Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You sir is yet another example why we should limit and license the freedom of speech and the right to vote. Ignorant people, particular the ones like you, who choose to stay ignorant, should not be allowed to speak or vote.
I really encourage you to research on any subject before you form any opinion let along speak again.
This is one of the classic retorts when not having the link or back-up information to substantiate a claim, and again I will simply point out that when someone makes such claims without support, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me. Without substantiation, in particular even after asking for it, I assume the claim is false, and I'm not about to do "research" to prove a false-hood, or when it comes to these threads in general, I would be chasing down falsehoods all day long.
once again you continue to show your ignorance on the subject. compare the mass of the human body compared to its extremities. note that the larger central mass is easier to hit than ANY of the extremities. when you want to stop a threat, you dont try to shoot the legs, or the arms, you go for center mass.
why? because the major organs, except for the brain, are all in the center mass of the body.
now as to why the cops had to shoot the guy 55 times, there are a couple of reasons;
1: ammunition. the cops use 9mm "ball" ammunition. it doesnt expand much, and tends to travel in a straight line and leave a small hole.
2: the person in question could have been high on drugs. if you have ever dealt with someone who is high, they dont feel pain, and their adrenaline is pumping in large amounts into the body, which means that a couple of rounds are not going to have a major effect on the body right then. later on when the drugs and adrenaline wear off, the body will feel the shock from the bullets that hit him.
like i said before, please educate yourself before spouting off on something you know little about. i realize that the movies and TV show people flying off their feet when they get hit by a bullet, and they also show the hero shooting people in the leg or the arm and minimizing damage from bullets, but it is not reality. and just because you accept it as reality, doesnt mean the rest of the world does. once i again i urge you to educate yourself in reality and not the fantasy that is teh movies and TV.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but after you get done with all the rhetoric, I simply point to the fact that you are not paying attention. I will spare you all the condemnation I could likewise throw your way in kind.
We are all generally aware of current common practice. Forgive me for suggesting what changes may be appropriate after department after department has announced the need for sweeping changes and better training. With all due respect to the status quo, again the circumstances should be properly evaluated and of course each warrants unique tactics to accomplish the goal of apprehending and/or stopping criminals.
Also again, I was referring to the case where there is all too often a stand-off taking a good long time with many officers trained on the suspect. I don't think you need to be an expert marksman to shoot someone in the leg by firing a few shots in that lower area.
Or say when officers shoot someone trying to get away after a burglary, like that kid that stole a purse and $10 from the house, shot dead...
I do understand the rationale and legal justification for deadly force as that case, for example, lead to the Tennessee V Garner ruling. I also well understand the rational for officers to shoot to kill when they truly feel threatened.
Not to get in the way of the games older white guys like to play with their guns, but perhaps just a thought for those in our current civilian militia still pretending they are protecting America from tyranny...
The Battle of Tippecanoe, fought on November 7, 1811, is often viewed as a prelude to the War of 1812. Governor of the Indiana Territory William Henry Harrison marched 1,000 regulars and volunteer militia toward the native village known as Prophet’s Town with the intent to destroy it and deprive Native Americans of a suspected base of operations. Native Americans met the force and suggested a parley. Harrison’s forces camped some way outside the town. Native forces attacked at night, killing nearly two hundred soldiers, but Harrison’s forces rebounded and with their greater numbers dispersed the attackers and proceeded to advance and burn Prophet’s Town. The battle further damaged Anglo-American relations, as Britain was castigated for supplying weapons to the Native forces.
Yep, Wonder why the news media doesn't open with "gun homocides at 40 year low"? Which is the case.
Just a wild hunch, it might have something to do with how our numbers here in America are order-and-above exceptionally higher than most other modern advanced countries. Of course, we all know the differences and issues when making comparisons to other countries. No one need waste any more time pointing out those differences, like the fact we have the 2A, for example. Nevertheless, the numbers in comparison tend to get everyone's attention. What I think anyway...
Decreasing gun violence, declining murder rate... The opposite side will never concede an inch for it does not fit the narrative they so want to promulgate.
Not true. Progress is progress and that's a good thing, no doubt. "Conceding," as in backing off the effort to make further progress only occurs when the point of adequate progress has been achieved.
Are we there yet?
The absolute numbers vs the relative numbers suggest there is still plenty room for more progress. Fair?
Finding Jesus in this case, was more of a reference to tolerance and forgiving of your fellow man.
Being polite and respectful of those around you.
Violence was the last resort, when being attacked. Turn the other cheek and all that talk.
It was more of a plan for a non-violent civilized society helping each other, more than anything else. All the things to keep your fellow man, from being violent with you in the first place and a friend for life.
Good luck with all that, and world peace just around the corner...
everybody wants to get rid of guns, but what really is the root of the problem?
Did you read the article I started this thread with?
"It’s dangerous people using guns effectively. The best approach to violence prevention is to zero in on that small number of high-risk people who are using guns to harm themselves or other people, and look at what might be done to prevent them."
Also as I wrote before, given what "research" I have done on this subject, I agree with just about everything that article explains.
Not true. Progress is progress and that's a good thing, no doubt. "Conceding," as in backing off the effort to make further progress only occurs when the point of adequate progress has been achieved.
Are we there yet?
The absolute numbers vs the relative numbers suggest there is still plenty room for more progress. Fair?
Absolute and relative, both are declining year over year. Was there a small increase in say 2010 from 2009 yet drop again in 2011 (example). Sure. But both metrics, actual numbers, and numbers per 100,00 have been declining for decades.
That's never acknowledged. That is a concession, and or admission. Something gun regulator advocates never admit. Instead, the next 'mass killing', right back to the predetermined dug in position.
Absolute and relative, both are declining year over year. Was there a small increase in say 2010 from 2009 yet drop again in 2011 (example). Sure. But both metrics, actual numbers, and numbers per 100,00 have been declining for decades.
That's never acknowledged. That is a concession, and or admission. Something gun regulator advocates never admit. Instead, the next 'mass killing', right back to the predetermined dug in position.
I don't know about all that, not entirely true in any case. Also from the article...
But in Boston, the ceasefire collaboration led to a 63% reduction in monthly youth homicides – a sudden drop in violence dubbed “the Boston miracle”. The strategy has been replicated across the country, but has often struggled to sustain itself as police chiefs and mayors change – or as old funding sources dry up. The strategy’s typical results, according to sociologist Kenneth Rand, are “a reduction in the range of 15% to 35% in total homicides and 25% to 40% in gang or group-involved homicides.” This is a dramatic impact for a local program.
How long cities can maintain these results, though, is unclear. The program’s effectiveness has mostly been studied over the short term. At least one ceasefire site, in Kansas City, saw a clear drop in homicides in 2014, and then saw violence go up again, even though the strategy continues to be implemented. But Oakland and New Orleans have both seen dramatic drops in murder after implementing the ceasefire strategy – and, even as violence spiked in cities across the country last year, both cities have been able to maintain their lower levels of violence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
