Here's the thing: if average citizens didn't have guns, I'd be right pissed if the cops carried them.

I can't speak for the whole of whatever the fuck you think "liberals" encompasses, but here's my take on guns & cops: the constitution allows for guns within well-regulated militias. It was just worded really, really poorly. I mean, read 2A - it's practically authentic frontier gibberish. But the words "well-regulated militia" are definitely in there. And it makes sense - they were trying to secure a bold new type of governance. They needed to be able to defend that, and there was no immediate plan for a standing army. So local, reasonably well-supplied militias, which weren't a bunch of bumblefucks shooting at whatever whenever, were a pretty real need. Where we're at *now* with guns is so fucking far from what the founders could've possibly conceived, that to think they'd approve of it is absurd. I mean, maybe a few of them (they were quite the diverse bunch of white male landowners, in all sincerity), but those with solid military experience likely would've been horrified.

Having said that, it's fantasy-land nonsense to think the prospect of completely eliminating recreational guns in the US in the near term is viable. Hunting armaments will (and perhaps should) remain common for a long while, so be it. I see handguns and non-hunting long arms (or those that are excessive for it) as of significant negative value to society, they can all fuck right off into a metal recycling center or the armory of a well-regulated militia. Perhaps keep some at firing ranges for recreational target practice, with competent professional supervision, and with reasonable regulations in place.

Cops should have firearms in their armory, up until such time as we're living in a Star Trek-like utopia of blissful peace. Humans are largely cool, but some of us are dangerous fucksticks. Have cops pull guns for calls that seem like they'll be needed, and rely on less-lethal options as much as possible. Oh, and stop using the less-lethal options as fucking compliance-obtaining shortcuts. Don't fucking tase or use chemical spray when it isn't needed, they're not for the cops' convenience but to avoid more severe harms from occurring. Officer Friendly should be the order of the day, and any substantial deviation from that should be met with termination and arrest, with consequences no less severe than a non-police citizen would see. No more bad apples, no spoiled bunch.

Hey, thanks for the rant opportunity! Us liberals need to practice our high horsing from time to time. And just like God, we all love you. You specifically, you goddamn sexy hater.

For these to be called even less lethal, the entire system must be used, including MANDITORY safety gear including at a minimum Kevlar helmets, face shields, groin shields, and a neck protector. If the victim doesn't have each piece of the mandatory gear, these rounds can cause permanent injury and death.

Directly from the manufacturer of simunition.

In order to reduce the risk of injury during these highly dynamic scenarios, Simunition® has developed a full line of protective equipment for both men and women. This equipment is an integral part of the FX® training system.
The FX® line of protective equipment consists of three MANDATORY protective items: the helmet or the facemask for use with Kevlar helmets, the neck protector and the groin protector. The arm protectors, vest, gloves, pants and sleeves are optional. FX® protective equipment, which is Simunition® tested and approved, is comfortable, breathable and lightweight, allowing the user to move freely and naturally.

Another *doublepromote to keep it front and center, police in gangs fully armored with military backing are using live rounds (yes, they are) on unarmed unshielded citizens who are committing no crime peacefully stationary on their own porches. Might as well have been bullets, at that range with no protection these rounds can kill easily. Attempted murder charges for every cop there.
I can't wait until someone shoots a cop in the eye with one and it dies. Suddenly they won't be calling them non lethal ammunition that's safe.

I wonder what the heck it was? Paintball? More like...chalkball?
Their idea of a non-lethal (less lethal?) round?

I sort of doubt they have any authorization for that...

Good video. But...

"The speed of an assault weapon is substantially higher than the speed of a handgun".

No. The velocity of the projectile from a centerfire rifle is generally much higher than that of a centerfire pistol. It does not matter if the rifle is semi-automatic or not. The velocity of the projectile from a rimfire rifle is also generally much higher than that of a centerfire pistol. But rimfire rifles have very low projectile weights and deliver substantially less energy, have substantially less momentum, have generally smaller projectile diameters, and hence are much less lethal than centerfire pistols.

Some projectiles are designed to tumble. Most projectiles for disrupting flesh are designed to flatten out (and not fragment).

It's not giving up the gun that might save lives, it's giving up the right to own them.
His gun probably wouldn't ever kill someone.
The right of any non restricted person to buy one is what leads to murderers having this tool often used to commit mass murder.
Would that stop all mass murders? Absolutely not, but it would stop SOME...probably most. Other methods people use are harder to assemble without being caught (bombs), are far less lethal (knives, arrows), and/or are harder to procure (tasteless poisons or gas). There's no other legal tool available to the public capable of mass murders with so little effort.

And yes, @BSR, this guy just made a sawed off AR15. He better post the video of him cutting it in half again if he doesn't want a visit from ATF. That gun almost certainly still fires, it's just incredibly more dangerous to the user now, and highly illegal. Not sure what you're saying in your snarky post, he didn't ever say a word otherwise.

I was certain this had been speeded up the first time I watched it, but after a couple more views I think it's the jolting that makes it looks impossibly fast. If you watch but only focus on the upper part and on the scenery it merely looks stupidly, dangerously fast.

As for the trail... yeah, not for me. I could see the appeal if the course was much less lethal and the goal wasn't speed, but hey, each to their own. Does seem like a lot of work to build for the dozen or so people who can survive it though.

I have an idea...what if we ask police to make the first bullet in their clip a rubber bullet, making them ready to use less lethal force yet still be 100% ready with deadly force if it doesn't do the job without changing any other behavior. That alone might stop most officer involved killings.

Obviously not, I would prefer people didn't kill each other. Failing that, I wish things were more balanced overall. You seem to believe it's either 10 to 1 or 1 to 10. How about 1 to 1 like the rest of us?
Crime is down across the board, but that disgusting ratio continues to climb...meaning the less crime there is, the more violently police are reacting to it. You can argue about why, I'm just saying those statistics are telling and terrible, on all levels.

Police work daily with the DA, and are rarely prosecuted even when there is video that's clear and complete, while private citizens don't get the same treatment by far. You know this well.

Nothing I said would give suspected criminals (innocent until proven guilty, remember) the upper hand in any way. Reasonably TRYING less lethal methods is not walking into a hail of gunfire to try a billy club.
I would prefer that police put safety first, and not just their own safety, and certainly not police control over a citizens safety. I would prefer that police would go back to trying to de-escalate situations instead of trying to gain full control at all cost. I would really prefer that police caught acting badly were not supported and defended by other cops (sound familiar?), and were prosecuted by special prosecutors more often and more harshly than normal citizens. Since it's their job to uphold the law and the peace it's up to them to be better than 'normal' citizens, breaking the law as a lawman is doubly bad and should be punished as such.

But I'm sure you'll misread this, ridiculously misstate some of it, and make up a new straw man to argue about, and I'm already sorry I fell off the wagon and engaged again. Bad newt.

The cop has been cleared of all criminal charges, sending the message that if you're threatening to commit suicide, the cops will be glad to oblige and try to kill you and suffer no consequence for (attempted) homicide whatsoever.
Also sending the message that running down a human being at full throttle is an acceptable police tactic against a suspect that's already surrounded rather than trying ANY less lethal method.

New video shows that the man was holding the gun to his own chin, and newly released information shows that he didn't use the gun to commit crimes, he stole the gun at Walmart right before the video and only fired it into the air once (perhaps to unload it? More likely to prove it's loaded.).

It's getting really old, Mr. Po-po, and turnabout's considered fair play. You might think about that, and the fact that 10% of Americans are armed and have severe impulse control issues.

Well, that's good, but firing your gun is not it's only use. I meant how many times did you brandish/aim your gun at a 'suspect' when lesser 'force' would have sufficed? (and how many times did you use it as a club?)

LOL!
Yes, the fact that it won't 'hurt' you is the point, it's only needed to slow you down enough to be controlled. I would think it would work for that purpose FAR better than brandishing a gun, especially since, if it must be used, no one need die with pepper spray, and there's usually backup on that rare occasion that it doesn't do the job (agreed, not always, but usually). It makes sense that less lethal force should be the first thing tried, not an after thought (or not used at all). Cops are paid and trained to face that danger, not to pawn the danger off on the 'suspect' (which often turns out to be an innocent citizen wrongly suspected and feared).

I think the phrase "less lethal" flew right over this guys head.

I've railed against taser usage many times here. They're less lethal, not non-lethal.

again...still zero sympathy for the obviously antagonistic douchebag. He very quickly demonstrated that he wasn't going to be reasonable, claiming to be battered and claiming his rights were being violated and being needlessly obstructive when being asked simple questions.

Did you see the sign above the door? it was over a traffic violation. Fucking moron wasting the court's time because he feels his righteousness was slighted. Fuck him and I'm glad they put him down.

I'm sick of pricks like him with out of control egos. I'm honestly delighted that he experienced pain that maybe approaches how much he is a pain to others.

What I learned from this video:

1) People in Uk are more violent than in US
2) US have more metropolitan areas
3) Metropolitan Areas a dangerous
4) Media is biased

--> 1 Holly Crap, didn't know that. I'm so glad that there gun possession law are so strict, otherwise... Is it actually possible to be less violent than somebody else and still have worse homicide ratio?
Homicide Worldwide
--> 2 True
--> 3 If this is the case, what should we do to safe our children from psychopaths. Moving to small places; massacre never happened there. Maybe gun possession restrictions. Sounds nice, more wrestling less gunfights and so less lethal injuries. NO, just joking. I need my AK to kill wild boar ruining my lawn. We are fucked!

so..im trying to play devil's advocate here.

Let's say the woman was a complete ass and completely disrespectful to the cop and let's even say she was talking on her cell phone so that there was actually a law broken. Let's say she did everything negative except actually being violent or being a threat.

and let's even say that the taser is completely 100 percent safe.

when is it ok to use non-lethal force on someone who is resisting and being antagonistic but yet not being violent and is completely NOT a threat.

If I was a police officer and I had to choose between getting physical/baton/fists/etc and just pressing a button on a compliance device, I'd want to just press a button too. Anyone would I suspect. How long do you attempt to reason with someone before saying, ok we're just spinning our wheels here and accomplishing nothing...time to take you in whether you like it or not.

My problem with the actual situation is that yeah, the taser is not non-lethal, it is LESS-lethal, big difference. so even if the woman was talking on her phone and thus committed a crime, I'd have a problem with using a taser on someone, risking their lives over something like that. ESPECIALLY since the woman posed absolutely zero threat.

And then you have the kids, even if you arrested her without incident, you still got two kids sitting there crying and scared as fuck. In the best situation the dad would go pick them up, but even that would take a ton of time and you still have the car sitting there. At worst, you've got no one to pick the kids up and you have to have another officer (a stranger to the kids) watch over them until the situation is resolved. Even in the best situation, the cops seem ill equipped to deal with that sort of situation.

There's got to be a better way to arrest people for smaller crimes like that instead of pulling them over and dragging them out of the car I can't stand people who talk on phones either and would agree there needs to be punishment for that as it is a risk to other drivers, but I REALLY don't want a situation like this either. Seems it would be safer for the cop too.

give me some robot cars damnit, remotely shut them down or divert them to the police station while locking the vehicle so they can't just jump out and a video screen notifying them of the infraction and communication with the cops so they can make arrangements for kids or other odd situations.

something that forces them to comply, but without endangering anyone needlessly.

I believe the term should be "less-lethal" as non-lethal would imply that you cannot be killed by them, which is not true.