Australia had a similar problem before they banned guns.

You provided a report showing one cop shooting a person running away. 'They' is plural. Why do I have to go over this again?

You also made the same mistake of making a generalization from a single incident. Prove to me that the cited incident is representative of what the police does in general.

The best way to combat this problem is by giving life sentences to anyone who tries willingly to kill someone. Also, make everyone in jail do manual labor to pay for their stay in jail so tax payers won't feel the burden.

That cant be right...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1153570/Cop-fatally-shoots-man-running-away.html

There, I gave you another example. So now it's plural. And did you read the end of my phrase? I mentioned most cops not doing it, but blacks know that there are some cops that do it, and blacks know that, so when they see police they might panic and generally act in a different way than they normally would, and of course that could cause the police officer to panic as well, and when they have a gun they're probably going to use that as it's the most lethal.

Slavery is legal for prisoners, so I'm pretty sure that already happens.

The IRA is at war with Britain as it stakes a claim on 6 of the 32 irish counties.  If Britain was still occupying part of the USA, I can guarantee you'd have something like the IRA too.  

In the south of Ireland where Britain has no control cops don't carry guns and neither does your average civilian. And as a result we have very few gun related murders.  The vast majority of murders are drug gangs killing other drug gang members. 

Again with the generalizations, this time referring to blacks. There are blacks who comply with the police and nothing happens. How do you quantify how many blacks actually feel the way you describe?

Secondly, if someone is running away, the officer is less likely going to panic because in this context, the one running away is not the aggressor. This is different in a scenario where a person charges at an officer with a knife, where the knife wielder is indeed the aggressor. There are also rules that prohibit officers from exercising excessive force and if excessive force does occur, then that officer will be put to court.

First off, there are 3 main parts to Chicago (north, south, west).  But what you fail to point out (or know) is that its heavily segregated .  To try and illustrate, NYC has bouroughs, & Chicago has "sides".  Being a segregated city, crime is not sprinkled evenly throughout, the vast majority of crimes occur in 2/3 of the areas, the west & southsides (always been like that), which constitute about 40% population wise.  So the northside is faiirly safe and population makes up about 60%.  Then you have downtown where its relatively  safe as well).  

To the outsider,  crime RATE wont look as bad because it includes the northside to bring those numbers down.  But again, its a segregated city so its really bad in concentrated areas.  The southside of Chicago (750k population,) is pretty much comparable to Detroit, the west side comparable to New orleans (480k) so thats 1.2 mil out of 2.7 tot.  These are the danger zones.

http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-muckrakers/2010/06/if-chicagos-west-and-south-sides-were-their-own-cities-theyd-be-the-deadliest-and-most-violent-in-america/

If civilians had to give up their guns, it only makes sense police would have to as well.