/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

Steelpoint wrote:Increase in violence? Did I not just point out that people being murdered were going down or did I mistype?

If I look at the average gun deaths for the two time periods (1988 - 1999 versus 2000 - 2012) you can noticed quite a big difference in the average amount of people dying to guns every year. From 2000 to 2012 a average of 36 people die while from 1988 to 1999 a average of 79 people died every year.

Very big difference, not to mention that overall murder has been going down since the 1999 spike.

Are you thick as a brick mate? Look at the rest of the violent crimes, jesus man i have a table right there for you. Also why are you looking at 1988 to 1999? The gun ban was in '96 so really you want to look at '96 - 2012 for the average deaths before and after gun control, also i know gun deaths was going down but my entire point was that it was ALREADY going down.

Also mate, gun deaths DOES NOT EQUAL MURDER, come on. Back then we were allowed to defend ourselves properly now we can't even hold a gun. You want to explain to me how murder was so high in 1999, years after the gun ban and how assault and kidnapping spiked so high too?

You do realise violent crime doesn't mean JUST homicide, it means everything i posted in the graph above. You cannot sit here and tell me my nation is safer mate, it isn't. We did not need to go from one extreme of having completely uncheck gun ownership to banning it all and not letting us defend ourselves. The shooter at Port Arthur was a legal retard, he should have never been able to get those guns mate but he did due to your dodgy/non-existant laws. Sensible law needs to be put in place, not this crap that has let us be the prey of Bikeys and druggos.

EDIT:

Another thing is that you pointed out people were dying to guns more in the 80s to 90s than in the 90s to 2000s and yeah thats true but that doesn't mean there is less murder and other violent crime thanks to the gun control. Homicide was already going down from the late 80s onward, gun control did not affect this mate, the only thing that could have lowered crime is the police force itself. Firearm ownership and murder have no correlation with each other in this instance.

TL;DR homicide (not just gun homicide) rates going down even before the gun ban.

You can still have a gun in Australia. I have even talked to people who have guns.

Sure there is some quality control in issuing a gun license, mainly focused around what is a "genuine reason" to own a firearm but one of those reasons could be collecting firearms. So Alexander DeFoe could still waste all his money on pistols in Australia (provided he joined a collectors club).

Non homicidal gun deaths aren't a great thing, even if you are pro euthanasia it is a potentially slapdash method of killing yourself. Yes people have screwed up shooting themselves. Then there is plain accidents involving unsecured articles.

I remember my dad giving up his dinky rifle. He only ever used it for trying to shoot grasshoppers in the front yard, not a great loss.

Aye I own many guns but they can't be owned for self defence.

Self defence isn't a great reason, guns are a risky to have around. Especially if improperly stored.

Incomptinence wrote:Self defence isn't a great reason, guns are a risky to have around. Especially if improperly stored.

I'm not sure which propaganda institution nailed that into your head but every man has the right to defend himself, none of this equal force bullshit, that's not how defending one self works. Conceal carry should be a right to every sane and non-criminal human being. I have lived my entire life with a firearm in the house and nothing has happened, guns are not risky to have around unless you lack common sense or there are children in the area.

Yeah nothing has happened, including self defence.

Isn't that basically anthropic principle sorta stuff though? I mean you don't see people posting about having accidentally killing themselves with their own gun for downright obvious reasons.

Incomptinence wrote:Yeah nothing has happened, including self defence.

Are you sure?

If you have a story you would like to share go ahead.

Incomptinence wrote:If you have a story you would like to share go ahead.

I'm glad you asked mate, now do you want dog in the fridge story, graveyard trick story, bikey punch up story, shotgun through the window story. I got a bunch

EDIT: Or do you want my first trip to America story

All of them, with preference to dog in the fridge.

holdin' off for retell value cunts

Yeah people try to get our of paying anything, friend of my nan is probably gonna be homeless soon because a builder who knew he was going into receivership took the money with him on the way down and did jack.

Well if you didn't kill the dog that all sounds fine, not sure how your guns were involved though.

Nah few of those stories involve me guns I just like tellin' stories

Ah okay then.

Snake2512 wrote:

Incomptinence wrote:If you have a story you would like to share go ahead.

EDIT: Or do you want my first trip to America story

This one. It's very important.

Aren't police officers trained to deal with this sort of shit?
If an unarmed guy is charging you surely you are taught how to take him down non-lethally.

Maccus wrote:

Snake2512 wrote:

Incomptinence wrote:If you have a story you would like to share go ahead.

EDIT: Or do you want my first trip to America story

This one. It's very important.

is that the one with the toilets

>i've never heard the trip to america
wot the fahkin fak u cuhnt

ChrisTheThird wrote:Aren't police officers trained to deal with this sort of shit?
If an unarmed guy is charging you surely you are taught how to take him down non-lethally.

Their training is to shoot people attempting to engage them in CQB.

What? You think Officer Waddle is some elite martial artist trained in judo?

Well it would be a good skill/hobby to pursue in such a risky profession. They already have four on one choking mastered though, is that a martial art?

No, its high school handball

Vekter wrote:1) If you're going to come to me and tell me how awful of an idea this thread is, don't turn around and shit it up.

it was shat up long before I got here, sorry for getting a little emotional over your pet idiot trying to have a political opinion.

if it's one thing ferguson has been good for, its making civil rights a family affair. the same thing happened after hurricane katrina: no one gives a FUCK about black people until it is fashionable. and no one wants to talk about how this might be indicative of a larger problem, how oppressive the police are, no. It is all about how the white man is evil and the black man is the misunderstood underdog. Americans are the worst at protesting. they'll let anything bad happen to them as long as they have free wi-fi.

Worth noting that Ferguson was a low crime neighborhood and almost all of the people rioting and looting are from the nearby higher crime areas.

The community came together to peacefully protest and out of town dickheads ruined it.

Malkevin wrote:

ChrisTheThird wrote:Aren't police officers trained to deal with this sort of shit?
If an unarmed guy is charging you surely you are taught how to take him down non-lethally.

Their training is to shoot people attempting to engage them in CQB.

What? You think Officer Waddle is some elite martial artist trained in judo?

I don't think it would be hard to have some basic training on how to deal with situations like this. It's not like he has to do some martial arts shit just defend himself until backup arrives or attempt to use a taser at least. I can understand him shooting when the guy grabbed his gun but he could have at least tried to subdue him non-lethally afterwords especially considering the guy was already wounded from the gunshot.

"i have no idea how police work" - ChrisTheThird
tasers are not an instant drop-limp weapon like everyone thinks they are. that only happens to some people. for most people, it's only an extremely painful, debilitating shock that ends when the officer stops tasing you. for some people, it only makes them more mad.
officers are given a right to use force in degrees based on the situation. michael brown attempted to take the officer's firearm, meaning that if he had succeeded, he would have had a firearm, and used it to shoot the officer, and perhaps other people, we don't know. that is a threat on the officer's life and potentially others, arming a dangerous person with a gun. in that situation he is permitted to fire on the attacker with his gun. the same would go for if michael had any sort of weapon, such as a knife or a bat.

I have been hit with a taser. While I dropped like a log I am a bit of a bitch, and I was aware I could kind of still act.

There are videos of people moving around like tasers were nothing.

Tasers are generally effective in bringing someone down, HOWEVER if the taser connectors fail to connect properly (such as getting stuck on clothing or a malfunction) then the taser may be totally ineffective.

It takes a pretty strong or angry person to resist a tazer, but in the instance that your life or lives around you are threatened, you don't go for the tazer first, that's stupid. What if it catches on clothing or just doesn't stop them, or makes their fingers spasm and pop off a few shots? Michael Brown went for the officer's gun, if he'd had his hands on it by the time the officer tazed him he could've easily shot him in the leg. At least that's non-lethal, though, right?

Tasers are a compliance device, probably shouldn't be, but that's about all their good for.

When someone makes a threat on your life would you prefer to take someone down with a device that only works 90% of the time or one that works 100% of the time?

miggles wrote:-snip-

Yes I know that a taser isn't one hundred percent reliable at taking people down. I'm not saying he should have attempted to whip out a taser when Brown was actually trying to grab his gun, in that respect he was totally justified in firing his weapon. (If his side of the story is true that is.) However in my own view I don't see why it was necessary to fire his weapon at Brown as he fled from him and I just think if he did have a taser why did he not attempt to use it while Brown was running away?

I agree it was fucking stupid of him not to carry a taser. It among other things is why he definitely should have been indicted. Remember, the question of indictment is "Do we have enough to think this may have been a crime?" not "He 100% did or didn't do it."

uh, no, innocent until proven guilty bruv
"proven guilty" usually means "100% did it"

Ah yeah that insulating layer from the actual law.
Not like that makes prosecution exceedingly unlikely.

Incomptinence wrote:Ah yeah that insulating layer from the actual law.
Not like that makes prosecution exceedingly unlikely.

Except presumed innocence is a base assumption of American jurisprudence. It makes prosecution difficult for the same reason the constitution makes certain forms of arrest and prosecution more difficult.

miggles wrote:uh, no, innocent until proven guilty bruv
"proven guilty" usually means "100% did it"

Do you not know what the jury was actually deciding? Because it sounds like you don't.

They were not trying to find him guilty or innocent, and the fact people seem to think that is the case is a major problem with grand jurries which are not meant to be an extra bonus phase of the appealate courts. The only reason that he would get off in an indictment court is if the jury nullified, which usually happens either due to prejudices or believing the law is wrong. Most people would agree murder is wrong, so that means either the grand jury did not understand what they were supposed to do and assumed that the innocent until proven guilty standard was in play, or something else influenced their decision. I am personally assuming the former, considering pretty much everyone here and on the news talks about the trial as if it was a not-guilty vs guilty choice, but I also forgive people for assuming that it was racism considering what happened with the chokehold on camera where that excuse doesn't hold up at all.

Considering the multiple conflicting eye witness testimony and the corrinors report, combined with the fact he deliberately chose not to carry a less lethal weapon "Because it was uncomfortable" there was plenty of evidence to move to indict. He should have been indicted by every objective count of the law. That does not mean he should have been found guilty. He probably shouldn't have been because of the conflicting eye witness testimony.

Incomptinence wrote:Ah yeah that insulating layer from the actual law.
Not like that makes prosecution exceedingly unlikely.

Actually prosecution is unlikely because most people fold in plea bargins. 99% of cases fail to make it to trial for this reason, because procecutors are really good at making most accused willing to sign a confesion to 'get off easy', which has extreme reprecusions with our felony laws. Mandatory minimum sentences are a deliberate attempt to increase the amount of people making pleas because it takes power away from judges to go easy on people and gives prosecutor a good stick to beat people with to up their conviction rates, because if you are found guilty a judge can't help you, but if you plea the prosecutor can.

so what do you suppose he did instead? in a situation where he had a less lethal weapon? and in the one that actually happened?
everything he did was OK by officer code standards

Not talking about the presumption of innocence, just how the extreme difficulty of police being even taken to court in the first place is ridiculous.

Yes laws are different for an officer on duty (use of force permitted etc) but they should at least go to fucking court.

I don't think plea bargains even come into it if charges are never placed in the first place or it is handled by "disciplinary" committee, proceedings, tribunal whatever the fuck. My favourite is kill a guy get a paid leave. Basically paid vacations for killings maybe one day we will get an officer shit enough to kill people for time off.

Then we have police unions hell bent on making things worse, like if you had military reserves protesting peace time.

What was that people were saying about Australia having no gun crime since guns were banned?

Having little gun crime not none. Details are ongoing but it looks like the guy had been in and out of the courts like a knitting needle and was let off on new bail laws despite being accessory to his wife's murder and a rampant sexual assaulter of women undergoing spiritual counselling with him posing ridiculously as an expert in "black magic" at the time like 50 or so charges. Granted political asylum in 2001 in return he sent hate mail to the families of deceased Australian servicemen and considered the Australian military "Hitler's soldiers". How he got bail is perplexing, a total legal failing really since the responsible magistrate even noted he was a threat to his former victims and the community and still let him free what the shit.

There really should have been an indictment. The prosecutor didn't even have to ask a Grand Jury, and it seems likely to me that he flubbed his presentation to it. I've heard the governor encouraged the prosecutor to fail to indict, and that the presentation was very atypical. Though I've also heard people insist on calling the incident a "murder" and that "black people get murdered by cops all the time" and trot out all sorts of misleading statistics to make emotional non-points...

An0n3 wrote:People leap to causality just based on stats.

A disproportionate number of blacks getting arrested getting arrested than whites?
Holy shit, must be racist cops.

A disproportionate number of whites being murdered by blacks?
Holy shit must be racist criminals.

Compare the number of blacks killed by whites. There are roughly six times as many whites in the country yet they're responsible for less than half as many murders of blacks as blacks are of whites.
If you want to be the kind of asshole who just makes judgements based on numbers you could pull some shit out of your ass and say if the roles were reversed white people would be extinct.

But that's fucking ridiculous. You can't say that because these are just numbers. They don't tell the story of the situation. Each digit is a whole set of circumstances and people that you don't know jack shit about.
Just because shit happens and you can count it and make comparisons between the frequency of things occurring doesn't mean you know how or why they happen.

Every day of my life I've been alive. If I'm operating under this kind of logic than I have every reason to believe I'm fucking immortal.

Underrated post. So many screwy statistics on both sides of this.

I read through a summary of the actual witness reports (organized excerpts, not paraphrasing):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/2 ... esses-said
(There's a complete account here but I haven't read through it, it's massive: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ume-7.html )

Based on these accounts I formed an opinion I'm pretty confident about. But I'm not a jury. With the amount of anger going around, this desperately needed to get a proper trial. The only investigations were internal affairs, and the spectacle-driven media. So the protests (not riots) were 100% justified, not because Wilson was definitely guilty, but because the matter never even reached trial.

I know major trials are expensive affairs, but would it have been more expensive than policing the riots and protests was? The rioters are responsible for all the damage they caused, yeah, but a trial was not an unreasonable demand.

The prosecutor's actions seem really fishy to me, or maybe just incompetent. Some people say it was a reflex of a system that always tries to protect cops... That would explain these otherwise perplexing actions.

So this just happened
http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cop ... -brooklyn/

XSI wrote:So this just happened
http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cop ... -brooklyn/

>Some police officer was accused of murdering someone somewhere!
>Therefore, murdering two police officers who had nothing to do with anything is moral.

Kek, talk about profiling. If I said that black people are violent they would go apeshit because its a sweeping stereotype, but if some police officers are trigger happy, its a-ok to not only profile officers, but outright murder them too.

I fully expected something like this to happen.

It is an endless cycle of escelation where people feel opressed by people who are supposed to protect them, and then lashing out in a dumb way, which causes the police to endlessly escelate, compounded further by the fact our police are in a large part funded by a for profit model in poorer communities due to how profoundly fucked up civil forfeture laws actually are and how it creates a weird for profit system you would expect out of a dystopian novel where all your shit can be taken for essentially no reason and stacks of money face formal charges. Then the media hypes everything up with highly selective and sensational reporting.

No one wins, everyone loses, and two people who didn't need to be dead are now dead. Great job random asshole. If you actually gave a shit you would realize that this makes increasing militarization look justified.

Purchase firearms and explosives

lmao mah nigga downing two minority officers, that will get the point across

The guy was a fugitive for shooting his girlfriend on Saturday. He just wanted to make his inevitable death look heroic or even noteworthy by inserting himself in a national controversy.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6faeeaa6 ... pulled-gun

BERKELEY, Mo. (AP) — Violent protests broke out in suburban St. Louis after another black 18-year-old was fatally shot by a white police officer.

St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said the officer was questioning the 18-year-old and another man about a theft late Tuesday at a convenience store in Berkeley when the young man pulled a 9mm handgun on him. The officer stumbled backward but fired three shots, one of which struck the victim, Belmar said.

Berkeley is just a few miles from Ferguson, Missouri, where a white police officer fatally shot Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old, on Aug. 9. Brown's death sparked weeks of sometimes violent demonstrations and a grand jury's decision to not charge Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting has spurred a nationwide movement to protest police brutality.

He dint do noting rong, he just be ex-uh-ci-sing is sekomendent-ament rites yo.

Malkevin wrote:He dint do noting rong, he just be ex-uh-ci-sing is sekomendent-ament rites yo.

quiet faggot

HE DIDN'T DO NUFFIN, WENT TO HONOR EVERY SUNDAY AND WAS ON THE CHURCH ROLL

10 pages