Shooting at Empire State Building

[thumperdogg]

Duh, my rant must have ruined my brain, thanks!!

2 dead including the perp.

 

[CSORuger]

Some of those hit by bullets may have been accidentally hit by police, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a news conference.
But he said their injuries were not life-threatening and they were expected to make a full recovery.

I smell a law sute !

 

[thumperdogg]

I live right outside Muncie, read how The Star Press bashed this story!! WOW!!!!!

UPDATED: NYC shooter kills 1, injures 8 before police fatally shoot him | The Star Press | thestarpress.com

Hell, even the title shows how wrong they are!!

 

[Jeremiah]

As many as 11 injured by police.

I hope nationally Leo's cOme out and publicly
Shame these Leo's the according to current reports, we're a little reckless with the position of their front site.

 

[coltaceguy]

Hey....for once Bloomberg was CORRECT.

"There sure are alot of guns out there..." and unfortunately they are in the hands of HIS POLICE OFFICERS who cannot shoot worth a ****.

 

[Booya]

Though I don't support stricter gun laws per se, I think it needs to be mentioned that the current laws in place in NY may have not helped nor hindered this situation. We'll assume that the police are well trained. When you find yourself in a combat scenario you can almost always expect collateral damage.

Flame suit on.

What could of happened in a situation like this if every Joe Blow in NY was allowed to constitutional carry? No permit, no training. Sure one guy could have taken one well aimed shot and saved the day... Or 30 idiots could have pulled guns and started blasting injuring another 20 additional people. I think the later scenario is more likely. Not only more likely, but more likely more often. There was also a shooting in Brooklyn today, what if every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the urban jungle feels fit to save the day each time this happens. The toll of innocents injured would skyrocket.

How do you combat this scenario without infringing?

 

[Wreaver]

They should probably look for a refund on that multi-million dollar "pre-crime" computer they just installed.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Though I don't support stricter gun laws per se, I think it needs to be mentioned that the current laws in place in NY may have not helped nor hindered this situation. We'll assume that the police are well trained. When you find yourself in a combat scenario you can almost always expect collateral damage.

I would say you are setting too low a standard. Our trained larger than life, better than the ignorant masses, 'professionals' should not be indiscriminately spraying lead as evidenced by the outcome of this situation. Anyone else labelled a professional is held to standards ranging from higher than normal to more perfect than God. Why are we going to let these morons just say 'oops' and walk away?

Flame suit on.

What could of happened in a situation like this if every Joe Blow in NY was allowed to constitutional carry? No permit, no training. Sure one guy could have taken one well aimed shot and saved the day... Or 30 idiots could have pulled guns and started blasting injuring another 20 additional people. I think the later scenario is more likely. Not only more likely, but more likely more often. There was also a shooting in Brooklyn today, what if every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the urban jungle feels fit to save the day each time this happens. The toll of innocents injured would skyrocket.

You are right that a complete reversal of the law would not guarantee a favorable outcome. The problem is that the present law guarantees that the people will necessarily be defenseless in the face of attack guaranteeing them victimhood unless the police are fortuitously available and actually shoot the right person and only the right person, both of which are very far from guaranteed.

How do you combat this scenario without infringing?

Constitutional carry. Anything less is an infringement.

 

[Jeremiah]

^ fallacy. Most people can discern between random violence and an armed response to it. Your assumption is that everyone will turn into a twitchy hunter shooting at every movement in the forest. It hasn't happened in the past, no reason to assume it will happen in the future. It's been my experience that the majority of people I have encountered that carry have no interest in the hassle that comes from shooting someone, even in self defense. They are resolved to act given no option, but they don't want to shoot anyone.

 

[thumperdogg]

I will not flame you!! I just think that the police and their "special training" should have led to a better end result, other than shooting a bunch of civilians. The extent of the innocent shot is comparable to the tom dick and harry scenario you threw in there, and not so much expected from people with training. I keep throwing around the "special training" because they should have been trained to handle this sort of scenario. Maybe back off a little and wait for the right time to catch the perp off guard instead of opening fire in a very busy NY street at 9am on a workday.

We are all human and all make mistakes and bad judgements. Just in my opinion, police are no more qualified than I am to carry. Why? I train often and have common sense, not saying they don't, but I do as well.

Though I don't support stricter gun laws per se, I think it needs to be mentioned that the current laws in place in NY may have not helped nor hindered this situation. We'll assume that the police are well trained. When you find yourself in a combat scenario you can almost always expect collateral damage.

Flame suit on.

What could of happened in a situation like this if every Joe Blow in NY was allowed to constitutional carry? No permit, no training. Sure one guy could have taken one well aimed shot and saved the day... Or 30 idiots could have pulled guns and started blasting injuring another 20 additional people. I think the later scenario is more likely. Not only more likely, but more likely more often. There was also a shooting in Brooklyn today, what if every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the urban jungle feels fit to save the day each time this happens. The toll of innocents injured would skyrocket.

How do you combat this scenario without infringing?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I will not flame you!! I just think that the police and their "special training" should have led to a better end result, other than shooting a bunch of civilians. The extent of the innocent shot is comparable to the tom dick and harry scenario you threw in there, and not so much expected from people with training. I keep throwing around the "special training" because they should have been trained to handle this sort of scenario. Maybe back off a little and wait for the right time to catch the perp off guard instead of opening fire in a very busy NY street at 9am on a workday.

We are all human and all make mistakes and bad judgements. Just in my opinion, police are no more qualified than I am to carry. Why? I train often and have common sense, not saying they don't, but I do as well.

Very well said, especially considering that their 'special training' is constantly thrown at us as the ne plus ultra justification for the notion that the police and no one else should have guns.

 

[kiddchaos]

Police or not, I encourage everyone to get the proper training, for the gun you shoot, and dealing with gunshot wounds.

 

[printcraft]

C.F.

 

[finnegan]

Latest report is that he used a semi auto .45 with 8 round capacity magazine, and had a spare (1911?). Wonder what the cameras will show.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Two dead, nine wounded in shooting near the Empire State Building | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

Interestingly enough, in this version of the story, Mayor Bloomberg, ardent anti-gunner that he is, admits that, "Some of those wounded may have been hit by police gunfire."

Anyone want to bet that that detail gets quickly suppressed?

After all, if the now-dead criminal only shot one person and police shot more, who is more dangerous? I hasten to add that this is not in any way to be taken as a slam on LEOs; We can all shoot well at the range, but paper targets don't shoot back.

This story proves only two things: Yet again, these things seem to happen only in criminal protection zones and criminals only stop when confronted with force they cannot overcome.

You can't stop crazy. You can lock it up, but you can't stop it.

My prayers to the wounded and may they recover quickly. Thank God the criminal focused his rage solely on the former boss he targeted.

Blessings,
Bill

ETA: I got corrected in a rep comment for this. "You can shoot crazy repeatedly. That usually stops it." Thanks for the rep, and quite true, however you can't shoot crazy before it shows itself, or you get called crazy yourself. Thus, I stand by my statement above. I'd put a smiley, but this falls more into the "sad but true" category.
BoR

 

[Booya]

^ fallacy. Most people can discern between random violence and an armed response to it. Your assumption is that everyone will turn into a twitchy hunter shooting at every movement in the forest. It hasn't happened in the past, no reason to assume it will happen in the future. It's been my experience that the majority of people I have encountered that carry have no interest in the hassle that comes from shooting someone, even in self defense. They are resolved to act given no option, but they don't want to shoot anyone.

I don't disagree with you entirely here. However, a place like NY breeds all kinds! I'm just throwing out numbers when I say 20 people all start shooting and I understand that MOST people wouldn't and the ones that did wouldn't just go nuts shooting "any ol which a way", but I have to assume that in many cases untrained shooters would (quite possible with the best intentions) attempt it.

I will not flame you!! I just think that the police and their "special training" should have led to a better end result, other than shooting a bunch of civilians. The extent of the innocent shot is comparable to the tom dick and harry scenario you threw in there, and not so much expected from people with training. I keep throwing around the "special training" because they should have been trained to handle this sort of scenario. Maybe back off a little and wait for the right time to catch the perp off guard instead of opening fire in a very busy NY street at 9am on a workday.

We are all human and all make mistakes and bad judgements. Just in my opinion, police are no more qualified than I am to carry. Why? I train often and have common sense, not saying they don't, but I do as well.

Couldn't agree more!

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

Would have been different if that honest us marine who was arrested at the empire state building for having a firearm had been standing on that street corner.

Way to go Bloomey-burg, so glad to have such a gun free city !!!

 

[Booya]

Constitutional carry. Anything less is an infringement.

"You are right that a complete reversal of the law would not guarantee a favorable outcome. The problem is that the present law guarantees that the people will necessarily be defenseless in the face of attack guaranteeing them victimhood unless the police are fortuitously available and actually shoot the right person and only the right person, both of which are very far from guaranteed."

I also agree with this! However, I just find it hard to believe that constitution carry in a place like NY would dampen the violent crime rate. I think it would, but those numbers would be offset, by several factors A) some increased crime in areas, B) increased civilian causality by those likely meaning to help, but unprepared to...

 

[jblomenberg16]

Here we go again...shooting at Empire State Building

Empire State Building shootings kill 2 and wound 9, police say - CNN.com

 

[Rookie]

You're late to the party. Did you bring beer?