Obviously, I wish they went out in style in the comfort of their bedrooms... but anyway, yet another one (3rd so far?) this year.

Yet another location that apparently is "gun free" but the only one around with a gun is the mass murderer. I believe that if the facility (college campus, mall, hospital, ...) that bans firearms, making its patrons unable to defend themselves under the 2nd Amendment, should be subject to lawsuit for its failure to protect them.

I don't see why places that force their law-abiding patrons to go unarmed should get off without responsibility in the matter.

Secondly, it's obvious these losers are doing it for celebrity status. They can't get laid in real life, so they do something to end the misery and make a name for themselves (Clebold or whatever the Columbine kids were called.) I propose the media makes a rule that from now on, they're called something completely lame. Kinda like John Doe's are what we called unknown dead people...

And remember, if it saves just one life, it'll be worth it.

I wish the media would call them john does with no pictures. Would probably help a "bit".

I propose the media makes a rule that from now on, they're called something completely lame. Kinda like John Doe's are what we called unknown dead people... Probably a pipe dream, but I'd like to see it, too. "Complete failure in life in Omaha murders 7. The names of the victims are <...>. <pictures follow> In respect to those lost to the murderer, we will commemmorate their lives, and give neither name nor recognition to the loser who took them."

There's a major 2nd Amendment case before SCOTUS -- District of Columbia v. Heller -- that bears watching.

Wouldn't that be nice? In an ideal controlled scenerio I imagine everyone would prefer that. Kinda like how last night some asshat ran out on the football field and they made sure to not show him on television for the same reason. However last night only 1 network was there ... in the real world there are a few thousand media outlets and now one in three people have a camera phone. If the network news broadcasts didn't show it they'd be trumped by the cable outlets. If they didn't share the news one of the patrons in the mall would have their camera phone video on their blog. And if your job is to provide the news and people are breaking news on their blogs that you aren't ... you're soon out of a job.

Even lack of sharing a name isnLt enough though. You really need to not share the details at all publicly. Hearing about it is all that's needed to perpetuate the idea. I don't remember the names of the kids that shot up Columbine but I remember what they did.

The selfishness of the act is what bothers me the most. The killer felt like a burden on the parents he loved ... so he created the worst burden they could ever dream to face. He ruined their lives. If only kids could realize what a nightmare they are creating for their loved ones with these acts.

I can't forget the columbine shooter names... eric harris and dylan kleebold (sp)

I didn't remember their names either, just the incident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7135729.stm


- I mean, this is getting really weird. Don't you people even flinch anymore? How many people have to die in these mass shootings before you admit that painfully easy-access to firearms actually kills.

'I believe that if the facility (college campus, mall, hospital, ...) that bans firearms, making its patrons unable to defend themselves under the 2nd Amendment, should be subject to lawsuit for its failure to protect them. '

- That statement is fucking insane!! Do you realise that? Can you hear yourself? Yeah arm the entire mall or fucking campus and shootings will come tumbling down!

Honestly, it's getting really weird.

They made drugs completely illegal, yet look at our drug problem in this country. Criminals can get drugs, much like they would always be able to get guns.

Very true Ibudin.
Lets outlaw sharp knives, pointy sticks, and fists, next.....

What a bullshit argument. That's precisely the shit I mean.

You can't stuff an AK-47 up your arse. The drugs trade and prohibitions against it (aye, drugs are illegal and vast resources are applied in stopping it, although it at times seems fruitless - funny that, eh?) is a far more difficult problem than easy access to firearms.

You seriously cannot tell me that banning firearms and applying measures of strict enforcement against such would not result in a diminishment of teenagers weilding fucking kalashnikovs in schools and shopping centres???

Come on, I know you like your hunting Ibudin but don't be let in by such bullshit arguments.

Why do other countries not have mass shootings on a monthly basis?

Do you really, seriously, see no need for stricter firearm control?

its not the easy access so much as the lack of strict punishment. It should be the death penalty if you kill a bunch of people and then yourself in a mass shooting in a school or mall. that would solve it.

Haha :D

Halo, you're arguing that if you give more people firearms, they will be more likely to cause violence? That doesn't stand up to studies.

If you're arguing more restrictions on firearm access to everyone, then that doesn't stand up to real life either. Criminals are going to cause violence no matter what weapon they have access to .. all you manage to do is allow them the upperhand in any confrontation. Afterall, criminals don't much care for laws do they.

I guess his point is that you can potentially do "more" damage if you have a gun rather than a knife and go rampage.

Yes but these suicidal and depressed nut cases will be more apt to jump off cliffs (as they do here) than grab a sub-machine gun on the floor of any public street and shoot the place up.

It runs deeper than gun control, it's the culture that's endorsed. Restricting access to firearms will diminish said culture over time. It's a contributary factor. It's what happens with drugs, to take Ibudin's example. If they were freely endorsed they would be more widely used, but they are not, so they are not.

Or we could just use your example, and arm everyone and witness shoot-outs in the streets on a daily basis, as opposed to these massacres on a monthly one.

Either way, any retard could realise there's a peculiar gun culture in America that has endorsed so much violence, akin to a sub-saharan african country.

Or we could just use your example, and arm everyone and witness shoot-outs in the streets on a daily basis, as opposed to these massacres on a monthly one.

************************************************** ***********

It would probably take a very few of those shoot outs until they stopped but .... damn that would be interesting to test out!

I'll take the once frequent (we are a Large country with 300 million people) mass shooting over the alternative. Sorry I like my guns. I'll take my chances, we already have a shit load of gun laws..they need to be followed. Take away the guns from a country of 300 million strong..who the hell is going to take them away? The black helicopters?

As soon as you criminalize gun possession in the US, only criminals will have guns...

Are suicidal people criminals?

I believe there are places in the US where you are required by law to own a gun, and they have no shoot outs on the street like some wild west movie.

I mean, this is getting really weird. Don't you people even flinch anymore? How many people have to die in these mass shootings before you admit that painfully easy-access to firearms actually kills.

Look at all the gun owners who don't go on murderous rampages (myself included).

The bottom line, as mentioned before, is that there are so many guns in circulation that there is no chance in hell of getting rid of all of them.

There are more guns in the US than there are cars, and guns are far easier to conceal.

There are more guns in the US than there are cars, and guns are far easier to conceal.

Yes they are. One time I worked for a car dealership and this guy came in and tried to shoplift a GMC pickup truck by concealing it under his shirt, but we figured it out when we noticed one missing off of the showroom floor and saw the guy in the parking lot with a large lump in his shirt.

When the Colonies were founded, if you didn't have a firearm, you probably weren't going to last very long. Not because someone was going to shoot you, but it was an effective way to deal with the local wildlife and natives.

The right to bear arms is one of our founding principles, and to reverse it would take more than an act of Congress; it would probably take an act of God.

Considering how many firearms are in this country, I'm suprised you don't hear about more people being killed.
When you do, it tends to take up an inordinate amount of time in the news.

Face facts, if someone wants to kill people, and then themselves, they will find a way to do it.

Guns help facilitate it, but what's to stop these suicidal people from building a chemical device to kill themselves and everyone else around them?
Or stabbing several people before jumping off a building?
Taking a baseball bat and whacking people to death with it before stepping out in front of a bus?
Beating several people down with their fists, and then hanging themselves?

Farfetched? I'm sure the above has happened at least once, in history...

'When the Colonies were founded, if you didn't have a firearm, you probably weren't going to last very long. Not because someone was going to shoot you, but it was an effective way to deal with the local wildlife and natives.

The right to bear arms is one of our founding principles, and to reverse it would take more than an act of Congress; it would probably take an act of God.'

- That is, without a doubt, the most retarded argument thus far presented. Congrats.

Switzerland.

Pointing out the history of firearms in this country to a historian seemed like a smart thing to do.

Regardless, you ignore the rest of my statement, and several real life incidents of people with suicidal tendencies taking the lives of others, as well as themselves, without the use of firearms.

Why not outlaw beer? It's been shown in autopsies a lot of people that kill people and commit suicide drink vast quantities of alcohol before doing so.

Certainly stopping the sales of alcohol will stop people from drinking, won't it?

/Boggle

Esbat beat me to it: The cat is already out of the bag, and he's packin'. That, if nothing else, prompted my change from strong gun control advocate to a more moderate position.

Given that, I don't think you can easily conflate gun use by criminals and crazies as a single variable. Regular criminals actually care if they end up alive, and are therefore more likely to be wary of assaulting possible gun owners.

Also Switzerland isn't directly comparable to the US -- it's a very different culture, and there's no reason to think the US would respond in the same way as the Swiss to Swiss gun laws.

It'll be very interesting if SCOTUS rules in DC's favor in the upcoming case and, either way, what precedents they may set in terms of 2nd Amendment interpretation.

Switzerland is one of the most armed countries in the world, yet has among the lowest violence too. I agree that no two countries are directly comparable, but it just goes to show that the guns themselves really aren't the problem.

Switzerland is one of the most armed countries in the world, yet has among the lowest violence too. I agree that no two countries are directly comparable, but it just goes to show that the guns themselves really aren't the problem.

Switzerland has no rednecks...maybe that's why.

And by rednecks, you mean emo kids in trenchcoats?

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071206/capt.ba12daf725974eda9ac79ac7bc8c9f25.mall_shootin g_ny112.jpg?x=223&y=345&sig=BErafq1XxaMaO6DC2D9hKA--

Oh yeah, he's real redneck....

The Constitution doesn't say individuals have the right to own guns anywhere in it. It's a perpetuation of ignorance to keep saying that ... it says that members of militias have the right to have weapons.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It also doesn't say guns. Arms are any type of armament. Every American here is failing in their duty as a citizen by not being in a militia ready to overthrow the government if necessary with any type of weapon they choose ...so go get yourselfs a few biological weapons or some RPGs "for hunting" and be good citizens!

The line is drawn that personal nukes aren't ok, that gernade launchers aren't ok, that weilding siringes filled with HIV infected blood isn't ok ... so why automatic weapons? I can understand pistols and own a few rifles myself but an AK47 should't be lying around anyone's house in case their nephew gets fired from McDonalds.

Kelraz...repeat with me "SEMI-AUTOMATIC" .....know the fricken difference. All it means you pull the trigger release and pull the trigger again and a single round comes out. Automatic is the guns you see in the movies that are not in the hands of every day lunatics (The famous L.A. Bank robbers many years back were armed with Fully Automatic AK-47's). They are also already Illegal...imagine that you're not suppose to have them yet some people still get their hands on them.

The ban iirc was on producing the weapons and not owning them. Also, none of the "assault weapons" would actually be confiscated. If I am not mistaken the law was a 10 year ban, which was up in Sept 2004 and never reinstated.

"On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush were also halted. Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold.

The bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons:

Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
Colt AR-15;
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
Steyr AUG;
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.
The bill also bans "copies" or "duplicates" of any of those weapons. The failure to include a ban of these "copies" or "duplicates" would have opened the door for widespread evasion of the ban. Even so, some unscrupulous gun manufacturers have tried to evade the law by making minor changes to their assault weapons in order to skirt the restrictions.

The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:

Rifles

Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
Grenade launcher
Pistols

Magazine outside grip
Threaded muzzle
Barrel shroud
Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon
Shotguns

Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Detachable magazine capacity
Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds"

Believe it or not something that is SEMI is half. A semi truck is a truck, a semi cup of water sure would have water in it, and a semi automatic is half automatic and shoots far too fast for anything other than the military or putting down innocent civilians in a mall. The difference is irrelevant.

The AK47 from this story was believed to be legally owned. That shouldn't be possible.

You're right about the ban expiring, Ogan. However, there is a new bill in the works to reinstate the ban. The new bill would actually even be slightly more restrictive. Hopefully, that will make it through. Especially in light of recent events.

Kelraz, they aren't going to stop selling semi-automatic guns. That's silly. Adding that kind of slippery slope is a lot of what adds so much friction to getting anti-assault weapon legislation renewed.

I think most people can agree that no one really needs a straight up assault rifle for personal use. Then, people try to take another inch with overreaching statements like yours, and it divides everyone up. Why do you guys do that?

Because the other people are so bloody retarded.

AK-47 are legal to own much like an AR-15, SKS, ect... Or like my Remington 7600 Semi-Auto 30.06 which I could easily stick a 30+ round clip in it. I use that for hunting. Its a great gun and very accurate. Am I going to run out and waste a bunch of people with it? I don't think so.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rem_7400synthetic.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/AK-47_type_II_Part_DM-ST-89-01131.jpg/300px-AK-47_type_II_Part_DM-ST-89-01131.jpg

Both are Semi-Auto.

AK-47's and the SKS were commonly collected by gun enthusiasts, Kel, due to their use as primary weapons of our enemy in Viet Nam. The same collectibility was seen with German Lugers following WW II.

What has been illegal for almost as long as they have been made is the private ownership of fully automatic weapons, also called machine guns in some cases. AK-47's that were sold to private collectors had to be rendered semi-automatic only, meaning you could fire as rapidly as you could pull the trigger, but you had to pull the trigger once for each round. Automatic weps you pull and hold and the rounds continue to fire.

Back in 1973 I was able to purchase a Thompson .45 caliber "sub-machine gun" from a licensed gun dealer, only because it was not fully automatic. But by all appearances it was just like the guns used by Elliot Ness and his crew on "The Untouchables".

People are too hung up on the cosmetics, or appearances, of these weapons; what they are capable of should be the consideration.

'Its a great gun and very accurate. Am I going to run out and waste a bunch of people with it? I don't think so.'

- It's just those kind of arguments that are so retarded.

How so? I own a set of very, very nice and extremely sharp kitchen knives. I'm hardly about to go on a stabbing spree with them.

I own three guns. My great-grandfather's shotgun, which is more of an heirloom. The last time it was fired it knocked my sister over, so not really a fun piece to fire. I have my old .22 target rifle from when I was a kid. Too small for me, but I hope I can teach my kid to shoot with it some day. And my .22 pistol, another good target gun. If I ever get back into shooting I'd like to find another rifle, I used to have a 30.06 similar to that Remington a few pages back. No good clubs around here, and I just don't have the time to go out.

I've never used any of those as weapons, and if I wanted to kill someone I wouldn't need any of them. The issue isn't necessarily guns, so much as the culture we live in. That said, I'm still in favor of assault weapon bans.

Just to catch up in the thread here - as someone who's half redneck, I'm offended!

'Its a great gun and very accurate. Am I going to run out and waste a bunch of people with it? I don't think so.'

- It's just those kind of arguments that are so retarded.

Sure to you but then again the same can be said about banning guns in the US. Its a retarded argument.

And by rednecks, you mean emo kids in trenchcoats?

Only if they drive Ford f-150's and have southern accents and are missing at least one tooth in the top front of their mouths.


I own an M-4, M-16A1, M-16A4, AK-74, M-40A1, M-14, M-1911 45 ACP. All rifles are full auto with the exception of the M-40 (Bolt Action) and the M-14 which has a "key" to use full auto, I have the key though. I also have tracer rounds in 5.56mm and 7.62mm. All are perfectly legal to own with the right licenses.


I rarely take them out, have pulled out the 45 once when Squish woke me up at about 3 AM saying there is someone in our house, was a cat. I would truly hate to ever have to use one to protect myself and my family as no matter what the reason taking a life is extremely dis-heartening.

I have a .357, 9mm and a 22 rifle. Of the three I like shooting the .22 the most :)

very accurate and not very loud :)

I have a .357, 9mm and a 22 rifle. Of the three I like shooting the .22 the most :)

very accurate and not very loud :)

When I was a kid we had a range in our basement, my Dad and I would shoot this old mossberg .22 there. One day, I guess I was about 12 years old my parents were out and my brother and his friends were outside smoking weed instead of paying attention to what I was doing.

Anyhow I took the .22 and decided I wanted to shoot a hole through a penny but instead of doing it at a distance I taped it to the front of the wood front of the bullet trap and held the muzzle about an inch from the penny, pulled the trigger and felt this intense smack and sting right in the middle of my forehead. I thought the freakin' bullet had ricochet and hit me in the head, I was rolling on the floor in a total panic, like a retard was more worried about the trouble I would be in than worried about a possible gaping head wound.

So I got up the nerve to look at my hand that I was holding my head with and saw no blood. The penny had shot back and hit me in the head. Quick lesson learned!!! To every action there is an equal and opposite....

How so? I own a set of very, very nice and extremely sharp kitchen knives. I'm hardly about to go on a stabbing spree with them.

Probably not, but one as to wonder why people aren't hunting with pointy and sharpy knives, can't they kill as good?
Or maybe Sixee could tell us why hunters aren't using baseball bats, or even barehands to get their load of rabbit's meat.

Of course the mentality has alot to do, BUT the "effiency" of a gun against anything else that is as easily obtainable... Come on.

I agree, the effiency of firearms does make it the weapon of choice when it comes to any sort of killing, be it hunting or human.

The problem with banning firearms is you take the tools out of the hands of the people that could do the most good with it. Look at the security guard that was able to stop the shootings at the mega-church in Colorado. How would she have been able to stop him, if she wasn't similarly armed?

If your argument to that is, he wouldn't have killed anyone if he didn't have a gun, then I can't help you any further. He would have gotten a gun, because criminals don't follow the law. That's why they are criminals.

Even if he didn't have a gun, I'm sure he could have found a way to kill people. Perhaps barricading all the doors from the outside, dousing the building in gasoline, and lighting a match? Maybe we should ban selling gasoline? Or the sales of matches?

I hate to invoke the Nazis here, but 1 of the first things they did was disarm the populace.
Same thing with Communists. A disarmed populace is one that cannot fight back, efficiently.

Probably not, but one as to wonder why people aren't hunting with pointy and sharpy knives, can't they kill as good?
Or maybe Sixee could tell us why hunters aren't using baseball bats, or even barehands to get their load of rabbit's meat.

Of course the mentality has alot to do, BUT the "effiency" of a gun against anything else that is as easily obtainable... Come on.Right - Read Sixee's post, and I was responding more to the logic of Halo's post before mine. People stab others all the time, should we ban every knife over a certain length? People still poison each other, should we require a government license to buy chemicals at Home Depot?

Owning something dangerous does not result in using it as a weapon. You are disregarding the mentality of the individual behind the physical item.

Owning something dangerous does not result in using it as a weapon.
And loop is closed, I'm back to my argument from previous "guns' ban" post, some months (years? Damn I'm old) ago.

Unless you're McGuyver, weapons have very few uses, beside "hurting" others.

You can list every possible ways to kill/hurt people with everyday tools, or even barehands, and I can only agree with you, yep, these things are dangerous when used out of their primary function.
Yet again, a weapon is also dangerous because it's a weapon, and not only because you can use it "the bad way".

Now, my point isn't really that "weapons should be banned", but that weapons' access should be more difficult.
I'm not really talking about the "criminal" that wants to do a crime, and kill people. Because, like you said, a criminal will eventually do what he wants, and gets his hands on some weapons (even if I think that having a hard time getting a weapon "may" lead one criminal to do mistakes and get caught before committing his crime).
I'm more talking about our subject, some suicidal emo freak that doesn't want to leave alone. If picking a gun is MORE difficult than picking a knife in his kitchen, maybe our freak won't burden himself trying to find one, and try to go rampage with his pointy kitchen knife?

I think that's where trigger locks and proper storage should be the key issue, not legislation.

Heck, I thought most gun owners just left firearms out for kids to teethe on....
Nothing helps a bicuspid break the surface like a .45 longslide with a laser site.

Sanchek, the only problem with what you posted it that it requires personal responsibility.

Don't you know, that the Government knows what's best for you? All this individualistic behavior is bad for the groupthink.

And for those of you that are slow on the uptake, yes, that's sarcasm.....

And for those of you that are slow on the uptake, yes, that's sarcasm.....

And if you still don't get it. Read the below statement outloud!

I am sofa king re todd did

In a related story.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/kprc/14854134;_ylt=AqZHXRIuQmqzvhU42cKu3CwDW7oF

A homeowner shot and killed a suspected burglar in southwest Harris County early Friday, officials told KPRC Local 2.


Barone was home with his wife and two children. He said he heard a cracking sound coming from the back of the house. He went to check it out and saw the man entering his house though a window.

"I seen a chest, an upper body, come through the curtains so I fired three shots," Barone said.


Hopefully he won't be charged with doing anything wrong, by the District Attorney....

And in another story, two police officers were shot but not seriously wounded, due to body armor, when they were part of a kick in the door type raid on an Asian family's home. Problem is, they had the WRONG ADDRESS! The homeowner claims there was no identification made as police officers, and he was protecting his children from what he thought was local gangbangers.

The homeowner has not been charged with anything yet, and other officers did a great job of grabbing the children and protecting them from the gunfire.

This was a local thing in the Twin Cities here. I don't have a news item to link, but if someone really feels energetic maybe they can dig something up.
Would have been in today's or yesterday's paper (Mpls Star & Tribune or St Paul Pioneer press).

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/12/minn-man-shoots.html


I read about it this morning.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new for SWAT teams lately. There's a case down south where the home owner killed an intruding officer and he's currently serving time for homicide. Likewise, they no-knocked on the wrong door.

While I understand the desire to get into certain homes quickly in order to preserve evidence of wrongdoing, it just seems that SWAT teams busting into the wrong house is an error that should be easy to prevent.

They always could have lobbed in tear gas. That stuff has a way of making people not want to fight.
Or they could have announced themselves, VIA bull horn.
I know its important to get evidence, but not at the cost of lives.
Regardless, the police that do no knocks should be prepared to be shot at. The fact that it doesn't happen more often, is suprising to me.

Bumpity.

Good deal (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330730,00.html) he managed to get his hands on 2 handguns and one shotgun, who knows how many more would have died if he built a mustard bomb!

The shooting was the fourth at a U.S. school within a week.
Isn't there a problem, somewhere?

I'm sure it's time to blame 3d Shooters and Marilyn Manson again.

The problem is, there wasn't someone who was equally armed to take him down, sooner.

The problem is, there wasn't someone who was equally armed to take him down, sooner.

hahahahahahaha, you HAVE to be trolling.

hahahahahahaha, you HAVE to be trolling.

Funny thing is I actually agree with Sixee :)

They need to start a class in college that is taught by these people:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF-4QkBj3l8&feature=bz301

Shhh, Jedd, Wiggo doesn't know what it's like to have to defend himself...
The toughest people in his country are these guys:

http://www.geocities.com/lobo3315a/Tid.JPG

yes, im afraid my country isnt as heavily populated with gun crazed retards like yourself sixee.

Funny part is, I don't even own a firearm, Wiggo. Better luck next time, there.

My roommate, does however, and I know where it is, and how to shoot it.
I'd be loathed to actually use it. I believe in the sanctity of human life, but if I were forced to have to stop someone from harming us, I'd do it, without remorse. Aim center mass, and pull the trigger till you run out of ammo.

The rigamarole you have to go through to purchase a firearm in this day and age isn't worth it to me to get it, but I believe in the right of responsible citizens to own and use one.

The problem is, there wasn't someone who was equally armed to take him down, sooner.
Yep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Anyone who thinks laws are going to restrict the actions of those who are breaking the law... Well, I'm not sure how to even debate the point against that sort fundamentally illogical thought.

yes, lets just get rid of all 'dem laws, yeehaaw!

FYI, there are already laws against killing people. You'll also note that all of these high profile school shootings are at schools that prohibit firearms on campus already.

Yeah, that's working great.

yes, lets just get rid of all 'dem laws, yeehaaw!

Wiggo, that has to be the most retarded thing you have ever posted....

Congrats!

BTW, have you ever figured out how making something illegal to law abiding citizens stops criminals that break the laws anyways?

I vote to blame the Gert Jonnys this time instead of Marilyn Manson.

FYI, there are already laws against killing people. You'll also note that all of these high profile school shootings are at schools that prohibit firearms on campus already.

Yeah, that's working great.

but wouldnt that be the fault of said school not actually enforcing their rules? how would school shootings diminish if everyone had a gun? wtf?

Last year here in Utah we had a terrible shooting. Kid armed himself and chose a artsy craft kinda area to open up. Only thing that lowered the death toll was an off duty cop and his armed wife. Wife actually put a round in the suspect as did her husband. Both are hero's tho some jackass lawyer toyed around with filing a lawsuit for the perp's family.

Point is 3 miles down the road is a massive outdoor enthusiasts outlet with tons more folks.

He knew he wouldn't get a high death count there because most of them were likely to be armed ;)

Responsible folks carrying prevent crimes...

Like it or not Halo it's fact....btw the kid obtained the weapons illegally *they busted the guy who sold to him*.

Yea that’s crazy thinking...I am a gun supporter but I don't "think" anything good of all kids in school having guns would have done anything. The shooting sucks, it gets harder and harder to defend my love for guns when things like this happen, but your also one naive sob if you think outlawing guns in a country the size of the US with a population of 300+ million is going to work. It’s not practical. I just accept the country/world I live in, and that’s that. I don't worry any more or any less than 20 years ago. Laws are already in place with every aspect of owning guns, yet perfectly normal people do horrific things to perfectly normal people.

I think someone hit the nail on the head by saying best first step would to make these turds anon.

Eliminate their Bonnie and Clyde self love and you begin unhinge their motivation.

i never said outlawing guns is a good idea, but a tighter control on gun sales wouldnt hurt law abiding citizens, would it?

Btw, I see absolutely no reason for Semi or Automatic weapons to be in the hands of the general populace.

Could make a case for special licenses being allowed for former military or such I guess.

I don't currently own a gun atm, tho I do own a gun safe ready to receive my future prize!!

Glock 27!!! Yes I know small but who wants to have a lump sticking out the side of their chest ;P

i never said outlawing guns is a good idea, but a tighter control on gun sales wouldnt hurt law abiding citizens, would it?

How would you make it "tighter" than it all ready is?

I'm a law abiding citizen, and I think the laws in place to own a firearm are all ready too restrictive....

What would you do? Require DNA samples? Background checks? Credit history?

Like it or not Halo it's fact....btw the kid obtained the weapons illegally *they busted the guy who sold to him*.

Who just so happened to be the guy that armed the Virginia Tech shooter...

Criminals arming criminals.....think the seller followed the laws we already have in place before he sold to them?

As far as tighter restrictions on gun purchases, there already is technically a 7 day waiting period for hand guns. Former felons can't purchase a gun (legally that is). Etc., etc., etc. All the restrictions in place are well and good, and I would have no problem them even being more tightly restricted.

That said, it won't slow down the criminal at all, as they already are getting them illegally anyhow. I have 2 guns in my house, but no ammo for either. One is an old muzzleloader I got from my grandfather when he died, and the other is a 410 shotgun he gave me when I was probably about 8-9 years old. I've only shot the gun once, shortly after he got it for me.

I wouldn't be opposed to possessing a handgun in theory, but I would never put that risk in my house with my small child. My wife already hates the two guns I DO have, but without ammo, and the fact I got them from my grandfather, there's not much she can say about it. My child has never seen them though. The only experience she has with guns is watching me play Hellgate London, and I make sure every time she happens to see me play it to tell her that I'm shooting pretend bad guys (still though, I cringe if she walks in the room and sees me playing a violent game). She watches me play guitar hero all the time, and I have np with her watching that.

What would you do? Require DNA samples? Background checks? Credit history?No DNA sample, but I did have to get finger-printed, criminal background check, and credit history for my carry permit. Additionally, I had to go to a training course, and then had to show proficiency in shooting my firearm.

All of which I had to pay for myself. Except for the fees, I was ok with all of it.

From what I know, most of the criminal obtained firearms are obtained through gun retailers not following the laws they are supposed to. I'm sure there's tons of issues of bribery and that sort of thing. Those are the people that need to be watched more closely. I think the government cares more about the sale of cigarettes to underaged kids.

That being said though, they are both invalid arguments in my opinion. Tighter gun control laws aren't going to keep criminals from getting weapons as long as weapon dealers keep breaking the laws to get them to the criminals.

Additionally so, arming everyone isn't going to do anything but make things worse. The second everyone has a firearm, you are putting the judgement in every individuals hands. Can you honestly say that you trust the judgement of everyone in the United States? I know I can't say that.

There's bound to be enough accidental casualties alone from filling those institutions with firearms across the country, that would counter-balance the act of one retard that goes on a rampage. Especially in already violent places, like the inner cities across the nation. Imagine a scenario where some kid starts firing off malicious shots in a school lunch room. Do you think 100 kids blasting off bullets at him from all directions is going to reduce the amount of damage done, because they feel it's their civil duty? You're going to end up with just as many casualties from stray bullets alone; and that's if everyone is acting perfectly as moral citizens and doing the right thing.

Just because a bunch of adult mmo nerds own guns and don't use them maliciously, doesn't mean nobody else will when they get pushed. You're talking about arming students.

If action is going to be taken, it needs to be done by policing the gun suppliers. Even if you amend the rules and make it more difficult to obtain a gun, if the retailers aren't doing anything differently, there's no point.

Edit: Spellcheck!

As far as tighter restrictions on gun purchases, there already is technically a 7 day waiting period for hand guns. Former felons can't purchase a gun (legally that is). Etc., etc., etc. All the restrictions in place are well and good, and I would have no problem them even being more tightly restricted.

That said, it won't slow down the criminal at all, as they already are getting them illegally anyhow. I have 2 guns in my house, but no ammo for either. One is an old muzzleloader I got from my grandfather when he died, and the other is a 410 shotgun he gave me when I was probably about 8-9 years old. I've only shot the gun once, shortly after he got it for me.




There was something on TV or in the news a while back about the disproportionate number of guns used in crimes in New York that had been purchased legally in Virginia. It is the high-volume dealers that need to be watched more carefully, rather than coming up with more restrictions for the buyers. The buyer already has to jump through hoops for a legal purchase.

Personally, I would rather see less guns available, but it is way too late for that.

As for the conceal carry permits, those are a joke in some places. There is a former coworker of mine who only recently retired, who was convicted of a gross misdeameanor for chasing and threatening a teenager in the neighborhood with his gun, when drunk. This was about ten years back. Because he successfully completed his court determined sentence of work release confinement and then probation, the conviction was removed from his record or something, because he now has a conceal carry permit issued in the past year.

As for the conceal carry permits, those are a joke in some places. There is a former coworker of mine who only recently retired, who was convicted of a gross misdeameanor for chasing and threatening a teenager in the neighborhood with his gun, when drunk. This was about ten years back. Because he successfully completed his court determined sentence of work release confinement and then probation, the conviction was removed from his record or something, because he now has a conceal carry permit issued in the past year.

Awesome ...

Yeah, "awesome" knowing a guy who spends his time either at the bar or at home drinking is now carrying a pistol as well as car keys. The sheriff will be doing some serious backpedaling on that one come next election time; or, he may just not run again.

That being said though, they are both invalid arguments in my opinion. Tighter gun control laws aren't going to keep criminals from getting weapons as long as weapon dealers keep breaking the laws to get them to the criminals.


This doesn't even count all of the firearms already in circulation. Once they're in the hands of a private individual, there is no telling where they could wind up. As others have noted, the cat is already out of the bag on this one.

Those pesky private individuals...

Anyway, why is the sheriff taking the hit for giving the guy with no apparent record (because a judge removed it) a firearm permit? Seems to be something the judge should be accounted for, if indeed it's necessary.

But 100 years ago EVERYONE owned a gun. Sure, they weren't semi-automatic weapons, but they were as common as televisions today. Even if we made guns illegal and got rid of 99% of the guns (which is a feat nearly impossible I'd imagine) ... there'd still be shootings, maybe just not as common. I don't have any good ideas on this one, but what changed from then to now?

But 100 years ago EVERYONE owned a gun. Sure, they weren't semi-automatic weapons, but they were as common as televisions today. Even if we made guns illegal and got rid of 99% of the guns (which is a feat nearly impossible I'd imagine) ... there'd still be shootings, maybe just not as common. I don't have any good ideas on this one, but what changed from then to now?

Nothing changed from then to now, except the ability to deliver news across great distances.

Guy goes berzerk in Illinois and within one minute everyone from NYC to LA knows about it.

Also, think about this....back in the days of prohibition drive by shootings were a common occurence.

Even if we made guns illegal and got rid of 99% of the guns (which is a feat nearly impossible I'd imagine) ... there'd still be shootings, maybe just not as common.I believe that's exactly the point - there would be fewer shootings.

While the slogan of, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," sounds a little stupid anymore, there is some truth behind it. We are failing to address the issues that spark these events. Shooting deterrrents don't have to include arming every student - which is a really, really bad idea - but can also include taking more serious steps to combat the source of problems. The lack of real attention paid to gangs, for example - in the 90's this was a top media issue, now you hardly hear about it. Yet gangs and gang related activity haven't decreased.

But 100 years ago EVERYONE owned a gun. Sure, they weren't semi-automatic weapons, but they were as common as televisions today. Even if we made guns illegal and got rid of 99% of the guns (which is a feat nearly impossible I'd imagine) ... there'd still be shootings, maybe just not as common. I don't have any good ideas on this one, but what changed from then to now?

The population is also different than 100 years ago. There's more of us around.
There was also a sense of common decency back then. Families were mostly intact, children were taught right from wrong.
People went to church more often, and yes, news was a litttle slower.

Perhaps there is an inherent flaw in humans that was once a rare deviation, that with today's exploded numbers, seems "more common".

Either that, or the news agencies are just reporting on it more often.
"If it bleeds, it leads." to quote a famous axiom of broadcast journalism.

There was also a sense of common decency back then. Families were mostly intact, children were taught right from wrong.I'm not sure what "common decency" means, but I'm not sure it was more prevalent in the past than in the present (at least on a per capita basis). Also, the intactness of families was due in large part to strong social pressure against divorce and the lack of opportunities of women in the marketplace. You might contrast this to the level of social disapproval of, say, wife beating then and now. I'm not sure how you've determined that children were "taught right from wrong" in the past but aren't now -- sounds more like from-the-pulpit rhetoric than anything substantive.

Ahhh don't know that I'd jump on your soapbox against the church so quickly Thor.

Divorce rates were lower which led to two parents raising the child as opposed to the growing rate of single parents *I'm one, raising a 16 year old boy and admiting I'm not doing it well solo*.

Extended families were more prevelant (something Europe enjoys and is nice imho) so a bigger support system for all involved.

There are plenty of studies that directly tie broken homes leading to violence.

I'll beat that drum again, making these thugs TV number 1 is a part of the problem....

These two links perfectly describe what "Common Decency" is.

Enjoy!

http://www.sothethingis.com/10%20Common%20Decency.htm

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/16/31143/6747

These two links perfectly describe what "Common Decency" is.Alright, and you're measuring this how comparing past and present? Or are you, as I suspect, just operating on a gut feeling?

Ahhh don't know that I'd jump on your soapbox against the church so quickly Thor.My comment wasn't against the church but reflected the cliche` origin of the Sixee's commentary. I could have written "from-the-grandparents" or something, too, but statements like "kids aren't taught right-from-wrong anymore" is typical of pulpit speech or the kind of thing you'd read at Townhall.com. It wasn't directed against religious figures.

While children growing up in one-parent homes do face additional hurdles, that doesn't go against my point that "intactness" of homes in the past was due to certain factors that are no longer in play.

I'll beat that drum again, making these thugs TV number 1 is a part of the problem....
Definitely. The media's handling of these things is absolutely criminal.

"Criminal" is going a bit far, but I'd definitely go with irresponsible or reprehensible. The media in general needs to look itself in the mirror. But I'm not sure what a difference it would make if the big media outlets stopped naming names. The names would get out anyway, as local persons dissemminated the information and the internet took hold. But if such a measure removed the nefarious "celebrity status" that many hypothesize is a reason for these crimes, and that contributed to a reduction in crime, it'd be worthwhile.

Either way, I'd like to their names stricken from the record. The focus should be on those lives cut short.

/agree don't give them their 15 mins of fame...

I'm sure the people running the media know what the Werther effect is and the implications it has for their sensationalist coverage of these things. Lending social proof to these things, in the face of that knowledge, certainly should be criminal.

Removing names might help some, but sensationalizing the actual event is still going to plant the seeds of social proof in copycats.

Well, I can attest that I was raised by a single parent, but I know what "Common Decency" is.
I have my Grandfather and my Uncle to thank for that, so an extended family can help when there is a single parent situation...

I open and hold doors for ladies, and people with thier arms full. I say, "Excuse me." when passing someone in the grocery store. I offer rides to people caught out in the rain (espically if she is cute).

I can't count on 1 hand, how many times I've been afforded these once common courtesies. Having someone say "EXCUSE ME!" when I am "in their way" doesn't count.

Thor, you are right, men tend not to beat women to keep them in relationships nowdays, and that's a good thing. Most women know, if a man hits you, you leave him. They have more opportunities in the marketplace, and that's another good thing.

Where it becomes a bad thing is when a woman decides to buy into the societal pressure of "not needing a man". While that attitude is fine, it isn't when you have children. While she might not "need a man" her child(ren) do, and are the ones that suffer when they don't have a male role model in their lives.

Without that influence, they turn to the only things that make sense to them: what they see on TV/Movies/Video games and their peers, and pattern themselves after what is there.

Add in a mother that is too tired trying to be a corprate lawyer and you have a recepie for disaster in the above stories.

If you have another rationalization, I'd love to hear it.

Where it becomes a bad thing is when a woman decides to buy into the societal pressure of "not needing a man". While that attitude is fine, it isn't when you have children. While she might not "need a man" her child(ren) do, and are the ones that suffer when they don't have a male role model in their lives.


some proof for this ridiculous claim, please.

Wiggo, Read here.

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR6-4/wellswilbon.html

I'll be waiting for your apology, with abated breath.....

The primary question is how you compare implementation of "common decency" now to 100 years ago in order to support your claim. It's a complex question, since there's decency on a personal level (holding doors open for burdened people) and decency on a cultural level (common decency as applied across race and gender in that period).

Secondary questions could include whether there really exists a "societal pressure of 'not needing a man,'" how much a two parent home overrides the habit of children looking at "TV/Movies/Video games and their peers," and how difficult it is for a corporate lawyer mother to effectively raise her child.* All of these are included in the differences between now and a century ago, too.

I'm not sure the primary question is really answerable in any empirical manner given all the factors involved. People regularly long for the days of old, overlaying upon those days qualities that didn't really exist, or were accompanied by qualities abhorrent to our current views of society.

*Could also add why you "can't count on 1 hand" -- the perils of single parenting I guess. ;)

skimmed that study, and it would seem that those kids needs parent that dont suck, and not male rolemodels.

skimmed that study, and it would seem that those kids needs parent that dont suck, and not male rolemodels.

Talk about a retarded answer....

Who do you think kids typically use as role models?

And before you answer, why do you think they use the latest actor/sports hero/rap star/drug dealer?

If their parents didn't suck, they wouldn't be using these people as role models, except in the instances of what not to do.

The study seems to show that having positive individuals around assisting in the 5th grade classroom leads to positive views of those individuals and the program they're involved with. This is not very surprising, but it's nice to see Albert Bandura's legacy continuing onward.

The conductor of the study seems aware of its flaws, and they should be noted, especially the potential for Hawthorne effect and whether the project has long-term benefits.
If their parents didn't suck, they wouldn't be using these people as role models, except in the instances of what not to do.No, this is dumb. Children are not limited in their selection of role models. Mother, father, peers, teachers, celebrities, Bugs Bunny -- all can influence a child. Parents are in large part a (hopefully) accessible lens focusing on the good and blurring the bad of the world. As usual, it's far more complex than Sixee can manage.

Should also note Sixee's complete focus on women being at fault for broken families and male role models being the solution in the preceding posts. Men also initiate divorce -- amazing but true. Also, they sometimes pass away, such as during wartime.

Thor, you are right, men tend not to beat women to keep them in relationships nowdays, and that's a good thing. Most women know, if a man hits you, you leave him.

Yep, all a woman's fault. She shoulda just shut up and put up with it.....
:rolleyes:

http://www.bullz-eye.com/stalter/2007/0824.htm

Apparently I'm not the only one that thinks the same way....

'Male Role Model' doesn't have to mean 'father' or 'husband'; it can be anyone who is a healthy, functioning member of society capable of providing a positive example of what one can *be* as a male adult. Indeed, I can state at least from my own experience that my sister and I would have been a hell of a lot less screwed up if our emotionally abusive father had been out of the picture, and our English professor uncle allowed to interact with us instead.

There's no question that young men *and* women need examples of healthy men in their lives (girls need examples of risk taking and boundary setting behavior too, which they get less often from their mothers) but to suggest that all our social problems would be solved if every child grew up in one of those *fabulous* two parent households is, frankly, a bunch of crap. My single parent grandmother raised a male Rhodes scholar (and caring father of 3) and a successful businesswoman; her skilled and caring parenting along with her church community, the Boy and Girl Scouts, and various extracurricular activities somehow managed just fine. The two parent household I grew up in, where my parents stayed married 'for the sake of the children' (and out of sheer co-dependency), was, by contrast, a crucible of misery that certainly did not contribute to either of us becoming functioning members of society, and I find recent efforts to tie such things as welfare to getting or staying married, frankly, reprehensible.

Regards,
Nydia

As I previously stated, I had an Uncle and a Grandfather that both influenced me as male role models, when my father decided not to be part of my life.
It doesn't matter even if they are family members, although I would say it helps to a degree.
Nydia put it spot on, however. It doesn't matter who it really is, as long as they interact with the kids, and give them positive reenforcement.

As I previously stated, I had an Uncle and a Grandfather that both influenced me as male role models, when my father decided not to be part of my life.
It doesn't matter even if they are family members, although I would say it helps to a degree.
Nydia put it spot on, however. It doesn't matter who it really is, as long as they interact with the kids, and give them positive reenforcement.

lolz, I'll be waiting for your apology, with abated breath.....

How about we see more news stories about Heroes like our police officers and firemen, and less of the sick kids killing innocent people in classrooms.

The divorce discussion is interesting, but I personally also had parents who got divorced when I was young, and never considered a rapper or a drug dealer as a role model. The problem is not how many parents a child has, it is the quality of the parent or parents they have.

I don't know about other people, but I grew up with no real role model. However one strong influence on me was my belief in God. My mother taught me when I was young that God is always watching, and that one must be a good person in his/her life to always be in good favor with God.

It was a helpful tool growing up to always ask yourself "What would God think of this decision of mine?"

With the right parent(s), and a faith to no religion but belief in God, I'd say I am a pretty good person. I would say though that the impact of my mother's teachings and influence was stronger then even that of God's

How about we see more news stories about Heroes like our police officers

I'll put on my tinfoil hat for this one:

Police (http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=49094c36-ec83-4306-954a-eca063c62693) Are Not Your Friends (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=12907)

Salience of negativity. We do get stories of heroes, but they don't stand out as much as the stories of villains our minds or in the news cycle.

I'll put on my tinfoil hat for this one:

Police (http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=49094c36-ec83-4306-954a-eca063c62693) Are Not Your Friends (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=12907)

Meh, overall I put my faith in the police. They may have some bad apples, but they put their lives on the line daily the moment they put that uniform on, and I respect that. Fire Fighters as well, Maybe if they got as much positive coverage as they get negative coverage, they would serve as a better role model then gangster rap artists.

From Esbat's police link ... Hiding police conduct reports? Whoever proposed that legislation needs a serious public scrutiny.

Heh, Chris Buttars is quite possibly the most retarded state-level politician in the US. Maybe even nationally. This is but the latest in a long line of insanity from that guy.

Once again, an example of politicians screwing things up....
We should treat firefighters, police, ambulance workers, soldiers and teachers as heros.
They do the jobs that no one wants to do, and with the exception of a few bad apples, do it well.

Make the idiots that go on shooting rampages, anonymous. Call them John/Jane Doe and strip them of all identifying characteristics. Make them non-humans in the eyes of everyone, and the glorification will drop to a minimum.

The real problems aren't individual but systemic. The systemic problem with the police is its increasing militarization over the last several years -- in part developing from the "war on drugs" meme.

Doesn't change to the systemic start with the individual?

It used to be that the police in a neighborhood knew most, if not all, of the people in the area where they worked. They were better able to know the ins and outs of personal relationships, neighborhood dynamics and other such things since they were involved in the community.

It is now uncommon to have beat cops (or even police in cruisers) patrolling the same area for years on end. Over the past few years, I've read a few stories of mentally troubled or retarded people being killed/beaten/whatever by police who had no idea they were dealing with someone who wasn't operating on the same level as everyone else.

Before I moved away from New York, there was an initiative to get beat cops back on the street to try and recapture some of the dynamic that comes with that sort of involvement in the community.

Listen... You treat cops like they have a right to talk to you, and like they are the ones with the gun, and you end up walking out of the situation just fine.

The problem is usually people that run their mouths to the one bad apple they got unlucky in getting, and screw themselves. If people just learned that you don't run your mouth with the cops there wouldn't be near as much issues with the police.

Jedd, you should probably check out Radley Balko's site (http://www.theagitator.com/) for more of what we're talking about. He covers this angle quite thoroughly.

Listen... You treat cops like they have a right to talk to you, and like they are the ones with the gun, and you end up walking out of the situation just fine.

The problem is usually people that run their mouths to the one bad apple they got unlucky in getting, and screw themselves. If people just learned that you don't run your mouth with the cops there wouldn't be near as much issues with the police.

uh, isnt it a bad sign of the state of law enforcement if you have to assume the police are going to shoot you if you 'run your mouth' to them?

also, http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1203391347/Cop_Fired_After_a_Suspect_Ends_Up_in_a_Pool_of_Blo od, weeeeee

uh, isnt it a bad sign of the state of law enforcement if you have to assume the police are going to shoot you if you 'run your mouth' to them?

also, http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1203391347/Cop_Fired_After_a_Suspect_Ends_Up_in_a_Pool_of_Blo od, weeeeee

You don't assume they are going to shoot you... You realize that they have to put up with a lot of bullshit in their line of work, and one less asshole running his mouth helps them keep their sanity.

Run your mouth off to a Milwaukee police officer and you have punishment rain down on you. Simply, don't do it.

Sorry, we should be able to expect a higher level of conduct from an officer of the law. If the officer can't handle some dumbass ridiculing him or he has too big of an ego to handle someone dis'ing him, he should find another job.

I want a humble, cool headed police officer behind that firearm.

Some times what you want and what you get is two differen't things. Some of our inner city police forces are at breaking points with all the crap they deal with. Its not a pretty situation.

Here was one that happened in Milwaukee a couple years ago. Most of the officers got what they deserved...many years behind bars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Jude%2C_Jr.

I'm with Akipt on this one. If these guys can't handle the stress of their jobs, they need not to be propped up with a badge and gun (taser?), like time bombs waiting to go off.

I'm with Akipt on this one. If these guys can't handle the stress of their jobs, they need not to be propped up with a badge and gun (taser?), like time bombs waiting to go off.

Most cases though it is the job that causes the end result you don't want to see. Being a Police officer is not an easy job, you take shit daily, you risk your life every day, and the average person wants to spit in your face.

Most cases though it is the job that causes the end result you don't want to see. Being a Police officer is not an easy job, you take shit daily, you risk your life every day, and the average person wants to spit in your face.
I'm not sure how that makes it okay.

Would it be defensible for me to start banning people who don't prostrate themselves to me just right, simply due to the frustrations of running the site?

I'm not sure how that makes it okay.

Would it be defensible for me to start banning people who don't prostrate themselves to me just right, simply due to the frustrations of running the site?

If we called you assholes, sent you death threats, and were randomly throwing viruses your way, then heck yea.

Officers should be cool-headed, slow fuse types.
Having said that, when you have to deal with the General Public, you quickly become convinced that they are all idiots.

I worked in retail for 6 years, and I've seen every kind of behavior from extremely polite, to 1/2 step up from a caveman....
And that was in a shopping environment!

Police generally get to see people in the worst of situations; just after a car accident, just after a robbery, just after a fight.
It's got to wear on you. That's why when I looked into the salaries of police officers, I was amazed to find they barely make $30,000/year on average.

It's a low paying job, with no fringes, other than getting the opportunity to "do the right thing", in helping out.

That's why whenever I get pulled over by the popo, I stay calm, answer with "Yes, officer." or "No, officer." They just don't need the grief.

Most cases though it is the job that causes the end result you don't want to see. Being a Police officer is not an easy job, you take shit daily, you risk your life every day, and the average person wants to spit in your face.I don't know if the "average person" wants to spit into a police officer's face, but I do know that corruption and violations of rights are inexcusable regardless of how stressful the job is.

There is no way to excuse the treatment the police forces dishes out at times. Its like anything, you have some bad apples and some good.

How this turned into a discusion on police is beyond me.

I suspect it should be the "average person they have to chase, tackle, tazer, and arrest" that want to spit in their faces.