Hystery

Nah, ain't twisted. The only thing I hear is "It wouldn't work because 'murica isn't the same". How can you know if you don't even try? That's how it works, you try things, if they work that's good, if they don't work then you revert back to how it was before. But hey, better cling to guns and not change a single thing, surely issues will be solved by themselves through some dark magic. Also, if you say that americans wouldn't march down their own neighborhoods, then you've nothing to fear from a government, since no one would follow it, so it invalids your 2nd Amendment altogether. Matter of logic.

I'm pretty sure that looking out my window and not seeing any shooting in schools happening is pretty hard fact and not individual perspective. It's as if I was saying "Sun is rising" and you replied "That's individual perspective". No, it's not, it's just fact. Also, I never said outright ban. We don't have that here either. As for the "What’s the purpose of the 2nd Amendment if the government has assault rifles and we have blunderbusses?", I'll reply by "What's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment if the government has freakin' tanks and choppers and you got your glock or AR-15". If a government wanted to take over, they would, and it's not the random dude with his handgun or hunting rifle that would stop a whole batallion of trained soldiers with the lines of tanks and armored vehicles coming with it.

I keep saying the same thing just like you keep the same thing. I've my facts (just have to look out my window to see that not having guns means less shooting and no matter the location it will be the same), you've your facts that apparently say american people would be too damn dumb to let go of their guns and prefer to flail their arms in the air screaming "MUH ROIGHTS, MUH GUNZ" like a magic incantation hoping it'll change anything. Each one their own.

No one was calling for gun control or for banning guns because that's already a thing. To own a gun here you have to go through very tidious paperwork, with very thorough background check (both medical, criminal and administrative), and if you manage to get a gun ownership license, it still is strictly forbidden to carry your gun anywhere else than within your home or at the gun range. And every gun you own that is more than just a handgun -has- to be registered at the town hall every year, or they're confiscated. Only law enforcement is allowed to have guns in the streets. You can look at the issue from every angle, it all comes down to guns. Guns are tools made to kill people. That's all they're meant to do. You don't throw a gun at someone drowning, it won't save him. You don't throw a gun at someone in cardiac arrest, that won't save him. Guns don't save lives, they take them, because that's what they were designed to do. From that point, as long as you give people the ability to kill people by providing the tools for that, the issue will never be solved. Mental health issue or not.

You're comparing terrorist attacks and mass shootings. Entirely different matters. Wanna talk about actual mass shootings? Since the beginning of 2018, 6 in the US, 0 in France. If you want more, you can go back for every single years before this one and you'll notice the same thing. Size of the country does not matter. Guns are meant to kill people, and as long as people don't realize that, those shootings will continue to occur. And I'll be sitting there watching and facepalming.

Hmmmm, I wonder how often mass shootings occur in other countries that have different gun laws. Hmmmm... 🤔 but it couldn't be the reason, right? After all, guns, objects designed to kill someone the most effectively possible, couldn't be the reason why people die from them, they're used to save people obviously... 🤔 It's sad for the people dead there, but every time I see news like that from the US, I don't even care about it anymore. I'm just taking bets on how many more people will need to be killed before people eventually do something.

A few muslims kill people, no one bats an eye when all muslims are considered dangerous. A few cops kill people, everyone loses their shit when all cops are considered trigger happy. See where I'm coming from? Double standards and all that.

I'm not even surprised anymore.

More like that's why it should be forbidden to sell sirens and emergency lights to civilians.

Japanese police cars are sexy to be fair. Both livery and lighting setup.

1/ love body cams, really helps to see what the officer saw in every situation, every officer should have one 2/ nice to see a taser being used rather than a handgun

French stuff uh. I'll approve. I'm biased.

There are nice 2D milfs tho ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Whatcha got against MILFs bruh

What if he had a bulletproof vest under his shirt? What if he was on drugs and the bullets shot at him didn't have much effects? Doesn't make sense to make suppositions like this. If he had heard problems and died due to the taser, then it'd have been an accident, not a damn execution. If you happen to use a taser and the victim dies from it, it's bad luck. If you happen to discharge your gun against someone who wasn't a threat (with many witnesses literally screaming the guy was deaf and thus couldn't hear the police officers' commands), you're a murderer and shouldn't be a police officer. No, it wouldn't. Let's take this particular case here. Mr Sanchez waves his pipe around himself (and not towards the officers, so if they analyze this as a threat to them then maybe it's already a hint they're too much of a scaredy cat and shouldn't be an officer), the lieutenant already on scene has his taser out. The sergeant comes in, and pulls out his gun. Fair enough. Then his role should have been to WAIT for the taser to be used, and then if no effect on the man was seen, he could have discharged his weapon, would Mr Sanchez have happened to be a threat (even though he wasn't, he was a bloody deaf guy like you and me for fuck sake). Especially when considering he was the lower officer in ranks there and had no authority to make such a call. It's the principle of trying to: 1/ Defuse the situation 2/ If situation cannot be defused, trying to take the suspect in custody 3/ If suspect resists, using non-lethal meanings to get him in custody 4/ If suspect resists still and shows to be an actual threat (because nowadays, officers would feel life threatened just if someone yelled at them), then use lethal weapons to get him down. Cops aren't here to shoot around and take down bad guys. They're supposed to be here to defuse situations and try to keep everyone alive. Yes, even criminals, I know it might sound surprising, but technically, their objective is to bring the criminals in alive so they can be judged and punished according to the crimes they commited. Not to execute them as if we turned back in time to the wild west. That's a really delusional assumption to make.

TASER. The lieutenant on scene had his taser out. The sergeant pulled out his gun instead. Would he have used a taser first and THEN a gun if it failed, the innocent man would still be alive today. That officer is just a trigger-happy cowboy without a doubt.

Pretty sure those approval ratings are going to GREATLY vary depending on the department, the location and the population asked. Like, for example, between a rich neighborhood, and a poor neighborhood. Approval ratings, like many stats, can be interpreted differently to serve an agenda. Either way. The point is, the man, Mr Sanchez, wasn't a threat. Never had been. The shooting wasn't justified. And never will be. The officer just happens to have the convenient invisible police armor that protects with from prosecution even though he KILLED a man for no valid reason, which makes him a murderer. Next time there are protests against police officers, remember this case, it'll give you an idea why people might have the urge to protest against the police.

Typical example of why people think police officers are somehow above the laws and can do whatever they want to people, including shooting down a poor guy who had done absolutely nothing.

I don't know why they want to change, the previous livery was good enough. Why trying to fix something that isn't broken?

What the actual eff are you even babbling about. Could you stop with your "ATTACK ON MAINLAND!" non-sense? The situation is a -lot- more complex than that.

They most likely will, but there are two ways of dealing with it. You can try to spray some water on the fire to try and put it out, or at least limit the casualties it can cause and how far it can spread. Or you can spray gas on it, fan the flames and watch it spread faster and be far more destructive that it should. That decision about Jerusalem is definitely of the second kind. There was no need to do that. No other country in the world did it before, because they know all too well what consequences it's going to have, just like the US did for the past 50 years. Until Mr Trump waltzes in and decides, by spirit of contradiction (because there's no way this is an actual thought-out decision), to do the exact opposite, regardless of the disaster that could (and most likely will considering the reaction of Israel) happen following this.

Not when it comes to the price of putting an entire region to unrest once again.

Doesn't mean it's a good promise though. It's stupid and idiotic on so many levels that it'd take a day to enumerate all of them.

All his choices have been very dangerous since he was elected so it doesn't change much. Now the middle east will just be even more unstable thanks to him. Yay.

Inb4 "I feared for my life and the ones I love."