unr3al

This debate about restrictions has very little to do with whether they will help or not. It's about the fact that none of them will get passed by the house and senate. All elected officials have to pander to gun owners in order to get votes. If you piss them off, you either won't get into office, or stay there if you already are. The only reason President Obama started speaking out against this stuff is because he's already won both presidential terms, so he has no more elections to run. The United States is largely comprised of stupid people. Many of them can't name the three branches of government here, and 80% of them generally believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead and will come back to earth once again to rapture everybody. Some schools here refuse to teach evolution, and others are eliminating cursive writing. We have a Creationism Museum here. Granted, it's run by an Australian, but the museum is in Kentucky. (This is a problem because a museum is supposed to catalog historical facts and tangible items.) Today's America won't pass most or perhaps even any of the restrictions that liberals want to put into place because of it.

You pay attention to too many Facebook JPEGS of people claiming Hitler said "You must disarm your people to conquer a country". He never said that. Somebody made it up. Those death figures are incorrect too. Hitler was directly responsible for the deaths of 20 million people, and if you consider him the sole cause or the main cause of WWII (which I don't), the deaths he indirectly caused brings his total up to 60 million. That aside, none of the dictatorships mentioned in your post went door to door and disarmed people. You know why? Because people in Europe didn't have a f*cking pistol in each house. That's an American phenomenon. Only veterans of WWI or people who hunted with rifles had guns in those days, and that's largely the case even today. The people in China were nowhere near the level of sophistication of Europe or America until the last few decades, as the country was largely comprised of peasant farmers so they had almost no weapons; the same can be said with Russia.

You may not be the person in possession of the hand gun when that happens. Regardless, that doesn't mean every single gun owner on the planet will kill someone; otherwise they really would be banned. Just understand the point.

All is forgiven then. I still stand by my stance that the ways these weapons are obtained needs to change, as do the processes you need to go through in order to be cleared to own one. I forgot to mention previously, one neat innovation people got a look at last year is the gun that cannot be fired by somebody who is not the owner. This technology may be able to be deployed in a way in which the weapon cannot discharge within certain GPS coordinates. This would be invaluable, but it would require all guns to be chipped with this type of technology and that's going to take a very long time to happen.

Very well articulated. I like the ad hominem. Let me know next time you make a new thread so I can step in and call you an asshole unprovoked. Let me ask you a question genius, do you think less restrictions or more restrictions on buying something, anything, would make it more difficult to obtain? It's become increasingly difficult for minors to purchase things such as tobacco or alcohol in the last few decades simply because of a couple of changes in law regarding legal age to buy, consume, posses or be intoxicated. These laws and restrictions by no means prevent minors from obtaining these things but they certainly have deterred it. Any steps taken to better gun control are better than nothing, which is whats being done right now; Nothing. And republicans have nothing to give to these discussions other than the shrug their shoulders, call it a mental health tragedy, post some kind of Facebook JPEG using a poorly formed "guns don't kill people" analogy of some kind and move on with their lives. When you insult somebody coming out of the gate, chances are you have a sh*t argument to begin with, so I'm guessing that post will be your strongest. If not, and you think you have a better answer to stop these shootings; take your best shot. (No pun intended.)

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, it's a fact, not an opinion. What I said is a measured statistic. Comfort is coming at a cost that others have to pay with their lives.

I think you're missing his point. When he says "our own guns" he doesn't mean other guns you have in your personal possession. He's speaking of America in general, and their idea that fighting fire with fire is the best method to stop crime. Buying a gun to defend against home invasions or robberies in progress is a fantasy at best. Having that scenario happen to you is extremely unlikely. It certainly happens, but not to most people. You're 10 times more likely to kill yourself or a family member with that gun, and unless you happen to be ex-military or a police officer, you'll never be properly trained in how to use it in a combat scenario anyway. You also may end up using it when its not legal to do so, like shooting someone in the back or without the clear and present threat of danger when a witness sees it. And that can land you in jail for a murder charge.

This is getting pretty f*cking annoying as an American who has to wake up to this sh*t weekly. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/us/northern-arizona-university-shooting/ (CNN)A freshman accused of shooting four fellow students at Northern Arizona University has been charged with one count of first-degree murder and three counts of felony aggravated assault. Steven Jones, 18, said "Yes" when a Coconino County judge asked him over a video feed Friday afternoon if he understood the charges. Bail was set at $2 million. Prosecutors said Jones was involved in a fight with other students around 1:20 a.m. Friday and ran to his car where he picked up a handgun. This is not a case of self-defense, the prosecution said. Colin Brough was killed and Nicholas Piring, Nicholas Prato and Kyle Zientek were wounded, the university said. University Police Chief Gregory T. Fowler said at a morning news conference that Jones was cooperating with investigators. Fowler said it appeared the victims had been shot multiple times. The victims were all members of the Delta Chi fraternity, the organization said Friday. The suspected gunman was a pledge in another fraternity -- Sigma Chi, according to that organization's national office. "We are deeply saddened by this tragedy and our thoughts and prayers are with the friends and family of the victims, as well as the entire community in Flagstaff," Delta Chi said in a statement. The organization said it was seeking the university's help in providing counseling to its members. Sigma Chi Executive Director Michael Church sent his condolences to the victims. "Our hearts and prayers are with the family and friends of the individual killed and those who were injured," he said. Church added that the incident was "in no way associated with any chapter event," but the chapter has been suspended and Jones removed from the pledge program. University President Rita Cheng said the school had experienced "a terrible tragedy." "This is not going to be a normal day at NAU," she told reporters. "Our hearts are heavy." Students shaken up Students, appearing weary and shocked, attended a morning news conference on the shooting. Some questioned why it took more than an hour after the shooting for text notifications warning of danger to go out to the university community. Junior Megan Aardahl told CNN she awoke to text messages from the school and her family checking to see if she was OK. She said the incident rattled her and other students. "There's a huge sense of community here, so everyone's just trying to like reach out and make sure everyone's OK, but it's a little anxious not knowing who's involved," she said. Fowler said he couldn't immediately explain the messaging delays but said officers sent initial alerts out of an abundance of caution even though the situation was under control and there was no danger to students. Gov. Doug Ducey pledged state support to help police investigate the shooting and to help those injured recover. "This heartbreaking incident will impact many of our fellow citizens, and I ask all Arizonans to keep them and the family of the individual lost in their thoughts and prayers as they cope with this tragedy," he said. Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, also issued a statement. "My thoughts and prayers are with families of the person who was killed and the three others who were wounded in the horrific shooting on the campus of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff early this morning," he said. "I appreciate the efforts of all state and local law enforcement officials, first-responders and school administrators, and continue to pray for the recovery of the injured, as well as all those in the NAU community who have been impacted by this terrible tragedy." The shooting comes the same day President Barack Obama visited Roseburg, Oregon, and the families of those slain in the October 1 massacre at Umpqua Community College. The gunman in that case, Chris Harper-Mercer, 26, killed nine people before killing himself, according to police. CNN's Shawn Nottingham, Faith Karimi and Tina Burnside contributed to this report.

Probably a replacement in training.

There actually has generally been one police officer per high school for many years now. They're called the school resource officer. But I'm talking about hiring at least two or more full time police officers to patrol a campus of every college. College tuition has increased over 600% since the 1980's, so I know the universities can afford to form their own police department. Some universities have one already. If they refuse, the government could task each department with hiring on a minimum of two extra officers (depending on the size of the school) plus a minimum of one new squad car and have them enforce the law at the campus instead. Really this should fall upon the schools, in my opinion. The amount of money the kids have to pay is beyond belief.

The problem is that the kid didn't use an AR or a shotgun, he used a bunch of pistols which are easy to obtain for any number of legitimate reasons. Some were purchased, and some were given to him. Rather than mental health checks I think there should be mental health restrictions. As in people with certain disorders cannot own or possess a firearm, ever (especially anyone with a social disorder). This certainly wont vet out every potential attacker, since some people can develop a mental condition or suffer a breakdown at any point in their lives, but it will at least help. Maybe require yearly regular mental evaluations of every gun owner on top of that to assess for competency to safely own and use a weapon. What about armed police (not guards, police) in every school, no matter how small or big the campus is? There are any number of suggestions people can make about better gun control. But we're still sitting at square one, where America still doesn't give enough of a shit to do anything new. The question is how high the death toll will have to climb before something finally gets done.

You're telling me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTpCUAK4ypA "The thing about gun culture is that there's not a lot of culture."

Excellent find. I wonder where I've seen the store owner before... Neat statistic to go along with this: Getting a gun increases the chance of killing yourself or another family member by a factor of 10. A good panel on Bill Maher discussing this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdH40gANlk Not all great points, but some very good ones here.

I like the idea of the new Explorers in general as they make sense in my area (and yours since you live in Connecticut which can have crazy New England winters). I hate how they're actually built, though. An officer told me they are basically a Taurus chassis with an SUV body on top of it, no select-able four wheel drive, only AWD, V6 engine instead of a V8 despite the weight gain, top heavy (obviously), bad on fuel compared to the Taurus and slow. He said the Taurus would be a good car if it could fit spike strips in the back with all of their gear, but they cant. It's also extremely cramped for the passenger up front. I had to ride with my left leg pointed towards the door the last time I was in one due to where the computer was seated. It's really only fit for one occupant in some setups, and departments for bigger cities often have two officers per car. I also find the new Explorers extremely ugly, especially the police versions. Civilian ones are passable, but the Expeditions look a lot more formidable. Ford needs to actually develop individual cars for police and stop being lazy by ripping off their already flawed designs. I drive an Explorer now, and I like some things about it, but the Chevrolet Trailblazer I had before it was much better. More horsepower, much, much better ride quality, better fuel mileage. The build quality on both of them are terrible, sadly. The Ford is slightly worse.

Constitutional scholars had an overwhelming consensus that the wording of the 2nd amendment in the U.S. constitution did indeed point to the right to bear arms only technically being applicable to well organized militias, which would have been a good launching pad for better gun control. However, about 7 years ago, Justice Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling that left the law more open to interpretation which solidified peoples assumptions among many Americans that they have the right to carry whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want with whatever type of ammunition they want. Justice Scalia is one of many political figures who is driving (or trying to drive) the U.S. backwards. He's too extreme of a Republican for the position he's in. These gun crimes are a question that the U.S. has the answer to. And politicians actually can have the laws about weapon restrictions and better background checks changed for us, but the American people need to want it. And quite frankly; I don't think enough of us give a shit. That's the problem. They shrug their shoulders when they see news reports of a gun crime and say "oh well", then continue on with life as normal. I am sick to death of the "guns don't kill people" propaganda or jokes circulated on Facebook or other social media outlets, I'm sick of the "mental health" excuse and I'm sick of the "it's my right" excuse. People have a right to f*cking live. How about that right? That's more important than some asshole who wants an AR15 because he thinks it's cool. There have been more than 1000 shootings since Sandy Hook in 2012. That's only three years back. Our president said it best. He said he can't do it alone, and that this problem does not exist in other civilized western nations. Our politicians may be avoiding this issue in order to get re-elected by appeasing gun owners, but they do so because they're the majority of the vote. If people with more common sense than ammunition turn out and vote, then legislation will have a chance at being passed. This country's attitude needs to be changed in order for the politicians to change.

It makes sense in some cases if you can ID the driver and its for certain offenses. Getting the plate is all you need some times, and then you can just send them a ticket in the mail. But if it's a stolen car and you cannot I.D. the driver; that's another story.

Sorry, hype overload isn't my intent. I'd just like everyone to be assured that everyone on the development team and the testing team are reading the suggestions posted by all of you on this forum board, and taking most of them very seriously. You all share a lot of the same ideas we have, so chances are if it's practical; you'll see it at some point. But as I've stated before; I think the initial big goal for development is to bring back all functions from GTA IV's LCPDFR mod. So the golden rule with one or two possible exceptions for everyone should be: If it was in LCPDFR, it will be in LSPDFR eventually too.

It's a high priority on the to-do list, that I can say. No promises, but I think everyone is going to like what the next release brings.

In the U.S. we call that a rolling roadblock. A lot of our departments stopped doing it because it opens up the cops surrounding the car to point blank gun fire if the person they're chasing has a weapon. You'll see it happen every now and then in pursuits on the web, especially those recorded in the 1990's and earlier, but it doesn't really happen much anymore. We rely chiefly on spike strips, helicopters and the PIT maneuver. On top of that, a lot of departments that used to have aggressive chase policies have now changed them to terminate pursuits at the first hint of danger. There was an episode of COPS that aired this past Saturday where the Kansas City PD terminated a chase of a pickup truck almost as soon as it began despite the fact that the roads were dry, there was no heavy traffic and speeds weren't terribly dangerous (in my opinion). They had to rely on witness testimony to arrest the guy later, minutes after he bailed out of the car. Trivia: The LSPD in GTA V uses rolling roadblocks as part of their regular chase AI, even without the aid of the LSPDFR mod. The LCPD prefers to try and pit cars instead.

You can. Press 'SHIFT', you'll occasionally get voice commands.

Because I don't have a burden of proof. This isn't a court of law, it's a debate (apparently). You're welcome to look up anything I say to refute it if you want. Made what up? I've spent time in a patrol car, to put it lightly. You don't conduct traffic stops from in front of somebody by slamming on the brakes, do you? You follow somebody from behind and signal them to pull over with your lights and siren. I don't need to tell you this. You've probably been pulled over yourself, or if not, you can go on YouTube and see any dash cam video of a traffic stop, and then come back and report your findings on what position the patrol car was in. You can stop people for any number of reasons that you should know enough about by now since you're on a forum about police work. Improperly tinted windows, loud stereo, failure to signal, unsafe lane change, speeding, road rage, reckless driving, suspected DUI, crossing the center line, weaving in and out of the break down lane, defective equipment, expired tags, suspended drivers license... I can go on and on. It's not hard to find a reason to pull somebody over, and that's a large part of police work. A lot of traffic stops are made in an attempt to start an investigation. Somebody coming from a drug infested area late at night will get pulled over for a legitimate reason, but the probable cause for the stop isn't what actually motivated the desire to stop the car. This is how a lot of criminals get busted. A chicken sh*t traffic stop can turn into something much bigger if you pull over the right person. Yes, I absolutely can blame them, because the numbers you yourself pulled up suggest otherwise. Nobody in this entire thread has given the notion that there aren't racist cops working in the field today. But you haven't shown me anything that suggests the government is out to get black people. All of the numbers you've provided or talked about have supplemented my arguments and the arguments of others, not invalidated them. I'm glad you find amusement in the term "pulling the race card". Because it's going to get used a lot more in cultural discussions from now until all of humanity blends skin colors once and for all. The fact that the DOJ study you showed everyone says that black people perceive that their contact with the police is more frequent or more unfair when it is statistically not proves my point using your numbers. I don't think I need to say any more than that. Decreasing sharply according to who? 2015 isn't over yet. News reports of discrimination from corporate businesses and wanton violence and murder against police has been rampant in the wake of the Ferguson shooting last year and criticism of police is rampant even among privileged white people who have never received more than a speeding ticket in their lives. I know this because people like to talk. They like to take to the internet and say all the little dirty things they have to say about police officers behind their backs. To say that police aren't victims of our society is to pretend that nothing has changed over the last two years and the 24/7 news channels and web pages don't run stories about police encounters into the ground whenever it makes a catchy headline. A shooting of a Boston police officer was circulated on the TV news stations for two days tops, while a shooting with a victim that survived their wounds will stay there for weeks if they happen to have darker skin because its more sensational. If you're going to point fingers, why not point at yourself? What about that world of good guys vs. bad guys? What are you doing about that inequality and discrimination? You're completely throwing away the important words here. Police aren't being killed from time to time as normal this year. They're being assassinated. That's a distinctly different situation than a robbery shootout or a traffic stop gone wrong. It's premeditated murder of a government official. Believe it or not, debating the people who like to point at somebody's skin tone does address current manifestations of racism. It does so because the "hands up don't shoot" and "black lives matter" movements are themselves racist. It turned out that the guy running away did NOT shout that or put his hands up, yet people still hash tag it. And it turns out that black politicians are now starting to campaign on Facebook and Twitter that they feel the "black lives matter" movement is sparking new racial division among Americans. Yet it goes ignored. It goes ignored because some minorities who don't want to have intelligent discussions about these problems want to justify what happens on the news to "their people". It's easier to say "f*ck the police" than to face facts.

I can't promise anything or give an exact time fame. but I believe I can safely say that the G17 developers and the rest of testing team seek to restore every function from the old LCPDFR mod, which ambient events were indeed a part of. Keep your eyes peeled. People actually blow stop signs and run red lights in game all the time. The camera just doesn't zoom in on them when they do it. That's not an LSPDFR feature either, it's just sloppy AI. Or realistic AI, depending on how you look at it.

*Watches you argue after saying you won't.* If you're not aware of my study, Google it. No need to be shy, you can cross-check me. I took a look at your study and there were a couple of interesting take-aways based on two paragraphs. "Black drivers (13 percent) were more likely than white (10 percent) and Hispanic (10 percent) drivers to be pulled over by police in a traffic stop; however, blacks, whites and Hispanics were equally likely to be stopped in a street stop (less than one percent each). Among those involved in street or traffic stops, blacks were less likely than whites and Hispanics to believe the police behaved properly during the encounter. About eight in 10 drivers involved in traffic stops and six in 10 persons involved in street stops believed they were stopped for a legitimate reason. Regardless of the reason for the traffic stop, a smaller percentage of black drivers (67 percent) than Hispanic (74 percent) and white (84 percent) drivers believed the reason for the stop was legitimate." Traffic stops occur mostly due to observed moving violations. This means that the police officer in most cases is behind the vehicle and cannot see who is actually inside it, which largely eliminates the race card, with the exception of police departments that patrol a bad neighborhood, which as you suggest; more often than not are populated by African Americans, which is not the fault of police. This study furthermore proves that street stops, where the police officer can see the color of a suspects skin are equal in number, which again debunks those who would pull the race card, yet the study goes on to suggest that African Americans already have it in their heads that they're being stopped or treated a certain way because they're black, when the evidence you provided points to the contrary. I would suggest to you this is precisely because of the mistreatment you've mentioned over the past several modern decades and the constant bombardment of this mentality passing from parent to child. It's used as an excuse far too often. I'm not being defensive against racism at all. It exists, and all Americans know it. What I'm defending are police officers who are doing their job, and most importantly ones who are getting shot in the head while minding their own f****ing business eating lunch. This mentality America now has regarding its police forces has been given to us from a parade of shameless ass-kissing criminal apologists who perform their best mental acrobatics to discredit any use of police force against their "baby" sons or daughters who go out and put police lives or citizen lives in danger. This has lead to an America I'm sometimes ashamed to be a part of. An America where cops get refused service at fast food restaurants, or get assassinated while writing a written warning during a traffic stop, or while sitting down to eat. This race card bullsh*t needs to stop. It's beyond the point of getting out of control. It is out of control, and its increasing danger for everyone. It makes the public more defiant, which increases the risk of a physical confrontation, and it makes police officers more edgy because they now have to look over their shoulders when they're minding their own business.

Almost. You have to yell "stop resisting" when you do it. Maybe throw in a gentle tasing. Then it's authentic.