DiscussMormonism.com

Before anyone objects with inane reasons as to why this does not constitute proof positive for needing gun control, please watch the entirety of the video.

In a country without as many guns and history of gun violence, could this scene really have happened?

http://www.lataco.com/taco/hawthorne-police-arrest-man-for-filming-them-then-shoot-his-dog

moksha wrote:Before anyone objects with inane reasons as to why this does not constitute proof positive for needing gun control, please watch the entirety of the video.

In a country without as many guns and history of gun violence, could this scene really have happened?

http://www.lataco.com/taco/hawthorne-police-arrest-man-for-filming-them-then-shoot-his-dog

What was the primary weapon of choice among the Hutus in their genocidal slaughter of the Tutsis in 1994, Moksha?

moksha wrote:Before anyone objects with inane reasons as to why this does not constitute proof positive for needing gun control, please watch the entirety of the video.

In a country without as many guns and history of gun violence, could this scene really have happened?

http://www.lataco.com/taco/hawthorne-police-arrest-man-for-filming-them-then-shoot-his-dog

Honestly, I don't the question and correlation?

I saw this video earlier today and it was clearly a video of Police Abuse of Authority, not anything related to "gun control". The police wouldn't have had to shoot the dog being a good little doggy protecting his owner if the police hadn't been abusing their authority arresting the guy that was FAR from the incident in question, with trumped up charges of interfering with police.

Of course it could have happened, a dog was "threatening" the police so they shot it.

So, what does this have to do with Gun Control, a history of violence etc.?

Would you rather police go back to "Billy Clubs" one hit and crack a man or dogs skull open?
Of course, that's only good at close range where you place yourself in more risk, and it isn't effective against multiple attackers, especially if they or one has a billy club also. A gun is the most effective method of self defense without you yourself getting harmed.

ldsfaqs wrote:
Would you rather police go back to "Billy Clubs" one hit and crack a man or dogs skull open?

I suspect the dog could have avoided the billy club better and the police officer would not have been able to kill the dog at a distance.

What was the primary weapon of choice among the Hutus in their genocidal slaughter of the Tutsis in 1994, Moksha?

I doubt it was a can of pepper spray, which easily deters dogs without killing them.

by the way, doesn't it depend on whether the Hutus righteously practiced polygamy?

So, what does this have to do with Gun Control, a history of violence etc.?

Our ability to escalate a non-violent situation into one of deadly violence in the blink of an eye.

"Non-violent"?

How do you classify a dog attempting and threatening to attack you as "non-violent"?
Are you telling us you're completely ignorant of the # of dog attacks, especially by Pit Bulls/Rotweilers which that dog was?

Why should a cop who's involved with arresting a big guy, be in your mind go to "pepper-spay" to stop a dog getting right in the middle of the situation?

Further, do you even have any comprehension the "effectiveness" of pepper-spay usage with a dog in the middle of a "situation"? No you don't, which shows your utter ignorance in judging the officers in this. It has nothing to do with being a "gun culture", it has to do with the effectiveness of a tool compared to the likelihood of getting harmed.

Maybe YOU would like to allow yourself to possibly get harmed in that situation, but people who do that job as their job, simply don't want to get hurt, and so they use the most effective means they have to not get hurt.

Now, obviously if they were just confronting a scary dog, had time, etc., they might have tried to use less lethal force, and if you knew anything they DO do those things, but this was a different situation.

Anyway, you're focusing on the wrong thing.

The "wrong" here is not that they shot a dog to protect themselves from serious damage, it's that they arrested a guy simply because he wouldn't obey them when he was clearly far enough away from the situation.

That's what you should be complaining about. Not complaining about a persons CIVIL RIGHT to defend themselves from harm.

If you can't understand that a human being has a right to defend himself from harm, then we can't help you. A person being hit in the head several times, a person being bitten by a dog CAN result in deadly force (which is death by force), thus, the usage of deadly force to stop such an assault is perfectly reasonable. Again, if you can't understand that, then we can't help you.