The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #26    
Old October 30th, 2013, 11:45 AM
Limerent's Avatar
Limerent
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
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.
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
  #27    
Old October 30th, 2013, 01:22 PM
Edward Newgate's Avatar
Edward Newgate
Everyone is a child of the sea
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by O07_eleven View Post
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.
this. 100%, pure, THIS. Totally agreed.
__________________
Pokemon X FRIEND CODE: 1779-0853-5563
Friend safari type:
Pokemon:
- Munna
- Duosion
- Espurr
Send me a message if you add me, then I will add you too
Reply With Quote
  #28    
Old October 30th, 2013, 06:14 PM
Rezilia's Avatar
Rezilia
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
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.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #29    
Old October 30th, 2013, 07:27 PM
Slayr231's Avatar
Slayr231
Aspiring Writer, or something
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lost in thought... again
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
Removing guns will definitely cause police to not need to use guns.
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.
__________________
Previously, Nolafus!
Wynaut? Magazine Grass team PC FamilyPairCredit
Reply With Quote
  #30    
Old October 31st, 2013, 12:09 AM
Edward Newgate's Avatar
Edward Newgate
Everyone is a child of the sea
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Pokemon X FRIEND CODE: 1779-0853-5563
Friend safari type:
Pokemon:
- Munna
- Duosion
- Espurr
Send me a message if you add me, then I will add you too

Last edited by Edward Newgate; October 31st, 2013 at 04:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #31    
Old October 31st, 2013, 07:53 AM
Rezilia's Avatar
Rezilia
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
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.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #32    
Old October 31st, 2013, 08:04 AM
Edward Newgate's Avatar
Edward Newgate
Everyone is a child of the sea
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Pokemon X FRIEND CODE: 1779-0853-5563
Friend safari type:
Pokemon:
- Munna
- Duosion
- Espurr
Send me a message if you add me, then I will add you too
Reply With Quote
  #33    
Old October 31st, 2013, 08:16 AM
Rezilia's Avatar
Rezilia
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.Alpha View Post
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?!

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.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #34    
Old October 31st, 2013, 08:17 AM
Slayr231's Avatar
Slayr231
Aspiring Writer, or something
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lost in thought... again
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezlilia
My point is that POLICE SHOULDN'T have guns, period.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
This nation was founded on the idea of no taxes, and here we are swimming in them.
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.
__________________
Previously, Nolafus!
Wynaut? Magazine Grass team PC FamilyPairCredit
Reply With Quote
  #35    
Old October 31st, 2013, 08:22 AM
Rezilia's Avatar
Rezilia
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
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.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #36    
Old October 31st, 2013, 08:41 AM
Edward Newgate's Avatar
Edward Newgate
Everyone is a child of the sea
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Pokemon X FRIEND CODE: 1779-0853-5563
Friend safari type:
Pokemon:
- Munna
- Duosion
- Espurr
Send me a message if you add me, then I will add you too
Reply With Quote
  #37    
Old October 31st, 2013, 08:59 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia View Post
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.
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.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #38    
Old October 31st, 2013, 09:09 AM
Lance's Avatar
Lance
Master of Dragons
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blackthorn City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Lance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia View Post
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.
Not unless you're George Zimmerman.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39    
Old October 31st, 2013, 01:03 PM
CoffeeDrink's Avatar
CoffeeDrink
Koffi~
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Near the Coffee Pot
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Huh, koff~

To those who believe officers are in the wrong here: replicant power. <- This is a link to a replica of an iconic Russian firearm. A replica. Without an orange tip. Can you tell the difference at 10 yards? Really? What if I told you you had to make a decision quick or bullets may find their little metal way into your skull? Police are just doing their job. And the fact that "police should never fire at a thirteen year old" is a ridiculously stupid argument. Did the article not say that a twelve year old the previous day ended his life along with two others? Have you never heard of child soldiers, or shootings that happen around the tween age? I want you all to do me a favor.

I want you to put yourself in the shoes of an officer. I want you to look up gunshot wounds and knifing wounds, disabled officers caused by bullets and felons. Stare at these images of blood and gore until they make you sick. Knives are no joke. I'd rather be shot than stabbed. That's the truth.

Also "Shooting them in the leg". This is not standard practice in the Police force, as shooting someone in the leg does not remove them as a threat. Take for instance Arnold Schwarzenegger in the film Terminator 2: Judgement Day. Remember that scene when he gets out of the elevator in Cyberdyne labs? Well, Arnold just starts walking. The Police (unlucky for them) repeatedly to tell him to stop, and place his hands on his head. Does he? Not at all. They finally make a decision to "Drop him" and do they go for the legs first? Not at all. Because Police are not trained that way, and even if they had laser guns, let's say, Arnold would not be removed as a threat because he still functions. Also, try shooting someone in the hand or the leg when your hand is shaking like Haiti (too soon?).

We had a shooting at one of the casinos down here a few years ago. Info: Felon had gun, cops find him, felon pulls said gun (that can't fire because the magazine is missing, very specific 'safety feature') and they fire upon him. He takes thirteen shots to the chest and still 'functions'. Even as he's bleeding out, he's still aiming his weapon at the Police officers. This is a real gun, even though it does not work. Are the officers wrong in shooting him down? It's not like in Magnum Force where the police just have you roll down the window and shove a .357 in your face. Truth is, I have little to no sympathy. Officers told him repeatedly to drop the 'weapon'. Did he? No. He even had a plastic handgun in his waistband. What was he doing walking out in the middle of the day like that?

Another fun and true story: An Officer who barely passed his shooting exam (if he didn't pass, he would cease to be an officer) was involved in a shooting. Scene: Bank robber, has a gun, robbed the bank, runs out the front to face police who arrived on the scene. After being told to lower his weapon, he does not, instead he raises it toward the officers. The Officer (who barely passed) fires a single round at him. The robber's gun flies out of his hand. Amazed at the skill and accuracy of the officer, he immediately gives himself up. Later, rounds of applause, pats on the back, and disbelief of his new found accuracy he was asked how he did it. He replied ". . .but I wasn't trying to shoot his gun, I was aiming for his head. . ."

This right here shows you that the entire incident was a fluke. A sheer stroke of luck on the robber's part, because if the officer had hit what he was aiming for, he'd be a mess somebody had to clean up. If you haven't had a gun pointed in your face, or a knife waved in your direction, I forgive you for being so naive. Being threatened for your life is a very harrowing experience. If you have kids or a family, mother, father. In the seconds it takes for them to kill you, you can remember in that split second that you'll never ever see them again. Ever. Why? Because you died. Because you thought it was smart to go for those 'trick shots' that even professional sharpshooters can barely pull off under pressure. Please, please, please, do not keep spouting off on how the officer is at fault or how the officer should be better or how they're all corrupt and want to kill people. Yeah, sure, some officers can be better or corrupt, but they're people. With families. Children, wives, husbands. If your husband or wife was an officer and they died because they thought it was a 'fake' weapon. What would you say then? Would you continue to be an anti-police proponent?

These people are here to help you. They try to find your stolen cars, your missing dogs, burglars that invade your houses, help you through your traffic accidents. For you to sit there and say these things without actually being there, and without ever experiencing these things not only insults me, but you're insulting your own intelligence by saying "oh, well they should have done better". Oh, well you shouldn't have gotten into debt. Oh, well you shouldn't have missed that test. Oh, well you should have studied. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. You have not even tried to do what they do. So please, if you don't want somebody who doesn't even do the work you do (flipping burgers, filing taxes, suing companies, driving trucks, doesn't matter) bossing you around and telling you how you could have done better, don't tell others how to do their job. What's more, imagine that you're never thanked for helping other people and doing your best. It's a tough job, and the number one killer is suicide. I wonder why? So please, cease the opening and closing of the philosopher mouth, koffi~
__________________
IRON WITHIN - IRON WITHOUT
Reply With Quote
  #40    
Old October 31st, 2013, 02:24 PM
Rezilia's Avatar
Rezilia
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
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.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #41    
Old October 31st, 2013, 02:54 PM
Limerent's Avatar
Limerent
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia View Post
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.
Oh my... Police aren't trained to use lethal force because it's some sort of nutjob government conspiracy to have a badge carrying army to kill their own citizens. They use firearms and aim to kill because it is the safest and most efficient way of protecting themselves and the community from firearm wielding criminals. Like it or not, deaths from police bullets will occur long into the future until we invent long range energy weapons that have the ability to be put on an incapacitate setting. Like in a sci-fi novel. A taser is not this weapon, it simply does not have the range, capacity or stopping power of a bullet. Tasers are most effective to use against targets not wielding firearms as a non lethal option. Think about this case, the offender had what looked like an AK47, 7.62, 30 rounds, potentially fully automatic. You have a taser. What's going to win? If you feel that a police officer would be better of doing some James Bond impossible maneuver to tase the kid then i'm sorry, there is no reasoning with you because you're not living in reality.

It is the decision of police departments researchers, not the government, to use firearms. 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)
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
  #42    
Old October 31st, 2013, 05:53 PM
Slayr231's Avatar
Slayr231
Aspiring Writer, or something
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lost in thought... again
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
you stupid foal.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
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.
So, you're against police shooting people, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
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.
Umm, maybe not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
This nation was founded on the idea of no taxes, and here we are swimming in them.
Okay, some pretty flawed history right here. So, here's what I said against that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slayr231
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.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
"police department" "researchers"

"government doesn't control what the police do"

"lethal" "safe and most efficient"
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007_Eleven
It is the decision of police departments researchers, not the government, to use firearms.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
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.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
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.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007_eleven
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)
Before I end my rant, I have one more thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
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.
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.
__________________
Previously, Nolafus!
Wynaut? Magazine Grass team PC FamilyPairCredit
Reply With Quote
  #43    
Old October 31st, 2013, 10:04 PM
Rezilia's Avatar
Rezilia
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
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.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #44    
Old November 1st, 2013, 07:54 AM
Slayr231's Avatar
Slayr231
Aspiring Writer, or something
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lost in thought... again
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
Tasers (that's how it's spelled btw) CAN reel back in.
Okay, now I know tasers can, thanks for correcting me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
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.
So you're against these kinds of projectiles? But you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
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.
The reason I'm giving you such a hard time is because you keep changing what you're standing for constantly. It seems that in one post you have one view, then by the next post it's a complete turnaround. All I'm asking for is a little consistency.

I'm not seeing where 007_eleven's posts are being inaccurate about our society. If you're going to say that a person's responses are a certain way, quote them. Use the quote tags. I know you can use them, but I don't understand why you don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
and if [007_eleven] 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.
Quote these instances. I'm not seeing them. I'm just trying to understand your point of view, but you're providing little to no evidence on your arguments. I think this is why people argue with you so much. You don't quote people and deal with their various arguments directly, you just lump their post into one big blob and try to cover it with a couple of sentences. That's one of the issues I'm having.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezilia
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.
I think the problem of range still applies. Tasers have a very limited range, and will continue to have that limitation as long as the wires are connected to the projectiles. Now, the confusing part for me is that depending on which post of yours that I go off of, you could be for unattached projectiles, or against. That's the main problem I'm having.
__________________
Previously, Nolafus!
Wynaut? Magazine Grass team PC FamilyPairCredit
Reply With Quote
  #45    
Old November 1st, 2013, 08:27 AM
Pilkie's Avatar
Pilkie
Pokémon Breeder
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Jersey, United States
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Quirky
Tasers have downsides though. The biggest being that some people can resist being tased. There isn't an overwhelming amount, but some people aren't stopped by tasers. I, myself, was tased once during a personal defense class (I was an assistant-teacher at a martial arts studio that offered urban personal defense classes). It knocked the breath out of me and make me fall to one knee, but in a few seconds I was back up (this wasn't a taser gun, it was a CQ taser, but it still pushes my point).

The benefit of shooting someone in a non vital area is that you know it is going to hurt them. I'm not saying tasers don't hurt (because they do), I'm saying that guns leave a lasting wound that forces criminals to stop or stops them from being able to get away. Now I know some people are going to say that it isn't right to shoot someone in the leg, but the truth is that it will heal and it will slow down or stop the criminal regardless of their tolerance.

The other issue with tasers and taser guns is that they are relatively new. While many police departments have armed their officers with tasers, there are just as many that cannot afford to/ don't have the time to arm and train their officers to use tasers. All officers train to use a gun, but only the newest officers are trained to use tasers in the police academy. A taser guns are much tricker to aim and use than a normal handgun because the barbs are heavy (so they drop faster than bullets) and you have to hit the perp somewhere the barbs will be able to penetrate, which can be tricky if they are wearing a heavy/padded jacket or backpack.

All in all, I believe all officers should have tasers, but the truth of the matter is we probably won't see nationwide use (USA) for at least a decade because by converting to tasers, departments will have to give up other resources that they cannot spare (namely time and money).
__________________
Currently Breeding: 5 IV Tyrunts
~My Dream Team~


~---------------------------------------------------------------------------~
3DS Friend Code: 4399-0158-9260
(Note: Please PM me if you add me so I know it's a PC member and not a random)
Friend Safari: Ghost Type: Phantump, Lampent, and Golurk
Reply With Quote
  #46    
Old November 1st, 2013, 09:27 AM
Rezilia's Avatar
Rezilia
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
@Pil

Okay, but if you shoot someone at certain point in the leg, you may kill off their ability to use that leg for the rest of their life.

--

Yes, you managed to survive from getting tased, but you went down - correct? That's the point. Tasers are only meant to stun or disable the opponent to give the police enough time to go in and detain them, or atleast get close enough to use melee tactics such as electric batons and those two martial arts I mentioned - and by using those, they can detain them.

Police are meant to detain, not kill. That's the issue here.

--

I understand that tasers most likely won't be used by everyone instantaneously. I understand and favor the concept of gradual change. However, the point is that no one's even thinking of using tasers as the main weapon of police. Because of this, they aren't focusing on training with tasers and, as such, there isn't enough funding going into taser development - which would decrease the weight of the barbs, etc.

Which is why I get to...

@Slayr

Jack Cover, the creator of Tasers, based the design off of one of his (fictional) childhood hero's adventures: Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle. This is why it was called Tom A. Swift's Electric Rifle - aka TASER.

The original rifle could do the following:

"Of foremost notice is Swift's invention of the electric rifle, a gun which fires bolts of electricity. The electric rifle can be calibrated to different levels of range, intensity and lethality; it can shoot through solid walls without leaving a hole, and is powerful enough to kill a rampaging whale, as in their steamer trek to Africa. With the electric rifle, Tom and friends bring down elephants, rhinoceroses, and buffalo, and save their lives several times in pitched battle with the red pygmies. It also can discharge a globe of light that was described as being able to maintain itself, like ball lightning, making hunting at night much safer in the dark of Africa. In appearance, the rifle looked very much like contemporary conventional rifles." - Wikipedia

Jack Cover, having studied Tom Swift extensively during his youth, understood that "range of lethality" included non-lethal, and so he based his Taser development on the idea of non-lethality. Now, Tasers CAN be adjusted in terms of lethality - from non-lethal degrees to lethal degrees. In other words, everything that Swift's rifle could do can eventually be done by tasers, ideally. That was the point. Absurd range included.

If you want to see the difference between how Tasers are now and how they're meant to be, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crzYlQUKkEY (0:50-1:20) < It just shows different abilities of the electric rifle, and then starts repeating them >.> It's from the game Pirate 101 which took the electric rifle concept and applied it to the game.

In other words, electric rifles should be able to do this: Fire balls of electricity, of which the intensity, range, and lethality can be adjusted. It can be used on multiple targets at once, either going sideways or even in a straight line. Electric Rifles should also be able to glow, which isn't a hard thing to add now, and may even be able to use electromagnetism to "burst fire" the electricity. As development progresses, the accuracy and size of the electric balls would be more controlled, even by the user. And plus: Instead of it having to reel in, it just has auto-fire. Seeing as it uses electricity, it can just self-recharge, when means auto-reload.


And rather than being as instantaneously lethal as a gun, it can be put on a non-lethal setting which can be raised if the opponent can resist.


But the above WON'T be done in taser development if no one takes tasers seriously. They could very well usher in a new age of non-lethal law enforcement, but only if police stop using guns at literally every turn.


------


Police, for now, use guns because they are trained to do so in the majority of situations. In the situation listed in the OP, they were only doing what they were taught to do.

In the U.S., police changing to taser use must be orchestrated by the government. Police themselves have no say, unless their policies allow them to use tasers in the majority of situations - and those policies don't.

Normal people should have access to guns if they are not trained in other ways of defending themselves, to the extent of police, soldiers, martial artists, etc.

Taser use should be the norm for police from now on, though for a time - as Pil said, perhaps a decade - having a gun just in case WOULD be justified.

The tragic incident we had in the OP could (COULD) have been avoided if the police were told to use tasers in such incidents, instead of guns. Instead, they were told to use guns.

^ Those are my points.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #47    
Old November 1st, 2013, 10:06 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
I pretty much was going to say the kinds of things that Pilkie said. We probably all wish that police could be as effective as they can be without lethal force, but the practical side of things is that lethal force is more effective and efficient at the moment. Maybe if America wasn't rife with guns we would more quickly adopt non-lethal force as a preferred course of action in our police forces, but at the moment that's just a dream.

We should still push for it though. Tasers may be all the amazing things that they've been claimed to be, but they're new and guns have entrenched supports up and down the country.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #48    
Old November 1st, 2013, 12:30 PM
CoffeeDrink's Avatar
CoffeeDrink
Koffi~
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Near the Coffee Pot
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Why oh why, koff~

Guns is guns was guns will be guns. Always guns. They are never going away. Ever. Everyone say that slowly, because it's true. Repeat: I acknowledge that guns are a world problem, and I admit that firearms are going to persist for as long as I live, and as long as my children's children live.

Ever wonder why Somalian pirates can take over big ships? Guns. They do this often. Cargo ships do not normally have a means to defend themselves against such attacks. Arming a ship can be considered an act of war in the handy dandy war rule book. Guns are going to find their way into the hands of criminals; this will never fail to happen.

Let's say all law abiding citizens across the globe give up their guns. You know, just because Jesus/Mel Gibson/God/Morgan Freeman/Buddah/Tom Cruise/etc. asked them to. Will the drug runners, criminals, unlawful and rowdy citizens willingly stop using firearms? Hell no. Just drop the issue. It is never going to change, no matter how many laws, or how afraid of rifles you are, they will always be there. Just so you know, guns are not the enemy. Does an UZI 9mm just waltz into a bank and demand stacks and stacks of cash? Guns are not the real issue. Criminals are. Knives can be just as lethal, even more so than guns. Trust me, you don't ever want to go up against a knife. We have bullet proof vests, but no stab proof vests (none 'guaranteeing' ones anyway). So, yeah. Automatic weapons = illegal at all times. Law abiding citizens that own a fully automatic weapon? 0.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Untitled 2.jpg‎ (56.4 KB, 5 views) (Save to Dropbox)
__________________
IRON WITHIN - IRON WITHOUT
Reply With Quote
  #49    
Old November 1st, 2013, 02:22 PM
Lance's Avatar
Lance
Master of Dragons
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blackthorn City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Lance
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink View Post
Just so you know, guns are not the enemy. Does an UZI 9mm just waltz into a bank and demand stacks and stacks of cash? Guns are not the real issue. Criminals are. Knives can be just as lethal, even more so than guns. Trust me, you don't ever want to go up against a knife. We have bullet proof vests, but no stab proof vests (none 'guaranteeing' ones anyway).
Yes, because the mass murderer's weapons of choice are knives, swords, bows & arrows, etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50    
Old November 1st, 2013, 02:32 PM
Slayr231's Avatar
Slayr231
Aspiring Writer, or something
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lost in thought... again
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
Yes, because the mass murderer's weapons of choice are knives, swords, bows & arrows, etc.
They have happened before.

June 8th 2001, mass murder at an elementary school, 8 children dead, 13 children wounded, 2 teachers wounded. Weapon of choice: Kitchen Knife

The site wouldn't give me the exact date, but in China, 27 people died in a mass murder. Weapon of choice, knifes.

April 10, 2013, mass stabbing (luckily no deaths), 14 students at a community college stabbed, 2 seriously injured. Choice of weapon, knife.

I'm not saying that knives are common, but they do happen. Guns are the choice of weapon in mass killings because they're the most efficient. However, they are not the only weapons used. There are a lot more cases like the ones above, so please do not say that mass murders won't happen if guns are banned.
__________________
Previously, Nolafus!
Wynaut? Magazine Grass team PC FamilyPairCredit
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 06:58 PM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.