I would feel so safe in Australia. Except for twice as many assault victims as us, three times the rape victims, twice the burglaries, 40% more property crime victims, twice the robbery victims, 63% more car thefts. Yea, except for that I'd feel pretty safe.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime

Idk man. I'm out looking in too, but my list of problems guns are a good solution for stops pretty short after "killing something you want dead". I mean, cars and knives can do that pretty good too, but I've not seen many getting to work or chopping vegetables with their automatic. Well, unless its an automatic transmission car, which I gather are quite popular state side. Gun, automatic gun I meant. Also I guess technically the vegetable chopping thing is _possible_ with a firearm. I digress.

When used as self defence I think they might sometimes have uses if you are prepared and have it ready. My problem is that the only person who knows for sure that they are going to be in a gun point robbery/rape/[insert crime] situation on any given day is the guy doing the robbing/raping/[insert crime]ing. I mean, is the aim to get the point where every man woman and child is so strapped to the nines that mutually assured destruction is guaranteed? Excuse me from taking it the logical extreme, but I don't think it's entirely fallacious.

They are fun? I've shot some guns. It was fun. I didn't need to own them mind. Hunting aint for me, but evidently some people enjoy it...but I guess I'm not sure how strident I would be in defence of my hobby if it involved the use of a machine that has been streamlined by war to be the most efficient man-portable tool for taking life that we can conceive.

So yeah, I certainly think your right that is more to gun violence than gun ownership. Clearly there are countries with relatively high levels of gun ownership with comparatively little gun violence. (altho the US still has almost twice as many guns per person than the next nearest...so yah). I just struggle to understand exactly what reason there is for having quite so many of them given that everybody else seems to be doing mostly ok without them. What exactly are these problems the Americans should be using their guns as a solution for? Can knives and cars, which according to gun advocates are at least as lethal, perhaps be leveraged in creative ways to be the solution to the problems for which apparently only guns can currently solve?

I don't know if the right's stance on gun control is the hypocrisy I'd point out about their so called "pro-life" stance, but I'll get to the hypocrisy in a moment.

It is odd how after every mass shooting here, which means we get to hear it a lot, the political right always jumps on the "oh no, they are trying to take our guns away", "if guns kill people, why don't they try to ban cars which kill more people" and other memes when nobody is talking about banning guns or forcing everyone to register all the guns they own, let alone take guns away. Closing the gun show loophole (and all such laws proposed that would close it still left open the ability to pass guns to family members without a license or registration), allow the CDC to track gun violence... these aren't unreasonable requests. Even exempting the gun industry from the same liability laws we hold nearly every other industry to (with a huge notable exception to fracking... hmm... another one the right loves) seems fairly reasonable, though I guess I can semi see the concerns... of course said concerns go back to the fact that nearly anyone can get a gun quickly and easily. 30+ homicides a day, 50+ gun related suicides every day, 40+ accidental deaths every day, hundreds treated for gun assault injuries every day, thousands of crimes committed at gun point from rape to robbery and burglary, and the list goes on and on... I support one's right to own guns, including hand guns, but we need to admit there is a gun violence problem. And it isn't a heart problem, if Cain had a gun he'd have used a gun, a rock is what was available to him at the supposed moment of action. And it isn't a lack of Jesus problem as over 78% of people in the US general population and other far more democratic, first word, advanced economy, fully free will, countries like the Netherlands have far more Atheists than us, but have far less gun violence... less violence overall. It's not a video game problem, as those games are popular outside the US, and again no correlative rise in violence. (And yes, the UK violence rate is higher, but it isn't an apples for apples correlation, they define far more things into their national violent crime rates than we do, when all things are equaled out, they have a much smaller one.) So it's time that the right just admit there is an issue with guns and violence in this country.

But as I said, we don't need to point to the rights stance on guns to prove they aren't actually pro-life. Just point to the fact they are the ones who are most in support of the death penalty. Just point to the fact they are the most pro-war and are the loudest war hawks, despite the fact Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers" I guess they figure that means forcing everyone to the US's will, since somehow God anointed the US with special privilege above all other nations (after all the Bible mentions the eagle rising against the bear, which must be the US rising against the Soviets). Point out that they support stand your ground, somebody taking your nice new TV, stand your ground and turn that crime into a death penalty there in your home... of course Jesus said if somebody takes your coat to give your shirt too, not that I'm sure He was meaning to freely let people take all your stuff, but I can guarantee He wouldn't have been pro-stand your ground. They don't support having guaranteed affordable health care, or having government assistance for the needy and the poor. Apparently that life only matters while in the womb, the quality of life after that doesn't matter, and if they can make it worse for the child then they don't care, so long as their taxes don't help the child.

They aren't by any stretch of the imagination pro-life. They are anti-abortion. I think abortion is far from ideal, and should be a last option. The best option is the same thing that the women not having abortions have, affordable health care. Access to contraceptive options like IUDs (which don't stop fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterus which they try to claim) and the pill... and it doesn't matter if the pill itself is cheap, the doctor visit to get them and follow ups need to be affordable too... somehow the right really likes to blame women and hold them accountable for the pregnancy, when in fact it's the guy who should be blamed. If they don't want a pregnancy, then he should wrap it as soon as it comes out of the pants. No playing "just the tip" or anything else like that. Then dispose of properly, and ideally, don't rely on it as the sole method of birth control. So guarantee all people, including women, access to affordable health care. Give them their free choice of birth control and I'd say encourage the use of the IUD which has an amazingly low failure rate compared to other birth control methods... that is if she's going to use a contraceptive on her end. Don't make it a crime to have a miscarriage... which is some of the most asinine law proposals ever created... and rape is rape, no such thing as "legitimate" rape, I don't care if the Bible is into punishing women for being rape victims (a virgin not betrothed has to marry the rapist and he has to pay her father 50 shackles of silver for the father's loss or property and the couple may never divorce, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 or if she's in a city and betrothed then she has to be put to death Deuteronomy 22:23-24, a passage defended because it says "because she cried not", but how often do people ignore crimes or say they didn't see anything, heck people film others raping a passed out girl, so "because she cried not" is a poor excuse).

TLDR: The right are far from being pro-life far beyond gun control, they support war, they support the death penalty, they support stand your ground, they are against the government helping the needy and the poor, and are against a truly affordable health care policy that would largely eliminate the need for abortions in the first place.

Nice.

I wouldn't be surprised if the shop owner was charged with false imprisonment.

Small correction: burglary fail, not robbery.

The problem I have is his statements about the sides of the gun debate. The pro-gun-control people aren't arguing against all guns. I'm sure a few are, but most are looking for some reasonable controls put on. Closing the gun show loophole, limiting access to assault weapons, limiting magazine size (if you are in a situation where 9 or 12 rounds of .40 caliber isn't going to stop the situation before you can reload a new magazine, then you are a situation well beyond what can be handled anyhow) and tracking data on weapon crimes. All we know right now is that there are 50 or so suicides a day with guns, 30 or so homicides per day (not counting mass shootings) with guns, over 1,000 hospitalizations due to guns (most are accidental, many of those are children), an unknown number of thousands of crimes (robberies, rapes, etc) at gunpoint, and while general statistics like that inform to some extent, we really need more detailed information on those uses to make more informed choices in gun laws... which is basically what he's arguing for, though he doesn't point out that it isn't allowed under present US law as @oritteropo pointed out above.

Congratulations. You've managed to capture the entire diversity of the US by visiting several times and not get shot or had a gun pointed at you. This is like forming an opinion about whether sharks will bite humans after you've laid on the beach once or twice and have never been bitten. Searching for some relevance here... and ... nope, none.

Agreed, if your gun is in a traditional safe, it's not much good when the burglars or home invasion psychos kick in your front door at 2 a.m. Jim Jeffries is indeed a funny guy, but like many who don't understand what "for protection" means to some homeowners here in the US, you might want to cite a bit more credible source or at least educate yourself.

Thanks to biometric safes and locking devices, it is quite easy to have a secured gun in a safe at arms reach, accessible to only one person, that can be unsecured, ready to fire in about 4 seconds. I know this to be true, because I have such a setup, and we practice what to do when the home alarm goes off just like we practice fire drills.

The distressing part is I absolutely hate having to be in such a situation. I'm no cowboy and this isn't the wild west, but when families around me are having their doors kicked in in the middle of the night by armed thugs, or having one or two fuckheads follow them up the driveway for an easy push-in robbery accompanied by beatings, shootings, molestation and sometimes killing, I decided that there would be no way I could live with myself if something tragic ever happened to my family at the hands of these nut jobs, knowing I might have been able to do something to stop it. And no, one can't relay on the local police to take care of these crimes. Around here, even with a top notch alarm system in the house that goes directly to dispatch, the cops usually arrive to clean up the blood and take statements, and almost never in time to stop the crime or catch the criminals.

Do you have house, car, fire or life insurance? Sure, but you hope you'll never have to use it. So, what's so unbelievable about a gun for protection? What do you suggest? You appear to think it's silly to state it's for protection... so does one simply relying on hope, faith or good luck in never having to witness your wife or child being duct taped to a chair while criminals rummage through your house, or having their head kicked in or bloodied on the end of a baseball bat?

Just a suggestions, but try to spend some time as an actual resident in a country before you pretend to understand it, consider yourself fortunate that you don't live in such a situation, and for fucks sake stop with the snide, morally superior judgement of those who do. If you can muster that, on a guess that you might be from NZ but really don't know, I'll stop telling everyone that Kiwi's really do fuck sheep, especially on National Lamb Day when it's a competition rather than just a hobby.

Have fun.

It's even better (worse), because after accepting over $1million in these 'permit lottery tickets', they've suspended the lottery, so NO ONE is legal even though hundreds of businesses paid their 'fee' to get a chance to be legal, and they seem to be using the applications as 'probable cause' for warrants for any business that submitted an application for the permit 'lottery'. It's disgusting that the judge in the case saw how corrupt the plan is, but actually made things worse by halting the program but not demanding the 'fees' be refunded or the business permits be re-issued to those that had permits before this plan went into effect. That makes this program a pure armed robbery by the local government, one that I'm sure will be overturned, but many will lose their business, savings, and even their freedom in the mean time.
I think the feds are taking a hands off approach to medical marijuana. They have stopped going after it (for now) but are also not helping defend them. It's a pretty screwed up situation I hope will be resolved in the next election where I expect at least California will legalize recreational marijuana (yet we probably won't be releasing the thousands in prison for minor marijuana crimes, too much money to be made by keeping them incarcerated).

As Samuel Clemens said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

This 3 minute and 47 sec video can't begin to tell the full story.

One reason so many people in the US go to prison is because there are so many recidivists. You don't go to jail in the US unless you have committed a major felony crime or you are a repeat offender.

That's why those in prison for "mere" drug possession actually have a higher arrest rate for violent crimes than those in prison for burglary, robbery or even drug trafficking, according to innumerable studies, including one in the Journal of the American Statistical Association.

We now have more diversionary programs available than ever before. If you commit a theft crime, you get the opportunity to make recompense and/or attend a program. Same with DUI, take a 3 day class or get locked up for 3 days.

Another reason many black men get locked up is because they commit a lot of violent crimes. Violent crimes will almost always get your ass locked up.

I know a fellow in Oregon who used to be the prayer leader for the Seattle Seahaws, a white man, who to my knowledge has never committed a violent crime, yet he is a repeat offender on DUI driving laws. He was recently committed to prison for 3 years.

And as for these 'get tough on crime' laws...the last one passed in Ohio did just the opposite, making repeat felony thefts a misdemeanor. The lawyers in your local legislators know how to title a crime bill...most of which are an effort to save money, not fight crime.

Also, prison guard unions don't send people to prison, judges do.

As for fewer prisoners in China...they just shoot their offenders in the head...saves quite a bit on housing prisoners.

Making crack cocaine a stiffer penalty crime...well, crack is more addictive than cocaine. So why doesn't Al Sharpton get behind the decriminalization of crack cocaine? Probably not enough money in it.

If you want to make a point about people in the US being incarcerated compared to other countries, I'm going to need to see some numbers on the recidivism rates in those countries, not just some surface facts that don't tell the full story.

it's rather like some countries that don't count neonatal deaths unless the child has survived for 30 days...you can't compare that to numbers from countries that count neonatal deaths at 2 hours.

I would share the knee-jerk outrage right on cue if it was the same cop in both situations. How do you know the first cop wouldn't treat the black man the same way, by walking up and talking to him? How do you know the second cop wouldn't pull his gun on the white guy in the first scene? How do you know whether there wasn't a report of a robbery in the vicinity of the 2nd scene? The first video apparently was taken in Oregon, I can’t tell what county is displayed on the police cars in the 2nd video, much less what state they are in. So I must assume there are logistical reasons why the creators of this video would not have been in the position to insert the black man into the original scenario, for it to actually qualify as a “social experiment”. I know these comments wouldn't easily fit on a picket sign, so that must mean I'm for racism (he said sarcastically).

Aren't you over reaching on this?

If you trashed my phone like that should you lose you job? Say this occurs at your work. I come up to you and start filming. Should you loose you job? As you said "we've got assault and battery, armed robbery, destruction of private property,..." The answer is no.

The cop was a dick and should pay for a new phone and apologize to the lady. His supervisor should reprimand him but not much else, unless its a pattern.

Let's see...we've got assault and battery, armed robbery, destruction of private property, destruction of evidence...and probably a few more crimes here. I won't be surprised in the least if there's not a single crime charged, however.

Police are proving conclusively that they are NOT protecting, serving, or upholding the law. Since they refuse to police themselves, I'm thinking it's time to disband the criminal gang and start again, they've all failed time and time again to be honest and upright people, much less proper authorities. If cops policed themselves, the other cops would have tackled this cop, jumped on his head, hog tied him, and carted him off to jail....but that's NEVER happened, not a single time, ever, no matter what kind of murderous crime the cop commits in front of his fellow officers. In my mind, that means they are not real cops and so not deserving of respect or compliance.
How about a ballot initiative to remove any 'protective custody' for officers sent to prison, so they have to go to gen pop like every one else? Then they might think twice...assuming some are prosecuted...because it would no longer be summer camp with other cops, it would be real prison.

What they charge him with and what the DA charges him with are two different things. The quotes I provided are the simple definitions of his actions. Burglary while possessing what 'could' be described as a weapon is considered armed robbery. Burglary of a home is considered breaking and entering. GTA covers multiple types of auto theft, feel free to look it up. The article clearly mentions that the store employees were chasing after him.

Of course I realize that there are more options, but when you add options, you also add possible outcomes because you are extending the situation. Assuming that the police did attempt other methods with the suspect and something bad happened to either a cop or innocent, would you still be blaming the cops for doing their jobs wrong?

Again, videos show bad cops. They ABSOLUTELY do exist and in far too large of a quantity. However, videos also show decent cops and outstanding ones, like the one who validated the rights of the people protesting TSA searches. You are perfectly welcome to your distrust of the police, I admit I don't trust them nearly as much as I used to, but a rational person would be willing to realize that you can't stereotype them as all untrustworthy or bad.

Yes, that's why they charged him with THEFT, not robbery. He didn't USE the piece of metal in his hand to threaten.
The arson part, that can be considered 'violent', you're right there.
No, ROBBERY is violent, burglary is sneaky. Y ou might note he was not charged with breaking and entering, robbery, OR burglary. Trespass is what it's called when you enter an OPEN building or home, burglary if you did it intending to steal, robbery if you came armed and used that arm in any way against a human.
No, I'm fairly certain auto theft and GRAND THEFT AUTO are different charges, like petty theft and grand theft are different.
No one ever mentioned a "tussel" with store employees, they are instructed to allow him to walk away, they would lose their job if they tried to stop him, because the gun was under $500, petty theft.
You are welcome to believe police when it comes to them excusing their violence. I am free to not believe them. Their recent actions have shown them to be untrustworthy, so I feel proper not trusting them.
Wait, so because a guy actually committed crimes, you will believe cops? Huh? They guy shot in the back did more violence than this guy, he actually tussled with the cop.
You know those aren't the only two options, right? Kill him or let him free to kill 11 year olds?
Videos have proven time and time again to be a far better picture of what actually happened than the officers accounts. If I could trust an officer to tell the truth, I could be there with you. Unfortunately, they have proven at every turn that they are not trustworthy, so I think any rational person would stop trusting them and require they PROVE their contentions, and ignore anything they claim without proof. That's where I am.

Ahh, I see, the police CLAIMED he pointed it at them during the moment the camera wasn't pointed at him, eh? I'm not sure I can take the word of an officer as fact these days....sadly.
You call it robbery, he was only charged with theft. He had a metal object in his hand, but didn't try to use it on anyone. You call it breaking and entering, but there's no indication the home was closed or that he broke anything, he did enter (trespassing), and did steal a car (not carjacked, so still GTA?), and later a gun (again, only petty theft). My point was it was not reported he threatened or injured anyone (beyond himself) during any of these crimes, so they may not have been violent at all. He was certainly having mental issues. You seem to be saying ANY crime is violent, which you're free to believe, but I'm free to disagree.
No one was seen in danger at the time they ran him over, certainly not in the camera range. In America we aren't supposed to try to kill people for what they MIGHT do sometime in the future, right?
True, they could have handled it worse in many ways, that doesn't mean I can't still see, and exclaim, that they handled it terribly.

I think you said it all in your last paragraph. Deadly force was authorized IF NEEDED, the officer saw an OPPORTUNITY (not a necessity) and took it.

If he truly pointed the gun at someone, it changes my opinion, but unfortunately I can't take a cop's word on that...."he grabbed my taser" (and the hundreds of other lies caught on camera) blows it for every claim they make. Now, if it's not on camera, it didn't happen. Their word is worth less than nothing at this point. They better buy those body cameras quick, because I don't think I'm alone thinking that way.

All the information I referred to or copied was from the link to the CNN article in the link the sifter provided above.

Crimes in which violence is the means to an end, such as robbery, are violent crimes. Violent crimes may, or may not, be committed with weapons. He robbed a store, committed arson on an occupied structure, committed breaking and entering upon a private home, stole the car at said home which is GTA, then committed another robbery at the walmart when he took the gun.

CNN stated that the person was also accused of pointing the rifle at the police, firing it in the air, and then later pointing it at himself. The man clearly has some mental issues, but he was a threat to society in the condition he was in. His rights do not trump the rights of his fellow citizens to be protected from his mental illness.

There are lots of ways that this could have been handled differently, but there are also lots of ways this could have went worse. We could be discussing why the police didn't do more before this guy shot an innocent bystander.

From the interview that I saw on CNN of the police chief, lethal force had been authorized if needed. I think this officer saw an opportunity and took it, perhaps over zealously, to end the situation without harm to innocents.