Boy, 13, with Toy Rifle Killed by Deputies by Oonjerah

Sad story.

However, not so much a toy rifle but a replica assault weapon.

And given your country's record on gun violence, including violence by minors, you can understand why police are jumpy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:54 AM

^I do understand.

And given my country's record on gun violence, can someone's
desire not to be a killer-fool overcome his jumpiness?

We were never that peaceable. But compared to now, our demeanor,
attitudes, actions in the 50's seem almost placid.

I'm not even puzzled by it. I've watched us choose this path.

======================
What? - Me worry? ~Alfred E Newman

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:25 AM

Hope it gets better, Jerah

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:29 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Sad story.

However, not so much a toy rifle but a replica assault weapon.

And given your country's record on gun violence, including violence by minors, you can understand why police are jumpy.

I heard pellet gun, but that's a minor point. Tragic. They're saying they told him to drop it, and he didn't. I guess he wheeled around, and the cops took that as an aggressive gesture. What ever became of approaching casually, cautiously, and just asking the boy if he could see the gun ? Cops do seem to be on a hair trigger, eager to show force first, and then trying to reason w/ folks. Sorry, not sure it works like that. You come in ,baring fangs, and most folks aren't going to respond rationally.

DOn't know if this kid knew he was in danger, or was all 'there' , in the first place.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:38 AM

What grinds my gears about it is the wholesale, institutional, downright blatant violation of use-of-force criteria on a non-stop basis.
Since there's no real accountability for it in most cases there's no incentive to do otherwise - two cases in point off the top of my head.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/nyregion/firing-at-man-in-times-squa
re-police-wound-two-bystanders.html?_r=0

Quote:
Two officers opened fire, discharging a total of three bullets. They missed the man, but struck two women nearby, including one who had been leaning against her walker; the bullet wound to her leg sent her tumbling to the ground. Other officers rushed toward the suspect; a sergeant used a Taser on the man, and he was quickly subdued.

And this one, which grinds me worse - guess shooting PEOPLE is fine, but fluffy animals are off limits. *snort*
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/10/22/tennessee-police-officer-fired-af
ter-using-gun-and-pepper-spray-against-squirrel-in-store/

Quote:
Putnam was in the store in Mountain City when employees spotted the squirrel. Putnam first responded by shooting at the squirrel and then used his pepper spray. Even if one were to use lethal force on a squirrel, it is curious why you would use the gun before the pepper spray.

Way back when, on this very site, I warned that handing Tasers to cops sans accountability measures would lead to abuse, and was thoroughly shouted down for it - soon followed an epidemic of misuse, and haven't you noticed that since that accountability was slowly added after the fact (and too late to save many victims) in the face of defiance and heel dragging by the blue suit mafia, cases of "Excited Delerium" just up and blew away completely, did they not ?

And yet the problem persists, in that it's A-OK to torture bed ridden grandmothers with them, and non-resisting children, but when it comes down to the very goddamn reasons WHY THEY HAVE THE FUCKING THINGS, they get all cowboy and start slinging lead.

Fact: A Taser will lock up and drop an active shooter FASTER than a bullet, even if the shooter is wearing armor.

Fact: While *not* a non-lethal weapon as initially espoused, they are a LESS lethal weapon, greatly reducing the risk of death - handy if the officer has made a mistake, or if you want the suspect ALIVE for questioning.

When you have some loon who might be dangerous within a crowd, the Taser is the proper option for that scenario, and it's CERTAINLY the best solution to an active shooter.

Mind - I am especially angry about the latter cause one of my old personal friends, his kid attends that school out in Nevada, and the "authorities" followed the usual policy of cordoning off the area, conveniently bottling up the victim(s) for easy slaughter and just bunkered down and waited till the shooter finished their business, so, what - fuck the public, officer safety over the people they're supposed to be serving ?
Yet yon mighty "heros" have no problem kicking down the doors of defenseless people at 3am and murdering them in their sleep for being confused, grrrr.

The APPROPRIATE policy is to rush the damn place and Taser anyone with a weapon in hand, if they're not the shooter it's unlikely to kill them, and you *will* get the shooter that way, neutralize the threat on the spot instead of waiting for a wounded, pissed off perp to succumb to bullet wounds - this is common sense, or would be, were the boys in blue not worse monsters than anything they claim to "protect" us from.

Throw in the "War on (some) Drugs" bullshit, asset forfeiture, and the traffic citation shakedown, and I fail to see how any rational person could stomach the very sight or presence of a human being so fallen as to voluntarily engage in this kind of conduct, and I personally consider anyone who does these things of their own free will to be at best mentally ill, and at worst, downright evil.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:48 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yeah, that one's all over our news. It's horrific. Numerous people have spoken up to say they couldn't tell it wasn't a real one by looking at it. "Sonoma County sheriff's deputies had repeatedly asked the boy, Andy Lopez, to drop the weapon, but instead he raised it in their direction, police said.

After the deputies spotted the boy Tuesday, they called for backup and repeatedly ordered him to drop the gun, sheriff's Lt. Dennis O'Leary said in a news release. His back was turned toward the deputies, and they did not realize at the time that he was a boy.

According to the Santa Rosa police, the boy was about 20 to 30 feet from them when he turned toward the deputies with the gun and they opened fire."

Bad times in this country.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:59 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
After the deputies spotted the boy Tuesday, they called for backup and repeatedly ordered him to drop the gun, sheriff's Lt. Dennis O'Leary said in a news release. His back was turned toward the deputies, and they did not realize at the time that he was a boy.

According to the Santa Rosa police, the boy was about 20 to 30 feet from them when he turned toward the deputies with the gun and they opened fire."

They called for back up before the kid was even aware he was being seen as a potentially violent subject ?

How do you repeatedly call on someone, get no response, and not just approach him ? Was the kid wearing earbuds, listening to an ipod or some such ?

This sounds nuts.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:08 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
This sounds nuts.

This sounds cops.

They take issue with someone not following their orders, no matter if that order was legal or justified or if there were mitigating circumstances like the person DIDN'T HEAR THEM or was confused.

Power trip --> Abuse of power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 24, 2013 1:19 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Sad story.

However, not so much a toy rifle but a replica assault weapon.

And given your country's record on gun violence, including violence by minors, you can understand why police are jumpy.

As noted, violence is way down in the U.S. compared to even 20 years ago. However, many folks, including police, are so brainwashed into believing guns are only used to shoot people that any appearance of a firearm (or something that resembles one) is treated as a capital crime in progress and responded to with deadly force.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 24, 2013 1:32 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Fact: A Taser will lock up and drop an active shooter FASTER than a bullet, even if the shooter is wearing armor.

Depends a LOT on where the leads impact. Sure, you hit two fleshy spots, itll down an armored assailant - but the prongs are in no way penetrating the armor - so at BEST, it's be pure luck.

That aside - this is a terrible story. It sounds like a breakdown on several fronts - trigger happy cops, reacting with violence unnecessarily, and parents letting their own rules slide by allowing the kid to carry the rifle out in public.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 24, 2013 4:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What ever became of approaching casually, cautiously, and just asking the boy if he could see the gun ? Cops do seem to be on a hair trigger, eager to show force first, and then trying to reason w/ folks. Sorry, not sure it works like that. You come in ,baring fangs, and most folks aren't going to respond rationally.

I guess you cant have it both ways, can you? You can't have a popuation armed to the teeth with everything including military like weapons AND a polite reasonable police force.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:03 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Amen...you forgot "and a country so in love with guns that it gives real ones to its children and makes perfect replicas for their children to play with."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:49 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What ever became of approaching casually, cautiously, and just asking the boy if he could see the gun ? Cops do seem to be on a hair trigger, eager to show force first, and then trying to reason w/ folks. Sorry, not sure it works like that. You come in ,baring fangs, and most folks aren't going to respond rationally.

I guess you cant have it both ways, can you? You can't have a popuation armed to the teeth with everything including military like weapons AND a polite reasonable police force.

Umm, why not ?

There use to be a time in this country when they taught target practice at schools, and actual gun safety was taught, and not seen as taboo.

This was a pellet gun. Growing up, we had a Daisy BB gun as well as a small pellet gun, which resembled a rifle. I never got gunned down by the cops. The hysteria over guns is the epidemic, not the guns.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Depends a LOT on where the leads impact. Sure, you hit two fleshy spots, itll down an armored assailant - but the prongs are in no way penetrating the armor - so at BEST, it's be pure luck.

Not true.
The M26/X26 series will push the arc through near 2 full inches of cloth and doesn't require skin contact so long as the probes stick to the target, and most body armor in the type II - III/A range wouldn't stop it unless one had an additional metal plate and the probes bounced off it, higher grades of armor are prettymuch full suit stuff and very uncommon (not to mention ridiculously expensive) outside of direct military applications, and even then many are not fond of them because the limited mobility increases risk beyond any protection it might offer.
Now there's a FEW lighter vests which might be more resistant cause they're multipurpose and intended to provide protection against edged weapons, which standard vests don't, but those tend to be high end stuff and uncommon outside of uses like Swat teams and whatnot.

So as a general rule, no, most body armor you could get your hands on wouldn't be sufficient protection.
That said, there *is* a manufacturer who makes stuff that'll work, but they're rabidly protective of their secret and paranoiac about who they'll sell it to for liability reasons.

Anyhows, your typical mass shooter isn't going be tooled up to that degree, and dropping them instantly, then taking them into custody is a better option, even in the vanishingly rare case of an actual act of terrorism sure as hell I'd want em in one piece to interrogate*, and in the case of a mental health issue figuring out what causes people to blow in that direction and maybe preventing it is also useful.

What is NOT useful is just locking a place down and waiting till the slaughter stops, then coming in to pick up the pieces, or going all out guns blazing because an officers massive entitled ego and rage issues cause him to want the peon who dared "threaten" him dead - remember these are folks who feel "threatened" by a dog the size of a fekkin guinea pig, or elderly people in wheelchairs with pens.

Consider this - if they'd zapped the kid instead of shooting him, and managed to choke back the urge to do it over and over for shits n giggles, this kid might still be alive, which is again, WHY they were issued the goddamn things in the first place.

-Frem
*

Select to view spoiler:

Of course, that presumes we'd actually properly interrogate them instead of torturing them till they tell us what we wanna hear, and that they're not yet another patsy set up by our so-called-protectors.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:03 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer: However, many folks, including police, are so brainwashed into believing guns are only used to shoot people that any appearance of a firearm (or something that resembles one) is treated as a capital crime in progress and responded to with deadly force.
/b]

Dude, you just posted:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=56525

"A child pulled the trigger of a police rifle at a Southern California elementary school Wednesday, firing a bullet that shattered and created shrapnel that injured three youngsters, authorities said. "

Is it paranoia or awareness?

In the Chino case, it's stupid police, just like the ones that assumed anyone with something that might look like a firearm should be shot on sight.

Seriously - any police officer that leaves a loaded weapon in an anti-drug display in a school? Is that the kind of protection you want?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 25, 2013 2:34 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

If only there had been a good man with a gun, none of this would have happened.
Just had to say it - somehow a discussion about the latest gun tragedy seems empty without the gun-nuts pulling out this old bromide. B/c it's never, EVER the fault of the gun laws or the person with a gun - even a replica one.

As evidence of "rape mentality"

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is

whore

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 25, 2013 5:42 AM

Boy, 13, was shot seven times by Sonoma County deputy, report finds
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-boy-shot-seven-times-by-de
puty-20131024,0,1156630.story#axzz2ij0mLxNI

"A 13-year-old boy killed by a Sonoma County sheriff's deputy while
carrying a pellet gun that resembled an assault rifle was shot seven
times, according to a preliminary coroner's report."

Deputy 1: Is he dead yet?
Deputy 2: I think he twitched.
Deputy 1: Shoot 'im again.

SEVEN Times!! (7)

===========================:>
A man's gotta know how to control his firearm ... his brain, too.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 25, 2013 10:56 AM

AGENTROUKA

Words fail me.

They shoot the kid 7 times and then find the time to cuff him before calling an ambulance? What? How can they possibly attempt to justify this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 25, 2013 11:17 AM

They were just following orders/standard operating procedures?

Plus ... they lost it.

======================
A man's gotta have a good alibi.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 25, 2013 11:52 AM

BYTEMITE

It was pretty clear something was wrong with their reality sensors when they didn't notice that the male suspect was shorter than the average adult, and then, after they SHOT him and he face planted in front of them, they shot him five or six more times on the ground and THEN ordered him to "move away from the gun."

Not only that, but the toy rifle doesn't actually look that much like a real AK-47. Enough so that they were finally able to realize that on scene when they approached.

I'm not fond of cops in general myself, but these guys seem to be particularly dim bulbs.

Of course, I guess the cops can't be blamed for jumping to conclusions because he was in a hooded sweatshirt, and was born with brown skin. /snark /obligatory racial profiling comment to stir the pot

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:08 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Way back when - 1998 - here in CA there was a poor unfortunate, and may I say darker-skinned woman who was unresponsive sitting in her car. A relative called police b/c they thought she was having a seizure. Actually, the news story tells it better than I could:

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/05/riv-m08.html

Ms. Miller had pulled into a gas station parking lot with a flat tire shortly after 1 a.m. last December. The friend she was with left to get help while Ms. Miller stayed behind, locking the doors and rolling up the windows. She turned up the heat and the radio, and apparently put a pistol in her lap for protection.

When Ms. Miller's 18-year-old cousin, Anthonete Joiner, and a girlfriend arrived at the gas station they were unable to get the young woman to respond or to open the doors. Seeing foam around Ms. Miller's mouth, and fearing that she was in physical distress, they called 911 to get help from the police. When the police arrived Ms. Joiner ran over to them and said something was wrong with her cousin, that she would not wake up and that there was a gun on her lap.

Ms. Joiner said the policeman told her to get back, while he and three other officers began screaming at Ms. Miller to open the door and get out of the car. One officer pounded on the glass with a flashlight, she said, while the others took positions around the car, with their guns drawn. "A couple of minutes later," Ms. Joiner said, "they were shooting at her! She was just lying there the whole time!"

Initially, the police said the officers fired only after Ms. Miller had shot at them. After tests showed that Miller's gun had not been fired, the police changed their story to say they saw Miller arise and reach for her gun after one of the officers broke a window. Consequently, they said, they fired to protect themselves.

Daniel Hotard, one of the officers, told investigators that he broke the glass and was reaching for Ms. Miller's gun, when he heard loud, single crack of gunfire and felt its concussion near his head. Thinking he had been shot, Hotard said, he fell backward onto the pavement.

Grover Trask, the Riverside County district attorney, said that shot had come from a fellow officer. As Hotard fell to the ground, the DA said, his three partners, Officers Paul Bugar, Wayne Stewart and Michael Alagna, continued firing. Hotard, still on the ground, fired several rounds into the driver's side door. The policemen told investigators, that after firing the first volley of bullets, they paused for several seconds, and opened fire again after the young woman moved for the weapon.

People learned many surprsing things abouut how police are trained all during the investigations and news stories afterward. One is that they are trained to shoot at the slightest sign of trouble. They're trained to keep control of the situation as their primary goal. Another item is that if they HEAR gunfire they're supposed to aim at the suspect and shoot. Another is that once they start shooting they aren't supposed to stop until their gun is emptied. So that's how a young black girl got shot to death by 4 policemen b/c of a 911 MEDICAL emergency call.

There's a lot wrong with these kinds of situations.

But no other developed country even REMOTELY comes close to the good ole' USA in per capita gun deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_deat
h_rate
Country Total
Honduras 64.8
El Salvador 41.11
Jamaica 39.74
Swaziland 37.16
Guatemala 36.38
Colombia 28.14
South Africa 21.51
Brazil 19.03
Panama 17.60
Uruguay 14.01
Mexico 11.17
United States 10.3
Argentina 10.05
Montenegro 8.55
Paraguay 8.16
Nicaragua 7.29
Costa Rica 6.28
Serbia 3.90
Switzerland 3.84
Chile 3.73
Peru 3.73
Finland 3.64
Croatia 3.54
Philippines 3.24
France 3.01
Barbados 3.0
Austria 2.95
Estonia 2.54
Slovenia 2.49
Belgium 2.42
Canada 2.38
Bulgaria 2.35
Luxembourg 2.02
Georgia 1.92
Israel 1.87
Macedonia 1.85
Norway 1.78
Portugal 1.77
Czech Republic 1.76
Slovakia 1.75
Greece 1.64
Iceland 1.57
Sweden 1.47
Denmark 1.45
New Zealand 1.45
Latvia 1.43
Italy 1.28
Germany 1.24
Australia 1.06
Moldova 1.03
Kyrgyzstan 1.01
Cyprus 0.96
Hungary 0.87
Taiwan 0.87
Spain 0.62
India 0.48
Netherlands 0.46
Kuwait 0.36
Poland 0.25
United Kingdom 0.25
Ukraine 0.20
Romania 0.19
Singapore 0.16
Qatar 0.15
Zimbabwe 0.12
Belarus 0.1
Japan 0.06
South Korea 0.06
Azerbaijan 0.04
Hong Kong 0.03

So, are you going to blame the police b/c in a 'WTF does this mean about us' situation a 13 year old boy was carrying what looked like a weapon out on the street at 3 PM? Can you BEGIN to imagine any other developed country where a 13 year old would think it's cool and a good idea to do that?

Are you going to blame the police for the policies they're required to follow?

Are you going to blame the stupid police b/c they work in a violence-soaked society where even 13 year-olds shoot people? Where you can either be quick, or dead?

The NRA and its supporters - take a bow. Our brutally uncaring society and its supporters - take a bow. You've accomplished your goals.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 4:15 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Now, to get specific:

Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:29 AM
AURAPTOR
I heard pellet gun, but that's a minor point. (Now that's a great start - no facts.) They're saying they told him to drop it, and he didn't. (Most stories say 'repeatedly'.) I guess he *wheeled* around, and the cops took that as an aggressive gesture. (Sure would be nice to have a link for that tidbit.) What ever became of approaching casually, cautiously, and just asking the boy if he could see the gun ? (B/c asking casually was going to work when he didn't respond to REPEATED commands to put the gun down?)

Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:38 AM
FREMDFIRMA
What grinds my gears about it is the wholesale, institutional, downright blatant violation of use-of-force criteria on a non-stop basis.
(Citing two anecdotal stories, only one of which involved a human, qualifies a non-stop.) The APPROPRIATE policy is to rush the damn place and Taser anyone with a weapon in hand ... I fail to see how any rational person could stomach the very sight or presence of a human being so fallen as to voluntarily engage in this kind of conduct ... (I wonder if that awful conduct is simply being a cop? Are there no good ones? None that have ever been helpful, even life-saving?)

Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:48 AM
NIKI2
After the deputies spotted the boy Tuesday, they called for backup and repeatedly ordered him to drop the gun, sheriff's Lt. Dennis O'Leary said in a news release. (Police car and shoulder cams or local cellphone videos would be helpful. I often wonder why they're not standard equipment.)

Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:59 AM
AURAPTOR
They called for back up before the kid was even aware he was being seen as a potentially violent subject ? (Yet another ignorant opinion. This poster sure is full of them.) How do you repeatedly call on someone, get no response, and not just approach him ? (Maybe b/c it looked like he was carrying a gun?) Was the kid wearing earbuds, listening to an ipod or some such ? This sounds nuts. (Not as nuts as you, buddy.)

Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:08 PM
BYTEMITE
This sounds cops. ... Power trip --> Abuse of power. (The fact that they thought this kid was carrying a gun and could have posed a immediate LETHAL risk - nope, must not have had anything to do with it - not anything, at all. Also, like Frem's post it's hyperbole, unlike his post there's not even one anecdote offered in support.)

Thursday, October 24, 2013 1:19 PM
GEEZER
As noted, violence is way down in the U.S. compared to even 20 years ago. However, many folks, including police, are so brainwashed into believing guns are only used to shoot people (Yes, because people go hunting and target shooting with what could be an AK-47, at 3PM, out on a public street. I see Geezer's gone over the edge on 50 shades of gray.)

Thursday, October 24, 2013 1:32 PM
STORYMARK
Quote:
Fact: A Taser will lock up and drop an active shooter FASTER than a bullet, even if the shooter is wearing armor.

Depends a LOT on where the leads impact. Sure, you hit two fleshy spots, itll down an armored assailant - but the prongs are in no way penetrating the armor - so at BEST, it's be pure luck. (This may be an interesting tidbit to follow up on.)

Thursday, October 24, 2013 4:40 PM
MAGONSDAUGHTER
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
... Cops do seem to be on a hair trigger ...

I guess you can't have it both ways, can you? You can't have a popuation armed to the teeth with everything including military like weapons AND a polite reasonable police force. (Logical argument, responding directly to the point made.)

Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:34 PM
G
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer: However, many folks, including police, are so brainwashed into believing guns are only used to shoot people ...

Dude, you just posted: "A child pulled the trigger of a police rifle at a Southern California elementary school Wednesday, firing a bullet that shattered and created shrapnel that injured three youngsters, authorities said. "
Is it paranoia or awareness? (Responds directly to the point made.)

Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:49 PM
AURAPTOR
This was a pellet gun. Growing up, we had a Daisy BB gun as well as a small pellet gun, which resembled a rifle. I never got gunned down by the cops. The hysteria over guns is the epidemic, not the guns. (And yet, despite all the good-old-boy love and acceptance of guns and school gun safety classes back then, gun violence was WAAaaaayyyy up! And now with all the restrictions and unreasonable anti-gun 'hysteria', gun violence is WAAaaaayyyy down! I'm not sure just lying back and letting guns have their way in society is an argument he should be making.)

Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:22 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Not true.
The M26/X26 series will push the arc through near 2 full inches of cloth and doesn't require skin contact so long as the probes stick to the target that direction and maybe preventing it is also useful. (That said, I know soneone who had THREE tasers on him, and he just pulled them off. It seems that there's variation in response - some drop dead, others are nealy immune.)
... or going all out guns blazing because an officers massive entitled ego and rage issues cause him to want the peon who dared "threaten" him dead - (Ahem - hyperbole)
Consider this - if they'd zapped the kid instead of shooting him (I wonder waht the accurate range for tasers is ... something to look up.)

Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:03 PM
GEEZER
In the Chino case, it's stupid police ... Seriously - any police officer that leaves a loaded weapon in an anti-drug display in a school? Is that the kind of protection you want? (the styory ALSO mnentions this: "The weapons mount holding the rifle had several fail-safes, including the metal plate, Olden said", a fact Geezer faiked to mention, probably b/c his 'point' would fall apart.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 4:53 AM

My gawd, the stupid is so thick it's burning my eyes like acid, and I just can't bite my tongue on this one.

Quote:
So, are you going to blame the police b/c in a 'WTF does this mean about us' situation a 13 year old boy was carrying what looked like a weapon out on the street at 3 PM? Can you BEGIN to imagine any other developed country where a 13 year old would think it's cool and a good idea to do that?

You know absolutely nothing about hunting, do you ?
Hell, wasn't all that long ago many kids carried their .22lr rifles to school with em in case they spotted something worth potting, especially in rural areas, and this is still a practice in quite a few "developed" countries, as well as less "developed" ones.
Not to mention a lot of kids have "shootouts" with airsoft weapons, some of which are fairly realistic, and carrying one to a neighbors house after school for some fun isn't really beyond the pale or even unusual.

But no, you wanna swallow a police bullshit story whole cause it fits with the convenient narrative of laying blame on where you want it laid - without mentioning how the "OMG it's a GUN!! EVILLL!!!!" total panic/freakout inspired by people just like you contributes heavily to these incidents.

Quote:
Are you going to blame the police for the policies they're required to follow?

But they DON'T, which is exactly my motherfuckin point - use of force policy is very clear, verbal-less lethal-lethal force, and usually quite specific... it just happens to be universally IGNORED because police get a free pass on this when they shouldn't, often as not by the self-same people who freak out at the sight of a non-cop with a weapon.
One thing Anthony liked to point out before y'alls appalling hypocrisy chased him off was that the same standards and/or disarmament should be applied to them as well, if not more, and all he got for that suggestion was chewed on, despite actual evidence (thanks to CATO and the PoliceMisconduct database) that they're LESS well behaved, LESS safe, with the goddamn things, than us mere mundanes.

Speaking of statistics as well, you do know those stats are bulked up by bullshit like considering a perp shot dead while attempting an armed robbery to be a "victim of gun violence", right ?
And suicides, which IMHO should be excluded because if someone wants to die, they're GOING to find a way, and removing a quick clean option is just plain cruelty, but no, just blame the gun for being there, so... CONVENIENT.

Quote:
Are you going to blame the stupid police b/c they work in a violence-soaked society where even 13 year-olds shoot people? Where you can either be quick, or dead?

I am going to blame them for the enormous cultural impact OF THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR, as well as the media that play into it via police brutality glorification shows, which normalizes and excuses this behavior, something I feel was a significant factor in the death of Aiyanna Jones - and worth noting that punk Weekly got off scot-free for it, so what message does THAT send, when we do not hold them accountable ?
And I am certainly going to blame them for an institutionally corrupt culture which amounts to a de-facto caste system allowing them to murder people for "contempt of cop" in much the same fashion Samurai were once allowed to slaughter commoners who "disrespected" them.
You're so flat out determined to blame an OBJECT that you're willing to excuse behavior that is by any humane standard utterly inexcuseable, and I find that offensive.

You DO realize the violence police contribute by their misbehavior is ALSO one of the reasons our society is awash with it, and that this very much contributes to the level of national insanity which results, and as long as we keep making excuses instead of addressing things like actual training, de-escalation and professionalism that isn't going to change ?

One MIGHT remember I stand against that "brutally uncaring society" and seek to combat the insanity which provokes such violence, thus ending the need and desire for such tools of destruction - and because of that I know damned well that removing the tools without removing the insanity would just lay us open to be ravaged further, as history has proven beyond any reasonable doubt in every single case where such has ever happened.

Seriously, you wouldn't wanna see that - so, better to end the insanity, and make the tools of destruction then irrelevant....
Unless, of course, that isn't your intention at all.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:41 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
People learned many surprsing things abouut how police are trained all during the investigations and news stories afterward. One is that they are trained to shoot at the slightest sign of trouble. They're trained to keep control of the situation as their primary goal. Another item is that if they HEAR gunfire they're supposed to aim at the suspect and shoot. Another is that once they start shooting they aren't supposed to stop until their gun is emptied. So that's how a young black girl got shot to death by 4 policemen b/c of a 911 MEDICAL emergency call.

How is that even possible to be legal? What is the purpose of such policies? Aren't police supposed to protect the public? These policies seem to reflect a priority of protecting themselves first and foremost, danger to the public being an acceptable risk. How doesn't that undermine their entire purpose of existence?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 9:00 AM

America loves a winner!

Damn 1kiki, you really must have no life, what so ever. To hyper analyze every single word from ever poster in this thread, taking comments COMPLETELY out of context, and to then interject your own BIASED opinion , which seems to consist mostly of empty insults, while completely ignoring what's being said, displays a level of desperation and sadness on your part... I pity you.

I really do.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 12:00 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
People learned many surprsing things abouut how police are trained all during the investigations and news stories afterward. One is that they are trained to shoot at the slightest sign of trouble. They're trained to keep control of the situation as their primary goal. Another item is that if they HEAR gunfire they're supposed to aim at the suspect and shoot. Another is that once they start shooting they aren't supposed to stop until their gun is emptied. So that's how a young black girl got shot to death by 4 policemen b/c of a 911 MEDICAL emergency call.

How is that even possible to be legal? What is the purpose of such policies? Aren't police supposed to protect the public? These policies seem to reflect a priority of protecting themselves first and foremost, danger to the public being an acceptable risk. How doesn't that undermine their entire purpose of existence?

We have a winner. You have stated exactly the reason why many of us HATE the police in the US and consider them corrupt beyond the point of redemption.

(This is also consequently a reason many of us hate the NSA and other intelligence agencies as well - they think they're above us and the laws and society they're supposed to be protecting. I'm sure living in Germany you've heard about the NSA overreaching it's jurisdiction)

I don't care one way or another about guns, yet find myself lumped in with the pro-gun crowd with Kiki's all encompassing condemnation. I find it amazing that this isn't just blaming GUNS here, which if some people want to do that, they have the right to say that and there may even be situations where that perspective has some validity.

But Kiki is going so far as blaming a TOY GUN - INSTEAD OF THE GODDAMNED POLICE WHO FIRED ON A THIRTEEN YEAR OLD AND AN INSANE SOCIETY THAT PROMOTES PEOPLE GOING IN OR OUT GUNS BLAZING AT THE SLIGHTEST PROVOCATION.

Kiki, your post wasn't even making the argument to DISARM police as well, you were suggesting they were operating under standard procedure and the fault is on the KID.

I don't HAVE a position in this argument beyond how nuts our society is and maybe we want to do something about that. But the previous posts were not even logically consistent from within a GUNS are to blame argument. Seriously, what the hell? Get your A-game on Kiki.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 2:22 PM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
We have a winner. You have stated exactly the reason why many of us HATE the police in the US and consider them corrupt beyond the point of redemption.

(This is also consequently a reason many of us hate the NSA and other intelligence agencies as well - they think they're above us and the laws and society they're supposed to be protecting. I'm sure living in Germany you've heard about the NSA overreaching it's jurisdiction)

Have I ever. Our Chancellor is not best pleased with having her phone monitored. But, you know, it's not like anyone here trusted them or our own intelligence services before. It's pretty much a given they're doing more than they should. Everyone's all cynical and passive about it, which sucks.

Regarding police.. it's not like excessive force isn't a problem even when no firearms are not involved. There's a much stricter protocol here on firearms use in police procedures, methinks, because it is rarely ever heard about at all that anything ends with suspects killed by gunfire. Here the issue is more in large-scale events, where crowds of protesters or sports fans find themselves faced with excessive or unnecessary force. Or indiscriminate mobile phone tracking. It's an ongoing discussion. But these are, generally, much less permanent situations than being shot to death, which is one thing to be grateful for. People can and do press charges afterwards.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:11 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Hell, wasn't all that long ago many kids carried their .22lr rifles to school with em in case they spotted something worth potting ..." Was that during the good ol' days little rappy referred to, when gun violence was at an all-time high? And was that before the rise of serious gang violence? Don't you think either of these are relavent to your implication that those golden good ol' days where everyone had a gun without restriction were idyllic and non-violent - and if we could just get rid of those restrictions we could return to that golden past?

"... and this is still a practice in quite a few "developed" countries, as well as less "developed" ones." A reference would be helpful. Otherwise, I'm counting this as an opinion.

"... airsoft weapons, some of which are fairly realistic ..." Why are they made to look so much like the real thing instead of the harmless toys they are? Isn't that part of the problem? Guns are tough and cool and I want something that looks 'real' and tough and cool, and anything else is dorky.

"... and carrying one to a neighbors house after school for some fun isn't really beyond the pale or even unusual." And kids carrying weapons around isn't that unusual, either.

"... without mentioning how the "OMG it's a GUN!! EVILLL!!!!" total panic/freakout inspired by people just like you ..." Which also contributes to that reduced gun violence since the 70's. Glad to do my part.

"... use of force policy is very clear, verbal-less lethal-lethal force ..." Unless the person aims their weapon at you and you come under threat. Which is what they claim. Now, I'm not so naive that I don't think the police know how to shade their story to justify their actions. They claim the victim turned toward them. That's why I mentioned to Niki that I thought police car cams/ personal shoulder cams should be ROUTINE equipment. But, unless some private citizen caught this on their cell phone, the best we'll have to do is wait and see what the autopsy report says - it's hard to claim the person turned toward you if all the bullets entered in the back.

"... before y'alls appalling hypocrisy chased him off ..." Are stats and logic hypocrisy? And did we 'chase him off' with them? Maybe his arguments couldn't stand discussion b/c they were based on beliefs - ie - he refers to a religion - rather than anything else. And maybe you're just as religious.

"... that the same standards and/or disarmament should be applied to them as well ..." People should be allowed to own nuclear weapons? You'd be hard-pressed to find many who agree with that. BTW, since I ALSO disagree with the government owning them, you have MISrepresented my actual position in this.

"... you do know those stats are bulked up by bullshit like considering a perp shot dead while attempting an armed robbery to be a "victim of gun violence", right ?" I'd appreciate a cite, otherwise this will also get filed under 'opinion'.

" ... as well as the media that play into it via police brutality glorification shows ..." And also the soldier glorification movies, the vigilante glorification movies and shows, and the violent bad-ass glorification shows. Plus the gang violent bad-ass glorification culture. Why put this on one category? It looks like we glorify violence across the board.

"And I am certainly going to blame them for an institutionally corrupt culture ..." Yep, it happens. It also fails to happen. It's not 100% either way.

"You're so flat out determined to blame an OBJECT ..." I believe I posted this: "There's a lot wrong with these kinds of situations" and this "Our brutally uncaring society and its supporters - take a bow. You've accomplished your goals." Doesn't seem like I fixated on guns as THE cause. OTOH, they shouldn't be totally exonerated either, as you seem to do.

You may or may not have noticed that I have consistently posted that our society should be structured to be of service to its members, rather than the members be used as dispoable objects in service to society.

I have to say, by failing to address my ACTUAL arguments and positions, and by failing to back your claims up, you've failed to provide me with any reason to change my mind.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:27 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Typical little rappy post - totally uninteresting.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Damn 1kiki, you really must have no life, what so ever. To hyper analyze every single word from ever poster in this thread, taking comments COMPLETELY out of context, and to then interject your own BIASED opinion , which seems to consist mostly of empty insults, while completely ignoring what's being said, displays a level of desperation and sadness on your part... I pity you.

I really do.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:32 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

How is that even possible to be legal? What is the purpose of such policies? Aren't police supposed to protect the public? These policies seem to reflect a priority of protecting themselves first and foremost, danger to the public being an acceptable risk. How doesn't that undermine their entire purpose of existence?

I mistated that. They're trained to shoot at the slightest sign the situation has escalated into lethal threat. 'Trouble' was far too broad a term. But the one thing they are trained to not allow is to have an armed person aiming their weapons at anyone. I withdraw the use of that word and hope I've clarified the idea.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:36 PM

And so you double down on stupid, dismiss wholesale any contrary evidence while demanding cites you will ignore ?
Taking lessons from Rappy, are ya now ?

Still, you want cites, you put out first, cause I'll bury you.
Most especially I wanna see you find a goddamn cite for how whipping up panic and hysteria at the sight of a weapon DECREASES violence, cause that's just plain idiotic.

Although I will say I am in agreement that the violence in our culture comes from many sources and the media isn't helping, I find it especially galling that it's seemingly okay to show any level of violence, and yet showing the human body in its natural state is supposedly awful, seriously, WTF ?

There's also the plain and simple logic here, banning Alcohol DID NOT WORK, and it added violence and corruption to our society, banning "Drugs" DID NOT WORK, and it added violence and corruption to our sociey...
See where I am going with this ?
We HAVE to find another way, stop hacking branches and strike the root, which is the fact that our culture has curdled and inspired insanity on a national level, weapons and use/abuse of them are a symptom, not a cause.

Now I am all in favor of training as requirement, and even repeatedly offered a proposal that meets all the ADMITTED requirements of both "sides" of the issue, only to have it ignored and dismissed, for reasons I can only assume being related to neither "side" being honest about their intentions.

-Frem

PS. And I will offer one cite up front, every time a population has disarmed without addressing such national insanity, massacre has resulted, that is not hyperbole, that is historical fact.
http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 4:30 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"... dismiss wholesale any contrary evidence ..." What evidence? Do you mean in this case specifically? Is there hard evidence available?

"Still, you want cites ..."

Yes, I'd like cites. You made two claims that were novel to me:

"... (many kids carried their .22lr rifles to school with em in case they spotted something worth potting, especially in rural areas,) >> and this is still a practice in quite a few "developed" countries <<, as well as less "developed" ones"

"... you do know those stats are bulked up by bullshit like considering a perp shot dead while attempting an armed robbery to be a "victim of gun violence"

You learned these from somewhere. You would be the person who'd be able to go find the source.

As for the rest, I provided links AND quotes for my facts.

So, after you ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 7:45 PM

I dont want to give the impression that I approve of the police shooting a 13 year old boy, and I do have the impression that your police force is very aggressive and trained to be as such.

However, one of the issues with the availability of powerful weapons for the general population is that 'talk em down' strategies are not as likely to be employed.

A lot of people on this forum have responded to mass shootings with the 'if only an armed person had been present then none of this would have happened' - the inference being that an armed civilian would be able to make the split second response that an armed threat existsed and would be able to miraculously shoot dead the assailant before they had a chance to respond, also miraculously not shooting dead or injuring any other passerbys.

This is the response the police made, only, surprise surprise, they got it wrong. Not unlikely given the scenario. But if this boy had been armed and intent on murder, they would ahve been hailed as heroes who prevented another potential mass shooting.

when threat levels are high, you're more likely to get a 'shoot now and ask questions later' approach

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 7:56 PM

JONGSSTRAW

"Why are the innocent punished? Why the sacrifice? Why the pain? There aren't any promises. Nothing certain. Only that some get called, some get saved. He won't ever know the hardship and grief for those of us left behind. We commit his body to the void with a glad heart. For within each seed, there is a promise of a flower, and within each death, no matter how small, there's always a new life. A new beginning."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 10:44 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Still, you want cites, you put out first, cause I'll bury you.

Frem.

Don't go there.

Kiki will ask for cites that the Sun rises in the East, and then ignore them, while making completely outrageous statements without a shred of proof and claiming that they are gospel. He/she will continue to do so until you give up on trying to get a straight answer or until the thread languishes without posts for a couple of weeks, and then pop up and claim victory.

This is why I seldom engage with this person any more.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:36 PM

Seriously Kiki, do you even live in America ?
Our whole damn history involves a lot of hunting and sport shooting, and me being a descendant of west virginia hillfolk you really I'd buy the notion that such never happened, that you could sell me some revisionist BS ?

Cited.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338167/gun-clubs-school-charles
-c-w-cooke

And far as manipulation of of stats, one need only to deconstruct Kellerman.

Cited.
http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

I shall add to this the much better done (in a scientific sense) Harvard study, which seems to confirm the exact opposite of what the media and others keep telling us.

Cite.
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveal
s-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1

Now, that all taken care of, I say again, I do not think it is the weapons themselves which are the problem, so much as a culture so awash with violence that it has formented a kind of national-grade insanity, from invading other countries on the thinnest of excuses all the way down to cops shooting peoples dogs out of sheer malice.

But every time I try to address that it seems some jerk with the notion if they take all the weapons from people they can *make* them behave, which is IMHO the real and very ugly truth behind arguing against weapon ownership, and of course presupposes those doing the "making" get to keep theirs, but don't you know - that's exactly HOW WE GOT HERE, curse it all.

Quote:
“As long as the child will be trained not by love, but by fear, so long will humanity live not by justice, but by force. As long as the child will be ruled by the educator’s threat and by the father’s rod, so long will mankind be dominated by the policeman’s club, by fear of jail, and by panic of invasion by armies and navies.”

Boris Sidis, from “A lecture on the abuse of the fear instinct in early education” in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1919.

So in essence the proposed "solution" is in fact a large part of the problem, same as the "War on (some) Drugs", it takes a policy doomed to fail from the very start and assumes that violently enforcing it on people who don't want it is going to work, that it would not tip the balance of power further towards insanity by backing people further into corners and making them crazier by threatening what many of them feel is their last line of defense against a society gone insane.

And worse, it distracts and diverts from trying to find a real solution, having to fend off nonstop attempts to shove an unrealistic one at us by folks who's long term thinking seems to be if they can them *make* us behave, well well then, they can *make* us do whatever they want.
Which is exactly why there are such protections for weapon ownership here, mind you.

Myself, I'd rather talk real solutions than have to point out the ugly realities of "take all the guns" to folks who damn well should know better and let emotion and outrage cloud their judgement till it vanishes into nonexistence.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:37 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Geezer

I gave quotes AND cites for every fact I wanted to be considered before I asked for any.

I asked for cites for two SPECIFIC things. I then repeated my request with those EXACT same two things listed again. If they are part of Frem's argument - and they are - then he should be able to allow everyone else to become familiar with this information, its sources, its ancillary background. Otherwise, it's hard to judge its reliability.

And I see you're up to your same old same old. Ad hominems, straw man arguments, inability to cite specific examples ... and not a single valid fact, piece of logic, or on topic - anything. Yes, it's one of your classics. And it says so much about you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:46 PM

I should really own a gun.
The NRA wants me to have one for personal protection, recreation and
in the event of invasion or civil war. (and I would be "well regulated.")

Apparently it is now illegal to carry an Unconcealed Weapon under
certain circumstances. I missed the passing of this law. Can someone
please fill me in on the particulars of it?

======================
A man's gotta know his social standing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 27, 2013 12:16 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Our whole damn history ..." "Shooting clubs, now quietly withering away, were once such a mainstay of American high-school life that in the first half of the 20th century they were regularly installed in the basements of new educational buildings."

But I wasn't asking about history. I was asking about your claim that that happens NOW, in OTHER developed countries NOT the US. But OK - let's add the US in too. Does it happen NOW, in SUBURBAN neighborhoods, so that he COULD HAVE BEEN assumed to be getting something for the family stew pot from the neighbors' lawns and gardens and swimming pools? That was your argument, not mine. So, could it be true?

As for these cites:

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveal
s-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1

You made the claim that perpetrators, shot to death by people defending themselves, are counted as 'victims of gun violence' in order to pad the statistics. I presume that was an attempt to invalidate the per capita gun death statistics I posted. And I asked for cites for that VERY SPECIFIC claim you made. Do you not have that?

As for the rest of your post, it has very little to do with what I've argued. I won't be addressing it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 27, 2013 1:01 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

California has a ban on assualt weapons, first version passed in 1989.

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Apparently it is now illegal to carry an Unconcealed Weapon under
certain circumstances. I missed the passing of this law. Can someone
please fill me in on the particulars of it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 27, 2013 1:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
California has a ban on assualt weapons, first version passed in 1989.

Thank you. I didn't know.

======================
A man's gotta know his limitations. ~Dirty Harry

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 27, 2013 1:18 AM

FBI to Investigate Police Shooting Death of 13-Year-Old
Californian Boy
http://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-investigate-police-shooting-death-13-year
-californian/story?id=20692727

"The FBI is going to conduct its own investigation into the death
of a 13-year-old who was shot after police mistook the boy's pellet
gun for an assault rifle, the Sonoma County Sherriff said today.

"The Sheriff will cooperate fully with the FBI and welcomes their
participation," the Sheriff's office said in a statement. "The Sheriff
also wants to express his thankfulness to the community for how
peaceful and respectful the memorials and protests have been in the
aftermath of this incident."

"Andy Lopez's death Tuesday has triggered outrage and grief among
hundreds of residents of Santa Rosa, Calif., who marched three miles
Wednesday night from Santa Rosa City Hall to the field where Lopez
was shot."

======================
"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 27, 2013 1:28 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

That's nice that it's being investgated. I'm just not sure people are willing to wait for the facts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 27, 2013 8:35 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You made the claim that perpetrators, shot to death by people defending themselves, are counted as 'victims of gun violence' in order to pad the statistics. I presume that was an attempt to invalidate the per capita gun death statistics I posted. And I asked for cites for that VERY SPECIFIC claim you made. Do you not have that?.

Here's one.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/bloomberg-gun-group-apolo
gizes-for-honoring-marathon-bombing-suspect/

And another.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/1-in-12-on-bloombergs-gun-victims-list-a
re-crime-suspects/article/2532224

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 27, 2013 10:42 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Typical little rappy post - totally uninteresting.
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor

So uninteresting, you take yet ANOTHER pointless pot shot, wasting everyone's time, and saying nothing. Bravo.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 27, 2013 6:01 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Thanks. But I get my figures from the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, as do researchers and other people looking for STATISTICS. Your examples don't answer the question about STATISTICS, they're one-off anecdotes about private groups.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 27, 2013 7:50 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Now, that all taken care of, I say again, I do not think it is the weapons themselves which are the problem, so much as a culture so awash with violence that it has formented a kind of national-grade insanity, from invading other countries on the thinnest of excuses all the way down to cops shooting peoples dogs out of sheer malice.

But every time I try to address that it seems some jerk with the notion if they take all the weapons from people they can *make* them behave, which is IMHO the real and very ugly truth behind arguing against weapon ownership, and of course presupposes those doing the "making" get to keep theirs, but don't you know - that's exactly HOW WE GOT HERE, curse it all.

Yes and no. But not "no" like you might think.

Frem hon, I think you might want to consider that those of us who want gun control do NOT want to take away all guns. You seem to jump to that argument too quickly, and it makes me sad because in essence I agree with you, as I think most posters here do. Sure there are nuts out there who say NO guns at all, but if you slow down and look around, you'll see that these are VERY few voices and they're solidly in the fringe.

You say you've posted your ideas about responsible gun ownership - yay! Please don't assume that anyone posting about gun control disagrees. Please consider that maybe not everyone has read every one of your posts.

I did try to catch up with this thread, but it goes back a ways so there might be something I missed. But I'd be very surprised if Kiki's intent here was to argue for 0% public gun ownership.

You'd have more allies if you'd slow down and recognize them, imho. Who here on this site has said they want complete and absolutely 0% gun rights for the public? If you can't name any, then please stop assuming that that is what you're fighting here.

Or really, anywhere else. I'm sure you can dredge up a few blogs making that argument, but really - fringe. Very fringe.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 27, 2013 10:23 PM

Mal4, I do consider that - but I also have to take into consideration the folks who have lied about it publicly and privately bide their time waiting for someone who means well to break the dam and open the floodgates for their "brilliant little plans".

If they were just a fringe voice, that'd be one thing, but there's a certain bedrock core of facism-push within our systems which has been there on both ends of the political spectrum for a long time, and my first awareness of it was in 86/87 and for a short bit I was more or less working for those pricks - one of the main reasons I despised Ollie North was that he prettymuch wrote REX-84, the "plan" at the time was to wind up the Contras and aid their savagery till we had a "humanitarian" excuse to invade, and then use the inevitable war protests as a pretext for a military coup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84

This general plan actually formulated initially back in the office of Henry "Scoop" Jackson, where the whole Strauss-based flavor of Neo-Feudo-Facism was reborn as what we call today the Neocons, but Jackson shelved it because he felt it was too over the top - shortly after Bush assumed power and planned to put most of it in action the powers that be sent the cleanup team to seize and classify those papers just in case things went to hell so there wouldn't be evidence of pre-meditation laying around, as if the PNAC papers weren't enough...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoop_jackson#Jackson_Papers_controversy

The two primary stumbling blocks remaining at the time were the proliferation of weapons amongst the american public, and the lack of support from the troops themselves - they passed out surveys asking whether or not they'd be willing to disarm/fire on civilians who did not comply as well as other nastiness and while they blacklisted the careers of those who answered in the negative (including me, which permanently blocked me from promotion, ever) they realized that if even 1-in-10 was willing to go so far as to fire at their fellow troops over this it could not be done.
And THAT, in the late 80's, is when they charged the training curriculum for political reliability above all else, even at the expense of useful skills - Katrina was a good test-bed for them, as the notion to go door to door (with a LIST, you know, the same one they promised would never ever ever, cross your fingers, be used that way) and seize weapons was the stupid idea of local officials, but those within our own military salivating over the notion of a "National Emergency" which would let them off the leash sent the 82nd Airborne to back it up to see if they would DO it... and they did, didn't they ?

And now we have elements of the regular army placed here on mission to suppress US if we get too uppity, that second stumbling block is prettymuch gone, leaving only one...
This isn't conjecture, nor is it theory, it's documented official policy, and I at one time worked with/for some of the bastards who penned it, I know how they think.

But that's a whole different issue, just one worth keeping in mind.

My issue with those here, specificially not you, is that they engaged in blatant, outright hypocrisy and doubled down with lies, and when I called em on it got all sort of personal.
The SPECIFIC hypocrisy was in advocating the exact same nasty tactics used against peoples right to vote, or womens rights to their own body, against folk who owned or wanted to own a firearm.

Which brought it out loud and clear to me, that if they were A-OK with that behavior when it was directed at rights they didn't like, people they didn't like, or didn't like how they used those rights....
Then those people could not be whatever trusted to defend human rights at all.
I could see wanting to yank the Second Amendment, and obviously would not agree whatever with the notion, but there's a process, and there's a process FOR A REASON.
And thus calling to subvert that process via the self-same dirty tricks they were howling up a fit about being aimed at stuff THEY cared about - well, I didn't take that so well.
It also horrified AnthonyT so much that he up and left, the people he believed he could trust showed their "true colors" and he took off to mull that over and never came back.
This thread, specifically.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=53787&p=1

Thing is, this *ISN'T* the discussion I wanna have, it always bogs down onto this useless point because folks seem to think they're gonna somehow crack the brick wall, or chase me off so they don't have me poking gaping holes in their proposed solutions....

The discussion I'd rather have, the one I feel we *NEED* to have, is about addressing CAUSES, not symptoms, addressing the cultural insanity which provokes the violence, which we've touched on and rounded the corners of here or there, but alas usually goes to hell with the "LOOK ANOTHER SHOOTING BAN GUNS BANBANBAN ALL THE GUNS FAULT AAHHHHH!" kind of *attitude* some people around here get, and please, don't tell me you ain't seen it, even by just browsing the thread titles.
Or howling at me cause imma Anarchist despite the fact that many of the solutions I point out require a damn Government, or even this messed up one cause we gotta work with what we have and I ain't the type to go smashing things other people want cause I disagree with that.

Hell, I *know* there's too many of these damn shooting incidents for sanity, and the reasonable stuff (as in WHY DID THEY NOT USE A TASER! right ?) gets pitched out the window ignored and unheard as folks can't seem to discuss policies that might resolve the situation or mitigate it, nope, they wanna jump right onto the emotional bandwagon and run it over everyone else.
You do not do this, and I appreciate that, but one can certainly see my agitation about it all.

Frankly I am surprised things ain't even worse - it's a testament and triumph of human tolerance and forgiveness that nobody ain't loaded up their car with propane tanks and drove it into the lobby of the bank that fucked em out of their savings yet, so I figure we're not nearly so far gone as the media makes us out to be, playing up the booga-booga to keep the powers that be happy and the ratings up, as always and both sides against the middle too.

But yeah, I'd really, REALLY rather discuss original causes, where this violence springs from, and what to do about THAT, instead of an endless back and forth over a mere symptom, so usually I just ignore these posts - but handing out a free pass for inexcusable violation of the use of force curriculum followed by some really blatant strawmanning stuck in my craw, and so far one might not that NO ONE even seemed to even freakin notice what I was saying about policy and less lethal force save for Storymark, so I wonder why I bother....

Ain't you, Mal4 - it's the fact that Kiki has rubbed her own hypocrisy on this topic in my face, ground it in with lies, and then spouts off some of the most blatant and ridiculous fallacies and strawmen, and yet I am supposed to be polite ?
Naaaah.
Ain't polite to Rappy neither, for much the same reasons.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 28, 2013 9:07 AM