Should have added a /s. However cops and most bluelives matters ammosexuals absolutely feel that a cop that shoots a guy with a gun is always a good shoot.Eh? He was innocent, by virtue of this it was not a 'good shoot'. By this logic cops should fire upon anyone they encounter, everyone could be a threat.
Never fails but there's a small govt conservative or 2 willing to apologize for the govt gunning down a law abiding citizen in their own home.
For conservatives, "small government" means one that is operated by a few authoritarians on behalf of oligarchs who are currently funding the Republican Party. It has nothing to do with individual freedoms and everything to do with removing a government OF the people.Allow me this opportunity to make a small mention about this thing called "small government" and how the Republicans are always harping on their (former pre-Trump) ideological stance for a "small gov't". It seems their constant clarion call for this form of gov't is actually their call for a very weakened one, a gov't that they can more easily corrupt into the total control of the plutocrat class of the nation. Nuff said, and my apologies for verring off topic.
Excuse me, but that is fucking bullshit. It's one thing if UPS delivers a package to the wrong address, but for cops to bang on the wrong fucking door? That is incompetence.It seems like a good shoot by the police. They didn’t know they were at the wrong address and the homeowner was armed so better safe than sorry.
He was joking.Excuse me, but that is fucking bullshit. It's one thing if UPS delivers a package to the wrong address, but for cops to bang on the wrong fucking door? That is incompetence.
It was sarcasm. I should have included a /sExcuse me, but that is fucking bullshit. It's one thing if UPS delivers a package to the wrong address, but for cops to bang on the wrong fucking door? That is incompetence.
He was joking.
Actually, fairly often, those situations just don't make the news. There are many instances where homeowners shoot people breaking in, but they only get a two sentence article on the back page.So when does that guy’s gun start making him safer?
This is untrue. Research very clearly shows owning a gun makes you less safe. It’s not close.Actually, fairly often, those situations just don't make the news. There are many instances where homeowners shoot people breaking in, but they only get a two sentence article on the back page.
Clearly if guns made you safer this would already be the safest country on the planet.Actually, fairly often, those situations just don't make the news. There are many instances where homeowners shoot people breaking in, but they only get a two sentence article on the back page.
So by your own definition, they ARE making the news then...Actually, fairly often, those situations just don't make the news. There are many instances where homeowners shoot people breaking in, but they only get a two sentence article on the back page.
I don't see how you can say this. A citizen answers his door and is shoot down by the police. He committed no crime, he was in his own home. That's not a "good shoot" by any definition. It was at best manslaughter and criminal negligence.It seems like a good shoot by the police. They didn’t know they were at the wrong address and the homeowner was armed so better safe than sorry.
Not just more likely to be killed by a gun. More likely to die from homicide by all causes.I remember reading stats that households with guns have a higher percentage chance of being killed with guns.
Well you know what would have made it so this man wasn't shot and killed with a gun?
If there were no guns in his house.
Small Democracy, Big fascism.Allow me this opportunity to make a small mention about this thing called "small government" and how the Republicans are always harping on their (former pre-Trump) ideological stance for a "small gov't". It seems their constant clarion call for this form of gov't is actually their call for a very weakened one, a gov't that they can more easily corrupt into the total control of the plutocrat class of the nation. Nuff said, and my apologies for verring off topic.
Doh. Better hope no Repugnican congress critters see this. They’ll cling on to this in an instant."Better safe than sorry" isn't a legal president, and God save us should ever become one.
Eh, good chance if he had answered the door with a tv remote in his hand he would have been shot. Remember, he was shot with a gun from outside his home.I remember reading stats that households with guns have a higher percentage chance of being killed with guns.
Well you know what would have made it so this man wasn't shot and killed with a gun?
If there were no guns in his house.
Exactly. But isn’t holding police accountable liberal, or woke policy? This isn’t something conservative politicians will address. So just like school shootings the occasional dead homeowner is just the cost of the 2nd amendment and the right of the police to qualified immunity.I don't see how you can say this. A citizen answers his door and is shoot down by the police. He committed no crime, he was in his own home. That's not a "good shoot" by any definition. It was at best manslaughter and criminal negligence.
"Better safe than sorry" isn't a legal president, and God save us should ever become one.
. . . with underage gun deaths 20x higher than top ten nations combined . . .This is the way. Guns for teachers, guns for grocery store workers, guns for stewards and stewardesses, guns for sanitation workers, guns for all investment bankers, etc..
This is the American dream.
Who judges responsible? In his mind he was.Yes. You also have the obligation to be responsible.
Actually it does. the Right to bear arms in the Constitution was always in the context of an organized malita. Responsibility is implied by that, however Republicans and Scalia threw that all out in the Heller case.2nd Amendment doesn't say shit about being responsible