Courthouse News Service — You have to read this entire account. Jaw dropping.
A homeowner says a Phoenix police officer shot him six times in the back during a 911 home-invasion call, and the 911 tape recorded the officer’s partner saying, “That’s all right. Don’t worry about it. I got your back. … We clear?” The family says the officers were not aware that the 911 call was still recording as they spoke about covering up the shooting…
The Arambulas say the officers later dragged Anthony onto gravel, then put him on top of the hot hood of a squad car, and “drove the squad car down the street with Tony lying on top, writhing in pain.”
Found by Keith Ray.
#30–Ah Yea==its very manipulative of you to give me a compliment that I read with an open mind and then provide a dump truck of links.
Napoleon is quoted as the way to have a heroic army is to give out medals. The men then feel they have to earn them. Not bad for a Corsican.
Anyway, I think you have posted similarly in the past. Its been a little too soon, but close enough. I will copy and paste your reference to off line and go thru each one.
I honor the work you did in digging up the links.
I wonder though, is it “facts” or “ideaology” that control the issue?
Ah Yea: if it were proven that strongly enforced gun laws reduced the number of people killed each year==would you be for or against such laws?
#27, Ah _Yea,
I showed academic papers, you give back nothing and think you settled your argument.
Sorry, you didn’t. You merely linked to some biased, non-academic papers. Opinion does not count as scholarly work.
Point to one article pointing to a correlation between safety and gun ownership that has been peer reviewed. Then we can discuss it.
#27, Ah Yea,
Show that these papers were not peer reviewed. (I’ll give you a hint. Your biased opinions would not allow that the white papers were peer reviewed and were found correct. My links were to reprints.)
If they were peer reviewed they would cite the original copy right holder, which would be a peer reviewed journal. That applies even to reprints.
Try this one.
http://tinyurl.com/ydjc67m
It is from a peer reviewed journal.
Just a couple quick responses.
First, and only because it’s typical Fusion laughable stupidity.
So the Berkeley Electronic Press isn’t peer reviewed? I’m laughing at your willing ignorance! Could you even conceive of the notion that Mauser didn’t want to copyright his work and published it for peer review through Berkeley Press?
And then you produce a paper by Martin Killias, written in 1996 counterpointing an article written by Mauser in 1995, when the article I cited was written in 2006!!
I’m still laughing!!
#35, Ah Yea,
And then you produce a paper by Martin Killias, written in 1996 counterpointing an article written by Mauser in 1995, when the article I cited was written in 2006!!
Mauser based much of his subsequent papers on his 1995 conclusions. That includes your cite. Or didn’t you read your own reference? Again, he has been discredited for those theories. Of course, that will never stop you from posting them again.
While Berkley Press might be “peer reviewed”, it does not meet the same standards as other, more qualified and higher quality journals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Electronic_Press#Peer_review_process
QUESTIONs:
1)If guns make their owners safer, then why does the US have one of the highest “homicide by firearm” rates in the world and the highest from among western, industrialized countries?
2) Why are you or someone in your household more likely to die from a firearm than if there is no gun in the house?
3) Why did none of your “cited articles” point out those facts?
Now to respond to bobbo. Someone who thinks about his response, and has my respect.
The point of the UK article is:
a) the UK, with it’s superbly draconian gun laws has a gun crime rate nearly equal that of the US, and
b) gun crime skyrocketed AFTER these draconian gun laws were put in place. As you said, “If you outlaw guns, then only criminals will have guns.” England is proof positive.
Now onto the first link. It’s a shame that you missed the point of the article, although I applaud you for actually having looked it over. You didn’t disappoint, in a good way.
Unfortunately you didn’t grasp the conclusion of the article and responded with “That doesn’t happen with knives.”
This does. http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/rwanda.htm
Bobbo, as much as I respect you, you need to step off the “Increased gun ownership increases gun murder” and onto “Increased gun ownership REDUCES OVERALL murder.”
http://www.nowandfutures.com/…/GunsStopCrime_GunsSaveLivesfact_sheet.pdf
I also noticed that no one is refuting the racist origins of gun control, nor is anyone refuting that the ongoing gun control legislation targets minorities.
I keep forgetting to exclude the “www”
http://historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/rwanda.htm
Reduces overall murder:
http://tinyurl.com/ya8owpc
This also answers Fusion, not that this matters. Case in point: all the questions poised by Fusion have been answered in my original post. Just has to read the links and comprehend.
Also, it appears we are in agreement that gun control is racist?
Ah Yea==I think you are still falling prey to the variation of a nonetheless positive correlation. Its not 100%, not 1 point zero. Guns are different than knives when they are applauded for women not needing body strength to defend herself, but no different than machetes if in Rwanda they were the weapons of choice for a government sponsored military operation?
But I agree. Switzerland has lower death rate but more guns and again the “its only a positive correlation, not a direct relationship” has to be made.
I will answer my own question then as a less than perfect positive correlation is not good enough. I would rather live in a society where those who are killed by guns are killed by criminals than one in which people are regularly killed by accidents, killed by teenagers playing at gangsters, or by overexcited and undertrained police. THAT expense of freedom would be offset if I thought private ownership of guns prevented our government from taking our freedoms, but they have already basically accomplished that. That game/justification is over.
So, it may indeed just come down to “values.”
#38, so what is your point? You keep posting links and suggesting we read the whole effen thing when you obviously don’t yourself. A 1200 word report explains the entire war? Really, you do leave a lot to be desired in the credibility department.
Rwanda was a civil war. So you want to use that as an example of gun violence? Do you, or the authors of that report, really think 800,000 people were killed solely by machetes? Effen retards. They were backed up by guns.
This also answers Fusion, not that this matters. Case in point: all the questions poised by Fusion have been answered in my original post. Just has to read the links and comprehend.
I am not following all your links to more bullshit that even you didn’t read. Geeze, a propaganda pamphlet as a citation, you must think we are totally gullible.
So why does the US have such a high rate of firearm homicides?
So why is a home with a firearm more likely to have an accidental firearm death?
So why didn’t any of your citations report those facts?
wow,#19 sucks to be you
I think people are missing the real lesson here. Pro-Gun or Anti-Gun, don’t leave the well being of your self and your family in any other hands but your own.
Obviously you can’t always trust pol lot of them are assholes, a lot or just plane old stupid, and some are decent. You don’t know what kind your going to get. So if you have the means, protect yourself. If you don’t, aquire the means.
Had this been me, I woulda shot the guy, not held him at gunpoint. Then I would have called the police to let them know there was a dying bad guy in my house that needed taking care of.