Democrats & Liberals Archives

Lawful gun owner killed by police

Police in Minnesota shot a licensed CCW permit-holder. It is not yet clear why, but it appears that the fact that he was armed was a factor. Shockingly, gun rights groups have refused to comment on what is clearly a violation of their interpretation of the second amendment.

Combined with the recent killing of a man in Baton Rouge who also possessed a firearm, these events present a disturbing reality to public writ large. The law enforcement officers we entrust with ensuring public safety are gunning down black men without any apparent legitimate reason.

Now, I will wait for investigations to be complete before committing to a full pronouncement. However, the optics of these incidents is terrible. Especially in light of earlier incidents where the lives of Black men were deemed to be of lesser importance than the emotions of nonblacks. There needs to be a conscious effort among the police agencies of this country to change their behavior and procedures in order to safeguard against incidents like this.

There are some difficult questions that need to be asked. Why are the police erroneously perceiving threats from these individuals? None of the videos seem to reveal threatening gestures or behavior. Even being unarmed does not seem to protect against these incorrect judgements as Tamir Rice and Eric Garner learned in their interactions with the police.

So, the question remains. What are we going to do? Alton Sterling and Philando Castile have joined the list of Black lives which did not matter. Simply ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Rather, we need to be proactive in order to make sure that police think twice before pulling the trigger when confronted with noncriminal Black men.

However, the latest incident is the most disturbing of all. In apparent retaliation to the previous killings of black men, Micah Xavier Johnson decided that if black lives didn't matter to the police, blue lives wouldn't matter to him. This is simply repugnant and needs to stop.

There has been a total breakdown in trust between the law enforcement and African-American communities. Repairing those relationships is going to take a lot of time and dedication. Ironically, Dallas Police were already setting an example of what law enforcement that respects black lives looks like. Micah Johnson, it appears, did not know all the facts when he pulled the trigger. Just like how the officers that killed Tamir Rice or any of the other black souls didn't know all the facts when they pulled theirs.

Posted by Warren Porter at July 8, 2016 10:46 AM
Comments
Comment #405930

Worth a re-post from a previous thread:

There are those of us who realize that there is anti-semitism, racism(black or white), xenophobic anti-immigration and a general dislike and mistrust of anyone they see as “the other”. We have understood for as long as we can remember that these interpretations of the freedom of our country have no place here and use moments of reflection to hang our heads and hope for better, work for better and expect better. Today is one of those moments.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 8, 2016 11:32 AM
Comment #405932

S4A,

Absolutely. And I will say that it goes both ways. While no one here truly knows the mind of Micah Johnson, I feel safe concluding that he lumped the White officers of the DPD in the same “other” category that he lumped the white officers of other departments whose actions he disagreed with.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 8, 2016 11:39 AM
Comment #405939

Utter hyperbole.

If Martin and Brown proved anything, they proved that it is wrong to rush to judgement and make a comment BEFORE knowing the facts.

Law enforcement officers are not gunning down black men without any apparent legitimate reason. Does it sometimes happen? Yes, but it happens to all groups of people.

The police are perceiving threats from these individuals because in most cases the individual is not obeying lawful orders, resisting arrest or behaving in a threatening manner. Police will respond with force to ANYBODY doing these things.

Racists like BLM and Johnson are a direct result of those who perpetuate this false narrative for personal and political gain.

Posted by: kctim at July 8, 2016 1:56 PM
Comment #405942

I specifically left Michael Brown out of this essay for a reason.

in most cases the individual is not obeying lawful orders, resisting arrest or behaving in a threatening manner

This has not been my assessment. Tamir Rice was a 12 year old boy, Eric Garner was incapacitated well before he was killed, Trayvon Martin was confronted by George Zimmerman without any probable cause, Freddie Gray received his fatal injuries while tied up in a police van and the list goes on.

Police in these cases need to work harder to ensure that they do not falsely perceive threats where none exists. It is a disturbing trend that Black men are more likely to be victims of these misjudgments. While it is not likely the product of a conscious racial bias, recent research has identified the psychological phenomenon whereby subconscious biases can impact split-second judgement such as those made by police. Countering this is going to take a conscious sustained effort on the part of law enforcement officials.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 8, 2016 2:15 PM
Comment #405946

Warren of all the incidents the Philando Castile case is certainly the most disturbing. We don’t know what happened before the video but there’s no reason for a police officer to draw their weapon on a traffic stop just because the guy in the car says he has a gun. I would think it would be a common, probably a daily occurrence, that the person an officer is stopping would have a weapon in the car in most states. In South Carolina you don’t need a CWP to have a gun in either the glove box or the center console and probably half the traffic stops involve weapon right next to the insurance and registration. So why does this officer have his weapon unholstered in the first place?

And for information this writer gives good advice on how to deal with a traffic stop when you have a weapon in the car. I’ve been stopped once while concealed carrying and had no problems whatsoever with the interaction: told him I had a gun, told him where it was, and never let my hands get out of his sight. Just like the article says he thanked me and left me with just a warning ticket.

http://blog.beretta.com/how-to-handle-a-traffic-stop-with-concealed-carry

Posted by: George in SC at July 8, 2016 2:48 PM
Comment #405947

George in SC,

Thank you for your input. As someone who has never carried a weapon, I appreciate the perspective of someone who does as I have no idea what I’d do if pulled over with a gun in my glove box or holstered to my waist.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 8, 2016 3:04 PM
Comment #405953

You said it all in your second sentence “It is not yet clear why” Let’s get the FACTS ad then comment

Posted by: tomdobson at July 9, 2016 4:45 AM
Comment #405954

Tom Dobson,

I agree with the advice to wait until we learn more about the events that preceded these videos. However, for many years we have witnessed police officers erroneously perceive threats from African-Americans (mostly men). We should expect more from our law enforcement personnel. These sorts of mistakes only add fuel to the race relations fire.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 9, 2016 12:23 PM
Comment #405955

And being critical of the police before a full investigation is done also add fuel to the race relations fire. I’ll wait, and IF the cop is guilty, I expect him to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If he is exonerated, will we see an apology from you?

Posted by: tomdobson at July 9, 2016 2:32 PM
Comment #405956
I’ll wait, and IF the cop is guilty, I expect him to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If he is exonerated, will we see an apology from you?

Multiple times in recent years, we have seen the murderers of innocent Black Americans “exonerated” despite ample contrary evidence. Trust in our Justice system is plummeting to new lows regarding these issues.

Ultimately, the problem is with the fact that the law gives total deference to a police officer’s “perception” of a threat. Unfortunately, too many officers abuse this latitude and oftentimes this happens at the expense of a Black life.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 9, 2016 3:04 PM
Comment #405957

“Ultimately, the problem is with the fact that the law gives total deference to a police officer’s “perception” of a threat.”

Ultimately, the solution is to not give police officers any reason to perceive a threat.

It is not in the best interest of public safety to place even more restraints upon police officers who must act rapidly, sometimes with deadly force, under extremely stressful and dangerous situations.

Police officers are human and can and do make horrible mistakes. Police should be judged for their actions by a court and jury…not public opinion or political expediency.


Posted by: Royal Flush at July 9, 2016 3:55 PM
Comment #405958
Ultimately, the solution is to not give police officers any reason to perceive a threat.

Shifting the blame to the victims of these mistakes is not a solution. Police have an obligation to deescalate potentially violent situations and deadly force should always be a last resort. Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray and many others did not receive the treatment they deserved.

It is not in the best interest of public safety to place even more restraints upon police officers who must act rapidly, sometimes with deadly force, under extremely stressful and dangerous situations.
When police use deadly force inappropriately, that is a danger to public safety. Anything that reduces such incidents must be in the public interest.
Police officers are human and can and do make horrible mistakes.
And when Black Americans find themselves the victims of a disproportionate share of those mistakes, it ought to be a cause of concern.
Police should be judged for their actions by a court and jury…not public opinion or political expediency.
Far too often, prosecutors have let public opinion or political expediency push them to not charge or indict police officers who kill Americans.

Currently, the law grants wide latitude to law enforcement. This means they are only guilty of murder when they cannot demonstrate a reasonable perception of a threat. However, the real world requires more nuance than that. There needs to be a system in place so that officers understand that mistakenly killing an American has consequences even if it doesn’t rise to the level of manslaughter or murder.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 9, 2016 4:20 PM
Comment #405959

It would be interesting to see articles written without identifying the person’s race. Could anyone here make their point without using race? I think it’s entirely possible to do so, yet I don’t think anyone wants to. It appears race is needed to make the story work for the author.

Why hasn’t anyone considered education to be a factor in this type of behavior? We’ve had our children being told they are great and handed ribbons and awards for doing nothing. They’re being taught to believe they are persecuted. They’re taught to believe their feelings are more important than their actions.

Then, when they think their image of themselves is threatened they blame others, society, law enforcement, anyone really. Anyone who disagrees with them.

Warren Porter, can you write an article about a white person shot by police with the same vigor? Would an article about a white person shot by police carry the same weight as your article has? Would it have any effect at all if race was not mentioned?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 9, 2016 4:22 PM
Comment #405961

Warren, you are pathetically naive in your perception of those who wear a badge. I and most reasonable folks would agree that “deadly force should always be a last resort.”

A police officer must make the decision rapidly and under great stress as to when it is appropriate to use the “last resort” of deadly force.

Warren, are you suggesting that any officer faced with such peril will not occasionally and unintentionally error? Can we expect perfection from those we grant police powers?

Perfect police who never error will be useless police in keeping us safe.

I find your attitude of changing the current law, granting wide latitude to law enforcement, to laws that require more nuance than just a perception of a threat; very disturbing.

Perhaps Warren will take time to research how many police officers were killed by hesitating to take action.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 9, 2016 5:07 PM
Comment #405962
In apparent retaliation to the previous killings of black men, Micah Xavier Johnson decided that if black lives didn’t matter to the police, blue lives wouldn’t matter to him.

2016 is a year of death and destruction. His killing by a robot is probably the wave of the future. With cameras everywhere, we’ll soon be asking if BLM to drones and other robotic devices, or the techs controlling them.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 9, 2016 5:23 PM
Comment #405963
Ultimately, the solution is to not give police officers any reason to perceive a threat.

Zeig heil mein fuhrer. The problem with this authoritarian line of crap is we shouldn’t have to live in fear of our police. They are not the judge jury and executioner. They have taken enforcement to far when they pull someone over for supposedly a minor traffic violation but in reality are on a search for drugs or something else. That is why their tension level is so high they are thinking whoever they pull over is a hardened criminal despite a lack of proof. That is how they are trained, isn’t it. Time to get back to limiting the police and their ability to search and seize for profit.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/policing-the-police/?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=NewarkStopVideo

Why hasn’t anyone considered education to be a factor in this type of behavior? We’ve had our children being told they are great and handed ribbons and awards for doing nothing. They’re being taught to believe they are persecuted. They’re taught to believe their feelings are more important than their actions.

Good point Weary, then they go into police academy for 6 months and become police. We do need to look at the possibility more training is needed for the police of today. Another suggestion I saw recently was to have them police more like the fire department. They get called out on 911 calls instead of pulling people over for minor vehicle infractions so they can search for whatever they feel they want to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-mullen/a-practical-solution-run-police-departments-like-fire-departments_b_7871434.html

Posted by: j2t2 at July 9, 2016 5:24 PM
Comment #405964

IMO, there needs to be some standards for policing that is practiced all across the country. And, there needs to be some standard orientation/instruction that goes with getting set up to carry a weapon on/around your person.

Maybe the time has come to put two officers together. That certainly wouldn’t be 100% but it should cut down some on the number of loss of life incidents.

A little whacky but it would help if your local police offered a free tutorial on how to respond when approached by a police officer.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 9, 2016 5:24 PM
Comment #405965

Training is a good point. Currently cops are trained to be intimidating. They are trained to expect subjugation from the person they interact with. Now they are being trained to respond to “active shooter” drills in schools. They’re being conditioned to expect the worst and respond with superior force.

I would like to examine the situation involving the 10 year old boy in the park who was playing with his toy gun. If you watched the tape the boy was pointing a toy at imaginary foes and blasting them Rambo style. In the blink of an eye a squad car speeds up to the boy, not 15 feet away from him, and stops. The cop in the passenger seat was shoved directly at the boy by the driver of the squad car. That was mistake number 2.

Mistake number 1 was they both looked at the boy as an active shooter with a dangerous weapon without taking any time to observe from a distance, to evaluate the boy’s behavior, to determine whether the boy was an actual threat or not. They simply made assumptions based on a phone call and their training.

j2t2 is also correct to say the profit motive needs to be eliminated. It’s not the job of the police to make money. Their job is to maintain law and order with the money allotted them by their government.

Roy Ellis is also correct to say there needs to be a standard measure of education that goes with using a weapon. It used to be done in the school system. It should return to the school system. Remove the fear and mystery of weapons and you wouldn’t have the fascination and the curiosity.

I disagree with having to be trained to respond when approached by a police officer. It is the police officer who should be retrained on how to approach the individual.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 9, 2016 6:41 PM
Comment #405966


I know this idea is just too far out, but I wonder what life would be like if the police didn’t have to assume that every driver was armed.

I know it sounds crazy but I’m just saying…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 9, 2016 7:08 PM
Comment #405967

If they didn’t think every driver was on drugs or alcohol maybe they wouldn’t put themselves in that situation.

My car was searched simply because the cop had a dog. No other reason.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 9, 2016 7:51 PM
Comment #405969
Maybe the time has come to put two officers together. That certainly wouldn’t be 100% but it should cut down some on the number of loss of life incidents.

Perhaps you mean it is time to put two officers together again Roy it was typical when we were kids. IMHO they need to stop the police state BS that is so prevalent today. What cop in their right mind pulls a gun on a defective equipment stop?

My car was searched simply because the cop had a dog. No other reason.

Wrong Weary there was another reason, they get to profit from any cash or drugs they find on you. This dog is supposedly trained to “smell drugs” in your vehicle. The police in our police state then can search for money which is the goal so lets stop the BS and put the police back in their place. They are wrong for violating the constitution even if conservatives on the SCOTUS say it is alright.

The “war on drugs” and the current fear of terrorist have corrupted our system of justice. The police are on the front lines so they are indicators that the system is broken. Why on earth would we not do background checks on cops? Those with ties to overtly racist groups should be excluded from becoming a cop IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 9, 2016 10:20 PM
Comment #405971

What ushered in the police state, j2t2? Was it the Patriot Act, the permission to write their own warrants, secret courts, holding people without charges? And what prompted and facilitated the passing of the Patriot Act? Wasn’t it the collapse of 3, yes 3 buildings?

I’ve always said you have to identify the problem before you can solve it. If you say we must address the police state you must address why there is a police state.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 9, 2016 11:46 PM
Comment #405972

To meekly turn ones hind cheeks up in a submissive position, in the land of the free, so the police can have their way with us as they see fit while the rest of the free world laughs at us is just so conservative America isn’t it? How can one speak of rights,liberty or freedom in one post and then tell us “Ultimately, the solution is to not give police officers any reason to perceive a threat.”

It would be interesting to see articles written without identifying the person’s race. Could anyone here make their point without using race? I think it’s entirely possible to do so, yet I don’t think anyone wants to. It appears race is needed to make the story work for the author.

Or not…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

While we don’t want to rush to judgement , heaven forbid, the video we have seen lately could be dismissed by the blue lives matter crowd if only we were the entire world not just one country

Posted by: j2t2 at July 10, 2016 12:27 AM
Comment #405973

Blaming conservatives is like blaming whites, j2t2. When are you going to consider it’s big government we should blame.

Do you actually think all those killings were performed by conservative police?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2016 7:36 AM
Comment #405974

The story you link compares the U.S. to Austrailia, the UK, Iceland. Those countries are much smaller than the U.S. It’s not an accurate comparison.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2016 7:38 AM
Comment #405976

WW,

Do the math to calculate the proper ratios and you will discover that the difference in population is swamped by the difference in homocides. For instance, the UK has 0.04 homicides of this sort per million people per year, whereas the USA has almost 2.84 per million people per year.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 10, 2016 8:28 AM
Comment #405977

Those are just numbers. Do they answer the question? “Why?”

I’m sure you will blame the gun. However, that excuse ignores the fact that police are shooting at a person, not shooting at a gun and missing to hit a person.

Again, it begs the question, “Why?”

j2t2 came the closest to answering that question. The profit motive corrupts police. Ignorant laws and knee-jerk reactions by lawmakers also contribute to the problem. The idea perpetuated that society is to blame, and now white privilege is to blame, mostly contributes to this.

Spouting numbers does nothing. Let’s quit wasting time chattering about minutia. Identify the problem.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2016 9:06 AM
Comment #405978

http://downtrend.com/71superb/black-cop-shoots-and-kills-6-year-old-white-boy-with-autism

Since everyone wants to concentrate on the race of the victim, here’s an article you might want to ignore.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2016 10:02 AM
Comment #405979

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-zachary-hammond-police-shooting-20150804-htmlstory.html

This article asks why no attention is paid to a white person’s death.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2016 10:09 AM
Comment #405980

Weary,
The numbers do tell a story. For starters the numbers tell us we have a problem, it isn’t the norm. Secondly Lets look at why other first world countries don’t have the same problem we do, instead of the usual conservative dismissal of potential problems (even though you kinda admitted it was an issue), and take steps to correct it. Sadly the numbers tell us we are more a 3rd world nation than a 1st world nation judging by the number of police killings each year. Facts are useful Weary don’t be so quick to dismiss them.

You tell us to quit wasting time chatting about minutia yet you refuse to hear what is said because it goes against your ideology. But here goes, intent, motivation, opportunity are all needed to kill. We don’t do background checks on police that would help to eliminate racist and the mentally unfit from the force. Nor do we require educated police. We train these people as if they were military not peace officers. We give them lethal weapons and then coddle them and tell them how good they are( blue lives matter) as they rack up the highest kill ratios of any first world nation, a proven fact. Slim chance of prosecution because they were “in fear for their lives” even when two or more are wrestling one already on the ground without a weapon as was the case in LA. recently.

But even that isn’t enough for the authoritarians they also have decimated our liberties over the years as they have decimated due process. Even while they consistently “protect” our 2nd amendment rights, flooding the streets with weapons in an arms race with the government! Using the police to aggressively steal money they can then use for themselves to buy military type weapons instead of asking the hedge fund guys to pay their fair share isn’t the answer.


Time to consider using the police as we do the fire department. Time to stop coddling them and protecting them when they kill people at routine traffic stops. Time to require better education to be a peace officer and time to return to the good ol days of not fleecing the citizenry while conducting illegal search and seizures. Time to stop the arms race. Lets return to first world policing not 3rd world police state brutality.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 10, 2016 10:15 AM
Comment #405981

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/

This link mentions data from websites claiming more white than black people are killed by police.

These links come from just one search. The silence of the MSM pertaining to deaths of white people demonstrated the media is actually inciting these riots by focusing on just the black deaths.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2016 10:21 AM
Comment #405982
Since everyone wants to concentrate on the race of the victim, here’s an article you might want to ignore.

It is just about race Weary perhaps you are overly sensitive to any racial issues? It seems to me blacks are targeted, by conservatives,because they are addressing this aspect of their problem in the black community.Yes they have the black on black killings to address but that is a different issue.

Did you notice how quick the 3rd officer was to sell out the black officers in you link? No waiting for facts there. If this were the norm in all shootings, police policing themselves wouldn’t be an issue.

This article asks why no attention is paid to a white person’s death.

Good point Weary why aren’t use white boys up in arms marching in the streets when one of our own is executed by the police state? Do we expect #blacklivesmatter to march in the streets risking their lives for us?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 10, 2016 10:29 AM
Comment #405983

Agreed, j2t2. However, you want to blame ideology. Numbers mean nothing without context.

I have suggested the federal government is to blame for this unrest. Consider what the 1033 program has done. This is a federal program. It deals with an excess of military hardware. Hardware purchased by the federal government. Purchased from what Eisenhower refered to as “The Great Military Industrial Complex”, bought and paid for by the federal government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_program

Police departments are responsible for paying for shipment and storage of material acquired, but do not pay for the donation.

Identify the problem, j2t2. Stop blaming “the other side” and their ideology.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2016 10:34 AM
Comment #405985

“It is just about race Weary” should be “it isn’t just about race Weary”

Identify the problem, j2t2. Stop blaming “the other side” and their ideology.

You should talk Weary after linking to the Washington Times hack job Weary. Not to mention the ideological “blame the government” comment. In fact it seems to me you have ignored most of my comments focusing instead on the ideology comment.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 10, 2016 11:00 AM
Comment #405986


They are wrong for violating the constitution even if conservatives on the SCOTUS say it is alright.

To meekly turn ones hind cheeks up in a submissive position, in the land of the free, so the police can have their way with us as they see fit while the rest of the free world laughs at us is just so conservative America isn’t it?
You tell us to quit wasting time chatting about minutia yet you refuse to hear what is said because it goes against your ideology.
It seems to me blacks are targeted, by conservatives,because they are addressing this aspect of their problem in the black community.
In fact it seems to me you have ignored most of my comments focusing instead on the ideology comment.


These are all your comments, j2t2. Every one of your comments focus on conservative ideology. I have gone out of my way to avoid partisanship.

You ignore the fact the federal government has been flooding local communities with military grade hardware and then have the audacity to claim I am supporting an arms race with the federal government?!

Can you focus on the content of the WT article instead of shooting the messenger?

We agree more than we disagree, j2t2. However, you are clouding the issue with your obsession with ideology and party politics.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2016 11:44 AM
Comment #405987

Obama has just recently said the federal government needs to be more involved in local policing.

After 25 years of the federal government militarizing the local police, it now wants to involve itself in controlling them.

That sounds like it created a problem so the preset solution can be put into effect!

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2016 11:49 AM
Comment #405988

Didn’t he also say he wanted a federal police force?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2016 11:55 AM
Comment #405989

OOPS! Guess not. It was just another Billions of dollars government program. Funny how a volunteer program has to cost billions of dollars.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2016 12:04 PM
Comment #405991

Me; “Ultimately, the solution is to not give police officers any reason to perceive a threat.”

j2t; “Zeig heil mein fuhrer. The problem with this authoritarian line of crap is we shouldn’t have to live in fear of our police.”

Notice the attitude of j2t? Police should not respond to perceived threats, or should somehow intuitively know when a perceived threat is not a threat at all.

Police should have super human powers to discern the intentions of those they come in contact with.

Idiot!

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 10, 2016 3:24 PM
Comment #405992

One more proof that my Liberal/Socialist Pals are brain dead can be found in this discussion of police competence.

My Pals are quick to criticize police and assign motives to them that are not justified.

Yet…these same Pals are head over heels in love with a candidate for president who is an admitted liar, called such by the Director of the FBI, and who is also called “extremely careless”. This candidate is responsible for many civilian deaths by her actions, or non-actions as Secretary of State.

This person according to my Pals is fit for the Presidency.

Brain Dead!

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 10, 2016 3:37 PM
Comment #405993

In many countries, such as Britain, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, and 12/16 Pacific Island nations, police do not carry guns at all.

Iceland is especially interesting, because 82% of the population own their own guns- shotguns and rifles- for the purpose of hunting.

The solution for the US for all these terrible events of the past week is not hard to see- ban assault rifles, ammo magazines, the accumulation of arsenals, repeal conceal carry laws, and ban any weapons not intended for hunting. (Rifles and shotguns are adequate for home defense). Institute a gun buyback program to do this. It worked in Australia.

Address mental illness.

Address racism and inequality.

Sadly, with somewhere around 250 million guns already out there, it will be extremely difficult to overcome our bad situation. The Constitution made some big mistakes. The Civil War was needed to correct the biggest one. Now we are faced with another- the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment- and we have seen 280,000 Americans die in the last decade due to gun violence.

We can do better. It will take a long time and a sustained effort.

Posted by: phx8 at July 10, 2016 6:42 PM
Comment #405994

phx8 wants to write another law to ban assault rifles while lying about what an assault rifle is. He wants to write another law to ban ammo magazines. He wants to write another law that bans the accumulation of arsenals. He wants to write another law that repeals conceal carry laws, he wants to write another law that bans weapons not intended for hunting, whatever that means. I guess it would be the catch-all gun law. Hey! Catchy yea?

He should address mental illness. If treatment for pathological lying, narcissistic personality disorder, megalomania, and egomania were included in his pie-in-the-sky list of wishes I might consider that.

Addressing racism and inequality. Do we really want Democratics in charge of that? Why didn’t Brown vs. Education work? Why didn’t the never ending Civil Rights Acts solve the problem, phx8?

Let me guess, fricken’ Republicans, right?

phx8 throws another batch of worthless gibberish on the WRONG pile.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2016 7:21 PM
Comment #405996

kctim-
The main question is one of how compliance is assessed, how less than pleasant behavior is responded to, and at what point force is applied.

What I’m afraid we’re seeing is a disparity between how whites are treated, and how blacks are treated. You think there is some novelty and refreshing bluntness in telling black people that they should be more respectful to police. But I think many black parents would inform you that they already have that “talk” with their children, in fact, “the talk.” It’s that much a rite of passage, a kind of end of innocence, where you essentially tell a young person that if they don’t act like a saint, the police may beat or even kill them.

No such cultural requirement is put on us. Yes, we’re told it’s nice to be nice to the cops, we sanctimoniously inform our kids that it only makes sense to do so, but if you read some of the things that white people get away with before the police become convinced they need be killed, the disparity is clear.

This isn’t a content of character issue, because there’s no clear indication, anecdotal or in empirical data, that the average black person is actually that much worse of an offender, when allowances for poverty and other pressures is made. This is the ghost of a long-ago notion of black people as being less rational, less capable of taking care of themselves more apt to act in animalistic and brutish ways. This is, in part, an official continuation of ideas from a time whose other principles we have, at least on the surface, disowned.

You say the solution is not to give police officers any reason to perceive a threat, but what if your very face makes the officer perceive a threat? What can you do when the officer is stopping you because he already assumes you’re more likely to be a criminal? You want people to live with a deck being stacked against them.

Police officers are human, and with their power as government officials, enforcing the law, can make terrible mistakes. But here’s the thing that bugs me. We keep on emphasizing the need to make split second decisions. But if all we concern ourselves with are the decision to shoot a gun or not shoot it, then we impoverish the landscape of judgment. The kind of decisions that reflect good judgment require more than mere moments to make. The kind of fair judgments we would hope a cop makes require more than mere moments to make. A cop can’t simply be a grab-bag of impulsive decisions waiting to be made. They have to consider themselves as parts of the society, parts of the community, exercise those higher brain functions that digest data at a slower rate.

If I’m playing my CounterStrike Game, and I’m in Deathmatch mode, I have to constantly have my head on a swivel, because enemies can reappear or come from any angle. If I fast-twitch shoot a friendly in that mode, they don’t get hurt, so I exercise considerably less discretion in whether I fire or don’t fire. I can afford to be paranoid, afford to treat every moment as a fast-twitch decision.

If I do the same in the competitive mode, though, I’ll be in a world of trouble, because in that mode, a mistaken shot at a friendly hurts the friendly, maybe even kills them.

I have to exercise greater judgment to be good, in both moral and practical senses of the term, when my actions can hurt somebody they’re not supposed to, as opposed to when they won’t harm a hair on their head. Of course, if I’m not fast enough to react, I don’t do my teammates any good.

Relax. It’s a metaphor.

But the point is, a balance needs to be struck between reacting to possible threats and the vast majority of what police officers actually do, which is carry out the law of the land, something that if you look at the Constitution, the Framers expected the governing officials to carry out which good judgment and reason on their side. If they wanted everything to be fast-twitch decisions of paranoid officials, they could have gone with a more authoritarian, less constrained government like all too many twentieth century nations.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 10, 2016 10:00 PM
Comment #405997
You say the solution is not to give police officers any reason to perceive a threat, but what if your very face makes the officer perceive a threat? What can you do when the officer is stopping you because he already assumes you’re more likely to be a criminal? You want people to live with a deck being stacked against them.

Police officers are human, and with their power as government officials, enforcing the law, can make terrible mistakes. But here’s the thing that bugs me. We keep on emphasizing the need to make split second decisions. But if all we concern ourselves with are the decision to shoot a gun or not shoot it, then we impoverish the landscape of judgment. The kind of decisions that reflect good judgment require more than mere moments to make. The kind of fair judgments we would hope a cop makes require more than mere moments to make. A cop can’t simply be a grab-bag of impulsive decisions waiting to be made. They have to consider themselves as parts of the society, parts of the community, exercise those higher brain functions that digest data at a slower rate.

Well put. Ultimately, the responsibility for regaining the trust of black Americans rests upon our law enforcement personnel. Already, many are making laudable efforts to counter implicit association biases in their work. Now is the time for that work to be adopted universally.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 10, 2016 10:21 PM
Comment #405998

Weary Willie-
I think it’s simple: what use does the average Joe have for military style weapons? If you want to train with one at a range, be my guest. Outside of that, it poses a particularly harsh problem for law enforcement. I want you to consider my argument from the article I recently published, which is this: As the civilian population becomes more armed, it becomes more necessary for those who police them to be armed as well. Citizens who wouldn’t otherwise arm themselves also arm themselves against the criminals who have guns.

So, where does this lead us? Law enforcement becomes more authoritarian. I mean, there was considerable disquiet around the fact that the Dallas shooter was the first suspect in anybody’s recollection to be deliberately killed by robot! But the decision not to risk a human life to confront him was, in its own way, fairly sensible.

That doesn’t mean it’s without its disquieting implications, though. What becomes quite sensible becomes quite seductive, and we can proceed along a train of logic that leads us nowhere good. We see other special weapons and tactics (literally in the case of SWAT teams, used not to deal with emergencies where their force is warranted, but as pre-emptive sort of “safety” measures, to prevent potential police casualties, even when it’s not all that necessary. There’s not enough thought given to more subtle, less brute force approaches that minimize casualties.

As for racism and inequality?

I’ll tell you that Brown vs. the Board of Education did work. There are whole generations worth of educated black people who got much better educations. The basic problem is, we didn’t all of a sudden shed the ways of the devil and become angels. After Brown, we prioritized moving white people to the suburbs, while letting black people and other less “essential” minorities remain in the cities where the nukes would be more likely to hit them. We helped create a disparity, and boy if that disparity didn’t turn around to bite EVERBODY in the ass. It encouraged the kind of real estate BS that helped people like Trump’s father and Trump himself get rich, where they strongly encouraged white people to move to the suburbs, and then turned around and rented to black tenants who were subjected to such predatory treatment on the agreements that they ended up often having to move out, leading many properties to end up empty.

A vicious feedback effect followed, as poverty consumed and held with minorities, and the Whites flew away to the suburbs, to let the cities rot, with the minorities left to rot with them.

You can’t solve a problem if you’re too busy trying to protect your own stake to realize that you’re being played by those who are encouraging your resentment of those minorities. They’ll play you out of your old neighborhood, then they’ll play you out of the job and the union that helps you keep that house in the suburbs. They’ll play you out of your life-savings, and put you underwater on your mortgage, and when you look for somebody to blame, they’ll show you the other people they’ve been abusing and tell you they’re to blame. Perfect. They get to continue doing what they’re doing on the principle that ****ing people over is a fundamental part of the free market remaining free, rather than a fundamental part of what’s creating friction between capitalism and the citizens who live under it. You worry so much about socialists, but if Capitalism provides no solutions, no justice for hard-working Americans, then socialism becomes much more attractive.

Put another way, if you want people to favor Capitalism over Socialism, capital has to find its way into the hands of the average American and stay there. Otherwise, nobody has any stake in it. Similarly, if you want black people and other minorities to value the safety and stability of our society, to value the law and everything, marginalizing and disenfranchising them is the opposite of the wise approach. People generally don’t defend systems over the long term unless they have a stake in them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 10, 2016 10:26 PM
Comment #405999

phx8 writes; ” The Constitution made some big mistakes. The Civil War was needed to correct the biggest one.”

Mistake? Hardly! Without the compromise made by the colonies we would have no union…no country…no Constitution and no Constitutional rights.

Daugherty writes; “It’s that much a rite of passage, a kind of end of innocence, where you essentially tell a young person that if they don’t act like a saint, the police may beat or even kill them.”

Urban legend bullshit. Does Mr. “D” realize that 72% of black children live in single parent households? Absent fathers means no male role model.

How about this outrageous comment by “D”; “…if you read some of the things that white people get away with before the police become convinced they need be killed…”

What a brain-dead, totally ridiculous, factually fractured comment from my Libbie Pal.

Here’s more nonsense from by Buddy Daugherty; “We keep on emphasizing the need to make split second decisions. But if all we concern ourselves with are the decision to shoot a gun or not shoot it, then we impoverish the landscape of judgment.”

Sure, you bet Buddy. Tell your local cop he needs to take more time before responding to a life threatening situation. In fact, tell your local cop he should phone his Union or legal advisor before taking action to save his/her life.

Mr. “D” has apparently totally immersed himself in his fairy-land world.

Dallas Police Chief David Brown told demonstrators…”We are hiring…get off the protest line and put in an application…we will put you in your community.”

“We are asking cops to do too much in US. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems.”

Watch the video to hear what he was talking about.

http://rare.us/story/the-dallas-police-chiefs-message-to-protesters-about-how-to-fix-things-was-perfect/

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 11, 2016 2:20 PM
Comment #406000

Stephen,
Can you tell me what military type weapon that civilians in the US have access to?

Posted by: tomdobson at July 11, 2016 3:10 PM
Comment #406001

“Without the compromise made by the colonies we would have no union…no country…no Constitution and no Constitutional rights.”

Not necessarily. The non-slave states could easily have formed a version of the United States without approving of the horror of slavery practiced by states in the south. Remember, most of the European nations had already abolished slavery by the late 1700’s. Even the Bible had already changed translations of the word ‘slave’ to ‘servant’ in the 1600’s in the King James version, due to the distaste for the practice among countries more morally advanced than our own. Haiti practiced slavery until a disastrous three-way race way in the first years of the following century resulted in mass slaughter, and that spectacle might have been enough of a shock to end its practice here soon afterwards. Of course, we’ll never know, but there are good reasons to think the Southern states would have abandoned the practice without the bloodiest civil war in world history.

Posted by: phx8 at July 11, 2016 3:34 PM
Comment #406002

Well said…

“Liberal dogma requires that no matter what terrorist act or crime is committed the motivation of the perpetrator — if it is a black person, a Muslim, or any other protected minority — cannot be stated truthfully. That rule is obeyed even when it is obvious that the motivation is religion, race hatred, or politics.”

“From Henry Louis Gates’s arrest to five assassinated cops in Dallas is a chain of events caused by eight years of racially divisive liberalism. That liberalism, expressed in politically correct rhetoric, abandonment of the rule and letter of the law, has torn our social contract to shreds. Everything from Hillary’s escape from criminal prosecution to the Dems’ insistence that gun control is the answer to mass murder is traceable to that single cause.”

http://spectator.org/the-road-to-dallas/

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 11, 2016 3:36 PM
Comment #406003

As we have come to expect from phx8, he can’t accept facts regarding what compromises that were necessary to form our Union. He gives an alternative universe answer based upon nothing but his imagining.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 11, 2016 3:42 PM
Comment #406004

“Can you tell me what military type weapon that civilians in the US have access to?”

Please! The Dallas shooter used a Soviet semi-automatic SKS designed for use by the Soviet army in WW II. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dallas-guman-shooting-micah-johnson-sks-rifle/

Posted by: Rich at July 11, 2016 3:56 PM
Comment #406005

RF,
You are defending slavery. Just stop.

Rich,
tomdobson believes expertise in weapons that kill people is a good substitute for a moral compass.

Posted by: phx8 at July 11, 2016 4:37 PM
Comment #406006

phx8 I am defending our Founding as a nation. Please stop writing that you could have done better.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 11, 2016 4:40 PM
Comment #406007

And Rich, what features does a SKS have that would distinguish it from a hunting rifle?

Posted by: tomdobson at July 11, 2016 5:25 PM
Comment #406008

“tomdobson believes expertise in weapons that kill people is a good substitute for a moral compass”

Tomdobson believes expertise in weapons should be needed before trying to ban them.

Posted by: tomdobson at July 11, 2016 5:30 PM
Comment #406009

Rich, there is some debate on the type of weapon Johnson used. The early report that you linked said he used an SKS but the leaked photos show he used a Saiga with a red dot.

Posted by: George in SC at July 11, 2016 5:37 PM
Comment #406010

You’re all focusing on the weapon. Not one of you have focused on the fact the guy was a racist.

70 years or so of repeated gun control laws and the problem keeps getting worse. When are you guys on the left going to have your epiphany? You know, when you realize you’re barking up the wrong tree?

Law after law is being written and it keeps getting worse. It makes me seriously think the violence is a means to an end for the people who want to repeal the 2nd amendment.

phx8, Speak4all, j2t2, you guys on the left, I can refute all your gun control arguments with only one word.

Chicago.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 11, 2016 8:19 PM
Comment #406011
the problem keeps getting worse.

Is it? Violent crime is at record lows right now.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 11, 2016 8:47 PM
Comment #406012

Then what’s all the hubbub about, Warren Porter?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 11, 2016 8:49 PM
Comment #406013

If you think violent crime is going down maybe you guys on the left should step back and let things work! Why change anything if it’s working?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 11, 2016 8:52 PM
Comment #406014

I think people are upset that innocent people are being killed by police.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 11, 2016 10:08 PM
Comment #406015

The role of police is not to prevent crime. It is to catch the criminal after the fact. The police are being trained to do something they cannot possibly do. They cannot stop crime before it happens.

Yet, all we hear is how police need more power, they need more weapons, they need more combat vehicles, they need more laws that allow them to use more force and violate the rights of innocent people. They need all of this to do what? They say they need it to prevent crime, not catch criminals.

Why aren’t people upset about innocent people being killed by other people in Chicago? Why aren’t people upset by innocent people being killed by drones? Perhaps it’s because they don’t hear about these things on the news day in and day out. Everytime a politician gets in trouble or a new law needs passed the media focuses on another mass killing.

Do you actually think police started killing innocent people for no reason? They just decided to start killing black people because they’re racist?

The sun reflects off the surface of the water, Warren Porter. It doesn’t allow you to see into the depths. What we need is a mask that we can stick in the water to block the sun. The mask will let us see into the depths. Are you willing to put a mask on and stick your head in the water, Warren Porter? Are you willing to open your mind to a different possibility, that perhaps it’s an overbearing government that is causing these problems? The police are part of the government, you know.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 11, 2016 11:34 PM
Comment #406016
The role of police is not to prevent crime. It is to catch the criminal after the fact. The police are being trained to do something they cannot possibly do. They cannot stop crime before it happens.

Yet, all we hear is how police need more power, they need more weapons, they need more combat vehicles, they need more laws that allow them to use more force and violate the rights of innocent people. They need all of this to do what? They say they need it to prevent crime, not catch criminals.

I more or less agree. Of course there are instances when there is probable cause to believe that the commission of a crime is imminent and it is proper for police to act to a manner to prevent that from happening.

Why aren’t people upset about innocent people being killed by other people in Chicago?
We hold our police to a higher standard than we hold members of Chicago’s gangs.
Why aren’t people upset by innocent people being killed by drones?
Most people believe that the sacrifice of a few innocent lives is worthwhile if it results in the deaths of a few evil people guilty of unconscionable crimes against humanity.
Perhaps it’s because they don’t hear about these things on the news day in and day out.
I don’t know about you, but in every city I have lived in, every time I turn on the local news, I always get greeted with the latest shootings in that city. More often than not, the shootings take place among racial minorities living in low income neighborhoods.
Do you actually think police started killing innocent people for no reason? They just decided to start killing black people because they’re racist?

No, I don’t believe that. The police are killing innocent people because they perceive the innocent people to be threatening. The question is why are the police making so many mistakes when judging the threat posed by Black Americans? Digging a little bit deeper, we discover that researchers have uncovered a phenomenon known as “Implicit Association Bias”. Essentially, when split second decisions have to be made, rational thinking can sometimes go out the door and be replaced with tribal instincts instead. Unfortunately, the legacy of racism means that these situations lead to biased assumptions regarding Black Americans. Please note that the presence of implicit bias does not necessarily indicate whether a person is prejudiced or racist.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 12, 2016 11:06 AM
Comment #406017

Jesse Jackson said he was glad it was a white person walking behind him when he turned around. Is he racist against blacks? Hardly. He simply knows the facts.

Of course there are instances when there is probable cause to believe that the commission of a crime is imminent and it is proper for police to act to a manner to prevent that from happening.

I agree. But all to often police act on a simple phone call. Remember the swatting phenomena? A simple phone call is all that was needed to set off a rampage. There are many examples of swat teams invading the wrong house. Many instances of cops breaking into houses and getting killed because of simple, stupid errors. An instance of police invading a poker game comes to mind. The owner of the home shot a cop because he thought he was being robbed!

Killed over a poker game. And the poker player gets life in prison. Had a cop just knocked on the door and asked politely if they were playing an illegal game of poker and could they please stop, who would be dead or in jail?

And who was it that decided playing poker was illegal? It was government. In this free country it seems only the government is free to do as it wants.

Most people believe that the sacrifice of a few innocent lives is worthwhile if it results in the deaths of a few evil people guilty of unconscionable crimes against humanity.

That, sir, is precisely the attitude that created this mess. We used to say may 10 guilty people go free before one innocent person gets punished. What happened with that, Warren Porter?

And on a side note, I don’t think “most people” believe killing the innocent along with the guilty is acceptable. They simply go along with it because they have no way to stop it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 12, 2016 8:59 PM
Comment #406018
Jesse Jackson said he was glad it was a white person walking behind him when he turned around. Is he racist against blacks? Hardly. He simply knows the facts.

The premise here is flawed. It’s not a question of whether a person is racist, but rather whether an idea is racist.

The relief Jackson experienced has its origins in the racism of years past. Fossilized racism still controls many people’s habits and behavior. Only through conscious effort can these reflexes be over come. Unfortunately, the split second decision making done by the police is not proving to be an adequate defense against these fossilized prejudices.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 12, 2016 9:51 PM
Comment #406019

I don’t think the problem is racism at all. I think it is government believing it’s purpose is to control people. The police are just a tool of the government. The government creates problems when they try to solve their own perceived problems whether they’re born of need, pandering, buying votes, placating the squeaky wheel, or a knee-jerk reaction to a situation.

Seriously, Warren Porter, do you actually believe the people in Afghanistan are so much a threat to you and me that we have to invade and occupy their country for over a decade now? Couldn’t there be a chance they would have forgotten about us if we had just caught the criminals and then left them alone?

For all the treasure we’ve spent in the Middle East we could have created all the renewable energy we could ever need!

Just like there’s an ulterior motive in Afghanistan i.e. minerals, there is an ulterior motive in a militarized police i.e. control.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 12, 2016 10:47 PM
Comment #406020

I fail to see your argument that Jackson’s unease regarding Black strangers doesn’t have racist origins. Whether or not ulterior motives played a role in the decision to invade Afghanistan 15 years ago, it does not have much relevance to whether or not Jesse Jackson feels uneasy or relieved when he identifies the race of someone walking behind him.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 12, 2016 10:58 PM
Comment #406021

Fine, forget Jesse Jackson. The real problem is government intrusion and the American person resisting it.

You must agree government has gone outside the bounds of the constitution and has become an oppressive force that is retarding the people’s freedom, don’t you?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 12, 2016 11:44 PM
Comment #406022
You must agree government has gone outside the bounds of the constitution and has become an oppressive force that is retarding the people’s freedom, don’t you?

Yes. In my lifetime, I have witnessed governmental overreach as officials have sought to restrict who can marry whom, restrict the ability of women to control their own bodies, restrict everyone’s ability to use the restroom of their own choice, etc. The list goes on and on as social conservatives continue to impose their moral concepts on the rest of us. This sort of overreach needs to stop.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 13, 2016 7:02 AM
Comment #406023

Those issues are what have been referred to as dog whistles. They’re distractions. They should not be addressed by the federal government in the least.

When the federal government addressed one issue under the commerce clause i.e. the price of wheat, it negated all other issues. At that point it mandated all other issues be open for interpretation. I call it a lawyer employer.

When the federal government addressed one issue under the 14th amendment it negated all other issues making all other issues open for interpretation. Another lawyer employer.

Instead of freedom you have laws dictating what can and cannot be legal.

What we end up with are dog whistles dominating the political process instead of people respecting each others space. Don’t you see how people skirt the law because they find the loophole to circumvent it? They call stealing legal because there isn’t a specific law that restricts the exact way the stealing takes place. The one law, “Thou shall not steal” doesn’t leave much room for lawyers, does it? They have replaced our conscious with laws.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 8:57 AM
Comment #406024

“The role of police is not to prevent crime. It is to catch the criminal after the fact.”

That statement is simply not true. Patrol, traffic and crowd control, community policing, undercover investigations, etc. are all principal functions of police designed to prevent crime and chaos. Police presence is a major deterrent of crime. Take police off the streets and out of major events and see what happens.

Posted by: Rich at July 13, 2016 9:35 AM
Comment #406025

It is true, Rich. You can deter crime by catching the criminal and inflicting sever punishment to demonstrate the act will be admonished. The fear of getting caught deters crime not all of the invasive tactics you mentioned.

What will happen, Rich? Are you just assuming everyone is a criminal and a police presence stops them from acting on it?

Take a look at the contrast between the Million Man March and the Tea Party Demonstrations. Both had police presence yet the MMM destroyed the area and littered mercilessly. The Tea Party was diciplined and clean.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 9:46 AM
Comment #406026

The fear of getting caught is the deterrence. When you have loopholes in the myriad of laws you don’t have that fear. You have an extended effort to skirt the law. The tax laws prove this. When you have riots in the streets disguised as assemblies, and excuses instead of punishment you get the situations like we’re experiencing now.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 10:07 AM
Comment #406027

America has a problem it’s called a gun culture.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 10:27 AM
Comment #406028

It’s good to see someone recognizes the influence TV has on society. Thanks Speak4all.
Let’s include video games and music, as well.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 11:08 AM
Comment #406029

Although it may have happened, I can’t recall anyone using a TV, video game or music to actually commit a violent act against someone else. Guns now that’s a different story.

Maybe something like this would help? Gun violence research?

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 11:55 AM
Comment #406030

I can also give you an example of why we are in the situation we are in with one word.

Ginsburg

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 12:05 PM
Comment #406031

Looking forward, it will be the obligation of responsible gun owners to help guide our legislators to craft the legislation necessary to help control the gun violence in our country. Without their assistance this task will not be able to be completed. Our country is, in a sense, making a call to arms for the people who have the most ambition to protect their rights of gun ownership. If their contribution is not forthcoming the task will become mired in the minutiae of legal meanderings by people who are unable to effectively understand the value of gun ownership. I would consider myself part of the latter group rather than the former group. I don’t own a gun.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 12:31 PM
Comment #406032

Other countries such as Britain, Australia, and New Zealand have very similar cultures to our own. They see the same tv shows, play the same games, and listen to the same music, yet gun violence is rare in these countries, and mass shootings are virtually non-existent.

Posted by: phx8 at July 13, 2016 12:42 PM
Comment #406033

phx8, I wonder why?

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 12:47 PM
Comment #406034

Maybe they don’t have millions of people stacked on top of each other and led by ineffective governments. Do you notice the majority of gun violence is in urban environments led by gun control Democratics? Then you have rural areas with very few instances of gun violence led by responsible local governments who don’t think everyone is a criminal.

The same can be said for these very small countries you refer to.

Why do you need more legislation, phx8? What we have is adequate. Quit treating people like they’re a danger to themselves and concentrate on the truly violent criminal.

Knowing what I know about “more legislation”, it winds up being a nasty fight over the repeal of the 2nd amendment. Your side will settle for nothing less.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 1:09 PM
Comment #406035

While the repeal and replacement of the 2nd amendment is something that I would support, that is not going to happen for quite some time. In the mean time we can all work towards steps to help curtail gun violence. This should not be accomplished by gun control advocates alone. Responsible gun owners can help, if they choose to.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 2:38 PM
Comment #406036

In other words, keep pricking them with the pin, right Speak4all?

Submit your amendment for the repeal and replace and put it up for a vote.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 2:51 PM
Comment #406037

No, no, that would be my great grandchildren that would, I hope, work on the repeal and replacement of the 2nd amendment and it won’t be as simple as “put it up for a vote”. What I would like to see is an effort by responsible gun owners who value their rights, to join with gun control advocates to help make changes to lead us to less gun violence in our country.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 3:03 PM
Comment #406038

And on the other hand there are gun control advocates who could join 2nd amendment supporters to define a well-regulated militia.

Too bad for you it wouldn’t be gun control. It would be more on the lines of criminal control, civil behavior, and a respect for people around them and a return to local governments for individual solutions.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 3:16 PM
Comment #406039

Part of the reason for 2nd Amendment was to enable state militias to catch runaway slaves and put down slave rebellions.

Posted by: pxh8 at July 13, 2016 3:21 PM
Comment #406040
And on the other hand there are gun control advocates who could join 2nd amendment supporters to define a well-regulated militia.

Now, there’s an idea I could agree with. It’s unfortunate that the original state militias (the national guards) have morphed into something that is way too similar to a standing army. It would be worthwhile to establish a new militia that returned to the original root as a local volunteer organization of armed neighbors dedicated to defending a local community against both an oppressive State/Federal government as well as foreign invaders.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 13, 2016 3:50 PM
Comment #406041

phx8, it’s a good thing we don’t have any runaway slaves, isn’t it?

How does a comment like that help, anyway?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 4:04 PM
Comment #406042

Thanks Warren Porter.

Well regulated militias could be just that, tuned to our time and our communities.

See? There are ways to solve problems.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 4:08 PM
Comment #406043

I read your “gun culture” link Speaks. What a thrashing of individual freedom and our Democratic Republic. Nearly every bad thing happening in our world today is laid at the feet of free people exercising their rights.

One doesn’t even have to read between the lines of this garbage to see the Communist line and theology.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 13, 2016 4:10 PM
Comment #406044

The problem will not be solved until gun rights advocates and gun control advocates can work together to help lead our country to less gun violence.

I am not altogether certain that I would like to see a return to local/state militias. I am certain I would not participate in one. But that would be something the two groups mentioned above would need to help decide.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 4:14 PM
Comment #406045

What I would like to see is an effort by responsible gun owners who value their rights, to join with gun control advocates to help make changes to lead us to less gun violence in our country.
Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 3:03 PM

Yes, that would help tremendously. I suggest that you, and others who think like you do, join the NRA. You will become part of an organization born in 1871 that promotes safe gun ownership, firearms education, and support for our nations law officers.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 13, 2016 4:28 PM
Comment #406046

I would expect nothing less from you, Speak4all.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 4:28 PM
Comment #406047

I do not own a gun and have no intention of owning a gun. I do not believe I am unique in that respect. I have no need for the NRA however I understand that gun rights advocates do. I can still believe that gun rights advocates and gun control advocates can work together to attempt to reduce gun violence in our country but I don’t believe a prerequisite of membership to the NRA should be necessary.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 4:53 PM
Comment #406048

Royal Flush was asking you to educate yourself, Speak4all. That’s all. There’s really no need to actually join the group. The NRA’s information is available to everyone.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 4:58 PM
Comment #406049

Speaks, the NRA is our nation’s most preeminent gun rights advocate. It makes perfect sense for them to be in the vanguard for controlling gun violence and mishaps with education, training, and leadership. Your membership doesn’t require that you own a gun Speaks. As a member you can present your ideas to the organization.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 13, 2016 5:04 PM
Comment #406050

I might add Speaks…that many Democrats, Socialists and Liberals belong to the NRA.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 13, 2016 5:07 PM
Comment #406051

From what I understand a good percentage of NRA members support increased background checks. Why isn’t that supported by the legislators? Still don’t understand why gun control advocates and gun rights advocates can work out the differences they may have to attempt to lead our country towards less gun violence.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 5:09 PM
Comment #406052

Obama declared that…”it is easier for a teenager to get his hands on a Glock than a computer or a book.”

Wow…what hyperbole. Is this guy just nuts or does he have an agenda…DUH.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 13, 2016 5:09 PM
Comment #406053

His agenda would be to try to lead this country towards less gun violence. Your hyperbole doesn’t mean that you know what he means or wants, it is just your opinion. Again I have no interest in obtaining a membership to the NRA.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 5:11 PM
Comment #406054

WW,
We don’t have runaway slaves today, but we most certainly have innocent black men being executed by the police- by the state- in disproportionate numbers. This was part of the purpose of the Second Amendment: NOT to prevent tyranny by the federal government upon the rights of states, but for southern states to impose tyranny upon blacks in order to maintain the institution of slavery. Slave rebellions were of real concern. There were over 200 during the years when slavery was an institution, perhaps far more.

It was not the only purpose of the 2nd, but it was an important piece.

We see the repercussions today. The execution of two blacks by police met with outrage from Black Lives Matter, but not much more than that. The violent revenge of a black man upon innocent white policemen resembles the slave rebellions of former times. The media gives the mass murder a great deal of attention and condemnation, but the deaths of an innocent black man here, an innocent black man there… well… that is quickly forgotten.

It would be interesting to see how often men kill women with guns, versus how often women kill men with guns.

Posted by: phx8 at July 13, 2016 5:13 PM
Comment #406055

phx8, maybe if we had gun violence research we could get information like you suggest. Any real reason we can’t have gun violence research? I know that some people think that is a slippery slope to gun control but why?

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 5:17 PM
Comment #406056

Your post reeks of racism, phx8.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 5:17 PM
Comment #406057

When you consider the completely one sided view of gun violence in the media and spewed by politicians, I see a real valid reason why violence research would be worthless.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 5:20 PM
Comment #406058

What you might consider worthless others would not.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 5:21 PM
Comment #406059

That is true, Mr. Fence sitter. Anything useful to add?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 5:23 PM
Comment #406060

phx8, please cite the cases of police “executing” (assuming you mean intentionally killing a person with no legal justification) anyone without being charged and investigated.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 13, 2016 5:25 PM
Comment #406061

Yes don’t consider your opinion the only one?

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 5:47 PM
Comment #406062

At least I have one.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 5:49 PM
Comment #406063

As do others.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 5:51 PM
Comment #406064

And still no good reason presented why gun control advocates and gun rights advocates cannot work together to lead our country towards less gun violence?

Posted by: Speak4all at July 13, 2016 5:53 PM
Comment #406065

I don’t understand why anyone attempts to engage in conversations with people who only contradict rather than argue some valid point. You might as well go to the next room for getting hit on the head lessons.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 13, 2016 5:55 PM
Comment #406066

And still no reason why Christians and abortion spokespersons can not work together to lead our country to fewer abortions.

And still no reason why Liberals and Conservatives can not work together to reduce our national debt for the benefit of our children and the nation.

And still no reason why some march in protest calling for the death of cops without being criticized by many Liberals.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 13, 2016 5:59 PM
Comment #406067

Speak4all, can we both agree that a member of a militia does not need a weapon?


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 13, 2016 6:00 PM
Comment #406068

Rich, there is some debate on the type of weapon Johnson used. The early report that you linked said he used an SKS but the leaked photos show he used a Saiga with a red dot. - lenny face

Posted by: lenny face at July 14, 2016 12:14 AM
Comment #406070

It’s not a trick question!

Warren Porter, can we both agree that a member of a militia does not need a weapon?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 14, 2016 9:44 AM
Comment #406071

WW, I’m not quite sure how your question is relevant. I guess there are circumstances when someone could serve a militia in a support or logistics role that does not require the use of a weapon.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 14, 2016 2:31 PM
Comment #406072

Good.

Now, think about how an intervention works and apply it to a structure that would respond the way a militia would, except it follows a set of rules that works toward an intervention.

For instance:

Neighbor sees her neighbor in the supermarket with bruises and sunglasses. What can she do when she knows the obvious but can’t prove it. She can’t call the police because they respond with force.

Her option could be the militia:

She calls her local militia number and leaves a message on the machine. “My neighbor looks like she’s being abused.”
The militia’s first response team can consist of:
1: Detective
2: Doctor
3: Shrink
4: Security

Let’s define their rules of engagement:
1. Detective surveys, gathers info from neighbors evaluates threat
2. Doctor casual meet in the supermarket, ask questions, evaluate physical condition.
3. Shrink knocks on door and makes polite conversation to evaluate mental condition.
4. Security is incognito, on high alert, armed, and trained to secure the safety of 1,2, and 3.

Wouldn’t something like this have worked much better than marching over 400 men, women, and children off to detention centers like they did in that religious community out west? Or in Waco, Texas where the same type of conditions those people were subjected to were called torture in Abu Gharaib and murder in ISIS?

I know it’s a simple idea and politicians will clutter it up with licenses and validations and certifications and restrictions and fees and taxes and expenses and overhead costs and administration costs, BUT! It won’t be at the federal level! It doesn’t even have to be at the state level. This cold be done at the local level.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 14, 2016 3:45 PM
Comment #406076

As a reformed gun owner who has lived 35+ years gun free, just want to offer words of encouragement to anyone who is a current gun owner that may be considering going gun free. It really isn’t difficult to do, the biggest hurdle is understanding why you might have thought or think you need a gun. Once you can overcome that, and there are support groups that can help with that, it is very simple. If you are reluctant to the idea of selling your gun/guns for what ever reason, you can always contact your local police department and find out about their gun amnesty programs but please dispose of firearms and ammunition responsibly.

Just remember, by getting a gun out of your possession, you may save a life and it could be yours or someone you love or care for.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 14, 2016 5:06 PM
Comment #406077

A “reformed gun owner” closely resembles a “reformed worker”. Both the former gun owner and former worker have made a conscious decision to reply upon others for their safety and welfare.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 14, 2016 5:29 PM
Comment #406080

At some point we all have to take responsibility for ourselves.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 14, 2016 8:38 PM
Comment #406081

I think coming up with a viable solution to a problem really rattles these Democratics, yes?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 14, 2016 8:39 PM
Comment #406148

Let’s make it really simple. The government did not give me my rights and I won’t let them take them away. I think millions of people feel the same way.

Posted by: tomdobson at July 16, 2016 7:56 PM
Comment #406504

Thanks for the best blog. it was very useful for me.
keep sharing such ideas in the future as well. Thanks for giving me the useful information.

Posted by: juegos friv gratis at July 30, 2016 4:36 AM
Comment #406505

Thanks for this marvellous post.

Posted by: diep.io at July 30, 2016 4:37 AM
Comment #406506

Very good. you are the winner. Do not forget update new information regularly. thank !

Posted by: Pokemon GO at July 30, 2016 4:37 AM
Comment #407873

This is really a great stuff for sharing. Keep it up .Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: C# programming homework help at September 30, 2016 3:14 AM
Comment #407918

Well thanks for posting such an outstanding idea. I like this blog & I like the topic and thinking of making it right

Posted by: Accounting Dissertation Assistance at October 1, 2016 2:45 AM
Comment #410624

you have a great blog here! would you like to make some invite posts on my blog?
cara mengobati rinitis

Posted by: genies alan at November 28, 2016 9:40 PM
Post a comment