Vegas Cops Will Shoot You

[kdown]

We were there in early July and a guy was shot and killed less than a block from our hotel

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- Police here insist it's not their fault. They say criminals in America's famously anything-goes city are getting more brazen, and officers have had no choice but to shoot 21 people so far this year.

Eleven people have died in police confrontations in 2006. By comparison, Las Vegas police were involved in 13 shootings in all of 2005, nine fatal.

"Every situation needs to be judged on its own merits," said Clark County Sheriff Bill Young, whose 2,118 officers cover the glittering Las Vegas Strip, vast suburban sprawl and remote desert hamlets in an area the size of Massachusetts.

[fluffy]

ANY Police officer, (not just Vegas officers),will shoot you if you present a danger of serious physical injury or death to him/her or another citizen.

[mark]

ANY Police officer, (not just Vegas officers),will shoot you if you present a danger of serious physical injury or death to him/her or another citizen.

Yep, & if I were a cop threatened, I'd shoot too...............see ya mark

[Jeremy]

In the United Kingdom, the police rarely even carry guns. They also have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Not suprisingly, they also have the lowest murder rate in the world per capita.

There are many alternatives to guns that are just as effective and have none of the long term side-effects like death.

But hey, Americans love their guns. What can you do?

[Chuck]

The population of the UK is about 65 million with the US coming in at around 300 million. The only cities done for this study of murder rates were comparing London against New York and Washington DC (Independently). The anti-gunners did not compare the per-capita numbers nor did they compare all murders. Only murders cause by firearms were used.

Many deaths the UK list as accidental, we record as a murder.

The competitive cultures between the 2 countries are Vasily different. By completive cultures I am speaking of real life competitiveness not sports.

Gun Control laws were not the cause of better statistics the way UK reports crimes is. The don't use our standards for reporting.

The UK has an estimated 4 officers for 1000 people and the USA has .5 officers per 1000.

I am not saying that the statistic gathered where wrong only that they would be different if all factors where taken into consideration.

It is like comparing our murder rate with Mexico. A place where statics are not well tracked or tracked differently.

[Jeremy]

It actually is per capita, and takes the population differences into account.

Here's the numbers: Britain had 853 murders in the reporting period 2003/04, which at a population of more than 60 million that translates into less than 1.3 murders per 100,000 residents in the UK. By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 murders for every 100,000 population. In addition, 70% of murders in the United States involve firearms compared to 6% in the United Kingdom. Both New York City and London have over 7 million residents, with New York suffering 537 murders in 2005 to London's 189 in 2003. 70% of 537 murders US would be 376 murders by guns in New York. 6% of 189 murders UK would be 12 murders by guns in London.

376/12. That's a whopping difference. You can say that they report statistics differently but that's a huge gap to explain away with that. The standards of reporting aren't at all like they are in Mexico, an impoverished country with more corrupted police. UK is well organized and very similar to our own reporting system.

Basically that means that if you have two fish bowls filled with 100,000 British in one bowl and 100,000 Americans in the other, after one year you'll have thirty times more belly-uppers in the American bowl.

The difference, like you said, is the culture. UK police and residents are more laid back and have less guns. American police and residents are more fearful and have more guns. It might be that Americans need more regulation, more police, or maybe just anger management as part of the school curriculum (my vote).

[fluffy]

I think the schools should opt for teaching personal responsibility rather than teaching a new way of blaming others for one's own faults.

[Foxy]

Basically that means that if you have two fish bowls filled with 100,000 British in one bowl and 100,000 Americans in the other, after one year you'll have thirty times more belly-uppers in the American bowl.


ROFLMBO @ Belly uppers in a fish bowl.. what a great analagy for a blonde to be able to get the numbers...thanks...

[mark]

In the United Kingdom, the police rarely even carry guns. They also have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Not suprisingly, they also have the lowest murder rate in the world per capita.

There are many alternatives to guns that are just as effective and have none of the long term side-effects like death.

But hey, Americans love their guns. What can you do?


This hold true for the little town of Kennesaw Ga. The town council passed a law requiring home owners to have a gun at home in 1982.

Below are the results from a website I checked out:

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997).

"After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998."

Here's the site:

http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html

Regardless of what the anti-gun crowd says........I still believe the best deterrent to violence is to let the thugs know you're armed. Just ask any Kennnesaw resident.

The smart thugs ( if there is such a thing ) will look for easier prey elsewhere..........see ya mark

[Jeremy]

Kennesaw, Georgia might be a good example of peace through mutual intimidation, but looking through the news for an unrelated subject I happened to come across a story from this week that shows why fear and firearms aren't always the best mix. It's from Worthington, Ohio... not too far from us.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/ghost-hunt-ends-in-tragedy/2006/08/24/1156012653396.html

On Tuesday night (just the other day), a 17-year-old girl and her friends were poking around in cemetery looking for ghosts, like many teenagers do, when they heard noises that sounded like firecrackers. Moments later, the girl was shot, in the head, by a man who lived in a nearby house.

He said he fired his rifle out his bedroom window Tuesday night after hearing voices outside the home.

"I didn't know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder." [emphasis added]

Shoot first is what he's saying and the guy ends up shooting the girl who was across the street having fun with her friends because he assumed that she had a weapon and was going to invade his home and murder him. Even after shooting her in the head he referred to her and her friends as juvenille delinquents wondering why he was arrested and not them.

Now he's obviously got a few screws loose in his head, but how many other gun-toting semi-crazy people are out there? No telling. Even the simplest psychiatric exam isn't a regulation for owning a gun.

At least police officers are trained to know when to use a gun and when not to, and even they make a mistake from time to time. Simple training courses on just using a gun are not required to own a gun in most areas, much less when to use a gun. There's more regulations for having a driver's permit than for owning a gun, which is odd if you think about it. A gun is literally a device that contains tiny bombs designed to launch tiny missles with incredible force towards something.

[Chuck]

Here is where we differ again.

1st the UK post. As soon as i get time I will find you recent articles that UK admits there stat in crime are off.

I can assume by the way I read your post that the psychotic man above did not own or drive a car. Yes I understand he used a gun not a car this time, I would just like more background on the guy.

One of the reason I ask that is you are trying to get me to believe that this type of stupidity/psychosis only happens in the USA.

You make a car sound safe then a gun or a bullet when more people die each day by the car than by the gun.

A car is nothing more that a 2000 pound bullet in the hands of the wrong person. Each day more people make stupid choices with their car than the ones that own guns. And yes many of the choices in a car are done recklessly and with intent to cause harm.

As a democrat i do not buy the whole gun argument made. More crimes are committed in cars each day that result in death. Even with a license system in place.

[kdown]

Last year 9,390 Americans were killed with guns alone while only 153 were killed with guns in Canada, England, Japan and New Zealand combined.

There must be a lesson in these numbers

[Chuck]

Your still missing the point.

Murder is murder. It makes no difference what the weapon of choice is. 2 of he countries in you list have limited if any any domestic violence laws nor did they use to include domestic incidents in violent crime statistics.

Something need to be done about violence in general. We always pick guns as the problem. Many countries have pass gun laws have found that people find ways to kill people. Doesn't take a gun to do it. Only takes a Culpable Mental State.

If we really want England's laws here in the USA then our founding fathers fought for nothing.

[Jeremy]

One of the reason I ask that is you are trying to get me to believe that this type of stupidity/psychosis only happens in the USA.


I'm not saying that at all. I'm just pointing out the lack of regulations to prevent it in the US. I don't know if other countries have psyche exams as part of the requirement to own a gun, but I think it would definitely help here. I would definitely like to see training as a requirement as well.


You make a car sound safe then a gun or a bullet when more people die each day by the car than by the gun.


Again, not saying that either. Just pointing out that there are at least some regulations for cars and virtually none for owning a gun. Comparing which is more dangerous doesn't have anything to do with it. Obviously cars are used on a daily basis much more than guns are, so you will of course have more crimes and accidents for cars than you would guns.

-----

The Second Amendment, read explicitly: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Makes total sense for a newly formed country that just threw off the oppression of another government. The amendment was added to make sure that the government couldn't prevent ordinary citizens from overthrowing the new government should they find it oppressive. That's the spirit of the law as it was written.

It didn't even have anything to do with using guns for hunting, crime prevention, or anything like that. It was about making sure the government didn't have all the guns so that they could remain a free state and not an oppressed one.

It reads "the people" and not "persons". Persons mean each and every individual. People, as used throughout the Constitution, refer to the collective body of the United States. The National Guard having the ability to own guns meets the guidelines of the Second Amendment.

Psyche exams, training courses, just basic common sense regulations, don't violate the spirit of the Founding Fathers or the Second Amendment.

[kdown]

Jeremy, well said. I think I'll leave this topic up to you

[Chuck]

The National Guard is still a government controlled entity. I fail to see that satisfying the Constitution.


Makes total sense for a newly formed country that just threw off the oppression of another government. The amendment was added to make sure that the government couldn't prevent ordinary citizens from overthrowing the new government should they find it oppressive. That's the spirit of the law as it was written.

The constitution was established for "As Long" as the Country exist. I don't recall time limit of less that forever.

I do understand you point that driving a car has regulations and gun ownership does not. Bu then driving a car in not a Constitutional right either. Gun ownership is.


It reads "the people" and not "persons". Persons mean each and every individual. People, as used throughout the Constitution, refer to the collective body of the United States. The National Guard having the ability to own guns meets the guidelines of the Second Amendment.


People, as referring to all the people of this country. The country is establish by We the People. This is to set a standard that our government is the people of the country and not a separate entity.

My point is that when the country was established and this piece of paper was signed it was signed by the people. Farmers, Businessmen and Workers. Not government officials. This is why they choose the word "People" because that is what they, and we are.

I don't mean to dwell on this but the Preamble of the Constitution does not confer power, but its first words, "We the People of the United States," does establish who the paper represents.

Benjamin Franklin was quoted, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[Jeremy]

I see that the big hurdle here seems to be the constitutional right of owning guns. The thing about that is that the Constitution is a living document. It wasn't created for as long as the country exists. Unlike, maybe the Ten Commandments which are literally set in stone, the Constitution was designed to be altered when necessary, and in fact it has been on many occasions. It was a constitutional right to own slaves, they got rid of that one. It was unconstitutional to have an income tax, they changed it so they could. There's twenty-four other changes.

My point is that the document was designed to change with the times. But again, I don't think it has to. You said it yourself, the "people" is the collective body of the United States. The spirit of the Second Amendment is to keep the governing body in check by allowing the collective body their own army. If you don't think the National Guard fits that role, then pick another group. Back in the day the National Guard would have been considered the militia, but if the collective body, the people, are represented by a private, non-federal-government army it fits the Second Amendment. Local police might fit that definition. Nowhere in there does it say that each and every individual person can own guns, it just says "the people" can.

But hey, if my interpretation of what the Founding Father's intent was isn't what the legal people think that sit in courtrooms, I'm all for changing the Constitution to keep guns out of the wrong people's hands. Since it's a living document, we can do that too.

[Chuck]

Sir, to a degree I agree with you to a point.

I don't buy into the theory that the Constitution should change with time. Where would you start? Take away free speech and only allow those that think the same speak their mind.

We could regulate religion. Since the main conscientious is that there should only be one US religion?

99+% of all firearms in the US are not used to commit crimes. The last murder in our area did not involve the use of a firearm.

As you know poverty and lifestyle promote crime. Laws like the Brady Bill did nothing to detour crime.

In our quest to create the perfect society we will only imprison ourselves.

[Jeremy]

Really at its base, the Constitution is a document that describes how a governing body should relate to the governed. Because of that basic purpose it is not very long (you can read the whole thing in one sitting) and only covers really important matters. Some things are perennially important or timeless, like free speech. That's a defining characteristic of what it means to be American. Freedom of religion, another necessary component of a free society. A theocracy cannot, by definition, be free. Slavery, women's rights to vote, etc., all defining characteristics.

Some things are just fads that don't stand the test of time. That's the changes I'm talking about. Things that don't stand the test of time are necessarily weeded out. If I had been alive during the prohibition era, I wouldn't have supported an amendment for that, for example, because I can't imagine how it would be applicable 200 years from now when wonder drugs are more widespread than alchohol. All these crazy constitutional amendments that are proposed these days I don't think meet the test of time standard either.

Being a law in the Constitution is a big deal, and the Founding Fathers rightly made it that way. To become an amendment, 75% of the country has to approve of it, including both houses of Congress, and the President. Getting all those people to agree on anything is no easy feat.

I don't think the Second Amendment is necessary because I don't think it means what people think it means. Most people believe it gives everyone in the United States a right to own a gun. That's simply not the case. Children, who are people too, can't own firearms. Felons can't own handguns in most (maybe all) states. Even the term "arms" can be interpreted many ways. Heck, swords are arms, as in the coat of arms from the Middle Ages, to arms! The government can do away with guns altogether and it doesn't violate the Second Amendment. That's why I keep saying the "spirit" of the Second Amendment.

The spirit of the Second Amendment is all about the right of the collective body of people to be prepared to take on the government if they wanted to. And, I'm sorry, I just don't see that as being applicable to today's society. When that amendment was written, the United States was a body of independent states that agreed to work together, much like the European Union is today. Each of these sovereign states were almost like countries unto themselves. A Virginian wasn't an American, they were a Virginian! And they thought of themselves that way. Nowadays, because of planes, trains, and automobiles, the United States is truly one unified country in terms of economics, geographics, virtually everything except a few polarized philosophies (which aren't timeless). That's not the country of the Founding Fathers. The country of the Founding Fathers was scattered. Today's America is integrated.

The Second Amendment was proved useless to its original intention within 100 years of signing the Constitution. That's when South Carolina decided to exercise their Second Amendment right and use force to succeed from the Union. We all know what happened next, the Civil War. Today, if South Carolina tried to do that, it'd be really pathetic. They get their oil from a centralized government. All the heavy hardware to win the war comes from a centralized government. Every resource they have comes from somewhere else. Many of the people who live in South Carolina where born someplace else. Their families live in other states. It's just not the same America as what the Founding Fathers lived in.

It's a useless amendment based on its original intent. Other amendments that protect you from the government, such as the Fourth Amendment, stand the test of time.

To sum up this really long post that no one will read :): Things that stand the test of time make the Constitution timeless. Things that won't apply now or 200 years from now shouldn't make it in and should be weeded out. That's why it's a living document.

I've really gotten off the subject though. The subject is guns and police. My view is that if there were more regulations that prevented the wrong people from obtaining guns, police wouldn't need them so much. I also don't agree with the shoot first mentality and would like to see more gun alternatives like tasers. But really, overall, I believe in mental health screening for owning a gun. That and huge reduction in national paranoia (I won't hold my breath on that one).

[ponto]

Nice post, yes I did read it all.

The problem is the shooters motivation to pull the trigger.

Solve the motivation problem and you solve the gun problem.

When we learn that, then progress will be made.

[DecupldSolutions]

officer talks on guns (http://www.clipaday.com/2006/02/cop_educates_kids_about_guns.html)

Bang.

[Foxy]

officer talks on guns (http://www.clipaday.com/2006/02/cop_educates_kids_about_guns.html)

Bang.

i saw that video on TV the other day. That was classic! Reminds me of a girl scout meeting I went to once. It was an orientation before our big overnight camp. The leader was telling us we shouldn't break firewood over our knee. One girl asked why, so she explained that you could get hurt if the stick goes into your leg while she demonstrated and OUCH she did just that. She had to get several stitches and tons of splinters removed from her knee and leg.

And jeremy, I actullay read it all too. I am in a criminal justice class and we are talking about the constitution now.

[Foxy]

Which is more lethal?


DOCTORS...
(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000
(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14

Statistics: Courtesy of the U.S.Dept of Health & Human Services

GUNS...
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80 million
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.001875

Statistics: Courtesy of the FBI

So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember: Guns don't kill people, doctors do!

FACT:

NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand! Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!

[Jeremy]

So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Sorry, there's a flaw in the stats. The keyword is accidental. Very few doctors would intentionally kill someone. The amount of gun related deaths in 2003 in the US was around 30,000. Only 2% were accidental. 40% were homicides.

[Foxy]

I know but I got the stats, and had nowhere to put them, I thought it was appropriate here...

[mark]

Which is more lethal?


DOCTORS...
(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000
(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14



One also has to remember...............

50% of all doctors graduated at the lower half of their class.
Hmmmmm, something to think about huh?? .........see ya mark

[fluffy]

If a doctor intentionally or accidentally kills someone, is it his/her fault or is it the fault of the medicine or tool he/she used?

Conversely,

If someone kills another with a firearm, is it the fault of the person or the tool used?

[Foxy]

OKAY OKAY, leave me alone..lol..
I was just posting some stats I saw... LOL...

[tkcomer]

Over 40000 people are killed by motor vehicles. I don’t see anyone trying to ban them. Even after someone intentionally runs over a person. Though I admit, a car is awfully hard to conceal. I think the police show an amazing amount of restraint with what their up against. It’s a wonder they don’t open up more times. Lord knows they’ve been shot at enough when they hesitate. There are some dirty individuals out there. Taking guns from the innocent does reduce murders. But robberies, home invasions and theft in general go up. Because the people have no way to defend themselves. Cops come after you call. Not when the thug has a knife at your back. Or your wife and kids.

[mark]

. There are some dirty individuals out there. Taking guns from the innocent does reduce murders. But robberies, home invasions and theft in general go up. Because the people have no way to defend themselves. Cops come after you call. Not when the thug has a knife at your back. Or your wife and kids.


Ahhh, we are in total agreement here......

Just check out what Kennesaw Ga did a few years ago:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634

They don't have a crime problem there. In fact check out this paragraph in the story:

Today Kennesaw is a burgeoning town of more than 11,000, the population having doubled since 1982. Industrial growth has transformed the former bedroom community into a bustling hub of economic activity. The town built a new wing onto city hall in 1988 and this year bought a new garbage truck and a street sweeper. Tax receipts have soared, Mayor J. O. Stephenson notes proudly, even as tax rates have fallen.

Imagine what Maysville & other surrounding cities would be like if this were enacted.
I agree tkcomer....
The facts speak for themselves...............see ya mark