How did G. Zimmerman get into this conversation? and please don't tell me we are going to rehash that whole roundy-round.
Because it was hornadylnl.... how else would that silly logic be introduced in this thread?
How did G. Zimmerman get into this conversation? and please don't tell me we are going to rehash that whole roundy-round.
I don't understand why the police would have to get involved at all, even if it was real he didn't threaten anyone.
How would you expect police to respond to a call of this nature?
Well... back in "the day" police would respond with caution but not with the "rapid dominance" aka "shock and awe" that we see more and more .
Usually an officer and a backup (or just one unit if two man and there isn't a report of any actual shooting going on). Other officers in the area would most likely start "heading that way" to kind of just "orbit" the area while the primaries go check it out. The primaries would park a bit away from the house to assess the situation (as well as avoid being shot at directly from the house). Primaries would cautiously approach the house and knock on the door. What happens from that point on would dictate the response.
Now days... well there is that whole "threat matrix" and out comes SWAT. Of course it is much "safer".
"Back in the day," people weren't
-as stupid
-prone to shooting up schools
-would go with a bout of fist-o-cuffs, rather than shoot a person they had a disagreement with
-didn't pick off 2 brother walking on their property from long range
-didn't blow up federal buildings
-didn't crash planes into federal buildings
-didn't snipe people on the DC Beltway
-could look at their kids and put fear in them
...anybody care to add? I could go on all day.
Sure, go on all day if you want, but over the last 20 years gun crime rate has went down, reporting on it repeatedly on 1000's of news stories has gone up though.
"Back in the day," people weren't
-as stupid
-prone to shooting up schools
-would go with a bout of fist-o-cuffs, rather than shoot a person they had a disagreement with
-didn't pick off 2 brother walking on their property from long range
-didn't blow up federal buildings
-didn't crash planes into federal buildings
-didn't snipe people on the DC Beltway
-could look at their kids and put fear in them
...anybody care to add? I could go on all day.
I think that many things similar to those you mentioned occurred, people just didn't have the instant access to a media that bombards us with news of these events. Do a Google search on Harlan County Wars, Bath Michigan Schoolhouse, Saint Valentines Day Massacre, Texas Clock Tower. That's just a few off the top of my head.
I'm betting the incarceration rate has gone up.
Is a gun required to be violent?
I think that many things similar to those you mentioned occurred, people just didn't have the instant access to a media that bombards us with news of these events. Do a Google search on Harlan County Wars, Bath Michigan Schoolhouse, Saint Valentines Day Massacre, Texas Clock Tower. That's just a few off the top of my head.
Bath Michigan Schoolhouse 1927 -44
St Valentine's Day Massacre 1929- 7
Harland County War 1931-11
Texas Clock Tower 1966-16
39 years, Total-78
2007 Cho 32
2009 J. wong 13
2009 Hasan 13
2010 McClendon 10
2012 Page 6
2012 James Holmes -12
2012 Peter Lanza -27
2013 Aaron Alexis -12
7 years, Total-125
The St V's Massacre was mob related, so I'm not sure that applies. Similarly the Coal Wars wouldn't really apply either, as that was a conflict. Conversely, Hasan could be removed because I think his was a politically motivated act of terrorism.
And the modern instances I posted are the ones that were sensationalized. In 2006 Desmond Turner murdered 7 people, and that's not even typically counted, even though it matches the St V's Massacre.
You have to include the V day massacre even though it is "mob related" - they were criminals after all and violent ones. Same as any of the other ones listed. Motivations may be different but principle is the same.
Here is a better breakdown of mass "shootings" since 1982:
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2012: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation | Mother Jones
As you can see there were quite a few of them. Several with numbers at or near the post 9/11 numbers. I will concede that "Cho" holds the "record" at 33 killed.
In addition you can't simply disregard statistics that point to a decrease in violent crime. In fact 2010 they were 1/3 the of what they were in 1994 (when I was on the job) and have continued to decline since. Ironically that procedure I mentioned is how we were trained and that was when violent crime was higher than it is today.
FBI Statistics: Major Violent Crime Rate's Dramatic Reduction
U.S. violent crime down for fifth straight year - CNN.com
See, here's my issue. That list is incomplete. Who doesn't remember that piece of trash Turner, and the 7 people he killed (I remember because my mom taught some of those kids). Why isn't that listed on the list? Apparently, for some reason, that not considered a mass murder. Is it possible that someone is "cooking the books?"
It's relative. Nationwide, gun crime has gone down. Sadly, there are towns, cities where the reverse it true. Gun crime going down nationally does not make the residents in my area feel any safer as houses, cars, kids, adults get shot every day.Sure, go on all day if you want, but over the last 20 years gun crime rate has went down, reporting on it repeatedly on 1000's of news stories has gone up though.
Are you 6?So, has "hornydildo" (or whatever his name is) gone into the tree-trimming business?
Are you 6?
"Back in the day," people weren't
-as stupid
-prone to shooting up schools
-would go with a bout of fist-o-cuffs, rather than shoot a person they had a disagreement with
-didn't pick off 2 brother walking on their property from long range
-didn't blow up federal buildings
-didn't crash planes into federal buildings
-didn't snipe people on the DC Beltway
-could look at their kids and put fear in them
...anybody care to add? I could go on all day.