kelpdiver

My aunt is a police officer in The Netherlands. And my uncle is the Messiah. Sheesh - in the last year, did everyone forget what citation means? All over I see people put up uncited 'facts' to make assertions. And if you think its stupid, then why did you attempt to make an argument based on it?

No, the gun recovered was a .380, stolen in a home burglary and allegedly sold to the deceased by the burglar. Cops say it has his fingerprints and blood on the weapon. Were he alone, one might rationalize these details as a setup by the officers, but the difficulty increases substantially with the presence of the wife. And Kallend, I'm interested to hear what legislation might have prevented this alleged gun transfer - it already involved multiple felonies. Like this whole incident, it's not a very good case example.

No assumption here - someone holding a gun (normal grip, finger near trigger - is inherently a threat. Someone who continues to do so in the face of LEOs shouting 'drop the gun' is an immediate threat. Their refusals to provide the video evidence is horseshit and raises fair doubt about their accounting of the event. And getting tired of body cams not being active... OTOH, it sure looks like people have been rioting for a week on a false narrative. One person died in those protests....and funny enough, I don't see the media rushing to investigate and publicize the emerging details about his illegal gun ownership, and alleged purchasing of the gun found on the scene.

I cannot confirm this - please cite. It would be ridiculously stupid for numerous reasons: 1- if deadly force is warranted, wounding the suspect doesn't eliminate the threat - even shots that will be fatal don't preclude the suspect continuing to fire. 2- shooting at the femoral or brachial artery is hardly safe 3- accuracy in said situations is not great - most cops have a hard enough time hitting center mass 4- reduced accuracy means more rounds down range. https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound The citation is actually from Minnesota, but in a UK Police Association. It came from my attempt to find a hit against "In The Netherlands officers are required to try and aim to wound in stead of kill." Good luck trying to objectively counter it.

I doubt this forum leans that far from the average. Certainly doesn't when accounting for poster volume. As for the rest of your post - what people collectively think isn't actually all that productive on the subject. People support and demand legislation that is provably ineffective in dealing with the problem. People also fully endorsed suspension of any and all civil liberties after 9/11 and would have supported going to war against any brown nation in the aftermath.

it does around here. It's far less likely to get a free pass than the BLM or By Any Means Necessary type groups racism. That said...white supremacist fliers aren't "news." There have been people printing those stupid fliers about black monkeys and jews for decades. But the parts of the country in which they can openly express their views continues to shrink. It's hard to attack blacks directly (have to use euphemisms like 'thug') or Jews, and its becoming unacceptable to attack gays. Transgenders are still fair game, unfortunately.

Says the guy who referred to 'you fuckers'. You're completely incapable of having a rational discussion on the subject, which I'll argue is the most important requirement to have any meaningful success. Feel free to emigrate back.

You should probably look into it further. It doesn't stand up to reason. I would hope Canada doesn't intend to sacrifice cops and citizens due to a lack of common knowledge about guns. A person holding a gun can turn and fire it multiple times before you can react, let alone stop the threat. That person represents a clear and present danger. It's very clearly demonstrated on a range - I witnessed a good example at a defensive shooting class. So if you choose to wait, you're are taking a risk. So a LEO faced with a person committing a criminal act (whether or not smoking weed should be, it is in NC) holding a gun can reasonably presume that person doesn't want to be arrested and will use force to prevent it. Obviously the scenario would change with that book story line, but it's quickly fading as plausible.

You'll somehow need to explain how violence is my creation, or any other gun owner here. If you can do this, you're smarter than you've shown. Pathetic is focusing on shootings versus killing. Was is better that the people in Nice were run over rather than shot? If the Orlando killer had simply started a fire in the club, resulting in people burning or stampeding each other to death, would that have been preferable? Pathetic is claiming you're not proposing gun bans in the same thread where you insist us gun owner fuckers created the problem. Pathetic is your straw man that people don't agree that killing is bad. Pathetic is back pedaling to admitting you have no fucking clue how to solve the problem, and then pretending we need a consensus on the problem before we can solve it. We've been trying to solve criminal behavior since the beginning of man. The problem in the middle east for nearly so long. (Do you think there's a lack of consensus that there is a problem there?) What's clear from the last 40 years is the number of guns in the citizen population has little to do with the illegal usage rate. If it did, we wouldn't have a murder rate half what it was 25 years back. If you actually want to improve it, advocate for legalization.

the same wife that last year asked for a restraining order against him after he punched his 8 yo son, kicked her, and had a handgun without a permit? the same guy who: "When he was 30, in 2003, a Bexar County, Texas, grand jury indicted him on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and evading arrest with a vehicle after Scott allegedly shot a man the previous year. Scott pleaded no contest and was sentenced to more than eight years in prison after his 2005 conviction." So it's all about the gun versus the book. A gun was found. Can it be tied to him, without any valid reason to suspect the LEOs planted it? Wasn't the wife filming on her camera- wouldn't her presence make this difficult to plant? Supposedly (I'm leery of most online sources, best I see is the local ABC station) this gun was stolen in a burglary, and a suspect admits to selling it to Scott. If this is confirmed then the innocent man with a book getting executing storyline falls apart fast. And sorry, normiss, having a TBI doesn't grant you extra latitude to wave around a gun you're not don't have a right to possess (being an excon).

Per the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, typically 70% of all US murders involve guns, fairly constant from year to year. though I'm always a fan of using accurate numbers, that correction doesn't really impact the point being made, does it? In San Fransisco this year, stabbings have accounted for 35% of the fatalities. It shows quite clearly what would happen if you successfully (magically) removed guns from the hands of criminals. The strong and the mob still can do whatever they want to the weak (unarmed) and the few. If you do nothing to address those causes of violence, you're not going to make meaningful change. Limitations to gun ownership do eliminate the only equalizer available to most victims. Yoink - you pulled quite the copout with this thread. If you have a point or a proposal to make, make it. Not this passive aggressive shit.

As Cuban finally admits, he was making shit up to rile Trump. Just as Flowers said she was invited even though the Trump campaign did not. Both are attention seeking. Earlier in the year Cuban 'volunteered' himself to be the VP candidate for both Clinton and Trump. Of course, no one had asked. It's uncannily similar to how Trump tried to insert himself into the discussion 8 years ago. Mark's also a bit of a blowhard who thinks that because he cashed out early in the dotcom era, he's a genius. All evidence points to the contrary.

Nonetheless, if you attack a man because he's black or gay, we call it a hate crime and add enhanced sentencing when convicted. It doesn't matter how many people other people kill each other for random purposes (profit, passion, etc). We have declared that violence done for discriminatory reasons is more offensive and warrants greater attention.

traditionally, after Labor Day perhaps 10% remain available, though in recent years the electorate has been so polarized towards party lines that it has been closer to 5% that were gettable at all. But this year we have the two most negatively rated candidates in history, I believe. Clinton, through a combination of personal faults and an aggressive GOP vendetta has struggled to even win the nomination, and only because there was no viable alternative (Sorry, Bernie) this time. Her perm negative rating will always be > 40%. However, she's running against a guy that ~70% see as unqualified to be President. He got the nomination with that 30%, but now he has to win the votes of some women and hispanics (I think we have to concede on the black vote). Many prominent GOP leadership have stated an intent to vote for Clinton, and I'm sure many voters in that party would rather retry in 2020 then take the party damage the Don would be in the White House. But...if he can present himself as a non bozo, he can get many of those votes back, as well as voters who hate Clinton but prefer her to him. Remember how Gore lost what should have been a slam dunk in 2000. It wasn't from any key fuckup - he killed himself with a thousand cuts. One of them was the debate. I think I do have to side with the OP in thinking that Clinton probably can't gain much out of the debate. It is, though, another opportunity, to put the Don to bed. So far she's failed to take advantage of many such opportunities.

The polling towards the end of next week will announce the winner, regardless of what Fox, the WP, NYT, CNN say afterwards (MSNBC lost their right to have a vote). Clinton needs to avoid the mistake that Gore made in 2000, showing his arrogance and utter contempt in having to debate a man of Bush's caliber. She has the same problem, and needs to avoid another cookies/deplorable type remark. Trump has to act like a man that doesn't have ADD and a twitter obsession, and show he can talk in complete sentences without making shit up. Stay on target. He got all the votes he can possibly get for being an immature dumbass; they aren't enough to win. He needs to convince undecided or fearful potential voters that he's capable of the job. The nearly equal dislike for Clinton means there are votes out there to get. If I'm Clinton, I'm trying to bait the Donald into being himself, starting with the Iraq lie. If I'm Trump, I'm highlighting her history of poor transparency and regard for the rules, somehow without people noticing a similar history.

True, but in the opposite of what you believe. Do you really believe the killings by LEOs are premeditated? The sniper attacks on the cops certainly were.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Serious - quit your whining for getting called out for shoveling shit. Somehow you missed the part when I defended the main thesis, and gave you non crappy data points to use instead. Upgrade.

where the gun is pointed isn't germane - if you wait till it's pointed at you, you're taking fire. The question is was there a gun or a book in his hand. The non release of video seems to be some throwback legislation in the state. Seems to be a trend for NC.

"There are approximately 11 US Citizens (Not soldiers or those engaged in warfare) killed on average yearly in any 10 year period by acts of terrorism leaving out 9/11 fatalities. With them it's 172 deaths per year. " You introduce bad statistics as the primary support of your argument and then say you're not going to have a discussion about statistics?

strong bias towards degrees and higher incomes as well.

I've heard his song and dance for more than a decade - it's not hard to figure out, other than his refusal to stay on point when inconvenient. Keep your excuses straight - it was wealth inequality that was being cited to justify the high homicide rate in the black population. And saying "it's complicated" doesn't allow the speaker to avoid providing any semblance of supporting data, particularly when faced with contradictory facts. If you want to change over to poverty causes murders - then will need to visit the demographics and show the same prevalence. Personally, I suspect you'll find much more in the lack of parents or the abysmal high school graduation rates.

I don't disagree with the conclusion, but think you made bad use of figures. Smoothing out to a 10 year interval seems to serve to mask the trend of the past few years, both here and elsewhere in the world. And that hurts the argument being made. Really, all you need to do is cite 20+k deaths to DUIs per year, and 10k domestic shootings and the 50-200 terrorist deaths per year pales. San Bernadino had 14 deaths, 22 seriously wounded Orlando (could question if this was truly ISIS related, rather than frustrated gay man) - 49 deaths 9/11 - immediate 2996 deaths - more in the aftermath. But single events are always problematic for statistics like /year. If you started including events in Europe, then the numbers swell considerably. So 11 per year is a false statistic. And if you did include 9/11 in a 10 year interval, it couldn't possibly be less than 299 per year, so I don't know how you could arrive at 172. I cite Mario Woods in particular because many would claim his shooting as unjustified, just as they would try to do with the Ferguson one. Both are false, particularly when much more heinous, and clearly illegal shootings have occurred. I don't think it's legitimate to apply a 30% or even 10% WAG to the shooting count to measure unjustified shootings. If we applied a very strict definition of wrongful shooting as resulting in charges against the officer, how many cases are there? That would, IMO, be too strict a filter, but I can't determine a method beyond examination of each incident for the facts. Or a slightly lower threshold where the officer was sanctioned or reprimanded in some form?

so the point of reasoning here (wealth inequity causes violence) is a kinda of a unicorn - data in no way actually supports the thesis, but you want to talk about it anyway. That is, unfortunately, what social science tends to be. Really really dumb.

I think you missed his point. He's not saying that the poor black 13% is killing the rich 10% because they are rich - he's saying that the concentration of wealth in the hands of the 10% is a factor in the scale of the poverty of the 13%. And the 13% are doing so much killing (in some part) because they are poor. I'd say both he and you are giving social science a bad name...and it's not like it had a great reputation to start with. Are blacks in America doing worse now than they were say 50 years ago, when voting rights were just starting to be enforced, when incomes were lower, where the young were being sent to Vietnam, and where discrimination was still out in the open. Where the Loving decision hadn't come down yet. In between now and then, the murder rate peaked around 1980 and 1992, at a rate roughly double what it is currently, and far greater than the 60s. Those years do not correlate to peaks in income inequality, or trail behind peaks.

so how has that been working out for France? As an exempt employee in an industry that generally gives you a choice of 110% or 0% work, I'm leery of anything of these work less for less money offerings. Sounds like less money for the same work. (watching Amazon's 30 hour pilot program with interest and distrust).