Sadly, looking at statistics of police shootings in the USA and after looking at that video, I agree with both of these statements. On the other hand, I am aware that police officers in the USA are more in danger of getting shot at than police officers in Europe, which leads to the wider issue of gun control and just too many guns out there being too easily available to all the wrong people...
LOL :grin: Good one buddy. Yes, because background checks and the application process make them "Easily available" to all the "wrong people", let's make them even harder to buy so that they flood the black market, that will DEFINITELY keep them out of the WRONG hands. That way we will have untraceable guns connected to homicides making it SO much easier for detectives to solve crimes.
If this logic made any sense, why would every police association in the country support stronger enforcement of background checks?
I said nothing about background checks, they can do stronger background checks, that's fine, but if you make guns illegal to the main population, or you make them ALMOST impossible to buy legally, then there WILL be an influx on the black market, and I'm pretty sure the people that shop the black market aren't the people you want to have with main access to firearms. THAT is my point.
Cop has been charged. If there was no video and the victim died, it's likely the outcome would have been different. It would have been another black man that made a move and the cop felt threatened.
I am not sure this in fact would happen - the data to back up your argument isn't very clear. I don't think banning guns is necessary. I do think that gun control and licensing is key. I also think people with guns are more likely to pull them out or escalate arguments knowing they have a gun to back them up. I doubt George Zimmerman chases Trevor Martin if he doesn't have a gun.
I think my argument is quite clear. Of course it will happen, it happened with alcohol and Prohibition, it happens with drugs, and it is currently happening in Chicago. I understand where you are coming from, and I agree with thorough background checks and licensing, but I do NOT agree with making guns nearly impossible to get. Education is key, if people are willing to learn and go through the correct process then they have every right to have their gun. Having a gun doesn't make you blood thirsty or trigger happy, it gives some people peace of mind, it's presumptuous to assume that the moment a person buys a gun they automatically want to shoot somebody. Putting guns out of the reach of the general population puts law abiding citizens in a very tough spot, because with or without the guns there will always be criminals breaking the law, and a lot of the time that includes breaking into a person's home, and I'm sorry, but a baseball bat (or other alternatives) up against a gun doesn't really seem to be effective.
Your argument is clear, but the data doesn't back your story. It says the opposite. Chicago is having a record year in shooting...but you fail to mention that Chicago's gun ban was overturned in Jan by federal courts. Illegal guns are rampant there, and a lot of that has to do with loop-holes in acquiring guns. I don't think the answer is putting guns out of reach but rather ensuring that people who are considering purchasing guns don't have a criminal record, and go through gun training and safekeeping, and also pass an anger management class. Even then I am not so sure that is the right course.
You basically just backed my argument... ILLEGAL GUNS are rampant, bought illegally because it is difficult for the people to acquire guns legally. Leading to unsolved homicides and gangs thriving in the gun trade. (More so than they ever have before) It actually sounds like you do agree with putting guns out of reach, what else could you possibly want people to go through to have the right to BEAR ARMS? Give up their first-born? If a citizen acquires a license, passes a thorough background check and takes gun training, I think they have MORE than qualified to own a gun and exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
LOL, no. The cops however have lost hundreds of machine guns given to them by the military. Some cop in Ferguson had his ar-15 stolen. Those are all illegal guns.
no he completely contradicted himself as he does. Loopholes don't lead to illegal guns. Theentire idea of a so called loophole is that it is legal.
That's not necessarily true - it depends on what you define as an illegal gun. If someone is legally barred from owning a gun for whatever reason, but goes out and buys one somewhere that he doesn't need a background check because of a loophole in the law, does he have an illegal gun?
Unless of course, you mean an individual, private sale. Then I see where loopholes can come into play.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/u...s-skirt-background-checks.html?pagewanted=all When Zina Haughton, 42, got a restraining order against her husband, Radcliffe, last October — she told a court that his threats “terrorize my every waking moment” — he became ineligible to buy a gun under federal law. But he found a way around that: he bought a gun from a private seller he found on the Internet who, unlike federally licensed dealers, was not legally required to check his background. That is how Mr. Haughton was able to buy a handgun for $500 in the parking lot of a McDonalds that he took with him on Oct. 21 to the spa in a suburb of Milwaukee where his wife worked. There, Mr. Haughton opened fire at the spa’s pedicure station, law enforcement officials said, and kept shooting until he had killed his wife and two women she worked with and injured four other women. He then killed himself.
