pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: snipers shoot dead police officers in Dallas  (Read 12254 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: July 10, 2016, 07:36 »
+1
According to the guardian,  it is more than 4000 officers since 1792,  more than 250 since 1945.

The u.k. is 57% the size of California, one state,  Also  in 2014 & 2015,  23000 law enforcement officers were assaulted in the U.K.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/datablog/2015/oct/15/how-many-police-officers-harmed-line-of-duty


« Reply #51 on: July 10, 2016, 08:11 »
+2
According to the guardian,  it is more than 4000 officers since 1792,  more than 250 since 1945.

The u.k. is 57% the size of California, one state,  Also  in 2014 & 2015,  23000 law enforcement officers were assaulted in the U.K.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/datablog/2015/oct/15/how-many-police-officers-harmed-line-of-duty

population of the UK is 65 million, US 321 million so about 20% of the size.

I wonder why you would choose the largest state by population giving the impression that the UK is only 2% the size of the US as opposed to 20%? I can't possibly guess.

Shelma1

« Reply #52 on: July 10, 2016, 08:24 »
+5
I'm not sure what the point is either. Statistically many more officers are killed in the U.S., and many, many, many more civilians are killed by police in the U.S., and many, many, many, many more civilians shoot each other and themselves to death, which once again points to guns as the big U.S. problem.

« Reply #53 on: July 10, 2016, 08:33 »
+1
as opposed to 20%? I can't possibly guess.

It honestly was the first thing that came up when i searched google.

https://www.google.com/search?q=size+of+u.k.+vs+america&oq=size+of+u.k.+vs+america&aqs=chrome..69i57.7342j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=size+of+u.k.+vs+united+states

But you seem to be one of those people that I simply do not care for when reaching so far during a discussion,  good luck in life.

« Reply #54 on: July 10, 2016, 09:15 »
+4
Try and cut the statistics how you like the fact is way far more police are killed per capita in the US than the UK. But rather than address that issue you argue about the detail of the stats. To me there are two questions are you happy with the number of Police Killed in the US? If no what would you do about it?

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #55 on: July 10, 2016, 10:02 »
+9
Statistically more Americans kill more Americans by guns domestically than the total amount of Americans killed by terrorists both domestically and internationally.

Americans killing Americans is a national past time. It's a gun culture. They are at war with themselves.








« Reply #56 on: July 10, 2016, 11:46 »
+6
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon.  Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.

« Reply #57 on: July 10, 2016, 12:47 »
+3
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon.  Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.
Exactly

« Reply #58 on: July 11, 2016, 00:07 »
+3
You know how many cops were shot in the Uk? Doesn't that make you pause and think something might not be quite right? UK police are not routinely armed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

Yeah, thats why there are no go zones in France and England, thats really working out for them!

« Reply #59 on: July 11, 2016, 00:27 »
+2
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon.  Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.

So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?

I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.

« Reply #60 on: July 11, 2016, 00:54 »
0
You know how many cops were shot in the Uk? Doesn't that make you pause and think something might not be quite right? UK police are not routinely armed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

Yeah, thats why there are no go zones in France and England, thats really working out for them!
Not in the UK.....don't know about France

« Reply #61 on: July 11, 2016, 00:57 »
+1
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon.  Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.

So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?

I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.
Obviously not that the point is simply statistically far more Police are killed in the states you can hypothesise all you like some might say its an issue that needs to be addressed

« Reply #62 on: July 11, 2016, 02:41 »
+5
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon.  Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.

So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?

I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.

It is statistically proven that, per capita, there are more deaths caused by firearms in the US than any other industrialized countries.

It is statistically proven that, per capita, there are more firearms in the US than any other industrialized country.

Now like all statistics, it is to be treated as a general rule and not on a very unique highly publicized situations as the one you describe.

As an example, it is now widely accepted and statiscally proven that seat belt save lives. But what about if you drive into a river, get tangled up in your seat belt and can't get out of your car? What about if your car burst into flames and while in a state of panic can't undo your seat belt?

Statistics are not about those very unique situations but about the general thrend of the all population. Yes, in that unique situation in France someone with a gun may have had an edge for the same reason not having a seat belt while your car burst into flames might give you an edge as well.

Quite simply the odds of not getting shot at are just better when there are less guns around and those very unique situations, as you mentioned, are not significant enought to offset those odds.  To put those odds in perspective, in 2015, there were over 13,000 deaths caused by firearms in the US. 

Having the all population carrying guns would be very frightening as domestic violence would escalate into more deaths. Each knock on your door and each wrong look from a stranger would make you fear for your life. At what point people will start premptively shooting at each other just out of fear?  What do you think made that police shoot this guy? If a trained police officer can't control his fear, how do you think the general population would?

« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 03:19 by cybernesco »

« Reply #63 on: July 11, 2016, 03:23 »
+2
If everybody had guns on them in public and one person shoots someone then everybody pulls guns how do you know who are the "goodies" and who are the baddies. I can understand the argument about having a gun in your home for defence a lot more than the public situation.

« Reply #64 on: July 11, 2016, 03:25 »
+4
If everybody had guns on them in public and one person shoots someone then everybody pulls guns how do you know who are the "goodies" and who are the baddies. I can understand the argument about having a gun in your home for defence a lot more than the public situation.
I was thinking the same.  I also wonder how many of these mass shootings have actually been stopped by  an armed member of the public. Maybe they have but I've not heard of it, it's usually the police that take down the gunman.

« Reply #65 on: July 11, 2016, 03:56 »
+3
If everybody had guns on them in public and one person shoots someone then everybody pulls guns how do you know who are the "goodies" and who are the baddies. I can understand the argument about having a gun in your home for defence a lot more than the public situation.
I was thinking the same.  I also wonder how many of these mass shootings have actually been stopped by  an armed member of the public. Maybe they have but I've not heard of it, it's usually the police that take down the gunman.

Not just mass shootings but any incidents involving an armed assailant. There was a website that supposedly kept track of this but then it was exposed as almost entirely BS, with most of the cases actually putting more innocent people in danger of being hit by stray bullets while people took pot shots at shoplifters and the like. If there are any verifiable cases among the hundreds of incidents of gun violence per year it would be good to know. Guns are for highly trained professionals, members of the public shooting bullets about in public spaces makes no one safer.

It's becoming apparent that even the training given to cops in the US is insufficient for them to use guns safely. I am sure that one of the outcomes from the black lives matter movement will be much better training for members of the police force for when to use a gun, not just how to shoot straight. Apparently there's very little of it at the moment, a police firearms instructor was on the news yesterday saying that most forces don't have any at all and it is a huge oversight. They have to be put in high pressure high stress training exercises. It must be terrifying for a policeman not knowing if anyone they stop could be armed, even worse when they know the person is armed. As in the recent case with the guy getting shot reaching for his ID in the car. The driver terrified staring down the barrel of a gun frantically trying to tell the cop his gun is legal and reaching for his permit, the cop terrified pointing a gun with shaky hands hearing the guy say he as a gun. How easy is it for someone to get shot in that kind of situation?

« Reply #66 on: July 11, 2016, 04:13 »
+5

Not just mass shootings but any incidents involving an armed assailant. There was a website that supposedly kept track of this but then it was exposed as almost entirely BS, with most of the cases actually putting more innocent people in danger of being hit by stray bullets while people took pot shots at shoplifters and the like. If there are any verifiable cases among the hundreds of incidents of gun violence per year it would be good to know. Guns are for highly trained professionals, members of the public shooting bullets about in public spaces makes no one safer.

It's becoming apparent that even the training given to cops in the US is insufficient for them to use guns safely. I am sure that one of the outcomes from the black lives matter movement will be much better training for members of the police force for when to use a gun, not just how to shoot straight. Apparently there's very little of it at the moment, a police firearms instructor was on the news yesterday saying that most forces don't have any at all and it is a huge oversight. They have to be put in high pressure high stress training exercises. It must be terrifying for a policeman not knowing if anyone they stop could be armed, even worse when they know the person is armed. As in the recent case with the guy getting shot reaching for his ID in the car. The driver terrified staring down the barrel of a gun frantically trying to tell the cop his gun is legal and reaching for his permit, the cop terrified pointing a gun with shaky hands hearing the guy say he as a gun. How easy is it for someone to get shot in that kind of situation?


Yes, and it is not too farfetched to think that this situation could have turned out far worse if the girlfriend had a gun too and in a state of panic, started to shoot back at the police officer to protect her boyfriend while her 4 year old daugther watch the carnage and see her mother get shot at too by other officers...
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 04:15 by cybernesco »

« Reply #67 on: July 11, 2016, 04:22 »
+3
Just as I suspected. So all this carrying a gun for self defence is a load of rubbish.

Shelma1

« Reply #68 on: July 11, 2016, 06:07 »
+7
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon.  Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.


So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?

I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.


There were zillions of armed cops and at least a few armed civilians at the Dallas protest, and when the sniper started firing the cops could not stop him and the civilians with guns RAN AWAY, which is exactly what one would do if someone opened fire in that situation.

American gun lovers are living a movie fantasy in their minds. They imagine they're Rambo and will immediately coolly assess any situation and take out the "bad guys" with carefully calculated shots while miraculously avoiding getting hit themselves. I'm sure the guy who was falsely accused of being one of the "shooters" because he was protesting with an Ar-15 slung over his shoulder had the same fantasy until the situation actually occurred. When it did, he handed his gun to a cop and got the heck out of there. Then the world started hunting him down because the cops pegged him as a suspect and his face was plastered all over the media. If found quickly he could easily have been shot and killed by mistaken police. The reality is that having a gun in a shooting situation makes you a suspect and a potential victim, not a super hero.

(In fact, there's an article in the NY Times this morning about that very thing: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/texas-open-carry-laws-blurred-lines-between-suspects-and-marchers.html?emc=edit_th_20160711&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=26752818&_r=0)
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 06:20 by Shelma1 »

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #69 on: July 11, 2016, 09:00 »
+1
If everybody had guns on them in public and one person shoots someone then everybody pulls guns how do you know who are the "goodies" and who are the baddies. I can understand the argument about having a gun in your home for defence a lot more than the public situation.

That is an easy one if you use American logic...

The "goodies" don't wear no "hoodies" so shoot em.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 09:18 by Rose Tinted Glasses »

« Reply #70 on: July 11, 2016, 10:06 »
+4
You know how many cops were shot in the Uk? Doesn't that make you pause and think something might not be quite right? UK police are not routinely armed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

Yeah, thats why there are no go zones in France and England, thats really working out for them!
Have you been watching Fox news?  They couldn't be further from the truth.  When they said Birmingham in England was a no go zone, I don't think people here could quite believe it.  It's as accurate as saying New York is a no go zone.  Why do people still think its true when they had to apologise for a serious factual error?  What we are told in the TV news and newspapers is often inaccurate.  The internet has made things worse, there are people just making things up and they get reported as facts.

« Reply #71 on: July 11, 2016, 10:06 »
+2
Interesting NY Times article - that tells a lot.

I have always thought that, with all the people carrying guns in the U.S., it was only a matter of time before someone hears a car backfire, thinks it is a gunshot, pulls out their gun, then someone else does the same and they each think the other is a criminal and start shooting at each other.  The fact that this has never happened (as fas as I know) tells me that most gun owners are sane, reasonable and responsible.  That is a good thing.

However, numerous studies have shown that owning a gun - statistically speaking - makes you more likely to be a victim of gun violence.  Cases where a citizen with a gun stopped a crime, as pointed out already, are rare and, in the case of the Orlando shooting, a security guard with a gun made no difference.  Home invasions may be a different story, but a sturdy door with a strong lock is probably a better defense than a gun.  I suspect that most of the "big, tough" guys who parade around with assault weapons are mostly small, insecure losers who need a gun to feel important and that if shooting actually started most of them would wet their pants and run away - which is pretty much what happened according to the NY Times article (minus the pant wetting part which they didn't mention one way or the other).

Getting rid of all the guns in the U.S. is not going to happen and is not being proposed by anyone.  However, we should be able to agree on some very reasonable restrictions.  Some of these could be:

1) Ban all assault weapons.  They serve no purpose other than killing lots of people and should not be possessed by anyone outside of the military.

2) Ban all high-capacity magazines.  Ditto above.  If you want a gun for self protection a few rounds should be sufficient.  If you think you need an assault weapon then maybe you should improve your aim at a shooting range or try a shotgun instead.

3) Have mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, even those at gun shows or between private individuals.  Obviously this would require some investment in infrastructure but is easily doable with a little effort.

4) Ban all gun sales to anyone on terrorist watch lists or with a history of mental illness.  You could file an appeal f you think you are wrongly on the list.  Could anyone really oppose this?

All of the above seem like no-brainers to me.  Of course a determined criminal will still be able to get guns but the above seems like a reasonable start and getting rid of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should reduce the casualties from attacks and ease the job of law enforcement.  The Government should have a buy-back program to pay people fair value for the assault weapons so they can buy something else if they want - gun manufacturers might even support that.  I think most Americans would support similar measures.

IMO we ultimately will need to take it further.  I would institute mandatory registration of all guns and licensing for gun users.  You have to have registration and a license for cars, and it should be the same for guns, with mandatory safety training and refresher courses every few years.  Registration could be done through your local motor vehicles office and the NRA could be a provider of training so they should like that.  This would have to be phased in over a few years but also should be easily doable.  The other thing that should be done immediately is to lift the ban on doing research about gun violence - that is an idiotic law that was instituted by lawmakers bought off by the NRA.

Fixing issues with the police and changing the culture that glorifies guns are more difficult but doable in the long term.  Getting our politicians out of the pockets of the NRA (which is mostly financed by gun manufacturers) and passing reasonable restrictions on the most dangerous weapons should be our highest priority.  Such restrictions are supported by the vast majority of citizens and it continually amazes me that they can't get any laws through Congress.

« Reply #72 on: July 11, 2016, 10:17 »
+3
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon.  Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.

So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?

I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.
The odds of getting caught up in a terrorist attack are so tiny, it isn't worth worrying about.  If we were all carrying guns around all the time just in case, we would be shooting each other more often than the terrorist do, like you are in the US. 

We have armed response units in the UK, so if I ever did have the almost unbelievable misfortune to be caught up in an attack like Paris, they would probably deal with it much better than civilians with guns that aren't trained for those circumstances.  I'm sure if I had a gun and was caught up in something like that, I would just run.  I wonder how many people with guns have died before they get the chance to pull the trigger?

« Reply #73 on: July 11, 2016, 12:19 »
+4
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon.  Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.

So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?

I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.
Let's say you were there with a hand gun (assuming one is not walking around with an AK-47 openly), what are you going to do against automatic weapons? You might as well throw rocks at them.
On a side note, there were 2 police officers outside the Bataclan when it happened, they couldn't go in because they know they were nice targets to the terrorists since they only had standard hand guns with them. And these are professionals with a gun, how would you think you stand a chance against multiple terrorists with machine guns? Reality is far from what you see in movies.

« Reply #74 on: July 11, 2016, 16:54 »
+2
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon.  Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.

So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?

I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.
Let's say you were there with a hand gun (assuming one is not walking around with an AK-47 openly), what are you going to do against automatic weapons? You might as well throw rocks at them.
On a side note, there were 2 police officers outside the Bataclan when it happened, they couldn't go in because they know they were nice targets to the terrorists since they only had standard hand guns with them. And these are professionals with a gun, how would you think you stand a chance against multiple terrorists with machine guns? Reality is far from what you see in movies.

You are wrong, in 1996 a gunman came on to a military base where my parents served with an ak 47 with a 100 round clip and started killing people at the hospital. An MP rode a bike down the road from his post, the gunman exited the building shooting at my mother as he pulled up on the bike, he got off the bike and from 100 yards shot and killed the gunman.

It is obvious that we will never agree, I am a firm believer in gun ownership, I come form a military family of several generations who has protected your rights as citizens. You can go down that Commie Liberal road  all you want but I will never give up my Rights to you or anyone else.

You are in a dream state if you think Society will peacefully coexist it never has and never will that is why every society from the dawn of civilization has had weapons to protect themselves.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3182 Views
Last post July 11, 2007, 22:55
by ichiro17
32 Replies
8198 Views
Last post October 11, 2011, 09:48
by lagereek
2 Replies
1578 Views
Last post September 12, 2011, 09:38
by louoates
0 Replies
958 Views
Last post February 15, 2012, 09:55
by rubyroo
33 Replies
3871 Views
Last post April 24, 2013, 14:12
by Leo Blanchette

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results