ihateaaron

Nope. Warrior!

Commander Shepard: 15 Hertt: 22 Lord Emperor: 19 Rhizoctonia: 18 Master Master Master Master Master Master Samus: 28 The Warrior: 34 Wolfpacks: 18 Yehom: 37

You nailed one of the issues right there. It is in the media's best interest to play these stories over and over because they drive ratings up. There is no morality involved in the process now, just ratings.

So your in favor of cops not having guns? I dont understand how civilian gun control is a factor in a cop commiting a unjust murder. because humans are not robots, they have feelings, emotions that can change who they are, their morals at any point in time. It's like a time bomb, some will eventually explode, some may never. The possibility will ALWAYS be there. This cop for example, could have been the angel of them all when he first started, over years in service things he'd seen, situations he had gone through would have caused his moralities to change and thus ended up here. We'll probably forever go over this argument (Americans vs other nations who have strict gun laws) and I honestly can't think of a way to solve it that will actually work. But my opinion is that guns should only be used in times of war or for simple sport and not for personal defense. You are correct. Emotions play a huge role in how scenarios play out. It is impossible to remove them from any scenario, so the best we can do is figure out how to deal with them correctly. I would imagine that this cop was not always a "bad guy". He probably joined the police force with the intention of making his city a better and safer place. His experiences most likely changed his perceptions, and from those experiences he made an incredibly poor (in my opinion) decision. As the facts come out we will get a better idea. The defense will paint the picture of who they want him to appear to be, and the prosecution will paint him in the light they want him seen in. He will probably be somewhere in the middle. I will disagree with your last statement that guns should not be used for personal defense. A person with proper training, practice, and awareness who is carrying a firearm for defense can be the difference between one injury/death and dozens. The statistics point out that guns were used a reported 2.5 millions times to stop a crime last year. That's reported. 2.5 million crimes. That is over 6800 per day used in self defense. I think that is reason enough to disagree with your statement. The other reason I think that the view is skewed is the statistical number of guns used in crimes. In 2012, there were an estimated 1,214,462 violent crimes. There are 300,000,000 guns in America. That means that less than one half a percentage of all (legally owned) guns in America could have been used in a violent crime assuming that all violent crimes were committed with guns, and that a different gun was used in each crime. It is somewhere near 25% of violent crime is committed with some sort of a weapon. That is a gun, knife, or other object. Yes there are problems. Yes there is plenty of room for improvement. But, I do not agree that taking my guns away makes me safer. I have used mine on two occasions as a civilian for self defense, or defense of another. In both cases I was glad that I was able to stop a criminal act. In the one case I would not have been able to help the other person without it.

It has already been said, but this is not a gun law issue. This is an issue of a bad police officer, and more to the issue, a bad person. Statistically speaking: "* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]." https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun violence makes up about 8% of the violent crime in America. Is that bad? Yes. Is that as bad as people are screaming it is? No. This case has almost nothing to do with gun laws. There is no realistic way you can disarm the police force in America. It will not happen. There would have to be a full scale removal of guns from the country, and we all can make a pretty good guess as to where an attempt at that would lead. What happened here is a travesty, but, it is not a gun law issue. This is a case of a bad person abusing the power and tools he had at his disposal. Does it happen? Yes. Is it common? No. I posted before about the number of encounters the police in America have with civilians on a daily basis, and the number of those encounters that ended in some form of violence. It is less than 1% of police encounters that end in violence. And if you look at police brutality, it is far less than 1% of those encounters. This is looking at a pool of over 40 million encounters. That tells me that the police are doing there job pretty effectively, and for the most part, by the book. Is there anything where there is not outliers? Can you think of anything that you can analyze where there is not something that falls on the outskirts? I can't. And with the numbers backing it, I think the police and gun laws here are actually pretty effective. In fact, most states that have recently added the ability for citizens to conceal carry have noticed a drop in the crime rate. Because an armed victim is not as much a victim. As for this particular case (to stay on the topic), this guy is a disgrace. He is thankfully being put through the system so he can get the sentence he deserves. From all I can see he made a decision to take a life, and now he will pay for it.

It is an interesting scenario. When someone is messing around in your neighbors yard, and you know they have not necessarily been on good terms with you, there will be a reaction. It could range from mild annoyance to confrontation. Now add in world politics, ego, a couple of powerful military forces, and a long history. Now all you need is a spark. I am not a fan of either side in this conflict. I want to see the Ukrainian people given the freedom they desire and deserve, and I feel that it is a worthy cause. But I have no desire to see more bloodshed.

I agree with you on the manslaughter thing in principle. I do not have all the evidence in front of me though. I have heard that he had a medical condition that could have caused complications. But again, I do not have all that information. The Grand Jury looked at the evidence and decided that there was not enough evidence to show that a crime might have been committed. That is not a police group, that is regular citizens assigned to look at cases like this. They had all the evidence and decided to not bring charges. Could they have gotten it wrong? Of course. Without a doubt things could have been messed up. However, with a group of people looking from outside the police force at all the evidence, and then deciding not to charge him, I have to believe there are things we do not know. Or the Grand Jury really screwed things up. One of the things about the NY case that has really bothered me is the Mayor. He was one of the first people to jump in and condemn the police. Loudly. But the whole situation was caused by his, as quoted by many NY residents, "excessive" cigarette tax. The high taxes on cigarettes has created a huge black market for them. The whole confrontation does not happen if the tax is not so high that people are willing to break laws to avoid it. In the end, I do tend to give the police the benefit of the doubt. In almost every instance, except for one lone officer, all of my police encounters have been handled professionally, if not nicely. Does that have to do with my race maybe? It could. Could that be because I offer them the same respect I would hope to receive in return? That definitely factors in. Every police officer I know, and that is actually quiet a few, treat everyone as respectful as they are being treated. Do they profile? Without a doubt, but profiling has been proven effective time and again. Do they get profiling wrong? Yep. But everyone profiles. First impressions. You see a person and make a snap judgment on them before you really know them. It happens with every person I know. It is human nature, and part of the whole self preservation thing. It is important to know that because officers will make a decision on someone based on how they appear, how they react towards the officer, and what area they are in. Is that always fair? No. But looking on the other side of it, if you give everyone the benefit of the doubt, then a lot less police go home every night. There are terrible people out there (no matter where in the world you are) and I am just hoping that the number of good police that are out there can help keep them at bay. And, as someone pointed out before, less than 1 percent of police officers do something to dishonor the uniform. Less than 1 percent. That is a lot better odds of meeting a good cop than a lot of other professions. There is plenty of room for improvement. Until we have the issues down to zero, there can always be improvement. And I am all for hearing ways to make that happen. I strongly feel that discussions like this help to educate both sides. Personally I have learned a few things just from this thread, and the opinions put out there. I really appreciate the thoughtful responses, and the general idea that we can just talk through this. We may not change the world, but perhaps we can get some meaningful ideas started to get things rolling.

I believe that the last example would give you the best idea of the unarmed scenario. If an unarmed person turns the police officer has a fraction of a second to identify the object in their hand, and determine the threat level. If if registers as a weapon to an officer, or a threat, they have less than a second to react and shoot. Hesitation kills in their line of duty. I did that for a little while, and every encounter can be deadly. Another point I want to make really quick. There is a lot of mention of the excessive number of incidents of police brutality, and the fact that it is happening so often, brings up a point I made in another thread. In the US last year there was over 40 million interactions between police and civilians. That is a lot of interactions. A very small number of those incidents involved reported brutality or potentially unjustified shootings. I don't have the exact numbers, but it points to the fact that our current instant news and judgment era has created a mountain out of a mole hill. Is there a problem? Yes. There should be zero cases of police brutality, and zero cases of unjustified shootings. But human error and split second decisions have to be accounted for. Being a police officer is one of the most stressful and intense jobs in the world. I prefer open combat to police work. In open combat you are almost always assured to be facing an enemy. In police work every encounter could be your average citizen in need of assistance, or some dude drugged out of his mind looking to kill you. That means being on edge all the time. There is no excuse for police to use excessive force, but there is also no need for the general public to make snap decisions on levels of force used without all of the evidence present. They deserve the same due process that is guaranteed to everyone else. To me the Ferguson case was pretty clear cut. The physical evidence was in line with the officers statement, and the statements of witnesses who were not discredited. The NY case is a lot more muddy. Did the officer do something wrong? Yes. He violated NYPD policy and used a chokehold that is prohibited by their own guidelines. He was punished immediately for the improper technique used. Did he commit a crime? That is harder to define. The man was resisting arrest, had medical conditions, and ended up dead. That is not the final result that I expect that they wanted. But, did the officer go in with intent to harm or kill the man? I can say with a lot of confidence that he did not. He may have acted with poor instincts in that situation, but I do not think that his intention was to cause harm to the man. Another point of fact that has been skipped, and I have not had a chance to read through the reports and do any searching, but I heard that the lead officer that day with the group who took the man down was an African American woman. If people want to scream that the whole incident was racially motivated, what are they saying about her? I get called a racist a lot. I am a white male, tall, bald, and have a goatee. People assume I am a hate mongering piece of crap. You know what? They just judged me by my appearance. The same thing they claim to hate having done to themselves or others. You wanna know the most ironic part of it? My best friend is a black guy from Texas. He is gay. Jon is a brother to me, and he knows I would do anything to help him whenever he needs it. I have done some crazy stuff to help him out, and he has done the same level of insanity for me. The constant shouting about race does not help to work through the issues. Recently there has been incidences of white officers shooting back people, and black officers shooting white people. Those who are shouting the loudest are shouting about white officers killing black men. It should be looked at as an officer shooting a man. The media immediately making it about race only fans flames that need no help. There is a racial divide in the country, but I do not think it will ever be fixed if the focus is always on race and not on healing. There is a small issue with police brutality and excessive force. Like the racial divide, it will not be fixed unless we get focused on the right things. Communication and building relations are where we need to be focused. Removing the fear of police from kids, and removing the fear of not going home at night from he police's minds. We need to get back to person accountability and respect. A lot of problems would be solved with just a little bit of respect for ourselves and for one another.

Statistics are just another tool in the box. They should not be the center of any conversation. Except in Statistics class.

Agreed. There is a general, and well earned, distrust for government in the US. And control is a central theme, but it is hard to address without getting into conspiracy theories or getting labeled. And for the record, if it was my wife or kids, it would not matter what I have with me. You will have to kill me to get to them. I do not expect every person to carry. The great thing is that it is a right, you have it, but you also have the choice to exercise that right. Or not. As for the guy, he wound up in the hospital with some bruising and a few fractures, and I moved out of that neighborhood before he came back. It was shortly after that incident when two low level Russian mafia members exacted revenge on a neighbor behind us, and I decided the neighborhood sucked more than the rent was good. TheWanderer: I enjoy good conversation about issues like this. Rather than people screaming rhetoric at the top of their lungs, lets sit down and have a civil conversation. It doesn't mean we will agree on the issue, nor does it mean there is nothing to gain. Perhaps with rational talks we can at least reach an understanding. (that is not necessarily directed at you, but more of a general statement). As a "well traveled" person, I have been to other free countries, and some not so free. There is a difference that is hard to explain between what some people define as free, and what is defined as freedom in America. Yes it borderlines and occasionally crosses into the realm of arrogance, but there is also a profound sense that all people deserve freedom. Even those born into countries under strict dictatorship deserve the right to live and die free. My hope is that you never have the need for a gun as well. I have never had to fire mine in anger, and I am both proud and profoundly happy about that. Even the lowest form of human is a life. It is not my place to be their judge or executioner. However, I will not allow for, or stand by for, a person who willfully harms another for their own gains. That is one of those things that will always make me willing to fight.

You are correct in that the statistics do not paint the whole picture. They do help to clarify some things. I was pointing out that the presentation of the media that gun deaths and gun sales were directly related, and that people are dying in record numbers is false. There are many underlying issues that are not being addressed. Mental health, poor upbringings, lack of morals, a society that glorifies violence, and a general lack of respect and personal responsibility have created a societal paradigm that has put us where we are. In my opinion the first step is to reinstate a level of responsibility for our own actions and respect for other people. If a person takes responsibility for their actions and thinks about how their actions will affect others, the world is a different place. If we, as a whole, could make that the norm... It's a whole new world. On the topic of the police shootings. Master Samus. That is another tragedy. I have some very strong feelings on this topic, but will keep most of that quiet. For what it is worth, I think there are people, both in the media and public figures, who are not helping this situation by continuing to stir the pot. There is some things going on that make me think that someone is using this for political gains, and a few who are using it for financial gains. There is no reason in the world to murder a person. But to do it to someone because of their job... That makes even less sense. I will leave that there. Back to the wonderful world of statistics. Cars kill more people than guns. It is just what it is. A car is a tool that gets me from point A to point B, or in some cases serves some other purpose. A gun is a tool just the same. Non of my guns have ever killed anyone. But they have ended violent situations without bloodshed, and have served to protect my family. Case in point, and one of the reasons I will always be an advocate for gun ownership in the US, is this: I left for work one morning shortly after I got out of the military. On most mornings I had to cross the street to get to where I parked my car. On this particular morning as I was crossing the street I noticed some people in the street about a half block down. Watching the situation I realized that there were six guys stomping the crap out of someone in the middle of the street. It appeared to me that they were intent upon doing severe damage to the guy, and possibly could take it to the level of death. I made the decision to approach and see if I could end the situation. When I was about 30-35 feet away (10 meters - ish) I shouted to get there attention and asked what was going on. Two guys continued to kick the guy on the ground and four turned towards me. Two of the four that began to approach me proceeded to pull out pocket knives. I am not a tiny guy, but by no means am I some sort of giant, nor am I incapable of defending myself. In this situation though, I was severely out matched by the numbers and weaponry. I opted to draw my pistol and let them know that with no uncertainty I would defend myself. At this point they turned and ran. As soon as they were going I called for police and medical and assisted the guy on the ground. Looking at that scenario, without my gun I had two options. Option one; call 911 and get the police in route. The average response time in my neighborhood at that time was just over 9 minutes. That is an eternity when you are getting stomped on the ground. I personally believe that this guy would not have been alive if I had waited for the police to arrive. Option two; confront the attackers without a means to defend myself. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and I have no doubts how that would have ended. I would most likely not been willing to step in and do something without the ability and sense that I would be able to adequately defend myself. And I believe that in that scenario this guy would most likely be dead, or at least would have suffered injuries that would have stayed with him forever. Again, I do not have the statistics in front of me, and it looks like I will be doing some statistic diving over the next couple of days, but for every crime committed with a gun, (not just homicides, but every crime) I think the number of crimes prevented is 2.5 in the US. And as cliche as it may sound, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun (and the ability to properly use it). I am not saying that gun violence is not a problem, I am just of the belief that the gun is not where the problem lies. My guns have never done anything I have not made them do. It is a tool, and nothing more. It is the person who picks up that tool that can either use it for legal and intended purposes, or use it to do things that I would prefer not happen via any tool.

This is going to be a heated and controversial conversation no matter how it is brought up. The current round being started by the murder of two police officers is only going to give the issue a little extra fire. To the point made earlier. Gun ownership has never had to be legalized in the Unites States of America. It has been a right since the foundations of the constitution were laid. The founders of the country believed that it was important enough to follow only freedom of speech. That says a lot. Gun ownership in the US is higher than anywhere else I know of. There are statistics thrown around by a lot of people that are either incorrect, or intentionally skewed to support their sides case. But taking a look at it myself this is what I can see. The ATF statistics show that in 2007 there were 3,922,613 firearms in the US. In 2010 there was 5,459,240. That is an increase of just over 39%. With those numbers and the rhetoric I see in the news all the time it would suggest a similar increase should be seen in homicides that involve firearms. Heading over to the FBI statistics page I found the following data. in 2007 there was 10,129 homicides involving firearms of any type. In 2010 that number dropped to 8,874, which is a decrease of just about 14%. In 2011 the number of homicides involving a firearm continued the downward trend and landed at 8,583. I do not have the numbers available to me at the moment for gun ownership, but there is multiple reports stating that gun ownership is still on the rise. All of these numbers show that legal gun ownership is not directly linked to the homicide rate with firearms. If I get the time I will see if I can find the numbers for how many of the homicides were committed with illegal guns, or by people who could not legally own a gun. I put all of this out here as a reminder to not blindly follow the media for either side. The media is taking sides, pushing agendas, and attempting to sway those who fail to do their own research. It is no longer an acceptable method of research to turn to the media of any form. To the point of the purpose of a firearm. Yes they were designed for more efficient killing. They have been around since about 1000AD when the Chinese first started using what is credited as being the origin of the current firearms. Firearms have distinct purposes. Some are designed to hunt, so for self defense, some are made for the joy of just target shooting. They have as many purposes as there are classifications. The fact that they are efficient at what they are designed for is not the problem in my opinion. It has more to do with who is using this tool in a manner which violates the laws surrounding the use of them. No matter what laws you make, or the level of enforcement, the only people that will be affect by the laws are those who willingly follow them. Meaning that I will be affected because I legally own all of my firearms, but Johnny Gang Banger with his illegal weapons cash will be unaffected because he doesn't give two craps about what laws are out there, or that he is in violation of them. More restrictive gun laws will not stop the majority of firearm related incidents. Also, when I get the chance I will dig up some of the statistics that I have seen that show a sharp drop in crime, especially violent crime, in areas where concealed carry license issuance has increased. An armed citizen is harder to rob, and not knowing who is armed means a roulette wheel spin every time.

Not me.

I for one would have loved to see the rant. The media is one of those topics that can get me going right now. I can watch the news for just a few minutes and tell you who is pulling for which special interest or where the money is flowing from. It is no longer about actually presenting the facts, it is about getting the ratings and making the money flow.

I understand that. Sometimes the format comes across as unfriendly to an opinion. I have dealt with that. Know your stance, and don't be afraid to state it, and back it up. The funny thing is, the reality is rarely inline with either of the extreme parties. Even though they are the loudest.