Dallas Police Officer goes home to the wrong apartment, kills man inside !!

Present situation aside, ex military and off duty cops are the ones I trust most to be armed.

Certainly there is no reason for cops to be armed off duty. And I think you can make a very strong argument that many have no reason to be armed on duty. The vast majority of local police in other countries are not armed and seem to fare just fine. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lapd-releases-video-of-officer-involved-shooting-during-traffic-stop/

That criminal would have that gun no matter what. They are out laws. They do not care about a law that says they shouldn't shoot people or even have guns.

That police officer would likely be dead as well as her partner had her partner not had a gun to return fire.


https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/police-3-hurt-when-argument-grows-to-exchange-of-gunfire-early-saturday/85-589910043

Off duty cop stops attempted armed robbery.

ANY armed civilian could have done the same.

Yes, police shoot people. Sometimesthose folks are not armed. Lots of times they are.

Police and civilians should be armed.

Why should punishment change based in whether police officers in a society have guns? Punishments should be set to meet a balance of the three goal of punish,ent recognized by law: 1) deference, both specific and general; 2) rehabilitation; and 3) retribution.

And as for those who think it’s a dumb idea not to arm cops, or it won’t work, how does it work in the rest of the world? Are they just smarter than we are? More disciplined? Or hire better cops?

Or is it the fact that our society is foolishly awash in guns with no liscensing and regulation? Get rid of the vast majority of the guns, and cops don't need guns. Nobody would need guns. And yes, it will take a lot of time and effort to get all the guns, but it would very much be worth it. Then we’d be as safe on our streets as residents of the U.K., Germany, Japan, and other industrialized democracies. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Soldiers or police in camo at least patrol the streets in France and patrol the airport with automatic weapons....


France in light of the attacks began allowing off duty police to carry.

Collecting all the guns in the US would be a exercise of futility.

Even if there weren't guns, bad men would still hurt good people.

The good people would just be less equipped to stop them.

Look at the U.K.where with knives, the crime rate recently surpassed that of NYC....

Daylight home invasions in the UK are on the rise as well because the criminals are not afraid of being shot by residents.

The armed men on the streets in France are not police in the sense that America has police. They are a national force called the Police Nationale. Federal employees under the Ministry of the Interior, highly trained, and similar to a cross between the FBI and an elite SWAT team. About 150,000 for a country of 67 million. One for every 446 people. In the US, we have 1,100,000 cops for 325,000,000. One for every 295 people. Quite different. And homicide numbers in any other western democracy pale in comparison to the US. You say there is a epidemic of deaths in the U.K., well we must have a pandemic. Homocide rates here are 3.82:100,000. In the U.K. they are 0.96. Japan, 0.26. Germany 0.70.

https://www.businessinsider.com/oecd...s-chart-2015-6

Apples and oranges. France is the size of Texas.

3.82:100000 =.0000382 % of the total population.

Just sayin.

Also, the rate of violent crime has bend trending down over the past 25 years as gun ownership has gone up.

I'm not trying to say more guns lowered crime. The Australian claim where they issued a ban in the middle of a downward trend and said it was because of gun laws is bullshit.

I'm saying there is no correlation between more guns and violent crime.

Why should punishment change based in whether police officers in a society have guns? Punishments should be set to meet a balance of the three goal of punish,ent recognized by law: 1) deference, both specific and general; 2) rehabilitation; and 3) retribution.

And as for those who think it’s a dumb idea not to arm cops, or it won’t work, how does it work in the rest of the world? Are they just smarter than we are? More disciplined? Or hire better cops?

Or is it the fact that our society is foolishly awash in guns with no liscensing and regulation? Get rid of the vast majority of the guns, and cops don't need guns. Nobody would need guns. And yes, it will take a lot of time and effort to get all the guns, but it would very much be worth it. Then we’d be as safe on our streets as residents of the U.K., Germany, Japan, and other industrialized democracies. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

TT that's a childish and flippant correlation.

There's also statistically less Blacks in those countries - so some a-hole could say "It's because of less blacks".

Or, most Japanese (actually all, I believe...somebody find the statistic) are "lactose intolerant"... why don't you link Violent Deaths to Dairy consumption? it's not as simple as "remove guns - crime stops", but I will give you "Remove guns - less criminals being shot".

There are so many issues, and removing guns could lower shootings... you're correct, but it doesn't lower "violent crimes". People will still be stabbed, beaten to death, ran over, bombed, etc.

There are so many issues, and removing guns could lower shootings... you're correct, but it doesn't lower "violent crimes". People will still be stabbed, beaten to death, ran over, bombed, etc. Originally Posted by Scribe

c'mon Scribe, LOL.. you are suggesting that people who have their guns taken away, would resort to knifings and beatings, etc., in a manner that would NOT decrease violent crime in general??

The armed men on the streets in France are not police in the sense that America has police. They are a national force called the Police Nationale. Federal employees under the Ministry of the Interior, highly trained, and similar to a cross between the FBI and an elite SWAT team. About 150,000 for a country of 67 million. One for every 446 people. In the US, we have 1,100,000 cops for 325,000,000. One for every 295 people. Quite different. And homicide numbers in any other western democracy pale in comparison to the US. You say there is a epidemic of deaths in the U.K., well we must have a pandemic. Homocide rates here are 3.82:100,000. In the U.K. they are 0.96. Japan, 0.26. Germany 0.70.

https://www.businessinsider.com/oecd...s-chart-2015-6 Originally Posted by TexTushHog

And the chance of being knifed in Southwark (Borough of London) is 66:100,000

That's means your SIXTEEN TIMES more likely to get stabbed in that neighborhood, than shot

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...-a3121071.html

c'mon Scribe, LOL.. you are suggesting that people who have their guns taken away, would resort to knifings and beatings, etc., in a manner that would NOT decrease violent crime in general?? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I'm saying that if a guy is going to rob someone, if he doesn't have a gun, he'll use something else or just obtain another gun illegally if he didn't do that in the first place.. He's not going to say,

"Drats! I dont have a gun and I was going to go mug people but now I guess I'll go get a job instead."

"Wait! I can buy a baseball bat at Dicks and beat the people to death who don't give me their wallets."

They don't do background checks on sporting goods.

It seems most of the comments about guns is along the lines of "guns or no guns". It is not that simple. While I am a gun owner for sport and protection, I would be happy to take a test to prove I am a responsible gun owner. Honestly in my opinion there should be restrictions on what we can posses in graduations. Most folks should be able to own one for self defense. Hunters should be able to own hunting rifles. Those that have extensive training should be able to own assault weapons and be part of a militia ( reserves) so to speak. We are past the days that a State could or would rise up against our Government but if we were attacked at home it would be nice for folks to be capable of helping out.

Great Post MT..

I think something else contributed to her poor judgement that night. She shot a man about a year before this incident. That speaks to being trigger happy or not being able to reconcile what happened with the first guy. This puts DPD in the position of reviewing their policies about 12 hour shifts (she will claim fatigue) and when to put a cop back on the streets after they shoot someone.

Clearly she made a bad decision but DPD made an equally bad decision at least in terms of public opinion by not locking her up immediately after the incident. You don’t ignore her arrest and then decide to arrest her for manslaugter. You don’t indict her for manslaughter (or what ever she will be charged with) unless the state is confident they can prove each element to include intent.

This is a far bigger problem for the city of Dallas than the individual parties and personally I hope his family sues the living fuck out of the city. Let them pay for their incompetent and corrupt ways.

It seems most of the comments about guns is along the lines of "guns or no guns". It is not that simple. While I am a gun owner for sport and protection, I would be happy to take a test to prove I am a responsible gun owner. Honestly in my opinion there should be restrictions on what we can posses in graduations. Most folks should be able to own one for self defense. Hunters should be able to own hunting rifles. Those that have extensive training should be able to own assault weapons and be part of a militia ( reserves) so to speak. We are past the days that a State could or would rise up against our Government but if we were attacked at home it would be nice for folks to be capable of helping out. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Someone should explain this to the right to bear arms morons who think they are going to have some armed insurrection against the government. I still wait for the day that the Minutemen run out there and get mowed down by a few Apache helicopters.