|
On February 17 2013 04:17 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:10 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:02 [Agony]x90 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:59 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:56 [Agony]x90 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment. I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster. Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous. The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction. Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement. It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power. Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive? I don't understand. You want to give more people guns? The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over. This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop. I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution. I did not mean it as an insult when i called you naive. To answer your question, yes. If the person had been in a group of more armed civilians, the officer would not had acted so "bravely" to chase him and shoot him not once, not twice, but 6 or 7 plus a head shot to confirm the kill. Defending the police in this type of situation is what keeps the LAPD doing what it does best. Act corrupt. That's okay, you just clearly made a terrible assumption regarding how I took your statement. To state my position. I believe status quo to be much better than the proliferation of weapons, as i trust a corrupt cop to have a better handle on his weapon then a pissed off joe schmo.
I would trust more a responsible trained civilian with a weapon than a police officer that wants to shoot me just because i decide to run away.
|
On February 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:18 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets. If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself. What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns. What is next? I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough* But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves. So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result.
What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
|
On February 17 2013 04:16 Bengui wrote:
Police state. The guy is a murderer, and he will keep his authority over other people. Disgusting.
Beats Canada - where children are force fed moose poop.
Link
User was warned for this post
|
On February 17 2013 04:20 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets. If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself. 1. The police officer was wrong. I'm sorry, but somebody running away is not a reason to shoot them. Drop your fucking doughnut and chase them. 2. Really? You want to shoot a cop? Why not instead make a situation where the cop has no reason the threaten you? Don't do shit that is illegal, and when a cop stops you in any situation you do as they say.
Have you ever heard of the bill of rights? you must not be American.
|
On February 17 2013 04:22 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:18 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets. If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself. What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns. What is next? I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough* But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves. So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result. What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
You do realize you are describing the movie Training Day........which is a movie.......
+ Show Spoiler +
What you fail to realize is that King Kong ain't got shit on a corrupt cop.
|
On February 17 2013 04:23 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:20 NoobSkills wrote:On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets. If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself. 1. The police officer was wrong. I'm sorry, but somebody running away is not a reason to shoot them. Drop your fucking doughnut and chase them. 2. Really? You want to shoot a cop? Why not instead make a situation where the cop has no reason the threaten you? Don't do shit that is illegal, and when a cop stops you in any situation you do as they say. Have you ever heard of the bill of rights? you must not be American.
Bill of rights in what way says you don't have to listen to the police? Which one?
|
On February 17 2013 04:22 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:18 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets. If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself. What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns. What is next? I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough* But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves. So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result. What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
What is a whole neighborhood of combatants armed against police going to do against a whole government response that comes together?
Regardless of politics and who is wrong or right, throwing guns at the problems won't help.
|
On February 17 2013 04:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:22 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:18 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets. If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself. What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns. What is next? I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough* But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves. So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result. What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together? You do realize you are describing the movie Training Day........which is a movie....... + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkNDQD0gkAU What you fail to realize is that King Kong ain't got shit on a corrupt cop.
I am not describing any movie. I was thinking about the riots that happened in California.
People like you make me sick, defend this atrocities instead of acting reasonably.
|
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. If you want to berate people for being unreasonable, consider that you are coming off that way to others.
|
On February 17 2013 04:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:22 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:18 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets. If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself. What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns. What is next? I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough* But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves. So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result. What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together? What is a whole neighborhood of combatants armed against police going to do against a whole government response that comes together? Regardless of politics and who is wrong or right, throwing guns at the problems won't help.
We pick the government.
The government was created to help us not control us.
|
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
And so far you cannot.
|
On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot.
The burden rests on you for claiming that more guns would solve the problem.
+ Show Spoiler +"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection." http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf
+ Show Spoiler +"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926.pdf
+ Show Spoiler +"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993." http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt 469/guns.pdf
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article:
Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia -'thefrankone'
|
On February 17 2013 04:28 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:26 farvacola wrote:On February 17 2013 04:22 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:18 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets. If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself. What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns. What is next? I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough* But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves. So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result. What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together? You do realize you are describing the movie Training Day........which is a movie....... + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkNDQD0gkAU What you fail to realize is that King Kong ain't got shit on a corrupt cop. I am not describing any movie. I was thinking about the riots that happened in California. People like you make me sick, defend this atrocities instead of acting reasonably.
Oh you mean the riots in which armed citizens robbed Korean store owners and killed their own people? That part isn't in Training Day, maybe you thought it was. In the meantime, just breathe and make sure you keep swallowing. Sometimes that keeps the vomit at bay.
|
On February 17 2013 04:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:28 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:26 farvacola wrote:On February 17 2013 04:22 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:18 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets. If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself. What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns. What is next? I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough* But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves. So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result. What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together? You do realize you are describing the movie Training Day........which is a movie....... + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkNDQD0gkAU What you fail to realize is that King Kong ain't got shit on a corrupt cop. I am not describing any movie. I was thinking about the riots that happened in California. People like you make me sick, defend this atrocities instead of acting reasonably. Oh you mean the riots in which armed citizens robbed Korean store owners and killed their own people? That part isn't in Training Day, maybe you thought it was. In the meantime, just breathe and make sure you keep swallowing. Sometimes that keeps the vomit at bay.
you should take your advice as well.
|
On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot.
People on meth shouldn't be walking around in public areas with loaded guns. Is that a fair (and relevant!) statement?
|
On February 17 2013 04:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot. + Show Spoiler +"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection." http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf "theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926.pdf "This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993." http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt 469/guns.pdf Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesNext sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership. Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself?
|
On February 17 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot. People on meth shouldn't be walking around in public areas with loaded guns. Is that a fair (and relevant!) statement?
Maybe read when I said that responsible trained civilians should have it? oh right you cannot read.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 17 2013 04:33 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot. + Show Spoiler +"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection." http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf "theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926.pdf "This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993." http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt 469/guns.pdf Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesNext sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership. Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself?
I'm still curious which amendment in the Bill of Rights says you don't have to do what a cop tells you to do.
|
Fuck the police.
NWA had it right from the beginning.
|
On February 17 2013 04:34 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:33 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot. + Show Spoiler +"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection." http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf "theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926.pdf "This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993." http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt 469/guns.pdf Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesNext sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership. Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself? I'm still curious which amendment in the Bill of Rights says you don't have to do what a cop tells you to do.
Read it and comprehend it what it is about. Even better educate yourself more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
