The Glade 4.0

Folks, if you have an entry door- for f***s sake have a wide angle peephole on it. As for the rest of the story, while it's tame considering the content, location, and the fact that Bloomberg is involved, it show how many levels of fail that are happening in our society. Bold added is mine.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/ ... ot-in-face

A 22-year NYPD veteran responding to a break-in died hours after being shot in the face by a "career criminal" wielding an illegal semi-automatic weapon, police and Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday.

Peter Figoski, 47, died at Jamaica Medical Center following the shooting in Brooklyn at around 2:15 a.m., authorities said.

Figoski and another officer, Glen Estrada, responded as backup to a 911 call about a robbery in progress at a basement apartment in East New York.

The first two responding officers headed to interview the 25-year-old tenant, whom they found lying on the floor with a head injury inflicted by one of the suspects who tried to rob him, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said.

Unbenownst to police, the two suspects, having been unable to escape out the back door, crouched in wait in a side room near the apartment unit, Kelly said. Once the first two officers walked by them, the suspects made their way to the front door, the police commissioner said.

Figoski, who was part of the backup team, was at the bottom of the stairs leading from the street to the basement apartment door when he was shot at close range by one of two assailants, Kelly said.

"His partner, Glen Estrada, was already struggling on the street level in front of the house with the second suspect when he heard the shot and observed the gunman run by him," Kelly said. "He released the man he was struggling with and pursued the gunman, capturing him after a pursuit of several blocks."

Estrada was treated at the hospital for a shoulder sprain that he suffered in his confrontations with both suspects.

Police say the shooter, identified as Lamont Pride, of Coney Island, is in custody. Kelly said Pride, 27, has five unsealed prior arrests, including arrests for drug possession and sale. He is wanted for aggravated assault in North Carolina, Kelly said.

The second suspect remains at large. He's described as about 5 feet, 7 inches tall and 25 to 30 years old. He was last seen wearing a grey hooded sweatshirt and light pants.

A semi-automatic pistol was recovered under a parked car near the scene. Police say only one shot was fired, but the gun appeared to have jammed with 10 live rounds still in the magazine. A ski mask was also found at the scene.

The tenant told police the two suspects banged on his door and initially said they were police officers. Once inside, they demanded money and jewelry, authorities said. They were both wearing ski masks, the tenant told police.

The suspects then knocked him down and one of the men struck him in the head with a firearm, Kelly said. The robbery victim said the suspects stole an inexpensive watch and $70 in cash before fleeing, Kelly said. He was being treated for head injuries at a nearby hospital.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

I see their precious gun control is doing wonders to keep their police officers safe.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

How do you reconcile your skepticism of drug legalization with your skepticism of gun control, DE? Isn't the logic of the former that legal prohibitios can be effective in reducing availability and use of the prohibited item, while the logic of the latter is that legal prohibition is not effective in achieving such reduction?

Hardly.

First of all, I'm not against all drug legalization. Legalizing marijuana for personal and medical use is something I favor.

Second, you're trying to generalize both drugs and guns as "items" and pretend the nature of the two items is the same. Guns are something every responsible adult should have access to if they chose, for sporting and recreation purposes, self defense, and hunting, depending which of these pertain to their personal needs. There is far less reason to restrict access to weapons because weapons are not merely a want, they are a need for many people. Not only that but no one gets addicted to guns.

Drugs on the other hand serve only the purpose of recreation. Drugs, aside from those perscribed by a doctor, are a want, not a need. More importantly, drugs change the behavior of the person in question. For some drugs such as alcohol and marijuana, we just have to deal with that on a case by case basis. For other drugs, such as crack cocaine or crystal meth, there is a very high likelyhood that other criminal behavior will appear in the user simply to assure a continuing supply of the drug. Their very nature precludes responsible use.

In other words, your question is an attempt to create an apparent contradiction that ignores the simple fact that guns are not drugs and drugs are not guns. There is therefore no reason the same principles should apply to both to the same degree,

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Those are arguments for why prohibiting guns would be a less legitimate goal than prohibiting drugs. My question was in reference to the effectiveness (not the legitimacy) of such prohibitions. I'm curious why you think a ban on guns is less likely to be successful than a ban on drugs (asuming you actually think that; apologies if I've misunderstood your position)?

The argument could be made (not that I espouse it, so I don't have any evidence to back it up) that guns are not a recurring purchase, and thus prohibition of their purchase is less effective, as it only has to slip up once.

While on the other hand, drugs are a recurring need, and require a constant supply. So disruptions in the supply chain and/or making the transactions illegal and thus more difficult to set up and maintain as recurring events, is more effective in the prevention of their recurring use.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Successful in what respect? In prohibiting the ownership of the item in question? Since I don't view the goals as equally legitimate, I don't see the merit in the question.

A gun is a piece of property, whereas a drug is consumable, therefore I don't think relative success can be meaningfully measured.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I've got it. Ban ammunition! Oh wait...

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Banning anything that is relatively easy to make would just result in black markets. I think it would result in less guns sold since the cost would be driven up, but there is no way to stop criminals from having them entirely. It would also increase the power of organized crime syndicates.

That's what causes black markets, and that's who profits from them.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20