1
   

FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited

 
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 02:04 pm
@manored,
manored;130027 wrote:
Forbidding guns does not stop it either, and I dont agree it can escalate the occurrence of violent crime. While it certainly increases the chances of that someone will go crazy, get a gun and start shooting everyone, it certainly also decreases the time until this person is shot down.

If you forbid guns, people will have then ilegally. If you manage to make adquiring guns almost impossible, people will use knives or other white weapons. "Guns dont kill, people kill".

In my book policemen that shoot people first and ask questions later aren't a great improvement from bandits.
As I said just google and then tell me Im wrong, your going on your opinion not the facts. You can run away from a knife but not a gun. Guns are more efficient, if you think knives are just as good as guns why have guns. Any weapons carried by the public are detrimental to all our safety. Just look at the difference between countries that do and dont allow gun ownership.

Its not a matter of shoot, then question, if he is brandishing a weapon that may kill at any moment, then he is warned then shot.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 10:42 am
@xris,
xris;130033 wrote:
As I said just google and then tell me Im wrong, your going on your opinion not the facts. You can run away from a knife but not a gun. Guns are more efficient, if you think knives are just as good as guns why have guns. Any weapons carried by the public are detrimental to all our safety. Just look at the difference between countries that do and dont allow gun ownership.

Its not a matter of shoot, then question, if he is brandishing a weapon that may kill at any moment, then he is warned then shot.
Ok then, here is a little table I made and the sources of its information:

Country X Guns (per 100 habitants) X Intentional Murders (per year per 100.000 habitants)
USA X 90 X 5.4
Switzerland X 46 X 2.26
Iraq X 39 X 21
Serbia X 37.5 X 1.46
France X 32.0 X 1.59
Finland X 32.0 X 2.17
Greece X 31.8 X 0.98
Canada X 31.5 X 1.83
Sweden X 31.5 X 0.89
Austria X 31.0 X 0.73
Germany X 30.0 X 0.88
New Zealand X 26.8 X 2.00

I can extend this further if you insist, but I think this is enough, and there clearly isnt a pattern of less guns = less kills.

List of countries by gun ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as I know most murders, or at least those motivated by hate rather than "I want your money", happen on a surprise attack. Since its a surprise, the smaller range of a knife hardly matters. Its also noiseless.

There is something what we may be forgetting, that is, the "ideal versus real" scenario. That is, different countries have different cultures, and what works for one does not works for all. I think this is really country-dependant.

I have also realized that it depends a lot of what we think governments should be like. I think people shouldnt be protected from their own stupidity, and, thus, all countries should allow gun onwership, even if it worsens murder rates. Its a necesssary step towards evolving the culture into something where the government doesnt needs to babysit its people.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 11:02 am
@xris,
xris;130017 wrote:
One again the facts dont bare out your argument. Carrying guns does not stop crime, in fact it can escalate the occurrence of violent crime. I dont want to get into statical battles but guns kill Americans in their thousands. Something that does not happen when they are criminalized. Just google deaths by guns in America and compare it to the UK.


But once gain Xris you are not looking at the whole reality here. Criminals in America know that a majority of people are not carrying, thus they are at ease knowing they have the upper hand. They can whip it out and fire away and the chances of being shot back at are minimal if at all. They have courage knowing that they can break into the average home and chances are high that the owner doesn't own a gun, so they are encouraged to rob.

I honestly think there would be fewer gun related homicides if more people carried, because it creates a deterent to crime. A criminal would know that they can't just be casual about using their gun then. Because they don't know who would be carrying.

If you are in a room of ten people and you are the one with the gun, if you know that these ten people are not carrying, you have the upper hand. But if you don't know who is carrying, then you are equal to them now. But lets go further, what if you knew all of them had guns? Now you are complete fair on all equal basis. You would have to shoot all ten and kill them if you wanted to get away with a crime. But the chances of that are unlikely. A criminal would understand that and consider that to commit a crime on the public would probably result in their death.

I know it sounds barbaric and a sort of throw back to early sococial invents. But since you can't uninvent the gun, it is much more logical to place them into everyones hand instead of just the criminals. I also understand that Americans are for the most part dumb and there would have to be a long term implementation to make this sort of system work. People are prone to outbursts of rage quite easy in the US but I honestly think the reason there is so much violence is not because of guns but instead that the police do not provide enough interest in helping people feel safe from criminals.

xris;130017 wrote:

Locally we have had youngsters get shot for brandishing an air rifle. It sends a message, no guns in private hands, in public view. Try pointing an umbrella at a policeman , pretending it was a gun. If you intend it to be classified as weapon then thats what it is.


I am surprised you offer this as a better solution. That a cop is somehow justified for killing a child for holding what appears to be a gun. Yeah that sounds SO much better.

---------- Post added 02-20-2010 at 09:09 AM ----------

manored;130285 wrote:
I have also realized that it depends a lot of what we think governments should be like. I think people shouldnt be protected from their own stupidity, and, thus, all countries should allow gun onwership, even if it worsens murder rates. Its a necesssary step towards evolving the culture into something where the government doesnt needs to babysit its people.


Thank you for all the statistics. I wanted to comment on what you said in the above statements. I agree with you that we shouldn't protect ourselves from our own stupidity. As cruel as that sounds I honestly believe that we breed stupidity because we cradle it and protect it too much. I also feel that a majority of criminals come from having their stupidity protected and even encouraged. It sounds harsh to propose such a thing, and there will be innocent people who will suffer in the crossfire. But I also feel it is necessary to make society smarter, more respectful and more peaceful. As ironic as that might sound.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 11:10 am
@manored,
Your distorting the statistics by not stating the relevant facts.FIREARMS TUTORIAL

You might also notice the UK is not mentioned in any of them due to the strict gun control laws. Dont you even see by your own figures Iraq, a war torn country is not exactly a good example.

This idea that the gun is used to protect you from a strangers intention is not just misconception its a damned lie put out by those who maintain this stupid idea it is necessary freedom. The vast majority of those murdered are killed by close family members. How is your idea of carrying a gun going to protect you from this statistic.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 11:17 am
@xris,
xris;130298 wrote:
Your distorting the statistics by not stating the relevant facts.FIREARMS TUTORIAL


Hmm I don't think you fully studied that tutorial either Xris. You know Mexico has one of the strictest gun laws ever. It is a felony to carry just a bullet, you don't even have to have a gun anywhere around, just carrying a bullet on you can end you up in prison. Yet they have one of the highest gun related murder counts. So clearly, imposing restrictions does not make a society safer or free from gun related crimes.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 11:18 am
@manored,
manored;130012 wrote:
The neighbour is scared by the mere existence of the other, it is this neighbours fault. If we consider that I do not have the right to possess something that may scare those around me, freedom goes out through the window. People may be scared and fake being scared of just anything.

Having a gun and telling someone you will kill then with a gun are totally different things. I think people are biased towards guns, you DO NOT need a gun to kill someone. A kitchen knife is enough. The danger behind assassins is the surprise element, not the firepower they posess.

But then only a few have guns, those few can use then to hold many hostage, or kill many in a short period of time, so perhaps it would be better if many had guns.

You cant be serious about this =)

If you are, well, have fun being shot dead by the police due to a suspicious looking umbrela in a rainy day.

I agree

I dont think that an armed populace can serve as an replacement to the police force, but I dont oppose the idea of letting the populace arm itself.

By the way... this thread has gone waaaaaay off topic =)


Does the Fed has acces to the server ?:phone:
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 11:30 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;130300 wrote:
Hmm I don't think you fully studied that tutorial either Xris. You know Mexico has one of the strictest gun laws ever. It is a felony to carry just a bullet, you don't even have to have a gun anywhere around, just carrying a bullet on you can end you up in prison. Yet they have one of the highest gun related murder counts. So clearly, imposing restrictions does not make a society safer or free from gun related crimes.
If you have country bordering another country where guns are freely available then restricting the availability is going to be a problem. Are you seriously telling me that the tutorial or my post had no significant reason for you to reconsider your views? I doubt very much you can change your cultural reliance on guns but surely you can see the futility and the obvious carnage it inflicts on your society. Maybe if every thief i encountered carried a gun i might buy one for protection but its not morally or factually correct to say its right to poses one.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 11:38 am
@xris,
xris;130298 wrote:
Your distorting the statistics by not stating the relevant facts.FIREARMS TUTORIAL
What relevant facts? If you mean that I put forward homicides in general rather than just by guns, then I disagree. Homicides in general IS what matters, because there is no point in not killing someone with a gun if you do so with something else.

xris;130298 wrote:

You might also notice the UK is not mentioned in any of them due to the strict gun control laws. Dont you even see by your own figures Iraq, a war torn country is not exactly a good example.


It is, actually:

United Kingdom X 5.6 X 1.37

As for Iraq: Ever country has its own specifics, so I decided not to exclude any. Except Yemen because its information about intentional murders is very outdated.


xris;130298 wrote:

This idea that the gun is used to protect you from a strangers intention is not just misconception its a damned lie put out by those who maintain this stupid idea it is necessary freedom.
Explain why they would lie, and why exactly its a misconception. How having a gun does nothing to protect you from strangers?

xris;130298 wrote:

The vast majority of those murdered are killed by close family members. How is your idea of carrying a gun going to protect you from this statistic.
It will not. I dont really want to have a gun myself, but I want people to be free to have it. Its not like the absence of guns would prevent me from being murdered by a family member, anyway.

---------- Post added 02-20-2010 at 03:41 PM ----------

Pepijn Sweep;130301 wrote:
Does the Fed has acces to the server ?:phone:
Hum, what? =)

Aka: What are you talking about?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 12:06 pm
@xris,
xris;130304 wrote:
If you have country bordering another country where guns are freely available then restricting the availability is going to be a problem. Are you seriously telling me that the tutorial or my post had no significant reason for you to reconsider your views? I doubt very much you can change your cultural reliance on guns but surely you can see the futility and the obvious carnage it inflicts on your society. Maybe if every thief i encountered carried a gun i might buy one for protection but its not morally or factually correct to say its right to poses one.


"States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't."

"True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns."
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 01:37 pm
@manored,
manored;130307 wrote:
What relevant facts? If you mean that I put forward homicides in general rather than just by guns, then I disagree. Homicides in general IS what matters, because there is no point in not killing someone with a gun if you do so with something else.



It is, actually:

United Kingdom X 5.6 X 1.37

As for Iraq: Ever country has its own specifics, so I decided not to exclude any. Except Yemen because its information about intentional murders is very outdated.


Explain why they would lie, and why exactly its a misconception. How having a gun does nothing to protect you from strangers?

It will not. I dont really want to have a gun myself, but I want people to be free to have it. Its not like the absence of guns would prevent me from being murdered by a family member, anyway.

---------- Post added 02-20-2010 at 03:41 PM ----------

Hum, what? =)

Aka: What are you talking about?
You know the list you give is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I cant really be bothered with gun lobbyist propaganda. I know it, you know it, we all know it. America suffers from its liberal gun laws and your pretence at the ignorance of it, is blatantly obvious.

---------- Post added 02-20-2010 at 02:44 PM ----------

Krumple;130311 wrote:
"States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't."

"True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns."
But you fail to answer the question about family homicide and the high rates of suicide. Read my link again without your preconceived notion on the value of gun ownership. America has gone beyond the point of return on gun reform , your doomed. More people will die of gun shot in America than any war zone you would like to mention. An American soldier is more likely to get shot at home than in Afghanistan, pretty amazing stuff for a country of the free.
melonkali
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 11:54 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;129622 wrote:
So Rebecca, what exactly has this guy done wrong? You might not like his antics, but what has he done wrong? Or are you not concerned with what he has done, but instead, what he MIGHT do? Convicting him of something he might do? Just because he might be a nut, doesn't mean he will hurt someone. Does he have the ability to? Yeah, but so does every person on this planet. So if you want to start convicting people of things they "might" do, how about tossing yourself into jail too if you are wanting him to be there. Unless you can actually find something he has done wrong, it is better to not make up a crime where none exists.


This response to the central question of krumple's post does, at the end, at least does make a point about "tracking", the original subject of this thread.

Question: Would I, as a ranger in a family-friendly state park, who has a primary responsibility of protection and public safety, be concerned about what someone MIGHT do? Of course I would! That's my job.

Now let's re-consider the incident Radnor Lake (RL) Park incident, as it was reported, but let's try to see it through the eyes of the ranger. And this time where there are gaps in the account (what the ranger at the gate actually said when he phoned the chief ranger -- why the chief ranger acted as he did), I'll fill them in with the "most probable scenario" as described by seasoned law enforcement officers on the "gun" forums. The LEOs on the forums seem to be of a consensus, so this may be a useful way to ascertain the ranger's perspective. (The rangers and park personnel cannot give their own public accounts; the Village Idiot has not granted them permission to speak about him, and every indication is that he will not do so.)

Disclaimer: I knew nothing about law enforcement officers when I began reading their analyses, so my attempts to translate their "lingo" into my own understanding could be flawed.

THE INCIDENT STEP BY STEP:

RL park, a well-known nature park located in a residential area of Nashville,TN. High on TN's list of "family friendly places to visit". Biking and hiking trails. Bird-watchers' hangout. Known for excellent "kids learning about nature" programs. Reputation among area residents as an exceptionally safe and well-run park.

You are the chief ranger (CR for short in this post). Typical day, families (with kids), hikers, bikers, tree-huggers, peace seekers, etc. You receive a phone call from the entrance gate ranger (GR). Before he can say much, you hear an upset male voice in the background talking to the GR. The GR reassures this visitor, then tells you it was a male park visitor with his young daughter complaining about a man the GR had just admitted to the park -- and before that, a female visitor had complained about the same man. (my use of "visitor" vs. "man" was simply for the reader's clarification -- all were "visitors" to the park, of course).

GR describes the man as a middle-aged male wearing a Commando style camoflouge outfit, including headband, and carrying an unorthodox, large handgun, which the man had identified to the GR as a non-automatic AK-47 pistol. This pistol, according to the man, falls under the legal guidelines for "handgun" in Tennessee. It appeared to be loaded. The man had shown the GR his handgun carrying permit.

The man has an ammo belt slung over his shoulder and carries the weapon in an oversized Commando type holster (in which the gun rests on one's chest for easy reach). The weapon is presently not fully holstered; it is "out and accessible". The man is moving around the entry area in an attention-drawing manner which could be described as bravado.

GR tells you he was not certain whether or not he took right action in admitting the man to the park, but the man's behavior and attitude was abnormal and confrontational to the extent the GR was concerned that single-handedly challenging the man at the gate might possibly result in an incident involving danger to other park visitors.

So what do you, the CR, think at this moment? According to the forum LEOs, you are not "thinking" in a linear reasoning style as you're running toward the door, rifle in hand -- you've already grasped the essentials of the situation.

The descriptions of these almost-instantaneous evaluations by seasoned LEOs in the field sounded, to me, like a kind of "gestalt". Apparently such evaluations are not only common among LEOs, the ability to quickly grasp and respond appropriately to new and complex situations is a necessary ability if one is to become a competent LEO who takes right, or at least reasonable, action most of the time.

The breakdown of the CR's "field evaluation", as best I could understand, would likely be something similar to this:
1) The importance of time -- get to the scene ASAP

2) Open-carrying an AK-47 type pistol, automatic or not (and at this time you have no way of knowing if it is non-automatic, or exactly what it is) in most public places is "red-flag" behavior for LEOs. The AK-47 pistol is an oversized, attention-drawing, scarey-looking, fast and powerful military style gun. You know of no sensible reason that any person would be open-carrying one in RL Park.

3) The guy carrying the AK, whom we'll nickname "Commando", is a "nut case".

In reading the forums, I've ascertained that the term "nut case" (or any similar term) used by an LEO in a critical situation is not a permanent judgment or field psychological evaluation -- he doesn't have time for that. "Nut case" means that the person is behaving so far outside of normal parameters, you can't predict the limits or nature of his behavior in the immediate future, nor trust that his behavior will not be dangerous to others.

"Commando" as a generic nickname for the man with the gun was my own choosing; I noticed that LEOs in the field apparently employ nicknames which serve as a shorthand to clearly identify what person (or place, object, etc) they are referring to.

4) Is Commando just a show-off, a prankster, or is he about to "go postal"? Who knows? You have no time to speculate on his motivation. You have two primary responsibilities: 1) protect the park visitors from harm until you, or others, ascertain that Commando is not a threat to their safety, and 2) protect Commando from harm.

The reason for putting Commando's safety as secondary would be that he appears to be an intentional instigator in a situation which is un-nerving others around him, and which could be dangerous to others.

5) TIME is an extremely critical element in this situation. You know what an AK-47 type pistol, automatic (god forbid) or not, is capable of. You've been told that he's carrying it "out and accessible". The entry area and parking lot of RL Park is open ground; anyone within sight of Commando could be taken out in a nanno-second should he "go postal".

6) AND there's these new gun laws. Not only is Commando packing, but anyone in the park could be packing. Most gun carriers know their weapons. If they see how this clown is acting and what he's packing, "out and accessible", they'll be un-holstering and cocking their own guns; if they don't, they'd be sitting ducks for Commando. If Commando blinks the wrong way, makes one "wrong" move, they might fire. Average gun owners will perceive, whether it's true or not, that with their "normal" handguns, they can't afford for Commando to even begin an "aim" move with his "super-gun".

7) When you get to Commando, the safest action for all concerned is to approach him with your rifle pointed straight at him -- disarm him and do a swift and sure "felony stop" or "felony take-down". You can't give Commando any opportunity, you can't give anyone watching the perception that he has any opportunity, to do harm. It must be unmistakably clear to Commando and anyone watching that he is completely under your control at all times.

LATER THAT AFTERNOON: Metro Police has just passed the buck back to you. They have ascertained that the handgun is legal. The barrel is 1/2" below maximum length. Now, Commando has painted the tip of the barrel orange, like a toy gun, which arouses even more suspicion about his intentions -- but painting the barrel tip is not illegal.

What do you do now? Well, according to law, you have the legal right to detain Commando until you have been able to check all relevant records, reported to your superior and received direct instructions from your superior. It took quite a while, about 2-1/2 hours, for CR to receive reports from all relevant records and direct instructions from his superior. In fact, it was not too long until park closing time when Commando was released. As soon as he was, most remaining park visitors, after looking at him, quickly left -- even though the watchful presence of park personnel was evident.

Well -- that's an approximate view from the Ranger's position. Did the Ranger have the right to act as he did, or more importantly, did he act rightly?

POST INCIDENT INFORMATION: Commando hasn't shot anyone, but he's been "tracked" buying Class III (apparently "big time") weapons and special adaptors for those weapons. He's bought full body armor. He's been buying toy guns that look like his real ones.

He was stopped by the Belle Meade police (wealthy "old money" suburb of Nashville) while jogging along The Boulevard open carrying another "unorthodox gun", questioned and released.

He gives as many interviews and accounts as media, newspapers and web pages across the country will publish. He recently filed a lawsuit against the chief park ranger, has threatened to sue the Belle Meade Police, editorial journalists and their respective newspapers, even forum owners, anyone whom he feels "libels him" or "deprives him of his rights".

He's been kicked off nearly every major gun forum on the web, a few truck forums, and even two dog forums (one of them about "poodles"??).

Yes, he's been TRACKED all over the place. And he still has his Handgun Carry Permit. Why? Are officials afraid of being sued, like the park ranger? No single action seems to provide a legal basis to pull his permit, however, the accumulation of actions screams "malevolent, possibly dangerous intentions" or "insane", does it not?

The "best" possible analysis, certainly not the only one, would be that he is trying to bait someone, an LEO or common-joe carrying a handgun, into a lawsuit -- but even that involves danger. How can Commando or anyone be certain he won't pull the trigger under ANY circumstances. Is it not wrong to goad innocent person into violent action, then charged that person with a serious crime -- if Commando is even alive to sue?

TRACKING

I just don't get the point of "tracking" this guy from here to Hades if no one has the courage to revoke his gun carrying permit (apparently for fear of a 2nd amendment lawsuit).

Is there ANYONE aware of his story who believes this guy SHOULD be carrying a loaded gun in public? Or do some believe the 2nd Amendment apply to all??

What is the purpose of "tracking" people if not to stop someone like Commando before it's too late. I'm not saying arrest and charge him -- that would be wrong if he hasn't committed a crime -- just pull his handgun carrying permit.

I'm confused -- nothing makes sense anymore.

rebecca
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 12:25 am
@xris,
xris;130333 wrote:
But you fail to answer the question about family homicide and the high rates of suicide. Read my link again without your preconceived notion on the value of gun ownership. America has gone beyond the point of return on gun reform , your doomed. More people will die of gun shot in America than any war zone you would like to mention. An American soldier is more likely to get shot at home than in Afghanistan, pretty amazing stuff for a country of the free.


This is absolutely absurd reasoning. You are basically saying if guns are taken way from private ownership that people won't kill themselves or their family members.

First of all, suicide is not built upon people owning guns. If they are suicidal they will find a way with or without a gun. Some just use guns because guns are effective and quick which most who want to commit suicide want. They could just as easily jump off a bridge, so should we stop building bridges too or tall buildings?

Secondly, there are accidental shootings of family members. I understand that, however the actual numbers are incredibly small. They are right there with accidental fatalities that do not deal with guns, like drownings, choking and death from electrical shocks.

The funny thing is, you actually say that cops killing kids is somehow a better solution. You can't even see the absurdity in your reasoning here with what you stated.

Oh for the record, the soldiers who usually get injured by guns after returning from Iraq or Afghanistan fall under the accidental or suicidal numbers. Which once again is low and would be there regardless of guns.

---------- Post added 02-20-2010 at 11:00 PM ----------

melonkali;130537 wrote:
This response to the central question of krumple's post does, at the end, at least does make a point about "tracking", the original subject of this thread.

Question: Would I, as a ranger in a family-friendly state park, who has a primary responsibility of protection and public safety, be concerned about what someone MIGHT do? Of course I would! That's my job.

Now let's re-consider the incident Radnor Lake (RL) Park incident, as it was reported, but let's try to see it through the eyes of the ranger. And this time where there are gaps in the account (what the ranger at the gate actually said when he phoned the chief ranger -- why the chief ranger acted as he did), I'll fill them in with the "most probable scenario" as described by seasoned law enforcement officers on the "gun" forums. The LEOs on the forums seem to be of a consensus, so this may be a useful way to ascertain the ranger's perspective. (The rangers and park personnel cannot give their own public accounts; the Village Idiot has not granted them permission to speak about him, and every indication is that he will not do so.)

Disclaimer: I knew nothing about law enforcement officers when I began reading their analyses, so my attempts to translate their "lingo" into my own understanding could be flawed.

THE INCIDENT STEP BY STEP:

RL park, a well-known nature park located in a residential area of Nashville,TN. High on TN's list of "family friendly places to visit". Biking and hiking trails. Bird-watchers' hangout. Known for excellent "kids learning about nature" programs. Reputation among area residents as an exceptionally safe and well-run park.

You are the chief ranger (CR for short in this post). Typical day, families (with kids), hikers, bikers, tree-huggers, peace seekers, etc. You receive a phone call from the entrance gate ranger (GR). Before he can say much, you hear an upset male voice in the background talking to the GR. The GR reassures this visitor, then tells you it was a male park visitor with his young daughter complaining about a man the GR had just admitted to the park -- and before that, a female visitor had complained about the same man. (my use of "visitor" vs. "man" was simply for the reader's clarification -- all were "visitors" to the park, of course).

GR describes the man as a middle-aged male wearing a Commando style camoflouge outfit, including headband, and carrying an unorthodox, large handgun, which the man had identified to the GR as a non-automatic AK-47 pistol. This pistol, according to the man, falls under the legal guidelines for "handgun" in Tennessee. It appeared to be loaded. The man had shown the GR his handgun carrying permit.

The man has an ammo belt slung over his shoulder and carries the weapon in an oversized Commando type holster (in which the gun rests on one's chest for easy reach). The weapon is presently not fully holstered; it is "out and accessible". The man is moving around the entry area in an attention-drawing manner which could be described as bravado.

GR tells you he was not certain whether or not he took right action in admitting the man to the park, but the man's behavior and attitude was abnormal and confrontational to the extent the GR was concerned that single-handedly challenging the man at the gate might possibly result in an incident involving danger to other park visitors.

So what do you, the CR, think at this moment? According to the forum LEOs, you are not "thinking" in a linear reasoning style as you're running toward the door, rifle in hand -- you've already grasped the essentials of the situation.

The descriptions of these almost-instantaneous evaluations by seasoned LEOs in the field sounded, to me, like a kind of "gestalt". Apparently such evaluations are not only common among LEOs, the ability to quickly grasp and respond appropriately to new and complex situations is a necessary ability if one is to become a competent LEO who takes right, or at least reasonable, action most of the time.

The breakdown of the CR's "field evaluation", as best I could understand, would likely be something similar to this:
1) The importance of time -- get to the scene ASAP

2) Open-carrying an AK-47 type pistol, automatic or not (and at this time you have no way of knowing if it is non-automatic, or exactly what it is) in most public places is "red-flag" behavior for LEOs. The AK-47 pistol is an oversized, attention-drawing, scarey-looking, fast and powerful military style gun. You know of no sensible reason that any person would be open-carrying one in RL Park.

3) The guy carrying the AK, whom we'll nickname "Commando", is a "nut case".

In reading the forums, I've ascertained that the term "nut case" (or any similar term) used by an LEO in a critical situation is not a permanent judgment or field psychological evaluation -- he doesn't have time for that. "Nut case" means that the person is behaving so far outside of normal parameters, you can't predict the limits or nature of his behavior in the immediate future, nor trust that his behavior will not be dangerous to others.

"Commando" as a generic nickname for the man with the gun was my own choosing; I noticed that LEOs in the field apparently employ nicknames which serve as a shorthand to clearly identify what person (or place, object, etc) they are referring to.

4) Is Commando just a show-off, a prankster, or is he about to "go postal"? Who knows? You have no time to speculate on his motivation. You have two primary responsibilities: 1) protect the park visitors from harm until you, or others, ascertain that Commando is not a threat to their safety, and 2) protect Commando from harm.

The reason for putting Commando's safety as secondary would be that he appears to be an intentional instigator in a situation which is un-nerving others around him, and which could be dangerous to others.

5) TIME is an extremely critical element in this situation. You know what an AK-47 type pistol, automatic (god forbid) or not, is capable of. You've been told that he's carrying it "out and accessible". The entry area and parking lot of RL Park is open ground; anyone within sight of Commando could be taken out in a nanno-second should he "go postal".

6) AND there's these new gun laws. Not only is Commando packing, but anyone in the park could be packing. Most gun carriers know their weapons. If they see how this clown is acting and what he's packing, "out and accessible", they'll be un-holstering and cocking their own guns; if they don't, they'd be sitting ducks for Commando. If Commando blinks the wrong way, makes one "wrong" move, they might fire. Average gun owners will perceive, whether it's true or not, that with their "normal" handguns, they can't afford for Commando to even begin an "aim" move with his "super-gun".

7) When you get to Commando, the safest action for all concerned is to approach him with your rifle pointed straight at him -- disarm him and do a swift and sure "felony stop" or "felony take-down". You can't give Commando any opportunity, you can't give anyone watching the perception that he has any opportunity, to do harm. It must be unmistakably clear to Commando and anyone watching that he is completely under your control at all times.

LATER THAT AFTERNOON: Metro Police has just passed the buck back to you. They have ascertained that the handgun is legal. The barrel is 1/2" below maximum length. Now, Commando has painted the tip of the barrel orange, like a toy gun, which arouses even more suspicion about his intentions -- but painting the barrel tip is not illegal.

What do you do now? Well, according to law, you have the legal right to detain Commando until you have been able to check all relevant records, reported to your superior and received direct instructions from your superior. It took quite a while, about 2-1/2 hours, for CR to receive reports from all relevant records and direct instructions from his superior. In fact, it was not too long until park closing time when Commando was released. As soon as he was, most remaining park visitors, after looking at him, quickly left -- even though the watchful presence of park personnel was evident.

Well -- that's an approximate view from the Ranger's position. Did the Ranger have the right to act as he did, or more importantly, did he act rightly?

POST INCIDENT INFORMATION: Commando hasn't shot anyone, but he's been "tracked" buying Class III (apparently "big time") weapons and special adaptors for those weapons. He's bought full body armor. He's been buying toy guns that look like his real ones.

He was stopped by the Belle Meade police (wealthy "old money" suburb of Nashville) while jogging along The Boulevard open carrying another "unorthodox gun", questioned and released.

He gives as many interviews and accounts as media, newspapers and web pages across the country will publish. He recently filed a lawsuit against the chief park ranger, has threatened to sue the Belle Meade Police, editorial journalists and their respective newspapers, even forum owners, anyone whom he feels "libels him" or "deprives him of his rights".

He's been kicked off nearly every major gun forum on the web, a few truck forums, and even two dog forums (one of them about "poodles"??).

Yes, he's been TRACKED all over the place. And he still has his Handgun Carry Permit. Why? Are officials afraid of being sued, like the park ranger? No single action seems to provide a legal basis to pull his permit, however, the accumulation of actions screams "malevolent, possibly dangerous intentions" or "insane", does it not?

The "best" possible analysis, certainly not the only one, would be that he is trying to bait someone, an LEO or common-joe carrying a handgun, into a lawsuit -- but even that involves danger. How can Commando or anyone be certain he won't pull the trigger under ANY circumstances. Is it not wrong to goad innocent person into violent action, then charged that person with a serious crime -- if Commando is even alive to sue?

TRACKING

I just don't get the point of "tracking" this guy from here to Hades if no one has the courage to revoke his gun carrying permit (apparently for fear of a 2nd amendment lawsuit).

Is there ANYONE aware of his story who believes this guy SHOULD be carrying a loaded gun in public? Or do some believe the 2nd Amendment apply to all??

What is the purpose of "tracking" people if not to stop someone like Commando before it's too late. I'm not saying arrest and charge him -- that would be wrong if he hasn't committed a crime -- just pull his handgun carrying permit.

I'm confused -- nothing makes sense anymore.

rebecca


Long, thank you for providing this, but I can't really take it as actual facts in the case. I would have to read the report itself. I know police and security like to exaggerate and sometimes even lie when they know they have done something illegal, to cover their own...

But that aside. I can comment on what you have posted here. I have a few questions for you though. If the context were changed a little, would you still be in favor of banning this guy?

What if he was doing this in a place that wasn't like a park. Maybe an abandoned building where no family friendly environment was. Perhaps on an abandoned industrial pier where no one else is around for miles?

What if he wasn't wearing fatigues?

Would either of these cases change your opinion of him if the story would have taken place in this location or minor changes in the details?

I wait your response to these questions. However; I do want to do some assuming here. I bet you will say it makes no difference where he was. But if that is the case, you can not argue that he was scaring people. Because if you remove him from the family friendly environment, who would he be scaring? So that part of your claim is bogus, you are hiding behind it to defend your anti-gun stance.

That doesn't even take into consideration that you completely avoided my argument that you are convicting him of a crime he has not committed. This is typical, shoot first and ask questions later mentality. I feel that is far more dangerous than a few "nut" cases who do absolutely nothing. When cops accidentally kill someone they lie all the time and try to claim the person had a gun or were acting like they were moving to get a gun. There are dozens of cases like that, and it is far too easy for police to use the tactic you are trying to use. "Well we shot and killed him because he was a nut case."

If you are convicting him of a crime, then I am convicting you of treason.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 05:15 am
@Krumple,
Your failing to read the link. Suicide has been proven to be more likely with the availability of a gun. Soldiers serving in Iraq have more chance of being shot by their own countrymen than the enemy.

Murder in the family is more likely to occur when a gun is available. America has the most relaxed gun laws and suffers because of it. You cant argue with statistics.
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 12:32 pm
@Pythagorean,
This thread is about invasion of privacy by governmental agencies seeking to gather information even where there is no suspicion of crime or criminal intent, about domestic spying on the people who use the internet. This unethical act would be just another loss of our liberties and rights tracing back to the response to 9/11. Since that time, America has become less of a free nation than it already was. The people who died on 9/11 died for their freedom. We have chosen to surrender our freedom for a false sense of security purchased at the cost of liberty.

If you cherish the right to bear arms, you must also cherish the right to privacy which internet spying would eradicate. If you oppose unregulated gun ownership, you must favor the sacrifice of freedom for increased security from harm. Is this the case with those of you who here debate the issue of gun control?

Samm
0 Replies
 
melonkali
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 01:14 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;130561 wrote:

Long, thank you for providing this, but I can't really take it as actual facts in the case. I would have to read the report itself. I know police and security like to exaggerate and sometimes even lie when they know they have done something illegal, to cover their own...

But that aside. I can comment on what you have posted here. I have a few questions for you though. If the context were changed a little, would you still be in favor of banning this guy?

What if he was doing this in a place that wasn't like a park. Maybe an abandoned building where no family friendly environment was. Perhaps on an abandoned industrial pier where no one else is around for miles?

What if he wasn't wearing fatigues?

Would either of these cases change your opinion of him if the story would have taken place in this location or minor changes in the details?

I wait your response to these questions. However; I do want to do some assuming here. I bet you will say it makes no difference where he was. But if that is the case, you can not argue that he was scaring people. Because if you remove him from the family friendly environment, who would he be scaring? So that part of your claim is bogus, you are hiding behind it to defend your anti-gun stance.

That doesn't even take into consideration that you completely avoided my argument that you are convicting him of a crime he has not committed. This is typical, shoot first and ask questions later mentality. I feel that is far more dangerous than a few "nut" cases who do absolutely nothing. When cops accidentally kill someone they lie all the time and try to claim the person had a gun or were acting like they were moving to get a gun. There are dozens of cases like that, and it is far too easy for police to use the tactic you are trying to use. "Well we shot and killed him because he was a nut case."

If you are convicting him of a crime, then I am convicting you of treason.


Sorry for the length of that last post; I wanted to be thorough.

I agree with you that sometimes LEOs fabricate explanations for wrong actions. To read what is publicly available, just google "Leonard Embody" (or Leonard S. Embody), the name publicly given by our local village idiot to local and national media; he's voluntarily taken steps to have his name plastered all over the web lately. For the earliest reports, before his name was publicly given, google "Radnor Lake" and "Ak-47" or "handgun" or "gun". To go beyond what has been printed in the press, hit a few large "pro-gun" forums, like TGO (Tennessee Gun Owners).

If he'd been in an isolated area without other people around? I see no problem there -- do you?

"Wearing fatigues" has been a hot topic of discussion on forums. It seems to be part of what my husband Samm sees as a social version of wave interference -- if two waves are "in phase", the effect is augmented. We practice this all the time in our daily lives: considering one social clue with another "in phase" social clue to reach a conclusion. Social judgment is often a cumulative phenomenon, with each "sign" contributing to the overall conclusion.

"Wearing fatigues" was probably one of the signs contributing to the conclusion in this case. However, as an average citizen, I don't think I'd be concerned about someone in RLP just because he was wearing fatigues. But carrying the AK-47 "out and accessible", with a visible ammo belt, that would concern me no matter what he was wearing. With the AK-47 issue, the fatigues would added to my concern, as he would be creating an "armed commando" impression.

This "armed commando" impression could not have been an unintentional effect -- if you don't realize that wearing fatigues, an ammo belt, and carrying a big scarey looking gun "out and accessible" is going to draw attention, from both private citizens and LEOs, you are too stupid to be trusted to carry a gun in public.

Please note that in the above scenario, when I postulated that part of the ranger's concern might have been other gun-carriers firing at Commando, this was not just based on LEO statements. Every single gun-owner who evaluated the situation, on the forums I read, said he would have unholstered his weapon and had it readied, because he could not risk Commando completing (or even beginning) an "aim" movement. A very small minority said they'd have fired anyway, pre-emptively, and no jury would have convicted them.

Note: the above were not the LEOs, they were average citizens with a "handgun carrying permit". The park ranger did not fire. No LEO on the forums I read said that he would have fired pre-emptively (although again I concede to you that some LEOs have been known to be less than truthful).

Question back at you: do statements by gun-owners that they would have readied their weapons to prevent any perceived "aim" move by Commando, that a small minority said they would have fired pre-emptively, concern you?

rebecca
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 01:34 pm
@melonkali,
melonkali;130779 wrote:
Question back at you: do statements by gun-owners that they would have readied their weapons to prevent any perceived "aim" move by Commando, that a small minority said they would have fired pre-emptively, concern you?

rebecca


First I want to apologize for not allowing you to speak first. I was a little over bearing with my previous post. Unnecessarily.

Your question is a good one. I would have to say it is a little unnerving but in one way I am not surprised. I will admit the guy was really trying to push some buttons and it seems as though that was his intentions the whole time. I can identify with his tactic but I would have to ask him, what his actual intention for pushing those buttons was. Was he setting a trap on purpose for lawsuit? Knowing that he would not actually step outside the laws themselves but instead wait for someone to violate them?

For me I have a very strong duality as far as firearms goes. On one hand I hate what they represent but on the other hand I completely understand their existence. I grew up around them, so seeing a guy like that actually wouldn't faze me at all. I wouldn't think anything was out of the ordinary. I wouldn't be worried until I actually heard shots or yelling.

But to get back to your question. I would have to say that their response might be more emotional than realistic. I honestly don't see a well trained licensed owner jumping so quickly on the offensive. Maybe that is me being naive, but I personally wouldn't have moved towards the offensive until there was actually a good solid reason to. Like him actually brandishing it and pointing it around or scoping people with it. If he just has it strapped to him it wouldn't matter to me what he was doing.

edit: I wasn't actually going to mention this but I changed my mind.

I actually feel safer around absolute strangers that have guns on them than the average police officer in the city. So many incidents have occurred lately where the officers have either injured or killed innocent people because of mistaken identification or they were in the wrong place.

The thing is, when a citizen harms someone with a gun accidentally, it is a felony, but when an officer harms someone with a gun accidentally they get off without anything. This is sending out the wrong message and it is quite insulting to the common citizen.
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 03:13 pm
@xris,
xris;130333 wrote:
You know the list you give is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I cant really be bothered with gun lobbyist propaganda. I know it, you know it, we all know it. America suffers from its liberal gun laws and your pretence at the ignorance of it, is blatantly obvious.
Well we cant have a discussion if you think I am a fiend trying to poison your mind, so I wont bother further.

About the "Commando" guy: From what I read here, I dont see reasons to consider that he is mentally unstable or murderous, he sounds more like a joker to me. I dont think someone with murderous intentions would dress like a commando... first, because that calls too much attention, like it has already been demonstrated, second, because commandos arent the kind of "character" that go around killing civilians. If he was dressed like a terrorist it would be another story.

I agree with Krumple on that we cant punish people before they commit the crime, that is a serious setback to personal freedom. After all, if the laws allows him to do that, and if he is doing that because he thinks its cool or some other non-violent reason, then being held back everywhere he goes is indeed an attack against his freedom.
melonkali
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 07:14 pm
@manored,
Krumple;130780 wrote:


I will admit the guy was really trying to push some buttons and it seems as though that was his intentions the whole time. I can identify with his tactic but I would have to ask him, what his actual intention for pushing those buttons was. Was he setting a trap on purpose for lawsuit? Knowing that he would not actually step outside the laws themselves but instead wait for someone to violate them?

For me I have a very strong duality as far as firearms goes. On one hand I hate what they represent but on the other hand I completely understand their existence. I grew up around them, so seeing a guy like that actually wouldn't faze me at all. I wouldn't think anything was out of the ordinary. I wouldn't be worried until I actually heard shots or yelling.

But to get back to your question. I would have to say that their response might be more emotional than realistic. I honestly don't see a well trained licensed owner jumping so quickly on the offensive. Maybe that is me being naive, but I personally wouldn't have moved towards the offensive until there was actually a good solid reason to. Like him actually brandishing it and pointing it around or scoping people with it. If he just has it strapped to him it wouldn't matter to me what he was doing.

I actually feel safer around absolute strangers that have guns on them than the average police officer in the city. So many incidents have occurred lately where the officers have either injured or killed innocent people because of mistaken identification or they were in the wrong place.

The thing is, when a citizen harms someone with a gun accidentally, it is a felony, but when an officer harms someone with a gun accidentally they get off without anything. This is sending out the wrong message and it is quite insulting to the common citizen.


manored;130803 wrote:


About the "Commando" guy: From what I read here, I dont see reasons to consider that he is mentally unstable or murderous, he sounds more like a joker to me. I dont think someone with murderous intentions would dress like a commando... first, because that calls too much attention, like it has already been demonstrated, second, because commandos arent the kind of "character" that go around killing civilians. If he was dressed like a terrorist it would be another story.

I agree with Krumple on that we cant punish people before they commit the crime, that is a serious setback to personal freedom. After all, if the laws allows him to do that, and if he is doing that because he thinks its cool or some other non-violent reason, then being held back everywhere he goes is indeed an attack against his freedom.


Re: not feeling safe around LEOs -- I'd not considered this before, but the LEO in the Commando incident being a ranger at a nature park, that does make a difference, doesn't it?

And where was Commando's next excursion? Jogging down "The Boulevard". I can't remember the last time, if ever, any serious negative news was reported from "The Boulevard". The mansions in that area are securely gated and protected.

Still I don't think Commando should be allowed to keep his gun carrying permit. He's intentionally goading for an incident which nothing good can come from.

Back to the topic of the thread -- the government is, perhaps, less afraid of citizen firearms than of citizen speech, writing, and exchange of information.

Recall Native American activist John Trudell in the 1970's. Per a documentary about him, one FBI memo reportedly said that Trudell was "eloquent, and that makes him dangerous." Trudell, against federal warnings, organized a Native American march in D.C. and gave one of his "eloquent" speeches on (if my memory is correct) the steps of the Capitol. Less than 12 hours later, Trudell's wife, mother-in-law and three young children (ages 2,3 and 5, I think) perished in a house fire "of suspicious origin". Now THAT should scare all of us.

Perhaps it's inappropriate to ask this, and inappropriate for anyone to answer, but I will exercise my option of free speech and ask, anyway: has anyone here had reason to believe he/she was ever on an internet or any kind of government "watch" list?

rebecca
manored
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 10:29 am
@melonkali,
melonkali;130872 wrote:

Still I don't think Commando should be allowed to keep his gun carrying permit. He's intentionally goading for an incident which nothing good can come from.
Well that isnt forbidden, or is it? =)

Laws exist to supress the subjectiveness of jugments as much as possible. If we act outside then, we are throwing their purpose out of the window and bringing back that subjectiveness. If what he is doing is undesirable, the law must be changed.

melonkali;130872 wrote:

Back to the topic of the thread -- the government is, perhaps, less afraid of citizen firearms than of citizen speech, writing, and exchange of information.
I agree, after all, a dominating government cannot exist then information circulates freely.

melonkali;130872 wrote:

Recall Native American activist John Trudell in the 1970's. Per a documentary about him, one FBI memo reportedly said that Trudell was "eloquent, and that makes him dangerous." Trudell, against federal warnings, organized a Native American march in D.C. and gave one of his "eloquent" speeches on (if my memory is correct) the steps of the Capitol. Less than 12 hours later, Trudell's wife, mother-in-law and three young children (ages 2,3 and 5, I think) perished in a house fire "of suspicious origin". Now THAT should scare all of us.
While it does sound like too much coincidence, if the FBI is willing to kill in favor of the government, I dont see why they would kill the man's family rather than the man.


melonkali;130872 wrote:

Perhaps it's inappropriate to ask this, and inappropriate for anyone to answer, but I will exercise my option of free speech and ask, anyway: has anyone here had reason to believe he/she was ever on an internet or any kind of government "watch" list?
The Brazilian government is nowhere close to being opressive, although corrupt. I dont think it watches anyone due to their political views. In Brazil we can have any number of parties, also, rather than only the same two, and I think that helps keep the ideological door open.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:49 am
@melonkali,
melonkali;130872 wrote:
Still I don't think Commando should be allowed to keep his gun carrying permit. He's intentionally goading for an incident which nothing good can come from.


I disagree, and we probably won't ever agree on this subject. Despite the fact that he is being a little too dramatic, he has not done anything harmful. He might make people a little uneasy but hell if we started convicting people of that, lock up most of washington then.

melonkali;130872 wrote:

Back to the topic of the thread -- the government is, perhaps, less afraid of citizen firearms than of citizen speech, writing, and exchange of information.


I use to think for a long time that people who spoke ill of the government were just mentally ill or old people who refused to accept change. But the more I hear, the more their concerns start to ring home. Like for example the recent Avandia stuff going on. The government has continuously tried to cover up this case, but if it wasn't for the new york times prying into the case and getting the government to hand over information we probably wouldn't have known what was going on.

The drug, prescribed for treating type two diabetes has been known to cause heart failure. There has been pushes to get the drug off the market but the pharmaceutical companies don't want to and the government has been supporting them on it the whole time. It wasn't until the new york times filed a lawsuit did they actually get the information the government knew about the drug. Here is the clincher.

The file the new york times was given had black boxed text, which is typical from the government not wanting certain other details made public so they black box it. They say they use the black boxes for upholding national security but what happened was, the file they were given had the original pdf file without the black boxes. So they could actually compare the two files and see what was suppose to be black boxed. It turns out that the so called national security information was really just a bunch of information the government didn't want the public to know. Like how much tax revenue would be lost if the drug is taken off the market. How is tax information a threat to national security?
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/21/2024 at 06:45:34