America's Gun Violence

PJPOWER

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

These little bastards definitely make a case for hunting with semi-auto rifles. If you have ever been charged by one, you would understand!
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/texas-parks-wildlife-department-speaks-feral-hog-problem/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sendible&utm_term=mm&utm_campaign=mm

You've said this before. Not having any experience whatsoever with the beasts... I can see it.

Remember... I have advocated for the restricted sale of hand guns. Only those that truly need one should own one. I would never want to deny an avid hunter additional protection.

These animals make a case for sidearms as well.

Most wild animals will just run away if you are out deer hunting and stumble across them. These wild boars straight up get pissed off and charge you...and they are everywhere in TX. On one occasion I was out with only a compound bow and a knife and ran across about 10 of these suckas. Fortunately I was able to back away unnoticed, but many people haven't been so lucky.

I should tell you of a story I have involving big horned sheep. I'm lucky to be here.

We need beer and time though to do it right.

For sure! Anyone that has spent a good amount of time out in the wild usually has some interesting experiences to share.

This encounter wasn't on a hunting trip... it was on a hike (not a casual, little one... up a steep peak). I foolishly scaled a rock face instead of following the tried, tested and true path. My buddy didn't follow my recklessness and we agreed to meet at the top.

Realizing my error... I began to concern myself for my safety. Focused on every footing and handhold... heart racing... I began to climb off the face. Nearing the end of the treacherous route... I pulled myself up on to a ledge. It would have been about 30 feet wide and 10 feet deep.

As I pulled myself up on to it... there were about 15 sheep staring at me- motionless. Classic fight or flight mechanism wheels in place. Time was briefly suspended and I sat there going, "Holy f**k." The only way for me to retreat was to fall a long way. After about 5-8 seconds, a big male broke to the left and the herd followed it.

They were gone. And I cleaned out my drawers lol! I got to the top. My buddy and I had a few backgammon games and I counted my blessings. I could have been knocked off that ledge with a different temperament in that animal.

That's crazy! Glad the flight mechanism overweighed the fight with those sheep!

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

These little bastards definitely make a case for hunting with semi-auto rifles (in Texas anyway). If you have ever been charged by one, you would understand!
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/texas-parks-wildlife-department-speaks-feral-hog-problem/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sendible&utm_term=mm&utm_campaign=mm

The problem I have with this is that folks like you love to talk about how different features don't make the weapon more dangerous or deadly for humans, but boars, well thats different.

I only mentioned semi-auto here. Many of those other features I'm assuming you are talking about make no difference. Having the ability to quickly follow up a shot is going to do just that, whether it be wild boar or any other target. That doesn't mean I'm going to support restrictions on everything that may be dangerous in the wrong hands...if that was the case, there are a number of other available items that should be off the market.
For me, hunting is about situations and preparing. If I am going on a long hike in hog infested woods, I would usually choose a light weight (as light as possible) larger caliber rifle with a sling for carrying and semi-auto in case you do run across a group of hogs. If out on an open range where shots can be upwards of 500 yards, I use my bolt action with a large heavy scope and barrel that would be impractical if walking miles through brushy areas.
My point is that if I took my short range brush rifle out on an open range trip, it would be way less deadly and vise versa if I took my long range rifle on a hog hunt. I would say both rifles are equally as deadly depending on the scenario and the skill of the person using it. "Deadly" is relative.

HughFreakingDillon

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

These little bastards definitely make a case for hunting with semi-auto rifles (in Texas anyway). If you have ever been charged by one, you would understand!
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/texas-parks-wildlife-department-speaks-feral-hog-problem/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sendible&utm_term=mm&utm_campaign=mm

The problem I have with this is that folks like you love to talk about how different features don't make the weapon more dangerous or deadly for humans, but boars, well thats different.

excellent point.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HughFreakingDillon said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

These little bastards definitely make a case for hunting with semi-auto rifles (in Texas anyway). If you have ever been charged by one, you would understand!
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/texas-parks-wildlife-department-speaks-feral-hog-problem/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sendible&utm_term=mm&utm_campaign=mm

The problem I have with this is that folks like you love to talk about how different features don't make the weapon more dangerous or deadly for humans, but boars, well thats different.

excellent point.

More often than not... RG is in lala land. On occasion, however, RG rocks it.

rustneversleeps

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

These little bastards definitely make a case for hunting with semi-auto rifles (in Texas anyway). If you have ever been charged by one, you would understand!
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/texas-parks-wildlife-department-speaks-feral-hog-problem/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sendible&utm_term=mm&utm_campaign=mm

The problem I have with this is that folks like you love to talk about how different features don't make the weapon more dangerous or deadly for humans, but boars, well thats different.

excellent point.

More often than not... RG is in lala land. On occasion, however, RG rocks it.

hahaha

rgambs

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

These little bastards definitely make a case for hunting with semi-auto rifles (in Texas anyway). If you have ever been charged by one, you would understand!
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/texas-parks-wildlife-department-speaks-feral-hog-problem/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sendible&utm_term=mm&utm_campaign=mm

The problem I have with this is that folks like you love to talk about how different features don't make the weapon more dangerous or deadly for humans, but boars, well thats different.

I only mentioned semi-auto here. Many of those other features I'm assuming you are talking about make no difference. Having the ability to quickly follow up a shot is going to do just that, whether it be wild boar or any other target. That doesn't mean I'm going to support restrictions on everything that may be dangerous in the wrong hands...if that was the case, there are a number of other available items that should be off the market.
For me, hunting is about situations and preparing. If I am going on a long hike in hog infested woods, I would usually choose a light weight (as light as possible) larger caliber rifle with a sling for carrying and semi-auto in case you do run across a group of hogs. If out on an open range where shots can be upwards of 500 yards, I use my bolt action with a large heavy scope and barrel that would be impractical if walking miles through brushy areas.
My point is that if I took my short range brush rifle out on an open range trip, it would be way less deadly and vise versa if I took my long range rifle on a hog hunt. I would say both rifles are equally as deadly depending on the scenario and the skill of the person using it. "Deadly" is relative.

Sure, I agree, deadly is relative. Think about it though, doesn't that work against your position? Deadly is relative to situation and environment, so if the government takes steps to control the aspects of firearms that make them more deadly in the obvious and specific situations and environments that apply to mass shootings of humans, it makes sense. You can still use firearms that are suited for other situations and environments with very little ACTUAL (in contrast to the ridiculous persecution most gunners perceive) detriment to people who own guns for utility purposes.

For those who obsess over war weapons and persist in their delusional Rambo fantasies...fuck 'em. I don't give a shit how salty they get.

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

These little bastards definitely make a case for hunting with semi-auto rifles (in Texas anyway). If you have ever been charged by one, you would understand!
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/texas-parks-wildlife-department-speaks-feral-hog-problem/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sendible&utm_term=mm&utm_campaign=mm

The problem I have with this is that folks like you love to talk about how different features don't make the weapon more dangerous or deadly for humans, but boars, well thats different.

excellent point.

More often than not, RG rocks it.

Thanks!!

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

These little bastards definitely make a case for hunting with semi-auto rifles (in Texas anyway). If you have ever been charged by one, you would understand!
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/texas-parks-wildlife-department-speaks-feral-hog-problem/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sendible&utm_term=mm&utm_campaign=mm

The problem I have with this is that folks like you love to talk about how different features don't make the weapon more dangerous or deadly for humans, but boars, well thats different.

I only mentioned semi-auto here. Many of those other features I'm assuming you are talking about make no difference. Having the ability to quickly follow up a shot is going to do just that, whether it be wild boar or any other target. That doesn't mean I'm going to support restrictions on everything that may be dangerous in the wrong hands...if that was the case, there are a number of other available items that should be off the market.
For me, hunting is about situations and preparing. If I am going on a long hike in hog infested woods, I would usually choose a light weight (as light as possible) larger caliber rifle with a sling for carrying and semi-auto in case you do run across a group of hogs. If out on an open range where shots can be upwards of 500 yards, I use my bolt action with a large heavy scope and barrel that would be impractical if walking miles through brushy areas.
My point is that if I took my short range brush rifle out on an open range trip, it would be way less deadly and vise versa if I took my long range rifle on a hog hunt. I would say both rifles are equally as deadly depending on the scenario and the skill of the person using it. "Deadly" is relative.

Sure, I agree, deadly is relative. Think about it though, doesn't that work against your position? Deadly is relative to situation and environment, so if the government takes steps to control the aspects of firearms that make them more deadly in the obvious and specific situations and environments that apply to mass shootings of humans, it makes sense. You can still use firearms that are suited for other situations and environments with very little ACTUAL (in contrast to the ridiculous persecution most gunners perceive) detriment to people who own guns for utility purposes.

For those who obsess over war weapons and persist in their delusional Rambo fantasies...fuck 'em. I don't give a shit how salty they get.

So then an asshat uses a bolt action rifle with a high powered scope from 500 yards away to pick off people. Do you start looking for ways to ban those or scopes or what? Or someone uses a pressure cooker to blow up a bunch of people...do you ban pressure cookers?
I get it, I understand why people want to ban firearms, I just do not believe in the "ban" philosophy in general. How has any ban actually worked long term? Sure some can say "look at Australia", but they are starting to have some pretty big problems with the illegal firearm trade. In my opinion, bans on things desired in mass by large populations leads to further problems. A recent limit on pistol magazines led to the creation of multiple types of pocket pistols and so on and so on. Are we going to start throwing people in jail that do not comply with these bans? New York has been facing that reality lately. I just do not like the slippery slope that a "ban" mentality leads to.

mcgruff10

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

These little bastards definitely make a case for hunting with semi-auto rifles (in Texas anyway). If you have ever been charged by one, you would understand!
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/texas-parks-wildlife-department-speaks-feral-hog-problem/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sendible&utm_term=mm&utm_campaign=mm

The problem I have with this is that folks like you love to talk about how different features don't make the weapon more dangerous or deadly for humans, but boars, well thats different.

I only mentioned semi-auto here. Many of those other features I'm assuming you are talking about make no difference. Having the ability to quickly follow up a shot is going to do just that, whether it be wild boar or any other target. That doesn't mean I'm going to support restrictions on everything that may be dangerous in the wrong hands...if that was the case, there are a number of other available items that should be off the market.
For me, hunting is about situations and preparing. If I am going on a long hike in hog infested woods, I would usually choose a light weight (as light as possible) larger caliber rifle with a sling for carrying and semi-auto in case you do run across a group of hogs. If out on an open range where shots can be upwards of 500 yards, I use my bolt action with a large heavy scope and barrel that would be impractical if walking miles through brushy areas.
My point is that if I took my short range brush rifle out on an open range trip, it would be way less deadly and vise versa if I took my long range rifle on a hog hunt. I would say both rifles are equally as deadly depending on the scenario and the skill of the person using it. "Deadly" is relative.

Sure, I agree, deadly is relative. Think about it though, doesn't that work against your position? Deadly is relative to situation and environment, so if the government takes steps to control the aspects of firearms that make them more deadly in the obvious and specific situations and environments that apply to mass shootings of humans, it makes sense. You can still use firearms that are suited for other situations and environments with very little ACTUAL (in contrast to the ridiculous persecution most gunners perceive) detriment to people who own guns for utility purposes.

For those who obsess over war weapons and persist in their delusional Rambo fantasies...fuck 'em. I don't give a shit how salty they get.

seriously, who the hell has Rambo fantasies? lol.
I mean people dream about breaking into vietcong pow camp and brining back american pow's? or they dream about taking down local law enforcement after they are wronged? do you seriously think that's why people buy semi automatic weapons?

rgambs

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

These little bastards definitely make a case for hunting with semi-auto rifles (in Texas anyway). If you have ever been charged by one, you would understand!
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/texas-parks-wildlife-department-speaks-feral-hog-problem/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sendible&utm_term=mm&utm_campaign=mm

The problem I have with this is that folks like you love to talk about how different features don't make the weapon more dangerous or deadly for humans, but boars, well thats different.

I only mentioned semi-auto here. Many of those other features I'm assuming you are talking about make no difference. Having the ability to quickly follow up a shot is going to do just that, whether it be wild boar or any other target. That doesn't mean I'm going to support restrictions on everything that may be dangerous in the wrong hands...if that was the case, there are a number of other available items that should be off the market.
For me, hunting is about situations and preparing. If I am going on a long hike in hog infested woods, I would usually choose a light weight (as light as possible) larger caliber rifle with a sling for carrying and semi-auto in case you do run across a group of hogs. If out on an open range where shots can be upwards of 500 yards, I use my bolt action with a large heavy scope and barrel that would be impractical if walking miles through brushy areas.
My point is that if I took my short range brush rifle out on an open range trip, it would be way less deadly and vise versa if I took my long range rifle on a hog hunt. I would say both rifles are equally as deadly depending on the scenario and the skill of the person using it. "Deadly" is relative.

Sure, I agree, deadly is relative. Think about it though, doesn't that work against your position? Deadly is relative to situation and environment, so if the government takes steps to control the aspects of firearms that make them more deadly in the obvious and specific situations and environments that apply to mass shootings of humans, it makes sense. You can still use firearms that are suited for other situations and environments with very little ACTUAL (in contrast to the ridiculous persecution most gunners perceive) detriment to people who own guns for utility purposes.

For those who obsess over war weapons and persist in their delusional Rambo fantasies...fuck 'em. I don't give a shit how salty they get.

seriously, who the hell has Rambo fantasies? lol.
I mean people dream about breaking into vietcong pow camp and brining back american pow's? or they dream about taking down local law enforcement after they are wronged? do you seriously think that's why people buy semi automatic weapons?

There are practically dozens of magazines out there that cater to this crowd, don't act like it isn't a part of gun culture.

mcgruff10

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

These little bastards definitely make a case for hunting with semi-auto rifles (in Texas anyway). If you have ever been charged by one, you would understand!
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/texas-parks-wildlife-department-speaks-feral-hog-problem/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sendible&utm_term=mm&utm_campaign=mm

The problem I have with this is that folks like you love to talk about how different features don't make the weapon more dangerous or deadly for humans, but boars, well thats different.

I only mentioned semi-auto here. Many of those other features I'm assuming you are talking about make no difference. Having the ability to quickly follow up a shot is going to do just that, whether it be wild boar or any other target. That doesn't mean I'm going to support restrictions on everything that may be dangerous in the wrong hands...if that was the case, there are a number of other available items that should be off the market.
For me, hunting is about situations and preparing. If I am going on a long hike in hog infested woods, I would usually choose a light weight (as light as possible) larger caliber rifle with a sling for carrying and semi-auto in case you do run across a group of hogs. If out on an open range where shots can be upwards of 500 yards, I use my bolt action with a large heavy scope and barrel that would be impractical if walking miles through brushy areas.
My point is that if I took my short range brush rifle out on an open range trip, it would be way less deadly and vise versa if I took my long range rifle on a hog hunt. I would say both rifles are equally as deadly depending on the scenario and the skill of the person using it. "Deadly" is relative.

Sure, I agree, deadly is relative. Think about it though, doesn't that work against your position? Deadly is relative to situation and environment, so if the government takes steps to control the aspects of firearms that make them more deadly in the obvious and specific situations and environments that apply to mass shootings of humans, it makes sense. You can still use firearms that are suited for other situations and environments with very little ACTUAL (in contrast to the ridiculous persecution most gunners perceive) detriment to people who own guns for utility purposes.

For those who obsess over war weapons and persist in their delusional Rambo fantasies...fuck 'em. I don't give a shit how salty they get.

seriously, who the hell has Rambo fantasies? lol.
I mean people dream about breaking into vietcong pow camp and brining back american pow's? or they dream about taking down local law enforcement after they are wronged? do you seriously think that's why people buy semi automatic weapons?

There are practically dozens of magazines out there that cater to this crowd, don't act like it isn't a part of gun culture.

It's not a part of my gun culture. Which magazines?

rgambs

World of Firepower
Recoil
Gunworld
Soldier of Fortune
That last one came under fire lol back in the 80's for running ads for hitmen, ahem, I mean private mercenaries.

Even Guns and Ammo runs articles which are little more than Rambo fantasies in periodical print.

mcgruff10

rgambs said:

World of Firepower
Recoil
Gunworld
Soldier of Fortune
That last one came under fire lol back in the 80's for running ads for hitmen, ahem, I mean private mercenaries.

Even Guns and Ammo runs articles which are little more than Rambo fantasies in periodical print.

I only get guns and ammo...never heard of the others. Interesting.

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

World of Firepower
Recoil
Gunworld
Soldier of Fortune
That last one came under fire lol back in the 80's for running ads for hitmen, ahem, I mean private mercenaries.

Even Guns and Ammo runs articles which are little more than Rambo fantasies in periodical print.

They are definitely out there, but I would also point my finger at violent media games/movies for plenty to give some people Rambo/Gangsta/etc comeplexes. Sounds like a mental health/drug use (which is really kind of the same thing) issues to me...I would say that a "Guns and ammo" magazine is a stretch in regards to guilt in the whole spectrum of media grandiosity. But media is one more thing that is granted in that "old outdated" piece of paper, so...freedom is not without faults.

rgambs

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

World of Firepower
Recoil
Gunworld
Soldier of Fortune
That last one came under fire lol back in the 80's for running ads for hitmen, ahem, I mean private mercenaries.

Even Guns and Ammo runs articles which are little more than Rambo fantasies in periodical print.

They are definitely out there, but I would also point my finger at violent media games/movies for plenty to give some people Rambo/Gangsta/etc comeplexes. Sounds like a mental health/drug use (which is really kind of the same thing) issues to me...I would say that a "Guns and ammo" magazine is a stretch in regards to guilt in the whole spectrum of media grandiosity. But media is one more thing that is granted in that "old outdated" piece of paper, so...freedom is not without faults.

Violent movies play a role for sure, war glorification in the US is out of control, and rivals the most militaristic societies. It isn't healthy and it isn't classy, but because of our rah rah patriotism it is viewed as respectable.

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

World of Firepower
Recoil
Gunworld
Soldier of Fortune
That last one came under fire lol back in the 80's for running ads for hitmen, ahem, I mean private mercenaries.

Even Guns and Ammo runs articles which are little more than Rambo fantasies in periodical print.

They are definitely out there, but I would also point my finger at violent media games/movies for plenty to give some people Rambo/Gangsta/etc comeplexes. Sounds like a mental health/drug use (which is really kind of the same thing) issues to me...I would say that a "Guns and ammo" magazine is a stretch in regards to guilt in the whole spectrum of media grandiosity. But media is one more thing that is granted in that "old outdated" piece of paper, so...freedom is not without faults.

Violent movies play a role for sure, war glorification in the US is out of control, and rivals the most militaristic societies. It isn't healthy and it isn't classy, but because of our rah rah patriotism it is viewed as respectable.

Admittedly, I have little knowledge as to how the US compares with other places in regards to availability of violent forms of entertainment. When I was a counselor, though, I definitely witnessed how violent movies and video games effected youth though. It's pretty telling when a 10 year old is getting in trouble for hurting other students and states that their favorite movie is Saw or video game is Grand Theft Auto...not an uncommon occurrence in the youth counseling world.

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

World of Firepower
Recoil
Gunworld
Soldier of Fortune
That last one came under fire lol back in the 80's for running ads for hitmen, ahem, I mean private mercenaries.

Even Guns and Ammo runs articles which are little more than Rambo fantasies in periodical print.

They are definitely out there, but I would also point my finger at violent media games/movies for plenty to give some people Rambo/Gangsta/etc comeplexes. Sounds like a mental health/drug use (which is really kind of the same thing) issues to me...I would say that a "Guns and ammo" magazine is a stretch in regards to guilt in the whole spectrum of media grandiosity. But media is one more thing that is granted in that "old outdated" piece of paper, so...freedom is not without faults.

Violent movies play a role for sure, war glorification in the US is out of control, and rivals the most militaristic societies. It isn't healthy and it isn't classy, but because of our rah rah patriotism it is viewed as respectable.

Admittedly, I have little knowledge as to how the US compares with other places in regards to availability of violent forms of entertainment. When I was a counselor, though, I definitely witnessed how violent movies and video games effected youth though. It's pretty telling when a 10 year old is getting in trouble for hurting other students and states that their favorite movie is Saw or video game is Grand Theft Auto...not an uncommon occurrence in the youth counseling world.

we have the same access to the same forms of entertainment in canada, as you know, as you do. but it either doesn't affect us in the same way, or it doesn't have much of an effect on its own at all. I'd wager on the latter. to me it's culture. all culture. I hate guns. But I think this shit would still happen if people had access to a so-callled assault rifle or a just a hunting rifle. it's just the body count is much higher with the former. if you take those off the table, I'm certain it would save lives.

99 out of 100 15 year old kids simply could not afford one of those guns on the black market.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

World of Firepower
Recoil
Gunworld
Soldier of Fortune
That last one came under fire lol back in the 80's for running ads for hitmen, ahem, I mean private mercenaries.

Even Guns and Ammo runs articles which are little more than Rambo fantasies in periodical print.

They are definitely out there, but I would also point my finger at violent media games/movies for plenty to give some people Rambo/Gangsta/etc comeplexes. Sounds like a mental health/drug use (which is really kind of the same thing) issues to me...I would say that a "Guns and ammo" magazine is a stretch in regards to guilt in the whole spectrum of media grandiosity. But media is one more thing that is granted in that "old outdated" piece of paper, so...freedom is not without faults.

Violent movies play a role for sure, war glorification in the US is out of control, and rivals the most militaristic societies. It isn't healthy and it isn't classy, but because of our rah rah patriotism it is viewed as respectable.

Admittedly, I have little knowledge as to how the US compares with other places in regards to availability of violent forms of entertainment. When I was a counselor, though, I definitely witnessed how violent movies and video games effected youth though. It's pretty telling when a 10 year old is getting in trouble for hurting other students and states that their favorite movie is Saw or video game is Grand Theft Auto...not an uncommon occurrence in the youth counseling world.

we have the same access to the same forms of entertainment in canada, as you know, as you do. but it either doesn't affect us in the same way, or it doesn't have much of an effect on its own at all. I'd wager on the latter. to me it's culture. all culture. I hate guns. But I think this shit would still happen if people had access to a so-callled assault rifle or a just a hunting rifle. it's just the body count is much higher with the former. if you take those off the table, I'm certain it would save lives.

99 out of 100 15 year old kids simply could not afford one of those guns on the black market.

And good luck finding one on the black market.

We have those guns illegally, but they are in the hands of people using them for illegal business. They are not just sitting around in houses for ticked off people to grab and go on a shooting spree with.

mcgruff10

good guy with a gun saves a police officer's life:
An Arizona state trooper stopped to help at a car wreck along a remote highway Thursday when he was shot and wounded in an ambush by a man who was bashing the officer's head against the pavement until a passing driver shot him to death, authorities said.

The trooper, a 27-year department veteran, suffered a severe wound to his shoulder and upper chest but he is expected to recover at a hospital.

"My trooper would not be alive without his assistance," Department of Public Safety Director Frank Milstead said of the good Samaritan who stopped.

The drama unfolded at an early morning rollover wreck on Interstate 10 in the desert west of Phoenix where a woman was ejected and killed. Authorities believe the man who shot the officer was driving the car that crashed.

Officials said they were trying to determine exactly what happened and that the investigation faced major hurdles with the trooper seriously injured and two of the others involved dead. No identities have been released.

A separate driver reported gunfire and a trooper was responding to that call when he spotted the wreck and stopped, Milstead and DPS Capt. Damon Cecil said.

The officer was putting out flares when the suspect opened fire and then physically attacked the wounded trooper, Milstead said. Both Milstead and Cecil said the trooper was ambushed.

The man was on top of the officer and "getting the better of him," slamming the trooper's head against the pavement, Milstead said. That's when the passing driver showed up and asked if the trooper needed help.

He said yes, and the passer-by went back to his vehicle, got his gun and told the suspect to stop the attack, Milstead said. When he didn't, the driver shot him.

Investigators were trying to determine how the rollover happened and whether the suspect was involved with the initial report of gunshots, officials said. Investigators plan to speak with the person who made that call.

Milstead said he feared the worst when he headed to the hospital to check on the wounded trooper.

"He's incredibly fortunate to be here with us today," the director said.

Westbound Interstate 10 was closed most of the morning, and traffic heading for California and western Arizona was detoured to other highways.

PJPOWER

mcgruff10 said:

good guy with a gun saves a police officer's life:
An Arizona state trooper stopped to help at a car wreck along a remote highway Thursday when he was shot and wounded in an ambush by a man who was bashing the officer's head against the pavement until a passing driver shot him to death, authorities said.

The trooper, a 27-year department veteran, suffered a severe wound to his shoulder and upper chest but he is expected to recover at a hospital.

"My trooper would not be alive without his assistance," Department of Public Safety Director Frank Milstead said of the good Samaritan who stopped.

The drama unfolded at an early morning rollover wreck on Interstate 10 in the desert west of Phoenix where a woman was ejected and killed. Authorities believe the man who shot the officer was driving the car that crashed.

Officials said they were trying to determine exactly what happened and that the investigation faced major hurdles with the trooper seriously injured and two of the others involved dead. No identities have been released.

A separate driver reported gunfire and a trooper was responding to that call when he spotted the wreck and stopped, Milstead and DPS Capt. Damon Cecil said.

The officer was putting out flares when the suspect opened fire and then physically attacked the wounded trooper, Milstead said. Both Milstead and Cecil said the trooper was ambushed.

The man was on top of the officer and "getting the better of him," slamming the trooper's head against the pavement, Milstead said. That's when the passing driver showed up and asked if the trooper needed help.

He said yes, and the passer-by went back to his vehicle, got his gun and told the suspect to stop the attack, Milstead said. When he didn't, the driver shot him.

Investigators were trying to determine how the rollover happened and whether the suspect was involved with the initial report of gunshots, officials said. Investigators plan to speak with the person who made that call.

Milstead said he feared the worst when he headed to the hospital to check on the wounded trooper.

"He's incredibly fortunate to be here with us today," the director said.

Westbound Interstate 10 was closed most of the morning, and traffic heading for California and western Arizona was detoured to other highways.

Crazy story. Glad an armed good samaritan was at the right place at the right time!