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.

This video is a bit misleading. Very few kids here in Japan travel completely alone to school unless they live in very rural areas (and even then, they probably go with older siblings). As you see later in the clip, most kids go to school together with friends in small groups, at a minimum a pair but sometimes in huge groups. In my neighborhood, at around 8:45 in the morning, you can see virtually the entire local elementary school walking together towards the public school. They might not be under direct adult supervision, but they are rarely alone and there is always an adult nearby because people are usually commuting to work on the same roads/trains that the kids are using to get to school.

And like they said, the reason this can happen is that violent crimes against children such as kidnapping are almost non-existent here. Adults are far more likely to end up missing/dead here. Contrast that with Western countries like the U.S. or Australia and it quickly becomes apparent why people are escorting or bussing their kids to school in those countries.

I will say that there is a negative side to the "independence" they are touting in this video, which is that these same children often run completely free after school with zero adult supervision. Some of them can get a little wild (throwing rocks at passing cars and stuff or making way too much noise in a crowded residential area) but the cultural attitude here is that it's just "kids being kids," although I sometimes suspect that's code for "we don't want to actually have to parent our kids unless someone forces us to."

Closer to the truth would be to assume this (or some other physical abuse) happens at least 3-5 times a day in every major metropolitan area, not once per day in all the US. 9 out of 10 aren't caught on camera...and 9 out of 10 of those that are caught on camera are erased by the perpetrators themselves (the cops). It's only when a private citizen records them and doesn't get arrested themselves (and have the recording destroyed) that we see these videos , and that's multiple times a day (yes, we've seen exactly that happen repeatedly, destruction of video, often recorded by another, unseen citizen that comes to light after the cops lie about the incident.).

When a group commits violent crimes every single day without fail, and those in the group who are not being violent stand behind those that are, then this IS the norm, not an outlier. Sorry.

No, doing your job doesn't erase evil violent acts....neither does committing a 'good' act. If it worked that way, we wouldn't need jails, because nearly 100% of criminals have also done good things in their life, if that erased their crime there would be no need for cops at all. EDIT: Even doing 'good' 10 times as much as you do 'evil' makes you evil, not good, in my eyes. 100 good deeds do not erase one evil deed.

This is not the actions of a few, it's the actions of many, perhaps even the actions of the majority of officers, with the backing of ALL other officers and the force itself. That makes them ALL complicit, with the exception of the tiny, statistically insignificant few that actually report their fellow officers...and they get driven off the force by the majority of other officers that won't stand for 'snitching' by harassing, stalking, threatening, attacking, and not backing them up when they're in danger doing their job.

If ANY other group of people did the kinds of crimes cops have been caught on tape doing just this year alone, we would outlaw that group, seize their assets with RICO, and put most of them in jail. When cops do it, at best they usually get a paid vacation and a pat on the back.

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.

Nope, not over reaching in the least. He attacked while armed, that's brandishing/menacing, and assault with a deadly weapon, he ran at her, said something to her while he did it, then touched her, that's assault and battery, he stole her phone, that's grand theft (phones are expensive) smashed it, that's destruction of private property, kicked it at her, that's battery with an object, and he did it all to hide evidence of his actions, that's felony destruction of evidence.

Yes, if I attack you on public property while armed, smack the phone out of your hand, stomp it, then kick it at you while I'm at work, I should be fired AND prosecuted...while you just say "no"? Please explain your logic (or complete lack thereof).

Wow. You really lack the capacity to understand the point of smashing the phone was to stop her from having evidence of their actions? Please explain, who's going to make him pay for a phone or reprimand him when it's a citizen's word against the lies of all (3) officers there? If there wasn't this second video, they, you, and lantern would still be claiming this didn't happen and is just a lefty making up BS to attack good cops...in fact even with the video you and lantern seem to be trying to say that.

It IS a pattern. You've got 3 officers involved here, and not one good one stopping or reporting them. In fact, in all of these daily (or more often) abusive cop videos you almost always see other officers standing by while their fellow officers commit violent crimes, but you NEVER see one of those by standing officers do their job and STOP the abusive cop....NEVER.
That makes it a probable profession-pervasive pattern.

I am not 'calling' it anything. By legal definition some of his crimes are considered violent crimes and he would have been charged/will be charged as such when he appears before a court.

Robbing a store with a finger in your pocket is the same as robbing it with a gun or piece of metal per the eyes of the law.

Setting fire to an OCCUPIED structure is a violent crime. Committing Arson even on an empty structure can be considered a violent crime depending on who could be hurt if the fire spreads or explosions occur from the contents of the building.

Burglary (also called breaking and entering and sometimes housebreaking) is a crime, the essence of which is illegal entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. Trespassing is typically entering a section of land that has been marked.

Motor vehicle theft (sometimes referred to as grand theft auto by the media and police departments in the US) is the criminal act of stealing or attempting to steal a car. This can happen in many ways, but they all fall under this description.

As far as the gun theft, still falls under the definition of burglary. He stole a weapon and tussled with the store employees to escape. I personally would call it a violent crime, but I don't know for sure if it legally is considered one or if it would be relegated more to shoplifting.

Yeah, I am taking the word of the police that he pointed the gun at them. Maybe I shouldn't because out of the thousands of arrests and incidents that happen daily across the country, we have a few videos that show spurious methods used by a few officers. I mean, I get that right now the public trust in officers is at an all time low for good reason, but given the sheer number of things that this guy already did that day, I have to assume that they might not be lying in this case.

As far as the officer, like I said, maybe he overreacted. But I would rather we risk the death of a clearly severely mentally ill person than read about the 11 year old he shot because he was crazy and had a gun.

In the end, you have the right to see and feel about the incident any way you see fit. You don't have to agree with a single thing I say. But I posted what I posted because I felt that just the video alone is not a clear picture of what was going on in this situation. I merely shared some of the facts that were printed by a major media outlet so that people could have the additional information to make up their minds about the video.

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.

Sorry, the guy had been involved in violent crimes, was armed with a high powered rifle, fired the rifle in the air, pointed it at police, and one of the officers took a chance in taking him down before he hurt himself or others.

People don't understand that they could have simply shot him as soon as he pointed the gun at a cop, with just cause. The fact that the guy lived, and will most likely use this to sue the city and make out like a bandit, is pretty much a win win for him. His lawyer is just blowing it up to make more bank in the lawsuit.

Copy pasta of salient facts, remember, these are in addition to shooting the rifle and pointing it at a cop.

At 6:45 a.m., Valencia robbed a 7-Eleven in Tucson with a metal object in his hand. Authorities said he was dressed only in his underwear. He was charged with theft.

A little more than an hour later, police said, Valencia set a fire at a church for which he was charged with arson of an occupied structure.

Just after that he entered a home and stole a car, police said.

Authorities said he drove to a Walmart where he stole a .30-30 rifle and ammunition. He fled the store with Walmart employees in pursuit.

I think what's happening is that the cops see this stupid criminal behavior day in and day out, they risk their lives, and the lives of innocent people are risked, and nothing really happens to the criminal. I mean, he goes to court, or skips court, or gets a fine, or gets sentenced, then goes to jail perhaps, for a week, or a month, and it's not really punishment. It's 3 squares a day, and basketball, so the cops feel like, hey, let's tune this bastard up a bit, maybe next time he'll think twice before doing something stupid.

Now, I'm just speculating, but I bet there's a good chance this is what happens. For instance, a few weeks ago I got into a vehicle pursuit of a woman who was passing bad checks halfway across the country, we chased her for a good 10 miles at pretty high speeds. She finally gave up, she goes to jail, it's a non-violent crime so the judge gives her a court date and lets her go. This fucking broad was homeless. We'll never see her again. And all those innocent people on the interstate, and the cops chasing her, took chances on physical injury trying to bring her to justice. We brought her to justice but the court just opened the door for her.

You're making the assumption that angry dad has a point to make, and isn't just being angry dad, and that Kevin Smith doesn't have a child in the back seat himself, and that Smith was really driving badly/dangerously.
Dude driving like an asshole? Maybe. We didn't see that happen, and I'm hesitant to take the word of a raving violent asshole.
Dad's driving like an asshole by abandoning his car and child in traffic to scream, then assault someone else, definitely a giant throbbing asshole.
When someone jumps out of their car in traffic and approaches yours, filming them is totally appropriate, and being slightly amused is not abnormal. When someone assaults you by smashing your window into your face, having them arrested and their child removed by CPS is appropriate.

To me this incident is 100% angry dad being the dangerous criminal here. Even if the filmer was driving poorly, the reaction was ridiculously criminal and ACTUAL child abuse (committing a violent crime while driving/abandoning your child is certainly abusive).
Maybe I better get my pipe hitting, blow torch n' pliers using brothers to snatch and teach him a lesson? ;-)

What makes me mad is that Brown committed strong-arm robbery but was labeled a shoplifter. What pissed me off is that he was portrayed as an angel and he was the kind of guy that would kill you for a dollar, or rape your sister. What pisses me off is that a group of biased witnesses even matter. What pisses me off is that Brown's parents are not fit to mourn and created this situation far more than the cops did. And what pisses me off is that Garner died for a non-violent crime.

@enoch

I'm not arguing that American laws are entirely reasonable. I'm simply arguing that, given America's significantly higher violent crime rates, American prisons have a much higher percentage of violent criminals than Norway's prisons. These criminals would love Norway's prisons and would be perfectly fine living in them.

The U.S. and Norway are very different countries with very different cultures, economic situations and crime rates. What works for Norway won't necessarily work for the U.S. One statistic I'd love to know is the recidivism rate for non-violent criminals in the U.S. I imagine it's significantly lower than the recidivism rate for violent criminals.

'You are here because of your actions, don't blame the corrections dept, or the cops, or the judge...'
He intentionally ignores the fact that the corrections dept is the largest lobbying group in Washington and lobbies for more draconian laws and mandatory sentences because that's how they make money. No inmates, no dough.

'You gave up your rights by committing murder....committing rape....'
He intentionally ignores the fact that most convicts are in prison for non-violent drug crimes, not murder, not rape, not violent crime at all.

'This is prison utopia...for the inmates.'
He seems too dense and set in his 'us VS them' mentality to see that it's prison utopia for the guards too, and society in the long run because this prison doesn't create violent criminals, it creates well adjusted citizens.

Imagine that, treating inmates like human beings, because we want them to act like human beings when they're released. And big surprise, it works! Not only less recidivism, but less problems while they're in the system as well.
Thanks to privatization and profitization of prisons and lobbying by prison guard unions, and a mindset by so many that all 'criminals' are sub-humans that don't deserve proper treatment, we'll never see this in the USA.

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.

Actually it was rhetorical, I knew where I was going to start, I was not asking you in a real way or expecting you to answer...that's what rhetorical means.
Because the video was limited to American schools and systems does not mean the comments will be, we have a diverse bunch of sifters from all over the globe that might want to comment, and might not stick to America as the only place that counts. It is logical to ASSUME you might have meant only American schools, but some of us don't assume we know another's meaning and just go with what you wrote. If you wanted to limit your comment to American schools, you could easily have written exactly that. There's not a character limit on posts!
Or, perhaps Bareboards2 knows some Americans that would be insulted by your painting them as lowest common denominators at their basest. I would be one. I admitted those you describe exist, and may even be a majority, but Americans are not homogenous by far, and there are many that do exactly what you claimed they don't.
It's not hard to CARE, it's hard to retain, it's hard to focus, it's hard to attend at times, it's hard to come up with supplies, it's not hard at all to CARE about education, and I've never met a person of lesser means that didn't wish they could get more education. Saying they don't care is insulting, saying they don't achieve (as well as rich counterparts) is fact, sad tragic fact.
Yes, I agree, we need to help the poor a LOT more, their plight is getting worse daily while those not in need are the only ones succeeding.
I'm right there with you on free higher education, for the betterment of the nation AND it's citizens. College grads are far less likely to commit violent crimes or otherwise be drains on society, so are a boon for all.
It sounds like you may be confusing a lack of time, money, ability, and energy with a lack of caring, or perhaps not. As I said, those you describe do exist, in large numbers, they are simply not the ONLY variety of American student.
What?!? If this woman is in class working and paying for a degree while trying to raise 3 kids, one disabled, it sure sounds to me like she CARES about education, and that she's not lacking in educational pursuance or lack of drive, she's possibly failing for lack of energy and time would be my guess, or maybe from lack of educational preparation, or innate ability. If she didn't care, she shouldn't be spending money and time being in class working for a degree that no longer guarantees more money, she should be in welding class, or making bank cleaning up the school. There's nothing wrong with that, I've done both. People who only want to get more money and don't care about knowledge should go that route, they'll have a much better chance of success and not be in crippling debt for a chance they'll use their diploma for financial gain.
WTF?!? When they stopped the abuse, did you care then? The poor have tribulations, but are not constantly working to the bone unable to even contemplate a better future because they're outrageously accosted by life every second of the day. Be real. When there's time to think, many people of all social strata think how they would like to lean something new. You obviously cared enough to be in classes now even with this abuse you speak of, just like I did when and after all those things happened to me (but with only one brother. For me it was actually incentive to learn more and be 'better' than my brother whenever possible, in order to have a better life, I know I'm a freak though ), so what's your point? The poor don't think about furthering their education 100% of the waking day because they're too busy being poor, so they don't care about it at all? That's just silly. I think many if not most don't think about it much because they've determined there's no reasonable opportunity for them to achieve it, so why dwell on what you can't have. It' s not an issue of not careing.
I think we should help them have the opportunity to gain higher education and ability to make use of that opportunity because we know most of them DO CARE about education, but could certainly use help to achieve it. Those that don't care (I again admit they exist, but not only among the poor) should be helped to care, because it's important for them and us to have everyone educated.
Jon Stewart was generalizing, not making a statement about each and every American. I only take issue with the broad brush strokes painting all Americans in the same ugly color, I think we're a quite varied and interesting group, and I don't resemble your generalization in the least...and I'm American. I did admit that I think many, if not most Americans do fit your description, but you seem to still take exception to that viewpoint.