Shootings - Page 11




 
--
Boots
 
July 21st, 2018  
BritinAfrica
 
 
A bit more evidence:-
SOCIETYFEATURE
Self-Defense: 12 Cases Where Law-Abiding Americans With Guns Saved Lives, Prevented Crimes
Chrissy Clark / March 29, 2018 / 0 Comments

Gun control advocates often don't acknowledge the many instances where guns in the right hands have saved lives.
In the gun control debate that reignited after the Feb. 14 shooting at a Florida high school, much of the mainstream media appears to have joined in calls for stricter laws restricting gun ownership for Americans.

What the media pundits aren’t talking about so much, however, is how often guns in the right hands have saved lives. Here are 12 such instances in the past 12 years.

1. Don’t Mess With Texas

Earlier this month, Robert Rodriguez and his wife awoke to an intruder with a knife in their home in Austin, Texas. Rodriguez, a former sheriff’s deputy, held the intruder at gunpoint until authorities could reach his house. (Restoring Liberty)

2. Gun Turns a Victim into a Victor

In February, a woman and her daughter used personal firearms to save each other from an armed robber at their family-owned liquor store in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The would-be robber was shot in the leg, and the two women were not harmed. (ABC6)

3. ‘Grab a Gun and Go’

In February, a man in Oswego, Illinois, used his AR-15 rifle to intervene in an argument in which someone had been stabbed. Dave Thomas saw a man stabbing another person and ran to his house to get his gun. The assailant fled, but was quickly caught by police. (WGN-9)

4. A Gun Is a Girl’s Best Friend

In March 2016, a 22-year-old woman pulled her gun on men who had followed her to her car and threatened to steal her belongings outside a Dollar Tree store in Oklahoma City. The presence of a gun sent the three would-be robbers running. (KOCO 5 News)

5. Add ‘Hero’ to His Resume

In September 2014, Mark Vaughan, a reserve sheriff’s deputy and chief operating officer for Vaughan Foods, used his personal firearm to wound a man who was a former employee in Moore, Oklahoma. The fired employee had returned to the workplace and beheaded one employee and seriously injured another. (The Washington Times)

6. Veteran’s Wife Scares Off Intruder

In June 2013, Jan Cooper, 72, possibly saved her life and that of her wheelchair-bound husband, an 85-year-old veteran of World War II. A man was breaking into the Coopers’ home in Anaheim, California, when she fired her revolver and scared off the intruder. (NBC4)

7. Armed Guard Disarms School Shooter

In January 2013, a student opened fire at Prince Middle School in Atlanta. After wounding another student, the suspect was disarmed by an armed guard stationed at the school. (The Washington Times)

8. Internet Cafe Gunmen Logged Off

In July 2012, Samuel William, 71, may have saved the lives of innocent bystanders at an internet cafe in Ocala, Florida. Two would-be robbers had entered the cafe with weapons when William pulled out his gun and shot and wounded them. (The Washington Times)

9. Unhappy New Year’s Home Invasion

On New Year’s Eve 2012, Sarah McKinley, an 18-year-old mother of a 3-month-old, may have saved her life and that of her baby in Blanchard, Oklahoma. Two intruders, one of whom had a knife, were attempting to enter McKinley’s mobile home just a week after her husband had died of cancer. McKinley fatally shot one intruder and scared off the second one. (The Washington Times)

10. Take-Down at Trolley Square Mall

In February 2007, Kenneth Hammond, an off-duty police officer, drew his weapon and confronted a shooter who had opened fire in a shopping mall. Sulejman Talovic had entered Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City armed with a shotgun and a backpack full of ammunition. With the help of another officer, Hammond was able to stop the gunman, who killed five before being fatally shot. (CBS News)

11. Sunday Service Interruption

In December 2007, Jeanne Assam, a former police officer and volunteer security worker, saved the day at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Thousands of congregants were leaving Sunday services when a shooter opened fire. Assam ran toward the line of fire, fatally shooting the gunman and potentially saving countless lives. (The Washington Times)

12. Media Madhouse Employee Brings Down Madman

In January 2006, an employee of Media Madhouse in Elkhart, Indiana, shot a man who entered the building holding a gun on an employee and demanding money. The armed employee shot the intruder, potentially saving other employees and customers. (The Washington Times)
July 21st, 2018  
Capt Frogman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Where is your evidence? Again you are talking nonsense.

When there are people in the vicinity who are armed and trained, thev prevent loss of life, thats fact. There is a shite load of evidence out there, but you wont look for it because it doesnt suit your agenda.

Just one example:-
On Defensive Gun Uses And How They Outpace Gun Deaths
Posted at 4:00 pm on July 10, 2018 by Tom Knighton

Anti-gunners love throwing numbers around. They like big numbers and to present them without context. They’ll tell you how many people were killed by firearms last year, a big enough number that people will balk and start thinking, “Maybe we should do something.”

Of course, they fail to note that most of those are suicides. If it’s pointed out, they’ll pretend it doesn’t matter, that they should still be included, but it does nothing to defend the disingenuous nature of the numbers as presented.

Something else they tend to do is fail to note that “gun deaths” are still a drop in the bucket compared to defensive gun uses.

Thankfully, the data is on their – and our – side, and this is far from an outlier event. In an age where we’re told that firearm-related homicides are skyrocketing, we are actually experiencing a marked decline from a high point of seven per 100,000 people in 1993 to around half that. The Washington Post in 2015 noted the decline but attributed it to every possible factor, from the police using computers to an improving economy to lead removal, but leaves out the fact that the statistics exist despite more and more guns being produced and owned by Americans. They also conveniently leave out the hundreds of thousands of instances of defensive gun use.

Just how many times do Americans use weapons to defend themselves every year? It’s a tough number to nail down for a variety of reasons, but depending on the source it’s anywhere from upwards of 2 million per year to the Washington Post’s “more reasonable” (read: lowball) estimate of 100,000. But either way, it’s more than fair to say that more lives are saved by guns used in self-defense than are taken by the criminals who use them for nefarious purposes. And if you count homicides and not suicides, we’re talking about around 10,000 deaths per year, or one tenth of the Post’s lowball estimate.

Even if you don’t exclude suicides for some reason, the number of defensive gun uses still outpaces gun deaths by a rate of three to one.

In other words, guns save a whole lot more lives than they supposedly take, even with these “more reasonable” numbers. However, that number is far below what the Centers for Disease Controls found in their own study, one that went unpublished because it apparently failed to advance the narrative.

The CDC found that almost 2.5 million people used a firearm defensively within a 12-month span. That’s well beyond what the Washington Post claims, and I trust the CDC’s resources more than even a large newspaper’s.

Despite this fact, anti-gunners continue to peddle the nonsense that guns are somehow responsible for all of these deaths. The truth of the matter is that most, if not all, of these deaths, would likely still have occurred if the weapon were something different. Someone who wants to kill another will find a way. You can’t make people behave simply because you made it difficult to use one particular tool.
Yeah, lots of self defence going on.....

In 2014:

- There were 7,670 criminal gun homicides. There were 224 justifiable homicides involving a gun.

- Only 1.1 percent of victims or intended victims of a violent crime used a firearm in self-defense.

- Only 0.2 percent of victims or intended victims of a property crime used a firearm in self-defense.

- For every time a person used a gun to kill in a justifiable homicide, 34 innocent lives were ended in criminal gun homicides.

July 21st, 2018  
MontyB
 
 
Using Tom Knightly as a source of impartial firearms data is a little like using Adolf Hitler as an impartial source on Judaism.

There are large holes in his theories not the least of which is the idea that non-illegal uses of firearms were of a defensive nature which is frankly ludicrous.
--
Boots
July 21st, 2018  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by -- Dusty
This is gonna be a bit long...

The reality is, the US quit giving a crap about what other countries thought back in 1776....
Which is why I made the point in my very first post in this thread of saying I honestly don't care how many mass killings you have, slaughter each other by the bus load and I promise not to lose a minutes sleep over it all I care about is that your nation's deranged views on this issue stay in the USA and are not exported to the sane world.
July 21st, 2018  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by -- Dusty
I find it amusing that the entire anti-gun crowd in this thread are also the resident members of the Blue Oyster Club....
Besides not being from the US....
Hey! I'm not a marine so I cannot be a member of the Blue Oyster Club.
July 21st, 2018  
Capt Frogman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
Hey! I'm not a marine so I cannot be a member of the Blue Oyster Club.
You'd like it there.
July 22nd, 2018  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Frogman
Yeah, lots of self defence going on.....

In 2014:

- There were 7,670 criminal gun homicides. There were 224 justifiable homicides involving a gun.

- Only 1.1 percent of victims or intended victims of a violent crime used a firearm in self-defense.

- Only 0.2 percent of victims or intended victims of a property crime used a firearm in self-defense.

- For every time a person used a gun to kill in a justifiable homicide, 34 innocent lives were ended in criminal gun homicides.

More figures from the anti gun brigade?

How many homicides in the UK with legally held Firearms? Now compare that with deaths cause by armed police in the UK. If you wish I can give you chapter and verse of innocent victims of police incompetence, like the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was assassinated by armed Met police using hollow point bullets.

As I stated Anti-gunners love throwing numbers around. They like big numbers and to present them without context. They’ll tell you how many people were killed by firearms last year, a big enough number that people will balk and start thinking, “Maybe we should do something.”

You have sucked figures out of the air yet again. I can give you chapter and verse yet because of your blinkered attitude you will never accept that legally held firearms save lives. I have been researching this for over ten years, how much research have you done? Five minutes?

Florida was the rape capital of the USA until concealed carry was introduced, rapes statistics have dropped liked a brick. Washington DC was the murder capital of the US because of handgun bans, since the ban was lifted murders have declined drastically.

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...ot-even-close/
July 22nd, 2018  
BritinAfrica
 
 
In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama issued a list of Executive Orders. Notably among them, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $10 million to research gun violence.


“Year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it,” Obama said on Jan. 16.

As a result, a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control” was lifted. Finally, anti-gun proponents—and presumably the Obama Administration—thought gun owners and the NRA would be met with irrefutable scientific evidence to support why guns make Americans less safe.

Mainstream media outlets praised the order to lift the ban and lambasted the NRA and Congress for having put it in place.

It was the “Executive Order the NRA Should Fear the Most,” according to The Atlantic.

The CDC ban on gun research “caused lasting damage,” reported ABC News.

Salon said the ban was part of the NRA’s “war on gun science.”

And CBS News lamented that the NRA “stymied” CDC research.

Most mainstream journalists argued the NRA’s opposition to CDC gun research demonstrated its fear of being contradicted by science; few—if any—cited why the NRA may have had legitimate concerns. The culture of the CDC at the time could hardly be described as lacking bias on firearms.

“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who oversaw CDC gun research, told The Washington Post in 1994. “Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly and banned.”

Does Rosenberg sound like a man who should be trusted to conduct taxpayer-funded studies on guns?

Rosenberg’s statement coincided with a CDC study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay, who argued guns in the home are 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder. The study had serious flaws; namely, it skewed the ratio by failing to consider defensive uses of firearms in which the intruder wasn’t killed. It has since been refuted by several studies, including one by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, indicating Americans use guns for self-defense 2.5 million times annually. However, the damage had been done—the “43 times” myth is perhaps gun-control advocates’ most commonly cited argument, and a lot of people still believe it to this day.

So, the NRA and Congress took action. But with the ban lifted, what does the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal? Not exactly what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. In fact, you might say Obama’s plan backfired.

Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

Why No One Has Heard This
Given the CDC’s prior track record on guns, you may be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions.

What are opponents of the Second Amendment doing about the new data? Perhaps predictably, they’re ignoring it. President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent. Most suspicious of all, the various media outlets that so eagerly anticipated the CDC research are looking the other way as well. One must wonder how media coverage of the CDC report may have differed, had the research more closely fit an anti-gun narrative.

Even worse, the few mainstream journalists who did report the CDC’s findings chose to cherry-pick from the data. Most, like NBC News, reported exclusively on the finding that gun suicides are up. Largely lost in that discussion is the fact that the overall rate of suicide—regardless of whether a gun is involved or not—is also up.

Others seized upon the CDC’s finding that, “The U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, as noted by the Las Vegas Guardian Express, if figures are excluded from such anti-gun bastions as Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., “The homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.”

The CDC report is overall a blow to the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional agenda. It largely supports the Second Amendment, and contradicts common anti-gun arguments. Unfortunately, mainstream media failed to get the story they were hoping for, and their silence on the matter is a screaming illustration of their underlying agenda.



Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/...#ixzz5Lz0srHSi
July 22nd, 2018  
Capt Frogman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
More figures from the anti gun brigade?

How many homicides in the UK with legally held Firearms? Now compare that with deaths cause by armed police in the UK. If you wish I can give you chapter and verse of innocent victims of police incompetence, like the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was assassinated by armed Met police using hollow point bullets.

As I stated Anti-gunners love throwing numbers around. They like big numbers and to present them without context. They’ll tell you how many people were killed by firearms last year, a big enough number that people will balk and start thinking, “Maybe we should do something.”

You have sucked figures out of the air yet again. I can give you chapter and verse yet because of your blinkered attitude you will never accept that legally held firearms save lives. I have been researching this for over ten years, how much research have you done? Five minutes?

Florida was the rape capital of the USA until concealed carry was introduced, rapes statistics have dropped liked a brick. Washington DC was the murder capital of the US because of handgun bans, since the ban was lifted murders have declined drastically.

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...ot-even-close/
My figures came from The Violence Policy Center (VPC) who released Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use, which uses available federal data to determine that, despite the myths propagated by the firearms industry and gun lobby, private citizens rarely use guns to kill criminals or stop crimes.

What has the British armed police use of firearms got to do with American civilians using firearms to defends themselves?

Jean Charles de Menezes wasn't assassinated. Don't make a fool of yourself.
July 22nd, 2018  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Frogman
My figures came from The Violence Policy Center (VPC) who released Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use, which uses available federal data to determine that, despite the myths propagated by the firearms industry and gun lobby, private citizens rarely use guns to kill criminals or stop crimes.
Violence Policy Center
ORGANIZATION

Gun-control study organization founded 1988 by author/activist Josh Sugarmann as the New Right Watch. Receives most of its funding from the Joyce Foundation. VPC will issue false or misleading information ("Barrett sells firearms to al-Qaeda") which can then be quoted by others supporting the same agenda.

Official Website:
http://www.vpc.org/

Founding Date:
1988

Fact, VPC use false information, so that blows your theory out of the water

[quote=Capt Frogman;706841What has the British armed police use of firearms got to do with American civilians using firearms to defends themselves? .[/QUOTE]

It proves firearms in state hands is far from safe. Firearms are far safer in civilian hands

[QUOTE=Capt Frogman;706841Jean Charles de Menezes wasn't assassinated. Don't make a fool of yourself.[/quote]

Of course you'd say that being a policeman .He wasnt? then you want to read about his killing in depth.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) launched two investigations. Stockwell 1, the findings of which were initially kept secret, concluded that none of the officers would face disciplinary charges. Stockwell 2 strongly criticised the police command structure and communications to the public. In July 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service said that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute any named individual police officers in a personal capacity, although a criminal prosecution of the Commissioner in his official capacity on behalf of his police force was brought under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, on the failure of the duty of care due to Menezes. The Commissioner was found guilty and his office was fined. On 12 December 2008 an inquest returned an open verdict.

The firearms officers boarded the train and it was initially claimed they challenged the suspect, though later reports indicate he was not challenged.[12] According to Hotel 3, Menezes then stood up and advanced towards the officers and Hotel 3, at which point Hotel 3 grabbed him, pinned his arms against his torso, and pushed him back into the seat. Although Menezes was being restrained, his body was straight and not in a natural sitting position. Hotel 3 heard a shot close to his ear, and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage. He shouted "Police!" and with hands raised was dragged out of the carriage by one of the armed officers who had boarded the train. Hotel 3 then heard several gunshots while being dragged out.

Two officers fired a total of eleven shots according to the number of empty shell casings found on the floor of the train afterwards. Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range, and died at the scene. An eyewitness later said that the eleven shots were fired over a thirty-second period, at three-second intervals. A separate witness reported hearing five shots, followed at an interval by several more shots.

It emerged that hollow-point bullets had been employed, and a senior police source said that Menezes's body had been "unrecognisable". These bullets are widely used in law enforcement, where it may often be necessary to quickly stop an armed assailant while minimising the risk of collateral damage posed by the use of full metal jacket ammunition. A full metal jacket bullet is more likely to exit the target, while still retaining lethal force. A Home Office spokesman said, "Chief officers can use whatever ammunition they consider appropriate for the operational circumstances.

The day after the shooting, the Metropolitan Police identified the victim as Jean Charles de Menezes, and said that he had not been carrying explosives, nor was he connected in any way to the attempted bombings. They issued an apology describing the incident as "a tragedy, and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets".

The Menezes family condemned the shooting and rejected the apology. His grandmother said there was "no reason to think he was a terrorist". Although it was initially reported that they were offered almost £585,000 compensation, the Menezes family eventually received £100,000 in compensation from the Metropolitan Police.

His cousin, Alex Alves Pereira, said: "I believe my cousin's death was result of police incompetence." Pereira said that police claims regarding the incident had been conflicting, and took issue with their pursuit of Menezes for an extended period and their allowing the 'suspected suicide bomber' to board a bus. 'Why did they let him get on a bus if they are afraid of suicide bombers?… He could have been running, but not from the police… When the Underground stops, everybody runs to get on the train. That he jumped over the barriers is a lie

On 18 August, lawyers representing the Menezes family met with the IPCC and urged them to conduct a 'fast' investigation. The lawyers, Harriet Wistrich and Gareth Peirce, held a press conference where they lamented the 'chaotic mess'. They stated their desire to ask the IPCC 'to find out is how much is incompetence, negligence or gross negligence and how much of it is something sinister.'[34]

On 18 August, the IPCC issued a statement in which it said that the Metropolitan Police was initially opposed to them taking on the investigation.[35] It also announced that the inquiry was expected to last between three and six months. The IPCC announced it took over the inquiry on 25 July;[36] however, the inquiry was not handed over until 27 July.

The police lobbied MPs to try to influence the inquiry into the shooting. Unsolicited e-mails were sent by Nick Williams, the acting inspector at the Metropolitan Police's Diamond Support Group, to Labour MPs.The Met declined repeated requests by the IPCC to disclose hundreds of pages of internal papers that gave the Met's private assessment of the operation, including discussions about how much compensation the Met thought it should pay to the Menezes family; the risk that individual officers might face murder or manslaughter charges; the vulnerability of Blair and the Met to an action for civil damages; and whether Special Branch officers altered surveillance logs.

In May 2006, the Metropolitan Police Federation released a 12-page statement which was highly critical of the IPCC in general, and specifically criticised the handling of the 'Stockwell inquiry'

On 13 October 2008, at an inquest into the death, a police surveillance officer admitted that he had deleted a computer record of Cressida Dick's instruction that they could allow Menezes to "run on to Tube as [he was] not carrying anything." At the inquest he told the court that "On reflection, I looked at that and thought I cannot actually say that." The IPCC announced that it would investigate the matter '[at its] highest level of investigation'.

During the trial an allegation was made that the police had manipulated a photo of de Menezes so as to increase his resemblance to a 'terrorist', Hussain Oman. A forensic specialist concluded de Menezes' face 'appeared to have been brightened and lost definition'. However, when asked if there had been any manipulation of any of the primary features of the face he replied "I don't believe there has been any... but making the image brighter has changed the image

On 13 October, the IPCC launched an investigation after a Metropolitan police surveillance officer named only as 'Owen' admitted that he had altered evidence submitted to the inquest. The officer had deleted one of his own computer notes which quoted deputy assistant commissioner Cressida Dick as concluding that Menezes was not a security threat. The note said 'CD – can run on to tube as not carrying anything'

On 2 December, Sir Michael ordered of the jury, shortly before they retired to consider their verdict, that they might not return one of 'unlawful killing', leaving their options as 'lawful killing', or an open verdict. He said that the verdict could not be inconsistent with the earlier criminal trial. As well as the short-form verdict of 'lawful killing' or 'open',

An open verdict was brought, basically the police officers concerned would not be guilty of murder.
 


Similar Topics
Danish police arrest man suspected of links to February 14-15 shootings
Update on Copenhagen shootings in Denmark: Suspect killed
Paris police arrest 12 linked to shootings as Kerry arrives
Suspects sought in shootings of 2 Missouri officers
Firearms Possession discussion (in response to yet another US shooting)