In this part of the world stating "self defence" as a reason for wanting a firearm will disqualify you.

I would certainly consider suicide by firearm as "gun violence", and I would also say that good firearm regulations should make it hard for suicidal people to easily and quickly get their hands on a weapon.

The 1996 Australian gun buyback, which halved the number of gun-owning households here, is credited with a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates (source, via snopes). Although this was an unanticipated benefit of the buyback, I think most of us consider it a good outcome.

I always have a tendency to think "let's not be hasty" when considering stuff like this. There's always (at least) two sides to every story.

For example, with Philando Castile (man shot in the car):
He *did* have a gun in the car.
His girlfriend said that he told the officer about it and did not do anything threatening at all, but there is/was at least *some* potential that the cops would tell a different story.
The video of the event didn't show how things escalated, so we have to figure it out based on the reports of two potentially biased reports -- the girlfriend/family and the police.

Honestly, that was enough to look quite bad for the police, BUT my "don't be hasty" tendencies were still in play.


And now, we've got this. Like @newtboy has been saying, I just can't fathom the level of incompetence required to make this an "oops" situation. If they were trying to shoot the autistic man and missed and hit Kinsey by mistake ... that's fucked up.

A) If they were trying to "protect" Kinsey, how about listening to him? Did he sound nervous, like he needed protecting? NO. He calmly explained the entire situation, and was obviously NOT afraid of the autistic guy doing him any harm. And this time, they've got a lot of the lead-up on video, so we can actually hear him explain the situation. Any cop (or anyone) with 2 brain cells to rub together would holster their firearm if they listened to his explanation. Maybe they would stay behind cover and let Kinsey either talk the autistic guy into dropping the toy truck in his hand or let him get up and show them clearly that it was not a weapon (since they were responding to a report about someone possibly having a gun), but there's clearly no need to keep the guns aimed on either of them -- and Kinsey told them as much.

B) If they were trying to "protect" him, then why did they cuff him? With 3 sets of cuffs, apparently. After shooting, once they approached and figured out that there was no weapon, any decent human being would jump into action to try to mitigate the fallout of their dumbass mistake. Don't cuff the guy you "accidentally" shot -- call for an ambulance, try to stop the bleeding, etc.


For fucks sake, if that is the story the police are coming up with to explain / defend (hah!) their actions, it is just utterly pathetic. Charge the shooter and the entire police department with something criminal, and throw the law book at every single one of them. My normally strong "let's not be hasty" impulse is looking at this entire mess with a double /facepalm.

Very glad that Mr. Kinsey is expected to fully recover. Maybe the silver lining beyond his survival will be that an event this blatant almost has to force us to acknowledge that there is a serious problem with how our police are operating.

Yes, and that's why I display such contempt and distrust of them.

As I understood it, yes, 3 pairs of cuffs, all 3 attached to his wrists, not a chain of 3 pairs to make him comfortable. I mean, why is he cuffed at all? WTF?!? He's not 500lbs, the only time they use more than one pair in a chain is when the perps hands can't fit behind their back, NEVER for comfort....that's simply not what cuffs are about...EVER.

Yes, this level of 'incompetence' (if that's what it was, and I don't concede that) MUST be intentional. It falls so far below the bar we have set as reasonable, or the standards that police MUST meet through testing, that the only way it could actually be his incompetence rather than intentional negligence is if his supervisor intentionally falsified his test results to keep him on the force....so it's either HIS intentional negligence or his supervisors, but either way, it's intentional. No question in my mind that SOMEONE along the chain of responsibility intentionally allowed this behavior...or this level of incompetence that it's clear would lead to this behavior. There was intentional negligence, no way around it.

It actually seems to indicate a lack of a reason for shooting in the first place to me.

I've seen a dozen videos about this. Numerous times they mentioned an over 15 minute wait before he was seen by medics, during which time they had him handcuffed, bleeding in the street, but not charged with any crime or even suspected of one....why the cuffs?

I think that there is a point where negligence is SO intentional, and the results of that negligence SO foreseeable that it's indirect intent. Cops shoot to kill...period. If they shoot inappropriately, like at someone not posing a threat, that's attempted murder IMO. Period. They intend to kill, it's not accidental. Wounding him was accidental and clearly incompetence, which should be another charge IMO, unsafe discharge of a weapon...at least twice for those times he missed completely....and attempted murder 3 times.

(Side note...how in the hell do you miss from that close with a rifle?!? That, as much as anything else, should have people up in arms, that an officer is so non-proficient with his weapon, but still allowed to carry and use it. WTF?!? I want every officer with a firearm to be reasonably proficient with it...really any person with one, but that's another discussion. Police have to train, and prove proficiency with their weapon....how can this possibly happen without intentional skirting of the standards/rules/law?)

The biggest problem IMO is there's rarely any justice at all, even in those cases where there's incontrovertible evidence of guilt. Instant justice would be nice, but delayed justice would be FAR preferable to no justice, which is the current situation. How many recent killings of unarmed men have gone completely unaddressed? Far too many to count.
The system is set up in such a way that those charged with prosecuting police have personal and professional relationships with them that deny impartiality in almost every case. That is why there's rarely any prosecution, and even when there is (usually because they are pressured into it by public outcry) they blatantly throw the case in the toilet with no consequence....and there's still no justice.

Um...wait.
So you're saying that if he wasn't in the open (but was still unarmed and still surrendering) it would be acceptable to kill him?
So you're saying that if the police didn't have "cover" from the unarmed unthreatening seated man/boy and/or his prone, unarmed, non threatening caretaker, it would be acceptable to kill him?
So you're saying that if someone felt threatened (which someone claimed they did, claiming he had a gun) it would be acceptable to kill whomever they are feeling threatened by, no matter what the actual threat level? (wouldn't that make it open season on cops, who make any reasonable black man feel threatened/in fear for their life?)
Are you saying that, had one of them actually HAD a gun, it would automatically be acceptable to kill them? (would that stand if it was a white woman with the gun? Why would it not stand for a man wearing blue?)

More than 'pressure' needs to be applied....the law needs to be applied. Police are not above the law, and have to account for their actions. When those actions are so incredibly unacceptable in so many ways, that accountability needs to include serious prison time or there's no accountability in reality. It's only by pure luck that there weren't two dead victims here....and there was NEVER a reason for ANY firearm to be drawn. If the cops don't see a gun, they should never pull theirs....they could reasonably un-latch their holsters IMO, and even put their hand on it, but not ever pull it until someone else brandishes theirs, and never shoot until someone else shoots first....IMO. They have a duty to be MORE responsible than the average citizen, not less.

Well, the level of incompetence required for this to be 'accidental' is SOOO incredibly high that it's not reasonable to assume the police are that incompetent....but if they are, that's intentional on the part of their supervisors, no? So still the responsibility of the police as a whole.

There IS doubt that they could have killed him and made it look unintentional. He shot 3 times, and only hit once. Clearly, he's not a good enough shot to kill on the first shot, because cops ALWAYS shoot to kill, and he failed, no matter which target he was aiming at.

We can assume that because he said "I don't know" when asked why he shot the caregiver....not "I missed", or "I wasn't aiming at you" or any other mitigation. If, as you suggest, he was firing at the sitting, unarmed, severely mentally challenged man (also completely inexcusable, btw) then the negligence in discharging his firearm with an innocent victim between him and the target is not just gross negligence, it's intentional negligence. Shooting someone because you don't care that they are between you and your target makes you an attempted murderer. Period.

Um....if a cop was shot in the foot, medical care would be instant, there would be no handcuffing, much less TRIPPLE handcuffing. What was reported was they didn't call for medical attention for >15 minutes while the victim lay handcuffed bleeding in the street (probably with officers standing on top of him). Medical care was provided while the shootings were still happening in Dallas, so "the scene wasn't secured yet, we couldn't allow medics in safely" falls completely flat as an excuse anymore and won't even be considered by me.

That level of incompetence from a police officer MUST, by definition, be intentional. They are well trained and equipped to avoid exactly this kind of fiasco. Ignoring that training is intentional, and that must be prosecutable if there is to be any effect. I don't have to ascribe intent to murder to claim culpability. That is not the metric by which the law is applied. If your actions are grossly negligent and end in near death of another, which is the absolute least criminal possible interpretation of the actions of this officer, that's criminal attempted murder/manslaughter1. Because (inappropriately) using a firearm is not unintentional, and officers ONLY use them to kill, this was not attempted manslaughter, which only applies when the intent is NOT to kill, it was an attempted murder.
Either way, that's a question for a jury to answer, not his superior, not the DA that he works with daily.

So, ignoring everything else... why is carrying a firearm legal if the cops are incapable of dealing with an armed suspect without the use of lethal force?

I wonder if it is workable to have specialised armed response units rather than giving all cops guns. I wonder how many of those occasions where an officer was shot were situations were the perp felt their life was in danger. If you lower the stakes might there be a reduction in the amount of arrests that turn bloody, for both parties?

Man being police in a fervently capitalist individualist society awash with firearms just seems like a really bad choice in life. There are clear blue bays in latin america that need fishermen, european cities that need aoustic guitar players..

Hilarious. Maybe they should have tried to not giggle like naughty teenagers making a prank call if they want to be taken seriously.
First, they did make the shirt he asked for, a quality one it seemed, just with a bonus secret message.
Second, Trump supporters are the same people who advocate the refusal of service for people who offend their religious (or political) sensibilities, so what's his problem? He was probably hoping they would refuse him service so he could use the video as proof that "liberals" are totally hypocritical and refuse service to those they dislike but vilify "conservatives" for the same thing, but got something unexpected instead.

It's now pretty clear that initially they did this looking for and expecting a negative reaction they could exploit somehow, then pressed the point when they got one, thinking they 'got them' and now he can be the conservative hero of the week.

To be fair though, what response does one expect when one goes into a business in a firmly red state like Alabama or Mississippi, and an even more firmly Republican city, and then go to a world famously Republican neighborhood in that city, enter a store with a Trump sign in the window and ask them to make you a HILLARY T-shirt? I would bet $10 it involves threats of violence if not actual violence and firearms, not a quality shirt with a 'secret' message inside.

That's BS.

With a 5 round maximum capacity you're going to be reloading a lot and there's no reasonable argument why anyone needs more for hunting (and home defence is a red herring).

I think the whole law/culture issue addressed above is actually linked. Take the example of the Autobahn which is very much a parallel. Germans made a law saying you can drive as fast as you want on certain stretches of highway, a culture of high-speed driving developed, people die. The majority in Germany wants to do away with them, but the 10% who want to drive recklessly in their BMWs and Mercedes along with the manufacturers fight new legislation every time.

The law created the culture, and now the culture is preventing the laws from being changed. Just as in the US, the cycle has to break somewhere. Government can't legislate the culture, but they can change the laws and if the US ever gets to a point where guns aren't in the hands of whoever wants one then the argument for needing a 'home security' weapon drops. People feel safer, there are fewer shootings and the whole situation de-escalates.

I'm not saying barring suspected terrorists from owning firearms will accomplish that, but it would be a (very) modest start in the right direction.

That's basically it.

Folks that don't have guns also view guns through a utilitarian lens. No need to have them unless you need to kill something. With that mentality, they're bound to see guns and killing as a combined issue. When they look at a modern rifle that has the same ergonomics as a war rifle, they think of killing people.

For gun owners, harming other folks is real far down the totem pole. They have other uses for guns, uses that aren't killing people.

Many non gun owners look at pistols and think 'oh, well, maybe one day I'd buy one to have just in case, just for protection'. They think of them as defensive arms, and not as the firearm category with the most kills associated.

So, yeah, it boils down to imagery and symbolism.

-scheherazade

It's been a while since I posted. I also rarely spew politics on the Internet anymore, but the arguments in the video are just weak.

Most gun control arguments amount to a bunch of cherry picked statistics, and then a complaint about other cherry picked statistics supporting the other argument. For example, you can't cherry pick the Chicago argument, that's just showing a lack of nuance, but let's go ahead and cherry pick the Australia and CDC arguments.

There was a ban on assault rifle sales in the US. Violent crime has dropped since it was repealed. How's that for a cherry picked argument?

Chaos's reasoning is aligned with my own. The issue is cultural, not legislative.

I'm also particularly peeved about the defense of a free state argument. I believe in the second amendment for this reason. You can't hold a block of houses with f16s. You do it with boots on the ground worn by soldiers bearing arms. To me, the second amendment is one of the last remaining checks on executive authority in this country. Tell the black panthers that bearing arms did nothing to protect them against abuses of state. Any policy maker considering a radical and unpopular extension of executive authority (ahem, Trump) needs to consider the logistical ramifications of an armed populace, wielding millions of firearms, the locations of which are unknown. That's a deterrent, plain and simple. Spend all you want on the military. The military is made up of people just as hesitant to wage war against their own countrymen as you or I. Especially so if there is a real possibility they are putting themselves at considerable risk in the process.

Note that the only reason to include the "motivation" at all is for it to be used to interpret the "rule".

"to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions (read evaluations), as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia"

So even those dissenting were fairly clear that to be "well regulated" in the popular parlance of the day requires training and at least twice yearly evaluations....and for that, regulations governing and delineating that training and evaluating.
Hamilton was dissenting, saying 1) that in his opinion EVERY citizen would be in the militia 2) that making that militia 'well regulated' was too much of a burden if it fell on every citizen and 3) that he thinks gun owners should have to assemble twice a year (at least) to prove that they are properly armed and equipped (and tested for basic proficiency), NOT be forced to be "well regulated" which would mean MORE training and testing than only twice a year. SO, if you used his more lax criteria (and we don't) there would be bi-yearly proficiency testing and firearm inspections for EVERY gun owner. I think people would LOVE that to be the case, but his idea didn't rule the day, so it's not law.

I can't understand the "assault rifle" thing. It's already illegal to have a fully automatic without a special license, and any semi-auto gun fires one bullet per trigger pull. What difference does it make what the gun looks like if they all work the same?

Gee, there's a surprise...mo guns=mo gun problems. Who knew?

The "they protect us from our government" argument has been ridiculous since the advent of mechanized warfare. Your rifle can't stop their F-16. Just ask the Syrians.

It's not the cash that the NRA spends lobbying that their power comes from, it's the willingness of their members to jump when they say "jump". Their political power comes from the ability to push politicians out of power through voting, not cash.

The AR-15 is a red herring. My Ruger .22 can shoot well over 45 rounds per minute, as can almost any semi-auto rifle. It's the clip size that makes a difference. If you have to reload after every 10 shots, you simply can't shoot 45 rounds in a minute. I just don't get the outrage over guns that OPERATE exactly the same as nearly all other guns. Either these people simply don't understand guns at all, or they're total liars and they're trying to 'trick' us into banning all semi-auto firearms.

OK, you could make that argument about the first amendment, even though the supreme court has ruled “Child pornography, defamation and inciting crimes are just a few examples of speech that has been determined to be illegal under the U.S. Constitution.”, and there's also the "clear and present danger" exception as written in 1919 by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. -“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”
The decision says the First Amendment doesn’t protect false speech that is likely to cause immediate harm to others. Because the court is the legal interpreter of the constitution, it's not neglect, it's judicial interpretation. The buck stops at the Supreme Court.

But the second amendment, the topic, STARTS with "A WELL REGULATED militia...", so clearly regulations limiting/regulating firearm ownership and use was exactly what they intended from the start....no?

Well, they aren't loud enough about it to be heard outside their insulated circle. Usually something like that would make national news and/or have commercials deriding it and protests against it sprout up any place it's an issue. That I haven't heard about it makes me believe it's as I described and not JUST about financial insolvency, but is about true mental incapacity. EDIT: If you have an instance where pure financial issues caused someone to have their firearms removed that you can point me to, I'll certainly read it.

Proper training would certainly eliminate people shooting themselves with an 'unloaded' gun, because proper training teaches you to consider ANY gun loaded at all times.

I eliminated the possibility of my kids getting hold of my guns by not having any. Problem solved! As long as my doors are locked (which they nearly always are), my firearms are under lock and key. ;-)