As .64 said, these people are only trying to keep
the poor misunderstood criminals from getting hurt.  Those laws are really like
OSHA regulations to keep the criminals on-the-job injuries to a minimum.  Gee,
how could I have been so dumb!

Bob

    Re: .64
    
    What you said:
    
    |You have a more accurate term for someone who wants to ensure that the 
    |criminals can't be stopped from commiting their crimes?
    
    What I said:
    
    |Do you really believe that these people _want_ to make sure criminals 
    |aren't stopped?
    
    Therefore, when you say:
    
    >I wouldn't say the people want the criminals to get away with the crime
    
    I say that you, in fact, said just such a thing.

    Re: .65
    
    >why else would a supposedly intelligent person support laws that make 
    >criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens and ensure that 
    >criminals won't encounter any on-the-job injuries?
    
    So, you're saying you _really_ believe that these people don't want
    criminals stopped?  If yes, then what are you taking?  If no, why are
    you making claims you don't believe?
    
    >Gee, how could I have been so dumb!
    
    Unfortunately, you'll never be able to tell us.

>    So, you're saying you _really_ believe that these people don't want
>    criminals stopped?  If yes, then what are you taking?  If no, why are
>    you making claims you don't believe?

Well, you tell me why they are behaving the way they are and I'll add that
to my data and see if I can come up with some other conclusion.
    
>    >Gee, how could I have been so dumb!
>    
>    Unfortunately, you'll never be able to tell us.

I put that in just to see if you'd take that out of context and you did.

Bob

    
    
re:            <<< Note 330.66 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>
>    What you said:
>    
>    |You have a more accurate term for someone who wants to ensure that the 
>    |criminals can't be stopped from commiting their crimes?
>    
>    What I said:
>    
>    |Do you really believe that these people _want_ to make sure criminals 
>    |aren't stopped?
>    
>    Therefore, when you say:
>    
>    >I wouldn't say the people want the criminals to get away with the crime
>    
>    I say that you, in fact, said just such a thing.

    	Chels, do try and keep up. I did not write .45, only .64. My reply
    was simply my opinion of the situation.
    
    
    nnttm,
    
    jim

    .31 "So, you're saying that if we had more average citizens carrying
    guns, those citizens would only shoot at perpetrators...
    
    There is that possibility. There was an article in American Rifleman
    a few months back which centered on a community in Florida which had
    passed a law requiring each household to have a gun, and was freely
    giving permits to carry concealed to those who requested them and 
    who had no criminal records. Violent crime in that community, if I
    recall correctly, dropped almost 60% in the first few months, home
    break-ins were almost non-existent after the first few attempts
    resulted  in the criminals being shot, and resulted in a great drop
    in muggings, etc.  Unfortunately, the criminal element just moved to
    nearby towns where they did not have to worry about this. Let me know
    if you EVER see anything close to such a drop in Massachusetts or NYC.
    Or Washington, DC with all its gun laws, permit requirements, etc.
    Pass all the gun laws you want. You will NEVER stop the criminal
    element from getting guns or murdering or mugging people. 
    

    .70
    
    Kennesaw, Georgia passed a similar law several years ago; it didn't
    really have a high rate of crime, now crime is practically non-
    existent :-)
    

    Re: .68
    
    >you tell me why they are behaving the way they are
    
    They've told you why they're behaving that way.  You simply decided to
    ignore what they've said.
    
    >I put that in just to see if you'd take that out of context and you did.
    
    Alas for you, there was nothing out of context about it.

    Re: .69
    
    >I did not write .45, only .64.
    
    True enough.  So now you see I don't argue with people so much as I
    argue with what they say.

    Re: .70
    
    >There was an article in American Rifleman a few months back
    
    Now I understand why I keep hearing the same song over and over....
    
    >home break-ins were almost non-existent
    
    Burglary is a vastly different situation then the ones that prompted
    this whole argument -- involving public (crowded) places.  First up was
    the guard shooting at fleeing criminals, second mentioned was the
    Feguson shooting on the subway.
    
    >Pass all the gun laws you want.
    
    I bet you think you know exactly how many gun laws I want, and what
    they'll all say.  If so, perhaps you'll tell me so we both will know.

re: .72

>    They've told you why they're behaving that way.  You simply decided to
>    ignore what they've said.

Please explain.

Bob

    Re: .75
    
    They're worried about their children getting shot.  They're worried
    about guns in schools.  You might disagree with their solutions, but
    they have valid concerns.

>    They're worried about their children getting shot.

They shouldn't name them Will.

>>They shouldn't name them Will.

	See, this is precisely why I capitalized "fire" in the 
	title, but not "will".  But did that strategy work?  No.
	No, it did not. ;>

Di, I held off for 76 replies.  I'm getting better, honest.

    Seventy-six replies Gerald held his fire,
    And a hundred and ten bad puns were denied...

	that's okay, gerald.  there's some sort of great cosmic
	resolve that drives these things, and you were but a helpless
	pawn, no doubt. 

    Seventy-six replies Gerald held his fire,
    And a hundred and ten bad puns were denied...
    
    But boxers far and wide are never long denied     
    for Gerald's true to self and deigned to cease the hide.  
    Out he broke into the open, his lame attempt was finally spoken.
    "I'm here! It's me!" he said with a grin, "A really bad pun is never a sin"
    But lady Di was quick on the draw and Binder raised his mighty paw.
    Gerald lay shot, maimed and dying while box rabble stood round sobbing
    and crying. 
    "Don't go Gerald!" "We'll miss you you see." "You make us all smile,
    you're way to funny!"  
    Pedants and bores, the left and the right all stood in horror at the
    pitiable sight.  
    "Gasp! Hack! Cough!" as the blood flowed freely " I feel real fine, I
    could out skate Cam Neely".  
    But we all knew deep in our hearts, the the humor had stopped thanks to
    old farts.  
    
    Brian 

Agagagagagagagagagag!

re: .76

And when presented with facts that show their solutions don't work, they
continue to press for more of the same.  Assuming these are intelligent,
logical people, one has to suspect a hidden agenda.  Perhaps their hidden agenda
is advanced by allowing criminals free reign over the law-abiding citizens.

Bob

    Excellent Brian! I needed a good laugh!
    
    {sound of applause}
    
    -b

	sure.

    Re: .84
    
    As I expected.  Why should it be any different just because I'm the one
    relaying the message?
    
    Continue to believe that normal, voting Americans really, really,
    REALLY want armed criminals running around unchecked, that they
    actually enjoy having criminals prey on them, that they want nothing
    more than rampant crime.
    
    Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

>    As I expected.  Why should it be any different just because I'm the one
>    relaying the message?
 
What are you talking about?

>    Continue to believe that normal, voting Americans really, really,
>    REALLY want armed criminals running around unchecked, that they
>    actually enjoy having criminals prey on them, that they want nothing
>    more than rampant crime.

I don't believe that any more than you do.  Now, when are you going to answer
my question?

Bob

    Re: .88
    
    >What are you talking about?
    
    I'm saying that it does matter if they tell you their reasons
    themselves, or I tell you.
    
    >I don't believe that any more than you do.
    
    Then don't keep saying it.
    
    >when are you going to answer my question?
    
    You asked what their reasons were, I told you.

    
    330.82
    
    Brian, that was excellent, truly excellent.

  I keep looking at that title and I keep wondering, just who is Will and
why would someone fire at him?

  George

 That question has been asked and answered, thank you.





JIm

  Dam, I missed it.

  George

    
    
    bravo, brian... :>