My parents taught me to respect police.

No kidding! I'm sick of this sympathy towards criminals and unrealistic demands on cops

Had to look "rakist" up...Urban dictionary has two definitions for it, one's a way to call someone awesome, another is a way to call someone a racist.

Or sitting in a squadcar in Philly...

Yeah, that was some real shit. Prayers for his swift recovery! The powers that be will probably tag it as "workplace violence" rather than "Islamic terror".

Once again, no amount of gun control laws kept a C R I M I N A L* intent on M U R D E R* from obtaining a S T O L E N* gun.

*I typed these words slowly because I know that there are some people out there that aren't too quick.

My cousin was a state trooper in 70s, after a few years he had to quit, the late night traffic stops got to be too much for him. Walking up to another car in that situation not knowing if he would get shot, or have to shoot was too nerve wracking. People do not understand what it takes to do that job day to day and keep a cool head. Yes there are cops that shouldn't be cops and they need to be weeded out. There needs to be more of a culture of support for these guys instead of this culture of tearing them down.

Spot on!

Gun laws do work, in fact, banning guns works even better. It worked in Australia. I myself think banning guns is over the top, but gun control helps keep gun violence down.

Read my words in caps one more time, a bit more slowly. Criminals don't obey L A W S.

Let me spell it out for you. What we have here is what happens when we make gun laws: gun deaths go down. In Australia in 1996/97, there were 319 homicides, and 104 were from guns. In 2013, there were 216 homicides, and 35 were from guns. Do you see the pattern yet?

You also get crappy beer. Besides, didn't Mad Max have a gun?

And this is important why? Seriously, unless you can come up with a good counter-argument, this conversation is pretty much over.

Thank God!????

Nailed it

Did Australia not reverse most of those gun laws?

No, I'm pretty sure they're still in effect today. Even if they did repeal the laws, we can still see that they had a profound impact on homicides, reducing them by a big amount.

They are in effect and updating them for 3D printed guns and whatnot. The problem in America is there is roughly 1 gun for every citizen. This means it will be impossible for them to see results like Australia without major restrictions.

That would be a problem... But gun laws are a step forward.

Yes, but the effect won't be significant enough to convince congress for a very long time.

Australia and its laws has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution.

That's not the point. The point here is that gun laws work.

Ok, well then here.....
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

I would reply to you most recent comment, but we have maxed the chain.
“We will never change our attitude about the responsible use of weapons by law-abiding citizens,” says Hermann Suter. This is what gun control is for: to give law-abiding citizens guns and keep them out of the hands of people who are criminals. "...the country’s existing laws regulating the sale, ownership and licensing of private guns, which includes a ban on carrying concealed weapons..." Switzerland has regulations like the Obama administration wants.
All this was taken from the article. Switzerland works because they have good rules and regulations.

We already have these rules and regulations. what we don't have is the training and Government support of weapons...I'm up for that :)

Then why do we have them?

You're a homeowner. It's 3 AM. Someone bursts through your door with a rifle. Is it a scumbag or is it a cop who got a warrant because he found tea leaves in your trash can and convinced a judge that you're a pot dealer?
If you guess wrong either way, you could easily be dead.

Nice try, stay on topic please.

It is on topic. If he's a scumbag, you need to point a weapon at him quickly. If he's a cop, doing that will get you killed and written off as a criminal even though all you were doing was reacting to someone waking you up by kicking in your door.

Look at the original meme and my reply meme as well. Both are about what cops have to deal with, not homeowners.

And I am responding with an increasingly common reason why a police officer might find a weapon pointed at him. I'm afraid this isn't a simple "thin blue line" world we live in.

maybe parenting laws would help

This really happened to me as I was leaving work and locking the building up.

But you were not shot. And had it been a gun you would have. Can you blame them for being on edge? I'm just thankful for the well trained ones. And scared find earth if the ones who have 15 clip full metal jacket ammo and no training ( NYC)

my parents taught me to respect police too, but police taught me about corruption and discrimination

I've said it before. The term is called "Suicide by Cop."

Actually, the object does not have to resemble a weapon, nor does the police officer need to see the object being pointed in their direction to justify shooting their weapon at the suspect. If a police officer gives a command, it is important the individual follows the command. If the command is not being followed, it is taken as a sign of aggression.

If you have a problem with the way you are being treated, it is a wise move to fight it in the courts, not in the street while having a gun being pointed in your direction, with the police officer's finger on the trigger.

Cops are paid to risk their lives; they don't get to just shoot anybody to be safe.

Police officers are paid to enforce the laws of the community and to do the best they can in protecting its citizens from anyone who is willing to break those laws.

And protecting themselves from harm is also their right, just as with anyone of us have that right. If it means having to use their weapon, then that is their right.

How are those dickheads in Oregon so deftly able avoid being shot? If you knew you were going to have a run-in with a cop today, would you have any preference as to what race you are? I sure as f**k would.

In most places it certainly does not matter what race I am.

Now I know you didn't just tell me that the only reason the ranchers in Oregon aren't being shot is due to their skin color.

Yes, I am. They aren't facing any consequences at all so far.

Any consequences for what, exactly?

Destruction of government property, theft of government equipment, trespassing, treason, etc. All the things they'd be guilty of were they not white.

Race had nothing to do with this and it's disturbing to think there are those who interject race into everything like this.

It's disturbing anyone could think race isn't involved, but an essential element of privilege is being unaware of it.

It has less to do with race and more to do with the amount of money involved or the amount of money someone has.

So you seem to be implying that those in Oregon should be shot.

I'm implying they probably would be were they not white.

In Waco and Ruby Ridge, the full wrath of the government was felt by way of full on assault on white people. At wounded knee it was Native Americans. In Baltimore and Ferguson no lives were lost to police action while businesses were looted and burned to the ground.

Waco and Ruby Ridge? Yes, on occasion the authorities get it right. That does not negate the pattern of police killing unarmed minorities while giving heavily armed white folks the benefit of the doubt. Your examples are noteworthy b/c they are rare.

On occasion they get it right? Are you implying that if white people are burned alive and shot at, the government (FBI) get it right? If white people aren't shot, they get it wrong? That sounds aberrantly racist.

No. I feel the actions of the government were completely warranted on those occasions without any regard to the race of the criminals.

Got it right? If you honestly believe those were examples of getting it right, then I guess Ferguson and Baltimore where examples of getting it wrong.

Remember the MOVE bombing? No? Oh.

Yes I do... yet another example of getting it VERY VERY wrong. I don't want to see a body count anywhere. Even in Oregon.

Police are human beings with all sorts of human failings. They are paid civil servants not commandos or mercenaries.

I'm slightly hard of hearing. How does that figure in for the trigger happy? Trigger happy seems to be the problem. But the officer also doesnt want to be shot either. It's a matter of good judgement.

Being "trigger happy" is a separate issue. I was referring to someone being shot or being thrown to the ground because the individual(s) refused to comply with the police officer and his(her) command.

The problem is more with our society and it's "thug entitlement" thought process. "I didn't do anything wrong, therefore you have no right to detain me and if you do I will make sure you pay and lose your job."

We both are responding to two different subjects in this problem. I see and respect what you say. But if I don't immediately react to a command. I didn't hear it. So that does give the officer the right to shoot. Under the way you stated it. That's why I say it's a matter of judgement the officer needs to make
Not just start shooting. Yes it's a scary stessful job. That's why only those who can do a proper job should have the job.