This time in New York.
The fallacy of gun-control (and I say this as a supporter of gun control) is that it never answers the question: how do you get the gun out of the hands of the criminal? Passing more feel-good laws is not the answer. Laws don’t make you safer. You need observanceof laws. And criminals are not partial to observing laws.
That being said, anybody who thinks there is no possible good in any kind of law that restrict or regulates guns in any way is, well, crazy.
But wait — wouldn’t this have been a lot less violent if the cop hadn’t been there? Sounds like dumb luck that no one other than the crooks got shot.
Less violent, maybe.
But… call me conservative… but I believe that robbers should be stopped. On principle. Maybe it’s just the former cop in me. Otherwise they rob and rob again.
The conservative in me strongly agrees that robbers should be stopped.
But not at the risk of severely hurting bystanders.
If uniformed cops had gotten to a robbery in progress, would it have turned this violent?
(And the liberal in me feels like no one should have died over this one.)
Anon, I think the old saying applies: “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”
Maybe it’s just due to living in Philly that I don’t think much of police presence as a deterrent to crime and violence.
There’s no saying how it would have turned out if police showed up, other than if the robbers had decided to shoot it out with the cops, it’s likely there would have been a lot more shots fired and a lot more stray bullets. (there are studies showing that more cops = more shots fired and a lower hit percentage…that doesn’t bode particularly well for bystanders either)
Vermont- no gun control, least amount of gun crimes, More people killed by other means than with guns here. Thats all I have to say about gun control.
Wouldn't the robbery have been pretty consequential to someone?? Is that not violence?