Three officers approached the boy’s house, with one asking “What you doing bro, you good?” They heard a loud bang, later determined to be fireworks, and shot at the child. Fortunately, no physical injuries were recorded. In initial reports, police falsely claimed that they fired at a “man” who had fired on officers.
In a subsequent assessment of the event, the Chicago Civilian Office of Police Accountability (“COPA”) concluded that “a firearm was not used against the officers.” Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling placed all attending officers on administrative duty for 30 days and is investigating whether the officers violated department policies.
ShotSpotter is the largest company which produces and distributes audio gunshot detection for U.S. cities and police departments. Currently, it is used by 100 law enforcement agencies.
Experts have long been warning of these tools’ the inaccuracy.
What is even the purpose of this post? If you’re going to be so ignorant of US history, at least don’t act so high and mighty about your implications.
The 2nd Amendment, for one. It’s a constitutional amendment that hasn’t changed since the Constitution was written, back in 1787. It’s also the 2nd, and not say, the 20th, so its importance is more significant in the minds of the American public than certain ones we’ve gotten rid of, like the alcohol ban (18th).
It requires a 2/3rds majority in Congress to change a constitutional amendment, and that sure as fuck ain’t happening with today’s batshit crazy GOP. They can’t even keep their own party together with the right-wing crazies having fights with the extremely-right wing House majority leaders because they have the gall to “compromise”, which is the whole fucking point of Congress.
Besides, all of this talk of “banning guns” is unproductive. If you want to make change, start with regulations. Canada’s got a shit ton of guns, and nobody’s bitching about them, because they are properly regulated.
What the fuck does this question even mean? Is what “well past the point”? Why would “incidents involving guns” should almost never happen? Brits have gun bans, and they still have gun incidents.
Banning a thing doesn’t make it go away. I thought we learned this shit with the War on (some) Drugs. Or, for that manner, Prohibition. (Do you like gangs? Well, you can thank Prohibition for that shit.)
Isn’t that all about bearing arms so that the people can overthrow the government? Yeah, good luck with that. Who are you counting on, the gangs? School shooting kids? Rednecks? Good ol’ boys? Are they all getting together and marching in force as one?
Then vote for people who make those changes for the better. If Trump gets in again I fear for us all, not just you guys.
That sir is exactly what I’m proposing. I agree with you completely, Canada being a great example.
Good point. I think I was being rhetorical, which wasn’t very useful. I just find it crazy that the whole country hasn’t got together on this one thing at least. I know it’s not easy, but making it more difficult for people to shoot each other must be important to everyone?
Very rarely. But that’s not a good argument. I’m not sure about this kind of thing but I think that’s what they call whataboutism. Imagine if there were less gun crime in the US than the UK. Why not at least try?
Your arrogance is compounded by your ignorance in assuming that they are from the US. Lemmy is an international service.
I know they aren’t from the US, because an American wouldn’t ask such nationally-ignorant questions.