It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police ignore another person with his 2nd Amendment right

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   

kissy princess
Yep, I expected an unfortunate outcome to this event as well considering all of the trigger-happy cops these days. This video really set my mood right for the day, as I like this young man's drive, even if he is being brash and much of an assh*le. Haha!


Agreed.


Sure it could have been handled a bit differently, but better this way then no way at all.




posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

freedomSlave
yet again no respect for anyone but himself .

still some people wonder why there is a a gun debate going on down there . Legal or not who in their right mind is gonna feel safe with their kids outside with some moron on his lawn with a rifle.


A guy with it slung on his shoulder doing an obvious political protest? I'd feel just fine. I guess I'm unusual because I get to know my neighbors and I trust them all with firearms. Even go to the range with them. Contrary to what Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, and Obama would tell you, firearms are not magical, self aware, and self using baby-killers. I bet my 11 year old could out shoot you with her Ar-15.
edit on 19-3-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

ZeroFurrbone
This reminds me of this guy that pulled a gun in front of a bank and was arrested althrough he had the right to do it. The truth is only if 0.0001 % of the people had guns , no one would be afraid.

If there is a guy with a sword on the street will he get arested ? no, because people are afraid of guns.


Actually, you do see people with swords being arrested on the street. If only 0.0001% had guns, more people would be afraid when they see one because their only experience with them would be sensationalist movies and TV. In many parts of the US, open carry is common and nobody would give you a second glance and there isn't much crime either.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Onslaught2996
More shooting deaths in states with more gun owners

You would think this would be common sense. More guns equals more gun related deaths..duh.



Gun right advocates are not the brightest people on the planet, this story just proves that point. This story just shows that some people are attention whores.


I can't believe you actually quoted that debunked piece of garbage. They used unscientific methods to come to a preconceived conclusion. From the article you posted.




How the analysis was conducted
State levels of gun ownership were estimated using a well-established proxy variable: the percentage of a state’s suicides that are committed with a firearm (FS/S). Because there is no state-level survey that measures household gun ownership, researchers have widely relied upon the FS/S proxy in injury prevention research


So they don't even know the true rate of household gun ownership but guessed it based on suicide statistics. That's science for you!




The researchers used regression analysis to examine the relationship between state levels of gun ownership and firearm homicide rates, while controlling for a range of potential state-level confounding variables, including: age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted non-firearm homicide rate, incarceration rate, and suicide rate.


So they basically tossed out any variable that could harm their preconceived conclusion, such as CRIME so that they claim it was gun ownership that was the problem.




Let’s review some of the flaws in the American Journal of Public Health article. These tactics are nothing new, being drawn from an old playbook of public health anti-gun advocacy:

1) The authors cite Arthur Kellermann’s error-ridden 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article claiming that a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide. This study, thoroughly debunked years ago by researchers Don Kates, et. al., and Dave Kopel, used the wrong research tool (case control studies) to study unrepresentative gun owners (high crime inner city populations) to reach an invalid conclusion. Kellermann’s work is generally discounted by all scholars except the small community of anti-gun rights advocacy researchers.

2) The authors complain about the statutory prohibition on using federal funds from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to pay for “research related to guns that may be used to influence members of Congress.” But they fail to inform their readers that Congress instituted this ban to rein in the CDC’s audacious funding of gun control advocacy in the 1990s.

3) The authors manage to blame the ban on CDC-funded gun control advocacy for racial disparities, citing twice as many firearm injury deaths among blacks as among whites. But they don’t write a word about the real causes of the disparity, such as culture or lack of parental instruction about firearms.



www.drgo.us...


The paper's authors are members of Physicians against guns. No bias there, right?

Since they used Kellerman's data, let's look at the Kellerman study. First of all, the data included any death that was NEAR a gun. Their conclusion was very much like couches are dangerous because most deaths occur in or near a home where a couch is.




Sources and Types of Bias in Retrospective Studies

Epidemiological studies are subject to several types of bias. A "bias" is a fact that affects the accuracy of the data or their interpretation. Here are some of the biases that can affect the Kellermann study or other retrospective studies.

(1) Selection bias: Occurs when the population being studied is especially more, or less, likely to have the disease than the general population.65

The Kellermann researchers looked at the most populous urban counties in three states. They gathered their cases from records of homicides, and gathered their controls from the neighborhood near where the homicide victims had lived. The sampling was not random. The persons most likely to be studied were already victims or still lived in neighborhoods where such murders occurred. In a true random sampling, anybody in the population would be equally likely to studied.

(2) Information bias: Occurs when there are shortcomings in the way information is obtained from the respondents. Examples of this bias arise when the respondents: do not actually know the answers but guess anyway; have a motivation to give socially acceptable answers; or, give answers they think the investigator wants.66

The Kellermann researchers "poisoned the well" in the first place by telling the respondents the nature and purpose of the study before asking the questions. Then, they obtained information from persons who likely had a motivation to misreport the truth: the grieving friends and relatives (proxies) of the victim.

Although the researchers found a "control" person for each victim, they apparently accepted answers about the "control" person from any adult in the same household as the actual "control" person.67 The researchers also offered the respondents money for the interview -- they paid for the information, rather than obtain it by objective means.

Many of the proxy respondents (40%) requested a telephone interview rather than a face-to-face interview. A smaller number of controls (13%) requested the telephone interview.68 Using a validation technique, the Kellermann researchers themselves found that the control respondents underreported domestic violence in their own homes.69 These facts suggest a certain level of discomfort with the interview questions. By avoiding a face-to-face interview, these respondents seemingly demonstrated a concern for the effect or credibility of their responses in the eyes of the interviewer. The respondents apparently also underreported their own domestic violence, doubtless for fear of public scorn or legal action.

The Kellermann article did not report any attempts to assess the credibility of individual responses. Even had the researchers wanted to evaluate the credibility of responses, using telephonic interviews made that goal much harder to achieve.

(3) Recall bias: Occurs when the respondent's memory is incomplete or uncertain. This bias can occur because of the human tendency not to remember events that they considered to be less important when those events occurred. This bias can also arise when researchers repeatedly ask the same or similar questions to get an answer from the exposed respondents, while accepting the first answer they get from members of the control group.70

Although the Kellermann article reported that the interview proceeded on a strictly structured format, the questioners' actual conduct is unknown. Also unknown is whether the questioners tried to explain questions to the respondents.

(4) Volunteer bias: Occurs because persons who are willing to volunteer for a study might differ in important ways from the general population.71

The Kellermann study depended upon the willingness of persons to answer interview questions. There is no way to know how the respondents' personal experiences or opinions might have influenced their decision to participate in the study.

(5) Rumination bias: Occurs because persons who are exposed, ill, or injured may ruminate about (reflect upon) the causes of their condition and thus report different facts about their exposure. By contrast, members of the control group may not ruminate about the matter.72

This bias likely affects the data from the proxies for the victim. The Kellermann researchers intentionally delayed questioning the proxies "to allow for an initial period of grief."73 Of course, this delay time allowed the proxies to ruminate about the circumstances, causes and reasons for the victim's death, and to discuss these factors with other interested persons. A grieving person's desire to fix blame on some person or thing could influence their responses in ways not even discussed in the Kellermann article.

(6) Wish bias: Occurs when there is a tendency of the investigator or the respondent to reach a desired result. This bias can arise because persons often prefer to give a more emotionally acceptable explanation for a contracting a disease than exposure by personal choice. Accordingly, respondents may want to blame inanimate objects like toxic chemicals, or external factors like workplace or living environment, rather than attribute their problems to their own choice of lifestyles.74

The wish bias especially taints case-control studies that use subjective questionnaires. This problem is even more severe when proxies or other family members answer the survey questions instead of the actual patients or controls.75 Also, when an interviewer knows what the study is trying to show, the interviewer may consciously or subconsciously influence respondents to give information consistent with the desired outcome.76

The Kellermann study methods provided many opportunities for wish bias to arise. The interviewers and the respondents were not "blind," that is, they both knew the purpose of the study. There is no evidence that interviewers were screened for personal biases concerning the study's objectives. The Kellermann researchers' study was a "case-control" study using proxies for the victims and sometimes for the controls. Their procedure thus carried an increased likelihood of wish bias.

Finally, the respondents might well have wanted to blame the drugs, alcohol, guns, or some other person or factor for the victim's death, rather than the victim or his lifestyle. Consciously or subconsciously, this desire could have influenced their recall of the facts.77

(7) Non-random sampling bias: Occurs because the sample of the population may not be perfectly random; questions on a questionnaire are only a sample of the potential questions; and respondents provide only a sample of their possible "correct" answers to the questions. For a sample of anything to be "random," every member of the potential set must have an equal chance of being chosen.78

The Kellermann researchers never claimed that the study population was "random." The article provided little information about the "randomness" of the interview questions or their answers. The researchers admitted that they "had no way to verify each respondent's statements independently."79



jpfo.org...

You buy that unmitigated false science propaganda piece and then have the temerity to call gun rights advocates stupid?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
the cop used restraint...anyone standing by a public road in a dense housing neighborhood with a rifle is....duh....going to be viewed as having hostile intentions...this cop doesn't know if this guy is whacked, just got done killing his family or someone else, high on something, a cop-hating nut, a person out to commit suicide by cop.....geez....can't this guy just take some Viagra, if he feels that he's so impotent, that he has to walk around with a rifle over his shoulder?


(post by Meditationplus removed for a manners violation)

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

jimmyx
the cop used restraint...anyone standing by a public road in a dense housing neighborhood with a rifle is....duh....going to be viewed as having hostile intentions...this cop doesn't know if this guy is whacked, just got done killing his family or someone else, high on something, a cop-hating nut, a person out to commit suicide by cop.....geez....can't this guy just take some Viagra, if he feels that he's so impotent, that he has to walk around with a rifle over his shoulder?


Perish the thought that a person in a free country stage a protest or demonstration in support of his civil liberties. I wonder what those book-nuts will do to top it? Maybe have a bunch of scary looking books piled up on their lawn?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

Yes I know my neighbors too good for you for reaching out . But obviously someone in that neighborhood didn't agree with the statement this guy was making about the 2nd admendment or in fact was oblivious as to what he was doing , regardless it still infringed someones right to feel safe and protected . Just because you have a right to feel safe and protected with a fire arm should cancel the right and freedoms of others where there is a shift of public perception over the decades in the western world towards fire arms and the needs for them . ETA.... With the problems of people going off the handle with public shootings was this really the best course and decision made by this guy , no probably not no respect for anyone but himself is how I see . Still people wonder why people are sketchy when some moron is on his lawn with a rifle

As I have said before I am not for an all out ban of fire arms I realize the need for hunting and sport regardless how hard people here seem hard to portray .

Good for you girl I bet she is a great shot, bonding is important with our kids you go to a shooting range I have other interests/ hobbies I share with my kids , bet she could out guitar you
Not really sure why you brought that up though .
edit on 19/3/14 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I think you just called checkmate...

Thank you sir!



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
How about this .. it isn't illegal to smoke so buy rights I should be able to smoke around you and your family in any public place

Say if we lived in a state where pot is legal because it legal and you are in the same state it should be my right for my to smoke pot outside in my yard while your kids are playing in your backyard downwind or in your living room ?

would that be acceptable ?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   

freedomSlave
How about this .. it isn't illegal to smoke so buy rights I should be able to smoke around you and your family in any public place

Say if we lived in a state where pot is legal because it legal and you are in the same state it should be my right for my to smoke pot outside in my yard while your kids are playing in your backyard downwind or in your living room ?

would that be acceptable ?



In your own yard outside? Sure. It's your yard, isn't it?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

freedomSlave
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

Yes I know my neighbors too good for you for reaching out . But obviously someone in that neighborhood didn't agree with the statement this guy was making about the 2nd admendment or in fact was oblivious as to what he was doing , regardless it still infringed someones right to feel safe and protected . Just because you have a right to feel safe and protected with a fire arm should cancel the right and freedoms of others where there is a shift of public perception over the decades in the western world towards fire arms and the needs for them . ETA.... With the problems of people going off the handle with public shootings was this really the best course and decision made by this guy , no probably not no respect for anyone but himself is how I see . Still people wonder why people are sketchy when some moron is on his lawn with a rifle

As I have said before I am not for an all out ban of fire arms I realize the need for hunting and sport regardless how hard people here seem hard to portray .

Good for you girl I bet she is a great shot, bonding is important with our kids you go to a shooting range I have other interests/ hobbies I share with my kids , bet she could out guitar you
Not really sure why you brought that up though .
edit on 19/3/14 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)


One person's feelings do not trump another person's civil rights. You don't have a right not to be offended, for example. My right to free speech is not effected by your taking offense to what I talk about. "Feeling safe" is worthless compared to actually being safe anyway.

He was on the lawn with a rifle, but any moron could see that it was slung and unloaded and the signs and the flag make it obvious. I agree, you have a point if he was wildly waving it about or pointing it at people. Some blissninny being all afraid about behavior that was not a threat in any way just because he or she is too ignorant not to be afraid of an inanimate object does not necessitate his civil liberties to be curtailed.

The guy was on his own property making an obvious political comment. People do that all of the time, especially around election season. It's sad that his message offended someone, but there are a lot of people out there who hate free speech.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

NavyDoc
In your own yard outside? Sure. It's your yard, isn't it?


sure but I would respect my neighbors and not put them in a situation like that . It is all about respect .


One person's feelings do not trump another person's civil rights. You don't have a right not to be offended, for example. My right to free speech is not effected by your taking offense to what I talk about. "Feeling safe" is worthless compared to actually being safe anyway.


So people shouldn't have an opinion because of a amendment pasted long time ago in your country . doesn't sound like you are promoting democracy very much or respecting any freedoms of anyone else but your own and then for some to be so proud to use force if any change is to made sounds more like a totalitarian society . Every aspect of law and society ..


He was on the lawn with a rifle, but any moron could see that it was slung and unloaded and the signs and the flag make it obvious.

Not really sure how people across the street would really know it was unloaded ,or was it some fanatic running around with the gun laughing and giggling waiting with camera filming himself about to go off on a spree how does one really know what the intentions are . why should anyone have to worry about what the intentions are of someone walking around with a fire arm . thats not freedom freedom is having a say this all comes down to your personal freedom and piss on everyone else and their freedom of speech .



The guy was on his own property making an obvious political comment. People do that all of the time, especially around election season. It's sad that his message offended someone, but there are a lot of people out there who hate free speech.
funny u talk of freedom this freedom that and this is your thought process do you even listen to yourself people



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by wirefly
 


I can appreciate the right to own and bear arms. However, it could at the very least be done responsibly. Again, I understand that these rights are under threat. But these overt protests and action somewhat feed the fire, do they not? And he WASN'T holding the firearm safely. It seemed casually slung around his neck like a pretty little necklace...WHILE HE WAS IN PUBLIC...Sorry, I am sure most people driving by wouldn't know if he was United States Marine Corps or one of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   

ZeroFurrbone
This reminds me of this guy that pulled a gun in front of a bank and was arrested althrough he had the right to do it. The truth is only if 0.0001 % of the people had guns , no one would be afraid.

If there is a guy with a sword on the street will he get arested ? no, because people are afraid of guns.


That statement is un accurate. I had bought a sword and was walking back home with it and our town cop nearly arrested me because i was brandishing a weapon.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Before speaking of rights people should better understand them. Very few people actually own thier land save for Spanish land grants and perhaps a few others. Instead people are purchasing the 5 rights to land. This is what gives immanent domain it's legal standing, all land is owned by the fed and has priority over it in cases where necessary, such as public menace. He was clearly deemed by the public to be a menace, so law enforcement can and should do as they are asked by the public to deal with it. It's no cops fault that gay people have more rights than gun owners, that's the fault of gun owners.

edit on 19-3-2014 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



He was on the lawn with a rifle, but any moron could see that it was slung and unloaded and the signs and the flag make it obvious.

You really need to learn a little bit about weapons. Because a rifle doesn't need to have a clip in it for there to be a round in the chamber. And so what if it was slung you do know what a sling is for right? What do flags have to do with weapons being unloaded.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   

freedomSlave
...it still infringed someones right to feel safe and protected...


So, we all have the unalienable right to 'feel safe protected,' and that trumps any rights anyone else may have?

In that case, I don't feel safe unless I am surrounded by dump trucks full of other people's money. Freedomslave, I expect your contribution within one week.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Sometimes you ask for negative attention and you get it.... I personally like to stay OFF the radar.... Not showoff... To each his own I guess



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Kangaruex4Ewe
Whilst I do love me some 2nd amendment.... This guy is lucky that the coroner didn't have to come and scrape brain matter off of the grass in front of his house. I am surprised the cop didn't shoot him after asking him to put the gun down and him refusing to do so. It happens these days, I almost expected it here.

I am not sure if this guy was stupid, brave, or insane for taking the risk at all. I do applaud his passion and willingness to stand up for what he believes in and bringing attention to the matter though.
He may have been able to do it in a better way, sometimes egging a cop on to get a certain reaction ends up a bad deal for both parties.


Well IMO if he was black he would of been dead! I think he should have had his weapon pointed at the sky or the ground!
I agree he was looking for a confrontation and it's just stupid pressing your luck to prove that our rights are consistently
being trampled! If people can't see that already it wont help to show videos of this or worse! Until we decide we have
had enough of being exploited then we will continue to be!



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join