Why don't we ban alcoholic beverages instead of making it illegal to drive drunk?

[Skull Pilot]

Ratios do not skew,

The rate per 100000 is the rate er 100000

Stats do. Ratios don't. That is my point.

Which is why I always use ratios

 

[Skull Pilot]

I see you pulled off a typical liberal on me. While I didn't have time to read the entire site, I did skim through it to see what I suspected you would do, which is to only provide years after the gun ban and not much before it. If you go back years before the ban, you would see it didn't do anything at all in the long run, and after the ban, hit a new high in crime rate.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

But here's the funny thing. There is still a gun ban and the trend is heading down. That aside, you are under the mistaken belief that Australia was a heavily armed society before the gun ban. It wasn't. I have literally hundreds of friends and associates in Australia. I arrived here 10 years ago, which was 10 years after the ban. I've asked most of them how many guns they had before the ban. As well has most of them looking at me like I'm insane, not ONE of them had ONE single gun. Even the conservatives amongst them. I'm talking literally hundreds of them. And generally - but not all say - "Why the fuck would I want a gun?"

The trend is heading down here as well.

Our crime and murder rates have been dropping for 30 years

 

[Clementine]

[QU
The people there were never heavily armed, so why the gun ban then?
.

That's easy. We decided we didn't want to live in a society where assault rifles were available to all and sundry.

Okay, but it didn't do you much good, now did it? Murderers are murderers, and guns don't turn people into murderers. Guns don't turn people into violent thieves.

You see, environment plays a major role here. As I stated, years ago I had no need for a gun. There are plenty of places in the US where you don't need a gun around. But if you do find yourself in an environment or situation where having a gun would be a pretty good idea, it's good to know that you can easily get one and legally use it.

I understand how this is difficult for you to imagine; regular ordinary citizens having firearms. One of my tenants got involved with a girl online from Australia. So she came to the states to stay with him for the summer. Wonderful and attractive girl, but she was pretty liberal. We discussed this issue and many others while she was here. One day I had to go to ATM machine, so I put on my shoulder holster and took my gun with me. She was outside as I was walking down the driveway and the wind blew my over shirt open exposing my gun. She was in total disbelief; that I could actually go into my car, drive to the bank, and if I got stopped by a police officer, there was nothing he could do to me except perhaps confiscate my gun during the traffic stop. And of course, the officer would have to give it back to me when we were done.

But here, we do that all the time.

I guess all some understand is that if your life is threatened, you hope for the best since you are at the mercy of the criminal.
Some believe that no one is responsible enough to handle a gun, probably because they themselves don't feel they are able to do so.

Most common way guns have saved lives is when criminals break into homes. And they deserve to be shot when they do that. Home invasions have increased in certain areas. Might be wise to have some big guns because a pistol might not do if a gang decides to kick your door in.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[QU
The people there were never heavily armed, so why the gun ban then?
.

That's easy. We decided we didn't want to live in a society where assault rifles were available to all and sundry.

Okay, but it didn't do you much good, now did it? Murderers are murderers, and guns don't turn people into murderers. Guns don't turn people into violent thieves.

You see, environment plays a major role here. As I stated, years ago I had no need for a gun. There are plenty of places in the US where you don't need a gun around. But if you do find yourself in an environment or situation where having a gun would be a pretty good idea, it's good to know that you can easily get one and legally use it.

I understand how this is difficult for you to imagine; regular ordinary citizens having firearms. One of my tenants got involved with a girl online from Australia. So she came to the states to stay with him for the summer. Wonderful and attractive girl, but she was pretty liberal. We discussed this issue and many others while she was here. One day I had to go to ATM machine, so I put on my shoulder holster and took my gun with me. She was outside as I was walking down the driveway and the wind blew my over shirt open exposing my gun. She was in total disbelief; that I could actually go into my car, drive to the bank, and if I got stopped by a police officer, there was nothing he could do to me except perhaps confiscate my gun during the traffic stop. And of course, the officer would have to give it back to me when we were done.

But here, we do that all the time.

I guess all some understand is that if your life is threatened, you hope for the best since you are at the mercy of the criminal.
Some believe that no one is responsible enough to handle a gun, probably because they themselves don't feel they are able to do so.

Most common way guns have saved lives is when criminals break into homes. And they deserve to be shot when they do that. Home invasions have increased in certain areas. Might be wise to have some big guns because a pistol might not do if a gang decides to kick your door in.

That's why I always tell the anti-gun people that if they don't think guns protect them as well, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and hang that on their front porch and see what happens. So far, nobody has taken me up on that offer as far as I know.

Only a fool would break into an occupied home in the US unless you live in one of those ant-gun states like California or New York. Having a gun is one thing, having laws that support the shooter is another. For instance, I would never want to take my gun into New York even with my permit. Even if I was involved in a justified shooting, I would still be worried about ending up in jail over there.

Here in my state the laws heavily favor the victim. I wouldn't have to think twice about using deadly force if need be. If somebody broke into my home and I wasted them, there are no questions asked. The cops just stop by and pickup the body and tell me to have a nice day.

 

[Clementine]

[QU
The people there were never heavily armed, so why the gun ban then?
.

That's easy. We decided we didn't want to live in a society where assault rifles were available to all and sundry.

Okay, but it didn't do you much good, now did it? Murderers are murderers, and guns don't turn people into murderers. Guns don't turn people into violent thieves.

You see, environment plays a major role here. As I stated, years ago I had no need for a gun. There are plenty of places in the US where you don't need a gun around. But if you do find yourself in an environment or situation where having a gun would be a pretty good idea, it's good to know that you can easily get one and legally use it.

I understand how this is difficult for you to imagine; regular ordinary citizens having firearms. One of my tenants got involved with a girl online from Australia. So she came to the states to stay with him for the summer. Wonderful and attractive girl, but she was pretty liberal. We discussed this issue and many others while she was here. One day I had to go to ATM machine, so I put on my shoulder holster and took my gun with me. She was outside as I was walking down the driveway and the wind blew my over shirt open exposing my gun. She was in total disbelief; that I could actually go into my car, drive to the bank, and if I got stopped by a police officer, there was nothing he could do to me except perhaps confiscate my gun during the traffic stop. And of course, the officer would have to give it back to me when we were done.

But here, we do that all the time.

I guess all some understand is that if your life is threatened, you hope for the best since you are at the mercy of the criminal.
Some believe that no one is responsible enough to handle a gun, probably because they themselves don't feel they are able to do so.

Most common way guns have saved lives is when criminals break into homes. And they deserve to be shot when they do that. Home invasions have increased in certain areas. Might be wise to have some big guns because a pistol might not do if a gang decides to kick your door in.

That's why I always tell the anti-gun people that if they don't think guns protect them as well, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and hang that on their front porch and see what happens. So far, nobody has taken me up on that offer as far as I know.

Only a fool would break into an occupied home in the US unless you live in one of those ant-gun states like California or New York. Having a gun is one thing, having laws that support the shooter is another. For instance, I would never want to take my gun into New York even with my permit. Even if I was involved in a justified shooting, I would still be worried about ending up in jail over there.

Here in my state the laws heavily favor the victim. I wouldn't have to think twice about using deadly force if need be. If somebody broke into my home and I wasted them, there are no questions asked. The cops just stop by and pickup the body and tell me to have a nice day.

Some of the liberal states want home owners prosecuted for shooting intruders. Of course, libs also want cops to leave their guns in the car unless there is a clear indication of danger. So stupid considering that there is a constant danger for cops. Criminals aren't stupid enough to be holding their weapon up and being obviously threatening. Cops have been shot walking up to cars after a routine traffic stop or ambushed responding to calls. There isn't a time when they don't potentially need to defend themselves but the left seems to think that criminals should be able to enter homes or rob stores without fear of being shot. Wrong. The message to criminals should be that people don't have to tolerate them and they should consider a different line of work if they don't want to risk getting killed while breaking laws.

No leftist ever told the BLM crowd that maybe they could avoid the unpleasant encounters with police. Instead, they repeat the false narrative of the left and claim that they are nothing but innocent targets. Some innocents have died, though more innocent people die at the hands of criminals. Few police would be so boldly racist that they would shoot a person strictly because of the skin of their skin. No instances of that have been found. Instead of parents protesting shootings and holding up signs saying they don't want to worry about their sons being shot just because they are robbing a store, they should be teaching their children that home invasions, robberies and assaulting people is a dangerous game. Maybe they should opt for something more sensible, like finishing school and getting jobs. Only danger in that is being labelled by the left as an Uncle Tom or a traitor. Blacks who rejected the left's policies did fine and being called a puppet beats the hell out of the alternative.

The left simply wants to divide people and pit groups against each other in an attempt to create a constant chaos that will eventually wear people down and cause more to become submissive to government. Then they'll take away rights and give government more power. That really is all there is to it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[QU
The people there were never heavily armed, so why the gun ban then?
.

That's easy. We decided we didn't want to live in a society where assault rifles were available to all and sundry.

Okay, but it didn't do you much good, now did it? Murderers are murderers, and guns don't turn people into murderers. Guns don't turn people into violent thieves.

You see, environment plays a major role here. As I stated, years ago I had no need for a gun. There are plenty of places in the US where you don't need a gun around. But if you do find yourself in an environment or situation where having a gun would be a pretty good idea, it's good to know that you can easily get one and legally use it.

I understand how this is difficult for you to imagine; regular ordinary citizens having firearms. One of my tenants got involved with a girl online from Australia. So she came to the states to stay with him for the summer. Wonderful and attractive girl, but she was pretty liberal. We discussed this issue and many others while she was here. One day I had to go to ATM machine, so I put on my shoulder holster and took my gun with me. She was outside as I was walking down the driveway and the wind blew my over shirt open exposing my gun. She was in total disbelief; that I could actually go into my car, drive to the bank, and if I got stopped by a police officer, there was nothing he could do to me except perhaps confiscate my gun during the traffic stop. And of course, the officer would have to give it back to me when we were done.

But here, we do that all the time.

I guess all some understand is that if your life is threatened, you hope for the best since you are at the mercy of the criminal.
Some believe that no one is responsible enough to handle a gun, probably because they themselves don't feel they are able to do so.

Most common way guns have saved lives is when criminals break into homes. And they deserve to be shot when they do that. Home invasions have increased in certain areas. Might be wise to have some big guns because a pistol might not do if a gang decides to kick your door in.

That's why I always tell the anti-gun people that if they don't think guns protect them as well, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and hang that on their front porch and see what happens. So far, nobody has taken me up on that offer as far as I know.

Only a fool would break into an occupied home in the US unless you live in one of those ant-gun states like California or New York. Having a gun is one thing, having laws that support the shooter is another. For instance, I would never want to take my gun into New York even with my permit. Even if I was involved in a justified shooting, I would still be worried about ending up in jail over there.

Here in my state the laws heavily favor the victim. I wouldn't have to think twice about using deadly force if need be. If somebody broke into my home and I wasted them, there are no questions asked. The cops just stop by and pickup the body and tell me to have a nice day.

Some of the liberal states want home owners prosecuted for shooting intruders. Of course, libs also want cops to leave their guns in the car unless there is a clear indication of danger. So stupid considering that there is a constant danger for cops. Criminals aren't stupid enough to be holding their weapon up and being obviously threatening. Cops have been shot walking up to cars after a routine traffic stop or ambushed responding to calls. There isn't a time when they don't potentially need to defend themselves but the left seems to think that criminals should be able to enter homes or rob stores without fear of being shot. Wrong. The message to criminals should be that people don't have to tolerate them and they should consider a different line of work if they don't want to risk getting killed while breaking laws.

No leftist ever told the BLM crowd that maybe they could avoid the unpleasant encounters with police. Instead, they repeat the false narrative of the left and claim that they are nothing but innocent targets. Some innocents have died, though more innocent people die at the hands of criminals. Few police would be so boldly racist that they would shoot a person strictly because of the skin of their skin. No instances of that have been found. Instead of parents protesting shootings and holding up signs saying they don't want to worry about their sons being shot just because they are robbing a store, they should be teaching their children that home invasions, robberies and assaulting people is a dangerous game. Maybe they should opt for something more sensible, like finishing school and getting jobs. Only danger in that is being labelled by the left as an Uncle Tom or a traitor. Blacks who rejected the left's policies did fine and being called a puppet beats the hell out of the alternative.

The left simply wants to divide people and pit groups against each other in an attempt to create a constant chaos that will eventually wear people down and cause more to become submissive to government. Then they'll take away rights and give government more power. That really is all there is to it.

Police shootings are a problem with a simple solution. All police shootings have one thing in common, and that is the suspect(s) didn't listen to the orders of the police officer. Solution to stop police shootings? Listen to the orders of a police officer.

It's way too pragmatic for a liberal to understand. So instead of doing the smart thing, they protest, riot, block traffic, burn down buildings and stores, and solve absolutely nothing. They don't know anything about our laws, so they actually believe that the only time a police officer can use deadly force is if he is threatened by a person with a deadly weapon.

There is no such law in any state in our country. A police officer (or armed citizen) can use deadly force if they believe that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. The attacker does not have to possess a deadly weapon in order for an officer or citizen to use deadly force against him.

 

[Dr Grump]

Okay, but it didn't do you much good, now did it? Murderers are murderers, and guns don't turn people into murderers. Guns don't turn people into violent thieves.

You see, environment plays a major role here. As I stated, years ago I had no need for a gun. There are plenty of places in the US where you don't need a gun around. But if you do find yourself in an environment or situation where having a gun would be a pretty good idea, it's good to know that you can easily get one and legally use it.

I understand how this is difficult for you to imagine; regular ordinary citizens having firearms. One of my tenants got involved with a girl online from Australia. So she came to the states to stay with him for the summer. Wonderful and attractive girl, but she was pretty liberal. We discussed this issue and many others while she was here. One day I had to go to ATM machine, so I put on my shoulder holster and took my gun with me. She was outside as I was walking down the driveway and the wind blew my over shirt open exposing my gun. She was in total disbelief; that I could actually go into my car, drive to the bank, and if I got stopped by a police officer, there was nothing he could do to me except perhaps confiscate my gun during the traffic stop. And of course, the officer would have to give it back to me when we were done.

But here, we do that all the time.

what do you mean it did us no good? Murder stats are down. But that isn't even the point. Your Aussie liberal was probably why you needed to walk down the road with a gun on your person. I get that if you live in downtown Mogadishu. But a so-called civilised society? Sorry, wrong century.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Okay, but it didn't do you much good, now did it? Murderers are murderers, and guns don't turn people into murderers. Guns don't turn people into violent thieves.

You see, environment plays a major role here. As I stated, years ago I had no need for a gun. There are plenty of places in the US where you don't need a gun around. But if you do find yourself in an environment or situation where having a gun would be a pretty good idea, it's good to know that you can easily get one and legally use it.

I understand how this is difficult for you to imagine; regular ordinary citizens having firearms. One of my tenants got involved with a girl online from Australia. So she came to the states to stay with him for the summer. Wonderful and attractive girl, but she was pretty liberal. We discussed this issue and many others while she was here. One day I had to go to ATM machine, so I put on my shoulder holster and took my gun with me. She was outside as I was walking down the driveway and the wind blew my over shirt open exposing my gun. She was in total disbelief; that I could actually go into my car, drive to the bank, and if I got stopped by a police officer, there was nothing he could do to me except perhaps confiscate my gun during the traffic stop. And of course, the officer would have to give it back to me when we were done.

But here, we do that all the time.

what do you mean it did us no good? Murder stats are down. But that isn't even the point. Your Aussie liberal was probably why you needed to walk down the road with a gun on your person. I get that if you live in downtown Mogadishu. But a so-called civilised society? Sorry, wrong century.

So what they are down here too.

It is not the gun laws that are responsible for dropping murder rates

 

[Dr Grump]

The trend is heading down here as well.

Our crime and murder rates have been dropping for 30 years

Glad to hear. But it the ratio is still five times ours....

 

[Skull Pilot]

The trend is heading down here as well.

Our crime and murder rates have been dropping for 30 years

Glad to hear. But it the ratio is still five times ours....

So what?

It has nothing to do with gun laws.

As you have been shown but refuse to believe

 

[Dr Grump]

Police shootings are a problem with a simple solution. All police shootings have one thing in common, and that is the suspect(s) didn't listen to the orders of the police officer. Solution to stop police shootings? Listen to the orders of a police officer.

It's way too pragmatic for a liberal to understand. So instead of doing the smart thing, they protest, riot, block traffic, burn down buildings and stores, and solve absolutely nothing. They don't know anything about our laws, so they actually believe that the only time a police officer can use deadly force is if he is threatened by a person with a deadly weapon.

There is no such law in any state in our country. A police officer (or armed citizen) can use deadly force if they believe that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. The attacker does not have to possess a deadly weapon in order for an officer or citizen to use deadly force against him.

I've seen at least three videos where the police were way out of line when it comes to shooting suspects. In two cases the suspects were running away. In all three occasions the police would have been rightly charged with homicide. Having to obey police instructions doesn't give them the right to shoot you.

 

[Dr Grump]

So what?

It has nothing to do with gun laws.

As you have been shown but refuse to believe

I have never argued it was because of the gun laws. There are probably a myriad of reasons. That is your argument to argue against, not mine.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what?

It has nothing to do with gun laws.

As you have been shown but refuse to believe

I have never argued it was because of the gun laws. There are probably a myriad of reasons. That is your argument to argue against, not mine.

And yet all you do is cry for gun control even though you now say it doesn't lower the murder or crime rate

So is gun control doesn't lower the crime or murder rate why do you want it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Police shootings are a problem with a simple solution. All police shootings have one thing in common, and that is the suspect(s) didn't listen to the orders of the police officer. Solution to stop police shootings? Listen to the orders of a police officer.

It's way too pragmatic for a liberal to understand. So instead of doing the smart thing, they protest, riot, block traffic, burn down buildings and stores, and solve absolutely nothing. They don't know anything about our laws, so they actually believe that the only time a police officer can use deadly force is if he is threatened by a person with a deadly weapon.

There is no such law in any state in our country. A police officer (or armed citizen) can use deadly force if they believe that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. The attacker does not have to possess a deadly weapon in order for an officer or citizen to use deadly force against him.

I've seen at least three videos where the police were way out of line when it comes to shooting suspects. In two cases the suspects were running away. In all three occasions the police would have been rightly charged with homicide. Having to obey police instructions doesn't give them the right to shoot you.

There is only one situation I'm aware of where the officer shot somebody while running away, and that officer was charged with murder. If you know of others where the officer was not charged, or charged and found not guilty, please post them for discussion.

However.......in certain situations, a police officer does have the legal right to shoot somebody running away. If an officer believes the suspect can be a danger to the public, yes, he can shoot the suspect to stop him from getting to the pubic.

If you don't listen to the orders of a police officer and by doing so, present a possible threat, he does have the right to use deadly force. For instance if the officer orders a suspect to keep his hands visible to him, and the guy puts his hands in his coat pocket, or if in a car reaches to the floor, an officer has every right to believe he may be attempting to pull a gun on him. Or if a suspect runs away, and when the officer yells "freeze" the suspect turns around and the officer couldn't see what his hands were doing while he was running away, again, he has the right to use deadly force because the guy could have taken a gun out of his pants and is attempting to turn around quickly to shoot the officer.

I don't know about where you live, but over here, in order to charge an officer with a crime, he had to have broken the law. We do not charge people for doing something we don't approve of or because of how the situation turned out. The officer has to break the law to be charged.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, but it didn't do you much good, now did it? Murderers are murderers, and guns don't turn people into murderers. Guns don't turn people into violent thieves.

You see, environment plays a major role here. As I stated, years ago I had no need for a gun. There are plenty of places in the US where you don't need a gun around. But if you do find yourself in an environment or situation where having a gun would be a pretty good idea, it's good to know that you can easily get one and legally use it.

I understand how this is difficult for you to imagine; regular ordinary citizens having firearms. One of my tenants got involved with a girl online from Australia. So she came to the states to stay with him for the summer. Wonderful and attractive girl, but she was pretty liberal. We discussed this issue and many others while she was here. One day I had to go to ATM machine, so I put on my shoulder holster and took my gun with me. She was outside as I was walking down the driveway and the wind blew my over shirt open exposing my gun. She was in total disbelief; that I could actually go into my car, drive to the bank, and if I got stopped by a police officer, there was nothing he could do to me except perhaps confiscate my gun during the traffic stop. And of course, the officer would have to give it back to me when we were done.

But here, we do that all the time.

what do you mean it did us no good? Murder stats are down. But that isn't even the point. Your Aussie liberal was probably why you needed to walk down the road with a gun on your person. I get that if you live in downtown Mogadishu. But a so-called civilised society? Sorry, wrong century.

I see. So if you were here for a vacation, you would walk to the store unarmed in Chicago? I doubt if you would.

Just because you live in a civilized society doesn't mean everybody is civil. We have places that are very civil and safe, and places you hope your car never breaks down in.

 

[Dr Grump]

And yet all you do is cry for gun control even though you now say it doesn't lower the murder or crime rate

So is gun control doesn't lower the crime or murder rate why do you want it?

Because it keeps guns out of the hands of crazies. And in the cases down here, because there is licensing etc it makes it:
1) A hell of a lot easier to tie crims to illegal guns
2) Makes people/crims think twice about using them
3) Makes them a lot harder to hold of
4) And I want to live in a society - say unlike Afghanistan, Somalia, Honduras, USA, Philippines - where people aren't walking around with guns. I believe (and it is my belief, not fact) that a more civilised society it one without guns.

 

[Dr Grump]

Police shootings are a problem with a simple solution. All police shootings have one thing in common, and that is the suspect(s) didn't listen to the orders of the police officer. Solution to stop police shootings? Listen to the orders of a police officer.

It's way too pragmatic for a liberal to understand. So instead of doing the smart thing, they protest, riot, block traffic, burn down buildings and stores, and solve absolutely nothing. They don't know anything about our laws, so they actually believe that the only time a police officer can use deadly force is if he is threatened by a person with a deadly weapon.

There is no such law in any state in our country. A police officer (or armed citizen) can use deadly force if they believe that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. The attacker does not have to possess a deadly weapon in order for an officer or citizen to use deadly force against him.

I've seen at least three videos where the police were way out of line when it comes to shooting suspects. In two cases the suspects were running away. In all three occasions the police would have been rightly charged with homicide. Having to obey police instructions doesn't give them the right to shoot you.

There is only one situation I'm aware of where the officer shot somebody while running away, and that officer was charged with murder. If you know of others where the officer was not charged, or charged and found not guilty, please post them for discussion.

However.......in certain situations, a police officer does have the legal right to shoot somebody running away. If an officer believes the suspect can be a danger to the public, yes, he can shoot the suspect to stop him from getting to the pubic.

If you don't listen to the orders of a police officer and by doing so, present a possible threat, he does have the right to use deadly force. For instance if the officer orders a suspect to keep his hands visible to him, and the guy puts his hands in his coat pocket, or if in a car reaches to the floor, an officer has every right to believe he may be attempting to pull a gun on him. Or if a suspect runs away, and when the officer yells "freeze" the suspect turns around and the officer couldn't see what his hands were doing while he was running away, again, he has the right to use deadly force because the guy could have taken a gun out of his pants and is attempting to turn around quickly to shoot the officer.

I don't know about where you live, but over here, in order to charge an officer with a crime, he had to have broken the law. We do not charge people for doing something we don't approve of or because of how the situation turned out. The officer has to break the law to be charged.

That is correct. And in all three cases, the person was not a danger to the public. How many offenders are killed in the US each year by armed cops? How many in Australia? In NZ, bugger-all as most police are not armed. And it's not like we have an epidemic of policeman being killed either.

It's all about the mindset and the difference between having a country awash with guns and two that aren't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Police shootings are a problem with a simple solution. All police shootings have one thing in common, and that is the suspect(s) didn't listen to the orders of the police officer. Solution to stop police shootings? Listen to the orders of a police officer.

It's way too pragmatic for a liberal to understand. So instead of doing the smart thing, they protest, riot, block traffic, burn down buildings and stores, and solve absolutely nothing. They don't know anything about our laws, so they actually believe that the only time a police officer can use deadly force is if he is threatened by a person with a deadly weapon.

There is no such law in any state in our country. A police officer (or armed citizen) can use deadly force if they believe that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. The attacker does not have to possess a deadly weapon in order for an officer or citizen to use deadly force against him.

I've seen at least three videos where the police were way out of line when it comes to shooting suspects. In two cases the suspects were running away. In all three occasions the police would have been rightly charged with homicide. Having to obey police instructions doesn't give them the right to shoot you.

There is only one situation I'm aware of where the officer shot somebody while running away, and that officer was charged with murder. If you know of others where the officer was not charged, or charged and found not guilty, please post them for discussion.

However.......in certain situations, a police officer does have the legal right to shoot somebody running away. If an officer believes the suspect can be a danger to the public, yes, he can shoot the suspect to stop him from getting to the pubic.

If you don't listen to the orders of a police officer and by doing so, present a possible threat, he does have the right to use deadly force. For instance if the officer orders a suspect to keep his hands visible to him, and the guy puts his hands in his coat pocket, or if in a car reaches to the floor, an officer has every right to believe he may be attempting to pull a gun on him. Or if a suspect runs away, and when the officer yells "freeze" the suspect turns around and the officer couldn't see what his hands were doing while he was running away, again, he has the right to use deadly force because the guy could have taken a gun out of his pants and is attempting to turn around quickly to shoot the officer.

I don't know about where you live, but over here, in order to charge an officer with a crime, he had to have broken the law. We do not charge people for doing something we don't approve of or because of how the situation turned out. The officer has to break the law to be charged.

That is correct. And in all three cases, the person was not a danger to the public. How many offenders are killed in the US each year by armed cops? How many in Australia? In NZ, bugger-all as most police are not armed. And it's not like we have an epidemic of policeman being killed either.

It's all about the mindset and the difference between having a country awash with guns and two that aren't.

You said a mouthful right there. You have very few if any fatal police incidents in those countries. However here, we average about 45 murdered cops a year. The death figure is over 120 per year, but that includes accidents on the job, car crashes, and other illnesses.

We are also awash with recreational narcotics, and those have been illegal my entire life. You can't stop the criminals from getting guns. It's impossible. The only thing you can do to combat armed criminals is to be armed yourself.

Now again, if you have a specific police incident you wish to bring up, by all means, post a link and we'll discuss it. But I can't comment on generalizations. Each and every case is different and each and every case has two sides to the story.