Don't worry, everyone else understood. He's either being deliberately obtuse as some kind of pathetic defence or is an idiot.
US TV journalists shot dead on air
- Thread starter PapaLazaru
- Start date
Don't worry, everyone else understood. He's either being deliberately obtuse as some kind of pathetic defence or is an idiot.
And if we add to the population differences then?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
Well after watching the "first person" video, I have to say, it's no wonder the guy was fired. The video was terrible, it was vertical, jerky and the screen went all dark after the shooting starts.
As a reporter, I would had expected better.
As a reporter, I would had expected better.
You don't get people gunned down, they're just stabbed to death instead.
Don't worry, some people don't know what an "analogy" is and when confronted by one it actually causes them mental pain as they futilely try to make sense of it, causing them to call people "deluded"
CREATIVE!11 - The nuke thing is taking the same "idea" you had and amplifying it to it's maximum potential, to show how poor the "idea" is in the first place. Whether the "idea" is right or wrong is then for you and estebanrey to talk about rationally until you either both agree or decide to finish the conversation in disagreement. Calling people deluded is not exactly helpful
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
What would you prefer?
Getting shot with zero chance of defence or defending yourself from getting stabbed?
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 3,011
yea but....not live on air.
Because that would result in the deaths of millions of innocent people within that country?
The situation you describe would be more akin to an officer shooting not only the offender who is posing a threat, but all the bystanders in the area as well, which is obviously not how policing works.
Shooting someone as a police officer is a last resort that you would only do if another course of action would result in injury or loss of life to officers or the public, because there was not time to solve the issue diplomatically. A war is a completely different context and comparing the two is ridiculous.
I am not pro-gun at all, but it must be remembered that there is very little danger involved in sensible, responsible and careful gun ownership and a huge amount of people in North America own firearms and never have any negative incidents whatsoever.
Sadly, not everyone is sensible, responsible or careful.
Then it still pales in comparison to the US, obviously.
Did you read any of that article? Gun homicides had been generally rising anyway, plus the spikes are attributed to old Shipman. You can't make a direct correlation between the ban and a sudden spike. You'd need more information that what is presented.
Fact is, the US has a gun murder rate of around 3 per 100,000. Nearly every other developed nation has a rate of less than 0.5 per 100,000. A combination of poor gun control with a gun toting mentality of the population is what contribute a higher gun homicide rate.
Indeed, but a knifeman is less likely to murder as many people. In this instance both reporters would have had a greater chance of survival!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I'm not saying the police should never shoot anyone, I'm questioning the idea that police are trained to keep pumping bullets into their target until they stop moving on the notion it's better to be safe than sorry.
This just speaks volumes, if we can keep it to a minimum, why can't they...
Isn't that a kinda pointless stat? Surely all that matters is the murder rate, not the tool used to commit the murder?
Ultimately it's at least in part a response to the fact that a criminal with a gun is often more than willing to use it against a police officer in the US.
No, an attack with a firearm can and does lead to more injuries and deaths (deliberate or not) than an attack with say, a knife, or a bat, or a bottle of poison or whatever.
He's got it wrong anyway, it isn't 10 per 100,000, it's more like 3.
However, if you wanted to look at murder rates, like you suggest, then the US bodes even worse in that respect. 4.7/100,000 vs the UK 1/100,000. I wonder if that stat is because of gun ownership and the devastation that guns bring as a murder weapon (as oposed to say a knife).
I don't dispute that the US is a more violent place than the UK - it always has been and it always will be imo.
Here's a thought though; another thing all these rampage shootings have in common is that the perpetrators are men. Maybe we should be looking at how modern society treats men before we knee-jerk ban a tool that is pretty much essential to human survival in some parts of the US (thinking rural West here).
They are trained to eliminate the threat, so however many bullets that takes. As the video of this incident shows, the woman was probably shot 3 or more times yet was still able to run away. She was obviously not a threat but the point is people don't always drop to the ground on a single shot.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
It's funny but that's not what I said. The threat could be neutralised after a single shot or even without firing at all, but if someone is running at you and full of adrenaline an officer may have to fire many shots to prevent the threat fro harming someone else.
I didn't say that they should "keep pumping bullets into them until they stop moving" nor "its better to be safe than sorry". If anything UK officers are trained that if the threat is neutralised, their job is now to provide first aid to the casualty to save life and limb.
So if you can stop putting words into my mouth and actually read my posts that'd be grand.