"How many "bad apples" must there be until it's understood that there's no such thing as a "good cop." Real "gun control" would mean disarming police." -- Trancecoach

There is -no- number that could prove such a claim. Unless you prove that each and every individual cop is "bad". Due to my wife's affliction (schizoaffective disorder), we deal with cops anywhere from one to five times a year. And they show up under a wide variety of impressions, depending on what her condition was at the time. Sometimes it's claims of a prowler or intruder, sometimes it's claims of domestic violence, sometimes it's me, calling for help to keep her safe from herself.

This has got to be one of the worst types of situations for any cop...they have no idea what they'll be walking into. And in 10 years, we have yet to see a single cop who was less than wonderful, both with her, and with me.

It's going to take one hell of a lot more than stories of -other- cops behaving badly to change my mind about the guys who have helped me keep her safe and happy. Frankly, I think your ideology is showing.

People enter hell because of their sin and willful rejection of God. You are saying that people have no way of knowing, but the scripture says something different. You say you have never seen or heard anything, but what I find when talking to atheists is that they've had plenty of experiences, supernatural or otherwise, to point them towards God but they chose not to go that way. In any case, I'll be praying for God to speak to you in a way you can understand.

I think you're hung up on some of the wording of Matthew 7:14 where Jesus said there are few who find the narrow way, and not the meaning of it. It is not saying that people through no fault of their own end up on the broad way, the scripture says they enter into it. That implies a choice, and to find is to obtain something, which means they know what they are going after in the first place.

Being paralysed is not the same as death.

Jesus took the entire punishment for sin; He bore the fullness of Gods wrath against sin. The scripture says He was actually made sin for us. Whatever He experienced was far worse than what people experience in hell. No human being could bear that, eternally or otherwise. He could bear it becase He is special, that's the point. He didn't just bear the punishment for sin, He defeated death and disarmed the power of death and hell over human beings, all who put their faith and trust in Him as Lord and Savior.. He came not only to die for our sins, but also for many other reasons, one such reason was to destroy the works of the Devil.

Jesus saw everything pertaining to life and death, to judgment and the afterlife. He is an eyewitness, you simply don't believe Him. Everyone will know Jesus is Lord when they stand before Him; the scripture says that even the demons believe (and tremble). Knowing who He is and knowing Him personally are two different things entirely. If you enter into eternity without knowing Him, then it is too late. If God expects you to know His Son, it stands to reason He will provide a means for you to do so. It is up to you to respond to that.

Who let the torch passed fall in the tall grass?
Fire alarm wire’s disarmed, what do you call that?
Call it predictable political cliche
So when the movie ends, the revolution’s dead. Replay
the sequence of events that led to these deep divisions;
I’ve realized that all the wrong people are in prison.
The children wanna know if I believe in the Reptilians!
I tell em ‘I don’t know’ but on the TV I see lizards.
When action was in fashion you were such an easy mimic!
Bumpersticker quote lifting, crib note statistics,
Grasp for the straw man, born again cynics
Fair-weather firebrand; spark my suspicion.
We knew you were the type to take the fight like a gimmick,
and rock the t-shirt when your sweat wasn’t in it.
The clock is still ticking for the victim of the future,
You’re waiting til’ they look like you to ever choose but–
Chorus:
Which Side Are You On?
Which Side Are You On?
(Damn)
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask the Industry.)
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask an Emcee.)
Verse 2:
Who wrote the greatest lines of our generation,
but couldn’t get from under their own small-minded hate trip?
The same rappers say they’re trooping the frontlines,
and casually use the word ‘Faggot’ as a punchline.
That’s not a man, that’s not a tough guy.
That is a sucker and a fraud to the culture!
Hip Hop is folk music grown from the struggle and
half these fools could put the mic down and run as a Republican.
Fuck ‘em then; they learn from their own wrong.
Homophobes don’t go to my shows, we too strong!
And if you’re in the front row, harassing girls during a song
I will reach and ask you exactly–
Chorus:
Which Side Are You On?
Which Side Are You On?
Verse 3:
I’m on the side of poor people getting organized;
I’m on the side of Choice where it is in short supply;
I’m on the side of those the system doesn’t authorize;
L-G-B-T We are on the side of Pride,
Justice and Equality;
Egypt to Wisconsin when they march against the Policy;
If you bringing down a King I’m on your side probably.
Kids’ll give me shit for this it really doesn’t bother me.
They were not around when we were wrestling with poverty.
So I follow none and ask no-one to follow me
Use your own mind, use your heart and your anger
Check yourself because Apathy is a cancer
And let your action be the answer.
Chorus
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask your government)
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask your media)
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask yourself)
Which Side Are You On?
Sample:
Don’t scab for the bosses,
Don’t listen to their lies.
Us poor folks haven’t got a chance
Unless we organize.

No, a police dog is a dog. A tazer is a tool. (I could have made a terrible joke there, but will refrain)
I understand that humans being more 'valuable' than 'animals' (as if we aren't animals) is the normal way of thinking, but you make the knee jerk assumption/implication that they are the only options, either let a dog attack a dangerous armed person that WILL hurt/kill the dog or do it manually and be hurt yourself. There are MANY other options always available that don't involve releasing the unsuspecting dog into harms way. Most don't even involve deadly force. It would NEVER be proper to let the dog attack a known armed threatening person instead of using one's brain to deal with the danger in a safer manner, but that is what you've said you would do.
As a society, we have partially reversed the thinking that 'humans are more important than animals'. That is shown by the creation of many 'preserves' that stop people from farming/hunting on land to save animals, and that ends up killing some people (through starvation, malnutrition, etc). So while your statement is usually correct, people do usually consider humans more valuable than animals, as an absolutist statement it is wrong. That kind of thinking has put us in a position where the food chains are being broken because we only thought about humans (and not very thoroughly).

I'm sorry to hear about your cat, it's a terrible thing to have to help them go, but often the right thing for them. :-(

Your comments were "a dog is a tool" and "If I were tasked with taking a person with a machete into custody, I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." Both show a complete lack of concern for the dog, or even thought for it as a living, thinking, feeling being. The latter also shows a propensity to put the unsuspecting dog in far greater danger rather than accept a manageable danger themselves. In your scenario, you could easily disarm 'Machette' with your Taser, firearm, car, other officers, etc. with minimal or no danger to the officers, only more time taken, but you say you would send in the dog to get sliced. I find that terrible and not the words of someone that truly cares for the animal.
EDIT: " I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." really translates to 'I would be happy to have a dog risk their life over a person taking a chance.'...and I and others find that thinking uncaring and irresponsible towards the living, feeling being (your tool) who's care and welfare you took responsibility for.
You are quite correct, I could never be a cop. I don't have the mentality to constantly tell others what to do (and insist they follow my directions), or to deal with the drudgery of writing people tickets, paperwork, etc. I could not dehumanize people I think are criminals daily and treat them like the inhuman scum they 'are'. I would have too hard a time enforcing laws I disagreed with, and I would fear that dealing with people at their worst would make me think the worst of all people, and so cause me to treat them all like the awful criminals they are (in my mind), making me a douchebag with authoratah. I don't want to be that in any way.
I feel like being a cop is a truly hard job that screws with one's mind. Again, why I think therapy on the job should be mandatory.
Honest discussion is never a waste of time.

Permanently or temporarily 'crime and burglaries went up'?...by a statistically relevant amount or by .1%? ...by exactly the amount of armed robberies that no longer occurred (not armed, now it's burglary)? Could it be that cops had more time to police without worrying about armed thugs all day long and needing 6 officers to write a ticket to feel safe, so there's wasn't more 'crime' only more arrests? I assume you have a non-partisan Australian URL with the national crime statistics (both # reported and # of arrests) by year to verify your assertions and that this isn't wishful thinking masquerading as data? How about VIOLENT crimes and/or murders (there's a much more direct relation to that data set)?
(sorry, I took statistics, so I know that you can miss-represent statistics to 'prove' whatever you want, 47% of all people know that!)
We've had plenty of 'gun control' in the US already. You can't buy a Vulcan cannon, a full auto without an FFL, a 20MM, a 9lb gun (battleship style), and thousands upon thousands of models have been 'banned' either federally, state wide, or by county/city. There are limits on clip size, silencers, selective fire modes, unregistered sales, etc....the list of 'gun control measures' already in existence goes on forever...but we'll "never get any"?!? What the hell could you mean? I think you may just be being contrary, no matter how silly it makes you seem.
"Illegal gun owners" are disarmed every single day in the US, any time they are caught with the illegal guns. Again, what could you possibly mean? That we won't get rid of 100% of illegal guns (as if that's someone's plan or a necessity to solve most gun related issues), so there's no reason to ever limit their availability to anyone? Huh?!?

If often being correct and usually getting what I'm after (because my methods, which you decry as useless, worked for me) makes me a "loser", se la vie. I suppose, even though every statement you made is in direct opposition to all fact, you're a "winner"? Enjoy that.

No, crime, especially burglaries went up in Australia after gun control was implemented.

You won't get any "gun control" in the US in any case. Get used to it. You are also not going to disarm any "illegal" gun "owners."

But hey, since you're already a loser, that shouldn't bother you so much.

Gun control worked fairly well in Australia, no? For law abiding and not, and enforcers too. In England too, where it DID mean 'disarming' the average cop (not all cops, they do still have guns, they just don't wear them on a daily basis for normal contact with the public, so they have far fewer officer involved shootings). Enforced gun control would mean disarming anyone found with an illegal gun, not the law abiding, not just minorities.
As said above, about 90% of Americans said they favor some type of gun control. Gun control does not mean gun eradication, just as car control (speed limits and other laws of the road) does not mean car eradication. Duh, I'm so sick of that insanely wrong 'argument'.
Federal law 'nullified by the states, counties, and even local law enforcement agencies"?!? Wow.
Are you even American, because you have absolutely 0 grasp of the American governmental system (evidenced by your stated position that voting is worse than useless, and you've indicated the same about voicing your opinion to your 'representatives'..."useless". ?!?).
In America, the Fed can't be over-ridden or 'nullified' by the states, it's pretty clear, cut, and dry. It's certainly been tried, but never successfully, because our law says the Fed trumps all other government and they have the national guard and army backing them up. For instance, many states have 'legalized' marijuana, but no where is it actually legal because it's still federally illegal, they simply aren't prosecuting people for small amounts normally...but they are still prosecuting larger marijuana cases and seizing money and property, even where it's 'legal' because the state 'nullified the federal law'. Another good example (better actually) is ending school segregation. How did 'nullification' work out for those states that ignored/contradicted/'nullified' the fed? I'll answer for you...Not so good.
Please take a civics class, or be prepared to be contradicted at every turn until you get how the system is designed and operates.

"Gun control" applies to those who abide by the law, not for those who enforce it. It never means disarming the state and its agents, or even the criminals who don't care about the law. "Gun control" simply means disarming law-abiding citizens, or minorities. In this way, "gun control" would be about as successful as the "war on drugs" (i.e., a poorly disguised anti-minority law). Alas, gun control advocates remain in the overwhelming minority in the U.S. and, if by some fluke, it were to pass at the Federal level, it would be the first regulation nullified by states, counties, and even local law enforcement agencies. Such is the futility of most legislative efforts of this kind.

Another fine example of why we could use an *instant-karma channel.
I only wish she had disarmed the second thief and made them both bite the curb until the cops got there.
This should be a commercial for her Dojo.

Your video, Fast Russian Disarms Soldier, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

That shirt with blue and white is usually worn by Spetsnaz.

He did to it fast and after the first move his body was no where near the barrel direction. He would not have been hit.

Fast. FAST, not "fat". Maybe there was a ninja edit, but the title used the word Fast for me.

You can't really disarm someone with a gun if you are farther away.

There's one problem with every gun disarm I've ever seen. They rely on having a gunman who is stupid enough to let you get within arms reach without shooting you.

Actually NO. HE DID NOT DISARM HIM FAST. Guy still had the gun on the floor.
If the little dude had pulled trigger again he'd have take big dudes head off.

...training rather...both military personnel,..Russian Special Forces disarming technique...just a guess....

I haven't posted a video in years. I finally find one that I thought was siftworthy and that i didn't think someone else would post, and this is what I get from you? I guess you saw the thumb and expected a woman to be attacked in some physical way. I find the dude's use of truth and humor to disarm far more enlightening, and is exactly the kind of culture I believe should be more prevalent in this particular forum. To say it shouldn't have made the front page, being who you are, is piss poor form, sir. Piss poor.