|
On October 12 2012 18:43 brachester wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 17:56 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 17:51 DannyJ wrote:On October 12 2012 17:30 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 12 2012 17:23 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 17:18 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 12 2012 16:45 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 16:44 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 16:41 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 16:31 Twinkle Toes wrote:
[quote]
Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol.
That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops.
Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard. You're right, I stand corrected. But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury? It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't). Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits" Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass. Twinkle, this was the argument: essencez says that police officers shoot to kill because they want to avoid lawsuits
I stated that's not true and wrongly stated police shoot for limbs. Then you said I was wrong and I agreed. E: We're not in disagreement... stop flaming lol If you stopped there, but you did not. I bolded the part where I missed to comment on earlier and which you standby, repeating yourself: Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits" Again, you are wrong on both counts. 1. Police shoot for the limb, which you admit you are wrong. 2. Shooting to kill is better that shooting to injure to avoid "a heap of lawsuits". The second issue now which you seem to want to downplay, but I emphasize, is that it is categorically incorrect. Shooting to kill does not mean there are less lawsuits to confront for the police officer that shooting to injure. And again, if you have no idea what you are talking about, just shut up on the topic. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are very confused. It seems that poster himself stated your number 2 is incorrect, but you seem to think he supports it. Even if he isn't confused, he's still being an asshole. Sands has every right to be a part of the discussion, and if he's ignorant on the subject it's a good opportunity for him to learn. Not everyone comes out of the womb with a fucking mensa membership card, and if Twinkle is so damned learned on the subject, then he's in a perfect position to educate him without being a total jerk. This Twinkle guy argue with everyone in every single threads lol, just ignore him.
Thanks for the heads up.
|
On October 12 2012 17:24 cloneThorN wrote:
Well first off i think i know hy he shot before he asked questions: In a country like america where everyone have legal access to guns, every bulgar will have one. So in this guys mind, HE was the one in mortal danger.
However.. Probation against weapons do not work. You can take my country, Denmark, as an example. We have banned 2 things. Firearms and knives(this include fishing knives, which is stupid). What have happende is that we got 3 major gangs roaming around(Banditos, Hells Angels and Black Cobra). Beside those guys all having a shit ton of weapons, we also got ALOT of disturbing a$$holes, mostly immigrants from the middle east, but also danes, who go around with both knives and guns.
This have resulted in: A. Gangwars with civilian casualties(you can't protect yourself from guys with weapons if you are unarmed). B. Murders in broad daylight(these are mostly done by middle earstern immigrants in the age of 15-30). C. Rape. D. Robberies(Owners of the stores can be sued if they attack the robbers. This include if someone tries to rob your own house).
So in my opinion, banning guns does zip and zero, except preventing accidental homicide like in OP's article.
that's why denmark has a 0.9 crime rate comparated to 5.0 in the US because gun control doesn't do anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
|
On October 12 2012 19:00 Manimal_pro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 17:24 cloneThorN wrote:
Well first off i think i know hy he shot before he asked questions: In a country like america where everyone have legal access to guns, every bulgar will have one. So in this guys mind, HE was the one in mortal danger.
However.. Probation against weapons do not work. You can take my country, Denmark, as an example. We have banned 2 things. Firearms and knives(this include fishing knives, which is stupid). What have happende is that we got 3 major gangs roaming around(Banditos, Hells Angels and Black Cobra). Beside those guys all having a shit ton of weapons, we also got ALOT of disturbing a$$holes, mostly immigrants from the middle east, but also danes, who go around with both knives and guns.
This have resulted in: A. Gangwars with civilian casualties(you can't protect yourself from guys with weapons if you are unarmed). B. Murders in broad daylight(these are mostly done by middle earstern immigrants in the age of 15-30). C. Rape. D. Robberies(Owners of the stores can be sued if they attack the robbers. This include if someone tries to rob your own house).
So in my opinion, banning guns does zip and zero, except preventing accidental homicide like in OP's article.
that's why denmark has a 0.9 crime rate comparated to 5.0 in the US because gun control doesn't do anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Also obviously the US has no Gangproblem because everyone has Guns... Rofl.
|
On October 12 2012 19:00 Manimal_pro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 17:24 cloneThorN wrote:
Well first off i think i know hy he shot before he asked questions: In a country like america where everyone have legal access to guns, every bulgar will have one. So in this guys mind, HE was the one in mortal danger.
However.. Probation against weapons do not work. You can take my country, Denmark, as an example. We have banned 2 things. Firearms and knives(this include fishing knives, which is stupid). What have happende is that we got 3 major gangs roaming around(Banditos, Hells Angels and Black Cobra). Beside those guys all having a shit ton of weapons, we also got ALOT of disturbing a$$holes, mostly immigrants from the middle east, but also danes, who go around with both knives and guns.
This have resulted in: A. Gangwars with civilian casualties(you can't protect yourself from guys with weapons if you are unarmed). B. Murders in broad daylight(these are mostly done by middle earstern immigrants in the age of 15-30). C. Rape. D. Robberies(Owners of the stores can be sued if they attack the robbers. This include if someone tries to rob your own house).
So in my opinion, banning guns does zip and zero, except preventing accidental homicide like in OP's article.
that's why denmark has a 0.9 crime rate comparated to 5.0 in the US because gun control doesn't do anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Correlation does not equal causation.
RE: this thread:
People see these threads and think every other person in the USA is a murderer. "If it bleeds it leads". For every story about a father killing a son on accident, there is another story about how someone defended their life with their gun.
Either way, you guys should stop worrying about guns and instead worry about diseases. You are many magnitudes more likely to die that way.
|
^ ok so you're saying that gun control does not affect homicide rate. Do you really believe that?
|
On October 12 2012 19:08 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 19:00 Manimal_pro wrote:On October 12 2012 17:24 cloneThorN wrote:
Well first off i think i know hy he shot before he asked questions: In a country like america where everyone have legal access to guns, every bulgar will have one. So in this guys mind, HE was the one in mortal danger.
However.. Probation against weapons do not work. You can take my country, Denmark, as an example. We have banned 2 things. Firearms and knives(this include fishing knives, which is stupid). What have happende is that we got 3 major gangs roaming around(Banditos, Hells Angels and Black Cobra). Beside those guys all having a shit ton of weapons, we also got ALOT of disturbing a$$holes, mostly immigrants from the middle east, but also danes, who go around with both knives and guns.
This have resulted in: A. Gangwars with civilian casualties(you can't protect yourself from guys with weapons if you are unarmed). B. Murders in broad daylight(these are mostly done by middle earstern immigrants in the age of 15-30). C. Rape. D. Robberies(Owners of the stores can be sued if they attack the robbers. This include if someone tries to rob your own house).
So in my opinion, banning guns does zip and zero, except preventing accidental homicide like in OP's article.
that's why denmark has a 0.9 crime rate comparated to 5.0 in the US because gun control doesn't do anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Correlation does not equal causation. RE: this thread: People see these threads and think every other person in the USA is a murderer. "If it bleeds it leads". For every story about a father killing a son on accident, there is another story about how someone defended their life with their gun. Either way, you guys should stop worrying about guns and instead worry about diseases. You are many magnitudes more likely to die that way.
"If it bleeds, it leads", reminds me of the wire! 
|
People see these threads and think every other person in the USA is a murderer. "If it bleeds it leads". For every story about a father killing a son on accident, there is another story about how someone defended their life with their gun.
if only this were true
|
Im not sure if this case can really helps the case for stricter gun laws (although the US definitely needs them).
As an ex-cop even under strictish gun laws he could keep his weapon so this isn't much more than a personal tragedy.
|
It's the cowboy mentality.. i guess europeans simply don't have it that much.
I don't own a gun, i don't know anyone that does! Except my grandpa and a uncle that have a two barrel shotguns for hunting.
No one needs or thinks about having one.. but that's our society and culture.
This is a very sad story... really bad for the father and especially the son
|
I am an American, I am a Texan, and I live in our biggest city, houston. I do not own a gun of any kind nor does anyone in my family, as most of them are from up north where it is (more so then here) looked down upon. Lets please just remember that this issue is not black and white. Nor can it be solved with a simple issue like "this is why people should not have guns". You have to understand the deep seeded fear and mistrust of government, that is taught to many of our kids especially in the south. Not mistrust that the government will need to be fought in some kind of battle( were not THAT stupid) but mistrust of the government to keep us safe or more accurately the police. In many places, especially poorer neighborhoods. When I was a student I lived in the third ward as it is right across from the university of houston. Look it up, it is one of the worst areas in our country. The police dont come when you call them from there, and if they do it is often hours or even DAYS later. Again, I personally do not own a gun, but I do know many people personally( I realize that personal anecdotes do not mean much) who have had there apartments broken into some of them MULTIPLE times by the same robbers. These people were only warded off by verbal threats of "Ive got a gun get the fuck out or I will shoot". so maybe the question to be asked here is not should people have or not have guns but WHY do people feel they need them and what can be done to remedy that?
|
How can people be so surprised ? This happened in AMERICA ( United States of America ) the country where every single average Joe has a motherfucking pistol or assault rifle.
It was doomed to happen, sooner or later, and it will happen again if the gun law won't be changed.
Yes, it's a tragic incident but you should have expected it.
|
On October 12 2012 21:45 nennx wrote:Show nested quote +People see these threads and think every other person in the USA is a murderer. "If it bleeds it leads". For every story about a father killing a son on accident, there is another story about how someone defended their life with their gun. if only this were true
And even if it´s true, defending lives with a gun means killing the threat most of the time. It´s funny how everyone divers between killing your son and a burglar, in the end it´s like there´s death sentence on thievery in the US.
|
On October 12 2012 22:00 BlitzerSC wrote:
How can people be so surprised ? This happened in AMERICA ( United States of America ) the country where every single average Joe has a motherfucking pistol or assault rifle.
It was doomed to happen, sooner or later, and it will happen again if the gun law won't be changed.
Yes, it's a tragic incident but you should have expected it.
I don't own a pistol or assault rifle, so your moronic generalization is already false.
That's like me saying "No wonder Italy is broke! Every single government official is a part of the mob, and the population is nothing but lazy bums who sit around eating pasta!".
|
On October 12 2012 22:00 BlitzerSC wrote:
How can people be so surprised ? This happened in AMERICA ( United States of America ) the country where every single average Joe has a motherfucking pistol or assault rifle.
It was doomed to happen, sooner or later, and it will happen again if the gun law won't be changed.
Yes, it's a tragic incident but you should have expected it.
thats right sir. EVERY SINGLE AVG JOE has a pistol or assault rifle, without exception!
I can see you have done your homework here, carry on my good man.
|
On October 12 2012 21:52 Goozen wrote:
Im not sure if this case can really helps the case for stricter gun laws (although the US definitely needs them).
As an ex-cop even under strictish gun laws he could keep his weapon so this isn't much more than a personal tragedy.
oh man this is so freaking on point.
|
I thought that hyberboles were still taught in school. I guess I was wrong.
|
why the fuck did he shoot him right in the head if he thought it was a burglar? He could have injured him, isnt it what policemen are taught to do?
|
On October 12 2012 22:10 Cheerio wrote:
why the fuck did he shoot him right in the head if he thought it was a burglar? He could have injured him, isnt it what policemen are taught to do?
I believe that policemen are actually trained to kill, because they should never pull a weapon unless in the absolute dire need to and if they need to fire, that its an assurance to drop the person. Also the man is 71, he's probably playing with a full deck anymore.
|
On October 12 2012 22:09 BlitzerSC wrote:
I thought that hyberboles were still taught in school. I guess I was wrong.
Apparently not in your school, because using hyperbole to justify your otherwise invalid argument is inappropriate.
|
This story sounds fishy to me. Can I play devil's advocate? I think the father shot the son on purpose and tried to cover it up. I still remember when Marvin Gaye's father shot his son in their own home over a dispute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
