Or do you think someone can commit mass murder on this scale with knives and baseball bats?
Between knife attacks in China and intentionally set fires in Australia? Yes, yes I do...
Remember: the worst school attack in US history *wasn't* a shooting...
This has become a regular event in America.
Gun violence, as well as violent crime in general, has dropped significantly in the last 2 decades or so
America is FOURTH in death by gun, after Thailand, Nigeria and Colombia; that's the company we keep.
Actually, America isn't even in the top ten.
We have more murders by gun than any developed (and many undeveloped) nations.
That's cherry-picking, unless you can explain why it makes sense to compare the US vs Sweden, but not the US vs Russia. Also, Turkey (considered a developed country depending on definition) has a higher murder rate than the US. And why would "murders by gun" matter more than just simply "murders"?
The NRA *actively* lobbies to defeat laws that will keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill persons, and on and on. It's a national disgrace.
The ACLU *actively* lobbies to defeat laws that will keep criminals and rapists on the streets. But instead of calling it a national disgrace, we refer to it as the inherent risks of essential liberty.
What about the rights of the 100's of thousands of people that have been murdered by gun in America - what about them?
What exactly about them? Safety and/or protection from criminals and madmen isn't exactly a right, and the supreme court has made it clear repeatedly that citizens have to expectation of police protection...
What they don't know doesn't affect them.
The government must *love* you...
Except 14 rear olds generally live in their parent's house, and brewing takes a long enough time to risk discovery by said parents.
You would think the same would apply to inmates (whom live in a jail cell surrounded by cops). However, the prison wine keeps getting made alongside weapons. San Quentin even has a museum for some of the contraband they've found...
NOTHING justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back when he's already 10 yards away.
Except, legally, the fleeing felon rule does just that:
The Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment.
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."
Granted, this doesn't mean the fleeing felon rule applies in this case (especially considering the seemingly false statements made by the officer), but saying NOTHING justifies it isn't quite accurate...
"The Mets were great in 'sixty eight, The Cards were fine in 'sixty nine, But the Cubs will be heavenly in nineteen and seventy." -- Ernie Banks