Three Officers Shot at NJ Police Station after Suspect Grabs Gun


If only there were more armed people...or maybe they should have charged the shooter and screamed "Wolverine!!" in the process. We'll never know, just a sad unavoidable loss.
There was just a comment from the Washington Rifle and Pistol Owners association, printed on this fine blog (or paper?) a few days ago that shootings don't happen at gun shows and they don't happen at police stations. Oops.
So, Goldy, you're arguing that civilians should be trained with guns at least as much as police are. Got it. I completely agree.
The vast majority of police officers actually have very limited firearms training.…

Most cops have little to no training. There's a reason for this. Training costs money. Ammo costs even more money. They're pretty much on their own out there. But that's the way you want it, right?
This scenario was the first thing I thought of when the "we need to arm our teachers" thing started gaining traction. "Yea, that's a great plan - and when the guns get hijacked - and they will - it'll just be one more thing we can blame on the teacher."
There really is no point in responding to Goldy on gun topics. You just giving a top tier Troll the energy he thrives on.
@6 That would never happen at a charter school!
I think we should be congratulating Goldy on his consistency with this story.
It seems that all of his recommendations were followed and yet people were still shot.
And his summary?

"Shit happens."
@3 Yes. I think all gun owners should be trained and licensed. I've already written that. That would at least cut down on the number of accidental and negligent shootings.
can we just consolidate all this mayhem into a daily militia update?

No dumbass, that's the way you want it with your incessant moaning about taxes. (That's the collective you that presumably but not necessarily demonstrably includes your dumb ass.) People are generally fine with cops having and using firearms when necessary.
The only thing that can arm a bad guy without a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Here's something else. Outside San Francisco, a police officer's how was burgled and his guns stolen the other night.…

What's your opinion on the police response in the Empire State Building shootings? The one where the guy shot the victim, killing him, and then walked away, was confronted by police officers, who proceeded to kill him and wound nine others?
I wouldn't even limit it to gun owners. EVERYONE should be trained in firearm safety and handling.
Clearly not THAT often because lord knows Goldy would post every single occurrence here on the slog and I haven't seen many...
@16 Why? Why we should we have to be inculcated in the gun culture if we don't want to be?
Our local agency has weapon control as part of the academy, in the exercise you have to keep your gun away from the instructor for a full minute and the instructor knows every trick to get it away from you. It is apparently a common area for people to fail out of the academy at. More agencies could probably benefit from this training/qualification to be redone every few years, but as mentioned this requires money and cities and counties just don't have the budget for it.
Because it's part of our country. Everyone should also be required to learn basic economics and basic politics and history. Everyone should learn reproductive and sexual health. Everyone should learn about nutrition and exercise. These, and others, are all things that we should learn for our own good.

You don't have to be inculcated in gun culture, but you should at least learn how to tell if a gun is safe or not, just in case a gun decides to inculcate itself into your culture.

I suppose people could opt-out if they really really wanted to, but I'm typically more in favor of more education. I don't like when parents opt their kids out of sex ed. I wouldn't like it if people opted out of gun ed.
@ 5, is that why they shoot 10-15 times instead of once or twice?
Also, it's like being trained in traffic safety. You don't have to drive a car if you don't want to, you don't have to inculcate yourself in car culture, but it's still important to know that there are cars out there and that you should look both ways before crossing a street.
Goldy, you don't have to be inculcated into anything you don't want to be. Not guns, not cars, not television, not even the internet. You don't even have to bathe regularly if you don't want to. Sure, you'll be a fucking weirdo, but there's no shortage of them.
@18 I don't think everyone needs gun training, but since most Americans will benignly come in contact with a gun (I assume) at some point in their life, it might not be a bad idea to know how to handle one.

Anyway, "the gun culture" is a fancy pants strawman. Knowing how to operate a gun, or even owning a gun doesn't mean you have to agree with the NRA or fools who use their guns irresponsibly. It's unfair and inaccurate to generalize an ethnically, socially, and politically diverse group of Americans based on one overwhelmingly inconsequential criteria. It's not quite as bad as "gun-nuts" though, so good on you for that, I guess.
But Goooooldyyy! Responsible gun owners are Not All Like That!
@21: They typically empty their magazines because it's unlikely that they will face another threat before they are able to reload, and in the time it takes to confirm that their shots stopped the suspect, they could be met with return fire. It's safest for the officers.
In the military, you need a couple of weeks of intensive training, and then you need to follow up with a day a month, or a couple of hours a week, or you lose it. Almost zero gun owners in America have that kind of training.

I'd be very happy to allow unlimited concealed carry anywhere to people who maintained that level of training and could prove it with certification and picture ID licensing. But that's not on the table, and never will be. What's always on the table is what we have now: nearly unlimited numbers of yahoos who have no idea whatsoever how to use or control their gun.

If you don't have that day-a-month supplemental training, for life, you're not competent to use a firearm, period. The fact that gun kooks can come in here and say that "well, cops get no training either", as if that was some kind of excuse for this kind of incident, or the many others like it, is asinine. If "our culture" freely accepts, even congratulates, the uncontrolled spraying of bullets around for no reason, that's not our history talking, it's our pathology.
Why wrestle a gun away from the cops when they just leave assault rifles laying on top of the trunks of their cruisers?…
@24, by definition you don't "know how to handle one" if you have not been extensively trained in its use.
@16 - this happens in many parts of the county. Back home you have to pass a hunters' safety class in order to get a hunting license (after age 14 or 16, as a kid you can go with a guardian). Many school districts, including the one my wife attended, have hunters' safety as a required class, much like home ec. and shop. Not sure how you'd justify it here, but models exist. I wonder if there are any stats about accidental gun deaths by state/region. I'll see if I can dig some up.
@30: not apparently in WA state:…
Fnarf, those "gun kooks" you're referring to are cops and ex-cops. And yes, plenty of us have recognized the inadequacy of the training provided and spent our own money to get better training. So STFU. You don't know what you're talking about.
@20 Teaching kids not to touch a gun if they find one is all the gun training they need. The rest of your argument could be used to force any bullshit on our children, including, yes, Christian prayer in school. I mean, it's part of culture, right?

@22 We don't require you to pass a drivers test if you don't drive a car. But yes, we should require you to pass a gun safety and proficiency test in order to own a gun.
The "more training" logic is the same as the "more guns" argument. Every time there's a massacre, the gun nuts scream "more guns will make us safer!" and every time there is an accident involving a gun the scream "more training!". They're fetishists and nihilists, ultimately. They're enamored of the idea of a society where everyone is always armed and always training... against who? Each other.
@32, oh, you're all cops, are you? All 70 million of you? I don't fucking think so.

I'll bet you your own training would be laughed at as grossly inadequate in the military. And the vast majority of "cops and ex-cops" have much less training than you claim to have yourself.

Look, we have objective proof: this guy in the news report took a gun off of a cop, and shot three of them. It's not unusual. That's poor training. You can't have it both ways; you want "most cops have little to no training" but also "spent our own money to get better training". YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. THE FACTS SAY YOU ARE A LYING SACK OF SHIT.

What you really want is for everybody to shut up and go away and leave you with your infantile hero fantasies, no matter how many people have died because of them.
@27 Agreed.
This makes me glad my own hero fantasies consist only of nuzzling Batman's swimsuit area.
"Just say no" doesn't keep kids from experimenting with drugs and with sex, why would it work for guns? As for christian prayer, close but not exactly. Kids could be forced to learn about religion in schools, but not forced to follow religion. I'd be ok with kids learning about religion, it is a part of our culture. More education is better, then someone can accept or reject religion after they understand it better.

I'm not talking about passing a driving test, I'm talking about traffic safety. Even someone who doesn't know how to drive can be killed by a car. People should be educated about the dangers out there: guns, cars, fire, weather... so they are better prepared to react to it when it happens.
Fnarf, I'm happy you got to throw a nice temper tantrum. Everybody should do that every once in a while.

It doesn't change anything, though.
@30 A mandatory hunters' safety class is one thing, but does it cover assault weapons? There's no reason why it should, any more than we should waste school time teaching children how to handle ricin or anthrax safely.
@39, fuck your mother. Put your favorite gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.
People don't need military style training to learn safety. The military trains to kill. Civilians don't need that. Civilians just need to understand the power and danger of guns. Learning to always assume a gun is loaded, that the safety is never safe, that they're not toys. Everyone needs that. Children need to learn to tell adults if they see a gun, or a fire, or a poison label, or a stranger in a van with candy. But they shouldn't be insulated and isolated from guns, because children are curious.

Everyone needs to learn that guns are not magical or heroic or mysterious or romantic. De-mystify them. Stop making them attractive to rebels. They're just mechanical devices. But they're here and they're not going away. Prevention and education are paramount.
@42 Why would a gun owner not need to know how to kill with it? Is it not the primary function of the thing? If one does not understand the thing's primary function, one does not understand the thing.

No, Fnarf, I think I'll pass on that. But I might fuck your mother. Is she cute?

Urgutha, you just stated the NRA's position on all of this. Probably unwittingly, but it's true.
Have to agree with #42 here, at least with what he is saying in that comment.

I grew up around guns, hunted deer with my grandfather, plinked tin cans with a Red Ryder, etc. A gun was just a tool, one which safety precautions regarding it were repeatedly hammered into me.

Honestly, now I have no real desire to own a gun. There is no romance or mystery there for me, and I know exactly the power and permanence a gun creates. Been there, done that.

If we are unable to pass decent gun legislation, we are going to teach kids about gun safety in the meantime. "Never touch a gun" is a good start.
Owners should have a hell of a lot more training in safety, I'm just talking about your run-of-the-mill school kid who might never see another gun ever. They should get a good basic education about guns.

Also, a gun owner doesn't NEED to know how to kill with a gun. What if all they ever do is target shooting or trick shooting? All those people would need to know is how to kill a bottle or clay pigeon. But yeah, if someone is determined to kill someone else with a gun, I suppose that person would want to know how to kill with it. Not that it's that hard to learn. Shit, even military training is simple as hell. Keep both eyes open, let out your breath-don't hold it, aim center mass, squeeze slowly. I was in the Army. The infantry. And there were plenty of complete morons who learned to shoot an M-16 accurately within a week.
NYC subway used as murder weapon again:

Video released of NYC suspect in fatal subway push…

Time for a ban on mass transit!
@5280: So, how sorry is your world where cops have to pay OUT OF POCKET for training that their employer just automatically should provide?

I do not like that I unfortunately also have to live in your sorry world, one where public agencies do not have the funds to pay for training that is unquestionably necessary. I'd much rather live in a world where police get adequate funding and training (without being turned into paramilitary goon squads), and where gun owners expect the hurdles to gun ownership are necessarily high.

You know, to prevent the kook gun nuts from making the news every goddamn week.
@40: Your comment is a good illustration of why the term "assault weapon" is a cosmetic description of a gun, and absolutely meaningless vs. just saying "rifle" - rifles all work pretty much exactly the same way. You have ammo, an action that loads rounds into the chamber, a safety, and a trigger.

Whether it's a particular color, has plastic doodads hanging off it, an adjustment so it fits you better, they're all the goddamn same and do the same thing.
@46 I still quibble about owner training.

If you want to shoot targets, get an air rifle or an xbox or a skeet shotgun. Have a good time.

If you want to own a handgun, then, its purpose is to kill people. Learn that well, if only to really understand how to not do it.

Your point, as I understood it, was about having owners get a proper appreciation for their guns - an important part of that education must be to learn that a handgun/assault weapon, primarily, isn't a target shooting toy. It's a machine for killing people - hopefully the 'bad' ones, right?

You can go target shooting with handguns too. And not one of the things you mentioned lets you do long distance target shooting.

Besides, shooting is a hobby for some people. They like to try different guns out. Just like racers like to drive different cars and beer brewers like to brew different beers. One size doesn't fit all.

But yes, owners, and really everyone, needs to appreciate the danger and power of guns. And needs to understand their purpose. Not all guns are designed to kill. The M-16 was designed to give terrible wounds but not kill. Removing a wounded soldier, a medic, and some stretcher bearers from combat is more effective than removing a single soldier. Some guns are designed to kill people (sniper rifle), some to keep enemy soldiers' heads down (.50 calibre MG), and some for hunting (most shotguns). They can all kill people but to simply say "all these guns here are designed with the sole purpose of killing humans" isn't very accurate. I think educating people that ALL guns have the potential to kill easily is good enough.
Riffing off @49 and @50 - how about requiring training and a license to purchase a hand gun but not a rifle? Some sportsmen actually use hand guns - bear hunting back up weapon, for example - but most do not. Hand guns are much, much more likely to be used in accidental and negligent and spontaneous and suicidal shootings. Baby steps.
Goldy, if you were better at your job, we wouldn't have to imagine how often this happens to untrained civilians, because you would have reported the statistics.
it's more effective to do what england and australia do: ban certain weapons and restrict others to the point there's NOT 280 million guns all over, there's a more manageable pool of legal guns out there, such that the average person doens't face them, or need them.

the gun owners still can't explain how it makes you safe at night unless it's loaded up and ready on the night stand, in which case, of course, your moody teenage kid can get it, or his druggy goth pals you never met -- or the intruder. cuz dude, you're usually asleep.

this whole thing about neeing guns is a joke. nutty, a nutty belief. (I distruiguish true need, eg, carrying cash through bad neighborhoods at night, the kind of thing that would let you get a handgun in england).

see, what they do, they have less gun deaths and massacres an suicides and more neighborhood safety and less costs spent on...guns, guards, training the whole infrastructure of the gun culture which is mainly

more and more guns.

just what the gun makers and nra and sinaloan cartel want. fools.
Police are civilians you know. They like to dress up and pretend like they are military but being officers of the law doesn't make them soldiers.

House alarm to alert you.

Biometric gun safe that opens in 5 seconds.

Call 911 and hope cops get there before you have to use it.

Is it really that fucking difficult to understand? Again?
"...imagine how often..." Or, maybe, do the research. You know, like a real (tm) journalist might do.
@51 -

One outcome of your though experiment is that training generally increases proficiency. So, yes, some nice kids will avoid doing something negligent with a gun. But another outcome is that kids will become better at suicide, better at concealment, and better shots.

Increasing the herd's ability to use a deadly tool may not be a clear 'win' - there are some negatives that would be associated with it too.
@44 What, that guns should be de-mystified because they are neither magical nor heroic?

I'm not an NRA member, or gun owner, and for the most part I stay out of the gun debate, even among friends (many of whom are gun owners themselves). But in my experience and capacity as a private citizen, let me tell you: that is absolutely 1000% NOT the message the NRA is sending to Americans, regardless of their official position.

On the other hand, treating guns with respect for their power and danger is the position of every single sane person. The NRA certainly doesn't have a monopoly on that, and so I assume that re-stating the obvious is a way of whitewashing the insidious banality of the organization.
@24: "the gun culture" is a fancy pants strawman

No it's not. It's a out-dated, childish, paranoid, and all too popular branch of American masculinity that goes to bed every night fantasizing about the world turning into Red Dawn, presumably because the only way they can think of to reassure themselves of their manhood is by defending against intruders.
@51: The M-16 was designed to give terrible wounds but not kill.

Generally speaking I enjoy your comments, but this is among the stupidest pieces of gun-nut bullshit I've ever heard, and it's an insult to the millions who have been killed by that weapon.

The M-16 was explicitly designed to maximize casualties in short range combat scenarios. Its design is based on the fact that firing is usually random in such scenarios, so you will kill more enemies with a fully automatic bullet-sprayer than, say, a rifle with a scope. Another key design point was ability to penetrate light armor and, specifically, helmets. It's also designed to be light weight for raid/ambush scenarios, where a clunky larger caliber weapon would be useless.

The Beltway Sniper used a semi-automatic Bushmaster knock-off of the M16 (i.e., similar design, same shells and magazines). Gee - do you think there would have been more survivors had the victims only realized the gun was intended to badly wound them?

Your guns are fucking with your brain.
Sorry, Seandr, but you're dead wrong on that one. It was, indeed, designed to wound and not kill, thereby tying up more manpower in the field. It's a fucking .22" bullet, for Chrissake. Don't you think we could do a lot better than that if killing was the object?
And by the way, your whole "spray and pray" theory is also bullshit. That's why current issue weapons only fire three-shot-bursts now. There isn't even a setting for "full auto"on the newer guns.
Meanwhile, up here in Canada, nothing like the headline occurred today. Again.

(but the citizenry is getting edgy, what with the NHL strike and all)
Last week we were expressing our outrage over the proliferation of guns in American society. Today we are quibbling about training and efficiency. What the fuck happened here?
The round used by the M-16 was notorious for causing terrible wounds. NATO even declared it inhumane.

I'm not entirely sure it was specifically designed to wound, but it sure did a great job at it nonetheless.

Yeah, it also killed a shitload too. Soldiers are trained to shoot center mass to kill, not to wound, but just in case they only hit an arm or leg... well...

Also, 5280 is correct about the fully auto. The military knows it's a waste. You kill way more with aimed shots than with automatic spray. Modern assault rifles don't even have that option anymore. Machine guns are designed more for keeping the enemy from coming out of cover than killing. Not since WWI do machine guns kill more than aimed shots (armies learned fast how powerful automatic fire was and never again used those outdated tactics that subjected soldiers to it so openly).
@16 if you want everyone to be trained in handling guns then we should have mandatory military service. Or should this be the new pre-school curriculum?
@64: And by the way, your whole "spray and pray" theory is also bullshit.

@67: Also, 5280 is correct about the fully auto. The military knows it's a waste.

The military may know that now, but that wasn't the thinking a half-century ago when the M16 was designed.

@63: It's a fucking .22" bullet, for Chrissake. Don't you think we could do a lot better than that if killing was the object?

The design goal behind the small caliber was to support fully automatic while keeping cost and weight low. The design goal was not to create a gun that would merely wound people.

Of the 13 people the Beltway Sniper hit with a single 22 round, 10 died. It's plenty deadly.
Not in favor of mandatory military service... but that's a whole different argument that doesn't really have much to do with guns. More about politics.

The design goal of the M-16 round was to keep weight low, yes, but not really so that soldiers could use automatic fire. Yes, they wanted to decrease weight (they definitely cared about this) and decrease cost (they didn't really care that much about this). A lot of thought went into the M-16 and its standard round. Really, the Army wants to win. Period. They'll look more favorably on whatever accomplishes that goal. Yeah, they've also got that "shock and awe" thing they want to promote, but in the end, it's still about winning.
Right-o, Urgutha. And one consequence of reducing the projectile weight was increased speed. So much speed, in fact, that the bullet tends to "upset" or "keyhole" (tumble end-over-end) on contact. This was an entirely unintended consequence and, in fact, they spent years trying to stop it from happening. But that's where your big, nasty wounds come from.
Oddly enough, a JHP round out of that same gun won't do that. They simply explode on contact (more often than not with the hair). 4,000 fps will do that. Still a nasty surface wound, but nothing like you get when that FMJ bullet upsets. Of course, the powers that be have decided that FMJs are more "humane," so that's what you get.
@66 has it right. off the rails of the larger point onto the sidetrack of gun minutae and firearms training.

it would take a 100 newtowns in a year to change this culture.
I think we can all agree the very invention of this thing called "gun" opened a pandora's box that we'll never be rid of. Do your part by being kind to others and just learn to live with it. You can't fix crazy. We need to start at the heart of the matter and that is, what is making motherfuckers so nuts on this exponentiating basis these days? Therein lies our clue.

Yeah it is motherfucking is kumbaya time. Talk to your neighbors. Even as an atheist, go to church and get to know who is around you. Strike up ideas for neighborly potlucks. Shake everybody's hand. Look people in the eye. And so on. But this is what is most important -- raise your fucking kids from the youngest age with this quality.

As for me, I'll never own a gun nor will I put one in my hand, ever. If I go, I go. At least I know my conscience will forever be clear.
@66, 73,
I disagree. Before it was nothing but undirected outrage, screaming, and calling everyone who even slightly agreed with gun rights to be a "gun nut." What's the point of that? That's about as convincing and effective as picketing funerals with big "God Hates Guns" signs. Useless and impotent.

At least now we're starting to crack the surface of what might be meaningful dialogue.

Do you want to change the culture or do you just want to hate guns? Change takes compromise and debate.
@75 I think you're confusing the loudest with the majority.
At least here, everything time guns come up there's two or three who are really trollish on both sides.
There are moderate voices. They just don't cuss (too much), threaten to kill people, use ALL CAPS, hurl insults like a monkey flinging their own shit and a host of other attention grabbing antics, those are the memorable posts.
Maybe it seems more nuanced to me becuase I have a different point of view on guns than you. I hate them, by the time I was 18 I had lost 3 friends to gun violence. But I also understand that they're not going away and I think banning them would never work. I do think we need to talk about gun violence rather the scream at each other from one side or another.
You can call me outraged. But I've spoken about this issue in pretty much the same tone with the same ideas since Sandy Hook happened.
"I think you're confusing the loudest with the majority."

With the majority of the population in general, possibly.
With the majority of people who post here, no.
Read Goldy's article on Nancy's email to him.

"Maybe it seems more nuanced to me becuase I have a different point of view on guns than you."

No. That's the first problem in a discussion such as this.
Each person KNOWS that he (or she) is reasonable and has an enlightened and nuanced view of the subject because of his/her knowledge and experience.
Each person's opinion on this subject is just their opinion.
And the facts that they choose to support their opinion are usually chosen because those facts support their opinion.
If it even gets to facts instead of just opinions and appeals to emotion or denigrating anyone who disagrees with them.
@77 I guess I should have said commented rather than posted. Looking at the comments, it looks pretty evenly matched as far as pro/con. That seems pretty nuanced to me.
But as you said it's just opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
I haven't denigrated you in the least, though you've accused me of that a few times now.
@ 75 - I think we were all deeply affected by Newtown and our initial reaction was deeply emotional. But then we took a collective deep breath, realized that guns are not going to disappear and started to explore various measures to at least minimize the collateral damage. And we need to keep this dialogue going. What disturbs me, is that some of the comments here are getting perilously close to: "my gun is bigger than your gun".
"I haven't denigrated you in the least, though you've accused me of that a few times now."

Again, that's an opinion. I have a different opinion.…
"I don't understand why you think the 2nd would have to be removed to do any form of gun control."

Since I never said that, my opinion of the intent of your post is probably different than your opinion of the intent of your post.

Which brings up the second problem in a discussion such as this.
It is often easier to argue straw men and tangents in an attempt to prove that you are "right" (and therefore that the other guy is "wrong") than it is to attempt to address their points. Whether intentional or not.
@80 if I dissed you. My apologies. I try to be respectful and I failed. But if you could show me an example where I denigrated you, please do. It'd help me understand your point of view and I can avoid denigrating you in the future.
The 2nd amendment comment came from an either/or you posited a few times. Which had option A to get rid of the 2nd or option B deciding on whether x gun control was worth y lives.
You're much better at looking at posting history and cut and pasting it than I. So you could find that comment and hopefully what I was saying makes more sense.
"But if you could show me an example where I denigrated you, please do."

In my opinion, I just did when I referenced your previous post, linked to it and then quoted you.

"Which had option A to get rid of the 2nd or option B deciding on whether x gun control was worth y lives."

The point was the word "or" in between those two statements.
A or B. They are mutually exclusive. You cannot have them both at the same time.
You conflated A and B when you claimed that I said A is B.

Now in your opinion (I'm guessing) based upon your experience you thought that A is B was a rational interpretation of A or B.
In my opinion, based upon my experience, that was a straw man fallacy.
@82 I know the difference between "or" and "is". I suppose i didnt make myself clear enough.
That sentence was denigrating? We seem to have very different sense of what that word means.
"That sentence was denigrating?"

Yes, in my opinion, claiming that I said something that I did not say is denigrating.
And it does not do anything to move the discussion forward.
Which is why it is referred to as a "straw man fallacy".

"We seem to have very different sense of what that word means."

The definition is readily available in most dictionaries.…

Once again, this mini-thread has been a great example of what I posted in #77.…
Each person KNOWS that he (or she) is reasonable and has an enlightened and nuanced view of the subject because of his/her knowledge and experience.
Each person's opinion on this subject is just their opinion.
And the facts that they choose to support their opinion are usually chosen because those facts support their opinion.
If it even gets to facts instead of just opinions and appeals to emotion or denigrating anyone who disagrees with them.
@84 got it. Wouldn't it have been easier to say I misread you rather than say I denigrated you? Your reputation wasn't ruined, I didn't belittle you. At least that wasn't my intent.
To your first A or B. B is the only option. So perhaps that should be looked it rather then this misunderstanding.
Sorry for misreading you.
No other western democracy has the gun violence problems that are prevalent in the US. Hopefully, the Newtown massacre will move this country in the right direction with the passing of some gun control legislation.

Guns are not more important than people.
"To your first A or B. B is the only option. So perhaps that should be looked it rather then this misunderstanding."

It appears to me that you are still misunderstanding the point of that either A or B statement.
While A may not be feasible to enact today, ADVOCATING for it is as valid a choice as choosing B (in whatever degree).

So, no. Removing A would be denying that it exists as a valid option and that the people who advocate for it have the same right to their opinions (and the experiences that formed them) as I have to mine.
@87 that's true. But option A seems rather implausible. I am in no way denying that there are many people out there who want option A. So, no I wasn't missing your point. I was just taking the next step.