Active Shooter On Las Vegas Strip

[villakram]

further context... Utah police executing a civilian who they initially pulled over for a lack of a light on his bike, he then assaulted an officer (pushed) and fled resulting in being murdered like vermin. There is a 30s bodycam vid of this at the link below.

"Prosecutors in Salt Lake City have said officers were justified in killing Patrick Harmon, 50, who was pulled over for riding a bicycle without a light and who attempted to flee when police tried to arrest him. Police are not facing charges despite the fact that the body-camera footage captured officer Clinton Fox shouting “I’ll **** shoot you!” from a distance before he fired three bullets into Harmon, who was running in the opposite direction."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/patrick-harmon-utah-police-shooting

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, brommy said:

I think the point made was that statistics prove that it's less safe to drink drive (even if an individual drink-driver genuinely believes they are being safe) so governments have restricted it and the majority of each society accept it. 

This is indeed the point being made. It is precisely because humans are fairly shit judges of their own ability (see our old friend Dunning-Kruger for details) that we can't rely on the judgement of those who enjoy a dangerous activity to say whether it is safe or not. 

Guns and cars are particularly strong examples of this (stronger than drugs or cigarettes really) because most of the negative externalities are inflicted on others. 

[Davkaus]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

further context... Utah police executing a civilian who they initially pulled over for a lack of a light on his bike, he then assaulted an officer (pushed) and fled resulting in being murdered like vermin. There is a 30s bodycam vid of this at the link below.

"Prosecutors in Salt Lake City have said officers were justified in killing Patrick Harmon, 50, who was pulled over for riding a bicycle without a light and who attempted to flee when police tried to arrest him. Police are not facing charges despite the fact that the body-camera footage captured officer Clinton Fox shouting “I’ll **** shoot you!” from a distance before he fired three bullets into Harmon, who was running in the opposite direction."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/patrick-harmon-utah-police-shooting

What the **** does it take for a US police officer to be found guilty of murdering a black man?

 

The justice system has failed.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Davkaus

[bobzy]

6 hours ago, Dom_Wren said:

Firearms are legal in SC, criminals also have illegal firearms. If someone was to break into my house, i am not in that persons mind, I have no idea why they are breaking into my house. All i know is its probably not for a nice single malt and to chat about life. 

It is legal in SC to use deadly force if you feel threatened for yours or anybody else's life in the house. Breaking into my house is against the law. Hence if a criminal breaks into my house and the only opportunity for him to stop hurting or worse me and my family is protecting myself using my legally owned firearms and executing my rights then I want to have that opportunity.

I never ever want to have to pull my gun, ever. But if i didn't take the maximum opportunities available to myself and i or my family became a victim then that's on me to some extent.

I don't understand where the "positive" for guns is here. 

Unless I've read incorrectly, you're in favour of guns being legal because criminals legally have guns. You don't want to ever shoot someone but want to have the option because other people have guns too...

...so surely the better option is making guns illegal?!

Also, seriously, if someone is breaking into your house, it isn't to shoot you. It's to steal your stuff.

[Guest av1]

2 hours ago, Dom_Wren said:

Id abide by the law for sure. But to say statics are the be all and end all of any situation. In my experience and opinion is dangerously blind. 

I get you are abiding but the law, and i kind of understand you wanting a gun to protect your family.  If will never happen of course so I'm speaking hypothetically, but if firearms were legalised in the uk I'd probably consider getting one myself. 

But surely the safest possible situation for my family isn't me having a gun in my bedside cabinet, but the current law that forbids them. 

[Dom_Wren]

15 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I don't understand where the "positive" for guns is here. You dont have too. Thats the beauty of free choice. 

Unless I've read incorrectly, you're in favour of guns being legal because criminals legally have guns. You don't want to ever shoot someone but want to have the option because other people have guns too...Criminals ILLEGALLY have guns. 

...so surely the better option is making guns illegal?! This would not solve any issues IMO

Also, seriously, if someone is breaking into your house, it isn't to shoot you. It's to steal your stuff. I'm afraid, You have absolutely no insight into why a criminal is doing a illegal activity. 

I've answered the questions the best I can, look I get peoples opinion are different than mine, but some strange stuff has been said about law abiding citizens like myself who are just exercising 2nd amendment rights, some of you live in America, many of you dont. You do you, ill do me! But at times, its felt like a which hunt in here, with terms such as 'moron' been banded about becasue someone holds a different opinion than you, its all good im a big (fat) boy  I can take it, i decided to get involved, so im gonna leave y'all to it!

[Rugeley Villa]

I can't for the life of me figure out how having guns legally puts you in a safer situation. It opens the door to all kinds of horrible situations which America are suffering from right now.  If we had legalisation here gun crime would rocket 10 fold. 

[Rugeley Villa]

I can't for the life of me figure out how having guns legally puts you in a safer situation. It opens the door to all kinds of horrible situations which America are suffering from right now.  If we had legalisation here gun crime would rocket 10 fold. 

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

I can't for the life of me figure out how having guns legally puts you in a safer situation. It opens the door to all kinds of horrible situations which America are suffering from right now.  If we had legalisation here gun crime would rocket 10 fold. 

It objectively doesn't make you safer. At all. The safety argument is a fallacy.

Having guns legally just means they get used far more. And rarely is a gun being used good.

[Rugeley Villa]

5 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It objectively doesn't make you safer. At all. The safety argument is a fallacy.

Having guns legally just means they get used far more. And rarely is a gun being used good.

I agree. It's just a way of life over there I suppose. 

[villakram]

33 minutes ago, Dom_Wren said:

I've answered the questions the best I can, look I get peoples opinion are different than mine, but some strange stuff has been said about law abiding citizens like myself who are just exercising 2nd amendment rights, some of you live in America, many of you dont. You do you, ill do me! But at times, its felt like a which hunt in here, with terms such as 'moron' been banded about becasue someone holds a different opinion than you, its all good im a big (fat) boy  I can take it, i decided to get involved, so im gonna leave y'all to it!

Try the religion thread, you'll fit right in. Oh right...

[StefanAVFC]

The 2nd amendment is mindnumbingly stupid.

It was written at the beginning of a country, hundreds of years ago when guns were shit and it was normal to own them.

I think it's mental that a 1st world, rich, country governs itself so literally on a piece of paper written 225 years ago.

Edited October 6, 2017 by StefanAVFC

[Chindie]

There is also the long standing argument that the 2nd amendment has also been completely misinterpreted for years.

[Guest av1]

30 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I think it's mental that a 1st world, rich, country governs itself so literally on a piece of paper written years ago.

 

29 minutes ago, Chindie said:

has also been completely misinterpreted for years.

I thought i was in the religion thread for a second 

Edited October 6, 2017 by av1

[villakram]

36 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The 2nd amendment is mindnumbingly stupid.

It was written at the beginning of a country, hundreds of years ago when guns were shit and it was normal to own them.

I think it's mental that a 1st world, rich, country governs itself so literally on a piece of paper written 225 years ago.

Brits bashing a country for being ruled based on an actual document over 200yrs old, top stuff chaps! 

[mjmooney]

3 minutes ago, villakram said:

Brits bashing a country for being ruled based on an actual document over 200yrs old, top stuff chaps! 

And? The British constitution exists, but it is not a fixed, written document. It's a collection of legislation which is constantly evolving, revised as circumstances change. 

I guess Americans aren't comfortable with evolution... 

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

And? The British constitution exists, but it is not a fixed, written document. It's a collection of legislation which is constantly evolving, revised as circumstances change. 

I guess Americans aren't comfortable with evolution... 

Yep, confusing comment

[villakram]

3 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

And? The British constitution exists, but it is not a fixed, written document. It's a collection of legislation which is constantly evolving, revised as circumstances change. 

I guess Americans aren't comfortable with evolution... 

It is not written down, but it exists... ok    I'll have ghost & goblins for 500 Alex.

I jest, but only  somewhat... legal types are constantly complaining about the lack of a clear constitutional document, e.g., see all the debate regarding article 50 being enacted etc. 

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

The 2nd amendment is mindnumbingly stupid.

It was written at the beginning of a country, hundreds of years ago when guns were shit and it was normal to own them

Not quite. It was added precisely because it wasn't normal to have them.

When the locals started to get a bit uppity, the British tried to control things by preventing anyone from having access to firearms. 

So when we lost, the Democratic Republicans added that bit in because they were worried about the Federalists centralising all the power again so the law would be on their side to have weapons if they had to go and do it all over again.

Although James Madison thought it was unnecessary, as he predicted that a Federal Government would never be big or powerful enough to raise a large enough army to fight a state militia. You live and learn.

Not that it's not daft for it to be there in it's current interpretation, but y'know, good to get the history right.

Edited October 6, 2017 by ml1dch

[TheAuthority]

15 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

And? The British constitution exists, but it is not a fixed, written document. It's a collection of legislation which is constantly evolving, revised as circumstances change. 

I guess Americans aren't comfortable with evolution... 

The last time I checked the upper house of Britain's democracy are unelected Lords - and theres the monarch "appointed by God." So who's not comfortable with evolution?