Shoot to wound mentality

[Kaylia]

<_< aren't you canadian? Isn't the cost rather inherent regardless whether or not they get removed?

There is no such thing has "free", they get us back with the taxes and all (30-50% of your salary, 15% on any product you buy..etc). The more smoker there is, the more people are going to get ill eventually, and everyone has to share the cost of this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2008/02 ... _to_t.html

I'm curious to see if they take into account that a person who live a healthy life is generally going to give more to the society than a person dying young. Put like this, it's obvious someone dying at 85 is going to cost more than someone dying at 75. However, it's hard to works well when you're not healthy, and someone who is healthy all his life is going to work a few more year than someone who is sick.

Either way, I would rather pay to keep people who did their best to stay healthy then support people who are leeching health care.

[Turambar]

In case you didn't know, my stance on gun control is we need to make it much harder to purchase a gun and have much tougher background checks but while it would be great to remove all guns, it is simply infeasible.

And as far as the self-defense things are, guns are mostly used to protect because other people have guns. So the guns are the problem in the first place

If criminals went through background checks to get their guns illegally on the street, your idea would have merit. In the real world, it's a waste of the government's and citizen's time and money to perform a background check 99,999,999 times out of 100,000,000.

[jmc]

Actually from my understanding, there are some restrictions/guidelines on high-speed chases, Khamsin.

And remember, this was a 12 year old kid.

Varies from department to department. There is no federal guideline for police chases.

Federal laws, and State laws on different things vary as well......

Under MA. law, if a suspect robs a bank with a firearm. Runs out of the bank, drops his firearm and runs away once running into a officer. That officer would goto jail if he/she the suspect because there is no firearm in the suspect possession.

Under federal law, the officer can shoot the suspect even if they don't have the weapon in hand anymore simply because they committed a felony.

Its pretty bad laws conflicting each other...... hell, when I did some H.S (Homeland security stuff) learned from the feds if there is a suicide bomber I have clearance to shoot him/her in the head. However, if I ever did that....under MA laws, I would be charged with murder.

Some states have separate laws they follow under the federal laws.....other states just go by federal laws, and some federal laws like the example I gave are just rude.

So do you think some sort of reasonable, supreme legislation would be beneficial? I'm not saying to lock up every cop who fires a shot in the slightest, but there probably ought to be something in place to properly handle the bad apples and to clear up confusions as best as possible. I'd imagine it could be done in degrees, with slap on the wrist community service and short-term suspension for maybe firing too many times in (understandable) panic or an unreasonably quick jump to the conclusion someone had a firearm and then all the way on the other end, federal pen time for the really bad cops who can be proven to have unnecessarily, knowingly, and intentionally shot a (unarmed) suspect in such a way to ensure death.

Most police departments, will put a officer involved in a shooting on either leave or desk duties until a investigation is completed which usually takes a week. During the investigation, if any foul play is involved or excessive force or they believe deadly force shouldnt have been used. Then the officer would recieve a suspension, and wait on a hearing to possibly be fired.

Usually for local towns, if thier internal affairs department believes the shots being fired is questionable they will usually call a outside department (Usually state police) to assist in investigating.

[Charla]

Washington snipers weren't a gun-free zone. That was on the news for a long while.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I think many people in this thread have forgotten how incredibly fun it is to shoot guns.

Or never knew.

Just remember kids - murder is already illegal. I don't want more of my rights stripped on the assumption that I will commit crime if I'm allowed to maintain my rights.

So is doing drug, driving at 200 on the highway and many others harmless thing according to people who do it. Just because it's fun for you doesnt mean it's good for the society in general, even if you can use it in an harmless way.

Neither are alcohol or tobacco, and they each kill way more americans per year. Should we start stripping freedoms there and work our way down to guns?

Most country are slowly banning cigarettes as well. No more smoking inside, no more publicity, hidding them behind counter (out of buyer's sight)..etc. Cry as much as you want about your "rights", but if they cost me hundred of dollars in health cares, I don't think they are legitimate

I don't want to start a socialist health care debate, but that's a problem with the system, not the person smoking.

[Remyo]

Washington snipers weren't a gun-free zone. That was on the news for a long while.

kinda hard to defend against a guy with a rifle and scope 200 yards away firing from a modified vehicle.

[Maxxthepenguin]

In case you didn't know, my stance on gun control is we need to make it much harder to purchase a gun and have much tougher background checks but while it would be great to remove all guns, it is simply infeasible.

And as far as the self-defense things are, guns are mostly used to protect because other people have guns. So the guns are the problem in the first place

If criminals went through background checks to get their guns illegally on the street, your idea would have merit. In the real world, it's a waste of the government's and citizen's time and money to perform a background check 99,999,999 times out of 100,000,000.

Waste of time? Let's ask Cho that.

I tend to think that giving a deadly weapon to mostly anyone who asks is kind of scary.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I don't want to start a socialist health care debate, but that's a problem with the system, not the person smoking.

Grats on starting the debate

Well at least everyone gets taken care of and those who have less money don't get utterly shitty service. Having the 'the best health care system in the world' doesn't mean shit when 99% of the citizens can't use it.

[Remyo]

In case you didn't know, my stance on gun control is we need to make it much harder to purchase a gun and have much tougher background checks but while it would be great to remove all guns, it is simply infeasible.

And as far as the self-defense things are, guns are mostly used to protect because other people have guns. So the guns are the problem in the first place

If criminals went through background checks to get their guns illegally on the street, your idea would have merit. In the real world, it's a waste of the government's and citizen's time and money to perform a background check 99,999,999 times out of 100,000,000.

Waste of time? Let's ask Cho that.

I tend to think that giving a deadly weapon to mostly anyone who asks is kind of scary.

it's not like people are going to stop killing people if we had no guns.

[Maxxthepenguin]

In case you didn't know, my stance on gun control is we need to make it much harder to purchase a gun and have much tougher background checks but while it would be great to remove all guns, it is simply infeasible.

And as far as the self-defense things are, guns are mostly used to protect because other people have guns. So the guns are the problem in the first place

If criminals went through background checks to get their guns illegally on the street, your idea would have merit. In the real world, it's a waste of the government's and citizen's time and money to perform a background check 99,999,999 times out of 100,000,000.

Waste of time? Let's ask Cho that.

I tend to think that giving a deadly weapon to mostly anyone who asks is kind of scary.

it's not like people are going to stop killing people if we had no guns.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean we should make it so damned easy

As somebody said, Cho couldn't have killed all those people he did with a knife.




Seriously guys, why do you WANT guns so much? For fun?

[guartz]

it's not like people are going to stop killing people if we had no guns.

GOOD GOD MAN! Quit with your logic and sound reasoning!

Go back to pointing out irrelevant examples and saying "See, obviously I'm right because of this"

YOU ARE RUINING THIS THREAD.

[Charla]

If Cho had only been interested in killing as many people as possible (and not quite so insane), he could have stuck a few pipe bombs under cafeteria tables and hit twice as many. The important part about the gun is efficiency and ease of use.

Like I said before, we want guns because we need to be comfortable and compentent with them in case something like this happens, only with aliens or whatever.

[Beckwin]

Sorry but in terms of defense, packing a gun is at best going to stop the third, fourth, or fifth person from getting shot. If you're the first you're still fucked for the most part, and if the initial shooter didn't have anything to shoot with, your odds go way the fuck up.

[archibaldcrane]

Seriously guys, why do you WANT guns so much? For fun?

Hunting, defense, police, preventing the government from having a monopoly on force, and yeah, fun. I don't think the "the 4th amendment should be upheld" crowd is particularly quiet about its reasoning - the argument hasn't changed much.

I, personally, am really not afraid of gun violence, it doesn't cross my mind on a monthly basis. Are you people really living your lives in fear of this?

I just think that restricting freedoms should be a last resort when it comes to social problems.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Seriously guys, why do you WANT guns so much? For fun?

Hunting, defense, police, preventing the government from having a monopoly on force, and yeah, fun. I don't think the "the 4th amendment should be upheld" crowd is particularly quiet about its reasoning - the argument hasn't changed much.

I, personally, am really not afraid of gun violence, it doesn't cross my mind on a monthly basis. Are you people really living your lives in fear of this?

I just think that restricting freedoms should be a last resort when it comes to social problems.

Hunting is more or less for fun in our modern society for most people. Plus, you could always use bow and arrow for some real challenge.
Defense is for defense against guns
Police is inarguable
Preventing the government from having a monopoly on force honestly seems rather paranoid to me. Plus, nukes.
I think you meant 2nd amendment

I'm not afraid of gun violence either, actually. The joke is that if I was I would probably get a gun. My issue isn't personal, I just think that a lot of other people could be helped. As far as national policy, I tend to think selflessly (fuck Ayn Rand)

[archibaldcrane]

Defense is for defense against guns

The idea that you don't need a gun to defend your home if people breaking into your home don't have guns is completely ridiculous.

Is everyone supposed to be a trained martial artist, skilled in all manner of archery and knife-wielding?

[Correction]

Is everyone supposed to be a trained martial artist, skilled in all manner of archery and knife-wielding?

That would be pretty awesome.

[Remyo]

Defense is for defense against guns

The idea that you don't need a gun to defend your home if people breaking into your home don't have guns is completely ridiculous.

Is everyone supposed to be a trained martial artist, skilled in all manner of archery and knife-wielding?

then they'll be calling for bans on bows and knives and blunt objects and martial arts.

[Beckwin]

because just like kung-fu movies, you can easily kill 33 people with your bare hands.

[Avanarius]

This isn't really rocket science and it's been touched on time and time again. Whether for self defense, robberies, crime control, or military the more guns a country has, being produced, or in circulation the more people die.

They are meant to kill.