Ahtman wrote:
The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.

I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.

I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.

There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...

 Ahtman wrote:
The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.

I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.

I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.

There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...

Gee. I wonder why "your average gun enthusiast" has more time to spend at the range/practicing than a cop...

Couldn't be that law enforcement traditionally works long hours on strange shifts, right?

 Ahtman wrote:
I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.

\

I already have the boys in the lab working on it

Alleged Los Angeles shooter Christopher Jordan Dorner, influenced by left-leaning media coverage of gun crime in the wake of the Newtown shootings, has virtually paralyzed the City of Angels. Floyd Lee Corkins, a gunman incensed by anti-gay marriage bias after reading articles by the liberal advocacy group Southern Poverty Law Center, took a firearm into the Family Research Council’s headquarters with the intention of killing “as many as possible.” He hoped to smash Chick-fil-A sandwiches in the faces of as many corpses as he could. These shooters were clearly moved by left-wing media, and we should thank every benevolent force in the universe that they were. Had either shooter possessed even a tenuous link to a conservative group, a media-driven hysteria about the malevolent influence of right-wing broadcasters and commentators would be gripping the nation today. Fortunately, when a crazed shooter’s ideology is explicitly and demonstrably left-wing, the media displays admirable restraint about linking a gunman’s politics to their acts of violence.

The instinct by many high profile voices in the media to link violence to right-wing politics is not a new phenomenon, but it has enjoyed a renaissance since the tea party began to achieve political power. The broadcasters who subtly implicated former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the 2011 attack on a Democratic congresswoman in Tucson, Arizona, is indicative of this bias. CNN host Piers Morgan exemplifies the lamentable instinct to blame conservatism for senseless violence well.

In a November, 2011, interview with Mark Kelly, Morgan said he was shocked by the “extraordinary” fact that Palin did not reach out to former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) immediately after the shooting. Kelly agreed, saying that the infamous map on Palin’s website which featured targets over a variety of congressional districts that Republicans were “targeting” in that year’s midterm elections – an infraction which sparked a national uproar about the marshal imagery employed by politicians since the time of Demosthenes – was “not the right thing to do.”

The implication was clear: Palin had some influence on the crazed gunman who shot up an impromptu meeting of a Congresswoman and her constituents. Palin’s crosshairs map had become a scapegoat for prominent voices from Paul Krugman to Randi Zuckerberg. It did not take much investigation into Loughner’s background to learn that he was not especially political, and was certainly not a fan of Palin’s. Nevertheless, nearly a year after this tragic incident, Morgan clung to that baseless charge.

Since the Newtown shooting, Morgan has been beating the drum about the need for stricter gun laws. His pro-gun control crusade made a deep impression on Dorner, who praised Morgan in his manifesto. So, having been specifically cited as someone who influenced Dorner, Morgan would engage in some introspection. Instead, he dismissed his influence on the L.A. shooter outright.

Morgan tweeted confidently — just hours after the manifesto in which Dorner praised not just Morgan but MSNBC’s programming and a proposed Assault Weapons Ban – that politics has “nothing to do” with Dorner’s rampage.



Unfortunately, the spectacularly wrong-headed approach the media took to assigning nonexistent motives to Loughner did not lead the media to impose some restraint on itself when opining on the politics of crazed shooters.

After Aurora, Colorado, shooter James Holmes attacked moviegoers this summer, ABC News reporter Brian Ross – minutes after the name of the suspect had been leaked to the press – sifted through the white pages to discover that there was one James Holmes in Colorado who happened to be a tea party activist. That incident forced ABC’s President Ben Sherwood to issue an apology.

In February, 2010, when the deranged Joseph Stack flew his Piper Cub into the headquarters of the Internal Revenue Service in Austin, Texas, few in the elite media waited for the dust to settle before blaming conservatism. “The First Tea Party Terrorist?” asked New York Times columnist Robert Wright.

Even though Wright had Stack’s online manifesto in hand – one in which he praises Marxist communism and laments the harsh excesses of American capitalism – Wright used a magicians sleight of hand to nevertheless link Stack to the tea party.

Was he a Tea Partier — or at least a Tea Party sympathizer? Conservatives who say no point to leftish themes in his manifesto. And it’s true that — in a line much-quoted by these conservatives — he seems to wish that the government would do something about health care. Then again, who doesn’t?
…
In the end, the core unifying theme of the Tea Partiers is populist rage, and this is the core theme in Stack’s ramblings, whether the rage is directed at corporate titans (“plunderers”), the government (“totalitarian”) or individual politicians (“liars”).
When the facts make it impossible to indulge the instinct to link a violent extremist to the right – in Dorner and Corkins’ cases for example – the media displays appropriate caution about assigning political motives to their actions.

That is an laudable impulse. The motives that drive disturbed individuals to commit heinous acts of violence, whatever they are, should not be glorified. Dorner’s manifesto clearly indicates that the media, and its coverage of the gun control debate that has followed the Newtown massacre, influenced him significantly. A responsible media would take that into account and maybe, just maybe, ask what they may be doing to contribute to the increased incidences of mass shootings.

That is a national conversation that Americans deserve. Rest assured, if Dorner or Corkins had been influenced to commit their crimes by right-wing media outlets, we would get it. Sadly, that level of self-awareness is nowhere to be found in today’s media landscape.

 Hordini wrote:
For the most part, the only people who claim that a gun is a magical defense that will guarantee your safety are anti-gun people who are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the arguments of pro-gun people because they find it more entertaining than having an actual discussion about firearms.

 Ahtman wrote:
The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.

I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.

I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.

There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...

Gee. I wonder why "your average gun enthusiast" has more time to spend at the range/practicing than a cop...

Couldn't be that law enforcement traditionally works long hours on strange shifts, right?

What point are you trying to make here?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.

I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.

There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...

Gee. I wonder why "your average gun enthusiast" has more time to spend at the range/practicing than a cop...

Couldn't be that law enforcement traditionally works long hours on strange shifts, right?

What point are you trying to make here?

The idea that "spending more time at the range/practicing than a cop" does not mean that your "average gun enthusiast" will actually be effective in shootout situations.

Nor does it take into account the idea that most agencies train their officers to use their cruisers as stationary cover in any kind of open shootouts and that many agencies train their officers to not approach suspect vehicles in situations like these...

skyfi wrote:
I don't think anyone has ever said that having a gun and being trained makes you immortal, impervious to harm, or anything near that.

skyfi wrote:
It's an equalizer, not a a magical defense.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.

I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.

There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...

Gee. I wonder why "your average gun enthusiast" has more time to spend at the range/practicing than a cop...

Couldn't be that law enforcement traditionally works long hours on strange shifts, right?

What point are you trying to make here?

The idea that "spending more time at the range/practicing than a cop" does not mean that your "average gun enthusiast" will actually be effective in shootout situations.

Nor does it take into account the idea that most agencies train their officers to use their cruisers as stationary cover in any kind of open shootouts and that many agencies train their officers to not approach suspect vehicles in situations like these...

Then why didn't you say that from the beginning instead of just mocking my post?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Because I figured the point would have been blatantly obvious, rather than needing an explanatory statement.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...

[Added by me] You do realize...[/Added by me]
The idea that "spending more time at the range/practicing than a cop" does not mean that your "average gun enthusiast" will actually be effective in shootout situations.

Nor does it take into account the idea that most agencies train their officers to use their cruisers as stationary cover in any kind of open shootouts and that many agencies train their officers to not approach suspect vehicles in situations like these...

That makes sense, I was merely pointing out posts I have seen, thanks Kan (maybe not the thanks Kan )

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Because I figured the point would have been blatantly obvious, rather than needing an explanatory statement.

Or you could have just avoided the vague post that didn't add anything to the topic of conversation... In fact, things could have played out like this instead:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...

[Added by me] You do realize...[/Added by me]
The idea that "spending more time at the range/practicing than a cop" does not mean that your "average gun enthusiast" will actually be effective in shootout situations.

Nor does it take into account the idea that most agencies train their officers to use their cruisers as stationary cover in any kind of open shootouts and that many agencies train their officers to not approach suspect vehicles in situations like these...

That makes sense, I was merely pointing out posts I have seen, thanks Kan (maybe not the thanks Kan )

But let's continue the mocking in the future.

 Ahtman wrote:

skyfi wrote:
I don't think anyone has ever said that having a gun and being trained makes you immortal, impervious to harm, or anything near that.

Do you really think people actually use the word magic or immortal? Or perhaps it is an attitude that is presented, that when called on, gets backpedaled? Just as (heavy handed) gun control people don't actually say that if we ban all guns we'll be immortal and nothing bad will happen again, but they present the argument in such a way as to make one think that is what they believe. You'll need to do better then semantics, really. Of course no one uses that phrasing, they just act like it is true. You'll also notice it was only said in response to someone bringing up that people need to be armed to be able to shoot back at cops, as if that would have made much of a difference in the situation.

skyfi wrote:
It's an equalizer, not a a magical defense.

The idea that it is an equalizer is pretty close to believing it is magic, as it isn't in any way. Guns are an advantage, not something to level the playing field, and even then circumstance always gets to be the determining factor, not firearms.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I don't bash the police that do their job, I bash the cops I catch sitting in parking lots not doing anything. Hell, patrol the streets and I'd be okay with them not doing anything.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It might be forgivable if the truck and occupants fit the description of the suspect. There is a difference between a mistake and a big fethup like they did here.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I was in agreement with you.

Chancetragedy wrote:
He got forced out of the LAPD for standing up to 2 racist lapd officers.

Chancetragedy wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but this guy doesn't seem all that crazy.

 Ahtman wrote:

Chancetragedy wrote:
He got forced out of the LAPD for standing up to 2 racist lapd officers.

Is that what happened? Because all records show something completely different, and even his own story only included one person being accused. Your ability to know with certainty that someone you've never met is racist is quite a gift, even more so considering you seem to have some of the basic facts off as well. Certainly this justifies killing his defense representatives daughter and fiance.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If only this was happening in a society with guns, everyone would be safer and some heroic passer by would have taken him out early.

A photo never tells the whole story, and that's especially true for Christopher Dorner. The images on his Facebook page are essentially the same: Dorner, smiling, seemingly loving life and all it offers.

But they accompany a rambling document where he portrays himself as a real-life Rambo, an expert in weapons, explosives and military tactics who will stop at nothing to avenge his 2008 firing from the Los Angeles Police Department.

It's incongruous and it underscores the complexity of the man who now is the most wanted in America, accused of killing three people as he carries out his vendetta.

Where Dorner sees himself as a warrior, others see someone much different. The 6-foot, 270-pounder is a physical hulk who — despite his size — seemed to battle deep-seated insecurities, lived with his mother and cracked under the pressures of police work.

Court and police files show that Dorner once began weeping while on duty in a patrol car, awkwardly flashed his police badge on a first date and told a girlfriend he kept his emotions bottled up.

Those who study the psyches of criminals said Dorner's aggressive and self-aggrandizing rant indicates a classic case of malignant narcissist personality disorder. Some people with the disorder are extremely thin-skinned and vengeful, said Mary Ellen O'Toole, a retired FBI profiler.

They may seem insecure, she said, but in reality their rages — and even tears — are extreme reactions to real or imagined criticisms because they have such grandiose visions of themselves.

"He's putting in his manifesto that he's going to use all the training he received as an LAPD officer and as a military officer to basically hold Southern California hostage, and to be there when you least expect it," she said. "Is he deadly? Yes. Of course he has killed people."

"But is he capable of taking on some 1,000 officers looking for him? That's someone with a personality disorder," she said.

Dorner, 33, is accused of killing a woman last weekend whose father had represented him as he fought to keep his police job, and the woman's fiance. On Thursday, police say he ambushed two officers, killing one, and then vanished, setting off a manhunt that put police on alert across the Southwest.

The search Friday focused on the mountains around Big Bear Lake, about 80 miles east of Los Angeles. Police said officers still were guarding more than 40 people mentioned as targets in the rant.

The rambling manifesto was on a Facebook page that also includes smiling pictures of Dorner and critiques or politicians, musicians, and comedians. He also offers commentary on topics from gun control — he wants stricter laws for assault weapons — to sexual abuse by priests to the proper room temperature.

Court papers from 2006 show that Dorner requested a restraining order against a woman he had dated for six weeks after he said she posted his LAPD badge number and trash-talked about him on a website called dontdatehimgirl.com.

Dorner attached the lengthy posting he said was by his ex-girlfriend, Ariana Williams, as well as a handwritten note she apparently placed on his belongings when she returned them after they broke up.

In the web posting, Dorner is described as "severely emotionally and mentally disturbed," ''twisted" and "super paranoid." It also said he flashed his police badge on their first date, lives with his mother and hates himself for being black — at one point asking her to act more like a white woman.

"Just be careful because this guy is a police officer and he will probably think that he can get away with anything. ... If you value your sanity, stay away from this guy."

Dorner claimed Williams was harassing him and sent a threatening letter to his home. He asked that she also stay away from his mother and sister. In her response, Williams denied Dorner's allegations.

Records show Dorner did not show up at a hearing in November 2006 and the case was terminated. She could not be reached to comment. Her attorney, Stephen G. Rodriguez, did not return a call or email seeking comment.

In 2008, after Dorner was deployed to Bahrain with the Navy Reserves, he returned to the LAPD and began to patrol with his training officer, Sgt. Teresa Evans. He had worked for just four months after his graduation from the academy before being sent overseas.

In internal police papers, Evans said Dorner repeatedly asked why he was being put back on patrol without reintegration training. On one occasion, he began weeping in the patrol car and demanded to be taken back to the police academy to be retrained, according to a summary of an interview with Evans contained in 2009 court documents.

Evans warned Dorner that she would give him an unsatisfactory rating and request that he be removed from the field unless he improved. A day after she followed up on her threat with a poor review, Dorner reported to internal affairs that Evans had kicked a severely mentally ill man in the chest and left cheek during an arrest.

A police review panel ultimately found the allegation untrue and Dorner was fired for making a false statement.

In the manifesto, Dorner said the LAPD destroyed his life, ruined his relationships with his mother and sister and harmed his military career.

Those types of statements don't surprise O'Toole, the former FBI profiler, who said narcissists feel intense shame and humiliation when outside events challenge their perception of themselves.

"He's somebody I call an injustice collector," she said. "When they respond to an injustice that they think is out there, their reaction is completely over the top."