Oregon Shooting
-
The only time they get firearm practice is when they're shooting at civilians, just like in NYC.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Marc Clifton wrote: 1) By pursuing a car at high speeds, the police can cause more fatalities, injuries and damage. This was an issue in CA about 20 years ago and they passed laws that police were not to engage in high speed pursuits. (IIRC) Interesting, I've always pulled over for police when they put their lights on. I've never fled at speeds of 100 mph. I've also never been shot 20+ times by the police. Marc Clifton wrote: 2) And they couldn't have blown out the tires or taken some other action? They couldn't have aimed just at the driver? I know a police officer who was hit by a fleeing suspect's car. He was hospitalized from his injuries. His partner fired on the car, killing the driver. I'd buy the cop a beer. I think the thought process is, once a car is used as a weapon, use force until it is no longer a weapon (moving). A car with blown tires is not immobile or non lethal. Honestly, do you really think that these 2 people are innocent victims?
wizardzz wrote:
Honestly, do you really think that these 2 people are innocent victims?
The passenger, certainly not being the driver of the car, yes, is innocent. As far as the driver goes, what was he guilty of? Reckless driving? Attempted manslaughter? Etc.? So, we have an execution instead of a trial by jury, guilty before innocent, and that is the way of the law, eh? The point being, the police are supposed to protect the citizens, even those committing crimes, and the innocent people, and also they are supposed to protect the law. The actions I read about don't seem to reflect this. That's my 2c. Marc
Reverse Engineering Legacy Applications
How To Think Like a Functional Programmer
My Blog
Computational Types in C# and F# -
Link[^] Yeah..2nd amendment makes perfectly sense if you're able to own semiautomatics... Or maybe he just was pissed at all the Christmas shoppers
Hmm i wonder why its doing that......ARGHS NO STOP, ROLLBACK ROLLBACK...F*** That's how i learned to "Always Backup"!! Dogs are man's best Friend, Cats are man's adorable little serial killer
Mendor81 wrote:
Yeah..2nd amendment makes perfectly sense if you're able to own semiautomatics...
No idea what that is supposed to mean. Certainly isn't clear what "able" means. As in being strong enough to pick one up? Certainly is in fact sensible that there is no such thing a perfect right though. Matter of fact that was specifically known by the framers of the constitution.
-
The topic is "America has stupid gun laws". This comes up now and again. The exact same arguments are made by the exact same people each time. I don't think anyone has changed their minds yet, but it is American politics and shouldn't be here, and according to the Americans anyone who isn't shouldn't be allowed an opinion anyway.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends. Shed Petition[^]
ChrisElston wrote:
according to the Americans anyone who isn't shouldn't be allowed an opinion anyway.
Actually pretty sure that the governments of those individuals are responsible for deciding whether they are entitled to an opinion and whether they can express it. Other than that the owner of this site would also have some say.
-
Mendor81 wrote:
.2nd amendment makes perfectly sense if you're able to own semiautomatics...
Yes, it does. Europeans don't need to own firearms because their liberties and rights have already been infringed, and they're used to living that way. Americans don't want to live that way.
Mendor81 wrote:
Or maybe he just was pissed at all the Christmas shoppers
Unfortunately, he appears to have killed himself, so we can only guess at why he did it. Given the fact that he only used 1/3 of the capacity of his magazine in a crowded mall, I suspect the victims were people he knows. Of course, assuming that the mainstream media is doing its usual bang-up job, he may not have used a semi-auto rifle at all. This is what journalists use to identify weapons: Journalist Weapon Identification Guide[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Yes, it does. Europeans don't need to own firearms because their liberties and rights have already been infringed, and they're used to living that way
The latter might be true but the former isn't since their society gets to make the rules. And even presuming that they have rights then the rights they have might not include the same ones.
-
Yes, it does. Europeans don't need to own firearms because their liberties and rights have already been infringed, and they're used to living that way. Americans don't want to live that way.
Nope as you can see it's more like we know the dangers of civilians owning arsenals and found a way of resolving our differences in a more peaceful way. 10k Deaths a year is a good sign that something is wrong in your country. IMO
Hmm i wonder why its doing that......ARGHS NO STOP, ROLLBACK ROLLBACK...F*** That's how i learned to "Always Backup"!! Dogs are man's best Friend, Cats are man's adorable little serial killer
Mendor81 wrote:
Nope as you can see it's more like we know the dangers of civilians owning arsenals and found a way of resolving our differences in a more peaceful way.
Nonsensical over-simplification. Americans who actually understand the ramifications of the 2nd amendment are quite capable of understanding that weapons are dangerous. Just as the framers of the constitution did. Just as they are also capable of understanding the ramifications of other things like free speech. How it can be both positive and negative.
Mendor81 wrote:
10k Deaths a year is a good sign that something is wrong in your country. IMO
Given that humanity is complicated, 'improving' one thing very well could diminish something else.
-
wizardzz wrote:
Honestly, do you really think that these 2 people are innocent victims?
The passenger, certainly not being the driver of the car, yes, is innocent. As far as the driver goes, what was he guilty of? Reckless driving? Attempted manslaughter? Etc.? So, we have an execution instead of a trial by jury, guilty before innocent, and that is the way of the law, eh? The point being, the police are supposed to protect the citizens, even those committing crimes, and the innocent people, and also they are supposed to protect the law. The actions I read about don't seem to reflect this. That's my 2c. Marc
Reverse Engineering Legacy Applications
How To Think Like a Functional Programmer
My Blog
Computational Types in C# and F#In similar situations, I have seen charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery of a police officer.
Marc Clifton wrote:
The point being, the police are supposed to protect the citizens, even those committing crimes, and the innocent people, and also they are supposed to protect the law.
And also protect themselves and their partners.
-
What do you have alarms and police for? We have robberies over here as well and in plain daylight. happened to a neighbor of mine. nobody got killed in the process. Neither he or i feel the need to go out and buy a gun. We did install alarms that same week though.
Hmm i wonder why its doing that......ARGHS NO STOP, ROLLBACK ROLLBACK...F*** That's how i learned to "Always Backup"!! Dogs are man's best Friend, Cats are man's adorable little serial killer
Mendor81 wrote:
What do you have alarms and police for?
Do you understand that the US constitution 2nd admendment is not just about that? And even more that it never was? Just as the free speech isn't just about the right to open ones mouth and say something.
-
... because GBH is clearly the appropriate response to attempted theft? Good lord, you're even more gun crazy than I thought.
-
But with baseball bats, it's ALWAYS intentional.
You can outrun and dodge a person armed with a baseball bat. try that with a gun pointed.
You simply don't have the same history we do.
Right....we didn't slaughter innocent natives by colonizing land that wasn't ours. We didn't burn anyone which didn't followed the same religous beliefs we did. We didn't had that many wars and revolutions as you did.....oh wait we do have a worse history then you. But still things developed differently i wonder why. Really, i apologize if this seems like trolling, i just want to understand where and why things developed over there the way they did and why your country is one of the countries with the most deaths caused by firearms then the rest of the relatively peaceful countries in the EU.
Hmm i wonder why its doing that......ARGHS NO STOP, ROLLBACK ROLLBACK...F*** That's how i learned to "Always Backup"!! Dogs are man's best Friend, Cats are man's adorable little serial killer
Mendor81 wrote:
why your country is one of the countries with the most deaths caused by firearms then the rest of the relatively peaceful countries in the EU.
You should probably break that down to a per-capita rate, since the USA is larger than any single country in the EU. It's really hard to say that the absolute numbers mean anything. But at the same time, you should also realize who you're talking to, and that he's very well prepared for the argument. Is it worth it?
-
wizardzz wrote:
Honestly, do you really think that these 2 people are innocent victims?
The passenger, certainly not being the driver of the car, yes, is innocent. As far as the driver goes, what was he guilty of? Reckless driving? Attempted manslaughter? Etc.? So, we have an execution instead of a trial by jury, guilty before innocent, and that is the way of the law, eh? The point being, the police are supposed to protect the citizens, even those committing crimes, and the innocent people, and also they are supposed to protect the law. The actions I read about don't seem to reflect this. That's my 2c. Marc
Reverse Engineering Legacy Applications
How To Think Like a Functional Programmer
My Blog
Computational Types in C# and F#Marc Clifton wrote:
Attempted manslaughter?
Eh? Don't know about where you are but where I am when someone tries to drive over someone else with a car then they are charged with murder, not manslaughter. And ramming another car with occupants can certainly count as attempted murder.
-
In similar situations, I have seen charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery of a police officer.
Marc Clifton wrote:
The point being, the police are supposed to protect the citizens, even those committing crimes, and the innocent people, and also they are supposed to protect the law.
And also protect themselves and their partners.
wizardzz wrote:
And also protect themselves and their partners.
To a certain extent yes - but this level of violence seems excessive. But isn't this the crux of the matter? To what degree is a person who is supposed to uphold the law to protect even those that are breaking it at the expense of his/her own safety? Marc
Reverse Engineering Legacy Applications
How To Think Like a Functional Programmer
My Blog
Computational Types in C# and F# -
Mendor81 wrote:
why your country is one of the countries with the most deaths caused by firearms then the rest of the relatively peaceful countries in the EU.
You should probably break that down to a per-capita rate, since the USA is larger than any single country in the EU. It's really hard to say that the absolute numbers mean anything. But at the same time, you should also realize who you're talking to, and that he's very well prepared for the argument. Is it worth it?
Because anti-gunners aren't interested in appropriate statistics unless they can be twisted to meet their agenda.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
BobJanova wrote:
... because GBH is clearly the appropriate response to attempted theft?
I can only suppose and hope that you did not read or perhaps did not understand what "Navy" means in the post that you responded to.
Maybe he's confusing it with that clothing store with the crappy commercials...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Have you seen that footage and been able to comprehend how the fuck they missed? The sad thing is, there is even a shooting range in Manhattan, but not a single one in Chicago.
The entirety of Chicago is a shooting range.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
I understand what your point of view is, but still don't agree. After thinking about it, a lot of massacres were done/supported by civilians having weapons. So when things turn bad, having guns all around may not protect you but may make the mess much worse. Or not. Depends of what is turning bad, who is trying to turn against who. That being said, it looks too much like a flame war that is not worth pursuing. Even the nazis have been brought up already. It is clear from your tone that you won't change your mind, and I can tell you that it won't change mine either. ;)
Elrond wrote:
It is clear from your tone that you won't change your mind,
That's the first thing you've said that I agree with 100%.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
BobJanova wrote:
... because GBH is clearly the appropriate response to attempted theft?
I can only suppose and hope that you did not read or perhaps did not understand what "Navy" means in the post that you responded to.
-
In similar situations, I have seen charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery of a police officer.
Marc Clifton wrote:
The point being, the police are supposed to protect the citizens, even those committing crimes, and the innocent people, and also they are supposed to protect the law.
And also protect themselves and their partners.
-
I was in the military, standing watch with a side arm, and I was expected to use it if necessary. They don't expect personnel to be pussies while guarding a warship, and I was well trained in the use and maintenance of the pistol. I could just as easily have killed the guy outright, but I chose not to. I'm not gun crazy by any stretch of the imagination. I have three sporting 22's (two used for silhouette competition), a shotgun for home defense, and two 1911's and Ar15's, one for me, and one for the wife. Yes, we have a lot of ammo on hand, but that's because we practice quite a bit. Our "stockpile" of SHTF ammo consists of 16 loaded 30-round magazines for the AR15s (8 for each of us), and 14 7-round magazines for the pistols (7 for each of us). Anyone that expects to be able to lug around a few thousand rounds of extra ammo during a zombie apocalypse is deluding themselves. You grab what you can, bury the rest (if you have time), and head for the hills. In all actuality, I doubt the wife would take a rifle, but it's there if she wants it. My goal isn't to own a lot of guns and go around shooting people. My goal is to be able arm myself and my wife to a reasonable level, and in the event it's necessary. We're most certainly not "gun crazy".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
"In similar situations, I have seen charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery of a police officer." Neither of which carries the death penalty ...
First degree murder doesn't carry the death penalty in my state, yet cops will legally shoot to kill in order to save their own or their partner's lives. If someone is attempting to murder you or another, you have the legal right to defend yourself, regardless of the sentence the courts would give them. It's interesting that you have a difficult time with the legal precedent that an officer's life is more valuable to society than a criminal's. Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime? Anyone in your family ever have to defend themselves with deadly force?
