Boy with toy gun killed by police

GolemLover said:

...Dafuq? Seriously?

They have tons of other crimes to tend to, and instead they kill a innocent little kid? :/


...The human race is officially doomed...

Click to expand...

the problem is that there are more underaged kids running with real guns in the US than there are soldiers in the Brittish army. They couldn't know the gun was fake since it's a common thing: kids with daddy's gun.

It is a shame that the kid needed to be killed, but I can see why the officer shot. What would you do if somebody, no matter the age, pointed a gun at you while you are carrying one too? I would've shot too probably, but there is plenty of human to shoot at without killing them...

I'm all for non-lethal methods, but I agree that a taser isn't the best option in every scenario because it is one shot at getting it right and if you miss you're pretty close to someone you think is dangerous enough to need to use your taser in the first place.

Of course, if we give police forces all of those fancy non-lethal tools they may be inclined to use them more often, perhaps. I wouldn't want everyone shot with one of those beanbag things or tasers for every minor criminal offense.

And on the issue of the gun looking real, this here is (presumably) a photo of the toy gun the boy had. (Taken from the BBC article.)



I'm not a gun expert, but it looks fairly real at a glance to me. If I were driving down the street and I saw someone carrying this I would be worried.

mr.Alpha said:

the problem is that there are more underaged kids running with real guns in the US than there are soldiers in the Brittish army. They couldn't know the gun was fake since it's a common thing: kids with daddy's gun.

It is a shame that the kid needed to be killed, but I can see why the officer shot. What would you do if somebody, no matter the age, pointed a gun at you while you are carrying one too? I would've shot too probably, but there is plenty of human to shoot at without killing them...

Click to expand...

If it was a REAL gun, then yeah I would've shot the person (out of self defense) with no problem. But if it was only a toy/fake, I'd know since I know the diffrence between Toys and the real thing. I've seen both.

GolemLover said:

If it was a REAL gun, then yeah I would've shot the person (out of self defense) with no problem. But if it was only a toy/fake, I'd know since I know the diffrence between Toys and the real thing. I've seen both.

Click to expand...

Scarf said:

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure if you saw somebody walking up to you, holding THAT in his/her hands, you wouldn't even take the time to think about if it's real or not, you just react to the fact that there's somebody with a gun coming your way.

O07_eleven said:

The big lesson here is firearm safety folks. Always have the weapon pointed in a safe direction, fingers away from trigger and any firing mechanisms clearly removed. A kid walking down the street with a very real looking AK47 not following those practices is looking to get shot, if he didn't make any surrendering gestures as the police say then I wouldn't be suprised if this was a suicide by cop. Either that or this child was very stupid. Teach your kids gun safety!

Rezilia, as an Australian who lives in a very safe country with restricted access to guns I'd rebutt all your points and enlighten you with factual evidence vs your pure opinion but this is not the thread for that. So let me just say the militarization of American police is because so often they are faced with firearms being used dangerously they have little choice to employ these tactics or else they'd be risking their own lives and lives of bystanders.

Click to expand...

this. 100%, pure, THIS. Totally agreed.

You know what, you're right.

Removing guns will definitely cause police to not need to use guns.

After all, a person with a dagger at a hostage's throat DEFINITELY won't cut the hostage's throat before a policeman manages to use any other incredibly small projectile with a high degree of accuracy with instantaneous fire at the criminal's head.

#logic

--

FACT: Gun use by citizens is frowned upon in Australia, Canada, and Japan - to name the most popular.

FACT: Those nations have their police still use guns, regardless of the fact that citizens aren't to use them.

Oh, yes. Your argument makes total sense.

Rezilia said:

Removing guns will definitely cause police to not need to use guns.

Click to expand...

Okay, I don't think 007_eleven was taking about getting rid of police guns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was more on the side of with a lot of people owning a gun, the police are more inclined to shoot people themselves when a person is outside with one in order to protect the innocent bystanders. In Australia, owning guns is frowned upon, so it is almost unheard of when someone walks outside openly handling what looks to be a real gun. Since this rarely occurs, the police are less inclined to use a gun when dealing with criminals. You can swoop down and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what 007_eleven meant.

Yes, criminals will still have guns, there's nothing that can be done about that. However, if guns were heavily frowned upon in America, a lot of people wouldn't have one. Which means that kids like this one we're discussing wouldn't be carrying around even fake guns. It's a mentality that they have (I believe) that really makes situations like this unheard of in other countries. I'm going to start speculating about lives in other countries now, so I hope I don't look too stupid.

Kids in other countries realize that guns are a big deal and shouldn't be messed with. Kids in America are brought up to believe that guns are your right, and that they're good. So, guns don't look so intimidating and kids don't realize what power they hold. They don't realize what even a realistic replica could do to a lot of people, so they don't take it seriously. That's the problem I see right now, that kids don't take guns seriously.

Rezilia said:

You know what, you're right.

Removing guns will definitely cause police to not need to use guns.

After all, a person with a dagger at a hostage's throat DEFINITELY won't cut the hostage's throat before a policeman manages to use any other incredibly small projectile with a high degree of accuracy with instantaneous fire at the criminal's head.

#logic

--

FACT: Gun use by citizens is frowned upon in Australia, Canada, and Japan - to name the most popular.

FACT: Those nations have their police still use guns, regardless of the fact that citizens aren't to use them.

Oh, yes. Your argument makes total sense.

Click to expand...

I must say that so far the arguments you made are very weak.
Removing guns from citizens doesn't mean you have to remove them from the police too, Police officers are allowed to have guns in nearly every country, because it's part of their job.
If citizens cannot have firearms, but police officers can, it will hold people back from actually doing stuff since, well, you can get shot and all you can do is try to get near him to stab him, but he'll have shot you multiple times by then. When guns are allowed like this, people will just think " he has a gun, so do I. If he points his at me I will shoot him." And that's exactly what those countries you used as an example try to prevent, and they're doing a pretty good job at that, that's a fact.

My point is that POLICE SHOULDN'T have guns, period.

Many people outside of the U.S. just don't understand the point our country is at right now. It's on the verge of revolution. Taking away our weapons, esp. guns, will put more power in the hands of the government, which means they can continue doing the BS they're doing now - forcing us against our will to do more stupid things that will hurt us and our place in the world.

A nation is its people.

If the people aren't okay with the government, the nation's government is failing it. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are our core values. The Pursuit no longer exists because people are stuck in a society where opportunity does not mean the ability to use opportunity. It's become a cage where each and every person is either stuck where they are or has to go downhill. The Pursuit of Happiness is no longer in effect. SHOOT TO KILL goes against the Life trait - whether you think it's okay for police to have guns and implement shoot to kill in your nation or not, IT ISN'T okay in ours. Also, Liberty is being contradicted by the second due to more and more laws FORCED on people that they don't want. This nation was founded on the idea of no taxes, and here we are swimming in them.

You all may be perfectly fine with your leaders sucking you dry to the point where you're ashes and you didn't see it coming, but we Muricans are too far on edge. The actions of the dumb*sses in government right now have shown us that our leaders aren't fit to lead. And being the way we are here, we're inclined to revolution. Our leaders, seeing this, are trying to implement more policies allowing them greater control over us - more lethal action, access to all our private information, getting everyone under the same system and thus less choice over how they live, etc.

Looking at it from a non-Murican perspective is useless. Unless you're in the U.S., you most likely aren't seeing just how bad out government is. WE AREN'T DOCILE LAMBS. We're all wolves. We don't allow our government to do things against our will. And it's been doing so for the past 100 years. We've pretty much lost it by now.

Rezilia said:

My point is that POLICE SHOULDN'T have guns, period.

Many people outside of the U.S. just don't understand the point our country is at right now. It's on the verge of revolution. Taking away our weapons, esp. guns, will put more power in the hands of the government, which means they can continue doing the BS they're doing now - forcing us against our will to do more stupid things that will hurt us and our place in the world.

A nation is its people.

If the people aren't okay with the government, the nation's government is failing it. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are our core values. The Pursuit no longer exists because people are stuck in a society where opportunity does not mean the ability to use opportunity. It's become a cage where each and every person is either stuck where they are or has to go downhill. The Pursuit of Happiness is no longer in effect. SHOOT TO KILL goes against the Life trait - whether you think it's okay for police to have guns and implement shoot to kill in your nation or not, IT ISN'T okay in ours. Also, Liberty is being contradicted by the second due to more and more laws FORCED on people that they don't want. This nation was founded on the idea of no taxes, and here we are swimming in them.

You all may be perfectly fine with your leaders sucking you dry to the point where you're ashes and you didn't see it coming, but we Muricans are too far on edge. The actions of the dumb*sses in government right now have shown us that our leaders aren't fit to lead. And being the way we are here, we're inclined to revolution. Our leaders, seeing this, are trying to implement more policies allowing them greater control over us - more lethal action, access to all our private information, getting everyone under the same system and thus less choice over how they live, etc.

Looking at it from a non-Murican perspective is useless. Unless you're in the U.S., you most likely aren't seeing just how bad out government is. WE AREN'T DOCILE LAMBS. We're all wolves. We don't allow our government to do things against our will. And it's been doing so for the past 100 years. We've pretty much lost it by now.

Click to expand...

So because the government prohibits guns for everyone, we're fine with our "leaders" sucking our dry?

I do admit that the governments these days are just a bunch is noobs, to put it bluntly. They don't know what they should do next, hence the bad ideas. But I don't agree with the point of police officers shouldn't have guns.
Even though guns will be prohibited, there will be an amount of people carrying it anyway

Look in countries such as Germany, or The Netherlands. Guns are prohibited, and you will get sentenced to jail if you get caught carrying one on the street. HOWEVER, there are still Armed Robberies in Jewelry Shops and Banks. So there are still people with guns, even though it's not allowed. If the police didn't have guns at this point, we would've been doomed. Robbers could just walk into a bank with a gun pointed at people, the police doesn't have a gun so what in heaven could they possibly do?!

Please think before you speak; Police officers without guns will only make things way more dangerous than they already are, Citizens without guns make things safer. This, also, is a fact.

mr.Alpha said:

So because the government prohibits guns for everyone, we're fine with our "leaders" sucking our dry?

I do admit that the governments these days are just a bunch is noobs, to put it bluntly. They don't know what they should do next, hence the bad ideas. But I don't agree with the point of police officers shouldn't have guns.
Even though guns will be prohibited, there will be an amount of people carrying it anyway

Robbers could just walk into a bank with a gun pointed at people, the police doesn't have a gun so what in heaven could they possibly do?!

Click to expand...

I understand not all nations are like that. I normally look to Japan when I need an example of docile lambing, but the Pirate Party and similar organizations HAVE done great things to make many nations better for their people.

--

They. Could. Tase. Them.

What, you think tasing a person is too dangerous because it could cause the person to shoot?

SHOOTING a person could cause them to shoot! Their bodies could naturally act by pulling the trigger if you SHOOT them. Tasing is no different AND it doesn't kill the person.

And if you're talking about 10m length, not only can that be INCREASED - you also shouldn't be trying to shoot someone from more than 10m away in the first place. It's too inaccurate with a pistol. Situations normally requiring long-range shooting generally use SWAT or similar forces anyway, and those have sniper rifles.

Now, though electric BB bombs would be amazing to fire from sniper rifles, I understand they aren't a thing yet - I understand that SWAT generally requires lethal force. They are trained for such situations.

But NORMAL police shouldn't be allowed to use lethal force. It isn't necessary. They don't handle situations like SWAT does. They shouldn't be allowed to kill - and by that, they shouldn't use guns.

Rezlilia said:

My point is that POLICE SHOULDN'T have guns, period.

Click to expand...

Wait, then why should regular people have guns if the police can't have them? Who would stop the violence? Unless you mean no one should have a gun, but then you wouldn't have gone on that rant that we need guns so that the government won't walk all over us. You're not making much sense here, care to elaborate?

Rezilia said:

This nation was founded on the idea of no taxes, and here we are swimming in them.

Click to expand...

Please tell me you're kidding, please tell me you misspoke. The reason we got upset wasn't over taxes, it was because we were being taxed by the British without having someone ever here seeing how it was going. Does the phrase "taxation without representation" mean anything? But, that's off topic, so I'll end it there.

The taxes issue extended to a hatred of taxes in general, period.

But you want to make it without rep? Fine.

The colonists were being represented in England, just not by their fellow colonists.

Now, citizens in Murica are being represented in DC, just not by those that think alike.

Washington warned against political parties. We got them anyway. Now, those same parties give us a list to choose from and we pick the option we believe most helpful or least detrimental, BUT NOT THE OPTION we really want - because we're never given that option. All those chosen by the parties exist to be lapdogs to the party's leaders and agenda - NOT the agenda of the populace.


SO YES - it's the same exact taxation without representation.

--

If you kill a person, with a gun, in self-defense - you have to fight DANG hard to prove it was self-defense, and even then you can still go to jail.

If a policeman kills a person with a gun, they're scott free because it's in their job description.

I'm sure that's COMPLETELY fair.


Citizens have guns JUST IN CASE they need them for self-defense. Police don't have to use guns and they can be trained to not need them - but instead, they're required to use them in most situations. THAT is the issue here.

Rezilia said:

I understand not all nations are like that. I normally look to Japan when I need an example of docile lambing, but the Pirate Party and similar organizations HAVE done great things to make many nations better for their people.

--

They. Could. Tase. Them.

What, you think tasing a person is too dangerous because it could cause the person to shoot?

SHOOTING a person could cause them to shoot! Their bodies could naturally act by pulling the trigger if you SHOOT them. Tasing is no different AND it doesn't kill the person.

And if you're talking about 10m length, not only can that be INCREASED - you also shouldn't be trying to shoot someone from more than 10m away in the first place. It's too inaccurate with a pistol. Situations normally requiring long-range shooting generally use SWAT or similar forces anyway, and those have sniper rifles.

Now, though electric BB bombs would be amazing to fire from sniper rifles, I understand they aren't a thing yet - I understand that SWAT generally requires lethal force. They are trained for such situations.

But NORMAL police shouldn't be allowed to use lethal force. It isn't necessary. They don't handle situations like SWAT does. They shouldn't be allowed to kill - and by that, they shouldn't use guns.

Click to expand...

Like I said before, Tasing people is just as dangerous as using a gun to shoot, if the person has a weak heart or the electricity flows through the body in a wrong way, he is dead too.

NORMAL police forces are only allowed to use lethal force if their lives are endangered (and they clearly thought so in this case, a boy with a real-looking ak-47 coming their way, who wouldn't put it down). Police officers are trained to shoot at non-lethal parts of the body, but like said before they are humans too, and they don't have a 100% accuracy rate so stuff could go wrong, hence this case.

SWAT officers aren't allowed to use lethal force whenever they see fit either, so that argument is invalid.

America has a lot of guns in it. As much as I feel that lethal force is terrible, if you're pointing a gun at someone I think it's fine for the police to shoot you. Ideally they'd have time to opt for non-lethal measures, but this is a trigger happy world and I wouldn't expect everyone facing off against the police will wait around before they start shooting.

In this case, the case of the 13 year old, it was only the police who were theoretically in immediate danger (had the gun been real) and I'd hope that would have given them pause since they aren't acting to save a bystander (police sort of not being bystanders in these kinds of confrontations), but it's hard to know if that happened from what little we know.

Rezilia said:

If you kill a person, with a gun, in self-defense - you have to fight DANG hard to prove it was self-defense, and even then you can still go to jail.

If a policeman kills a person with a gun, they're scott free because it's in their job description.

I'm sure that's COMPLETELY fair.

Click to expand...

As much as police are often found justified in shootings, they at least go through the motions of investigations and our acceptance of their findings is just a matter of how much we trust the various police forces. In the 13 y/o's case there are outside police coming in to investigate so that seems to add some legitimacy to whatever their findings end up.

I don't think it's quite accurate to say that self-defense shootings are the uphill battle you make them out to be.

Rezilia said:

If you kill a person, with a gun, in self-defense - you have to fight DANG hard to prove it was self-defense, and even then you can still go to jail.

Click to expand...

Not unless you're George Zimmerman.

I just need to say - I agree with Koff.

I may have come off as being anti-police, but that isn't the case.

The police in this incident followed EVERY procedure they were taught to and acted as they were taught to act.

Though I don't like the fact that they shot to kill, they were TRAINED to do it. THAT is why I replied as I did - because the police aren't the problem, the problem is what they are taught to do. That is, policies NOT controlled by them - but by the government and, if we actually give enough of a darn, also us.

I'm not against guns FOR THOSE that aren't trained in other ways to defend themselves. But police ARE trained for many years in what they do - there's no excuse in them using so many lethal options rather than non-lethal, atleast in the modern day, but at the same time IT ISN'T THEIR DECISION as to whether or not they use lethal force in circumstances like this. They were TAUGHT to do so.

--

And for those that say tasers are deadly, you'd best go look up taser development through the years. It has been proven to be SO non-lethal that it doesn't enough mess up pacemakers in the slightest.

Rezilia said:

you stupid foal.

Click to expand...

Oh, we're resorting to name calling now? That's low, and it only makes you look bad.

Before I get started, I would like to thank CoffeeDrink for taking the time to write that out. Although I don't think that movies are the best source of information, he does bring up some really good points. I think that this case was a tragic misunderstanding, and although I feel sorry for what happened, it was the kid's fault.

Really Rezilia, I have no freaking clue where you stand. You keep changing what you say so much.

Rezilia said:

If you kill a person, with a gun, in self-defense - you have to fight DANG hard to prove it was self-defense, and even then you can still go to jail.

If a policeman kills a person with a gun, they're scott free because it's in their job description.

I'm sure that's COMPLETELY fair.

Click to expand...

So, you're against police shooting people, right?

Rezilia said:

I may have come off as being anti-police, but that isn't the case.

The police in this incident followed EVERY procedure they were taught to and acted as they were taught to act.

Click to expand...

Umm, maybe not?

Rezilia said:

This nation was founded on the idea of no taxes, and here we are swimming in them.

Click to expand...

Okay, some pretty flawed history right here. So, here's what I said against that.

Slayr231 said:

Please tell me you're kidding, please tell me you misspoke. The reason we got upset wasn't over taxes, it was because we were being taxed by the British without having someone ever here seeing how it was going. Does the phrase "taxation without representation" mean anything? But, that's off topic, so I'll end it there.

Click to expand...

So, my point was that we were being taxed without having anyone representing us. I thought I made it pretty clear, but then you said:

Rezilia said:

The taxes issue extended to a hatred of taxes in general, period.

But you want to make it without rep? Fine.

The colonists were being represented in England, just not by their fellow colonists.

Now, citizens in Murica are being represented in DC, just not by those that think alike.

Click to expand...

So, we're agreeing about the taxation without representation? And please, I live in America, not 'Murica. Murica was a phrase coined to poke fun at the hillbilly side of America and it's used to show how unintelligent Americans are. Please, for my sake, leave it out. I don't get it, I thought we were in agreement. Why is this phrased like we disagree with each other? By the way, I'm pretty sure people would hate taxes regardless. I don't like it when people take my money.

Rezilia said:

"police department" "researchers"

"government doesn't control what the police do"

"lethal" "safe and most efficient"

Click to expand...

I am so confused by what you meant here. Quotations are only used when you're taking EXACT quotes from other people. Nowhere in 007_eleven's post did I see the words "Government doesn't control what the police do". This is what came closest:

007_Eleven said:

It is the decision of police departments researchers, not the government, to use firearms.

Click to expand...

Okay, I kind of see where you got it, but you took it too far. I'll agree with the fact that police departments (at least here) don't have their own researchers. Please don't put words into other people's mouth. It's not fair, nice, or respectable.

Before I delve into the topic of tazers, I have a story.

Recently (like last week recent), a man was tazed at a gym and killed in my local area. I mean KILLED. Tazer malfunctions happen, and accidents do to, so don't go saying tazers won't kill anybody, when they can.

You're saying that pistols are unreliable because they're inaccurate. Just so I know for a fact, here's the quote.

Rezilia said:

So, basically, we should IGNORE the fact that the inaccuracy of pistols - which REQUIRES police to aim at a person's chest/stomach area INSTEAD of everywhere else - is a huge danger to the populace around the criminal? Because, obviously, if a policeman misses the target when using a lethal weapon, it DEFINITELY won't kill the bystander that gets hit...by the lethal weapon.

Click to expand...

Well, what if I told you that tazers are inaccurate too? What if I told you that they're even more inaccurate? With this statement:

Rezilia said:

Tasers. Are not meant to be. 10m in length.

They just are like that right now - and if you had listened to me, you would have acknowledged when I said that a FOCUS ON TASERS would hype up taser research, quickly increasing the distance that tasers affect. And if you think tasers can't be turned into more ranged weapons, you're wrong. What do you think projectile knives are for? It is easy to eject the electric part of tasers, having it set to go off at a certain time and only use only a certain amount of electricity at that time.

Click to expand...

So, projectile knives would be safer? I find that hard to swallow. Even if tazers are developed more, it will still be outclassed by a gun. Projectile knives are horribly inaccurate, even more so than a pistol, and at the speeds needed to travel long distances, the knives would rip through bodies and end up killing people anyway.

Guns are the best option when dealing with these types of situations as of right now. They're more accurate than tazers, are more effective at bringing people down, and can be used at longer distances. That's what 007_eleven meant by the things he said. They're not necessarily safe for the target, no definitely not, but they are the safest for the innocent bystanders. By the way, with the way you're describing pistols, it makes it seem like we're fighting with the old time muskets that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Pistols might not be the most accurate gun, but they aren't as inaccurate as you make them out to be. Now if there is a statement I can get behind, it's this:

007_eleven said:

If my mystical sci-fi non-lethal laser option was available and effective then i'm sure cops would take that in a second rather than having to take a persons life, however it is clearly not an option (yet)

Click to expand...

Before I end my rant, I have one more thing.

Rezilia said:

But you know why that's a bad idea? BECAUSE IF YOU DETACH THE ELECTRIC PART, IT MEANS YOU BECOME WEAPONLESS. THAT is why tasers reel back in, you stupid foal.

Click to expand...

It might be just me, but what the heck are you saying here? This makes literally zero sense to me. Tazers don't just reel back in at the press of a button (at least the ones I've seen don't), so I don't understand your logic here.

Tasers (that's how it's spelled btw) CAN reel back in.

I don't know what edition of tasers are in the situations you described, but the most updated are about as accurate as pistols, can be adjusted for power, time, etc, and CAN reel back in at the touch of a button.

My point was not that tasers aren't lethal: it's that they aren't designed to be lethal, whereas guns ARE. Thus, tasers, for the most part, shouldn't kill anyone unless they glitch - that is to say, as long as you use the most recent editions. If you miss your target with a gun and hit a bystander, they're dead. Period. Some people DO have enough willpower to stay alive for more than one bullet, but most people don't. If you use a taser and miss, chances are that the bystander won't die - especially since modern day tasers' electricity can be stopped instantaneously by the user.

--

The person above was saying that electric weapons like tasers should act like guns with bullets - thus, the projectile leaves the taser so that the range of fire is increased. By doing that, however, the user can no longer reel the electric part of the taser back in, which means they just lost their "ammo". If they need to change their target, they can't hit the new target. The projectile fired would have to be so large that it would take up enough of the taser to not be instantaneously reloadable.

The reason I'm giving 007 such a hard time (and the reason for his annoying comments) is that he's looking at everything from the perspective of "Australia is #1! You should do what we do!"

In his country, police are able to decide their own policies. In the U.S., they can't - which means their required Code of Conduct is not at all in their hands. That's just one example of his talking from little to no experience when it comes to the U.S., which is why he makes points and comes up with situations that just don't work here - and if he lived here, he'd see why those points don't work. And yet, time and time again, he's been stating things he think will work 100% just because it worked in his nation.

That's not to say he's incompetent. He can talk somewhat about issues and come up with ideas, so he definitely IS competent. But he isn't putting himself in the shoes of those here, which makes his points less than effective and it requires everyone to correct him at every turn.

--

I say Murica/Muricans, as explained in another thread, to refer to U.S. citizens and America/Americans to refer to those belonging to "the Americas". U.S. does not equal America. This is why I call it Murica instead.

--

I'm unemployed and angry. I'm lower than the poor class, technically. I'm having to live out of my uncle's spare room because no one is hiring me. This plan and other plans of Obama's, quite honestly, could be in my favor - even the slightest bit. I'm not a multimillionaire - yet I agree with the Republicans and disagree with Obama and his policies.

Why? Because I've studied enough politics, culture, history, and economics to see of my own accord - since I use the internet and NOT mass media - that his plan will destroy our economy even more.

His plan is of a Communist nature. We have a Capitalist economy - and ONLY a Capitalist economy. Not only has history shown that such a clash typically fails, but Obamacare also acts as a tax. In our society, it's already hard enough just to pay for basic necessities, even for the middle class. WHY would ANYONE benefit from a tax that rips away 30% more money from you onto your already absurd health insurance bills - that, by the way, is the ideal option, not the one you get when you find out your health insurance has just been erased from existence.

The reason I say it fails is because the fundamental effects of the plan will further destroy the economy, which will cause more disrest in the populace, which never fairs well - especially when you're signing into law more power to law enforcement while trying to take away the ability for citizens to carry weapons for self-defense. This also means they'll have no weapons to fight a dictatorship - which many think this nation is coming to NOT because of hysteria, but because of Obama's constant law changes which have put more power in the hands of the government and less power in the hands of the people, to absurd amounts.