johnclark1102

We never got off topic in my opinion; my points about traffic accidents are related to my opinions on gun control. A quick Google search shows that there are between 270-310 millions firearms in the United States. So, there are more guns than cars in this country, and yet cars cause more than twice as many deaths every year. As you pointed out, there is huge government oversight and involvement in motor vehicle operation and trying to prevent traffic accidents, and yet we still lose 30,000+ people a year. Why? Because the problem isn't the cars; the problem is the PEOPLE driving the cars. The same way the problem with heart disease is the PEOPLE making poor choices about what they eat. The same way the problem with gun violence in this country is the PEOPLE who choose to commit crimes with firearms. I said it earlier in this thread, I'm all for reasonable firearm legislation, but I also have the sense to admit that no amount of legislation will stop mass shootings because it doesn't fix the problem; PEOPLE. No amount of background checks, or restrictions, or registries would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings in the news. All of these shootings were committed by people who already could not legally own a firearm under our current system, they broke the law to get the guns they used to commit their crimes; and no additional firearm legislation would have stopped them from doing that.

Yes, cars are safer than ever, but traffic fatalities are still more lethal every year than firearms because the people driving the cars are idiots. In 2011, there were 11,068 firearm deaths ruled as a homicide. By comparison, in 2011 there were 32,479 motor vehicle deaths. For later comparison, 600,000 people die every year from heart disease. A lot more "innocent" people die every day in car accidents than do from firearms, but no one is trying to do legislate driver reform. If it were up to me, I'd structure our driver licensing system like pilot's certificates are structured. You'd have to get a base level of training from an authorized instructor, then pass a practical driving test to earn your license, then go back every 2 years to take the test again to keep your license. You'd also need additional training and specific licenses to operate vehicles over certain weights or horsepower ratings, at night, and in inclement weather. Penalties for traffic violations would be a lot more steep too. But what do I know, I only fly commercial airplanes for a living and have first had experience on the quality of training pilots receive and the end result of an almost 0 fatality rate for commercial aviation in this country over the last decade and want to pass that level of safety on to our roads. But it isn't up to me to make those laws. And it is illegal to text and drive, it's illegal to speed, it's illegal to run red lights, it's illegal not to wear a seat belt, it's illegal to drink and drive, and yet people do all of those things on a daily basis and many times it leads to a fatal accident. Why do people think it will be any different with firearm legislation? It comes back to the, "if guns are illegal, then only criminals will have guns" point. And yes, the Government cannot tell people what to eat, but it can legislate the food production process to prohibit the garbage that some companies call food. But then the American public would cry foul about their cheeseburgers being a few dollars more expensive. People should be allowed to eat whatever they want, but when those choices are causing more than half a billion people to die every year and our society doesn't care about that more than the mere thousands of innocent people killed by firearms or cars, then it's obvious that the problem is that people's priorities are off. I'm all for common sense firearm legislation like background checks and mandatory training. But, let's remember that all the major high profile mass shootings that have happened lately were committed with firearms that the suspect ALREADY cannot obtain legally and had to steal. So, increasing firearm regulations would not have stopped any of those people, because they obtained their firearms illegally already. A lot of people have said it before and it will be said again, criminals don't care about gun laws, and making more gun laws isn't going to help. That's my opinion anyway, and one of the greatest things about this country is that everyone is allowed to have and express their own opinion, even if other people don't agree with it.

I didn't take anything out of context. You proposed that countries where citizens cannot buy guns as easily as the United States have lower crime rates. That statement is untrue, because the UK is an example of a country where citizens cannot buy guns as easily as the United States, and yet has a higher crime rate. Again, you said, While you did not specifically mention the UK, the UK fits the description of a country where a citizen can't buy a gun so easily, which is exactly what you asked for. Regardless of country comparisons, a firearm itself is only a very small part of the problem related to acts of "gun violence" and other crimes. The bigger factors are cultural and moral values, and social and economic factors.

No, guns are not allowed in the places where mass shootings have occurred. That's the point we've all been trying to make. Schools are gun free zones, and no one is allowed to carry a firearm there. So yes, it is always the police that manage to control the suspect and not a civilian because the good, law abiding citizens who COULD have stopped a tragedy are not allowed to have their firearms. There are several incidents of good, law abiding citizens using their lawfully concealed weapons to save lives in this country, but it doesn't usually make the news because the only person to be hurt or killed is the criminal.

Oh I see. That's funny because you originally said, "please tell me why in other countries where a simple citizen can't buy a gun so easily the crime rate isn't higher, and maybe even lower than the US for the same population mass?" I did just that. The UK is exactly what you asked for, another country where a simple citizen can't buy a gun so easily. But because the statistics for that country disagree with your opinion, you now choose to dismiss those statistics? Ok. As for the France vs US comparison, I'm curious how credible the sources for those numbers are, since the website indicates that some of the numbers are polls of people's opinions. If the statistics related to violence are in fact recorded statistics, then I'm curious about the differences between how France and the US enforce their laws and punish criminals. I personally believe the US is far too lenient on criminals and if we increased enforcement with more harsh penalties, we would see a drop in crime rates. Either way, the comparison between France and the US does not prove your point that countries with more gun restrictions have less crime, because a direct correlation cannot be made consistently when you take into account that some countries with more gun restrictions actually do have more crime. It only goes to show that there are other factors that influence crime, such as a society's moral values, criminal justice, and social and economic policies that also influence crime. This is the point that many supporters of the second amendment are trying to make, so in a way, you are helping to prove that it is not just guns that are a problem.

I find it pretty sad that more people die from vehicle accidents than from guns and no one seems to care about that, not even the general public. Heck, I saw a report recently that indicated that more people die from heart disease alone than from gun related incidents, and yet no one in this country seems to be on the bandwagon of reforming our ridiculous food industry and getting away from the garbage we call food. You're right that crime is and always has been the issue. But, I don't carry a gun because it makes me feel safe. I carry a gun because I have the right to do so, and it's smart to be prepared for the crime problem that exists in this country. Do you keep smoke detectors in your house because it makes you feel safe from fires? Maybe we should do something about all the houses that catch fire every year. Do you keep a spare tire in your car because it makes you feel safe from getting stranded with a flat tire? Maybe we should do something about the causes of flat tires. Do you wear your seat belt because it makes you feel safe from being hurt or killed in a car accident? Maybe we should do something about the incompetent drivers on the road. The point is, we all have fire detectors and spare tires and seat belts and various other safety precautions in our lives, not because we expect or are afraid that something bad will happen to us, but because we want to be prepared for the possibility that it could. That's why I choose to carry a firearm, because I could be a victim of a crime. This, 1,000 times over. It's the old, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra. If a criminal barges into your house, you don't know what they want or what they will do. And yes, I'd personally rather take the chance to defend myself and my family than to take the chance of being executed, watching my wife or daughters be raped, or any of the other heinous things criminals have been known to do. Whether you do something or do nothing, there is a chance you would get killed, and I'd rather have a fighting chance than no chance at all if things go that way. It isn't. The UK is frequently used as the model country for gun control, but statistics show that the UK has some of the highest violent crime rates in the world. The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa according to several news reports. Based on a crime study conducted a few years ago, the UK had 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people, where the US had only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The same study also showed that following the UK's firearms restriction legislation in 1997, the number of recorded violent crime increased by 77%. Criminals are cowards who look for weak, defenseless victims. They look for women, they look for people walking alone. They use the element of surprise and attack at night and where you feel safe like your home or the parking lot of your work place. They break into your car and your house when they know no one is home or around to stop them. When criminals know you are unarmed and defenseless, they will attack. That's why, save for one case, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings. That's why school shootings have become a thing in this country, schools are "gun free" zones so criminals know that no one will be able to stop them. Even the movie theater shooting in Colorado could have ended differently. In the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting, out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect's apartment, only one banned permitted concealed handguns. The suspect didn't go to the closest nor the largest, but to the one that banned self-defense. Time after time the story is the same; Killers go where victims can't defend themselves.

Fair point. The law really is all about interpretation. Unfortunately, when it comes to the second amendment being interpreted as granting an individual right to own firearms versus a military/state right to own firearms, the supreme court has ruled both ways. Most recently in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the supreme court ruled that it should be interpreted as granting an individual right to own firearms. On the topic of gun control laws, like all constitutional amendments it may be reasonably regulated, but not completely infringed. So, I suppose the issue with gun control legislation is really how far we are willing to let things go before we consider it an infringement and not a reasonable regulation.

As someone else mentioned above, "AR" does NOT stand for Assault Rifle. It stands for "Armalite Rifle", the company that originally patented the design. I felt this was important to reitereate since many people in the world don't know that and use the "assault rifle" terminology incorrectly. I'll respectfully disagree with this interpretation. Personally, I don't consider the National Guard to be the equivalent of the Colonial Militia. When I think back to my history lessons on the revolution, we had a small standing army of "regulars", and then we had the "minute men" who were basically any able bodied man who could grab a rifle and run out the door to defend their town and augment the regular's numbers. In my opinion, the "militia" referred to in the second amendment was the general populous of able bodied fighting men. There are some people that say a big factor in our victory during the revolution was the minute men and their guerilla warfare tactics. The British Regulars were so used to line combat against a disciplined, uniformed enemy, they never stood a chance against the rapid and spontaneous attacks offered by the civilian population. I believe the value of civilian fighters was recognized by the founding father and is one of the reasons the second amendment was written. My personal interpretation for today's world is that our National Guard is our "regular army" and our able bodied civilians are meant to be armed as a "militia". That's my personal opinion anyway. That is correct. I've always been taught and believed that the intent of the second amendment was to ensure that the civilian population remain armed and capable of defeating a tyrannical government or foreign military attempting an invasion. The Constitution even makes it the right of the people to overthrow the government and start again. "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." As we learned during the Revolution, sometimes the process of abolishing a form of government requires force to be used. While I don't trust our government whole heartedly, I also don't believe it's time for another violent revolution nor will it be anytime soon. However, I do believe the intent of the second amendment was to ensure that the people had the ability to exercise their right to abolish the government, by force if needed, and that right is not something that should be given up lightly. I've been saying this for years. Getting a driver license is ridiculously easy. And when they expire, I don't even have to go retest... I simply give the government more money online and they mail me a new license. It's absurd. I disagree. As I explained in some of my responses above, I believe the entire purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the civlian population has the weapons needed to safeguard the county and preserve liberty. We also have to think about the time the amendment was written. Back then, those fancy single shot, muzzle loading, black powder muskets were military grade assault rifles. If it was important for the people to be armed with military grade assault rifles at the time, then why wouldn't that continue to be important today? Now I'm not taking that as a literal interpretation, only making a point. I do not believe that civilians need large capacity magazines or fully automatic rifles. But semi automatic rifles are perfectly reasonable and serve a legitimate defensive purpose. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From a law enforcement perspective, there would also be serious ramifications for any type of restrictive gun control legislation, especially prohibiting semi automatic rifles. My local Sheriff's Office for example, does not have the budget to issue patrol rifles or shotguns. Instead, Deputies are authorized to utilize personally owned weapons. That's part of why the people who cry about the "military surplus" items going to police departments makes me laugh at their ignorance. Many of the rifles carried by police officers around the county, including my local agency, are purchased and owned by the Deputy or Officer through their rights as a civilian to have that weapon; they were not military surplus weapons, they are not military grade weapons, and prohibiting civilians from purchasing weapons like the AR-15 would lead to police officers having a disadvantage all over the country since many of them own those rifles as civilian weapons, not police weapons.

Police impersonation doesn't happen frequently enough for it to be a real threat, and when it does happen, a little common sense on the part of the potential victim can easily resolve the situation. A quick Google search couldn't find any recent impersonation attempts in the news for Washington state, and the few examples I did find were someone who pulled up next to a vehicle and held up a sign that said "Sheriff" on it. The other was someone with a single flashing light and when the victim pulled to the side, the impersonator drove past them. When he was arrested, he said the victim was driving too slowly and he just used to light to get them to pull to the right and out of the way. Even the few incidents of actual police impersonators that I have heard of or found in news reports could potentially have been avoided. Impersonators don't have thousands of dollars worth of lighting equipment, police do. Impersonators don't usually wear a full police uniform, real police do. And every real world agency that has been contacted by the news regarding an impersonation incident has clearly advised the public that if in doubt, drive responsibly without pulling over, call 911 and ask the dispatcher to verify the traffic stop. If anyone could articulate reasonable suspicion that they were being pulled over by an impersonator and followed this common sense advice, they wouldn't get in trouble for it. There is a very big difference between wanting to hold police officers accountable for unlawful actions, and wanting to hold police officers accountable for actions that you may believe to be unlawful. A very large majority of the time that people cry foul and whine about their rights being violated or about police misconduct, it's really a simple case of the citizen not knowing what they are talking about while the officer was perfectly within the bounds of the law. There is nothing wrong with wanting to hold police accountable for illegal actions, but in order to do that you have to actually know what is illegal and what "laws" you are just making up. Here are a few examples that many people in this country don't understand, and frequently cry foul about because they mistakenly believe their "rights" have been violated: You do not have the right to remain in your vehicle during a traffic stop. Numerous case law rulings have established that during a traffic stop you have been lawfully detained and it makes no difference whether you are detained in your car or outside your car. If the police ask you to exit your vehicle for any reason, you are required by law to comply with that instruction. It does NOT however give an officer the right to search your vehicle, without consent or probable cause. Many people mistakenly claim a 4th amendment violation when asked to exit their vehicle, but the 4th amendment protects against unlawful search and seizure of your person or property. Exiting your vehicle does not constitute a search or seizure of your person or property, so the 4th amendment does not apply. You are required by law to identify yourself to a police officer if you have been lawfully detained, and this includes passengers in a vehicle during a traffic stop in most states. Here in Texas, our state statues require that all persons detained by a police officer identify themselves by name, address, and date of birth at a minimum. Passengers in a vehicle are also required to identify themselves, as they have been lawfully detained as witnesses to the violation committed by the driver and must be identified in the event the case goes to trial. It is against the law to fun from a police officer, even if you have actually committed no crime. The act of running from a police officer is in itself a crime and makes you subject to arrest, even if there are no other charges filed against you at the time of the arrest. It is against the law to resist arrest, even if you believe the arrest is unlawful. Yes, the law actually says that it is illegal to resist an unlawful arrest. You have the right to due process, where you can establish the evidence in court that the arrest was unlawful, and the burden of proof rests with the prosecution because you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So if you are arrested unlawfully, go to court and prove it; that's how the system works. But here in Texas, even if the arrest is proven to be unlawful, you can still be prosecuted for resisting. Here's the Texas statue on this topic, note section (b). "Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another. (b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful. Here's a fun one some people in Missouri should pay attention to, the laws related to the use of deadly force DO NOT require that someone be armed in order to justify the use of deadly force against them. The law only requires that someone be reasonably perceived as an imminent threat of great bodily harm. An unarmed person can very easily present a reasonable threat of great bodily harm. I could go on, but the point is that a very clear majority of the time someone complains about police misconduct, their complaint is simply the result of them thinking they know more about the law than the police officer that arrested them.

This is a legitimate incident that occurred. However, this "constitutional activist" needs to re-read the section of Washington's statues that he's citing, since it contains exceptions from the marking requirements. So all the Sheriff of that county has to do is define that vehicle as being used for undercover traffic enforcement, and it's perfectly legal. A lot of the people you see posting YouTube videos claiming to know the law or advocate Constitutional rights really have no idea what they are talking about or try to take portions of the law out of context to suit their own agenda. The people who actually do know the law, don't make YouTube videos looking for attention trying to show everyone how much they know...

There are college courses on Constitutional Law, State specific Constitutions and statues, and law in general yes. Although, unless you're pursuing a law degree it might be impractical to enroll in these courses. Most of what I learned about law is from training during my brief time volunteering with law enforcement Auxiliary and Reserve programs, and through self study. The US Constitution, State Constitutions and Statutes, case law precedent, and various interpretations can be found from reputable sources on the internet and are also public record that can be obtained from various sources. I'm certainly not a lawyer, and the most I've learned about the law as from reading the actual text of the law and more specifically, the case law rulings and interpretations issued by courts. It's important to remember that the interpretation of the law is a critical factor in really understanding the law, and legal precedent is a very important thing in our justice system. Cornell University in particular has a nice legal dictionary with explanations and interpretations of various things, including the US constitution: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex

You're not alone. A lot of people have general misconceptions about what their rights actually are and what basic police procedures are. This lack of understanding/knowledge is one of the main causes for the current increase in anti-police sentiment in the US. Sadly, more and more people seem to make up rights that don't actually exist and then spread that information as if it were factual, resulting in an exponentially increasing problem. Miranda rights, the application of the 5th amendment, and the powers of a police officer during an investigation are among the main things most people in this country really don't know anything about. But they sure seem to think they do. As people have said above, police officers only have to read your Miranda rights to you prior to an interrogation. They can make their case, arrest you, and send you to arraignment without the need to ask you any questions or ever read your Miranda rights to you. Despite that, most departments have a policy requiring that the Miranda warning be read during the arrest process in order to prevent any issues down the line.

LCPD being an obvious exception, since those guys DGAF about safeguarding lives or property.

In the real world, tasering a suspect in a moving car is against policy at a lot of departments. The taser causes uncontrollable muscle spasms, which would render the driver unable to control the vehicle, which may lead to sudden acceleration and changes in direction. Short story, tasering a driver in a moving car could end up killing someone, so it's generally not allowed by most departments.

Yes, I would help without hesitation. I consider it a civic duty to help public servants if they need aid, and I consider it a basic human duty to help other people in need no matter if they are police officers or not. I also have a concealed weapon license and regularly exercise that right, so I would not be afraid to step in with lethal force if the circumstances required and it was a lawful option for me.

Yup. They believe the police set fire to the site. If that were true, I'd be mad too. But, I'm a reasonable person, and I understand how ridiculous that accusation is.

No one burned it down, it simply caught fire. Occam's razor suggests that all the dead flowers, stuffed animals, and unattended candles that people left at the site might have had something to do with it. Candle flame + flammable materials = FIRE But, the more absurd suggestion being made by some people in Ferguson is that the police intentionally set fire to the site, hence the protests again.

Here's the view from my office: Looking back at some terrain coming out of Oaxaca, Mexico: Beautiful skyline in Colorado: And for anyone who's slightly familiar with aviation, this is what we call a "bad day" at the office...