Man with towel-wrapped arm shot by LAPD in Los Feliz was unarmed
Unarmed man shot by LAPD officer
Map shows approximate location where man was shot by police in Los Feliz.
By Kate Mather and Richard Winton contact the reporters
Los Angeles Police Department
LAPD says police shot and critically wounded a man who had extended a towel-wrapped arm toward officers
Man shot by LAPD in Los Feliz could be seen in a video being handcuffed with a serious head wound
A man with towel-wrapped arm shot by LAPD in Los Feliz was unarmed, police say
Los Angeles police shot and critically wounded a man after he raised his arm, wrapped in a towel, toward officers Friday in Los Feliz, police said.
Police said officers thought the man had a gun, but he turned out to be unarmed.
The man flagged down officers about 6:35 p.m. at Los Feliz Boulevard and Tica Drive south of Griffith Park, according to a police account.
"This person extended an arm wrapped in a towel. The officer exited the vehicle and said, 'Drop the gun, drop the gun,'" LAPD Lt. John Jenal said.
Then at least one officer shot the man, officials say. He was taken to a hospital where he was listed in critical condition.
A motorist shot graphic video of the officers handcuffing the man with a visible head injury.
LAPD Cmdr. Andrew Smith, a department spokesman, said the officers followed standard procedure in handcuffing the man when they did. At that point, Smith said, the man had not been searched and was considered a suspect.
"We always do that," Smith said. "That's the policy ... to handcuff someone in a situation like that."
Smith cautioned that the investigation into Friday's shooting was still in its early stages. One of the key questions, he said, was why the man flagged down the two uniformed officers.
The man was standing on the side of the road, Smith said, when he called out to the officers: "Police, police."
Smith said investigators would explore all possibilities, including whether the man needed some type of help from police. He said investigators would also look into the man's background to see if there were any indications the shooting was an attempted "suicide by cop."
The man's name has not been released.
"We cover everything. Our investigators leave no stone unturned," Smith said. "We don't have any idea about this guy's background. We just don't know yet."
The shooting in Los Feliz was one of two Friday in which LAPD officers shot a man who was partially concealed by a blanket or towel. Earlier in the day, LAPD officials said, officers wounded a man in El Monte after he got out of a car covered in a blanket and then brandished a gun. The man, who was critically wounded, had led officers on a two-hour chase that began in South L.A. after he allegedly assaulted a woman.
Smith said investigators would also examine whether the officers involved in the Los Feliz shooting were aware of the other incident earlier in the day.
The officers in the Los Feliz shooting were assigned to the LAPD's Security Services division — a detail that typically provides security at city facilities, Smith said.
Except for a small strip of yellow police tape tied to a porch railing, there were no signs Saturday morning that a shooting had occurred in the Los Feliz neighborhood. The shooting happened along a stretch of Los Feliz Boulevard popular among joggers and people walking their dogs, not far from a stretch of restaurants drawing their typical weekend brunch crowds.
Kelsey Magnuson, 31, has lived in the building across the street from where the shooting occurred for almost 10 years. She said she was surprised when she learned of the shooting Friday, given how safe the area feels.
It's the kind of neighborhood where someone can step outside their building for a late-night cigarette and not feel threatened, she said.
"I've never felt like there would be anything worrisome here," she said. "It makes you wonder what the commotion was."
The Los Feliz shooting marks the latest of several high-profile police shootings the LAPD is grappling with.
Last week, the Los Angeles Police Commission concluded that one of the two L.A. police officers who fatally shot Ezell Ford, a mentally ill black man, last summer was not justified in using deadly force.
LAPD reports found that Ford and the officer were struggling over the officer's weapon. But the commission decided that the officer did not have a reason to stop and detain Ford in the first place. His handling of the encounter, the commission concluded, was so flawed that it led to the fatal confrontation.
The LAPD is also investigating the fatal police shooting of an unarmed and homeless black man near the Venice boardwalk in May.
L.A. police Chief Charlie Beck has said he was “very concerned” about the May shooting. “Any time an unarmed person is shot by a Los Angeles police officer, it takes extraordinary circumstances to justify that,” Beck told reporters in May. “I have not seen those extraordinary circumstances.”
The LAPD is now investigating the Los Feliz shooting. Based on the video, the officers and the injured man all appear to be white.
MrDwhitey wrote: Now for someone morally bankrupt to condone this...
Especially like how they're already trying to spin a narrative by saying they'll look into the guys background, as if that fething matters.
Actually it does matter. If the individual had a history of confrontations with police and mental illness, it makes the possibility of an attempt at "suicide by cop" a very real possible explanation for the situation.
It's also very true that standard procedures are to handcuff someone, even if injured.
Call me "morally bankrupt" or whatever crap you want, but "suicide by cop" is a very real phenomenon. If that was the intent here, it's sad but at the same time it's a hell of a lot better than the individuals who have armed themselves and brought innocents into their death plans.
Actually, it doesn't in this case, because he flagged down some officers at random. There was no "Prehistory" in this shooting, it was two cops responding to a man waving them down.
Him having some kind of history would have no bearing in their interactions because they wouldn't even know. And even if he did have a history, they didn't even ascertain first the man was armed or a real threat. Just that he had a towel. And yes, sometimes people conceal weapons under towels. I guess police should shoot everyone with a towel on their arm.
Also good strawman, I never said that saying suicide by cop is a real thing = moral bankruptcy. Then again, everyone already knew whose side you'd be on regardless.
I think some will depend on if the cops knew of the other guy earlier in the day covered with a blanket who did have a gun. The article doesn't really give enough info to say if the shoot was justified or not.
Handcuffing the wounded guy makes a ton of sense to me. Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army. Even a wounded guy can hurt/kill you. And a 'dead' guy may not be dead. Once you have the prisoner secured you can go through search and first aid procedures with less risk to you and your buddies.
MrDwhitey wrote: Actually, it doesn't in this case, because he flagged down some officers at random. There was no "Prehistory" in this shooting, it was two cops responding to a man waving them down.
Him having some kind of history would have no bearing in their interactions because they wouldn't even know. And even if he did have a history, they didn't even ascertain first the man was armed or a real threat. Just that he had a towel. And yes, sometimes people conceal weapons under towels. I guess police should shoot everyone with a towel on their arm.
They've literally just started an investigation, and apparently you know more than the police do about the situation. Perhaps they should hire you for your Holmesian insight?
Also, you realize that police officers do talk amongst themselves right? That they update officers who share the same patrols as to what's going on?
The officers themselves having no history with the guy is not necessarily going to mean anything in a situation like this.
Also good strawman, I never said that saying suicide by cop is a real thing = moral bankruptcy.
I'm not the one who started off their posting in this thread with several obscenities and claiming that anyone trying to justify this is "morally bankrupt", so think before you post. You set the tone for this thread
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Why would you handcuff someone you shot because you thought they had a gun if they didn't have a gun?
It immediately fails the logic test, and thats why it is stupid.
It's a precaution to ensure safety of EMTs. A wounded suspect isn't the same thing as a dead suspect, and there are such a thing as knives.
I agree to a point that in this situation it was (seemingly) stupid, but it is standard procedure.
MrDwhitey wrote: Man flags down police with towel covered arm, he raises arm, they shoot him.
Unless there's some really insane gak going on that hasn't been reported, at best it is NOT a justified shoot based on what is known.
No, we really do not have enough info. How was he raising that arm, was it as if he was pointing something (like a gun)? Or was it a clear act of submission? Was he making other threatening noises/gestures? What was the distance between the cops and the guy who got shot? There are way too many things we don't know to make a judgement call.
MrDwhitey wrote: Man flags down police with towel covered arm, he raises arm, they shoot him.
Unless there's some really insane gak going on that hasn't been reported, at best it is NOT a justified shoot based on what is known.
I'm fully willing to change my tune if things come out stating he was actually armed and tried to attack officers.
Did he actually have the towel wrapped around his arm, such as what one would do when you're covering up a cut or injury, or did he have the towel draped over his arm?
One of those makes it clear that "This man is not a threat" while the other could reasonably be construed as someone attempting to hide a firearm in their hand.
I'll let you figure out in what world is it a good thing that police can just shoot people with towels over their arms just in case they had a gun under it.
I already pointed this out earlier, thanks for fulfilling so fast.
MrDwhitey wrote: I claimed that anyone trying to justify officers shooting an unarmed man for having a towel on his hand is morally bankrupt.
End of, you're the one who then tried to change what I meant, good old police apologist Kan. Keep on apologising!
Also, I'm going from what's reported. I've already said I'm happy to change if it turns out he was actually armed.
Armed/not armed won't be The Factor in justified or not. You very often cannot tell if he was armed when you must make the call.
Hell your quoted post alludes to that. Guy points towel covered hand at cop. Cop shoots. You seem to be saying if the hand had a gun in it the shoot would be justified, if it did not the shoot is unjustified. How the feth would you expect the cop to know the answer to that?
No, CptJake, there is no happy solution. You either accept police should be the ones in these situations taking some risks that someone with a towel might have a gun under it, or that innocent civilians should be the ones taking risks that the police will shoot them for having a towel.
MrDwhitey wrote: No, CptJake, there is no happy solution. You either accept police should be the ones in these situations taking some risks that someone with a towel might have a gun under it, or that innocent civilians should be the ones taking risks that the police will shoot them for having a towel.
There is no indication they shot him for 'having a towel', so you can build that straw man all you want. Here in the US, hundreds of millions of people have towels and use them every day. They don't get shot for it.
Something else triggered the shoot. That is the point. How he had the towel, how he acted, something other than 'having a towel' seems to have made the cops pull the trigger. That something (most likely behavioral clues combined with inability to see the guy's hands) is what got the guy shot. The question is, were those behavioral clues and concealed hand enough to justify the shoot. And based solely on the info in the article, we do not know.
CptJake wrote: I think some will depend on if the cops knew of the other guy earlier in the day covered with a blanket who did have a gun. The article doesn't really give enough info to say if the shoot was justified or not.
It doesn't matter. Its still not justified. People have had guns on them before. They can't shoot everyone that flags them down because they might have had guns on them.
Handcuffing the wounded guy makes a ton of sense to me. Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army. Even a wounded guy can hurt/kill you. And a 'dead' guy may not be dead. Once you have the prisoner secured you can go through search and first aid procedures with less risk to you and your buddies.
A wounded guy can hurt you FOR WHAT?
"why did you shoot him?"
"he wouldn't put down the gun."
"did he have a gun?"
"no"
"then why did you handcuff him.'
"he could still be a threat."
"you mean the guy you thought mght have a gun that you shot in the head, but didn't have a gun?"
"yea"
"why would he be a threat, I mean other than bleeding on you?"
"because...reasons"
MrDwhitey wrote: Man flags down police with towel covered arm, he raises arm, they shoot him.
Unless there's some really insane gak going on that hasn't been reported, at best it is NOT a justified shoot based on what is known.
No, we really do not have enough info. How was he raising that arm, was it as if he was pointing something (like a gun)? Or was it a clear act of submission? Was he making other threatening noises/gestures? What was the distance between the cops and the guy who got shot? There are way too many things we don't know to make a judgement call.
Lets assume he pointed that towel right at 'em and wouldn't stop, so they shot him (evidently pointing a loaded towel is an executable offense). Once they've provided to literally blow his brains out and he is on the ground why handcuff him when there is no gun there? [i][u]
Yeah IDK what argument there is to be made, unless some new information is reported that would point to the man purposefully aggravating the cops to the point of drawing weapons on him.
He had a towel on his arm and got shot for it. Pretty cut and dry.
Actually the handcuffing would be fine in my books if they had seen a weapon on him (as that would give possible intent on his part to harm the officers), as people even with insane wounds can do some weird gak/still be a threat.
As it is, they did not see him even slightly as a threat. Look at how they handcuff him. They're more concerned about getting blood on their hands than quickly securing a potential threat.
CptJake wrote: I think some will depend on if the cops knew of the other guy earlier in the day covered with a blanket who did have a gun. The article doesn't really give enough info to say if the shoot was justified or not.
It doesn't matter. Its still not justified. People have had guns on them before. They can't shoot everyone that flags them down because they might have had guns on them.
Handcuffing the wounded guy makes a ton of sense to me. Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army. Even a wounded guy can hurt/kill you. And a 'dead' guy may not be dead. Once you have the prisoner secured you can go through search and first aid procedures with less risk to you and your buddies.
A wounded guy can hurt you FOR WHAT?
"why did you shoot him?"
"he wouldn't put down the gun."
"did he have a gun?"
"no"
"then why did you handcuff him.'
"he could still be a threat."
"you mean the guy you thought mght have a gun that you shot in the head, but didn't have a gun?"
"yea"
"why would he be a threat, I mean other than bleeding on you?"
"because...reasons"
1. Again, as I have stated a few times in this topic, we do not know how this guy was acting. I strongly suspect he did more than flag down the cops. If I am wrong, the investigation will surely show that is all he did.
2. At what point does the article state 'The cops knew he was unarmed and then they cuffed him."? It does not. for all we know the hand was still concealed until they pulled it behind his back to cuff him. Even if not, it does state he was not searched yet. Weapon in hand or not, at the time the cops cuffed him they did not know if he had a weapon or not. Also, even wounded folks without a weapon have been known to grab a cop's weapon or otherwise attack a cop or EMT trying to help them. You cuff them. That is why the SOP is in place.
1. Eh, I'm not exactly trusting that the investigation will "surely show" anything. Never know though.
2. You saw the video right, you saw how casually they went about the handcuffing, no concern whatsoever over potential threats. Again though, as said before, there is always a chance.
Anecdotal I know but still. A scene where a man committed suicide by shotgun to the face, they leave the body and go to another room when suddenly the guy gets up, comes in and sits down. He died before getting to hospital but he was still able to move and do things. (this is an experience from a cop, not me)
Also that picture is really blurry for what I assume is his other arm with a towel on it?
Okay.
You are a cop flagged down by someone.
They point / extend an arm wrapped in a towel obscuring his hand (I assume or if wrapped around the forearm this is pointless).
Do you as a policeman wait for the "surprise" of what this person is covering and why?
BTW, this is a GREAT way to muffle the gun shot, flash and powder residue so suspicion would be quite high.
So you proceed with "drop the gun" and draw your firearm when you really mean "do not point a blessed thing at me or I assume hostile intent."
So the person against all sanity with a cop yelling at him and pointing a gun does a last move / twitch in the cop's general direction and gets shot.
Handcuffing is normal no matter what condition if the person is considered a threat (head wound or not).
I hate to say, I see no problem here other than unfortunate this silly dude was not planning to shoot a cop, but may have been intending suicide by cop as mentioned.
<edit>Did it say anywhere if there was some object or wound the towel was covering? Any reason at all?
“These scenarios are designed to make any person fail and to cause them to believe there are no other options. He had no taser, baton or other less than lethal weapons. What about kicking the big guy in the nuts, waiting for backup, or tasering him. The profession of law enforcement is difficult at times, but the excessive brainwashing on a daily basis taking place, that you may die, is too extreme and gives many the belief it is OK to use deadly force. In many of these situations, Tamir Rice or Andy Lopez comes to mind, these officer’s just wanted to plain shoot and kill.”
“It’s a brainwashing mechanism to get you over to their side, to start thinking about killing. In what they call the ‘FATS simulator’ (firearms and training simulator), you are automatically designed to DIE… Yes it’s a game and useful for training. But here they put a citizen off the street with no training and a newscaster in pre-designed scenarios, which are psychologically made to make you think and perceive things differently. It has nothing to do with training. Every recruit, I don’t care if they’re an ex-badass Navy Seal… everyone dies.
“YouTube FATS training presented by the Pasadena PD, the officer’s have less than lethal weapons at their disposal. They don’t have to kill the people like the Phoenix channel led people to believe. There are viable alternatives. Numerous years of working undercover in South Central Los Angeles and I only had to use my 9mm once.
Most of the time I would kick the person strategically or pepper spray. There is very rarely a reason to kill, and many police officers go their entire lifetime without having to draw their weapons,”
Anyway, from the LA story, this part seems to be the most suggstive: "This person extended an arm wrapped in a towel. The officer exited the vehicle and said, 'Drop the gun, drop the gun,'" LAPD Lt. John Jenal said. Clearly, the towel must have been wrapped around his arm in such a way as to conceal his hand and whatever he might (or might not) be holding in that hand. If his hand had been visible, there would have been no reason for the officer to suspect the presence of a gun. And the use of the term "extended" certainly suggests that the arm was not raised up in the air above his head, but more pointing at the officer. It would appear to be a threatening act, similar to reaching into the inside of your coat after an officer tells you to keep your hands up.
As far as the logic of handcuffing someone you've just shot in the head, I suppose it depends on the severity of the wound and whether or not the person is still fully capable of acting? I wasn't there, and this article doesn't contain all the facts.
But, is there a recording of the whole event? The article suggests the witness's video is just of the end of it.
Bit of an odd thing to do, wrap your arm in a towel and then point it at police after flagging them down. Why would you do that unless you're trying to cause them to panic? Unless there's some particular reason like he has covering a wound, that's plausible.
The US is awash with guns, anyone could be carrying one in public, it's no wonder there are so many cases where people get shot for pointing what may be a weapon at someone. Sad but that's how things seem to be.
“These scenarios are designed to make any person fail and to cause them to believe there are no other options. He had no taser, baton or other less than lethal weapons. What about kicking the big guy in the nuts, waiting for backup, or tasering him.
The profession of law enforcement is difficult at times, but the excessive brainwashing on a daily basis taking place, that you may die, is too extreme and gives many the belief it is OK to use deadly force. In many of these situations, Tamir Rice or Andy Lopez comes to mind, these officer’s just wanted to plain shoot and kill.”
“It’s a brainwashing mechanism to get you over to their side, to start thinking about killing. In what they call the ‘FATS simulator’ (firearms and training simulator), you are automatically designed to DIE… Yes it’s a game and useful for training. But here they put a citizen off the street with no training and a newscaster in pre-designed scenarios, which are psychologically made to make you think and perceive things differently. It has nothing to do with training. Every recruit, I don’t care if they’re an ex-badass Navy Seal… everyone dies.
“YouTube FATS training presented by the Pasadena PD, the officer’s have less than lethal weapons at their disposal. They don’t have to kill the people like the Phoenix channel led people to believe. There are viable alternatives. Numerous years of working undercover in South Central Los Angeles and I only had to use my 9mm once.
Most of the time I would kick the person strategically or pepper spray. There is very rarely a reason to kill, and many police officers go their entire lifetime without having to draw their weapons,”
A police whistle-blower on that video.
A Taser doesnt always stop someone. Despite what people think, they dont knock ya out.
Same with Pepper Spray, you just made a pissed of adrenilne filled guy even MORE angry
I find it interesting that, not being known for being a flaming lefty, I know longer give the authorities the benefit of the douybt in these circumstances any more.
Frazzled wrote: I find it interesting that, not being known for being a flaming lefty, I know longer give the authorities the benefit of the douybt in these circumstances any more.
I think Frazzled's developed a serious case of cynicism! Run for the hills!
Frazzled wrote: I find it interesting that, not being known for being a flaming lefty, I know longer give the authorities the benefit of the douybt in these circumstances any more.
No, we really do not have enough info. How was he raising that arm, was it as if he was pointing something (like a gun)? Or was it a clear act of submission? Was he making other threatening noises/gestures? What was the distance between the cops and the guy who got shot? There are way too many things we don't know to make a judgement call.
I'm with you here, but a couple of "alarm bells" are ringing.... The article doesn't outline whether there was any damage to the towel wrapped arm.... Was his arm severely cut or otherwise damaged(hence the towel wrap)? If it was damaged in some way, and was the reason for the towel, why was he moving it to "flag down police" instead of holding it against his body in a preservation move?
I dunno, I guess this situation will be interesting to see how it unfolds.
“These scenarios are designed to make any person fail and to cause them to believe there are no other options. He had no taser, baton or other less than lethal weapons. What about kicking the big guy in the nuts, waiting for backup, or tasering him.
The profession of law enforcement is difficult at times, but the excessive brainwashing on a daily basis taking place, that you may die, is too extreme and gives many the belief it is OK to use deadly force. In many of these situations, Tamir Rice or Andy Lopez comes to mind, these officer’s just wanted to plain shoot and kill.”
“It’s a brainwashing mechanism to get you over to their side, to start thinking about killing. In what they call the ‘FATS simulator’ (firearms and training simulator), you are automatically designed to DIE… Yes it’s a game and useful for training. But here they put a citizen off the street with no training and a newscaster in pre-designed scenarios, which are psychologically made to make you think and perceive things differently. It has nothing to do with training. Every recruit, I don’t care if they’re an ex-badass Navy Seal… everyone dies.
“YouTube FATS training presented by the Pasadena PD, the officer’s have less than lethal weapons at their disposal. They don’t have to kill the people like the Phoenix channel led people to believe. There are viable alternatives. Numerous years of working undercover in South Central Los Angeles and I only had to use my 9mm once.
Most of the time I would kick the person strategically or pepper spray. There is very rarely a reason to kill, and many police officers go their entire lifetime without having to draw their weapons,”
A police whistle-blower on that video.
A Taser doesnt always stop someone. Despite what people think, they dont knock ya out.
Same with Pepper Spray, you just made a pissed of adrenilne filled guy even MORE angry
I love how every person who is tased is suddenly The Hulk and 2-3 people cannot handle him. I wish I had that sort of super power.
Frazzled and I agree on this. That, honestly, should be enough to make people stop and say "Woah, maybe something is messed up here....."
Also, reports are saying the police officer told him to drop the gun, not lower his arm. That's a pretty major difference as someone who is not carrying a gun is more likely to be confused by being told to drop the gun than immediately realise that what they should do is lower their arm.
After all, it is possible that if they had lowered their arm they would still be shot for not dropping the gun. They could re-raise their arm pretty quickly after all.
Also, reports are saying the police officer told him to drop the gun, not lower his arm. That's a pretty major difference as someone who is not carrying a gun is more likely to be confused by being told to drop the gun than immediately realise that what they should do is lower their arm.
After all, it is possible that if they had lowered their arm they would still be shot for not dropping the gun. They could re-raise their arm pretty quickly after all.
Indeed.
"drop the gun" to a person without a gun is going to create confusion and hesitancy.
"drop the gun" when you meant towel, to a person is going to create more confusion and hesitancy.
Frankly, if the LAPD feels the need to handcuff someone after shooting him in the head, because he might get up and grab a gun off them and go on a rampage, then they should be using bigger guns.
CptJake wrote: Handcuffing the wounded guy makes a ton of sense to me. Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army.
Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army.
in the Army
Therein lies the problem: police officers aren't soldiers, the sheriffs department isn't the Army.
Policing can be dangerous, but new recruits are drilled from day one to condition themselves to be warriors and that they need to be prepared go out on the front lines everyday and confront the enemy (which is anyone and everyone). This is often one of the first things that is brought up when any discussion of police tactic reform is started and I think it's pretty valid.
Frazzled wrote: Why would you handcuff someone you shot because you thought they had a gun if they didn't have a gun?
It immediately fails the logic test, and thats why it is stupid.
Just because a man has been shot, does not mean he is incapacitated. He could still be a threat, and hand cuffs help neutralize that threat further.
Lets try it again.
You shoot a guy for not dropping his gun.
BUT
There is no gun.
WHY
hand cuff him?
When
His brains are on the street.
WHY NOT
call 911 and attempt to render aid because
YOU KNOW YOU JUST KILLED AN INNOCENT MAN
FURTHER
He wasn't resisting
He wasn't fighting
He wasn't fleeing
he wasn't brandishing
BUT
THE COPS BLEW OUT A PORTION OF HIS SKULL FOR REFUSING TO DROP THE GUN HE DIDN"T HAVE
and then they handcuffed him.
You are projecting a lot of things that you don't really know at this point.
You'd think having your nuts shot off, to include 3 or 4 other bullet holes in your body would incapacitate a man. I've read first hand accounts though that speak completely against that line of thought.
Assumption gets you killed. Don't do it.
In the mean time, why don't you hop off the "burn the cop" bus until it's gotten enough facts to actually go anywhere. Thank god you're not a criminal defense attorney...
MrDwhitey wrote: Clearly by shooting the guy and checking his body after. Only way to be safe.
Does that translate into "I'm a smart ass who really does not have a solution"?.
I would have thought that the obvious solution would be for police to stop shooting people just because they think there might be a gun...
Clearly the only solution is more guns. More guns so people can defend themselves from the police, more guns for the police so they can defend themselves from the innocents. Your america, guns fix everything.
CptJake wrote: Handcuffing the wounded guy makes a ton of sense to me. Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army.
Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army.
in the Army
Therein lies the problem: police officers aren't soldiers, the sheriffs department isn't the Army.
Policing can be dangerous, but new recruits are drilled from day one to condition themselves to be warriors and that they need to be prepared go out on the front lines everyday and confront the enemy (which is anyone and everyone). This is often one of the first things that is brought up when any discussion of police tactic reform is started and I think it's pretty valid.
Your point is valid on the shoot/don't shoot aspect. It really is not valid on the cuffing. A person who has not been searched is going to be secured/cuffed for the safety of the cops and EMT. At that point, when you must make physical contact with him to search him or treat him, he is a potential threat regardless of what his wounds look like.
MrDwhitey wrote: Clearly by shooting the guy and checking his body after. Only way to be safe.
Does that translate into "I'm a smart ass who really does not have a solution"?.
I would have thought that the obvious solution would be for police to stop shooting people just because they think there might be a gun...
Clearly the only solution is more guns. More guns so people can defend themselves from the police, more guns for the police so they can defend themselves from the innocents. Your america, guns fix everything.
Do we have an eye rolley smiley? We really need one.
djones, wouldn't the search of this guy have been performed while officers were cuffing him? Because before putting a bullet in this guy's head the officers thought he had a gun in his hands. So, while going to cuff the guy's wrists wouldn't the officers have noticed that there was no gun?
Why continue to cuff the guy?
"Because that is standard procedure."
Which is an unsatisfying answer for the general public. Police already have both eyes blackened lately for their repeated misuse of force across the country and incidents like this don't help. If you spill a guy's brains on the sidewalk for no good reason perhaps following procedure after the fact should be less of a concern than being a good human being and rendering aid. If only so that images of you cuffing an individual with an aerated skull don't spill out over the internet and make you look like a heartless killer.
CptJake wrote: Your point is valid on the shoot/don't shoot aspect. It really is not valid on the cuffing. A person who has not been searched is going to be secured/cuffed for the safety of the cops and EMT. At that point, when you must make physical contact with him to search him or treat him, he is a potential threat regardless of what his wounds look like.
It's valid for both because, especially in this circumstance, the first thing directly effects the second thing.
"Who gives a feth if I just shot a guy in the head, better cuff him because even though he's on the ground bleeding out a gunshot wound, he probably wants to kill me!"
Do not perform first aid on the man you nearly murdered, cuff him to make sure he doesn't have the gun you had no reason to think he had in the first place!
I feel a sudden need for rolling out a robot "telepresence" so the cop would not feel threatened, like the bomb disposal robot.
"Greetings citizen! I have been sent to ask if you could hand me your towel."
"There is concern you could have a big nasty gun under it so for your own safety you need to hand it over now."
"<Threat escalation increase>CITIZEN this unit is authorized to taze you repeatedly if you do not comply, place the towel and it's contents into the enclosure provided."
"Pepper spray will be provided after the flashbang for your enjoyment... drop the towel now."
"Escalated taze voltage and possible refibullator application authorized, 20 seconds to comply."
"<15 seconds pass>TAZE-FLASH-BANG!-SPRAY.... "Clear suspect.." ZAP-thunk!"
"Officer, suspect is neutralized, feel free to cuff him, if he moves, please clear so he may be tazed again."
Posts of 2 words, neither of which are really words, or posts entirely made up of an image (quotes don't count) are spam. I'm out buying dinner for tonight, people in this thread have until I get back to fix this.
To the thread in general; politeness, being on topic and not spamming. Important rules, obey them like you'd obey hypnotoad
So do all casualties in the US need to be cuffed for paramedics to be able to see them safely or only those shot by the police regardless of whether they have actually committed a crime?
After all, anybody, regardless of if they were involved in a police incident, could potentially be a threat to an attending paramedic if they choose to be.
The whole thing is risk reduction.
High risk of lethality to officer or civilian, lethal force allowed.
Possible violent unsearched suspect, cuff them regardless of status.
I had the experience of being pulled over by a state trooper and asked for license and registration.
I went to pull my wallet out of my back pocket and wound up staring down the barrel of a gun and him saying "Easy there boy!".
Turned out he was a nice guy and he got a laugh about the crazy Canadian, when he saw the plates he was not as worried about the hands not being out the window but the unseen fumbling around got him nervous.
I got a rundown on "procedure" so I would not have to inspect the cleanliness of a officer's firearm again.
For all the LEO's knew he might have had a pistol/revolver/flint lock pistol/sawed of Nagant/Pipe Shotgun/TyrionorDaryl crossbo/Callahan full-bore auto lock with customized trigger double cartridge thorough gauge with a potato silencer on the end of the weapon wrapped in a towl aimed at them
For all the LEO's knew he might have had a pistol/revolver/flint lock pistol/sawed of Nagant/Pipe Shotgun/TyrionorDaryl crossbo/Callahan full-bore auto lock with customized trigger double cartridge thorough gauge with a potato silencer on the end of the weapon wrapped in a towl aimed at them
Although presumably the fact that he didn't have such a thing would have become quickly apparent when they went to handcuff him...
I mean, I've never been handcuffed, so might be mistaken, but I had been working under the belief that it somehow involves cuffing the hands. Thus making it readily noticable whether or not there is in fact a weapon in said hands.
I never shot an insurgent who was zipcuffed
I got head butted by one that busted my nose
So I "notionally" responded in kind with a head butt wearing my ACH with the mount attach to helmet
I Lie all the time
everything post is a lie
I'm a fake
Actually was mention before this sounds so much like "Suicide by Cop"
Towels are extremely dangerous weapons, especially when wet. The police did the right thing, for their lives were clearly threatened by this towel-wielding maniac. I would urge everyone to bring a gun to a towel fight. When someone comes at you with a towel, just shoot, you can't take the risk the towel might be wet. Even a short moment of hesitation is fatal if the suspect indeed happens to be armed with a wet towel.
And there you have an example of what happens when police officers are lax with suspects.
So tell me, what was towel man suspected of?
There's more than one example of cops being killed by "subdued" suspects. As far as being suspected of something, a good thing to remember is this is on the heels of the other guy that summoned police, only to kill one of them.
There's more than one example of cops being killed by "subdued" suspects. As far as being suspected of something, a good thing to remember is this is on the heels of the other guy that summoned police, only to kill one of them.
And that is relevant how? I'm sure that all over the world people go up to police officers on the same day as another person has attempted to kill another officer in that force. Was there any valid reason to suspect this man was linked, in any way, to the other incident?
I think Nudity should be mandatory so you can see if someone is packing, but a certain part of the male physic could be considered a weapon if it is ready to shoot.
Jokes aside, there is something really wrong with the way American police handle perceived dangerous situations.
"The shooting in Los Feliz was one of two Friday in which LAPD officers shot a man who was partially concealed by a blanket or towel. Earlier in the day, LAPD officials said, officers wounded a man in El Monte after he got out of a car covered in a blanket and then brandished a gun. The man, who was critically wounded, had led officers on a two-hour chase that began in South L.A. after he allegedly assaulted a woman. "
Yep, I guess I would get a bit worried about someone pointing a towel wrapped arm at me after that earlier bit of news from the day was reported coupled with the uptick in cop killings.
With that, I am out of here, because this thread is headed for lockdown with people who have no idea what the situation was, yet are eager to say with the benefit of hind site and for the most part never having been in a situation where a split seconds hesitation could get them killed, that the cops should have been mind readers with X-ray vision.
Relapse wrote: ... that the cops should have been mind readers with X-ray vision.
Nobody has suggested this.
Just that police officers shouldn't be shooting people unless they're presented with a valid reason for doing so. 'He might have a gun' is not, in my opinion, a valid reason.
Yes, that may mean that in some situations police officers wind up getting shot at before they get to shoot back. Yes, that sucks. But that's their job.
Police are supposed to protect the public. If a 'shoot first and make sure he was actually a threat later' policy results in even one single innocent person being shot by police, then that's a bad policy.
Relapse wrote: Let's look at the day's happenings there:
"The shooting in Los Feliz was one of two Friday in which LAPD officers shot a man who was partially concealed by a blanket or towel. Earlier in the day, LAPD officials said, officers wounded a man in El Monte after he got out of a car covered in a blanket and then brandished a gun. The man, who was critically wounded, had led officers on a two-hour chase that began in South L.A. after he allegedly assaulted a woman. "
Yep, I guess I would get a bit worried about someone pointing a towel wrapped arm at me after that earlier bit of news from the day was reported coupled with the uptick in cop killings.
With that, I am out of here, because this thread is headed for lockdown with people who have no idea what the situation was, yet are eager to say with the benefit of hind site and for the most part never having been in a situation where a split seconds hesitation could get them killed, that the cops should have been mind readers with X-ray vision.
Except for the part in the article where it states that it is currently not known whether the police officers knew of the previous shooting.
And, even if they did, that someone else shot a police officer does not give them carte blanche for the rest of the day to shoot anyone who they happen to not quite like the look of.
In one case we have someone suspected of a violent crime who had fled from police for two hours. In the other we have a man with a towel on his arm. If you cannot see a difference between those two scenarios that should alter the manner in which they are handled then I don't know what to say.
Relapse wrote: Let's look at the day's happenings there:
"The shooting in Los Feliz was one of two Friday in which LAPD officers shot a man who was partially concealed by a blanket or towel. Earlier in the day, LAPD officials said, officers wounded a man in El Monte after he got out of a car covered in a blanket and then brandished a gun. The man, who was critically wounded, had led officers on a two-hour chase that began in South L.A. after he allegedly assaulted a woman. "
Yep, I guess I would get a bit worried about someone pointing a towel wrapped arm at me after that earlier bit of news from the day was reported coupled with the uptick in cop killings.
With that, I am out of here, because this thread is headed for lockdown with people who have no idea what the situation was, yet are eager to say with the benefit of hind site and for the most part never having been in a situation where a split seconds hesitation could get them killed, that the cops should have been mind readers with X-ray vision.
Firstly, a police officer should not influenced by such news. Just because an incident happened earlier today doesn't mean every guy calling for police suddenly wants to kill you, not even when they have a towel.
Secondly, police in other countries (even those with widespread gun ownership) seem to be perfectly capable of doing their job without killing a thousand people every year. The US police is very assertive and agressive, much more than in other countries. I think if police were to position themselves more calmly and passive, trying to negotiate and be friendly even if it leaves them vulnerable, it would definitely have positive results on the long term.
Jihadin wrote: Easy to arm chair after the fact
I bet if you had their job you be thinking the same thing.
Threat
Remove Threat
I certainly might. I'm not a police officer, precisely because I have no interest in putting myself into those sorts of situations, or any of the myriad other horrible things that police have to deal with. So lacking the training to deal with that sort of situation, there's a very good chance that I would handle that situation badly.
I also wouldn't deal with, say, a patient with a complex fracture of their femur as well as a paramedic would. Or a child stuck on the 4th floor of a burning building as well as a fireman would. Because I don't have their training either.
Not having their training, though, doesn't mean I can't expect them to not kill people for no good reason.
If we start giving LEO a Rules of Engagement policy you all be screaming militarization of the force
I have absolutely no qualms with police forces being given more military-style training if it results in a police force that is more capable of dealing with the situations they are thrown into without needless loss of life.
Jihadin wrote: Easy to arm chair after the fact
I bet if you had their job you be thinking the same thing.
Threat
Remove Threat
If we start giving LEO a Rules of Engagement policy you all be screaming militarization of the force
You don't remove a threat by shooting at it. If you want to do so, you should be in the military, not the police. Police are there to help, to settle disputes and uphold the law, not to kill. Shooting should be the very last resort.
Being a policeman is doing everything you can to prevent others from being harmed, even if this puts you at risk. I you can't accept this sacrifice you are not fit to be in the police corps.
You can call arm chairing as much as you want, but that does not change the fact that the US police corps is the only one in the developed world unable to do its job without massive violence.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I am so gonna get flamed/insulted for this, but I am curious:
If this exact same scenario had instead played out in Iraq between a US soldier and an Iraqi civilian, what would people's thoughts be?
I'm not sure what your motivations were for asking that, but I think it makes for an interesting thought experiment. After all, Iraq is a warzone. It is a warzone where the enemy is ever-present but unseen: indistinguishable from the local population until he (or perhaps she) strikes unexpectedly. If that's not a recipe for paranoia then I don't what is? I don't really want to get into whether such a shooting would be wholly justified, but on a 1-10 scale of paranoia/danger, we 'might' (for arguments sake) put an Iraqi checkpoint at about a 9.
At the other end of the scale, we might have the cop visiting a kindergarten in a picturesque neighbourhood back in the good old USA. A kindergartener suddenly rushes into the classroom with a coat over his arm... We could put this situation down as 2. The kid actually "might" have a gun, but any cop who claimed that he had "no option but to shoot" would be certifiable. I doubt even dakka would blame the victim in such a case (though I wouldn't like to bet money on it or anything).
If anything, I think this demonstrates that the environment is a very important part of "the situation". Where on the above scale would we put Los Angeles? Kidergarten or warzone? Police feeling the need to shoot first, might just be indicative of a larger more systemic problem with the environment becoming (or being perceived as) more dangerous.
Jihadin wrote: Easy to arm chair after the fact
I bet if you had their job you be thinking the same thing.
Threat
Remove Threat
If we start giving LEO a Rules of Engagement policy you all be screaming militarization of the force
You don't remove a threat by shooting at it. If you want to do so, you should be in the military, not the police. Police are there to help, to settle disputes and uphold the law, not to kill. Shooting should be the very last resort.
Being a policeman is doing everything you can to prevent others from being harmed, even if this puts you at risk. I you can't accept this sacrifice you are not fit to be in the police corps.
You can call arm chairing as much as you want, but that does not change the fact that the US police corps is the only one in the developed world unable to do its job without massive violence.
We know how old you are. If we restrict LEO's into military style Rules of Engagement we be burying a lot of cops
As for us in the military we have out body armor we can rely on. Also the many aspect of combat power to bring to the fight. Its on the individual (LEO) to make the call to either engage or not engage. Its on that individual if he choose to opt that individual out. Its on that individual to go with his training that he received. Also its on that individual to be aware of his surrounding. If there were people in the line of fire "behind him" then they, innocent bystanders, (which reminds me anyone seen D-USA?) are in danger of rounds going down range.
Everyone looking at the LEO and the Vic shooting which is inside the "Box" with your perception. No one has looked around outside the "Box" to what prompted the LEO to take out the vic
Jihadin wrote: Everyone looking at the LEO and the Vic shooting which is inside the "Box" with your perception. No one has looked around outside the "Box" to what prompted the LEO to take out the vic
Then I guess we'll all just have to wait for the startling revelation of just what was 'outside the box' that justified shooting a man brandishing a towel-wrapped forearm.
I'm certainly interested in seeing what that might have been, because I simply can't imagine anything that fits.
Police are there to help, to settle disputes and uphold the law, not to kill. Shooting should be the very last resort.
Generally speaking, this is false. There's a reason we call them law ENFORCEMENT officers. They are there to simply enforce the law.
Personally, I agree with many here that we (Americans) are using the police wrong. I personally think that instead of wasting a ton of money on unmarked cars designed with the express purpose of blending in (and usually driving "native" to basically trick people into driving in such a manner they get a ticket) to generate more ticket revenue, we should be marking our cars like many European countries, and they should be viewed as enforcers of the law, not a revenue stream by the various government entities.
Jihadin wrote: Everyone looking at the LEO and the Vic shooting which is inside the "Box" with your perception. No one has looked around outside the "Box" to what prompted the LEO to take out the vic
Then I guess we'll all just have to wait for the startling revelation of just what was 'outside the box' that justified shooting a man brandishing a towel-wrapped forearm.
I'm certainly interested in seeing what that might have been, because I simply can't imagine anything that fits.
Did it dawn on you that the cops might have thought they were going to be next on national news of getting killed in the line of duty? Notice the upward trend of cop killing in the US lately?
No mention of the range of the Vic and the LEO. 20 yards? 40 yards?
Let's assume the LEO is carrying a 9mm Beretta
Effective range of 50m
How fast can you tell if the individual is armed at 40-50 meters? Mind you he has a towel wrapped around his arm
LEO's might have saw this pose
I think there is a lot of misconception "raise arm towards" does not mean point at. Towards could be a very minute movement.
Think about how you flag down a car, now unless i'm doing it wrong it does not involve pointing at the car but rather raising my arm about head level. Another factor that may be involved is that he may have had a wrist injury, like a cut , hence a towel and was in shock. He may have been holding his wrist out to say "help me I have a bad injury"and boy did he get fast ambulance service .
Ensis is right, the police over there are being used wrong, shooting people should be a last resort, not first option. POlice officers here are armed and shootings by cop are rare (except in Victoria ) , perhaps having many guns in society leads to police getting nervy, makes sense.
Clearly in the US you don't need a towel on head to become a law enforcement target, just a towel. Be scared coming back from the pool or beach or answering your door after your bathing was interrupted. Hell, high class waiters are in immediate danger
It's hawt! Now in the US! Hard Metal (to the) Head, starring Felicia Starr as Officer Piggins, bah, chucka, wuh, wooooow!
Bullockists' thought of the day : Living in a high density gun weilding population may keep you safe from being shot by evil do'ers (apparently) , but conversely not safe from being shot by law enforcement.
Bullockist wrote: It's hawt! Now in the US! Hard Metal (to the) Head, starring Felicia Starr as Officer Piggins, bah, chucka, wuh, wooooow!
Bullockists' thought of the day : Living in a high density gun weilding population may keep you safe from being shot by evil do'ers (apparently) , but conversely not safe from being shot by law enforcement.
Until we know more about the actions of the guy who got shot I am sticking with the idea that some action he took must have seemed damned threatening to the cops. Had his hands been visible and had he acted calmly he would not have been shot. And as I've mentioned before and as Jihadin mentioned, the distance involved will play a factor too. At 15 feet the decision cycle is pretty damned fast.
CptJake wrote: Handcuffing the wounded guy makes a ton of sense to me. Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army.
Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army.
in the Army
Therein lies the problem: police officers aren't soldiers, the sheriffs department isn't the Army.
Policing can be dangerous, but new recruits are drilled from day one to condition themselves to be warriors and that they need to be prepared go out on the front lines everyday and confront the enemy (which is anyone and everyone). This is often one of the first things that is brought up when any discussion of police tactic reform is started and I think it's pretty valid.
Exactly.
Again, the simple situation is: You think he had a gun. You blast him. He didn't have a gun. Why are you handcuffing him?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkTraveler777 wrote: djones, wouldn't the search of this guy have been performed while officers were cuffing him? Because before putting a bullet in this guy's head the officers thought he had a gun in his hands. So, while going to cuff the guy's wrists wouldn't the officers have noticed that there was no gun?
Why continue to cuff the guy?
"Because that is standard procedure."
Which is an unsatisfying answer for the general public. Police already have both eyes blackened lately for their repeated misuse of force across the country and incidents like this don't help. If you spill a guy's brains on the sidewalk for no good reason perhaps following procedure after the fact should be less of a concern than being a good human being and rendering aid. If only so that images of you cuffing an individual with an aerated skull don't spill out over the internet and make you look like a heartless killer.
CptJake wrote: Handcuffing the wounded guy makes a ton of sense to me. Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army.
Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army.
in the Army
Therein lies the problem: police officers aren't soldiers, the sheriffs department isn't the Army.
Policing can be dangerous, but new recruits are drilled from day one to condition themselves to be warriors and that they need to be prepared go out on the front lines everyday and confront the enemy (which is anyone and everyone). This is often one of the first things that is brought up when any discussion of police tactic reform is started and I think it's pretty valid.
Exactly.
Again, the simple situation is: You think he had a gun. You blast him. He didn't have a gun. Why are you handcuffing him?
You clearly don't like the answer you've been given several times. Your dislike of it does not invalidate it. You can keep asking, but you have been given the answer.
"He put his hands together and held them out in the direction of the officers and walked towards them in an aggressive manner. The officers gave him some commands, which he didn't respond to and then the officer-involved shooting occurred," LAPD Commander Andy Smith said.
Without some form of proof this statement is fairly useless.
"At first, I thought it was like a random person that did it," William DeLeon said. "Then I found out it was the cops. I didn't understand why, because I know my dad wouldn't do anything to provoke it."
And I'm not surprised the son would say something like this. I'd not exactly expect him to go "Yeah, my dad would totally provoke officers."
"He put his hands together and held them out in the direction of the officers and walked towards them in an aggressive manner. The officers gave him some commands, which he didn't respond to and then the officer-involved shooting occurred," LAPD Commander Andy Smith said.
Thats just funny.
This is more telling:
"An unarmed man shot by Los Angeles police after he allegedly pointed a towel-covered hand in their direction typically walked with a rag because he sweat a lot, his son said Monday evening."
and
"The officers ordered him to drop what they thought was a weapon, Smith said, but the man didn't respond to those commands. One officer then opened fire, Smith said."
Supposedly there is a witness. interesting that the police didn't say what the witness told them.
I'm pretty sure that if someone in the UK flagged down some police officers with a towel on their arm, the first thing the police officers would be thinking is "Maybe this guy has hurt his arm and is using the towel to stem the bleeding", not "Gun?Gun?TOWELPOINTINGINMYDIRECTION!gonnashoothimgonnashoothim!".
"The man flagged down the police officers" ...so what did he want?
"This person extended an arm wrapped in a towel." ...still no idea but why "point" his arm wrapped in a towel. (Stupid in the extreme in my books).
"The officer exited the vehicle and said, 'Drop the gun, drop the gun,'" LAPD Lt. John Jenal said."... get out of car for room to find better cover. "Drop the gun", hmmm when getting nervous what would be better to say... "drop the towel?", "Hands so I can see them!" maybe?
"Then at least one officer shot the man."... little or no data on what was the final straw.
No idea of physical condition of suspect or of arm/hand under that towel.
One officer basically determined that an unresponsive person with an obscured hand which was pointing at the officers even after repeated requests to put "the gun" down was sufficiently a threat to shoot.
I do not think it is their "job" for the police to expose themselves to that much risk of allowing this person to decide how they were going to reveal what was in/on their hand. This is not poker.
I reached for my wallet and got "drawn on", try reaching into your jacket around a cop for giggles... hidden weapons are a real fear, something was very wrong with the suspect. Easy to laugh at being aimed at by a towel, real easy to feel superior after the fact.
Hope to hear more, obviously there was more going on than what was initially reported.
'Extended his arm' doesn't necessarily translate to 'pointed his arm at the police as if brandishing a gun' though. And if a police officer shouted at me to drop a gun I didn't have, I would be very confused and probably would not act very well in that situation. 'He might have a gun' is not a good enough reason to shoot someone. As someone said earlier, even if another cop has been killed that day, you don't have carte Blanche to shoot anyone who seems vaguely threatening.
Jihadin wrote: There is such a thing as standards and procedures they follow.
Cuff the dead guy/gurl
Cuff the wounded guy/gurl
Cuff the unwounded guy/gurl
Someone getting cuffed
One train to standards
One maintains the standards
Standards not = right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talizvar wrote: Wouldn't having some guy with a towel wrapped around his hand and pointed it at you not creep you out a tiny bit?
I don't like anything pointed at me on the best of days.
Hindsight is 20-20, you expect a cop not to "deal" with this weird situation with anything less than worst case scenario?
But they said drop the gun, not drop the towel.
The cop shot the man because he thought he posed a threat. If the man posed a threat to the cops then logically he would also pose a threat to the EMTs/paramedics/anyone who treats his injuries, therefore it's standard procedure to cuff wounded suspects that were deemed a threat. Once the officer decides the man is a threat and shoots him it's logically consistent to cuff him to prevent him from posing a threat to anyone else. The cop isn't going to decide he's a threat, shoot him, wounding him, and then decide that the wounded man isn't a threat and not cuff him. Whether or not the man was actually a threat that justified lethal force at the time of the shooting is debatable but once that determination was made by the officer it dictated that certain specific procedural steps be taken.
It is interesting to me that the PD and the witness(es?) all seem to agree that the cop yelled Drop the gun!, not Drop the towel or Show me your hands. Something made the cop believe the man had a gun hidden under the towel, the foundation for that belief, in my opinion, is the key in determining the justification of the shooting.
Jihadin wrote: Everyone looking at the LEO and the Vic shooting which is inside the "Box" with your perception. No one has looked around outside the "Box" to what prompted the LEO to take out the vic
Then I guess we'll all just have to wait for the startling revelation of just what was 'outside the box' that justified shooting a man brandishing a towel-wrapped forearm.
I'm certainly interested in seeing what that might have been, because I simply can't imagine anything that fits.
Did it dawn on you that the cops might have thought they were going to be next on national news of getting killed in the line of duty? Notice the upward trend of cop killing in the US lately?
No mention of the range of the Vic and the LEO. 20 yards? 40 yards?
Let's assume the LEO is carrying a 9mm Beretta
Effective range of 50m
How fast can you tell if the individual is armed at 40-50 meters? Mind you he has a towel wrapped around his arm
LEO's might have saw this pose
This is just "at least he went home safe" propaganda.
What would happen if I shot someone in that situation? As a soldier, I would have faced trial. As a current civilian I would probably be convicted. What happened to holding public servants to a HIGHER standard? You are being an apologist for poor training and poorer judgment.
I think if the guy hadn't jumped up and attacked them while they took the time to put their little rubber gloves on, he probably wasn't going to....that and half of his brains were on the back of his shirt. You can shoot someone in various places and they still may pose a threat but I've never heard of someone being shot in the brainpan and still being able to offer much resistance.
I feel bad for everyone. Jumpy, gun-slinging cops are still people and will have to live with their actions as will the person's family. I can't find if he's still alive or not but I hope he pulls through.
Frazzled wrote: How does one drop something they don't have?
How does one not drop everything they have when a cop is shouting at them and pointing a gun?
<edit>Hands in air springs readily to mind, dropping anything in hands as well... something was not right with the suspect and the cops I am sure clued into this. Stroke maybe? May be hard to find out after the brain-pan hit.
Frazzled wrote: How does one drop something they don't have?
How does one not drop everything they have when a cop is shouting at them and pointing a gun?
Although it is somewhat sad that no one has a problem with police drawing guns on people first, with, in many cases, essentially no provocation, and asking questions later (if at all and generally after shooting someone who was unarmed and posed zero threat to them).
Frazzled wrote: How does one drop something they don't have?
How does one not drop everything they have when a cop is shouting at them and pointing a gun?
Although it is somewhat sad that no one has a problem with police drawing guns on people first, with, in many cases, essentially no provocation, and asking questions later (if at all and generally after shooting someone who was unarmed and posed zero threat to them).
Yeah, I have no personal experience with American cops, but from what I have seen they usually approach people very aggressively, often with guns already drawn. I think this brutality is also an important part of why police officers are so much more likely to be shot in the US than in other countries. Violence begets violence, and in return, the police responds with even more violence to keep themselves safe. It is a vicious cycle of murder and violence.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, I have no personal experience with American cops, but from what I have seen they usually approach people very aggressively, often with guns already drawn. I think this brutality is also an important part of why police officers are so much more likely to be shot in the US than in other countries. Violence begets violence, and in return, the police responds with even more violence to keep themselves safe. It is a vicious cycle of murder and violence.
There are almost certainly many police officers who will go through their careers perfectly peacefully, never having to discharge their weapon in anger. Just as the majority of police/civilian interactions will be entirely peaceful. It even makes sense, when you allow your population to be armed, to arm your police force (and provide them with appropriate other protections such as body armour).
But certainly, if from nothing else other than the statistics, there are orders of magnitude more police shootings and shooting incidents in America than anywhere else in the developed world.
But certainly, if from nothing else other than the statistics, there are orders of magnitude more police shootings and shooting incidents in America than anywhere else in the developed world.
Where are these statistics? Not being a smart ass, but I've been trying to find good data on this.
CptJake wrote: Where are these statistics? Not being a smart ass, but I've been trying to find good data on this.
There are obviously lots of sites which will give breakdowns with some bias or other, however most (US) government departments will have yearly reports online. Some international organisations or individuals do compile and contrast different nations in various areas however.
This is just the first one that I came across about the US stats:
Provides a data quality profile of the Arrest-Related Deaths (ARD) component of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). Data from the ARD represent a national accounting of persons who have died during the process of arrest, including homicides by law enforcement personnel and deaths attributed to suicide, intoxication, accidental injury, and natural causes. The report provides an overview of the ARD program, a description of the current data collection methodologies, and an assessment of the coverage for ARD cases involving law enforcement homicides
CptJake wrote: Where are these statistics? Not being a smart ass, but I've been trying to find good data on this.
There are obviously lots of sites which will give breakdowns with some bias or other, however most (US) government departments will have yearly reports online. Some international organisations or individuals do compile and contrast different nations in various areas however.
This is just the first one that I came across about the US stats:
Provides a data quality profile of the Arrest-Related Deaths (ARD) component of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). Data from the ARD represent a national accounting of persons who have died during the process of arrest, including homicides by law enforcement personnel and deaths attributed to suicide, intoxication, accidental injury, and natural causes. The report provides an overview of the ARD program, a description of the current data collection methodologies, and an assessment of the coverage for ARD cases involving law enforcement homicides
But certainly, if from nothing else other than the statistics, there are orders of magnitude more police shootings and shooting incidents in America than anywhere else in the developed world.
Where are these statistics? Not being a smart ass, but I've been trying to find good data on this.
Well, I can find a breakdown of numbers of firearms officers, operations and weapon discharges for England and Wales.
In the whole of 2011/2012 our firearms officers only fired 5 rounds, and killed two people (one of which was Mark Duggan, which caused a whole lot of trouble). Admittedly our population is a lot less large than that of the US, making a direct comparison extremely difficult. Here's an article that also has some comparisons between the US, UK, South Africa and Sweden. http://www.channel4.com/news/police-fatal-shooting-trigger-happy-fact-check
And here's data for justifiable homicides by police in the US.
I think, as the article mentions, that the fact that only some of our police force is armed does result in a higher standard for those officers who are armed, as they have to undergo very strict training in order to qualify. Compare that to the US where every officer is armed and often not trained to as high a standard, simply because you could't afford to put all your LEOs through the training that we give to our firearms officers.
Course there's also the fact that if you come face to face with a british firearms officer you're not looking at a 9mm sidearm but typically a semi-automatic MP5 and a sidearm so maybe suspects are less likely to try anything
Your suspects also tend not to be armed at all Malus. In the US even a petty purse snatcher is likely to be armed.
The US also has a significant organized crime problem which leads to all criminals being much more violent. You really can't honestly compare US crime and violence to any other country because the situations are totally different, and it has nothing to do with the law abiding citizens being allowed to own weapons.
Grey Templar wrote: Your suspects also tend not to be armed at all Malus. In the US even a petty purse snatcher is likely to be armed.
The US also has a significant organized crime problem which leads to all criminals being much more violent. You really can't honestly compare US crime and violence to any other country because the situations are totally different, and it has nothing to do with the law abiding citizens being allowed to own weapons.
Obviously it has nothing to do with law abiding citizens. But it seems to have a lot to do with the ease of getting firearms. If police are shooting people because they feel the need to otherwise they might get shot, it seems pretty logical to me to make guns harder to get hold of. Would probably save lives both ways.
Grey Templar wrote: Your suspects also tend not to be armed at all Malus. In the US even a petty purse snatcher is likely to be armed.
The US also has a significant organized crime problem which leads to all criminals being much more violent. You really can't honestly compare US crime and violence to any other country because the situations are totally different, and it has nothing to do with the law abiding citizens being allowed to own weapons.
Obviously it has nothing to do with law abiding citizens. But it seems to have a lot to do with the ease of getting firearms. If police are shooting people because they feel the need to otherwise they might get shot, it seems pretty logical to me to make guns harder to get hold of. Would probably save lives both ways.
The funny thing is that the vast overwhelming majority of crimes are committed with stolen or illegally bought firearms, not with guns criminals legally acquired. Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns.
Even if guns were totally banned, it would be super easy to smuggle in guns from outside the US or just use all the illegal ones already here. Its not something you could legislate away, all it would accomplish is trashing a constitutional right and making the public less safe. Civilians stop crimes pretty regularly here because they had their own guns.
To make sense of these numbers, you need to know just how rarely police in other wealthy liberal democracies kill civilians.
Even when you account for population size, gun ownership, and violent crime rates, American police out-kill civilians by staggering factors relative to peer nations.
Take a look at England and Wales, where the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) keeps yearly records of police homicides. (Scotland and Northern Ireland have different police monitoring agencies.)
According to the IPCC, there hasn’t been a fatal police shooting in more than two years and over the same period only 26 people have died in police custody during arrest or in post-arrest detention. In the period from 2010-2014, a total of 62 people died in police custody.
Compare the police record from 2010-2014 to Baltimore’s police record, which we know thanks to an investigation by the ACLU. In Baltimore alone, 31 people died in police custody, exactly half the number who died in all of England and Wales.
England and Wales have a combined population of 56 million. Baltimore’s population is 622,000. Do the math and you realize that people in Baltimore were about 50 times more likely to be killed by police. And the disparity is even larger when you factor in shooting deaths. The Economist estimates that British citizens are 100 times less likely to be shot by police than Americans.
The story is the much the same in Germany, a country of 80 million people, where about 100 people have been killed by police since 1998.
In Iceland, police have only killed one person since the republic was founded in 1944. Granted, the population of Iceland is just 323,000. But it’s still impressive.
And here are some other comparisons published in a study by the Danish police on firearm use between 1996 and 2006.
They identified the number of people killed by police in several European countries and accounted for population by giving the number of people killed per one million residents. They used population figures from the year 2000.
Here’s what they found:
• Denmark: number of people killed by police between 1996 and 2006: 11 people — number of people killed per one million residents: .187 people
• Sweden: 13 people — .133 people
• Norway: 3 people — .060 people
• Finland: 2 people — .034 people
• Germany: 81 people — .089 people
• The Netherlands: 24 people — .137 people
• England/Wales: 25 people — .042 people
If we take Five Thirty Eight’s estimate that 1,000 people are killed by police in the United States every year and divide it by the 2000 population of 282 million, the American situation for just one year would look like this:
US: 10,000 people killed — 35.5 killed for every one million residents
Note, there is an obvious bias in the article. Interesting was the statement that BJS has given-up on trying to collect the data. You would think something like this would be much more transparent, reported to the feds at some level and examined.
Grey Templar wrote: But did they really actually account for higher gun ownership and violent crime? What was their method for accounting for it?
Honestly, if you take too much under consideration it's impossible to compare the US with other countries because of our very liberal gun ownership laws and a culture of gun ownership that doesn't really exist, comparatively, in other countries.
But to answer your question, it appears that the Danish police just used a simple formula of number of police-related deaths vs. population. It's not particularly useful data but in the absence of anything collected by the authorities in the US, it's really all that there is of a comparative nature.
Grey Templar wrote: Your suspects also tend not to be armed at all Malus. In the US even a petty purse snatcher is likely to be armed.
The US also has a significant organized crime problem which leads to all criminals being much more violent. You really can't honestly compare US crime and violence to any other country because the situations are totally different, and it has nothing to do with the law abiding citizens being allowed to own weapons.
Obviously it has nothing to do with law abiding citizens. But it seems to have a lot to do with the ease of getting firearms. If police are shooting people because they feel the need to otherwise they might get shot, it seems pretty logical to me to make guns harder to get hold of. Would probably save lives both ways.
Grey Templar wrote: The US also has a significant organized crime problem which leads to all criminals being much more violent. You really can't honestly compare US crime and violence to any other country because the situations are totally different, and it has nothing to do with the law abiding citizens being allowed to own weapons.
I hear this all the time about organised crime in the US and how it is "totes different" from anywhere else in the world. Every nation has difficulties with organised crime, you are not unique in that.
Grey Templar wrote: Your suspects also tend not to be armed at all Malus. In the US even a petty purse snatcher is likely to be armed.
The US also has a significant organized crime problem which leads to all criminals being much more violent. You really can't honestly compare US crime and violence to any other country because the situations are totally different, and it has nothing to do with the law abiding citizens being allowed to own weapons.
Obviously it has nothing to do with law abiding citizens. But it seems to have a lot to do with the ease of getting firearms. If police are shooting people because they feel the need to otherwise they might get shot, it seems pretty logical to me to make guns harder to get hold of. Would probably save lives both ways.
The funny thing is that the vast overwhelming majority of crimes are committed with stolen or illegally bought firearms, not with guns criminals legally acquired. Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns.
Even if guns were totally banned, it would be super easy to smuggle in guns from outside the US or just use all the illegal ones already here. Its not something you could legislate away, all it would accomplish is trashing a constitutional right and making the public less safe. Civilians stop crimes pretty regularly here because they had their own guns.
True, I don't think gun legislation has much to do with it. Even here in the Netherlands, where firearms are pretty strictly controlled, most criminals can get them quite easily (they are especially cheap now since Ukraine) and are armed.
Grey Templar wrote: The US also has a significant organized crime problem which leads to all criminals being much more violent. You really can't honestly compare US crime and violence to any other country because the situations are totally different, and it has nothing to do with the law abiding citizens being allowed to own weapons.
I hear this all the time about organised crime in the US and how it is "totes different" from anywhere else in the world. Every nation has difficulties with organised crime, you are not unique in that.
Well, Britain doesn't have cartels with armored vehicles, antitanks missiles and grenade launchers to worry about...
(unless you tick us off, then we're going to arm the Welsh with guns AND diction coaches so other people can understand what the heck they are trying to say!)
Grey Templar wrote: But did they really actually account for higher gun ownership and violent crime? What was their method for accounting for it?
I really don't understand the logic of "controlling" for the variable that you are studying.
The implication of the study is that the widespread use of firearms in the USA is to some degree responsible for the very high rate of shootings compared to other countries.
Regarding the availability of illegal firearms, it was reported recently that tight gun control in the UK had forced criminals to resort to things like refurbishing replic guns or antiques, because it is now too difficult to get hold of illegal firearms.
I would also note the disputed studies from Mexico that show that a large number of the illegal weapons in the country came from US gun shops. This would imply that tight control in the USA would not inevitably lead to a flood of illegal weapons from Mexico.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would also note the disputed studies from Mexico that show that a large number of the illegal weapons in the country came from US gun shops. This would imply that tight control in the USA would not inevitably lead to a flood of illegal weapons from Mexico.
At least you admit the studies are disputed. The cartels like full auto weapons. You can't get those from US gun shops. Straw purchases from US gun shops are already illegal (so that covers the semi-auto).
Current analysis tends to favor the theory that the cartels get guns from Central America and corrupt Gov't of Mexico (or captured/stolen from Gov't of Mexico) for the vast majority of their weapons. Arms smuggled from China and other places are starting to become more prevalent as well.
The biggest problem with the comparison of crime stats is the lack of uniform reporting requirements. Here in the US we have thousands of municipal, school, county, state and federal policing agencies and the reporting requirements for all of them are different, largely voluntary and subject to no internal review or verification. Crime states are adjusted for political purposes constantly and there is no oversight that ensure that every policing agency files federal reports and that those reports are accurate.
Today, four annual publications, Crime in the United States, National Incident-Based Reporting System, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, and Hate Crime Statistics are produced from data received from over 18,000 city, university/college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. The crime data are submitted either through a state UCR Program or directly to the FBI’s UCR Program.
A Wall Street Journal analysis of the latest data from 105 of the country’s largest police agencies found more than 550 police killings during those years were missing from the national tally or, in a few dozen cases, not attributed to the agency involved. The result: It is nearly impossible to determine how many people are killed by the police each year.
Public demands for transparency on such killings have increased since the August shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown by police in Ferguson, Mo. The Ferguson Police Department has reported to the FBI one justifiable homicide by police between 1976 and 2012.
Law-enforcement experts long have lamented the lack of information about killings by police. “When cops are killed, there is a very careful account and there’s a national database,” said Jeffrey Fagan, a law professor at Columbia University. “Why not the other side of the ledger?”
Police can use data about killings to improve tactics, particularly when dealing with people who are mentally ill, said Paco Balderrama, a spokesman for the Oklahoma City Police Department. “It’s great to recognize that, because 30 years ago we used to not do that. We used to just show up and handle the situation.”
Three sources of information about deaths caused by police—the FBI numbers, figures from the Centers for Disease Control and data at the Bureau of Justice Statistics—differ from one another widely in any given year or state, according to a 2012 report by David Klinger, a criminologist with the University of Missouri-St. Louis and a onetime police officer.
To analyze the accuracy of the FBI data, the Journal requested internal records on killings by officers from the nation’s 110 largest police departments. One-hundred-five of them provided figures.
Those internal figures show at least 1,800 police killings in those 105 departments between 2007 and 2012, about 45% more than the FBI’s tally for justifiable homicides in those departments’ jurisdictions, which was 1,242, according to the Journal’s analysis. Nearly all police killings are deemed by the departments or other authorities to be justifiable.
The full national scope of the underreporting can’t be quantified. In the period analyzed by the Journal, 753 police entities reported about 2,400 killings by police. The large majority of the nation’s roughly 18,000 law-enforcement agencies didn’t report any.
“Does the FBI know every agency in the U.S. that could report but has chosen not to? The answer is no,” said Alexia Cooper, a statistician with the Bureau of Justice Statistics who studies the FBI’s data. “What we know is that some places have chosen not to report these, for whatever reason.”
FBI spokesman Stephen G. Fischer said the agency uses “established statistical methodologies and norms” when reviewing data submitted by agencies. FBI staffers check the information, then ask agencies “to correct or verify questionable data,” he said.
The reports to the FBI are part of its uniform crime reporting program. Local law-enforcement agencies aren’t required to participate. Some localities turn over crime statistics, but not detailed records describing each homicide, which is the only way particular kinds of killings, including those by police, are tracked by the FBI. The records, which are supposed to document every homicide, are sent from local police agencies to state reporting bodies, which forward the data to the FBI.
The Journal’s analysis identified several holes in the FBI data.
Justifiable police homicides from 35 of the 105 large agencies contacted by the Journal didn’t appear in the FBI records at all. Some agencies said they didn’t view justifiable homicides by law-enforcement officers as events that should be reported. The Fairfax County Police Department in Virginia, for example, said it didn’t consider such cases to be an “actual offense,” and thus doesn’t report them to the FBI.
For 28 of the remaining 70 agencies, the FBI was missing records of police killings in at least one year. Two departments said their officers didn’t kill anyone during the period analyzed by the Journal.
About a dozen agencies said their police-homicides tallies didn’t match the FBI’s because of a quirk in the reporting requirements: Incidents are supposed to be reported by the jurisdiction where the event occurred, even if the officer involved was from elsewhere. For example, the California Highway Patrol said there were 16 instances in which one of its officers killed someone in a city or other local jurisdiction responsible for reporting the death to the FBI. In some instances reviewed by the Journal, an agency believed its officers’ justifiable homicides had been reported by other departments, but they hadn’t.
Also missing from the FBI data are killings involving federal officers.
Police in Washington, D.C., didn’t report to the FBI details about any homicides for an entire decade beginning with 1998—the year the Washington Post found the city had one of the highest rates of officer-involved killings in the country. In 2011, the agency reported five killings by police. In 2012, the year Mr. Payton was killed, there are again no records on homicides from the agency.
D.C. Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier said she doesn’t know why the agency stopped reporting the numbers in 1998. “I wasn’t the chief and had no role in decision making” back then, said Ms. Lanier, who was a captain at the time. When she took over in 2007, she said, reporting the statistics “was a nightmare and a very tedious process.”
Grey Templar wrote: Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns..
Of course it does. Reduce the number of people who have guns,and you reduce the number of guns that the criminals can steal.
Grey Templar wrote: Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns..
Of course it does. Reduce the number of people who have guns,and you reduce the number of guns that the criminals can steal.
Criminals don't have to steal guns in order to get them. Narcotics are illegal yet they're not hard to get at all and you aren't forced to steal somebody else's. Prohibition doesn't work.
Grey Templar wrote: Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns..
Of course it does. Reduce the number of people who have guns,and you reduce the number of guns that the criminals can steal.
You are technically correct.
This problem is better stated that (1) reducing the number of guns available does not have any demonstrable impact on criminals' ability to acquire weapons, and (2) reducing the availability of guns to law abiding citizens does not produce the desired effect of reducing crime.
Grey Templar wrote: Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns..
Of course it does. Reduce the number of people who have guns,and you reduce the number of guns that the criminals can steal.
You are technically correct.
This problem is better stated that (1) reducing the number of guns available does not have any demonstrable impact on criminals' ability to acquire weapons, and (2) reducing the availability of guns to law abiding citizens does not produce the desired effect of reducing crime.
But it does (3) reduce the number of idiots shooting themselves accidentally.
You would have to reduce the number of guns a hell of a lot to make a difference. Guns are hard to come by in the UK, the majority of criminals wouldn't touch them because they're not easy to obtain and they're just unnecessary because the public and police don't carry them. You'd have to go through a process of mass disarmament in the US to get to the point of a culture change where criminals didn't frequently carry guns because the were both difficult to obtain and thought of as unnecessary.
But it does (3) reduce the number of idiots shooting themselves accidentally.
I'm convinced that people who are literally dumb enough to shoot themselves accidentally, or leave their firearms in such a manner that a loved one does the same (without any kind of proper training or respect taught to that loved one); will find SOMEWAY of offing themselves. It is a Darwin Award for a reason.
Howard A Treesong wrote: You would have to reduce the number of guns a hell of a lot to make a difference. Guns are hard to come by in the UK, the majority of criminals wouldn't touch them because they're not easy to obtain and they're just unnecessary because the public and police don't carry them. You'd have to go through a process of mass disarmament in the US to get to the point of a culture change where criminals didn't frequently carry guns because the were both difficult to obtain and thought of as unnecessary.
I shudder to thing what criminals would start doing if guns where at hard to obtain.
Also really dont want big bro to storm everyone houses to find all the guns.
Edit: or worse case, a silly program to turn in guns for some sort of thing that will probably backfire horribly and waste time and money. like it always does.
Grey Templar wrote: Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns..
Of course it does. Reduce the number of people who have guns,and you reduce the number of guns that the criminals can steal.
And how do you propose America does that? How many gun-owning Americans do you really think are going to turn in their guns? And why should they?
As far as I understand it, the sheer number of guns in circulation already plus a border with a country happy to supply less than legal guns, would make prohibiting the ownership of firearms mostly affect those who would've held them legally.
MrDwhitey wrote: As far as I understand it, the sheer number of guns in circulation already plus a border with a country happy to supply less than legal guns, would make prohibiting the ownership of firearms mostly affect those who would've held them legally.
Exactly. And what is the point of penalizing law-abiding citizens, when it's the criminals who are they problem?
Desubot wrote: I shudder to thing what criminals would start doing if guns where at hard to obtain.
Probably not use guns, for the most part.
At least if most of the rest of the western world is any indication.
Down here, we still have the odd issue with some guy with a gun doing bad things... But for the most part, our criminals (at least, the ones not in biker gangs) tend to content themselves with knives, baseball bats and screwdrivers instead.
Desubot wrote: I shudder to thing what criminals would start doing if guns where at hard to obtain.
Probably not use guns, for the most part.
At least if most of the rest of the western world is any indication.
Down here, we still have the odd issue with some guy with a gun doing bad things... But for the most part, our criminals (at least, the ones not in biker gangs) tend to content themselves with knives, baseball bats and screwdrivers instead.
Id rather be shot then beat senseless or bleed out from multiple stab wounds. not that this doesn't happen already.
And i REALLY wouldn't want to be stabbed with a Phillips
Hordini wrote: Exactly. And what is the point of penalizing law-abiding citizens, when it's the criminals who are they problem?
It's less about 'penalising' anyone, and more about the fact that if guns aren't so prevalent amongst the criminals, there's less need for the law-abiding citizens to have them either.
I find it a little mind-boggling that, in this day and age, anyone in a non-third-world country should feel they need a firearm to protect themselves. That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.
Howard A Treesong wrote: You would have to reduce the number of guns a hell of a lot to make a difference. Guns are hard to come by in the UK, the majority of criminals wouldn't touch them because they're not easy to obtain and they're just unnecessary because the public and police don't carry them. You'd have to go through a process of mass disarmament in the US to get to the point of a culture change where criminals didn't frequently carry guns because the were both difficult to obtain and thought of as unnecessary.
I shudder to thing what criminals would start doing if guns where at hard to obtain.
Also really dont want big bro to storm everyone houses to find all the guns.
Edit: or worse case, a silly program to turn in guns for some sort of thing that will probably backfire horribly and waste time and money. like it always does.
Criminals wouldn't do anything differently. You think that they are just sitting there thinking "If it weren't for guns everywhere I would totally go out and shoot some people or rob every shop I see"?
It's like the argument that decriminalisation of drugs will lead to increasing drug use. Which is demonstrably false in the countries which have gone through with it.
Howard A Treesong wrote: You would have to reduce the number of guns a hell of a lot to make a difference. Guns are hard to come by in the UK, the majority of criminals wouldn't touch them because they're not easy to obtain and they're just unnecessary because the public and police don't carry them. You'd have to go through a process of mass disarmament in the US to get to the point of a culture change where criminals didn't frequently carry guns because the were both difficult to obtain and thought of as unnecessary.
I shudder to thing what criminals would start doing if guns where at hard to obtain.
Also really dont want big bro to storm everyone houses to find all the guns.
Edit: or worse case, a silly program to turn in guns for some sort of thing that will probably backfire horribly and waste time and money. like it always does.
Criminals wouldn't do anything differently. You think that they are just sitting there thinking "If it weren't for guns everywhere I would totally go out and shoot some people or rob every shop I see"?
It's like the argument that decriminalisation of drugs will lead to increasing drug use. Which is demonstrably false in the countries which have gone through with it.
Woh where did i say anything like that?
im talking about the other kinda crime these criminals would probably do anyway even without guns.
and it sounds like running into crime down under is horrible.
Down here, we still have the odd issue with some guy with a gun doing bad things... But for the most part, our criminals (at least, the ones not in biker gangs) tend to content themselves with knives, baseball bats and screwdrivers instead.
I call shenanigans... When your morning commute looks more like this:
Hordini wrote: Exactly. And what is the point of penalizing law-abiding citizens, when it's the criminals who are they problem?
It's less about 'penalising' anyone, and more about the fact that if guns aren't so prevalent amongst the criminals, there's less need for the law-abiding citizens to have them either.
I find it a little mind-boggling that, in this day and age, anyone in a non-third-world country should feel they need a firearm to protect themselves. That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.
Personally id prefer if CRIME was less prevalent then there would be less need for citizens to have guns in the first place.
Down here, we still have the odd issue with some guy with a gun doing bad things... But for the most part, our criminals (at least, the ones not in biker gangs) tend to content themselves with knives, baseball bats and screwdrivers instead.
I call shenanigans... When your morning commute looks more like this:
Spoiler:
than this:
Spoiler:
I'd say there's a bit of a problem
Yeah, the problem is that the American one sucks compared to the Australian one
Hordini wrote: Exactly. And what is the point of penalizing law-abiding citizens, when it's the criminals who are they problem?
It's less about 'penalising' anyone, and more about the fact that if guns aren't so prevalent amongst the criminals, there's less need for the law-abiding citizens to have them either.
I find it a little mind-boggling that, in this day and age, anyone in a non-third-world country should feel they need a firearm to protect themselves. That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.
I find it mind-boggling that someone would realistically expect the government to be solely responsible for their personal security, and consider the impossibility of that expectation to be a severe failing on the part of society.
There are also reasons to own firearms other than for protection from criminals.
Desubot wrote: and it sounds like running into crime down under is horrible.
No more so than anywhere else, I would imagine.
But with less chance of being shot by the police when you go to them for help...
Or you know just follow there instructions.
IF they say get on the ground or come at you with weapons drawn. get on the ground hands on head and let them do there thing.
What about when they tell you to drop your gun when you're not holding a gun? How do you follow that command considering it is physically impossible to drop something you do not have?
Hordini wrote: Exactly. And what is the point of penalizing law-abiding citizens, when it's the criminals who are they problem?
It's less about 'penalising' anyone, and more about the fact that if guns aren't so prevalent amongst the criminals, there's less need for the law-abiding citizens to have them either.
I find it a little mind-boggling that, in this day and age, anyone in a non-third-world country should feel they need a firearm to protect themselves. That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.
I find it mind-boggling that someone would realistically expect the government to be solely responsible for their personal security, and consider the impossibility of that expectation to be a severe failing on the part of society.
There are also reasons to own firearms other than for protection from criminals.
It's funny how other countries do pretty damn okay with their personal security without needing to own guns to do so.
Hordini wrote: Exactly. And what is the point of penalizing law-abiding citizens, when it's the criminals who are they problem?
It's less about 'penalising' anyone, and more about the fact that if guns aren't so prevalent amongst the criminals, there's less need for the law-abiding citizens to have them either.
I find it a little mind-boggling that, in this day and age, anyone in a non-third-world country should feel they need a firearm to protect themselves. That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.
I find it mind-boggling that someone would realistically expect the government to be solely responsible for their personal security, and consider the impossibility of that expectation to be a severe failing on the part of society.
There are also reasons to own firearms other than for protection from criminals.
It's funny how other countries do pretty damn okay with their personal security without needing to own guns to do so.
It's funny how other countries, particularly in Europe, have more urban areas and much greater population density than the US. It's funny how many European countries have much more homogeneous populations than the US. It's funny how the US has an open southern border with a country that features large swathes controlled by drug cartels.
In some parts of the US police response time can be 30 minutes or more, so you'll have to excuse some of us for being reluctant to give up the responsibility for our own security. If you don't want to take responsibility for your own security, you're free to refrain from doing so.
Hordini wrote: I find it mind-boggling that someone would realistically expect the government to be solely responsible for their personal security, ...
Solely responsible? No, not really.
Responsible enough to provide a system whereby I don't feel like I need a firearm to protect myself from the nasty world outside my house? That's not an unreasonable expectation. It's pretty much the reason for having government in the first place.
Hordini wrote: There are also reasons to own firearms other than for protection from criminals.
Sure. But whenever the subject of gun control comes up, that's the main one that gets bandied about.
Well, that, and the need to protect yourself when your government inevitably turns on you.
Hordini wrote: I find it mind-boggling that someone would realistically expect the government to be solely responsible for their personal security, ...
Solely responsible? No, not really.
Responsible enough to provide a system whereby I don't feel like I need a firearm to protect myself from the nasty world outside my house? That's not an unreasonable expectation. It's pretty much the reason for having government in the first place.
Plenty of people in the US don't feel like they need a firearm. Some do. Not everyone's situation is the same, and individuals are free to choose what they feel they need to protect themselves.
And that's great. But at what point do you stop and say 'Holy crap... look at all of the problems that are caused by allowing that particular freedom...'
For us, that point was the Port Arthur massacre. One loony with a gun went on a shooting spree, and Australia said 'Nope, let's not do that again.'
Not without some disagreement, admittedly. But for the most part, it was accepted that for the majority of Australians, guns simply weren't something that was necessary enough to allow for this sort of craziness to happen again.
But that's probably far enough with that little tangent. My last few posts were probably verging a little far over towards 'murica-bashing, and that was never my intention. I just find the casual acceptance of this sort of thing (well, yeah, some guy got shot... but hey, we have a right to own guns, so what are you going to do?) to be more than a little baffling.
insaniak wrote: And that's great. But at what point do you stop and say 'Holy crap... look at all of the problems that are caused by allowing that particular freedom...'
I think it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
We didn't have nearly as many guns when Port Arthur happened, so it was easy for us.
Grey Templar wrote: Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns..
Of course it does. Reduce the number of people who have guns,and you reduce the number of guns that the criminals can steal.
You are technically correct.
This problem is better stated that (1) reducing the number of guns available does not have any demonstrable impact on criminals' ability to acquire weapons, and (2) reducing the availability of guns to law abiding citizens does not produce the desired effect of reducing crime.
But it does (3) reduce the number of idiots shooting themselves accidentally.
Then the first step is to take firearms away from cops. Despite "all the training," and being the only ones "professional enough" to handle these weapons, they just can't seem to keep their filthy donutpickers off the triggers.
Hordini wrote: Exactly. And what is the point of penalizing law-abiding citizens, when it's the criminals who are they problem?
It's less about 'penalising' anyone, and more about the fact that if guns aren't so prevalent amongst the criminals, there's less need for the law-abiding citizens to have them either.
I find it a little mind-boggling that, in this day and age, anyone in a non-third-world country should feel they need a firearm to protect themselves. That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.
If people abide by the law, then why do you care at all whether or not they own firearms? Does it make you feel uncomfortable?
If people abide by the law, then why do you care at all whether or not they own firearms? Does it make you feel uncomfortable?
Well, yes. Insofar as it creates a culture whereby firearms are accepted as commonplace, and where people willfully ignore all of the reasons that having these things out amongst the general public is a bad idea because their 'right' to own them trumps all other considerations, absolutely that makes me uncomfortable.
To be more specific, the idea that my neighbour might have a firearm in his house doesn't make me uncomfortable. The idea of living somewhere where most of my neighbours have firearms in their houses and accept that as a trivial thing, leading to a massive number of accidental shootings, firearm related violence, and people being shot by police due to them having to work under the assumption that every car they pull over, every 12-year-old-boy on the street, and every domestic incident they attend might involve a firearm?
insaniak wrote: I find it a little mind-boggling that, in this day and age, anyone in a non-third-world country should feel they need a firearm to protect themselves. That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.
How about the woman and her kids who escaped an abusive ex who has threatened to kill them? Watch the video and ask what might have happened if she was unable to defend herself
Obviously NSFW
insaniak wrote: And that's great. But at what point do you stop and say 'Holy crap... look at all of the problems that are caused by allowing that particular freedom...'
If people abide by the law, then why do you care at all whether or not they own firearms? Does it make you feel uncomfortable?
Well, yes. Insofar as it creates a culture whereby firearms are accepted as commonplace, and where people willfully ignore all of the reasons that having these things out amongst the general public is a bad idea because their 'right' to own them trumps all other considerations, absolutely that makes me uncomfortable.
To be more specific, the idea that my neighbour might have a firearm in his house doesn't make me uncomfortable. The idea of living somewhere where most of my neighbours have firearms in their houses and accept that as a trivial thing, leading to a massive number of accidental shootings, firearm related violence, and people being shot by police due to them having to work under the assumption that every car they pull over, every 12-year-old-boy on the street, and every domestic incident they attend might involve a firearm?
Damn straight, that makes me uncomfortable.
Accidental shootings like...cops shooting the wrong person? OK...train the cops better and stop hiring idiots (many departments have a 2.0 high school GPA minimum).
Accidental shootings like...people shooting themselves by accident? I don't know the numbers on this, but I extend the offer to you to prove that this occurs in "massive" numbers, since you claim that it does.
Firearm related violence? I'm assuming you mean, "of the criminal variety," so we aren't talking "law abiding citizens" anymore. Guns allow people like me to protect myself and others from people who commit firearm related violent crime.
I respect your right to feel uncomfortable about it, but ['merica]here in America[/'merica] we don't have the right to restrict the rights of others based on our comfort level. Some people aren't comfortable with Blacks and Whites marrying...should we make that illegal too?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: How about the woman and her kids who escaped an abusive ex who has threatened to kill them? Watch the video and ask what might have happened if she was unable to defend herself
How about an elderly couple that live in a crime ridden neighbourhood and cannot afford to move?
How about the farmer that lives in an area where the average police response is over 45 minutes?
insaniak wrote:That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.
Your examples just highlight my point. If people feel that they need a firearm to protect themselves, then something is wrong with the system.
insaniak wrote: And that's great. But at what point do you stop and say 'Holy crap... look at all of the problems that are caused by allowing that particular freedom...'
What problems are those?
Well, for starters, I recently heard about a situation where a guy with a towel wrapped around his arm was shot in the head by police who thought he had a gun...
insaniak wrote: I find it a little mind-boggling that, in this day and age, anyone in a non-third-world country should feel they need a firearm to protect themselves. That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.
How about the woman and her kids who escaped an abusive ex who has threatened to kill them? Watch the video and ask what might have happened if she was unable to defend herself
How about the woman shot to death by her own child who was rummaging through her handbag?
For every instance in which a gun has saved a life I think we will all agree that there will be one in which it has taken one, unnecessarily.
The US by this point has too many guns for getting rid of them to be feasible. That does not mean that there are not problems which come with having that many guns around, however, just that the solution will be a lot harder to come to.
insaniak wrote: To be more specific, the idea that my neighbour might have a firearm in his house doesn't make me uncomfortable. The idea of living somewhere where most of my neighbours have firearms in their houses and accept that as a trivial thing, leading to a massive number of accidental shootings, firearm related violence, and people being shot by police due to them having to work under the assumption that every car they pull over, every 12-year-old-boy on the street, and every domestic incident they attend might involve a firearm?
Fact: Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suicides has not risen. 1 As the chart shows, there is no correlation between the availability of firearms and the rates of homicide and suicide in America.
Fact: Internationally speaking “There’s no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence.” 2
Fact: “A detailed study of the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.” 3
Fact: Handgun ownership among groups normally associated with higher violent crime (young males, blacks, low income, inner city, etc.) is at or below national averages. 4
Fact: Among inmates who used a firearm in the commission of a crime, the most significant correlations occurred when the inmates’ parents abused drugs (27.5%) and when inmates had friends engaged in illegal activities (32.5% for robberies, 24.3% for drug trafficking).” 5
Fact: Five out of six gun-possessing felons obtained handguns from the secondary market and by theft, and “[the] criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.” 6
Fact: The majority of handguns in the possession of criminals are stolen, and not necessarily by the criminals in question. 7 In fact, over 100,000 firearms are stolen in burglaries every year, and most of them likely enter the criminal market (i.e., are sold or traded to criminals). 8
Homicides in England and Wales against their 1968 gun control movement
click to enlarge
Fact: In 1968, the U.K. passed laws that reduced the number of licensed firearm owners, and thus reduced firearm availability. U.K. homicide rates have steadily risen since then. 9 Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade after the U.K. banned handguns. 10
Fact: Most violent crime is caused by a small minority of repeat offenders. One California study found that 3.8% of a group of males born in 1956 were responsible for 55.5% of all serious felonies. 11 75-80% of murder arrestees have prior arrests for a violent (including non-fatal) felony or burglary. On average they have about four felony arrests and one felony conviction.
Fact: Half of all murders are committed by people on “conditional release” (i.e., parole or probation). 12 81% of all homicide defendants had an arrest record; 67% had a felony arrest record; 70% had a conviction record; and 54% had a felony conviction. 13
Fact: Per capita firearm ownership rates have risen steadily since 1959 while crime rates have gone up and down depending on economics, drug trafficking innovations, and “get tough” legislation. 14
Thoughts: Criminals are not motivated by guns. They are motivated by opportunity. Attempts to reduce public access to firearms provide criminals more points of opportunity. It is little wonder that high-crime cities also tend to be those with the most restrictive gun control laws – which criminals tend to ignore.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: How about the woman and her kids who escaped an abusive ex who has threatened to kill them? Watch the video and ask what might have happened if she was unable to defend herself
How about an elderly couple that live in a crime ridden neighbourhood and cannot afford to move?
How about the farmer that lives in an area where the average police response is over 45 minutes?
insaniak wrote:That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.
Your examples just highlight my point. If people feel that they need a firearm to protect themselves, then something is wrong with the system.
So countries without guns do not experience violent or abusive exes? Old people can freely move without the financial means to do so? Farmers can live far away from law enforcement without issue?
insaniak wrote: And that's great. But at what point do you stop and say 'Holy crap... look at all of the problems that are caused by allowing that particular freedom...'
What problems are those?
Well, for starters, I recently heard about a situation where a guy with a towel wrapped around his arm was shot in the head by police who thought he had a gun...
I heard about that too. I didn't hear how the Second Amendment was responsible for the reaction of the officers though.
Hordini wrote: Exactly. And what is the point of penalizing law-abiding citizens, when it's the criminals who are they problem?
It's less about 'penalising' anyone, and more about the fact that if guns aren't so prevalent amongst the criminals, there's less need for the law-abiding citizens to have them either.
I find it a little mind-boggling that, in this day and age, anyone in a non-third-world country should feel they need a firearm to protect themselves. That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.
I find it mind-boggling that someone would realistically expect the government to be solely responsible for their personal security, and consider the impossibility of that expectation to be a severe failing on the part of society.
There are also reasons to own firearms other than for protection from criminals.
It's funny how other countries do pretty damn okay with their personal security without needing to own guns to do so.
It's funny how other countries, particularly in Europe, have more urban areas and much greater population density than the US. It's funny how many European countries have much more homogeneous populations than the US. It's funny how the US has an open southern border with a country that features large swathes controlled by drug cartels.
In some parts of the US police response time can be 30 minutes or more, so you'll have to excuse some of us for being reluctant to give up the responsibility for our own security. If you don't want to take responsibility for your own security, you're free to refrain from doing so.
Compared to Russia, the US is densely populated and a police response time of 30 minutes is incredibly fast (it can be days or even weeks in the more remote parts of Russia). The Russian population is also very far from homogenous, and the southern border makes Mexico look tame. Yet Russia has one of the lowest rates of weapon possession in the world yet no one suffers for it. Why in Heaven's Name would you need a gun to defend yourself in a rural area? What is there so dangerous about the American countryside that you need guns to survive?
A Town Called Malus wrote: How about the woman shot to death by her own child who was rummaging through her handbag?
A tragic loss of life caused by her own negligence and lack of control of both her firearm and her child
A Town Called Malus wrote: For every instance in which a gun has saved a life I think we will all agree that there will be one in which it has taken one, unnecessarily.
We do not agree because statistically that is not correct. Firearms have saved more lives
Compared to Russia, the US is densely populated and a police response time of 30 minutes is incredibly fast (it can be days or even weeks in the more remote parts of Russia). The Russian population is also very far from homogenous, and the southern border makes Mexico look tame. Yet Russia has one of the lowest rates of weapon possession in the world yet no one suffers for it.
Why in Heaven's Name would you need a gun to defend yourself in a rural area? If anything, you'd have more need for it in a city (because that is where the criminals are)
Berlin Township police Chief Leonard Check said at his department, it's the latter when it comes to approving firearms permits and involves multiple organizations coordinating to give the green light.
Scott Bach, the executive director of the Sussex County-headquartered Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, couldn't stress the former time frame enough.
"Permitting authorities are notorious for violating state-mandated time frames," said Bach, citing state criminal code that requires an application be granted within 30 days.
Either way, when Carol Bowne was fatally stabbed by an ex-boyfriend late Wednesday night just outside her Berlin home, she had been waiting since mid April.
Although the 39-year-old longtime hair stylist had filed a restraining order against suspect Michael Eitel, 45, the man allegedly attacked her shortly after 10 p.m. upon Bowne's arrival at her Patton Avenue home.
The Camden County Prosecutor's Office, who is aiding in the search for the suspect who remains at large, did not plan to release additional information pertaining to the case on Friday.
According to reports, Bowne submitted her application for a gun license on April 21 and went to see where the process stood two days before her death. Reports also indicate the police department had not yet received the results of her fingerprinting.
Check said Friday that he did not wish to discuss circumstances surrounding Bowne's application.
For first-time gun ownership applicants in New Jersey, a person must go to their local police station, take home forms to be filled out, submit to background investigations regarding their criminal history and mental health, be fingerprinted, pay pertaining fees and submit contact information for references. Police will then conduct a 14-point investigation and give an approval within 30 days.
At least that's how it's supposed to work, Bach said.
"This woman's life was tragically taken because of New Jersey gun laws," said Bach.
The bottom line is if you have access to a firearm, at least you have a fighting chance.
Check said fingerprinting is done by an outside party, not just at his department, but for anyone in New Jersey seeking a license for occupations such as being a bus driver. Berlin police also mail out reference check forms with a cover letter and set of questions pertaining to the applicant.
What if the recipient waits a week before filling out the form and mailing it back, Check posed.
In all, the 2- to 3-month timeline may be a little shorter, but usually longer, the chief said, noting that he was not aware of any 30-day constraint for his department to sign off on an application when asked about the state statute.
"Law enforcement agencies can't let these applications languish," said Bach, adding that "moving pieces" in the process like the ones Check noted shouldn't be to blame. "It really should be instant."
According to Bach, the "vast majority" of states presume that if you can pass a criminal and mental background check conducted within minutes at the point of sale at a gun shop, then you can own one.
That check is done through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database overseen by the FBI. Potential customers also fill out federal paperwork at the store prior to any purchase.
Touching on previous cases where people faced jail time for improper transportation of weapons, Bach also went on to say that the only places in New Jersey a legal gun owner can have their weapon with them is at the gun store, a target range or while in transit to either of those two destinations.
Asked if Bowne had brandished a weapon during her fatal encounter, Bach said New Jersey residents can also have the weapon with them so long as they are on property owned, used or possessed.
"The bottom line is if you have access to a firearm, at least you have a fighting chance," Bach said.
Compared to Russia, the US is densely populated and a police response time of 30 minutes is incredibly fast (it can be days or even weeks in the more remote parts of Russia). The Russian population is also very far from homogenous, and the southern border makes Mexico look tame. Yet Russia has one of the lowest rates of weapon possession in the world yet no one suffers for it.
Why in Heaven's Name would you need a gun to defend yourself in a rural area? If anything, you'd have more need for it in a city (because that is where the criminals are)
What about your crime rates?
About the same as in the US from what I gather. It used to be much worse, but crime has been decreasing a lot since Putin started cracking down on it.
Deaths by accident involving firearms has been on the decline here for a long time...ETC
The problem with statistics like that is that they only show a part of the picture. You seem to be taking 'more people have guns, gun-related deaths are down' as a sign that gun-related deaths are down as a result of more people having guns.
Of course, if ou extrapolate that further, you come to the conclusion that if nobody had guns, then gun-related deaths would skyrocket. Which sort of leads to the inescapable conclusion that there is something else actually going on there that is influencing those numbers, and that it's not as simple as counting how many people have guns.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So countries without guns do not experience violent or abusive exes? Old people can freely move without the financial means to do so? Farmers can live far away from law enforcement without issue?
I don't recall claiming that any of those issues were solely confined to the US. Although I did live in a rural area here for some time and, contrary to certain movie depictions of rural Australia, very rarely had to defend myself from roving packs of marauders.
People winding up in a life-threatening situation like that represent a failure of any social system in which they occur, IMO. Adding guns into the mix doesn't improve the situation.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Somebody feeling uncomfortable about something isn't automatically a good reason for someone else not to have something.
Again, some people are uncomfortable about mixed-race marriages. By your standard, those should be illegal too.
I never said that my being uncomfortable with the culture created by free access to firearms was a reason for firearms to not be allowed.
Deaths by accident involving firearms has been on the decline here for a long time...ETC
The problem with statistics like that is that they only show a part of the picture. You seem to be taking 'more people have guns, gun-related deaths are down' as a sign that gun-related deaths are down as a result of more people having guns.
Of course, if ou extrapolate that further, you come to the conclusion that if nobody had guns, then gun-related deaths would skyrocket. Which sort of leads to the inescapable conclusion that there is something else actually going on there that is influencing those numbers, and that it's not as simple as counting how many people have guns.
Or you could extrapolate it to mean that the amount of guns in the hands of citizens isn't directly related to the amount of gun deaths. Maybe if we wait a few more years the problem will fix itself? With the exception of a few high profile cases paraded in the media, the situation seems to be improving pretty well on its own.
insaniak wrote: The problem with statistics like that is that they only show a part of the picture. You seem to be taking 'more people have guns, gun-related deaths are down' as a sign that gun-related deaths are down as a result of more people having guns.
Of course, if ou extrapolate that further, you come to the conclusion that if nobody had guns, then gun-related deaths would skyrocket. Which sort of leads to the inescapable conclusion that there is something else actually going on there that is influencing those numbers, and that it's not as simple as counting how many people have guns.
I'm relying on the evidence I have at hand. If you have something that shows the opposite I'd be interested in seeing it. Until then the evidence does not agree with your position.
insaniak wrote: I don't recall claiming that any of those issues were solely confined to the US. Although I did live in a rural area here for some time and, contrary to certain movie depictions of rural Australia, very rarely had to defend myself from roving packs of marauders
So what society is absent these issues?
insaniak wrote: People winding up in a life-threatening situation like that represent a failure of any social system in which they occur, IMO. Adding guns into the mix doesn't improve the situation.
Unless you want to ignore the lives saved by defensive gun uses, such as the ones noted previously.
If people abide by the law, then why do you care at all whether or not they own firearms? Does it make you feel uncomfortable?
Well, yes. Insofar as it creates a culture whereby firearms are accepted as commonplace, and where people willfully ignore all of the reasons that having these things out amongst the general public is a bad idea because their 'right' to own them trumps all other considerations, absolutely that makes me uncomfortable.
To be more specific, the idea that my neighbour might have a firearm in his house doesn't make me uncomfortable. The idea of living somewhere where most of my neighbours have firearms in their houses and accept that as a trivial thing, leading to a massive number of accidental shootings, firearm related violence, and people being shot by police due to them having to work under the assumption that every car they pull over, every 12-year-old-boy on the street, and every domestic incident they attend might involve a firearm?
Damn straight, that makes me uncomfortable.
Accidental shootings like...cops shooting the wrong person? OK...train the cops better and stop hiring idiots (many departments have a 2.0 high school GPA minimum).
Accidental shootings like...people shooting themselves by accident? I don't know the numbers on this, but I extend the offer to you to prove that this occurs in "massive" numbers, since you claim that it does.
Firearm related violence? I'm assuming you mean, "of the criminal variety," so we aren't talking "law abiding citizens" anymore. Guns allow people like me to protect myself and others from people who commit firearm related violent crime.
I respect your right to feel uncomfortable about it, but ['merica]here in America[/'merica] we don't have the right to restrict the rights of others based on our comfort level. Some people aren't comfortable with Blacks and Whites marrying...should we make that illegal too?
Are you kidding? We restrict people's rights based on comfort level all the freakin' time! It took massive social unrest to decriminalize mixed-race marriages and extend basic civil rights to people freed from slavery a century prior. We're seeing the same thing going on with abortion rights, gay rights, same-sex marriage and a host of other issues. We *absolutely* legislate on people's comfort levels!
... which posits that 851 people died due to accidental discharge of firearms in 2011 (the year of the report). Those numbers do not include suicides, assaults or other actions of a similar nature. Simply accidental shootings. A further 222 people died due to firearm discharge under "undetermined intent".
And really, that's just scratching the surface, because in the SE part of the country, you got gators and crocodiles, and some A-holes let their "pet" pythons and boas escape and now they are taking over an ecosystem out there, Across much of the "Southern" part, or rocky parts of the country, you got about 50 different types of rattle snakes.
I think we rate right up there with Australia for wildlife that wants to kill you. We're still behind though, because a bunch of our plants are good, and don't want to kill us.
Iron_Captain wrote: What is there so dangerous about the American countryside that you need guns to survive?
You're kidding, right?
Well, no. Unless the American countryside is actually plagued by roving bands of marauders and highwaymen.
Well, it varies depending on where in the US you live, but besides the potential of a criminal encounter with long police response time, in rural areas you might also have to deal with coyotes, wolves, black bears, brown bears, or mountain lions. Not to mention large numbers of smaller pests who are less dangerous (to humans) but can be very dangerous to pets and poultry livestock, namely raccoons, possums, and foxes. Not to mention all the damage to crops (and cars, and people) that animals like deer can cause (and the significant supplement to your diet that hunting animals like deer can bring).
... which posits that 851 people died due to accidental discharge of firearms in 2011 (the year of the report). Those numbers do not include suicides, assaults or other actions of a similar nature. Simply accidental shootings. A further 222 people died due to firearm discharge under "undetermined intent".
851 deaths out of 117,181,000 households with firearms. That is statistically insignificant, although tragic.
You may also note from above that accidental deaths from firearms has been trending down since 1981.
And Everytown is not an entirely credible source, with a well known history of bias.
... which posits that 851 people died due to accidental discharge of firearms in 2011 (the year of the report). Those numbers do not include suicides, assaults or other actions of a similar nature. Simply accidental shootings. A further 222 people died due to firearm discharge under "undetermined intent".
851 deaths out of 117,181,000 households with firearms. That is statistically insignificant, although tragic.
You may also note from above that accidental deaths from firearms has been trending down since 1981.
And Everytown is not an entirely credible source, with a well known history of bias.
They are also, very likely, 851 deaths that would have been 100% preventable if proper gun safety had been followed.
And really, that's just scratching the surface, because in the SE part of the country, you got gators and crocodiles, and some A-holes let their "pet" pythons and boas escape and now they are taking over an ecosystem out there, Across much of the "Southern" part, or rocky parts of the country, you got about 50 different types of rattle snakes.
I think we rate right up there with Australia for wildlife that wants to kill you. We're still behind though, because a bunch of our plants are good, and don't want to kill us.
Always remember. As an individual there are individuals who are out there seeing you as a target.
So always remember
... which posits that 851 people died due to accidental discharge of firearms in 2011 (the year of the report). Those numbers do not include suicides, assaults or other actions of a similar nature. Simply accidental shootings. A further 222 people died due to firearm discharge under "undetermined intent".
851 deaths out of 117,181,000 households with firearms. That is statistically insignificant, although tragic.
You may also note from above that accidental deaths from firearms has been trending down since 1981.
And Everytown is not an entirely credible source, with a well known history of bias.
They are also, very likely, 851 deaths that would have been 100% preventable if proper gun safety had been followed.
Or a better investment in mental health services - which would also held prevent mass shootings
Well, it varies depending on where in the US you live, but besides the potential of a criminal encounter with long police response time, in rural areas you might also have to deal with coyotes, wolves, black bears, brown bears, or mountain lions. Not to mention large numbers of smaller pests who are less dangerous (to humans) but can be very dangerous to pets and poultry livestock, namely raccoons, possums, and foxes. Not to mention all the damage to crops (and cars, and people) that animals like deer can cause (and the significant supplement to your diet that hunting animals like deer can bring).
To be clear, the original claim was that farmers needed guns to protect themselves from criminals, due to being so far from law enforcement. I fully understand that bears and suchlike are a potential problem, but from my understanding it's not usually of the 'violent ex' or 'give me your wallet' kind.
And I would imagine that bear and coyotes are less of a threat in, say, Los Angeles.
Down here, farmers have specific exemptions to the normal firearms laws, allowing them to have firearms with appropriate licencing to do what they need to do.
... which posits that 851 people died due to accidental discharge of firearms in 2011 (the year of the report). Those numbers do not include suicides, assaults or other actions of a similar nature. Simply accidental shootings. A further 222 people died due to firearm discharge under "undetermined intent".
851 deaths out of 117,181,000 households with firearms. That is statistically insignificant, although tragic.
You may also note from above that accidental deaths from firearms has been trending down since 1981.
And Everytown is not an entirely credible source, with a well known history of bias.
They are also, very likely, 851 deaths that would have been 100% preventable if proper gun safety had been followed.
Or a better investment in mental health services - which would also held prevent mass shootings
Well, it varies depending on where in the US you live, but besides the potential of a criminal encounter with long police response time, in rural areas you might also have to deal with coyotes, wolves, black bears, brown bears, or mountain lions. Not to mention large numbers of smaller pests who are less dangerous (to humans) but can be very dangerous to pets and poultry livestock, namely raccoons, possums, and foxes. Not to mention all the damage to crops (and cars, and people) that animals like deer can cause (and the significant supplement to your diet that hunting animals like deer can bring).
To be clear, the original claim was that farmers needed guns to protect themselves from criminals, due to being so far from law enforcement. I fully understand that bears and suchlike are a potential problem, but from my understanding it's not usually of the 'violent ex' or 'give me your wallet' kind.
And I would imagine that bear and coyotes are less of a threat in, say, Los Angeles.
Down here, farmers have specific exemptions to the normal firearms laws, allowing them to have firearms with appropriate licencing to do what they need to do.
There are probably more coyotes in LA than you'd expect.
But even so, not everyone lives in LA, and that's part of my point. And not everyone who lives in a rural area is a farmer. People living in rural areas needing (or wanting guns) due to slow police response times is only one part of it. Yes, it was what we were originally talking about, but I figured that bit about wildlife was pertinent since Iron_Captain seemed to be confused about why someone living in rural America might feel the need to own a gun. The answer is, there are a lot of valid reasons.
And really, that's just scratching the surface, because in the SE part of the country, you got gators and crocodiles, and some A-holes let their "pet" pythons and boas escape and now they are taking over an ecosystem out there, Across much of the "Southern" part, or rocky parts of the country, you got about 50 different types of rattle snakes.
I think we rate right up there with Australia for wildlife that wants to kill you. We're still behind though, because a bunch of our plants are good, and don't want to kill us.
And really, that's just scratching the surface, because in the SE part of the country, you got gators and crocodiles, and some A-holes let their "pet" pythons and boas escape and now they are taking over an ecosystem out there, Across much of the "Southern" part, or rocky parts of the country, you got about 50 different types of rattle snakes.
I think we rate right up there with Australia for wildlife that wants to kill you. We're still behind though, because a bunch of our plants are good, and don't want to kill us.
Always remember. As an individual there are individuals who are out there seeing you as a target.
So always remember
Wild animals? Really? There is plenty of ways you can deal with wild animals without guns. Seriously, for centuries humans have lived right in the midst of wild animals without guns and without being killed on any significant scale. Besides that, animal attacks on humans are incredibly rare. Animals tend to avoid humans as much as possible. Humans are apex predators even without guns. Not to mention you can just sit inside your house and be completely safe.
Siberia has far more dangerous animals than the US, yet people survive there in rural areas without guns and people getting killed by animals is almost unheard of.
It's not just about animals attacking people. But that's okay. Tell us more about how things are in the US.
I'm sure Americans in rural areas have never have a problem with wild animals destroying their property, livestock, or pets. Since animals tend to avoid humans as much as possible, there must not be anything to worry about.
I'm sure, as an American, it's not like anything I've ever had to deal with personally. I'm clearly just making all this up, rather than speaking of any life experience I might have actually had, right? But just in case it ever happens to me someday, since you seem to be pretty knowledgable on the subject, how should I deal with things like this?
I own weapons
I own a M1 Carbine
My version of the M4 I carried in combat
Double barrel shotgun (vintage)
9mm
10mm
.22 cal rifle
Winchester repeating rifle
.........
I own just to own
Edit
Ony critter I took out in the wild was
bit bigger then that pack of smokes
three shots from a 9mm Beretta. Justfied shooting
Hordini wrote: But even so, not everyone lives in LA, and that's part of my point. And not everyone who lives in a rural area is a farmer. People living in rural areas needing (or wanting guns) due to slow police response times is only one part of it. Yes, it was what we were originally talking about, but I figured that bit about wildlife was pertinent since Iron_Captain seemed to be confused about why someone living in rural America might feel the need to own a gun. The answer is, there are a lot of valid reasons.
Sure. And a lot of them are good reasons for allowing people in rural areas to have guns.
Quite a few of them suddenly become much less applicable when you start looking at urban areas, though. Which is why we have different rules for rural folk and city folk.
Hordini wrote: But even so, not everyone lives in LA, and that's part of my point. And not everyone who lives in a rural area is a farmer. People living in rural areas needing (or wanting guns) due to slow police response times is only one part of it. Yes, it was what we were originally talking about, but I figured that bit about wildlife was pertinent since Iron_Captain seemed to be confused about why someone living in rural America might feel the need to own a gun. The answer is, there are a lot of valid reasons.
Sure. And a lot of them are good reasons for allowing people in rural areas to have guns.
Quite a few of them suddenly become much less applicable when you start looking at urban areas, though. Which is why we have different rules for rural folk and city folk.
I don't see why someone living in an urban area has less of a right to a weapon in order to defend themselves though, especially considering urban areas have higher crime in general.
Hordini wrote: It's not just about animals attacking people. But that's okay. Tell us more about how things are in the US.
I'm sure Americans in rural areas have never have a problem with wild animals destroying their property, livestock, or pets. Since animals tend to avoid humans as much as possible, there must not be anything to worry about.
I'm sure, as an American, it's not like anything I've ever had to deal with personally. I'm clearly just making all this up, rather than speaking of any life experience I might have actually had, right? But just in case it ever happens to me someday, since you seem to be pretty knowledgable on the subject, how should I deal with things like this?
I am not denying a gun is pretty handy in (very) remote areas, and imo it is okay for folks in frontier areas to have guns, but it is far from essential. As I said, people survived in those areas centuries before guns came around. Regarding how to deal with wild animals without guns, in Siberia most people have one or more large guard dogs that keep wild animals away.
And if your guard dogs are not enough to deal with an angry bear, there is always the rogatina:
At which point I think I'm stepping off this merry-go-round.
Why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen have the right to own a weapon?
Sorry, I'm really not trying to turn it into a merry-go-round and I'm not trying to talk in circles with you or talk past you. I think this is a fundamental part of where we either agree or disagree, and I'm trying to figure it out.
Wild animals? Really? There is plenty of ways you can deal with wild animals without guns. Seriously, for centuries humans have lived right in the midst of wild animals without guns and without being killed on any significant scale. Besides that, animal attacks on humans are incredibly rare. Animals tend to avoid humans as much as possible. Humans are apex predators even without guns. Not to mention you can just sit inside your house and be completely safe.
Siberia has far more dangerous animals than the US, yet people survive there in rural areas without guns and people getting killed by animals is almost unheard of.
Yes, really, wild animals. And sure, there are plenty of ways you could deal with animals that don't involved a firearm, but pretty much all of them involved higher amounts of risk to the person.
And there are some animals that are becoming more and more bold. When I lived in Colorado Springs, my supervisor lived on the west side of town, yet he was a good ways "in" town (as in, the untamed wilderness areas were more than 2-3 miles from his house) and his garbage cans were knocked over on a weekly basis by black bears. There were even several days where he "couldn't" get to work, due to a bear loitering outside his place, near the rear end of his vehicle. In that situation, the wild animal's behavior is predictable in that it's unpredictable. And, he was within city limits, so no firing off a shot from a gun to scare off the bear.
Ohh, and doing a quick search of "dangerous wildlife in Siberia" nets a near identical list of creatures that the US has, so... nice try.
Are you kidding? We restrict people's rights based on comfort level all the freakin' time! It took massive social unrest to decriminalize mixed-race marriages and extend basic civil rights to people freed from slavery a century prior. We're seeing the same thing going on with abortion rights, gay rights, same-sex marriage and a host of other issues. We *absolutely* legislate on people's comfort levels!
So you are pro-life, anti-gay rights, anti-same sex marriage, and anti-whatever else you can think of? I'm guessing the answer is no, because legislation based on feelings is absurd and people who espouse it should be treated like the idiots and bigots they are. This issue is no different.
... which posits that 851 people died due to accidental discharge of firearms in 2011 (the year of the report). Those numbers do not include suicides, assaults or other actions of a similar nature. Simply accidental shootings. A further 222 people died due to firearm discharge under "undetermined intent".
So, in other words, a completely insignificant number of people given a population of over 300 million. That's a far cry from the "massive" number claimed by Insaniak. How do these accidents compare with other accidental deaths?
Wild animals? Really? There is plenty of ways you can deal with wild animals without guns. Seriously, for centuries humans have lived right in the midst of wild animals without guns and without being killed on any significant scale. Besides that, animal attacks on humans are incredibly rare. Animals tend to avoid humans as much as possible. Humans are apex predators even without guns. Not to mention you can just sit inside your house and be completely safe.
Siberia has far more dangerous animals than the US, yet people survive there in rural areas without guns and people getting killed by animals is almost unheard of.
Yes, really, wild animals. And sure, there are plenty of ways you could deal with animals that don't involved a firearm, but pretty much all of them involved higher amounts of risk to the person.
And there are some animals that are becoming more and more bold. When I lived in Colorado Springs, my supervisor lived on the west side of town, yet he was a good ways "in" town (as in, the untamed wilderness areas were more than 2-3 miles from his house) and his garbage cans were knocked over on a weekly basis by black bears. There were even several days where he "couldn't" get to work, due to a bear loitering outside his place, near the rear end of his vehicle. In that situation, the wild animal's behavior is predictable in that it's unpredictable. And, he was within city limits, so no firing off a shot from a gun to scare off the bear.
Ohh, and doing a quick search of "dangerous wildlife in Siberia" nets a near identical list of creatures that the US has, so... nice try.
Sure, guns can be very handy for scaring off wild animals. Only thing I was trying to say is that they are not essential. You could live in the wilderness without guns without problems.
And wildlife in Siberia is roughly similar to that in Alaska (http://rbth.com/articles/2011/04/26/the_twelve_most_dangerous_russian_animals_12694.html) in Siberia wildlife is more numerous and bears etc. are far more common (120.000 brown bears in Siberia vs 32.500 in the US for example).
So you are pro-life, anti-gay rights, anti-same sex marriage, and anti-whatever else you can think of? I'm guessing the answer is no, because legislation based on feelings is absurd and people who espouse it should be treated like the idiots and bigots they are. This issue is no different.
Are you trying to debate me on the topic or just racing to the bottom? Do you have a point to counter my claim that our cities and states do not pass legislation based on the feelings of either those in power, or a section of the population that wields significant political and/or financial influence, regardless of whether or not they are a majority of the population in those areas?
Hordini wrote: Why shouldn't someone want the most effective weapon to protect themselves?
Someone wanting something isn't automatically a good reason for them to have it.
How come you folks never demand justification/good reasons for us not wanting to change or further further limit the 1st or 4th amendments?
feth your desire for justification for the 2nd. Want/Need, makes zero difference at all. There is a mechanism in the constitution to change or even repeal the constitution to include previously adopted amendments. If folks in the US really think the 2nd needs updating, let them use the correct procedure and update it.
It seems that studies are showing your reasons to desire to limit my freedoms don't hold water. And people DO need good reasons to limit my freedoms. And frankly, those reasons need to be really damned good and backed up for me to even begin to consider relinquishing any of my freedoms. Usually, the reasons to limit freedoms we see are based on emotion, that does not cut it.
motyak wrote: The problem with your link there isn't wiki, it is the sources wiki references...
Then I guess you'll find more recent studies that contradict them. And since you are so passionate about the issue, you can edit the wiki.
Your references summed up to the NRA and then the Australian organisations of a similar vein who hold similar views. You aren't providing valid data to refute. I'm not saying it has to be perfectly unbiased, but if you're only throwing out one side and then saying "well prove my data wrong" what is the point trying to argue? You're arguing, either intentionally or not, from a dishonest position. Knowing when to drop something on the internet when the person opposite you is uninterested in ever changing their mind or acknowledging an opposing viewpoint is a useful skill, one I'll exercise now.
motyak wrote: The problem with your link there isn't wiki, it is the sources wiki references...
Then I guess you'll find more recent studies that contradict them. And since you are so passionate about the issue, you can edit the wiki.
Your references summed up to the NRA and then the Australian organisations of a similar vein who hold similar views. You aren't providing valid data to refute. I'm not saying it has to be perfectly unbiased, but if you're only throwing out one side and then saying "well prove my data wrong" what is the point trying to argue? You're arguing, either intentionally or not, from a dishonest position. Knowing when to drop something on the internet when the person opposite you is uninterested in ever changing their mind or acknowledging an opposing viewpoint is a useful skill, one I'll exercise now.
It seems many the studies and statistics shown in this thread show the same thing, gun control measures don't do what they claim they do, and yet folks who advocate them are seemingly unable to show better data.
So you are pro-life, anti-gay rights, anti-same sex marriage, and anti-whatever else you can think of? I'm guessing the answer is no, because legislation based on feelings is absurd and people who espouse it should be treated like the idiots and bigots they are. This issue is no different.
Are you trying to debate me on the topic or just racing to the bottom? Do you have a point to counter my claim that our cities and states do not pass legislation based on the feelings of either those in power, or a section of the population that wields significant political and/or financial influence, regardless of whether or not they are a majority of the population in those areas?
Restricting the rights of others based on personal comfort level IS a race to the bottom. Nowhere in any American legal documents does it say that you have the right to feel comfortable. I am not, and have not, made the claim that legislation to this end has never been passed, only that it is wrong, and the people who push it are typically bigots.
Hordini wrote: Why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen have the right to own a weapon?
I agree. Law abiding people should be allowed to own weapons. The problem is, it's impossible to distinguish who is going to be "law abiding".
That isn't how society works. I don't leave my door open at night hoping that people will be "law abiding". We don't have police and laws and prisons because we trust people to be law abiding. We identify things that get abused, and we try to control them so they can't be abused any more. We do it with driving, we do it with drugs. Why shouldn't law abiding people be allowed to take drugs, or drive without a licence and insurance? Why am I being punished for other people's recklessness? Hell I can't even do things like go scuba diving or cross a border without a ton of bureaucracy.
I don't know if you've ever taken the time to read youtube comments (or really any comment section online), but not everyone is like you. Most people are fething idiots. Illiterate, vindictive, racist, fork in toaster: idiots. I might not be allowed a gun here in the UK, but I sleep a lot sounder knowing those idiots aren't allowed one either.
Hordini wrote: Why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen have the right to own a weapon?
I agree. Law abiding people should be allowed to own weapons. The problem is, it's impossible to distinguish who is going to be "law abiding".
That isn't how society works. I don't leave my door open at night hoping that people will be "law abiding". We don't have police and laws and prisons because we trust people to be law abiding. We identify things that get abused, and we try to control them so they can't be abused any more. We do it with driving, we do it with drugs. Why shouldn't law abiding people be allowed to take drugs, or drive without a licence and insurance? Why am I being punished for other people's recklessness? Hell I can't even do things like go scuba diving or cross a border without a ton of bureaucracy.
I don't know if you've ever taken the time to read youtube comments (or really any comment section online), but not everyone is like you. Most people are fething idiots. Illiterate, vindictive, racist, fork in toaster: idiots. I might not be allowed a gun here in the UK, but I sleep a lot sounder knowing those idiots aren't allowed one either.
And some folks spout really mean words intending to inflict pain on others. Free speech is abused all the time. Some folks hide things they know are illegal or immoral. Should we preemptively limit speech as well? Should we preemptively weaken the 4th amendment so cops and other gov't folks can more easily search out the bad things folks hide?
Driving and doing drugs are not constitutionally protected rights. That really is what it boils down to. As mentioned, folks are free to attempt to change or even repeal the 2nd amendment.
Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours. The UK bill of rights equivalent does not protect the right to bear arms. Again, that is great. We chose a different path for ours.
Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.
Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that
Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.
Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that
Well:
Report says 44 out of 105 fatal shootings in the past 22 years were of people with mental illness
Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.
Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that
Not to engage in #whataboutery, but Australia isn't *all* rainbows and sunshine despite the extremely strict gun control. There are higher rates of rape, robbery, car theft, assault, and suicide in Australia than in the US. I think we can all agree that there are cultural, political, and economic factors at play contributing to these situations beyond the presence of firearms.
Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.
Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that
Not to engage in #whataboutery, but Australia isn't *all* rainbows and sunshine despite the extremely strict gun control. There are higher rates of rape, robbery, car theft, assault, and suicide in Australia than in the US. I think we can all agree that there are cultural, political, and economic factors at play contributing to these situations beyond the presence of firearms.
On the instance of rape, do those statistics take into account that different countries have different definitions of sexual assault that may not be grouped together in the same way? It could be like how the US has a lower rate of assault than the UK because your figure for assault doesn't include types of assault that are included in the UK ones. Would need to look up what Australia included in its rape bracket compared to the US.
(For example the rape accusation against Julian Assange in Sweden would not fit the criteria for rape in the UK, as Sweden has much more broad definitions of sexual assault)
One of DeLeon's arms was covered with “some type of piece of cloth,” according to Smith. He said it was not a towel, as reported earlier.
Witnesses of the shooting have come forward, but the police car wasn't equipped with a dashcam and the officers weren't wearing body cameras
“He did not have an injury on his hand. That was not the reason he had a cloth at hand,” he said. The officer believed he was armed, and ordered him to "drop the gun," Smith said.
There was no gun.
DeLeon moved toward officers in an “aggressive fashion” and refused orders to drop his hands before the officer opened fire, Smith said. He did not say how many times the officer fired.
CptJake wrote: And some folks spout really mean words intending to inflict pain on others. Free speech is abused all the time. Some folks hide things they know are illegal or immoral. Should we preemptively limit speech as well? Should we preemptively weaken the 4th amendment so cops and other gov't folks can more easily search out the bad things folks hide?
Speech and thought are a fundamental part of being human, people are born with the capacity for speech and thought. The right to speech is more akin to the right to defend yourself. A modern repeating handgun is a just piece of technology that didn't even exist until ~1836. Comparing the right to own a gun to free speech, is like comparing the right to own PA system to self defence.
There are already restrictions on broadcasting technologies, where they cause a nuisance (pirate radio), and there are lots of places where it is illegal to set up speakers or a PA system. Speech is also limited (although not pre-emptively) when it comes to things like slander and inciting violence.
I'm not sure how you would even go about pre-emptively limiting speech, even the most oppressive regimes never managed that. Pre-emptively restricting dangerous technology is easy and happens all the time (nukes for example). it's a completely different type of thing.
CptJake wrote: And some folks spout really mean words intending to inflict pain on others. Free speech is abused all the time. Some folks hide things they know are illegal or immoral. Should we preemptively limit speech as well? Should we preemptively weaken the 4th amendment so cops and other gov't folks can more easily search out the bad things folks hide?
Speech and thought are a fundamental part of being human, people are born with the capacity for speech and thought. The right to speech is more akin to the right to defend yourself. A modern repeating handgun is a just piece of technology that didn't even exist until ~1836. Comparing the right to own a gun to free speech, is like comparing the right to own PA system to self defence.
There are already restrictions on broadcasting technologies, where they cause a nuisance (pirate radio), and there are lots of places where it is illegal to set up speakers or a PA system. Speech is also limited (although not pre-emptively) when it comes to things like slander and inciting violence.
I'm not sure how you would even go about pre-emptively limiting speech, even the most oppressive regimes never managed that. Pre-emptively restricting dangerous technology is easy and happens all the time (nukes for example). it's a completely different type of thing.
And you are again wrong. It is simple to compare the right to free speech to the right to bear arms, they are BOTH protected by the Constitution. That shouldn't be hard to grasp, yet you and others seem to have trouble doing so. You CAN say you disagree with the right, and have. And as pointed out, we, in the US, have a mechanism for changing or even repealing parts of the Constitution. Have at it.
As for the self defense right, you seem to agree it exists, yet are willing to believe taking the best tool to do so away from citizens is a good thing. The existence of a police force you can call is not 'self defense'.
Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.
Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that
Thats because your towels aren't awesome enough to be worth dying over.
Frankly Australians should just shut the hell up. You people say you're not armed, but thats guns. I've seen all the youtubes where you people carry full auto white sharks and flip deadly uber kill spider abominations at each other for no reason whatsoever.
yea, my wife may carry a horse pistol and randomly run you over because curbs are merely guidelines, but she'd never be so cruel as to throw a freaking great white shark[i][u] at you, like you Aussies do.
Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.
Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that
Thats because your towels aren't awesome enough to be worth dying over.
Frankly Australians should just shut the hell up. You people say you're not armed, but thats guns. I've seen all the youtubes where you people carry full auto white sharks and flip deadly uber kill spider abominations at each other for no reason whatsoever.
yea, my wife may carry a horse pistol and randomly run you over because curbs are merely guidelines, but she'd never be so cruel as to throw a freaking great white shark[i][u] at you, like you Aussies do.
CptJake wrote: And you are again wrong. It is simple to compare the right to free speech to the right to bear arms, they are BOTH protected by the Constitution.
Firstly, I'm not wrong. I didn't say it was difficult to compare the two. It's also easy to compare apples and oranges (they are both fruit). Yet we often say "apples and oranges" because while they have things in common, they are also different, so it is unhelpful to conflate them.
That shouldn't be hard to grasp, yet you and others seem to have trouble doing so.
Secondly, No we don't. We are fully aware that your constitution mentions something about bearing arms (which has been interpreted different ways by different people at different times). What you seem unable to grasp is that it doesn't make any difference to the argument.
If this were a topic about legalizing canabis in Australia, and one person kept saying "Under the current Australian laws canabis is illegal!!!... Why is it so hard for you guys to grasp: CANABIS IS ILLEGAL!!!" you'd think that person was a fething idiot. We know canabis is illegal, but we're discussing whether or not the law is right. In the same way we know bearing arms is part of the constitution. But that doesn't mean gak when the conversation is about whether or not that is right.
As for the self defense right, you seem to agree it exists, yet are willing to believe taking the best tool to do so away from citizens is a good thing. The existence of a police force you can call is not 'self defense'.
I also have the right to defend myself in the UK (even with a gun if I happen to have one illegally). A gun being the best tool is debatable. On one hand, it's very effective, but then dynamite is also very effective at opening doors. That doesn't mean it would be my first choice when I lose my keys. The collateral damage just isn't worth it.
Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.
Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that
Not to engage in #whataboutery, but Australia isn't *all* rainbows and sunshine despite the extremely strict gun control. There are higher rates of rape, robbery, car theft, assault, and suicide in Australia than in the US. I think we can all agree that there are cultural, political, and economic factors at play contributing to these situations beyond the presence of firearms.
On the instance of rape, do those statistics take into account that different countries have different definitions of sexual assault that may not be grouped together in the same way? It could be like how the US has a lower rate of assault than the UK because your figure for assault doesn't include types of assault that are included in the UK ones. Would need to look up what Australia included in its rape bracket compared to the US.
(For example the rape accusation against Julian Assange in Sweden would not fit the criteria for rape in the UK, as Sweden has much more broad definitions of sexual assault)
I have no idea. I'm also not sure that your claim about assault rates is correct - do you have more information on it?
Anecdotally, I do know that the whole "happy slapping" fad in the UK, which ultimately came here as "the knockout game," ended at least once in the "no knockout, but a justified shooting" game. That kind of reaction tends to reduce peoples' willingness to assault others for fun.
CptJake wrote: And you are again wrong. It is simple to compare the right to free speech to the right to bear arms, they are BOTH protected by the Constitution.
Firstly, I'm not wrong. I didn't say it was difficult to compare the two. It's also easy to compare apples and oranges (they are both fruit). Yet we often say "apples and oranges" because while they have things in common, they are also different, so it is unhelpful to conflate them.
That shouldn't be hard to grasp, yet you and others seem to have trouble doing so.
Secondly, No we don't. We are fully aware that your constitution mentions something about bearing arms (which has been interpreted different ways by different people at different times). What you seem unable to grasp is that it doesn't make any difference to the argument.
If this were a topic about legalizing canabis in Australia, and one person kept saying "Under the current Australian laws canabis is illegal!!!... Why is it so hard for you guys to grasp: CANABIS IS ILLEGAL!!!" you'd think that person was a fething idiot. We know canabis is illegal, but we're discussing whether or not the law is right. In the same way we know bearing arms is part of the constitution. But that doesn't mean gak when the conversation is about whether or not that is right.
As for the self defense right, you seem to agree it exists, yet are willing to believe taking the best tool to do so away from citizens is a good thing. The existence of a police force you can call is not 'self defense'.
I also have the right to defend myself in the UK (even with a gun if I happen to have one illegally). A gun being the best tool is debatable. On one hand, it's very effective, but then dynamite is also very effective at opening doors. That doesn't mean it would be my first choice when I lose my keys. The collateral damage just isn't worth it.
The law being 'right' is so fething subjective, and as I again look back to stats and analysis shown in this topic, most of it seems to support that gun control measures do not meaningfully reduce violence. Guns as a source of accidental death are such a TINY proportion of accidental deaths, so that point can never reasonably be used as justification to take away someone's right. Most deliberate gun deaths are criminals shooting criminals or shooting innocents. Most of the guns used are not obtained legally, so again, these are gakky reasons to take away a right of law abiding citizens. Many of these criminal uses take place in cities with very strict gun laws. Mass shootings almost exclusively occur in 'gun free' zones. You really cannot argue these, the stats prove them.
That was a post using some of the stats available. There is not a similar post in this topic refuting it with data.
Gun ownership is up and violent crime continues to go down. No one (reliable) is saying gun ownership is a causation, they are saying gun ownership is not stopping an existing trend. Higher numbers of guns is NOT causing violent crime to go up. It just isn't. So using crime stats to justify taking away rights isn't gonna work. Hence the appeal to feelings. Your side very much seems to base your arguments on emotion. You don't 'feel' it is good for folks to have guns so the law MUST be wrong.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I'm also not sure that your claim about assault rates is correct - do you have more information on it?
This was in the news recently. Things that have been recorded as assault and actual bodily harm (violent crimes) in the UK include.
-A child who rode into his friend while performing a wheelie on his bycycle. -A woman who threw a cookie at a man leaving a small red mark on his face. -A child who clipped his sibling with a boxing glove. -A child who brushed a stinging nettle across another's arm while playing.
They can also include threatening text messages. Police claim they have no discretion under government changes to way incidents are recorded.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I'm also not sure that your claim about assault rates is correct - do you have more information on it?
This was in the news recently. Things that have been recorded as assault and actual bodily harm (violent crimes) in the UK include.
-A child who rode into his friend while performing a wheelie on his bycycle.
-A woman who threw a cookie at a man leaving a small red mark on his face.
-A child who clipped his sibling with a boxing glove.
-A child who brushed a stinging nettle across another's arm while playing.
They can also include threatening text messages. Police claim they have no discretion under government changes to way incidents are recorded.
And presumably all of those people were charged with a crime? Jeez...
I'm not sure of the prevalence of these things, and you could probably find crazy examples of similar things in the US (kids being suspended for drawing guns or even biting their sandwiches so that the remains looks like a gun!), so I'd really like to see some kind of quantification rather than anecdote, but that is definitely interesting.
Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.
Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that
Not to engage in #whataboutery, but Australia isn't *all* rainbows and sunshine despite the extremely strict gun control. There are higher rates of rape, robbery, car theft, assault, and suicide in Australia than in the US. I think we can all agree that there are cultural, political, and economic factors at play contributing to these situations beyond the presence of firearms.
On the instance of rape, do those statistics take into account that different countries have different definitions of sexual assault that may not be grouped together in the same way? It could be like how the US has a lower rate of assault than the UK because your figure for assault doesn't include types of assault that are included in the UK ones. Would need to look up what Australia included in its rape bracket compared to the US.
(For example the rape accusation against Julian Assange in Sweden would not fit the criteria for rape in the UK, as Sweden has much more broad definitions of sexual assault)
I have no idea. I'm also not sure that your claim about assault rates is correct - do you have more information on it?
Anecdotally, I do know that the whole "happy slapping" fad in the UK, which ultimately came here as "the knockout game," ended at least once in the "no knockout, but a justified shooting" game. That kind of reaction tends to reduce peoples' willingness to assault others for fun.
I am remembering it from a while ago but I believe that the US data for violent crime only includes Aggravated Assault, whereas the UKs data includes all forms of Assault which often makes comparisons between the two difficult.
Interestingly, from that article, the US' violent crime figures for Rape apparently only includes "forcible rape" (ie rape using force) rather than all instances of rape as the UK figures do. It could be possible that this has affected the comparison US to Australia figures, too.
CptJake wrote: The law being 'right' is so fething subjective.
Agreed, that's why it gets discussed a lot. But that doesn't make the current state of the law any more relevant.
So using crime stats to justify taking away rights isn't gonna work. Hence the appeal to feelings. Your side very much seems to base your arguments on emotion. You don't 'feel' it is good for folks to have guns so the law MUST be wrong.
You seem to be doing a lot of arguing with yourself on my behalf. I didn't say anything about crime stats. I haven't really made any arguments against guns at all. All I've been doing so far in this topic is trying to point out errors in your arguments. For example conflating technology with behaviour.
CptJake wrote: And some folks spout really mean words intending to inflict pain on others. Free speech is abused all the time. Some folks hide things they know are illegal or immoral. Should we preemptively limit speech as well? Should we preemptively weaken the 4th amendment so cops and other gov't folks can more easily search out the bad things folks hide?
Speech and thought are a fundamental part of being human, people are born with the capacity for speech and thought. The right to speech is more akin to the right to defend yourself. A modern repeating handgun is a just piece of technology that didn't even exist until ~1836. Comparing the right to own a gun to free speech, is like comparing the right to own PA system to self defence.
There are already restrictions on broadcasting technologies, where they cause a nuisance (pirate radio), and there are lots of places where it is illegal to set up speakers or a PA system. Speech is also limited (although not pre-emptively) when it comes to things like slander and inciting violence.
I'm not sure how you would even go about pre-emptively limiting speech, even the most oppressive regimes never managed that. Pre-emptively restricting dangerous technology is easy and happens all the time (nukes for example). it's a completely different type of thing.
And you are again wrong. It is simple to compare the right to free speech to the right to bear arms, they are BOTH protected by the Constitution. That shouldn't be hard to grasp, yet you and others seem to have trouble doing so. You CAN say you disagree with the right, and have. And as pointed out, we, in the US, have a mechanism for changing or even repealing parts of the Constitution. Have at it.
As for the self defense right, you seem to agree it exists, yet are willing to believe taking the best tool to do so away from citizens is a good thing. The existence of a police force you can call is not 'self defense'.
How are guns the best tool for defending yourself? What if someone comes at you with a tank? Or fresh fruit?
In any case, you can defend yourself without guns too. At least, in the rest of the world people can.
CptJake wrote: And some folks spout really mean words intending to inflict pain on others. Free speech is abused all the time. Some folks hide things they know are illegal or immoral. Should we preemptively limit speech as well? Should we preemptively weaken the 4th amendment so cops and other gov't folks can more easily search out the bad things folks hide?
Speech and thought are a fundamental part of being human, people are born with the capacity for speech and thought. The right to speech is more akin to the right to defend yourself. A modern repeating handgun is a just piece of technology that didn't even exist until ~1836. Comparing the right to own a gun to free speech, is like comparing the right to own PA system to self defence.
There are already restrictions on broadcasting technologies, where they cause a nuisance (pirate radio), and there are lots of places where it is illegal to set up speakers or a PA system. Speech is also limited (although not pre-emptively) when it comes to things like slander and inciting violence.
I'm not sure how you would even go about pre-emptively limiting speech, even the most oppressive regimes never managed that. Pre-emptively restricting dangerous technology is easy and happens all the time (nukes for example). it's a completely different type of thing.
And you are again wrong. It is simple to compare the right to free speech to the right to bear arms, they are BOTH protected by the Constitution. That shouldn't be hard to grasp, yet you and others seem to have trouble doing so. You CAN say you disagree with the right, and have. And as pointed out, we, in the US, have a mechanism for changing or even repealing parts of the Constitution. Have at it.
As for the self defense right, you seem to agree it exists, yet are willing to believe taking the best tool to do so away from citizens is a good thing. The existence of a police force you can call is not 'self defense'.
How are guns the best tool for defending yourself? What if someone comes at you with a tank? Or fresh fruit? In any case, you can defend yourself without guns too. At least, in the rest of the world people can.
Distance and ending power? portability and size. Especially for those who are not as physical adept.
How are guns the best tool for defending yourself? What if someone comes at you with a tank? Or fresh fruit?
In any case, you can defend yourself without guns too. At least, in the rest of the world people can.
Can you honestly find me one instance, based in reality where someone broke into another person's home with a tank? And for that, I mean, civilian on civilian crime, military action isn't "breaking in" in the same sense.
And sure, you could defend yourself with a sword, or a crossbow, or an axe... but swords and axes leave a very large mess to clean up, much larger than the blood from a "clean" bullet wound would. How many stories are out there of an elderly person in Australia, or England or France who held off a would be intruder with a cricket bat, or baseball bat? Probably next to none. I will say though, that if those stories aren't written about in much of the rest of the world, it's probably because you aren't having this same kind of discussions, or perceived fear of "dems tryin to take ma gunz!"
How are guns the best tool for defending yourself? What if someone comes at you with a tank? Or fresh fruit?
In any case, you can defend yourself without guns too. At least, in the rest of the world people can.
Can you honestly find me one instance, based in reality where someone broke into another person's home with a tank? And for that, I mean, civilian on civilian crime, military action isn't "breaking in" in the same sense.
And sure, you could defend yourself with a sword, or a crossbow, or an axe... but swords and axes leave a very large mess to clean up, much larger than the blood from a "clean" bullet wound would. How many stories are out there of an elderly person in Australia, or England or France who held off a would be intruder with a cricket bat, or baseball bat? Probably next to none. I will say though, that if those stories aren't written about in much of the rest of the world, it's probably because you aren't having this same kind of discussions, or perceived fear of "dems tryin to take ma gunz!"
Welllll this thing technically "broke" into peoples houses.
I think it had something to do with landlords and money or something. it was a while back.
Lol... so was it a deranged, redneck landlord trying to get his/her rent... or "that" tenant that every landlord dreads who is refusing to pay his rent?
Marvin John Heemeyer was the guy and he did it because of zoning disputes. Still complete criminal mischief and completely intended. also he attached a government building and the judges home. But this is getting way OT.
Smacks wrote: That isn't how society works. I don't leave my door open at night hoping that people will be "law abiding". We don't have police and laws and prisons because we trust people to be law abiding. We identify things that get abused, and we try to control them so they can't be abused any more. We do it with driving, we do it with drugs. Why shouldn't law abiding people be allowed to take drugs, or drive without a licence and insurance? Why am I being punished for other people's recklessness? Hell I can't even do things like go scuba diving or cross a border without a ton of bureaucracy.
Well, for starters, driving without insurance is illegal (as is taking illicit drugs in the UK) so law abiding people by definition cannot do those things.
As for the question "[w]hy am I being punished for other people's recklessness?" This is how millions of gun owners feel when someone breaks the law and they are demonized for the actions of one individual who broke the law.
Smacks wrote: I don't know if you've ever taken the time to read youtube comments (or really any comment section online), but not everyone is like you. Most people are fething idiots. Illiterate, vindictive, racist, fork in toaster: idiots. I might not be allowed a gun here in the UK, but I sleep a lot sounder knowing those idiots aren't allowed one either.
Aren't allowed =/= unable to acquire as we have unfortunately seen before
Smacks wrote: Speech and thought are a fundamental part of being human, people are born with the capacity for speech and thought. The right to speech is more akin to the right to defend yourself. A modern repeating handgun is a just piece of technology that didn't even exist until ~1836. Comparing the right to own a gun to free speech, is like comparing the right to own PA system to self defence.
And the right to defend yourself is an integral part of your right to life.
Please don't try and claim that the right to bear arms does not encompass modern firearms. Firearms were available during the period that covered the framing of the Bill of Rights, and to claim that modern firearms are excluded from the Second Amendment is equivalent to claiming that telephone conversations, emails, texts, etc. are not covered by the First Amendment
How are guns the best tool for defending yourself? What if someone comes at you with a tank? Or fresh fruit?
In any case, you can defend yourself without guns too. At least, in the rest of the world people can.
Can you honestly find me one instance, based in reality where someone broke into another person's home with a tank? And for that, I mean, civilian on civilian crime, military action isn't "breaking in" in the same sense.
And sure, you could defend yourself with a sword, or a crossbow, or an axe... but swords and axes leave a very large mess to clean up, much larger than the blood from a "clean" bullet wound would. How many stories are out there of an elderly person in Australia, or England or France who held off a would be intruder with a cricket bat, or baseball bat? Probably next to none. I will say though, that if those stories aren't written about in much of the rest of the world, it's probably because you aren't having this same kind of discussions, or perceived fear of "dems tryin to take ma gunz!"
Welllll this thing technically "broke" into peoples houses.
Damn you Ensis your on a roll. There goes the MRAP through the front door or the Stryker firing its main gun through the front door stories
May the fleas of a thousand reindeer nest in your genitals.!!
Smacks wrote: Secondly, No we don't. We are fully aware that your constitution mentions something about bearing arms (which has been interpreted different ways by different people at different times). What you seem unable to grasp is that it doesn't make any difference to the argument.
United States v. Emerson (2001)
the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
Jihadin wrote: Remember when Christie kicked back the bill that would ban the .50 cal rifle in New Jersey?
Edit
Being there was no proof that weapon has ever been used in a crime
The same hurdle the ATF ran into when trying to ban the M855 round under the guise of protecting LEOs. Not only was there no documented evidence of an officer even being injured by one, but the Fraternal Order of Police also said it was a senseless band.
Smacks wrote: Secondly, No we don't. We are fully aware that your constitution mentions something about bearing arms (which has been interpreted different ways by different people at different times). What you seem unable to grasp is that it doesn't make any difference to the argument.
United States v. Emerson (2001) the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons
Case in point. If we were discussing the right answer to 2+2, it doesn't make any difference if the constitution and all the founding fathers say 2+2=5. That has absolutely no bearing on the correct answer. If you just dogmatically cling to 2+2=5 then when you try to build something, that thing will be broken and flawed. You aren't able to grasp that as you have just shown, by continuing to beat that "it's in the constitution" drum. As I already siad, "we know" that is not the issue. It is not us that is being obtuse here.
When discussing whether gun ownership is good for society now and in the future (and not just American society), what the US constitution from 200 years ago says is of no real relevance. That's the problem, just setting up ground rules to have a conversation about this is impossible with you.
Smacks wrote: Case in point. If we were discussing the right answer to 2+2, it doesn't make any difference if the constitution and all the founding fathers say 2+2=5. That has absolutely no bearing on the correct answer. If you just dogmatically cling to 2+2=5 then when you try to build something, that thing will be broken and flawed. You aren't able to grasp that as you have just shown, by continuing to beat that "it's in the constitution" drum. As I already siad, "we know" that is not the issue. It is not us that is being obtuse here.
No, the issue is that you claimed that the Second Amendment "has been interpreted different ways by different people at different times" when in actual fact the words are clear. Should someone choose ti mis-interpret them then that is a fault with the reader, not the text
Smacks wrote: When discussing whether gun ownership is good for society now and in the future (and not just American society), what the US constitution from 200 years ago says is of no real relevance. That's the problem, just setting up ground rules to have a conversation about this is impossible with you.
Pointing to the legal framework that exists and allows us to enjoy the right to effective self defense is of absolute real relevance. The right to speech is not outdated because it is in the same document as the Second Amendment. Time does not erode rights, and the US Constitution is no less valid now than when it was first signed. Those are simple straight forward facts.
If you want to put a sell by date on things because if their age what about participatory democracy? Freedom of religion? Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom to vote? All these are in the same document as the right you are currently objecting to.
You ask is the right to bear arms "good for society" yet you offer absolutely no evidence that it is a detriment. I have shown earlier in this thread that the right to bear arms does not place a substantial burden on society.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: No, the issue is that you claimed that the Second Amendment "has been interpreted different ways by different people at different times" when in actual fact the words are clear.
If the text had always been clear then it would not have needed to be clarified by the supreme court so many times. And there are still people who disagree with the current interpretation. So what I said was perfectly reasonable. Either way, that is NOT the issue, you're just nitpicking.
If you want to put a sell by date on things because if their age
Again you are being purposefully obtuse. I did not say the constitution is irrelevant because it is old, it is irrelevant because it's irrelevant. What the constitution says has no bearing on whether or not guns are good for society.
You ask is the right to bear arms "good for society" yet you offer absolutely no evidence that it is a detriment. I have shown earlier in this thread that the right to bear arms does not place a substantial burden on society.
I haven't offered any evidence because I haven't been talking about that. The only point that I'm interested in arguing is that laws can and should be reviewed to make sure they are serving society. Since you guys seem to have a new shooting incident in the international news every week, it is only natural that gun laws should keep being called into question. When you stop having shooting incidents, I'll stop asking if you have a gun problem.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: No, the issue is that you claimed that the Second Amendment "has been interpreted different ways by different people at different times" when in actual fact the words are clear.
If the text had always been clear then it would not have needed to be clarified by the supreme court so many times. And there are still people who disagree with the current interpretation. So what I said was perfectly reasonable. Either way, that is NOT the issue, you're just nitpicking.
Honestly, the ONLY people I've ever heard legitimately say that the 2nd amendment is "unclear" are those who disagree with it, and want firearms to be banned in the US. That's it.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: No, the issue is that you claimed that the Second Amendment "has been interpreted different ways by different people at different times" when in actual fact the words are clear.
If the text had always been clear then it would not have needed to be clarified by the supreme court so many times. And there are still people who disagree with the current interpretation. So what I said was perfectly reasonable. Either way, that is NOT the issue, you're just nitpicking.
Honestly, the ONLY people I've ever heard legitimately say that the 2nd amendment is "unclear" are those who disagree with it, and want firearms to be banned in the US. That's it.
^Yep.
Keep in mind smacks... that new laws wouldn't have stopped the Charleston shooting (as he somehow passed his background check) nor would it stopped Newtown (as the guns were stolen).
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Honestly, the ONLY people I've ever heard legitimately say that the 2nd amendment is "unclear" are those who disagree with it, and want firearms to be banned in the US. That's it.
By all accounts, that is a sizeable portion of the country. But even if only the handful of people mentioned in the supreme court ruling had ever questioned it, I would still be justified in what I said. It has been interpreted differently at different times by different people (some who want guns to be banned, for example). That is a statement of fact, the supreme court even had to rule on it. So what I said was perfectly justified.
CptJake wrote: And some folks spout really mean words intending to inflict pain on others. Free speech is abused all the time. Some folks hide things they know are illegal or immoral. Should we preemptively limit speech as well? Should we preemptively weaken the 4th amendment so cops and other gov't folks can more easily search out the bad things folks hide?
Speech and thought are a fundamental part of being human, people are born with the capacity for speech and thought. The right to speech is more akin to the right to defend yourself. A modern repeating handgun is a just piece of technology that didn't even exist until ~1836. Comparing the right to own a gun to free speech, is like comparing the right to own PA system to self defence.
There are already restrictions on broadcasting technologies, where they cause a nuisance (pirate radio), and there are lots of places where it is illegal to set up speakers or a PA system. Speech is also limited (although not pre-emptively) when it comes to things like slander and inciting violence.
I'm not sure how you would even go about pre-emptively limiting speech, even the most oppressive regimes never managed that. Pre-emptively restricting dangerous technology is easy and happens all the time (nukes for example). it's a completely different type of thing.
That bit about the technology doesn't really hold water. When they wrote the bill of rights they used the term arms. At the time, arms included cannon, rockets, grenades. I think a 6lb cannon loaded with grape shot trumps a glock. So, if you see a picture of a semi auto rifle and say
"The founding fathers never envisioned this", I say watch Pirates of the Caribbean again, that scene with the ship shelling the city and people flying through the air. That is what the founding fathers envisioned.
If you want to see an example of pre-emptively limiting speech I suggest you talk to any Chinese citizen who lived through the cultural revolution.
Insurgency Walker wrote: That bit about the technology doesn't really hold water. When they wrote the bill of rights they used the term arms. At the time, arms included cannon, rockets, grenades. I think a 6lb cannon loaded with grape shot trumps a glock. So, if you see a picture of a semi auto rifle and say "The founding fathers never envisioned this", I say watch Pirates of the Caribbean again, that scene with the ship shelling the city and people flying through the air. That is what the founding fathers envisioned.
I wasn't really talking about what was intended by the founding fathers. I was actually talking about the innateness of the two things. I mentioned the date because it shows that for perhaps 100,000 years of human history we didn't have guns, they aren't an essential part of being human. During that time, however, we probably did have speech. Speech is an innate part of human behaviour. It's also notoriously difficult to contain it (even if someone wanted to). Withholding technology is comparatively easy.
If you want to see an example of pre-emptively limiting speech I suggest you talk to any Chinese citizen who lived through the cultural revolution.
I'm all out of old Chinese citizens right now, could you just elaborate. Short of gagging and mutilating people, how do you "pre-emptively" stop them saying things you don't like?
Smacks wrote: Secondly, No we don't. We are fully aware that your constitution mentions something about bearing arms (which has been interpreted different ways by different people at different times). What you seem unable to grasp is that it doesn't make any difference to the argument.
United States v. Emerson (2001)
the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons
Case in point. If we were discussing the right answer to 2+2, it doesn't make any difference if the constitution and all the founding fathers say 2+2=5. That has absolutely no bearing on the correct answer. If you just dogmatically cling to 2+2=5 then when you try to build something, that thing will be broken and flawed. You aren't able to grasp that as you have just shown, by continuing to beat that "it's in the constitution" drum. As I already siad, "we know" that is not the issue. It is not us that is being obtuse here.
When discussing whether gun ownership is good for society now and in the future (and not just American society), what the US constitution from 200 years ago says is of no real relevance. That's the problem, just setting up ground rules to have a conversation about this is impossible with you.
Alcohol is several times worse for society than guns are. We saw what good it did to try banning that.
Insurgency Walker wrote: That bit about the technology doesn't really hold water. When they wrote the bill of rights they used the term arms. At the time, arms included cannon, rockets, grenades. I think a 6lb cannon loaded with grape shot trumps a glock. So, if you see a picture of a semi auto rifle and say
"The founding fathers never envisioned this", I say watch Pirates of the Caribbean again, that scene with the ship shelling the city and people flying through the air. That is what the founding fathers envisioned.
I wasn't really talking about what was intended by the founding fathers. I was actually talking about the innateness of the two things. I mentioned the date because it shows that for perhaps 100,000 years of human history we didn't have guns, they aren't an essential part of being human. During that time, however, we probably did have speech. Speech is an innate part of human behaviour. It's also notoriously difficult to contain it (even if someone wanted to). Withholding technology is comparatively easy.
We haven't always had guns, but we've almost always had weapons.
Insurgency Walker wrote: That bit about the technology doesn't really hold water. When they wrote the bill of rights they used the term arms. At the time, arms included cannon, rockets, grenades. I think a 6lb cannon loaded with grape shot trumps a glock. So, if you see a picture of a semi auto rifle and say
"The founding fathers never envisioned this", I say watch Pirates of the Caribbean again, that scene with the ship shelling the city and people flying through the air. That is what the founding fathers envisioned.
I wasn't really talking about what was intended by the founding fathers. I was actually talking about the innateness of the two things. I mentioned the date because it shows that for perhaps 100,000 years of human history we didn't have guns, they aren't an essential part of being human. During that time, however, we probably did have speech. Speech is an innate part of human behaviour. It's also notoriously difficult to contain it (even if someone wanted to). Withholding technology is comparatively easy.
If you want to see an example of pre-emptively limiting speech I suggest you talk to any Chinese citizen who lived through the cultural revolution.
I'm all out of old Chinese citizens right now, could you just elaborate. Short of gagging and mutilating people, how do you "pre-emptively" stop them saying things you don't like?
Very simple. If someone says something you don't like you imprison them, torture them, seize their property and or kill them. You remind everyone it is their patriotic duty to repress/report their neighbors for talking about subjects you don't like. Reward those who rat out the undesirable element. Rinse and repeat. People quickly self censor. I had a Chinese professor who while living in the U.S. was still self censoring because he was concerned that anything he said could make it back to China.
Insurgency Walker wrote: That bit about the technology doesn't really hold water. When they wrote the bill of rights they used the term arms. At the time, arms included cannon, rockets, grenades. I think a 6lb cannon loaded with grape shot trumps a glock. So, if you see a picture of a semi auto rifle and say
"The founding fathers never envisioned this", I say watch Pirates of the Caribbean again, that scene with the ship shelling the city and people flying through the air. That is what the founding fathers envisioned.
I wasn't really talking about what was intended by the founding fathers. I was actually talking about the innateness of the two things. I mentioned the date because it shows that for perhaps 100,000 years of human history we didn't have guns, they aren't an essential part of being human. During that time, however, we probably did have speech. Speech is an innate part of human behaviour. It's also notoriously difficult to contain it (even if someone wanted to). Withholding technology is comparatively easy.
If you want to see an example of pre-emptively limiting speech I suggest you talk to any Chinese citizen who lived through the cultural revolution.
I'm all out of old Chinese citizens right now, could you just elaborate. Short of gagging and mutilating people, how do you "pre-emptively" stop them saying things you don't like?
Very simple. If someone says something you don't like you imprison them, torture them, seize their property and or kill them. You remind everyone it is their patriotic duty to repress/report their neighbors for talking about subjects you don't like. Reward those who rat out the undesirable element. Rinse and repeat. People quickly self censor. I had a Chinese professor who while living in the U.S. was still self censoring because he was concerned that anything he said could make it back to China.
Cambodians and Vietnamese I knew could tell similar stories, but we don't need to go that far back. The Middle East is a great example of that stuff happening.
Insurgency Walker wrote: Very simple. If someone says something you don't like you imprison them
Yeah, that's kind of the opposite of "pre-emptive". I understand what you mean, that it acts as a deterrent and people self censor, but people being obedient of the law is not the same as pre-emptively removing their capacity to break the law.
Most American gun owners are already obedient of the laws and don't want to go to jail for breaking them. It is the people who don't obey the law (self censor as it were) that are the whole problem.
Very true Relapse. But what really strikes me with the cultural Revolution was how fast it happened. In just months they produced a lifetime of censorship.
Sorry Smacks, conflict has been a part of human existence as far back as any other human experience. So while firearms are not an essential part of being human defending oneself, and his/her tribe, is.
Insurgency Walker wrote: Very simple. If someone says something you don't like you imprison them
Yeah, that's kind of the opposite of "pre-emptive". I understand what you mean, that it acts as a deterrent and people self censor, but people being obedient of the law is not the same as pre-emptively removing their capacity to break the law.
Most American gun owners are already obedient of the laws and don't want to go to jail for breaking them. It is the people who don't obey the law (self censor as it were) that are the whole problem.
Well it was very "pre-emptive" on the children of that society.
Insurgency Walker wrote: Sorry Smacks, conflict has been a part of human existence as far back as any other human experience. So while firearms are not an essential part of being human defending oneself, and his/her tribe, is.
Things like rape have been with us for a long time too, but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged in modern society.
We reached a point a long time ago where weapons became so powerful that one person might be able to kill dozens, or even millions. Which is why weapons of mass destruction will always be prohibited. No matter what the constitution says about bearing arms, no one is going to put up with you stockpiling 100 gallons of anthrax in your garage. So there needs to be a line somewhere to separate what is necessary from what is dangerous. Guns are unquestionably dangerous in the wrong hands. You can claim they are necessary, but people in other developed countries manage without them, and also enjoy lower murder rates per capita, and less gun crime.
Insurgency Walker wrote: Sorry Smacks, conflict has been a part of human existence as far back as any other human experience. So while firearms are not an essential part of being human defending oneself, and his/her tribe, is.
Things like rape have been with us for a long time too, but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged in modern society.
We reached a point a long time ago where weapons became so powerful that one person might be able to kill dozens, or even millions. Which is why weapons of mass destruction will always be prohibited. No matter what the constitution says about bearing arms, no one is going to put up with you stockpiling 100 gallons of anthrax in your garage. So there needs to be a line somewhere to separate what is necessary from what is dangerous. Guns are unquestionably dangerous in the wrong hands. You can claim they are necessary, but people in other developed countries manage without them, and also enjoy lower murder rates per capita, and less gun crime.
Except you cannot compare the US to those other countries. The US really is a special snowflake in many regards, this being one of them. Europe has a totally different cultural paradigm, and relationship with armed citizens, than the US does.
And in the grand scheme of things, gun violence has been going down for a long time, and the numbers are always microscopically small compared to other causes of death.
Grey Templar wrote: Europe has a totally different cultural paradigm, and relationship with armed citizens, than the US does.
Well since the UK, Australia, France, Germany, and Italy, all have ~80% fewer murders (per 100,000 people) than the USA. I wouldn't say it is a different paradigm, I'd say it's better.
Grey Templar wrote: Europe has a totally different cultural paradigm, and relationship with armed citizens, than the US does.
Well since the UK, Australia, France, Germany, and Italy, all have ~80% fewer murders (per 100,000 people) than the USA. I wouldn't say it is a different paradigm, I'd say it's better.
UK 1 (.00001% of 100k) Australia 1.1 (.000011% of 100k) France 1 (.00001% of 100k) Germany .8 (.000008% of 100k) Italy .9 )(.000009 % of 100k)
You could also correctly say the UK has a 20% higher homicide rate than Germany or a 10% higher rate than Italy. Why you so violent UK?
US 4.7 (.000047% of 100k) So, really the differences when put into perspective are pretty small. And again, no one in this thread has yet to counter any of the stats or studies showing reduced gun ownership is the cause of reduced violence or reduced violent crime. Or explain why violent crime is going down in the US (as are accidental gun deaths) at the same time the number of legally owned guns is increasing.
And course US rates include Puerto Rico (20+), places with VERY strict gun control like California (5.0) and Washington DC (13.9).
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Honestly, the ONLY people I've ever heard legitimately say that the 2nd amendment is "unclear" are those who disagree with it, and want firearms to be banned in the US. That's it.
By all accounts, that is a sizeable portion of the country. But even if only the handful of people mentioned in the supreme court ruling had ever questioned it, I would still be justified in what I said. It has been interpreted differently at different times by different people (some who want guns to be banned, for example). That is a statement of fact, the supreme court even had to rule on it. So what I said was perfectly justified.
Smacks wrote: If the text had always been clear then it would not have needed to be clarified by the supreme court so many times. And there are still people who disagree with the current interpretation. So what I said was perfectly reasonable. Either way, that is NOT the issue, you're just nitpicking.
It's been in need of clarification because people have passed laws that deliberately conflict with it.
Smacks wrote: Again you are being purposefully obtuse. I did not say the constitution is irrelevant because it is old, it is irrelevant because it's irrelevant. What the constitution says has no bearing on whether or not guns are good for society.
I think you mean the Bill of Rights, which is the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
You claim that they are irrelevant but give absolutely no reasons why. So are the following, which are contained in the Bill of Rights, also irrelevant;
- freedom of religion
- freedom of the press
- freedom of speech
- freedom to peacefully assemble
- protection against unreasonable searches
- protection against unreasonable seizure of property
- rule against double jeopardy
- right to a fair trial
- protection against excessive fine and cruel or unusual punishment
Smacks wrote: I haven't offered any evidence because I haven't been talking about that. The only point that I'm interested in arguing is that laws can and should be reviewed to make sure they are serving society. Since you guys seem to have a new shooting incident in the international news every week, it is only natural that gun laws should keep being called into question. When you stop having shooting incidents, I'll stop asking if you have a gun problem.
You have absolutely been talking about that, allow me to quote you directly
"When discussing whether gun ownership is good for society now and in the future (and not just American society), what the US constitution from 200 years ago says is of no real relevance"
When you are asking whether "gun ownership is good for society" then that question presupposes that gun ownership but be causing a substantial burden on American society. What we see instead is that firearm deaths have been on the decline for three decades. You have shown absolutely no good reason as to why millions of law abiding owners and the inanimate objects they posses should be disenfranchised because they are detrimental to society.
Insurgency Walker wrote: Sorry Smacks, conflict has been a part of human existence as far back as any other human experience. So while firearms are not an essential part of being human defending oneself, and his/her tribe, is.
Things like rape have been with us for a long time too, but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged in modern society.
Having the means to effectively protect yourself is not encouraging murder. Your comparison with rape is wholly inappropraite
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: By all accounts, that is a sizeable portion of the country. But even if only the handful of people mentioned in the supreme court ruling had ever questioned it, I would still be justified in what I said. It has been interpreted differently at different times by different people (some who want guns to be banned, for example). That is a statement of fact, the supreme court even had to rule on it. So what I said was perfectly justified.
The Supreme Court didn't rule on it because it was unclear. The SUpreme Court ruled on it because a law was passed that was in flagrant contravention of the Second Amendment because ideology was placed ahead of the law of the land.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You claim that they are irrelevant but give absolutely no reasons why. So are the following, which are contained in the Bill of Rights, also irrelevant;
I have already explained why, but as usual, you're just being deliberately hard of understanding. You seem to be trying to argue that stuff in the constitution is above question by virtue of it being in the constitution. Which is completely circular reasoning. That does not mean the bill of rights is without value. it just isn't relevant to this conversation. EDIT: Or to be more specific, you don't need to keep reminding us what it says.
You have absolutely been talking about that, allow me to quote you directly "When discussing whether gun ownership is good for society now and in the future (and not just American society), what the US constitution from 200 years ago says is of no real relevance"
When you are asking whether "gun ownership is good for society" then that question presupposes that gun ownership but be causing a substantial burden on American society.
No, you're getting ahead of yourself. At that point I had made no argument as to whether guns were good bad or indifferent to society. I just pointed out that you continually trying to brow beat people with what the 2nd amendment says, is firstly unnecessary (we're all aware of what it says), and secondly has no bearing on guns being beneficial or problematic (whichever they may be), so I don't see why you keep bringing it up. Perhaps you could try reading and thinking instead of just parroting the stock arguments you lifted from gunfacts, which we're all nauseatingly familiar with.
In fact, why even waste each others time? All I'd really like to talk about are ways that gun people can be happy, and maybe some of the negative stuff like school children being shot and police being terrified, could be reduced. That might possibly involve changes to legislation, but we never get to talk about that because you seem to be incapable of discussing the matter in a non-hostile way. You just go full-on insisting that guns are your right, and there is nothing more to say. I think there is a lot to say. There is always room for improvement in every system. You're clearly very knowledgeable on the issue, maybe you could think of ways to improve the system yourself that everyone would welcome. If you could just stop being so defensive.
Grey Templar wrote: Europe has a totally different cultural paradigm, and relationship with armed citizens, than the US does.
Well since the UK, Australia, France, Germany, and Italy, all have ~80% fewer murders (per 100,000 people) than the USA. I wouldn't say it is a different paradigm, I'd say it's better.
UK 1 (.00001% of 100k)
Australia 1.1 (.000011% of 100k)
France 1 (.00001% of 100k)
Germany .8 (.000008% of 100k)
Italy .9 )(.000009 % of 100k)
You could also correctly say the UK has a 20% higher homicide rate than Germany or a 10% higher rate than Italy. Why you so violent UK?
US 4.7 (.000047% of 100k) So, really the differences when put into perspective are pretty small. And again, no one in this thread has yet to counter any of the stats or studies showing reduced gun ownership is the cause of reduced violence or reduced violent crime. Or explain why violent crime is going down in the US (as are accidental gun deaths) at the same time the number of legally owned guns is increasing.
And course US rates include Puerto Rico (20+), places with VERY strict gun control like California (5.0) and Washington DC (13.9).
So Australia has a 4x lower rate, that isn't a small difference.It's a fething HUGE difference.the rate of shootings is lower in aus.
I think this wiki table sets it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate You have a higher homicide rate by gun (x3)
(even though we have a higher suicide rate) your suicide rate by firearm is over 7 times bigger. The proliferation of firearms has an impact. If people can get a gun for a suicide they can get a gun for crime, the firearms don't all come from mexico (somehow absolving US society from any questions about gun control) Illegal gun use= MEXICO not US- We are ok jack.
You have police shooting people as basically a first option. Get this, in Australia and the UK the first question police ask is "what seems to be the problem...ect" not "drop the gun" and a gunshot.Either the proliferation of guns has changed the way the police in your society works or... US police want to kill people.
THIS IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT. Suspects are being shot, WHY?
So Australia has a 4x lower rate, that isn't a small difference.It's a fething HUGE difference.the rate of shootings is lower in aus.
Not really. 4 times .000011 is not a very big number.
Shown in a different way, at 1.1 you Aussies are 10% worse than the UK or 30% worse than Germany. Why you so violent?
And again.... Our (the US number) includes places like DC and Puerto Rico which despite very strict gun laws are pretty damned violent compared to the US as a whole.
And again, I linked to the Aussie studies showing your NFA had a negligible impact on gun violence in your country. A few of you told me how piss poor those studies are, yet offered zero reason for that stance and have as of yet failed to offer better stats/data.
Grey Templar wrote: Europe has a totally different cultural paradigm, and relationship with armed citizens, than the US does.
Well since the UK, Australia, France, Germany, and Italy, all have ~80% fewer murders (per 100,000 people) than the USA. I wouldn't say it is a different paradigm, I'd say it's better.
Opinions are like what again? You can say it's better all day long, but I have no desire to even visit any of those countries, let alone actually want to live there.
why are your police shooting people? That is what this thread is about. It is strange to me the way your law enforcement officers behave.
NFA had a huge impact after the first two years it was introduced. gun crime first went up and then went to below levels before the law was introduced. IT HAD A BIG IMPACT>
BIG. No more semi autos except for people who use them for a job (which are exceptionally few).
any study I have seen shows a huge reduction after 3-4 years.
Perhaps, it isn't about freedom....it's about not being shot by the state. *Facetious" but true.
Bullockist wrote: why are your police shooting people? That is what this thread is about. It is strange to me the way your law enforcement officers behave.
NFA had a huge impact after the first two years it was introduced. gun crime first went up and then went to below levels before the law was introduced. IT HAD A BIG IMPACT>
BIG. No more semi autos except for people who use them for a job (which are exceptionally few).
any study I have seen shows a huge reduction after 3-4 years.
Perhaps, it isn't about freedom....it's about not being shot by the state. *Facetious" but true.
You act like that we could them from shooting people.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: No, the issue is that you claimed that the Second Amendment "has been interpreted different ways by different people at different times" when in actual fact the words are clear.
If the text had always been clear then it would not have needed to be clarified by the supreme court so many times. And there are still people who disagree with the current interpretation. So what I said was perfectly reasonable. Either way, that is NOT the issue, you're just nitpicking.
Honestly, the ONLY people I've ever heard legitimately say that the 2nd amendment is "unclear" are those who disagree with it, and want firearms to be banned in the US. That's it.
^Yep.
Keep in mind smacks... that new laws wouldn't have stopped the Charleston shooting (as he somehow passed his background check) nor would it stopped Newtown (as the guns were stolen).
The passing of a background check by the Chareston shooter is due to the inherent problems with the NICs system. The FBI got NICS up and running in 1998 and while it's easy enough for FFLs to run a NICS check the system itself is dependent on the databases it uses being up to date. First a person has to commit a felony, then they have to be convicted, then the record of that conviction has to be uploaded to at least 1 of the 3 databases used by NICS. How quickly state and federal bureacracies get that done determines how quickly somebody could from being able to pass a NICS check to failing one. Not everything that would disqualify somebody from firearms ownership is required to be submitted to a NICS database. There's still an ongoing debate about how mental health/illness should be handled and reported, for instance.
Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.
The buyer passes the NICS check in over 99% of firearms sales that go through FFLs.
