The "war on police" in America

[Swagger897]

By this logic, any action a human can conceive of is a crime.

Buying groceries with earned money? No...

You hit the distinction on the last line. If a fatality occurs, then someone may have caused harm. If one doesn't occur, there is no victim. Being loaded up on drugs isn't going to hurt anyone else.

Which is why I raised the question, who is at fault? Should it be the person whom chose not to wear the seat belt, which is standard on all cars now, or the person behind them? Someone is going to be sued, you can guarantee that.

The seatbelt case is very similar. Seatbelt or not, the act of driving potentially creates 4000+ lb sledgehammers traveling at many 10's of miles per hour. Too dangerous to allow?

It's not "too dangerous to allow" because in most places there are tests in order to drive... If someone is incapable of driving then they shouldn't have passed in the first place at all. The statistics in my state said all of the students in my class would crash within two years of driving. It's been almost four and I have yet to hit anything/one...

 

[FoolKiller]

If Americans in general are so scared of the police. Why hasn't there been a revolution? After all the police are an asset of the state.

Define revolution. If you mean violent uprising, then it is because violence is a last resort.

If you mean non-violent change, it is being attempted. There are protests, petitions, even politicians are getting in on it. People are demanding police where body cams, but not make it too hard to gain access to the footage for a defendant or someone wishing to file a complaint. Even places that have implemented body cams are having to debate the rules of their use, as some units have chosen to allow the officers to turn them on or off.

This whole conversation is a sign that there is a push for change in some areas.

Sure there are bad cops, there are bad people in every profession, but the vast majority are decent people doing a very difficult job under increasingly intense scrutiny.

The difference between a bad cop and a bad accountant is that you can recoup the loss caused by the bad accountant.

Of course, the even bigger issue is that good cops are silenced for reporting or stopping bad cops, possibly even fired. Some may even be told they might go home in a casket.

The code of silence must be broken if you want the public to be able to tell the difference between good cops in bad situations and bad cops.

I don't understand though why people make a fuss about it though.... If you're not doing anything unlawful, why be afraid??

Exactly. It's not like you could get shot for just following a cops orders.

Sorry, but try again. The "If you're not doing anything wrong..." line has been used by every dictator and abusive government in the world. In the libertarian thread I showed how NSA spying has destroyed the lives of innocent people due to confirmation bias and we are now seeing more and more how civil asset forfeiture is destroying businesses and lives. You did nothing wrong, you just had your casino winnings on you, the cop stopped your car, searched it, took your cash and never charged you with a crime.

Or imagine going to an Art Institute fundraiser, only to have police bust in, charge you with loitering, and impound your vehicle.

See, the trick to violent and corrupted enforcers of the law is that they are violent or corrupt. Your unlawfulness means jack all. It isn't called abuse because it is justified.

You got me. The field cops complying with department policy over which they have no control by writing tickets in order to retain their jobs, completely negates all the good work that hundreds of thousands of cops do every day. I don't know why I didn't see that.

/sarcasm.

We were just following orders.

I'll defer back to the code of silence on this one. If you find something wrong you can't speak up. If you disagree with a policy you take a risk is trying to change things.

I'm sorry, but please give me a victimless crime that's is not illicit...

Like I said, if you do something wrong, then you should have something to fear and be held accountable for. Why don't we all let people pump up on drugs and let them drive on public roads, since they are "victimless crimes"... Let's see the response to that and if any single fatalities occur, it can't be "victimless" can it?

Better question: Why don't we let people smoke some pot, eat some Cheetos, and go to bed?

Exactly. What if he/she wasn't wearing their seatbelt, and a car which had lost its breaking abilities and had no other route to follow hit the rear of such car?

Who would be at fault? The state for not mandating a law of such? The car behind? The make of the vehicle? There are endless possibilities to it, and a victim is for sure present (providing injuries/fatalities occurred). You can't find me a victimless crime out there which does not have another penalty, law, or crime attached to it.

Stolen goods bought unknown to the buyer may be a possibility, because they would be returned and reparation would have to be made, but there is still a victim to it somewhere...

Buying groceries with earned money? No...
Which is why I raised the question, who is at fault? Should it be the person whom chose not to wear the seat belt, which is standard on all cars now, or the person behind them? Someone is going to be sued, you can guarantee that.

Assuming the age in your profile is accurate, I know that I am referring to a time before you were born, which makes me wonder if schools aren't teaching kids today that the law is just simply because it is law.

There was a time when the only seatbelt law was that cars had to have them. No one was required to wear them. Oh noes!

In this time of vehicular anarchy people did get into multiple-vehicle accidents. Astoundingly, there was no gridlock determining who was at fault for any physical injuries. No, the insurance companies determined it at the same time they determined who was at fault for the accident to begin with. Incredible, right? Things can be worked out without the government's influence.




And there are zero cases, that I know of, where someone not wearing a seatbelt became the projectile responsible for harming another person.

The solution is undoubtedly more guns. Guns for the poor, guns for the children. 'Murica!

The police in the US are so paranoid about being killed by random crazies with automatics that they themselves are at a higher risk of killing someone, so why not give up your right to bear arms? You've given up more important rights in the last half a decade...

To answer your question; because even the government admits that the rate of firearm crimes has decreased over time.
See here (PDF)

And most of us do blindly accept the commands of our bosses if we want to retain our jobs. Your issue in this case should be with the policy makers who write the rules, not the guys on the line that are just doing their jobs as directed.

Since this is just about traffic tickets, I agree. Though I do wonder why there is so much focus on just catching minor traffic violators.


But cops who don't give backup to an officer that tried reporting violations? There is definitely a line you should draw on following orders.

 

[Swagger897]

Exactly. It's not like you could get shot for just following a cops orders.

I'd like to know where I can see the whole video... Out of all police dash cams I've watched, this is the first I've seen a man get out of his car. Did the cop say get out, did he say stay in? I'm also aware of the police are trained not to allow people return to their car. The man never announced that he was going to retrieve it. For all the cop knew, he could had of reached for a gun, in this case not. Did he know he was going to? I don't know...
It's how they are trained to protect themselves. Let's go ahead and make them all wear green bomb jackets from The Hurt Locker and see how many people try to take aim at them and survival rates....

Sorry, but try again. The "If you're not doing anything wrong..." line has been used by every dictator and abusive government in the world. In the libertarian thread I showed how NSA spying has destroyed the lives of innocent people due to confirmation bias and we are now seeing more and more how civil asset forfeiture is destroying businesses and lives. You did nothing wrong, you just had your casino winnings on you, the cop stopped your car, searched it, took your cash and never charged you with a crime.

I couldn't give two cents what the NSA is looking at in my stuff, because I do nothing wrong.... Have I ever encountered an officer not breaking the law? No. Have I ever encountered an officer doing something wrong? Yes, for speeding... If you are one of those control freaks I have nothing against you. It's just not a priority of mine that I need to be afraid of...

Or imagine going to an Art Institute fundraiser, only to have police bust in, charge you with loitering, and impound your vehicle.

Not sure what to say... It seems that their justification was loitering, but from what I read on that link is that they went in "commando style"... I don't think how someone/thing is detained by the process should matter or not though. If there was a no loitering and they were doing so, what do they have against them? The Supreme Court said "without reason"..

See, the trick to violent and corrupted enforcers of the law is that they are violent or corrupt. Your unlawfulness means jack all. It isn't called abuse because it is justified.

Better question: Why don't we let people smoke some pot, eat some Cheetos, and go to bed?

You just compared two different things there, people vs. the law.
What is your answer to that anyways? Mine is more than obvious...

Assuming the age in your profile is accurate, I know that I am referring to a time before you were born, which makes me wonder if schools aren't teaching kids today that the law is just simply because it is law.

There was a time when the only seatbelt law was that cars had to have them. No one was required to wear them. Oh noes!

In this time of vehicular anarchy people did get into multiple-vehicle accidents. Astoundingly, there was no gridlock determining who was at fault for any physical injuries. No, the insurance companies determined it at the same time they determined who was at fault for the accident to begin with. Incredible, right? Things can be worked out without the government's influence.

Just because I was born almost 19 years ago doesn't mean I can't read up on history....
I believe this should help my discussion on the topic...

And there are zero cases, that I know of, where someone not wearing a seatbelt became the projectile responsible for harming another person.

Read the first paragraph... I'd like to know where they got that fact though.

 

[Exorcet]

The no seat belt scenario has no rewards as far as I can see which doesn't bode well for it in the negotiation.

I don't think rewards are necessary for validity, but here is one potentially, a driver less distracted by an uncomfortable device.

Which is why I raised the question, who is at fault? Should it be the person whom chose not to wear the seat belt, which is standard on all cars now, or the person behind them? Someone is going to be sued, you can guarantee that.

Can't say that I can decide from the information given in the post. It's not really a valid question without a specific situation.

It's not "too dangerous to allow" because in most places there are tests in order to drive... If someone is incapable of driving then they shouldn't have passed in the first place at all. The statistics in my state said all of the students in my class would crash within two years of driving. It's been almost four and I have yet to hit anything/one...

I wonder how many drunk drivers are in the same category via statistics. A test doesn't ensure safety. Licensed drivers can still lead to 4000 lb sledgehammers. What's the difference between that and drunk driving, or something? Also, if a test solves everything, why not have a drunk driving portion of the test to determine the limit for an individual?

 

[Swagger897]

Can't say that I can decide from the information given in the post. It's not really a valid question without a specific situation.

I could provide more, or you could make up your own. If I found an exact situation I would if I had the time...

I wonder how many drunk drivers are in the same category via statistics. A test doesn't ensure safety. Licensed drivers can still lead to 4000 lb sledgehammers. What's the difference between that and drunk driving, or something? Also, if a test solves everything, why not have a drunk driving portion of the test to determine the limit for an individual?

There you go... "If you don't do anything wrong then why be afraid?" In my state it's illegal to DWI or DUI, and it's something that is wrong, illicit, whatever...
Consumption of marijuana is still illegal on the federal level so that applies to all states, so don't bother bringing that up..

 

[FoolKiller]

I'd like to know where I can see the whole video...

Here you go.


You see from when the cop starts moving in his car, from behind the gas station, is preparing to leave the station, and then backs in to come up behind the man, who was already parked and getting out of his car to go inside.

Out of all police dash cams I've watched, this is the first I've seen a man get out of his car. Did the cop say get out, did he say stay in?

The man was outside of his car because the cop came up on him as he was exiting his car to enter the store.

I'm also aware of the police are trained not to allow people return to their car. The man never announced that he was going to retrieve it.

Yes, that would seem so natural. "OFFICER, I AM NOW GOING TO ENTER MY CAR AND RETRIEVE MY LICENSE! I AM ONLY GETTING MY LICENSE. MAY I PLEASE ENTER MY CAR TO GET MY LICENSE?"

See, here is a problem. We are supposed to act scared of police to not be a threat. How are we expected to trust someone we have to act terrified around? I mean, in what other scenario would someone ask you to get something that you have in your car and you announce everything you are doing as you do it? You don't. It is perfectly natural to just turn and get something inside your car if someone asked for it.

He acted natural and normal, because he shouldn't be afraid of the cops.

For all the cop knew, he could had of reached for a gun, in this case not. Did he know he was going to? I don't know...
It's how they are trained to protect themselves. Let's go ahead and make them all wear green bomb jackets from The Hurt Locker and see how many people try to take aim at them and survival rates....

Well, as he is facing criminal charges, someone didn't think the cop was following his training.

What about the guy that cops killed at Walmart who was holding a toy gun that he got from the shelf? What was he doing wrong? Ohio is even an open-carry state. It could have been a real gun and been perfectly legal. Was shooting a man for not even presumptively breaking a law in their training?

I've got a whole list of these cases where someone got killed without violating the law.

I couldn't give two cents what the NSA is looking at in my stuff, because I do nothing wrong....

Neither was Brandon Mayfield.

But the bigger question is; you may do nothing wrong, but do you do anything that maybe you don't want everyone to be able to see (I realize I am asking this of someone who grew up in the age of social media)?

If not feel free to post your entire Internet history. All chats, all emails, all searches, everything. Is there anything embarrassing that could hurt your career? What about your political opinions stated in private chats or emails?

All of it can be used against you. You could date a woman who, unbeknownst to you, used to date an NSA tech. They've been caught spying on exes and whatnot. What would you do if your browser history, even the deleted bits, got emailed to her?

Did you know that the FBI sent a letter to MLK suggesting he kill himself before they publicly release private details of his life?

What did he do wrong? Challenged the status quo by suggesting equal civil rights. Public enemy #1.

Have I ever encountered an officer not breaking the law? No.

Literally? Never? I mean, we have cops that meet with school kids, walk the neighborhoods, and generally put us at ease around police. Of course, being comfortable around a cop means doing something natural, like reaching to get the driver's license he requested, will get you shot.

Not sure what to say... It seems that their justification was loitering, but from what I read on that link is that they went in "commando style"... I don't think how someone/thing is detained by the process should matter or not though. If there was a no loitering and they were doing so, what do they have against them? The Supreme Court said "without reason"..

You can loiter at a planned and organized event inside a private facility? That can only be loitering if it was a flash mob.

You just compared two different things there, people vs. the law.
What is your answer to that anyways? Mine is more than obvious...

You quoted two separate statements. Please clarify.

Just because I was born almost 19 years ago doesn't mean I can't read up on history....
I believe this should help my discussion on the topic...

So, a person chooses not to wear a seat belt and they die because of it. Who is the victim? Themselves? If making bad decisions that may lead to your own death should be a crime then I have a giant list of things to ban.

Honestly, if I am the victim of my own stupidity I don't se why that should be a crime. I hurt no one else, and I don't need a nanny government telling me how to be safe.

Read the first paragraph... I'd like to know where they got that fact though.

How is a small object flying a couple of feet even remotely equivalent to a 100+ pound flailing human flying through a safety glass window and a few yards through the air with enough force to damage someone else?

 

[squadops]

Buying groceries with earned money? No...

I'm glad you brought that up, how about buying a soda in NYC? Or crispy kreme doughnuts?

All I can think of while reading this thread:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

 

[Exorcet]

For all the cop knew, he could had of reached for a gun, in this case not. Did he know he was going to? I don't know...

For all the cop knew, he could have been getting his license.

I could provide more, or you could make up your own. If I found an exact situation I would if I had the time...

You can't ask "who is at fault?" without context. Unless you want "it depends".

I'll say this though, I don't imagine that not wearing a seatbeat has caused many car accidents.

There you go... "If you don't do anything wrong then why be afraid?" In my state it's illegal to DWI or DUI, and it's something that is wrong, illicit, whatever...
Consumption of marijuana is still illegal on the federal level so that applies to all states, so don't bother bringing that up..

I'm not sure where this came from. I was asking about the difference between a safe drunk driver, and a safe sober driver. Why does being afraid come into it?

Read the first paragraph... I'd like to know where they got that fact though.

Is this enough to require a seatbelt for tissue boxes?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'd like to know where I can see the whole video... Out of all police dash cams I've watched, this is the first I've seen a man get out of his car. Did the cop say get out, did he say stay in? I'm also aware of the police are trained not to allow people return to their car. The man never announced that he was going to retrieve it. For all the cop knew, he could had of reached for a gun, in this case not. Did he know he was going to? I don't know...

Or the cop made a mistake and overreacted. Or maybe he just got up in the morning and said, "I'm going to shoot the first sumbitch that makes even the slightest hint of a wrong move". Either way it's one single incident, and using it, or a series of incidents to indict hundreds of thousands of cops is ludicrous (not saying that's your position of course).

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/03/16/police-bodycams-capture-dramatic-baby-rescue.cnn

 

[Mike_grpA]

Not exactly good logic.

Guns also have nothing to do with problems like ticket quotas.

I didn't say anything about ticket quotas... My post was about the incident in the OP, and I don't see where the fault is in the logic of "if you don't like psychos gunning down innocent people, take away their rights to access guns".

My logic is based on the history in my country. We had guns, and we had 10 gun massacres in 10 years before the port arthur massacre in the mid 90s, which was one of the biggest massacres by a single person in history. Our government changed the laws to make gun ownership very strictly controlled (now you will only get a licence if you can prove it's for legal hunting, and have absolutely no criminal record and are cleared of mental illness, or if you are a police officer), and we haven't had a single massacre since, and that was getting close to 20 years ago.

As far as ticket quotas, that's a different thing altogether, I wasn't talking about that, that's not what the OP was about. We still have ticket quotas, but you know how to avoid getting a ticket for speeding or not wearing a seatbelt? Don't break those laws. I know, crazy right? But it works!

Surely you know the speed limits on the roads you drive, so it shouldn't be hard to stick to them. There's a time and a place for driving fast, and that's at the track, not in the suburbs where you could kill a kid if he/she ran out from behind a parked car. As for wearing a seatbelt, I have no idea why you would want to not wear one. They are proven life savers, and it's not hard to put one on.

@FoolKiller I don't care about the rates of gun crimes increasing or decreasing, and I'm not saying "You have to get rid of your guns and do it now", because I couldn't care less. All I'm saying is, if you want a solution to all the crazies that keep gunning people down, there's a good one. It's a proven solution too. Worked a treat in England and Australia, try and compare the rates of gun crimes in the US to either of those countries. If you like guns, then great, that's the only defence of guns you need, and indeed the only reasonable defence you have.

I will say this though, as someone who doesn't live in the USA, I am often shocked as to the frequency I see news stories about people gunning innocents down over there. Seems like multiple times per year this happens.

 

[squadops]

...All I'm saying is, if you want a solution to all the crazies that keep gunning people down, there's a good one. It's a proven solution too. Worked a treat in England...

courtesy of @Famine.

Also, https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/guns.33891/

 

[Exorcet]

I didn't say anything about ticket quotas...

No, but I did to highlight issues because paranoia on the side of the cops. A department needs to give out 500 citations a month, even if there are only 499 violations? That's one of the problems that exist in the system that has nothing to do with guns and it's one of the problems that would remain if guns were removed. In short, you'd still be left with a broken system that can anger people and lead the cops from being defenders to annoyances, or worse.

My post was about the incident in the OP, and I don't see where the fault is in the logic of "if you don't like psychos gunning down innocent people, take away their rights to access guns".

The faulty logic was giving up a right just because you did in the past. Or even simply surrendering rights at all.

My logic is based on the history in my country. We had guns, and we had 10 gun massacres in 10 years before the port arthur massacre in the mid 90s, which was one of the biggest massacres by a single person in history. Our government changed the laws to make gun ownership very strictly controlled (now you will only get a licence if you can prove it's for legal hunting, and have absolutely no criminal record and are cleared of mental illness, or if you are a police officer), and we haven't had a single massacre since, and that was getting close to 20 years ago.

Even so, you've had shootings and mass murders. Did the rate of murder go up or down? Does it matter how people are killed? I would say no to the last question, making the number of gun deaths on their own far less interesting than the overall picture.

As far as ticket quotas, that's a different thing altogether, I wasn't talking about that, that's not what the OP was about. We still have ticket quotas, but you know how to avoid getting a ticket for speeding or not wearing a seatbelt? Don't break those laws. I know, crazy right? But it works!

And if everyone did that the police would still be required to find people breaking the law. That doesn't make sense.

All I'm saying is, if you want a solution to all the crazies that keep gunning people down, there's a good one. It's a proven solution too.

If by all, you mean all, it didn't even work in your country.

 

[Mike_grpA]

A) Why not surrender a right to bear arms when it causes more harm than good in your country. I never said it's right to surrender other rights, merely pointing out you've already surrendered much more important rights, like free speech, or privacy.

B) There hasn't been a single mass murder since the gun control laws came in, and yes, murder is way down on what it was, because it's harder for crazies to kill people without such easy access to guns. I never said we haven't had a single shooting or murder since, and to imply I did is not only missing the point, it's ridiculous. You can't say any one thing is the source of all murders, or one policy would stop them all. The solution Aus took made a massive impact though. It's much harder for people to kill others with low tech weapons than guns, especially the kind of guns you can easily buy in the US. I have a set of nunchuks in my car, and another next to my bed, and I'm trained to use them, so I am far from worried about a crazy coming at me with a knife or a pipe or something to that effect. But against a gun, my skills with the nunchuks aren't much use to me are they?

C) It does make perfect sense. I never told you it would change the way policy is made or enforced. Merely, if you have a problem with cops giving tickets out so easily, don't break the law. Works for me!

D) Perhaps don't take a sentence like that so literal. We have a much better system here than the US does, and our crazies rack up nowhere near the body count the american crazies do lol. So the solution is very much tested effective

The problem with Britain's gun ban was their police don't carry guns for the most part, so they are basically a joke compared to organised crime. But the way Aus did it worked fine.

 

[squadops]

A. The right is not causing any harm, people are. Nanny restrictions will never better our country, quite the contrary actually. Oh, well sense we've given abc up we might as well give xyz as well? um, no thanks.

B. It won't make a bit of difference here though. First off we have way to many, they are everywhere, we are not isolated so obtaining more is not really a trouble. We won't voluntarily give them up anyway, won't happen.

C. That won't work either, it might work better if we unite and all brake the silly laws as often as possible with as many doing it at the same time as possible

D. If by better system you mean restricted freedoms then sure 👍

Oh great, we should give up our right to defend ourselves against an ever encroaching government at the precise time their violence against the innocent appears to be rising? Again, no thanks.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Why not surrender a right to bear arms when it causes more harm than good in your country.

In the week, last year when I went back home to Louisville, to visit my mother, there were three shootings, of criminals by armed victims.

I live in Houston Texas, about twice a month or so there is some home, or business owner that fights back with his own firearm against a bad guy.

My point is that anytime some psycho kills a group of unarmed people it makes the national, and world news.
For some reason, the gun becomes the culprit.

All of the little "Guy saves family from home intruder" stories never make the national news.

Maybe if more of the unarmed good guys were armed, the death toll could be lessened.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Answer me this. How does owning a gun make you better equipped to defend yourself? Remember, if you have a gun laying around, it's unsafe, and if you have young children, they could kill themselves/each other with it, if you own a gun, you are statistically more likely to use it on yourself than anyone else, and if it's locked safely away where it should be, you can't use it to protect yourself even in the unlikely event of a home invasion.

I don't get how not breaking the law doesn't work to not get arrested... Especially when you are advocating breaking the law as often as possible as being a viable alternative.

We don't have more restricted freedom than the US. Our people are actually less monitored and controlled. We just have stricter gun laws. That doesn't restrict my freedom.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

...if you have a gun laying around...

Yes It is just sitting on the dinner table.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Did you read the rest of my post? Or are you purposely just picking a tiny piece of what I said to quote to make you feel better about the fact you have no answer?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Did you read the rest of my post? Or are you purposely just picking a tiny piece of what I said to quote to make you feel better about the fact you have no answer?

I read your post. I don't have kids, I don't have a gun just "laying around".

"Why not surrender a right to bear arms "

That, to me is just a ludicrous question.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Why though? lol you didn't answer a single question I posed. Your statement just there about not having kids didn't in any way answer the question that was a part of....

You surrendered your right to free speech, You surrendered your right to privacy. Your constitution has been P***ed all over by your government, and you all let these things happen while screaming "DON'T TAKE MY GUNS AWAY I NEED TO FEEL SAFE!!!!"

What's ludicrous is using "self defence" as an excuse to buy semi-automatics and assault rifles. Being able to buy assault rifles won't make you safe. They're ASSAULT rifles, not defence rifles lol.

 

[Exorcet]

A) Why not surrender a right to bear arms when it causes more harm than good in your country. I never said it's right to surrender other rights, merely pointing out you've already surrendered much more important rights, like free speech, or privacy.

Does more harm than good, in your opinion. Surrendering rights at all is a mistake. Surrendering guns rights will be a mistake, just as any previous surrendering of rights.

B) There hasn't been a single mass murder since the gun control laws came in, and yes, murder is way down on what it was, because it's harder for crazies to kill people without such easy access to guns. I never said we haven't had a single shooting or murder since, and to imply I did is not only missing the point, it's ridiculous. You can't say any one thing is the source of all murders, or one policy would stop them all. The solution Aus took made a massive impact though. It's much harder for people to kill others with low tech weapons than guns, especially the kind of guns you can easily buy in the US. I have a set of nunchuks in my car, and another next to my bed, and I'm trained to use them, so I am far from worried about a crazy coming at me with a knife or a pipe or something to that effect. But against a gun, my skills with the nunchuks aren't much use to me are they?

There have been multiple mass killings since 96

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

Your last point is one of the reasons why guns are legal in the US. You don't want nunchuks to fight off a shooter. You want a gun. And when someone comes at you with a knife, you have an advantage with a gun. Take away the gun and you're forced to be more vulnerable. The criminal might not lose anything at all, what does the law matter to them?

C) It does make perfect sense. I never told you it would change the way policy is made or enforced. Merely, if you have a problem with cops giving tickets out so easily, don't break the law. Works for me!

This completely misses the point. The problem isn't getting a ticket, it's getting a ticket for no reason. The problem is an organization that is supposed to keep order is being shaped to turned normal citizens into criminals for profit. It is insanity.

D) Perhaps don't take a sentence like that so literal. We have a much better system here than the US does

In your opinion.

and our crazies rack up nowhere near the body count the american crazies do lol. So the solution is very much tested effective

Given that you didn't know that you've had mass murders for years after gun control, I'm hesitant to take that without a source.

Something that I know is proven though is that armed citizens can prevent crime. Just look at the US.

The problem with Britain's gun ban was their police don't carry guns for the most part, so they are basically a joke compared to organised crime. But the way Aus did it worked fine.

So organized crime got around the gun ban?

Answer me this. How does owning a gun make you better equipped to defend yourself? Remember, if you have a gun laying around, it's unsafe

Ridiculous.

and if you have young children, they could kill themselves/each other with it

Or save their own lives.

if you own a gun, you are statistically more likely to use it on yourself than anyone else

Don't be an idiot and this most likely won't apply to you.

and if it's locked safely away where it should be, you can't use it to protect yourself even in the unlikely event of a home invasion.

Open the safe.

Why though? lol you didn't answer a single question I posed. Your statement just there about not having kids didn't in any way answer the question that was a part of....

You surrendered your right to free speech, You surrendered your right to privacy. Your constitution has been P***ed all over by your government, and you all let these things happen while screaming "DON'T TAKE MY GUNS AWAY I NEED TO FEEL SAFE!!!!"

You're generalizing. You can't apply an average to an individual.

What's ludicrous is using "self defence" as an excuse to buy semi-automatics and assault rifles. Being able to buy assault rifles won't make you safe. They're ASSAULT rifles, not defence rifles lol.

Semantics.

 

[McLaren]

You got me. The field cops complying with department policy over which they have no control by writing tickets in order to retain their jobs, completely negates all the good work that hundreds of thousands of cops do every day. I don't know why I didn't see that.

/sarcasm.

You have to understand that a victimless crime to him is:

If drunk drivers never run into anything then they have done nothing wrong.

 

[Mike_grpA]

So of the murders you link to in wikipedia, only two since port arthur involved guns, neither of which were really Mass murders, since one involved two deaths, and the other three.

So in the 19 years after the gun control laws, 5 deaths in "mass shootings", while if you look at your own source, in the 19 years before the gun control laws, 73 deaths in mass shootings, each of which had more than 3 deaths. Your own link suggests the laws worked pretty well.

As I already said, nothing will completely wipe away shootings. Even if you could destroy every gun in the world, it isn't hard to build a rudimentary firearm, so someone would end up shooting somebody. Does that mean everyone should have guns just to be safe? Absolutely not, the more guns the general public have, the higher the chance people will be killed by them.

You actually missed my point about knowing how to defend myself without relying on a firearm. I actually said, where everyone has guns, my nunchuk skills are useless. My point was that I can defend myself, and my family, where I live, without having to own a gun. Owning a gun might make you feel safe, or powerful, but you're kidding yourself. There are thousands of scenarios where you can't get to your gun quickly enough, or simply don't have access to one, where you will be defenceless against anyone with any kind of weapon. As you say yourself, when you don't have a gun you're vulnerable. I don't have that problem.


The point of getting a ticket for nothing I can't relate to I'm afraid. I understand police chasing ticket quotas, but where I live that involves sneaky tactics to catch people where they ARE breaking laws, but being pretty harmless too. An example would be police putting up radars or speed cameras in sneaky spots just over crests or around blind corners at the bottom of hills, to catch people who have unknowingly crept over the speed limit. Due to the fact the state I live in has some of the most dangerous roads around, and has such a high road toll, you'd expect speed cameras in accident hot spots, but they aren't. They are in speeding hot spots, which are always very safe big highways where you could easily and safely drive about 40kph over the limit. Now obviously these tactics are dodgy. But the people being caught are technically still breaking the law, so they just have to be more careful. I'm not sure how the police chase their quotas where you live so I can't comment on that.

If you own a gun, and have small children who could get a hold of it, they are not likely going to "save their lives" with it. THAT is ridiculous lol. If it's locked in a safe, and you have a home invasion, you will not get to your safe, unlock it, and get your gun out, all before an intruder has already dealt with you. The intruder, being where you live, will have their own gun, and most home invasions are done while the home's occupants are in bed asleep. You will have people already in your home when you wake up.

Like I said. If you are against tighter gun laws because you like guns, you have a flawless argument, and I'll agree with you. I like guns too, believe it or not. I love hunting, it's great fun. But don't tell me owning guns makes you safer. That is just a bull**** argument.

Edit* Btw, we can still buy guns in Aus. We just banned semi-autos, assault weapons, and pump action shotties. Single action rifles and shotties, which are perfect for hunting, are still available. Provided you can pass all the requirements for a licence (I don't have one shh. But I don't own guns, I use my friend's rifles and shotties on his farm). So you can still buy and own and use guns here, just not live out your call of duty fantasies on your local constabulary. If you want to use assault weapons and the like, go join the military.

 

[a6m5]

If you own a gun, and have small children who could get a hold of it, they are not likely going to "save their lives" with it. THAT is ridiculous lol. If it's locked in a safe, and you have a home invasion, you will not get to your safe, unlock it, and get your gun out, all before an intruder has already dealt with you. The intruder, being where you live, will have their own gun, and most home invasions are done while the home's occupants are in bed asleep. You will have people already in your home when you wake up.

Intruders are chased away, with, or without shots fired DAILY in this country with firearms. I just don't get the logic of arguing 100% solid fact with "he's gonna breaking in while you are sleeping" B.S. Sorry.

P.S. Ordinary citizens do not have access to assault rifles in the U.S. outside controlled environment(shooting range).

 

[Exorcet]

So of the murders you link to in wikipedia, only two since port arthur involved guns, neither of which were really Mass murders, since one involved two deaths, and the other three.

So in the 19 years after the gun control laws, 5 deaths in "mass shootings", while if you look at your own source, in the 19 years before the gun control laws, 73 deaths in mass shootings, each of which had more than 3 deaths. Your own link suggests the laws worked pretty well.

It's not about gun deaths, but deaths. Like I said before, I don't think how someone is killed matters. It's that they die. The focus should be on limiting deaths. It's interesting that in the you have fires with ~10 deaths and a stabbing with 8 while many of the shootings had less deaths than this.

As for the shootings after the law change, they point out that criminals don't really care. I know you're aware of that fact already. However that also means that they get an advantage in weaponry over law followers.

As I already said, nothing will completely wipe away shootings. Even if you could destroy every gun in the world, it isn't hard to build a rudimentary firearm, so someone would end up shooting somebody. Does that mean everyone should have guns just to be safe? Absolutely not, the more guns the general public have, the higher the chance people will be killed by them.

There is data pointing the other way on this.

You actually missed my point about knowing how to defend myself without relying on a firearm. I actually said, where everyone has guns, my nunchuk skills are useless.

Maybe so, but you can even that out by getting a gun. This also means that criminals with nunchuks, knives, etc are not disadvantaged.

My point was that I can defend myself, and my family, where I live, without having to own a gun.

But you are at a disadvantage to a shooter. You've said so yourself. That's the point. You don't need a gun to defend yourself because the probability of being robbed or attacked is no where near 100 %. You have the gun for the off chance that something happens.

Owning a gun might make you feel safe, or powerful, but you're kidding yourself.

How? Are the people who have stopped criminals with their guns kidding themselves? It is very much a safety device, and like other such devices, while it's not magic, when used properly it can be effective.

There are thousands of scenarios where you can't get to your gun quickly enough, or simply don't have access to one, where you will be defenceless against anyone with any kind of weapon. As you say yourself, when you don't have a gun you're vulnerable. I don't have that problem.

You have exactly that problem, because you don't have a gun. Even I have that problem because I don't have a gun. Neither of us thinks much of it though because we're not terribly likely to need the gun on a daily basis. But technically it's better to have one than not. Those thousands of situations you present are chance events. Also likely it saving yourself by shooting your attacker. If you have a gun, you can do the latter. If you don't, you can't.

If you own a gun, and have small children who could get a hold of it, they are not likely going to "save their lives" with it. THAT is ridiculous lol.

I will try to look for the cases I know of this happening later and post them.

If it's locked in a safe, and you have a home invasion, you will not get to your safe, unlock it, and get your gun out, all before an intruder has already dealt with you.

That's an assumption.

The intruder, being where you live, will have their own gun

That's an assumption (it's also a valid possibility anywhere).

and most home invasions are done while the home's occupants are in bed asleep. You will have people already in your home when you wake up.

This is also an assumption. Simply consider the case where someone trying to force a lock or break a window wakes you up.

Like I said. If you are against tighter gun laws because you like guns, you have a flawless argument, and I'll agree with you. I like guns too, believe it or not. I love hunting, it's great fun. But don't tell me owning guns makes you safer. That is just a bull**** argument.

My ultimate concern is one of rights. They can't just be voted away. Safety is a big deal as well though and guns certainly contribute to that. There is nothing wrong with that argument. There are numerous cases of armed civilians defending themselves with guns. As self defense weapons they work, no argument. I suppose less clear is asking if "they are worth it" but that's a highly subjective argument.

If you want to use assault weapons and the like, go join the military.

No one should have to justify what they want to do. If something is to be banned, you need to justify why it must be taken away.

 

[FoolKiller]

We have a Guns thread.

 

[squadops]

We have a Guns thread.

Yeah, I pointed that out a few posts up 👍 I'm going to post what I just worked on for this thread and let the mods sort it out.

This is looking at guns at home and numbers and stuff, It's affirming my notion that we should be better off with less police and less liberties afforded them in their job descriptions. Of course it's yet another case of asking where the family value is and why are we not taking more personal responsibilities upon ourselves. OK then

Here is something interesting I found on The NCBI website(The National Center for Biotechnology Information), a part of The NLM(The United States National Library of Medicine), a branch of The United States Department of Health and Human Services.

To study the epidemiology of deaths involving firearms kept in the home, we reviewed all the gunshot deaths that occurred in King County, Washington (population 1,270,000), from 1978 through 1983. The medical examiner's case files were supplemented by police records or interviews with investigating officers or both, to obtain specific information about the circumstances, the scene of the incident, the type of firearm involved, and the relationship of the suspect to the victim. A total of 743 firearm-related deaths occurred during this six-year period, 398 of which (54 percent) occurred in the residence where the firearm was kept. Only 2 of these 398 deaths (0.5 percent) involved an intruder shot during attempted entry. Seven persons (1.8 percent) were killed in self-defense. For every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms. Hand-guns were used in 70.5 percent of these deaths. The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned.

I'm looking at the percentages in response to @Mike_grpA's assertion that "if you own a gun, you are statistically more likely to use it on yourself than anyone else." I think the sample is a fair representation and the information applies well to the discussion(even though it should be in the 'guns' thread ). So here we go...

Starting with 398 gun deaths in the home where a weapon is kept for personal protection, we get a whopping 2 deaths of intruders. That is a lower number than I expected but that's a good thing, another 7 defending oneself against other threats is a reasonable expectation. At 2.25% of the total deaths it's not looking so good for those of us who's mantra is home defense(or is it?). All is not lost quite yet so lets keep crunching those numbers shall we? :-) Next we have 12 accidental deaths(around 3%) which I'll attribute first off to an outlandish, outdated, impossible phenomenon which seems to be unacceptable in any form for this day and age, labeled, an accident. Second off these casualties are most likely other family members, friends, or maybe a neighbor thrown in here and there. OK, onward to criminal homicides(yes, indeed not all homicides are criminal), at 40 deaths we're still looking at a pretty small number with a similar victim pool as the accidental. 10% of the time the gun owner, or someone with access to it, is not justified in their actions. Being well aware of what they are doing, they still choose violence as a viable solution to conflict or fulfilling desires. Premeditation is not mentioned and I hope it makes up a small percent of these criminal actions. Suicide makes up the rest and comes in at an overwhelming majority of the total deaths. I'm very surprised at 80%, wow that's a lot. I think if someone's made up their mind to end their life it has to be noted they're going to do it and succeed, of the five scenarios a gun is definitely not required on this one.,

What I take from juggling these numbers around in my head? Well, people are depressed and the majority of these deaths are themselves, family, friends, and maybe a few others who are probably known to some extent. More then half of all gun deaths occur at home, going back to the total number of deaths for a second... almost 1/2 of all the gun deaths combined where suicide, hardly a wild cowboy shoot em up scenario, not by a long shot.

Forcing myself to take a closer look at all of this I'd have to say 1. mental illness needs to be addressed around here. 2. Our family structures need a serious looking at. 3. Protecting yourself and your home with a gun is a pretty good idea, however, safety, safety, safety, did I say safety? Seeing as how many would be burglars of your house are people you know, the simple fact of them knowing you pack heat is probably enough to greatly reduce your chances of being burglarized.

I could go on and on but this is more than enough for now, I hope the post is legible, I hope the numbers provoke some thought outside pounding opinions over and over without even peaking out from under the covers. 👍

 

[Swagger897]

Here you go.

I'm just going to quote you once because I don't have the time for dissecting your entire post.

First of all, it would've been nice to know what was muted out in the beginning of the video. Was he checking in with the someone to read the history of the license plate? Something was probably done to make him do essentially a U-turn.

Second, yes it would be pretty reasonable to say "I'm reaching into my car to get my license." I think I heard catering or something along those lines come out of him during the firing shots, but why didn't the cop make him sit in his car?

Third, Ohio may be an open-carry, but your still required to have a conceal permit in a car...

Fourth.... I have my own views of religion, one could say Deism would follow it, but whatever... So good thing I'm not a Muslim in America..

Fifth. When I meant:

Have I ever encountered an officer not breaking the law? No.

I meant as in being pulled over for something I didn't do, or being questioned for something I never did... Yes I have met police like the examples you stated, in fact, just two seconds ago I said hi to my school's officers..

Sixth. I don't know if it were a mob or not. Sometimes as cool as they can be, they can get out of hand like the one such stunt with the Best-Buy blue shirt from New York (I can't remember the name but that should be enough details for you.)

Seventh. Sorry, didn't notice but this is what I meant:

See, the trick to violent and corrupted enforcers of the law is that they are violent or corrupt. Your unlawfulness means jack all. It isn't called abuse because it is justified.

You can't compare a violent officer, be it his tone or physical actions, to someone who is unlawful, and usually resisting, and say that is corrupt. What is corrupt in this instance would be if the man walked to the gas station and was asked for his permit, and started to reach for his wallet to show him, and then the officer went trigger-happy and blazed him up. Reaching back into his car is something that police are trained not to allow to happen, because like I said, he could have reached for a weapon.

I know he didn't, and I know the cop is trigger-happy and I'm glad he's gone and may be charged, but all I'm saying is what could had of happened to him based on what happened. If you feel like I'm defending the officer, you're wrong. The road could had of twisted a different way, that's my view on it.

I'm glad you brought that up, how about buying a soda in NYC? Or crispy kreme doughnuts?

All I can think of while reading this thread:

Bravo 👍. Maybe even pumping gas with your own money too....

For all the cop knew, he could have been getting his license.

Fixed

You can't ask "who is at fault?" without context. Unless you want "it depends".

I'll say this though, I don't imagine that not wearing a seatbeat has caused many car accidents.

I understand. It's not like I have a police report in front of me detailing an accident from the drivers. Make up your own, you might where I'm going with this.

And I don't mean that not wearing a seat-belt causes accidents, but rather is a result of them.

I'm not sure where this came from. I was asking about the difference between a safe drunk driver, and a safe sober driver. Why does being afraid come into it?

Actually you were somehow comparing having a test for driving under the influence and drunk drivers, to see if they can actually drive safely?? (I don't know, your comparison)...

Is this enough to require a seatbelt for tissue boxes?

No, but it proves the point that even a tissue box can hurt you. If a tissue box is say 50 grams, and the average person weighs 50,000+ grams, the difference of plausible force is over 400 times greater. So if a tissue box is going to "hurt" you, whatever level of pain that may be, then a flying human body can kill you.

 

[squadops]

Bravo 👍. Maybe even pumping gas with your own money too....

It's illegal in Oregon 👍

 

[Swagger897]

It's illegal in Oregon 👍

Not what I meant but ok, that's new. And in NJ too.