Slippery slope fallacy.
"If we allow gays to marry, what's next? Can I marry my dog?"

No-one is talking about banning guns. I wouldn't support that myself. I have friends who are hunters and target shooters.

But be reasonable; you can have a gun for target shooting or hunting or even "home defence" (if you're really that paranoid), but you don't need an AR-15 or anything with a high capacity magazine and it's not unreasonable to make sure that people who own guns aren't complete nutjobs.

NZ is in the top 15% of gun ownership rates per capita (22 guns per 100 people), but our average annual firearm homicide rate for the last 30 years or so is ~0.2 deaths per 100k people.

Compare that to the USA. The US tops the chart of gun ownership with 112 guns per 100 people. So the gun ownership rate is 5 times that of NZ, but the average annual firearm homicide rate is 4 deaths per 100k people. That's 20 times the number of murders. Even if you allow for the higher gun ownership rate, you're still 4 times worse than NZ.

And the difference is simple: we have sensible gun ownership laws.

I saw a great post the other day.
"The conservative mind:
Abortions? BAN THEM!
Gay Marriage? BAN IT!
Marijuana? BAN IT!
Guns? eh, banning things never works"

But hey, you're gonna need those guns for when Donary Trumpton ushers in a tyrannical dictatorship. Good luck with that; let me know how you get on with an AR-15 versus a predator drone.

Really? That broke his collar bone?! It seemed like he barely connected, but if he won in court, I'm sure there was medical evidence.
How much did the jury award him? I hope a lot. Not for the kick, but for ramming him when he clearly only noticed the cop at the light, and then he immediately put his blinker on and even gave an "oh crap" head hang right before he stops and gets rammed.
I wonder if the cop even had his lights and siren on before then, since there's no sound we cant tell. He certainly wasn't up close enough to be heard on a loud motorcycle until the end, nor was he making his presence known before then.
Even if the bike wasn't stopping, he wasn't endangering anyone, so there was no reason to hit him, possibly seriously injuring or killing him, in the first place. Speeding is not a capital offence. Intentional vehicular homicide should be, even if you wear blue pants with a racing stripe.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x10bfo9_total-recall-homicidal-johnny-cab_fun

If you break it down to just intentional homicide per 100,000 population, it averages out to 3.8 deaths for the US and 1 for the UK based on recent stats.

Some other countries for comparison:

Russia - 9.0
Jamaica - 39.3
India - 3.5
Canada - 1.4 (Probably died from starvation apologizing to one another)
China - 0.8 (Of course, this is just what they admit happening)
Norway - 2.2

Lol. No agenda.

I'm not American, so I have little exposure to American politics (only news snippets). I have an interest in it though, and take notes where I can.

I asked because there are hardly any politicians (or people in general) that won't support the rights they like and deny the ones they don't. And America's constitution is such a strong document, it's hard not to trip up on things like free speech, firearms, non-interference from the government, etc.

It is possible to enact sensible gun control without banning assault weapons. Look to New Zealand for perfectly sensible gun laws that allow assault weapons. They have a lower homicide rate, and lower homicide by firearm rate than Australia.

I just looked up his policies (google neatly summarised it for me - thank you google god). He's got some things that I think are great. Universal health care is the best.

I don't know about the rest of you, but a herniated dick sounds like a permissible homicide validation...

I always dislike the lazy position that uninformed, 'natural' reactions are free from ethical scrutiny, while considered, planned decisions have to be assessed on the level of 'premeditated homicide'. Getting into a non-automated vehicle, or accelerating to potentially lethal (but legal) speeds, or even setting speed limits that experience shows will kill a few people every year and convenience millions, are all just as premeditated actions as the programmer trying to think of scenarios and algorithms to minimize damage. Automated vehicles don't bring anything really new to the 'acceptable risk morality' game, they just shine a different light on it.

Criminal are shooting citizens every day. You only get bent when the criminal is as you say is a cop.

To use Chicago as an example:

In Chicago a person is shot every 3 hours and murdered every 17 hours. Where is the outrage? National news coverage? CNN, MSNBC, FOX? Where is Al Sharpton, Obama, Rahm Emanuel.

2015 Year To Date
Shot & Killed: 377
Shot & Wounded: 2136
Total Shot: 2513
Total Homicides: 426

If political leaders cared this would stop.

So I state again . No one cares unless it has a political spin.

http://heyjackass.com/category/2015-chicago-crime-murder-stats/

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.

Yes, I do see that...and they should have been tagged snuff when they were posted...I'm rather surprised they weren't.
I do, however, feel that the sudden interest in finding and removing all the snuff videos is not truly about fairness or bettering the sift (I wish I did think that) but rather I feel it's about sour grapes, and getting back at the admin that ruled against him. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but it certainly looks that way from my viewpoint.

I did think the argument was a red herring and had nothing to do with THAT video being snuff or not...just because some videos didn't get properly tagged doesn't mean the tag should not be used when it's appropriate.

Yes, I was quite offended. The title gave no hint that I was about to watch a double homicide, and I'm really not looking to watch that kind of thing. My estimation of humanity is bad enough already. Because he said in his description that he didn't think it was snuff, and it clearly fit every point of the definition, I had to ask what he meant...and since he had just tricked me into watching a murder, I didn't ask nicely.

I also see less of what I'm looking for, and have noticed the reduced traffic, but I still love the sift as a place to find better (not always great) videos with rules and a community that makes it a place I can spend time...unlike youtube or reddit, etc. which are just rooms full of angry pre-teen girls it seems.

Love you too, cock fag, but the wife said we can only make out if she gets to film it....that goes for him too.

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.

Is that a question or a statement (it's worded as a statement, but has a question mark at the end)?

Yes I already knew that. And...? It's no different than Australia in that particular respect. It's an aspect that I would fully expect Americans to rightfully not adopt.

Adding to above NZ allows semi-auto longarms and high capacity magazines for all firearms (basically what Australia has banned from owning), not all firearms need to be registered (unlike Australia), and they have longer licensing periods and yet they have a significantly lower firearms homicide rate and homicide rate overall. America using the NZ model as a template would be a better starting point. I wrote "template" in my previous post, perhaps "model" or "rough guide" would have been better. I don't mean copy it verbatim. I mean use it as a starting point as at least potentially workable.

Are you a citizen of NZ or Aus and are you a firearms owner in NZ or Aus?

He talks so much sense my head hurts.

In my home country (Australia) we have some pretty good statistics on firearms (and knives, and just about everything actually). Yet they are routinely ignored in favour of the simple solution - to blindly further restrict law abiding citizen's access to firearms. It makes the government look as though they are tackling firearm crime (which in Australia is almost never committed by a licensed firearm owner) even though it has no appreciable effect on firearm crime.

This is happening again right now. After the Lindt place siege last year they held a lot of enquiries. The one on firearms concluded that no further restrictions needed to be made (the gunman had an illegal firearm as those who commit firearm crime almost always do, in this case a pump action shotgun) and that licensing and registration should be made easier. The first thing the government did? Put an import ban on perfectly legal lever action shotguns with magazine capacities of more than 5 rounds, calling them a "dangerous new technology". Firearms owners are expecting (from a historical trend) further restrictions at the National Firearms Agreement review next year.

Once a right is given away it rarely comes back, no matter how badly you want it. So I hope America chooses its path carefully. If I moved there I'd want the right to own firearms and to use them to defend myself (the first of which in Australia has nonsense restrictions, and the second of which is almost totally illegal . Word has it that self defence in the home by firearms will shortly be made totally illegal and if your firearms are stolen you may be charged with crimes committed by those firearms).

If you want to look at what the data says you also have to extend it everywhere (my preferred scenario). And in regards to others aspects of people's lives, I think people won't like the numbers and so will simply ignore the numbers.

Or you get people in America saying "hey look Australia solved its firearms problems by restricting them" - using it as a quasi-statistic. Except:
1. We never had a big firearms problem to start with.
2. We had a linearly diminishing rate of firearms deaths starting well before the restrictions that didn't change with the restrictions.
3. The majority of studies looking at the topic say the restrictions didn't work.

Australia is very similar to New Zealand in every way (and really are hardly like the US), and NZ allow access to all almost all the firearms we banned and yet they have a lower homicide rate by firearm, and a lower homicide rate overall. Basically if America wants a model that arguably works as a template, look at NZ. But probably more important than that, I'd be fixing America's health system, mental health system, and poverty rates first. I bet an analysis will show many incredible flow on effects in American society as a result of doing that.

Here we go with generalizations again.

Let's completely forget the Air Traffic Controller comparison because it's just plain stupid.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States




Secondly, you've confirmed that cops can and will lie whenever they need to.

The number of "justifiable homicides" is skewed because cops will lie and plant evidence.
e.g. Walter Scott video shows the cop planting his tazer.

(well at least three cops- your buddy, you and slager)

We'll never truly know how many cases like this are covered-up.

So we'll never know how many victims truly "had it coming".



Thirdly, there's a complete difference between a "slip & catch error"..

And "accidentally" choking Eric Garner to death..

Or "accidentally" severing Freddie Grey's spine..

Or "accidentally" shooting Akai Gurley to death in a darkened stairwell that you were NEVER supposed to be in the fucking first place..


Those were NOT "mistakes", they were pure negligence and incompetence.. Full Stop.


Those "occasions" weren't few and far between.. they're monthly, weekly, if not DAILY occurrences.


If you don't like when society labels all LEOs as Bad Cops..

Stop making generalization, Lantern.

Because if anyone on here said:

"the vast major of police & soldiers who get killed had it coming"

You would flip your shit.




Seriously, I'm trying to be civil with you now.

But you keep saying crazy insensitive sociopathic shit.

Then why do cops get off scot-free whenever they murder and unarmed innocent person?


You know full well cops, lawyers and Judge work closely together, are sometimes friends, and will lie, misremember, or "not recall" shit to cover one another.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rarely-criminally-charged-for-on-duty-shootings-1416874955

" New research by a Bowling Green State University criminologist shows that 41 officers in the U.S. were charged with either murder or manslaughter in connection with on-duty shootings over a seven-year period ending in 2011. Over that same period, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported 2,718 justified homicides by law enforcement, an incomplete count, according to experts. "

"The think tank’s researchers tracked allegations of misconduct involving nearly 11,000 police officers in the U.S. from April 2009 through December 2010. They found that 3,238 of those cases resulted in criminal charges, and 1,063—or 33% of those charged criminally—resulted in convictions. In felony cases against the general public in 2009 in the country’s 75 largest counties, 66% were convicted, according to the Justice Department’s research arm, the Bureau of Justice Statistics. "

So as a cop, you're unlikely to get charges brought against you.

If you do, you're only half as likely to get convicted.

Cops are scumbags.
They might not start they way, but they definitely all become that way.

And if you don't get corrupted; the rest'll harass you, stick you with filing paperwork, take your cruiser.

You're like a child Lantern.
You're naive as Hank Hill, I tell yuh h'what.

Like you can't understand that Power Corrupts. Cops have Power.
Therefore many cops become corrupted.

"What are you talking about Genji, no one would just go on the internet.. and LIE like that."

"What do you MEAN there's no toothfairy Genji?! Where did all my children baby teeth go then?!"