Multiple People Shot outside Empire State Building

[Pinky]

seven billion folks
a few fucktards go postal
take away all guns!

[Pinky]

Dead guy on sidewalk
ah, I see what you did there
nice one Stephen Dare

[Pinky]

I propose new rule
only haiku for one day
what say you Stephen?

[Pinky]

lets solve all problems
the answer is obvious
second amendment

[Pinky]

silly silly me
forgot posts carry such weight
the world is watching

[Pinky]

UN wasting time
congress wrestles with the law
should read metrojax

[carpnter]

All of the wounded people were shot by police.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[NotNow]

Three people were actually hit by bullets.  Six were struck by fragments of flower pots, concrete, etc.  Those six were treated and released.

This is a perfect opportunity for StephenDare!  Without ever making a decision or risking himself, he can second guess every move made by anyone involved.  The sidewalks in front of the Empire State building are crowded with tourist.  This is where the contact was made with the suspect.  The suspect drew his weapon to fire and the Police were forced to respond.  Watch the CCTV video at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W8cHwNuqH4

Go ahead Dare!.  Avail us with what YOU would have done in the same situation.  You should be comfortable by now in the role of criticizing Police Officers making split second decisions in gunfights.

[BridgeTroll]

All of the wounded people were shot by police.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

so relying on armed members of the community to stop gun violence via their guns actually resulting in 9 times more people getting shot?

Any thoughts on this Bridge Troll?  Pinky?

Thank goodness the police were there to stop him.  We could perhaps ask for better marksmanship but having never been in a gun battle I cannot criticize. (though some find it easy) 

[Adam W]

All of the wounded people were shot by police.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

so relying on armed members of the community to stop gun violence via their guns actually resulting in 9 times more people getting shot?

Any thoughts on this Bridge Troll?  Pinky?

Thank goodness the police were there to stop him.  We could perhaps ask for better marksmanship but having never been in a gun battle I cannot criticize. (though some find it easy)

I agree, BT.

[Pinky]

All of the wounded people were shot by police.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

so relying on armed members of the community to stop gun violence via their guns actually resulting in 9 times more people getting shot?

Any thoughts on this Bridge Troll?  Pinky?

I think we should make it illegal to kill people, that way we'd have some mechanism by which we could remove those who would harm others from our society.. Because as we all know, laws solve all problems. 

[Pinky]

I think that you're never going to eliminate violence through the use of legislation or by confiscating any tool.  The vast majority of gun owners will never be involved in gun-related violence, just like the vast majority of people will never be involved in gun violence.  You are FAR more likely to die of heart disease (1 in 5), cancer (1 in 7), stroke (1 in 24)  motor vehicle accident (1 in 84), suicide (1 in 120), or even falling down (1 in 218) than of ever being shot (1 in 314).  In fact, the vast majority of those 1 in 314 are those involved in criminal activity or domestic violence; for those not engaged in gang-banging and other such activities the odds of being involved in gun violence are astronomically small.  Yes, it does happen, but it happens so rarely that it merits national media coverage when it does. 

I absolutely agree that violence of any sort is awful, and I wish that just by passing a few laws we could eliminate it.  I also wish that my Bull Mastiff would crap $100 bills, and that everyday would be sunshine, but still, it rains. 

The vast majority of firearm owners are law-abiding people who will never be involved in violence of any sort.  Ownership of firearms means that if it ever became necessary, I would be able to hunt to feed my family, fend off those who might seek to harm us, and if ever necessary, to fight against any military force (foreign or domestic) which might seek to deny the citizenry of the inconvenient rights upon which our nation was founded.  Ironically, "the right to keep and bear arms" among them. 

[Pinky]

Or, in Haiku form:

You can take my guns
From my cold dead hands they say
But you'll get shot too.

[Pinky]

Do you think that the aim is to cure violence in the human species?

Or are you under the impression that the point of well regulating firearms is to protect innocent gun metal from being accused of murder and unfairly jailed?

Given that you keep citing violence while arguing against guns, I can only assume that you have a problem with said violence.  But instead of playing Twenty Rhetorical Questions, how about you just tell me?

Regarding your "well regulated firearms" question, I have no idea what youre talking about.  Looks like more rhetorical questions to me, mixed in with an odd appropriation of the "well regulated militia" phrasing lifted from the Second Amendment to add weight to an otherwise nonsensical question. 

[Pinky]

just out of curiosity, pinky.  which of the militias have you served in that required your guns as part of their regulations?

I'm an Army Of One, representing the United States Of Pinky. 

Where, pray tell, is this odd bit of rhetoric headed?