Shooter was Coddled OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!

Random Ramblings
1

The suspect in the Washington State shooting of 4 police officers was coddled by our criminal justice system and even Governor Huckabee, DIRECTLY RESULTING IN THIS SHOOTING! Governor Huckabee and well as every judge that imposed a ridiculously lenient sentence have blood on their hands. Here’s the story!

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412737_suspect230.html

This is EXACTLY WHAT WE’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT! We don’t need more laws on gun control, we need to enforce the laws we have. This scumbag was sentenced to SIXTY years in prison and Gov. Huckabee let him off after only 5 years because he felt sorry for him. He was then convicted of numerous other serious violent crimes and yet is STILL OUT ON THE STREET! What is wrong with this picture? Since being released by Huckabee, he was convicted of two armed robberies and again given a weak sentence and paroled. Recently, he was charged with CHILD RAPE and ASSAULT ON A POLICE OFFICER AND YET HE WAS RELEASED ON BOND! UNBELIEVABLE!

This is exactly what has happened to the convicted felon that has been stalking me (after I was a witness to an attempted murder). He has over 250 arrests and yet was sentenced to 3 years probation on his latest felony for drug possession and theft of drugs.

Why do I carry a gun? I think the real question is why doesn’t EVERYONE carry a gun? The criminal justice system and the police aren’t going to protect you - they aren’t even trying!

2

Propertymanager,

You are RIGHT, this is EXACTLY what we are talking about from many different angles…

From the article - “Clemmons was found guilty of breaking into the home of a state trooper and taking more than $6,000 in valuables, including the trooper’s gun.”

If a CRIMINAL wants it, they WILL find a way, whether it is ILLEGAL or not…
[i][b]

“In May of 1989, Clemmons was arrested for allegedly carrying a weapon on a Little Rock, Ark., high school campus.”[/b][/i]

You see, a CRIMINAL does what he wants REGARDLESS of what the law says, and whether or not they are in a “gun-free” zone like a high-school…

Now, this tells us he had a gun BEFORE he robbed the officer and STOLE his gun…

There is NOTHING that licensing, permits, TAXES could have done in this situation… as a matter of fact, the officers gun IS registered, etc. as part of his job, and the CRIMINAL still got a hold of it DESPITE this, as would be the case with ANY LAW-ABIDING gun owners gun he would have STOLE…


“In 1990, the then 18-year-old Clemmons was sentenced as a habitual criminal to 60 years in prison for burglary and theft of property.”

60 years and out in 5… :rolleyes and we think adding 5 years extra is going to do something??? And we wonder WHY prison is losing its deterrent value?!

3

Should have killed the prick a long time ago…

4

Even four armed police officers could not prevent their own death by gun-ambush.

Being armed is a false sense of security.

What would keep us safer would be way FEWER guns, and way FEWER in the hands of criminals.

The chances of an assault like that is way less in countries that have gun control. This is an indisputable fact. This is why the European Union had 1200 gun deaths last year, and we had 34,000! They have a higher and even more diverse population than we have

The formula is simple: Fewer guns = fewer gun crimes = fewer gun deaths.

Furnishedowner

5
Even four armed police officers could not prevent their own death by gun-ambush.

Being armed is a false sense of security.

You’re right that having a gun isn’t an iron-clad guarantee that no-one will ambush you. Fortunately, most gun crimes aren’t ambushes. The fact is that being armed does allow law-abiding citizens to successfully defend themselves more than 1 MILLION TIMES A YEAR (based on the most conservative numbers). In most of those incidents, the armed citizen doesn’t even have to fire the gun.

Based on your logic, if anyone was killed in a car accident while wearing their seatbelt, that would mean that seatbelts provided a false sense of security and people should stop wearing them. More flawed thinking.

The real shame is that missed the entire point of the story. Gov. Huckabee and all the other judges, parole board members, etc have blood on their hands. This scumbag was sentenced to basically life in prison and these MORONS let him out so that he could rape a child and kill 4 cops. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT!!! The problem is that criminals are coddled!!!

FO, did you take my challenge and actually try to learn something about guns? Have you been to the range to get some instruction and do some shooting? Have you done ANY independent research into the gun issue?

6

Furnishedowner,

“Even four armed police officers could not prevent their own death by gun-ambush.”

Not only were those guns in the hands of law officers, but they were LICENSED and REGISTERED… and it did NOT stop the gun deaths… so how does your scenario of asking LAW-ABIDING guns owners, who have already submitted to NCIS Background check, to all the ADDITIONAL and COSTLY burden you want to impose REDUCE gun deaths?

“Being armed is a false sense of security.”

Then why did you advocate that people to be “armed to the teeth” on the high seas??? Are the bad guys on the high seas with their illegal guns somehow different?

“What would keep us safer would be way FEWER guns, and way FEWER in the hands of criminals.”

Since I believe, based on your posts, what you really want is elimination of guns… support this… HOW FEWER guns?


“The chances of an assault like that is way less in countries that have gun control. This is an indisputable fact. This is why the European Union had 1200 gun deaths last year, and we had 34,000! They have a higher and even more diverse population than we have”

Yes, and they don’t have what we have - the RIGHT to bear arms! But unfortunately, what they DO have is more than FOUR TIMES the amount of deaths by suicide… “Suicide is a major cause of premature death in Europe, causing a total of 58,000 deaths in the EU in 2006, overtaking traffic accidents which caused 50,000 deaths in the same year. 90% of suicides are associated with mental disorders.”

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/933&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN

So you see, gun or no gun, the EU DEATHS are MORE than the USA… Without a gun, they FIND ANOTHER WAY… Since you keep using suicides in the stats

EU - Total deaths by suicide, guns, knives, etc. = over 60,000

USA - Total deaths by suicide, guns, knives, etc. = 34,000

Sounds like the EU has a MUCH MORE bigger problem than we do… and they don’t even HAVE over 200,000,000 guns roaming the streets! Go figure… BTW, in their case, their suicide, gun, knife, etc. deaths were MORE than their vehicular deaths by 4-5,000. OURS were LESS by about 10,000, and we have MORE vehicles…

Sounds like the EU needs to get on licensing, taxing and permitting all items used for suicide… :rolleyes

7

There is no question that suicide by gun is more common here, due to the access to guns everywhere.

You say the suicide rate in Europe is higher. I haven’t researched that, so I have to rely on your info. But I am not surprised. There are a lot of gray skies in Europe. There is a lot of Winter darkness in Scandinavia, and traditionally there have always been a lot of Winter suicides. The suicides that I personally know about were by hanging.

This would be a very interesting sociological study–have Winter suicides gone down now that Scandinavians travel more to Spain, Thailand, Greece and other sunny climes in Winter?

Europeans DO have the right to have guns. Hunting remains popular in every country that I know of. There are hunting clubs, lodges, tours. Venison, boar, pheasant is enjoyed everywhere it is hunted. There is a huge hunting tradition in Europe, going back centuries.

Germans are famous for their game recipes. I have a friend who raises pheasants that are released on hunting preserves. She also regularly travels to Poland with her husband on hunting trips. Europe is NOT gun-free. Just way more regulated and controlled.

Like it should be here. Saner. With guns in the hands (and locked gun cabinets) of hunters. Not in the hands of every criminal, paranoid, and person with an inferiority complex.

Furnishedowner

8

FO, the problems with gun regulation is that this isnt a perfect world.

Gun rights ARENT so people can hunt, or EVEN neccesarily protect themselves against criminals. (although this is obviously a big part of it.)

The main reason gun rights, without overbearing regulation is important, is because it protects the citizens against tyranny in the government. It makes the GOVERNMENT FEAR THE PEOPLE.

With that said FO, can you 100% tell me for a fact, that our Government will NEVER start taking away our rights (as if they havent already :banghead ), seizing properties/doing ANYTHING they want. History tells us NO, you cant.

In a perfect world, if you could gaurantee 100% for a fact, that our Government would NEVER become oppresive, then I would be in agreement Anyhing above a small little peashooter for self defense in our home woud be fine. But you cant… becaus history shows us over and over again that governments become oppresive. This is why we LOVEour gun righs.

Do you understand? You probably dont… but, there you go.

9

Hoosier,
I will respond to you because this time you were not insulting or crude or worse. You wrote a good post.

I DO get it that many gun owners have the idea that their guns can protect them from tyranny. That is the propoganda, the unfounded information that the pro-gun people have been feeding you. Creating paranoia, and getting you to buy more guns and send millions to pro-gun organizations.

That paranoia feeds the idea that you can take your guns to the street and shoot…whom? The U.S. National Guard? The police? Liberals? Your local government officials? Unwanted immigrants? WHOM ARE YOU GOING TO SHOOT?

This doesn’t make sense. We are living in an age of rapid information–the internet–TV–radio–cell phones–cell phone cameras–computer phones. Where information is quickly spread. Where the population learns what is going on. Where people are not kept in the dark by dictatorships.

Look at the problems China is having in keeping the lid on internet use for their people. Where pro-democracy information is getting out there anyways. Where things change because of the freer spread of information.

We are a long ways away from the American Revolution. Where guns in the hands of citizenry got rid of the occupying foreign power.

Now, more important than firepower, is THE RULE OF LAW. This is what we need to worry about. What we need to maintain. Our right to a fair trial. Freedom from torture. Freedom from corruption in our elected officials. Freedom of information. Freedom to picket, protest, meet and gather. Freedom to worship. The freedom to feel safe in your own neighborhood. The freedom to vote on stuff that affects you.

The freedom to have guns is already here and established. Nobody is going to disarm Americans. What I advocate is regulating those guns so that they stay in the hands of legal gun-owners. Regulating them sort of how we regulate car ownership. I don’t advocate disarming legal gun owners.

To stop government oppression, there is your vote. There is your dissent. There is your voice. There is your right to march to the office of your legislators.

Taking your guns to the street to shoot fellow Americans would mean Civil War. Think this through, Hoosier. Don’t buy into the unfounded paranoia. Think about it–who is telling you to get more guns, and what is their financial interest in your continuing to do so?

Furnishedowner

10

[b]Quote from FurnishedOwner…

I DO get it that many gun owners have the idea that their guns can protect them from tyranny. That is the propoganda, the unfounded information that the pro-gun people have been feeding you. Creating paranoia, and getting you to buy more guns and send millions to pro-gun organizations.

That paranoia feeds the idea that you can take your guns to the street and shoot…whom? The U.S. National Guard? The police? Liberals? Your local government officials? Unwanted immigrants? WHOM ARE YOU GOING TO SHOOT?[/b]

Funny you should ask FO…

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

11

Furnished,Hoosier,

FO,
Did you actually say"propoganda and unfounded".Good lord,it’s a basic right!!!How twisted up liberals have become to call gun rights “propoganda”.I guess freedom of speech is only something Rush,Beck,levin have pushed us all into beleiving that’s false too…Where do liberals come up with this :bs???

Hoosier,
Love the way you direct quoted a founder,no question on that one.Maybe if liberals would actually watch Beck to see the accussed on videos saying the “propoganda” they would’nt be so gullible.But that would require them breaking thier commander’s rule and watching Fox when he told them not to.Chevez is laughing his head off at these liberals following rules with no question.>>>>2010>>>2012 rude awakening coming.

12

FO got you guys on the guns this time.

But back to the issue, I still believe that nobody should ever get out of prison. All sentences should be life sentences. The reason we need to be nice to them and make sure they have access to the education and medical and cable TV is because eventually they are coming out again.

There are only 2 kinds of crimes. Crimes of emotion and crimes of commerce. Crimes of commerce are crimes where a person is trying to make a living. Crimes like stealing, drug selling, prostitution etc. These crimes don’t require incarceration, they require a job. If you steal my TV, you should be made to work to pay me back. Crimes of emotion are crimes where a person can’t handle their emotions. These are crimes like violent crimes, rape murder assault etc. These people need to be separated from us. The people were not raised right and you can’t re-raise them so they need to be keep from us…for ever.

If they are in for life all we need to do is make sure they don’t get out. The cost to incarcerate people would be next to nothing.

13

Furnishedowner,

“This doesn’t make sense. We are living in an age of rapid information–the internet–TV–radio–cell phones–cell phone cameras–computer phones. Where information is quickly spread. Where the population learns what is going on. Where people are not kept in the dark by dictatorships.”

Fear is a strong motivator… given that is the case, do you agree that it is BETTER to have the government fear the people or the people fear the government?

“Look at the problems China is having in keeping the lid on internet use for their people. Where pro-democracy information is getting out there anyways. Where things change because of the freer spread of information.”

Information can spread all you want… but there has NEVER been a dictatorship overturned without bloodshed and/or citizen suffering… that said… change is not always a good thing… just look at our present world condition…

“The freedom to have guns is already here and established. Nobody is going to disarm Americans. What I advocate is regulating those guns so that they stay in the hands of legal gun-owners. Regulating them sort of how we regulate car ownership.”

We don’t regulate car ownership… ANYONE… even someone without a license can own a car… we regulate a car license because driving is a privilege and NOT a right… The RIGHT to keep AND bear arms is a constitutional RIGHT, NOT a privilege… But you see them as analogous, which makes you a THREAT to that right, not a protector or a defender of it…

“I don’t advocate disarming legal gun owners.”

No, you don’t “say” you want to disarm them, although you keep saying how much you to get rid of guns, and make it harder and harder for those who have ALREADY submitted to background checks to legally get them, and once they do, you want to TAX them, license them, etc… You in one breath say you want us to have fewer guns (but refuse to DEFINE what “fewer” means), and then in the other breath say how you don’t want to disarm legal gun owners… you just want to burden them so much that they won’t want to get them… if it were not the case that you wouldn’t want to disarm legal gun owners, what difference is it if they have 1 or a 100?? If they are a legal gun owner, what’s the difference? But you’ve already said that you don’t want people to own more than a couple of guns… My feeling is that the reason you are all over on this, is that you REALLY DO want people not to have guns, but just don’t want to say it…

“To stop government oppression, there is your vote. There is your dissent. There is your voice. There is your right to march to the office of your legislators.”

As you can see in China, the people protest and their abysmal human rights are pretty much still the same… remember Tienanmen Square? It was 20 years ago this year…

“Think about it–who is telling you to get more guns, and what is their financial interest in your continuing to do so?”

I would suggest that those who have a " financial interest" have MUCH less influence than you think on people who buy guns…

Bluemoon06,

“FO got you guys on the guns this time.”

While I don’t really care about the whole “winning and losing” perspective, I am curious as to how you came to this conclusion… :biggrin

14

I mean that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. FO made the point that guns, even guns in the hands of trained professionals makes for a dangerous situation. This situation proves her right. That is what I mean.

No matter how you spin it guns failed in this situation and FO’s argument reigns as the correct interpretation.

It is like saying that the Steelers are a better team than the Raiders…but look at the score board. The Raiders won yesterday and FO’s argument won last month.

15
I mean that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. FO made the point that guns, even guns in the hands of trained professionals makes for a dangerous situation. This situation proves her right. That is what I mean.

Guns is the hands of trained professionals (the police) didn’t make for a dangerous situation. A gun in the hand of a coddled criminal, who should have been serving life, DID allow that criminal to complete his deadly plan with a gun, although he certainly could have carried out his plan in a variety of ways. No safety feature, be it a seatbelt, airbag, handrail for stairs, etc will prevent 100% of injuries or deaths. However, the fact that a person carrying a gun or wearing a seatbelt is still sometimes killed certainly doesn’t mean that we should stop utilizing these safety devices.

If guns in the hands of trained professionals makes for a dangerous situation, should we disarm all cops and leave them helpless as they face dangerous scumbags?

16

Good point although it would have been difficult for him to kill all 4 of them with a hammer or a knife.

I still think the FO is doing the touchdown dance with this one.

17
Good point although it would have been difficult for him to kill all 4 of them with a hammer or a knife.

Yes, he might have had to change tactics, such as killing them one at a time with a knife or hammer; or making a pipe bomb; or ramming his car into the coffee shop. Should we ban hammers and knives; ban pipes; ban cars; ban eating breakfast in coffee shops. Your entire argument is ridiculous. If we followed your logic, then we would ban seatbelts because people still die in cars even with seat belts. If we followed your logic, then we would ban airbags; handrails; and just about every other safety device. That’s just silly. Maybe we should ban cars with more than one seat so that four people can’t be killed in the same car! RIDICULOUS!

FO certainly isn’t doing a victory dance as her logic is missing and she doesn’t have the facts on her side. We’re still waiting for her comment on the now bebunked global warming. I wonder if her scientist friend is one of the scammers that were faking the data?

18

:beer
I have noticed that there are often failures of logic.

We talk about guns. Then propertymanager writes, “What about seatbelts?” “If people die wearing seatbelts, shouldn’t we ban them?” This is SO illogical that I just can’t answer.

This is just deflection, trying to change the subject. Also PosOutlook, Hoosier, sellnbama do this all the time. Must drive their spouses and families nuts.

How about somebody saying, “You have a point there.” It would amaze me if someone even agreed that, YES, there is too much gun violence. If someone agreed that YES, maybe it is a stretch to be armed to the teeth nowadays in order to prevent your own genocide.

RIDICULOUS postings. We need some fresh blood on this site, or should I just get off?

Furnishedowner

19

FO is right. The more appropriate argument is to say that because 40,000 people are killed in automobile collisions every year we should outlaw automobiles. Not seatbelts.

20

Bluemoon06,

“I mean that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. FO made the point that guns, even guns in the hands of trained professionals makes for a dangerous situation. This situation proves her right. That is what I mean.:”

Thanks for the response… see Furnishedowner, someone ASKS you a question and somebody ANSWERS it…

No, FO’s way to deal with this situation is licensing, TAXING, registrations, safety courses, permits, etc… ALL for the LAW-ABIDING gun owners… As we saw in this situation, you had 4 cops who HAD licensed, registered, permitted guns WITH mandated safety courses (EVERYTHING FO wants with the exception of ADDITIONAL TAXATION TARGETED at LAW-ABIDING gun owners… certainly NOT the CRIMINALS), and it did NOTHING to stop the CRIMINAL from killing with a gun… so, while the CRIMINALS will get an upper advantage once in a while to the tune of approximately 9372 deaths per year, the LAW-ABIDING gun owners gain the advantage MILLIONS OF TIMES per year PREVENTING additional deaths and crime with their guns… you know when police ARE NOT THERE TO DEFEND THEM… AFTER the fact…

Advantage = LAW-ABIDING gun owners…

“No matter how you spin it guns failed in this situation and FO’s argument reigns as the correct interpretation.”

FO’s argument ALSO COMPLETELY failed in this situation… how does it then “reign”?..

“It is like saying that the Steelers are a better team than the Raiders…but look at the score board. The Raiders won yesterday and FO’s argument won last month.”

Yes, look at the scoreboard… MILLIONS of PREVENTED crimes and ADDITIONAL gun deaths BECAUSE LAW-ABIDING gun owners were able to protect THEMSELVES at the time of the molestation WHEN THE POLICE AREN’T THERE vs. 9372 gun deaths where the CRIMINAL kills someone who is most likely NOT armed to protect themselves…

I mean how ludicrous do you want to get???

“FO is right. The more appropriate argument is to say that because 40,000 people are killed in automobile collisions every year we should outlaw automobiles. Not seatbelts.”

FO doesn’t understand the correlation… we’ve already been down that road in the beginning Bluemoon06… to her, vehicular deaths are acceptable vs. gun deaths… and lookey at that, vehicular deaths ALREADY have EVERYTHING she wants to burden LAW-ABIDING gun owners with (NOT the CRIMINALS)… licensing, permits, registration, insurance, TAXATION… and the number of vehicular deaths OUTNUMBER the gun deaths…