Why Weren't Annapolis Victims Armed ?

[protectionist]

.
The employees weren't armed because they forgot they are living in an old western movie.

Wait a minute, they aren't, but that isn't what Second Amendment fanatics want Americans to believe.

.

So you think being armed and able to defend yourself, is being a fanatic ? HA HA. Anyone that says liberals aren't mentally deranged, hasn't read this forum.

 

[Markle]

The US police suffer far more deaths in the line of duty armed than the British police suffer unarmed.

Can anyone explain why this is the case?

We have five times the population and they have twice the RATE of violent crime as does the United States. You know all this so there is no reason to respond any further to your trolling.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't understand how it can be that 5 good people are shot dead by some lunatic, and all of them were walking around in public unarmed. I rarely go anywhere unarmed, and have my gun with me 99% of the time. If they had been armed (or even just 1 of them), the following scenario would have played out. Either >>>

1. The shooter would have been deterred and never would have showed up.

2. The shooter would have ran away as soon as he realized he had firearm resistance.

3. The shooter would have been shot dead, thereby saving at least some (if not all) of the lives that were lost.

I have heard that Maryland (blue state) is an entire, statewide gun-free zone. Not sure about that, but I do know that gun-free zones are getting people killed like flies, so I wouldn't doubt if that was part of the scenario here.

Does anybody know an answer to the question (title) of this OP ?

The US police suffer far more deaths in the line of duty armed than the British police suffer unarmed.

Can anyone explain why this is the case?

Provided that is the case, can you explain how criminal homicide of US police officers is relevant to discussion of armed, law abiding citizens who do not shoot policemen? Perhaps arm more citizens to protect our police? That is what you're saying?

Provided that?

It is the case.

2018

This year there have been 75 deaths in the line of duty, 31 have come from guns.

2017 it was 135 deaths, 46 from guns.

In the UK 11 have died since 2010, that's on average of just over one a year.

How many police officers are harmed in the line of duty?

"Since 2010, 11 officers of the Metropolitan police have lost their lives in the line of duty."

Take into account that the US has a population 5 times that of the UK, that's be about 55 officers killed in 8 years. About 6.87 a year.

The US has 30 officers shot and killed this year alone, in 6 months. 2017 saw nearly the same amount killed with guns as police officers in the UK saw in EIGHT YEARS.

Yes, I can explain how this is relevant.

The OP said he couldn't understand how five people were shot dead and they were unarmed. As if being unarmed means you're more likely to die.

Is that the case? Maybe internally within the US being armed sees less of a chance of being killed, maybe not. I've seen no statistics to show whether being armed reduces your chances.

Certainly, a comparison of the UK, with very few guns, and the US with lots of guns, shows that ARMED police officers are FAR MORE LIKELY to die than unarmed police officers in the UK.

Who is safer? Armed Americans in a gun culture society, or unarmed Brits in a non-gun culture society?

It's quite clear that it's the latter!

 

[del]

Just smack your ****** little face that's all.

But I have no need to educate you about guns and self-defense. Your neighborhood mugger will do that for you. And you have nothing to laugh about, because you've made a fool out of yourself in this thread - talking like an idiot.

you misspelled capacity and with, tough guy.

tighten up

 

[del]

The US police suffer far more deaths in the line of duty armed than the British police suffer unarmed.

Can anyone explain why this is the case?

We have five times the population and they have twice the RATE of violent crime as does the United States. You know all this so there is no reason to respond any further to your trolling.

"There are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States.
— Bloggers on Friday, June 21st, 2013 in a meme on social media

 

[protectionist]

US homicide rate: 5.35
Japan: .28
Denmark: .98
UK: 1.2
France: 1.23
Germany: .88

Looks like we have a homicide rate 4-5X countries with strong gun control.

NO, it looks like we have a homicide rate which is a tiny fraction of countries with strong gun control.

Homicide rates --

US - 5.3

El Salvador - 82.8
Jamaica - 47.0
Honduras - 56.5
Venezuela - 56.3
Brazil - 29.5
Belize - 37.6
US Virgin Islands - 49.3
Antigulla (UK) - 27.7

 

[frigidweirdo]

The US police suffer far more deaths in the line of duty armed than the British police suffer unarmed.

Can anyone explain why this is the case?

We have five times the population and they have twice the RATE of violent crime as does the United States. You know all this so there is no reason to respond any further to your trolling.

"There are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States.
— Bloggers on Friday, June 21st, 2013 in a meme on social media

Which means what?

Crime in the United States - Wikipedia

"The reported U.S. violent crime rate includes murder, rape and sexual assault, robbery, and assault,[46] whereas the Canadian violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including Assault level 1 (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm).[47][48] A Canadian government study concluded that direct comparison of the 2 countries' violent crime totals or rates was "inappropriate".[49]"

This is between the US and Canada. Why is "violent crime" so different? The US has only sexual assault, robbery, murder, rape and assault.

Aggravated assault in the US is 248.5 per 100,000
Murder is 5.3
Robbery 102.8
Rape 29.6

So that's more or less you 466 per 100,000

Violent crime | Victim Support

In the UK violent crime is

"

• assault
• gun and knife crime
• sexual violence (such as rape or sexual assault)
• alcohol and drug-related violence
• gang violence
• domestic violence
• hate crimes (disability, faith, gender, gender identity, race or sexual orientation)
• robbery
• murder or manslaughter "

So alcohol and drug related violence is there, but not in the US, gang violence is there, but not in the US, domestic violence is there, but not in the US, hate crimes are there, but not in the US.

You might think you're being smart, but the reality is you have to know how to read statistics from different countries.

 

[Markle]

'm not sure you came close to an intelligent thought. Again, our homicide rate is 4X their's. Without carrying guns they are much safer.

We're far safer than Great Britain and most European Countries plus Canada and Australia.


The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

 

[protectionist]

Thank God that the awful witch was defeated, and we're getting a solidly conservative Supreme Court now. One of the first jobs of it, ought to be to abolish gun-free zones, including in entire states like moronic Maryland.

Dumbass Maryland Democrats who disarmed their people, now have a lot of blood on their hands. Good to know that the SCOTUS will soon be 5-4 Conservative to liberal, and even 6-3, and even 7-2 right after that, with Breyer and Ginsburg, like Kennedy, both in their 80s.

 

[protectionist]

So now what we come down to in this thread is THIS >>

Why Weren't Annapolis Victims Armed ?

Which is asking why did citizens of Maryland put politicians in office who disarm people, and get them killed ?

Gun laws in Maryland - Wikipedia

 

[Coyote]

So now what we come down to in this thread is THIS >>

Why Weren't Annapolis Victims Armed ?

Which is asking why did citizens of Maryland put politicians in office who disarm people, and get them killed ?

Gun laws in Maryland - Wikipedia

Why should they NEED to be?

 

[frigidweirdo]

'm not sure you came close to an intelligent thought. Again, our homicide rate is 4X their's. Without carrying guns they are much safer.

We're far safer than Great Britain and most European Countries plus Canada and Australia.


The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

For people who can't read statistics.

I've been to South Africa and the UK, and there's no way in hell the UK is more dangerous than South Africa.

 

[Sahba]

I don't understand how it can be that 5 good people are shot dead by some lunatic, and all of them were walking around in public unarmed. I rarely go anywhere unarmed, and have my gun with me 99% of the time. If they had been armed (or even just 1 of them), the following scenario would have played out. Either >>>

1. The shooter would have been deterred and never would have showed up.

2. The shooter would have ran away as soon as he realized he had firearm resistance.

3. The shooter would have been shot dead, thereby saving at least some (if not all) of the lives that were lost.

I have heard that Maryland (blue state) is an entire, statewide gun-free zone. Not sure about that, but I do know that gun-free zones are getting people killed like flies, so I wouldn't doubt if that was part of the scenario here.

Does anybody know an answer to the question (title) of this OP ?

The US police suffer far more deaths in the line of duty armed than the British police suffer unarmed.

Can anyone explain why this is the case?

We have always had a 'gun culture'. Our Nation was birthed at the barrel of a gun not that long ago & boy, do we ever have a sheite load of guns to boot! So that's all fine and dandy in a homogeneous society where there is personal accountability by virtue of the fact that the population doesn't change much except for the deliberately vetted and recorded influx of newcomers. That works, that is sane and copacetic.

Now contrast that to that same nation with all them guns and pour in a 3rd world element by the millions, all of whom (adults) are criminals the moment they touch their big toe on American soil. There is no accountability cus we don't know who they are or where they live. Exploit that same crossing they make for an illicit drug influx, tonnage by the day, and you have for yourself a nation with a sheite load of guns, with a gun culture and legislation to match, limited personal accountability for millions cus we don't technically know they exist (but they're here). Starting to get the picture...

No you say, ... most of the shootings are by redneck crackers in wife beaters. Look, this nation had gun violence and mayhem from the get go, nigh 300 years ago. Best case scenario and it will still continue to have a modicum of the same. U add a substantial criminal element and the entrepreneurial billion's in illegal drug trade, with an endlessly gushing pipeline across the boarder & it's a radically exacerbated picture. How many of our native boy/girl citizens Jonny & Sussie Q's get swept up by this criminality because it has beaten a path to their doorsteps from Guatemala & Tijuana...

The current course in untenable, something has to give. Either the drug and illegal 'nation crashers' have to stop or law abiding citizens need to 'get sprung' for armament with an urgency that has been heretofore, LACKING. Turn off the spigot of foreign illegality / criminality and we can, in our relative tranquility, talk about the need for less guns (perhaps)... IMHO of course.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't understand how it can be that 5 good people are shot dead by some lunatic, and all of them were walking around in public unarmed. I rarely go anywhere unarmed, and have my gun with me 99% of the time. If they had been armed (or even just 1 of them), the following scenario would have played out. Either >>>

1. The shooter would have been deterred and never would have showed up.

2. The shooter would have ran away as soon as he realized he had firearm resistance.

3. The shooter would have been shot dead, thereby saving at least some (if not all) of the lives that were lost.

I have heard that Maryland (blue state) is an entire, statewide gun-free zone. Not sure about that, but I do know that gun-free zones are getting people killed like flies, so I wouldn't doubt if that was part of the scenario here.

Does anybody know an answer to the question (title) of this OP ?

The US police suffer far more deaths in the line of duty armed than the British police suffer unarmed.

Can anyone explain why this is the case?

We have always had a 'gun culture'. Our Nation was birthed at the barrel of a gun not that long ago & boy, do we ever have a sheite load of guns to boot! So that's all fine and dandy in a homogeneous society where there is personal accountability by virtue of the fact that the population doesn't change much except for the deliberately vetted and recorded influx of newcomers. That works, that is sane and copacetic.

Now contrast that to that same nation with all them guns and pour in a 3rd world element by the millions, all of whom (adults) are criminals the moment they touch their big toe on American soil. There is no accountability cus we don't know who they are or where they live. Exploit that same crossing they make for an illicit drug influx, tonnage by the day, and you have for yourself a nation with a sheite load of guns, with a gun culture and legislation to match, limited personal accountability for millions cus we don't technically know they exist (but they're here). Starting to get the picture...

No you say, ... most of the shootings are by redneck crackers in wife beaters. Look, this nation had gun violence and mayhem from the get go, nigh 300 years ago. Best case scenario and it will still continue to have a modicum of the same. U add a substantial criminal element and the entrepreneurial billion's in illegal drug trade, with an endlessly gushing pipeline across the boarder & it's a radically exacerbated picture. How many of our white boy/girl citizens Jonny & Sussie Q's get swept up by this criminality because it has beaten a path to their doorsteps from Guatemala & Tijuana...

The current course in untenable, something has to give. Either the drug and illegal 'nation crashers' have to stop or law abiding citizens need to 'get sprung' for armament with an urgency that has been heretofore, LACKING. Turn off the spigot of foreign illegality / criminality and we can, in our relative tranquility, talk about the need for less guns (perhaps)... IMHO of course.

Ah, the old homogeneous society. When the right are causing division and conflict all over the place to make sure it continues.

Most of what you've said is just a convenient narrative.

You haven't backed a single thing up with evidence. Just someone told you, you like it, so you're repeating it.

Your first argument is that guns have always been in the US. Right.... but does that mean it should continue to be so? Or is it just that you WANT it to be so?

You seem to be saying that as soon as an illegal immigrant touches US soil they're illegal, and as such they're going to go around shooting and killing people, simply because.

Bad argument.

You forgot the argument about Christians.

Did you know that the top 50 cities by murder rate are Christian countries?

Did you know that the first 34 countries in terms of murder are Christian countries? That number 35 is 39% Muslim and 31% Christian.

Then it's Christian again until number 40, Mali, is 90% Muslim.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Because there are bad people out there with guns.

So the answer is good people with guns.

Why are you so confident nobody wants to harm you? Do you have armed guards?

Um, why did you change my words?

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

they weren't paranoid nutbars like the op

you're welcome

How did that work out fro 5 of them?

you're more than welcome to live your life in fear, pal.

it's not like i give a flying ****

If that is true why do you feel so obligated to reply?

hoop

chop chop

 

[protectionist]

Why should they NEED to be?

Because there are nuts running around shooting people, including kids in schools, hadn't you heard ? What stops them is intended victims being armed.

 

[Markle]

'm not sure you came close to an intelligent thought. Again, our homicide rate is 4X their's. Without carrying guns they are much safer.

We're far safer than Great Britain and most European Countries plus Canada and Australia.


The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

For people who can't read statistics.

I've been to South Africa and the UK, and there's no way in hell the UK is more dangerous than South Africa.

Yeah, right. I didn't make up the statistics, I only provided them to you.

As you know, the violent crime under the reign of their current mayor is running rampant.

Violent crime in London 2010-2018 | UK Statistic

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I don't understand how it can be that 5 good people are shot dead by some lunatic, and all of them were walking around in public unarmed. I rarely go anywhere unarmed, and have my gun with me 99% of the time. If they had been armed (or even just 1 of them), the following scenario would have played out. Either >>>

1. The shooter would have been deterred and never would have showed up.

2. The shooter would have ran away as soon as he realized he had firearm resistance.

3. The shooter would have been shot dead, thereby saving at least some (if not all) of the lives that were lost.

I have heard that Maryland (blue state) is an entire, statewide gun-free zone. Not sure about that, but I do know that gun-free zones are getting people killed like flies, so I wouldn't doubt if that was part of the scenario here.

Does anybody know an answer to the question (title) of this OP ?

The US police suffer far more deaths in the line of duty armed than the British police suffer unarmed.

Can anyone explain why this is the case?

We have always had a 'gun culture'. Our Nation was birthed at the barrel of a gun not that long ago & boy, do we ever have a sheite load of guns to boot! So that's all fine and dandy in a homogeneous society where there is personal accountability by virtue of the fact that the population doesn't change much except for the deliberately vetted and recorded influx of newcomers. That works, that is sane and copacetic.

Now contrast that to that same nation with all them guns and pour in a 3rd world element by the millions, all of whom (adults) are criminals the moment they touch their big toe on American soil. There is no accountability cus we don't know who they are or where they live. Exploit that same crossing they make for an illicit drug influx, tonnage by the day, and you have for yourself a nation with a sheite load of guns, with a gun culture and legislation to match, limited personal accountability for millions cus we don't technically know they exist (but they're here). Starting to get the picture...

No you say, ... most of the shootings are by redneck crackers in wife beaters. Look, this nation had gun violence and mayhem from the get go, nigh 300 years ago. Best case scenario and it will still continue to have a modicum of the same. U add a substantial criminal element and the entrepreneurial billion's in illegal drug trade, with an endlessly gushing pipeline across the boarder & it's a radically exacerbated picture. How many of our native boy/girl citizens Jonny & Sussie Q's get swept up by this criminality because it has beaten a path to their doorsteps from Guatemala & Tijuana...

The current course in untenable, something has to give. Either the drug and illegal 'nation crashers' have to stop or law abiding citizens need to 'get sprung' for armament with an urgency that has been heretofore, LACKING. Turn off the spigot of foreign illegality / criminality and we can, in our relative tranquility, talk about the need for less guns (perhaps)... IMHO of course.

I read History and one statement that A. Hitler had made was he worried about the fact that a invasion of this Nation would be a bloody one because of the fact that citizens all had guns, and the criminals all had guns, and LOL the cowboys all had guns. Funny buy true we knew how to use the also.

 

[Political Junky]

I don't understand how it can be that 5 good people are shot dead by some lunatic, and all of them were walking around in public unarmed. I rarely go anywhere unarmed, and have my gun with me 99% of the time. If they had been armed (or even just 1 of them), the following scenario would have played out. Either >>>

1. The shooter would have been deterred and never would have showed up.

2. The shooter would have ran away as soon as he realized he had firearm resistance.

3. The shooter would have been shot dead, thereby saving at least some (if not all) of the lives that were lost.

I have heard that Maryland (blue state) is an entire, statewide gun-free zone. Not sure about that, but I do know that gun-free zones are getting people killed like flies, so I wouldn't doubt if that was part of the scenario here.

Does anybody know an answer to the question (title) of this OP ?

The US police suffer far more deaths in the line of duty armed than the British police suffer unarmed.

Can anyone explain why this is the case?

We have always had a 'gun culture'. Our Nation was birthed at the barrel of a gun not that long ago & boy, do we ever have a sheite load of guns to boot! So that's all fine and dandy in a homogeneous society where there is personal accountability by virtue of the fact that the population doesn't change much except for the deliberately vetted and recorded influx of newcomers. That works, that is sane and copacetic.

Now contrast that to that same nation with all them guns and pour in a 3rd world element by the millions, all of whom (adults) are criminals the moment they touch their big toe on American soil. There is no accountability cus we don't know who they are or where they live. Exploit that same crossing they make for an illicit drug influx, tonnage by the day, and you have for yourself a nation with a sheite load of guns, with a gun culture and legislation to match, limited personal accountability for millions cus we don't technically know they exist (but they're here). Starting to get the picture...

No you say, ... most of the shootings are by redneck crackers in wife beaters. Look, this nation had gun violence and mayhem from the get go, nigh 300 years ago. Best case scenario and it will still continue to have a modicum of the same. U add a substantial criminal element and the entrepreneurial billion's in illegal drug trade, with an endlessly gushing pipeline across the boarder & it's a radically exacerbated picture. How many of our native boy/girl citizens Jonny & Sussie Q's get swept up by this criminality because it has beaten a path to their doorsteps from Guatemala & Tijuana...

The current course in untenable, something has to give. Either the drug and illegal 'nation crashers' have to stop or law abiding citizens need to 'get sprung' for armament with an urgency that has been heretofore, LACKING. Turn off the spigot of foreign illegality / criminality and we can, in our relative tranquility, talk about the need for less guns (perhaps)... IMHO of course.

I read History and one statement that A. Hitler had made was he worried about the fact that a invasion of this Nation would be a bloody one because of the fact that citizens all had guns, and the criminals all had guns, and LOL the cowboys all had guns. Funny buy true we knew how to use the also.