Private Citizen Ends Violence

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Desertrat, Dec 11, 2007.

  1. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #1
    Per http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001348.html?hpid=sec-nation

    "The gunman, identified as Matthew Murray 24, of Englewood, Colo., was carrying an assault rifle, two handguns and as many as 1,000 rounds of ammunition when he shot his way into the huge New Life Church in Colorado Springs and was confronted and shot by Jeanne Assam, a former police officer who was serving as a volunteer security guard, police said.

    "I saw him coming through the doors, and I took cover, and I waited for him to get closer," Assam told reporters. "I came out of cover, I identified myself and engaged him and took him down," she said.

    Assam, a member of the New Life Church, said that although she was outgunned and physically weak from three days of fasting, "God was with me. . . . God made me strong."

    One weak little ol' gal with a gun did pretty good. Killed a goblin, and not only saved a bunch of lives but saved Colorado's taxpayers a bunch of money. Good on her!

    Just shows to go ya that "Gun Free Zones" aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

    Like Marko says at his Munchkin Wrangler blog, "The number of casualties at the site of an attempted mass shooting is usually determined by whether the gun used to stop the killer is already at the site, or whether it must be carried there in the holster of a police officer."

    The first option is obviously better than the second.

    'Rat
     
  2. killr_b macrumors 6502a

    killr_b

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Location:
    Suckerfornia
  3. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #3
    Carrying "1,000" rounds of ammunition? Yikes! No wonder he couldn't move very quickly! ;) Have they reported on what kind of "assault rifle" was used?

    More seriously, I think 'Rat's point is well taken. If the police had been involved, it's safe to say more people would have been killed, while the police established a "perimeter" and then had the SWAT team sit on its a** while Murray went round killing people because the police wouldn't want to "unnecessarily risk" any SWAT members or other police. (Which was the official reason SWAT teams did not try to enter Columbine.)

    That said, it's easy to take it too far--I think Colorado's "shall issue" law is about right, if a bit expensive (~$125-150 for the required safety course, plus the same for a "background check" that takes 10 seconds and costs nothing). I've applied for a CCW permit partly on the idea that the more people do, the less likely a court is to take it away.
     
  4. Pittsax macrumors 6502

    Pittsax

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #4
    Riiiight.

    She was a volunteer SECURITY GUARD who was also a former police officer. This isn't your average shmoe walking around carrying a gun because he/she thought 1)it would be good to have in case someone started shooting and/or 2) the Constitution says to (which it doesn't even come close to saying). The lucky thing is that a said shmoe with a gun didn't also happen to be there and start shooting as well.
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    I suppose you have plenty of links to verify your "usually".
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    She wasn't a "private citizen", she was a paid armed security guard.

    And the first armed security guard did nothing to stop the violence.
     
  7. latergator116 macrumors 68000

    latergator116

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Location:
    Providence, RI
  8. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #8
    Well, maybe not.

    Is anybody else interested how a person convinces himself that this an acceptable way of dealing with problems? Anybody else tired of the playground names being thrown around?
     
  9. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #9
    Private citizen, volunteer guard, paid guard, she killed him, he committed suicide. What does it matter? Clearly the death toll would have been much higher if she hadn't taken action.
     
  10. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #10
    Why do we no longer use the phrase "shot himself." I'm not being critical of the above post; it is consistent with the way everyone writes that phrase now. But I find it strange we no longer simply say that someone "shot himself." The first time I remember hearing it phrased strangely was MTV's Kurt Loder reporting that Kurt Cobain "was the apparent victim of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head." ?????
     
  11. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #11
    If you had proper gun control laws and a neutered NRA you wouldn't have people carrying 'an assault rifle, two handguns and as many as 1,000 rounds of ammunition' around that easily in the first place. Simple.
     
  12. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #12
    Technical lingo. GSW is used instead of "shot".
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    Yes, but we all know that the right of every citizen to be a crazed psychopathic fruitloop wielding a small armoury is enshrined in the Constitution (pbui).
     
  14. killr_b macrumors 6502a

    killr_b

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Location:
    Suckerfornia
    #14
    'Cause prohibition totally prevents crime. Not.
    Anyone who wants to can get an "illegal" firearm just as easily as they can get pot.

    And what part of the second amendment isn't clear? The part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" pretty much says it all.

    And, btw, the NRA was founded FOR gun control laws. FYI.
     
  15. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #15
    Hardly. The American experience with gun control laws is far from clear, with a number of studies showing violent crime decreasing as gun control laws are reduced. Plus the old chestnut "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them" has a large grain of truth to it.

    From a brief review, it appears that gun control in the UK has not decreased gun crime. By way of example, here is a BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

    So perhaps it's not quite so simple?
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    If it didn't matter, why would 'Rat have posted a thread with the title "Private Citizen Ends Violence"? Clearly the OP thought that the fact this woman was a private citizen was important. He also clearly thought the fact that she shot him (even if that fact turns out to be wrong) was important.

    Clearly the death toll would have been much lower with proper gun control laws.

    I mean, since we're not supplying proof to back up our assertions and all...
     
  17. killr_b macrumors 6502a

    killr_b

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Location:
    Suckerfornia
    #17
    I bet you know all about our constitution…
     
  18. pknz macrumors 68020

    pknz

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Location:
    NZ
    #18
    I'm backing this stance. But its not the sole reason.
     
  19. killr_b macrumors 6502a

    killr_b

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Location:
    Suckerfornia
    #19
    Why don't you do your job and be an informed person and look up the Fed's own stats that less gun control laws= less crime in those cities.
     
  20. juanm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #20
    I don't know, but maybe there are less gun control laws in those cities because, in the first place, there was less crime, and thus, less need for those laws which were created elsewhere precisely to fight the high crime rates.

    Just curious. When was the article in the constitution related to firearms use created/modified/amended last time?
     
  21. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #21
    Would it really? People kill people with guns or not. I've read the kid's manifesto and its not pretty. If he didn't have a gun he probably would've snuck around and beat christians with blunt instrument.

    I don't see where ufcgrad93 needed any proof to back up what he said.
     
  22. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #22

    I believe that conveniently you've left off the important qualifying first part of that sentence there.

    So what part of a well-regulated militia applies to nutcases being able to lay their hands on assault rifles?

    You guys are so awash with weapons over there, that you can't see the absurdity of it... and when the solution offered is to arm everyone, the collective insanity of that approach is revealed for the farce it is.
     
  23. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    If you had a clue, you would have known that that was not my point.

    Please try again.

    Sure it would. I don't see where I needed any proof to back up what I said. And really, my point wasn't so much to argue the point as to show that if we're not backing up claims like that with proof, anyone can say anything.

    See above.
     
  24. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #24
    Unfortunately all too true.

    The problem is that the text you quoted is only part of the Amendment. The complete text is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Since you have to consider all the words in the Amendment, we don't really know what the heck it means. The Supreme Court may actually decide what it means in District of Columbia v. Heller, Case No. 07-290.

    Interesting. I did not know that.
     
  25. latergator116 macrumors 68000

    latergator116

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Location:
    Providence, RI
    #25
    It doesn't really make a difference to me, but that's how it was stated in the article, so I guess that's why I wrote it.
     

Share This Page