|
new friend from school posted:Any of you goons Chicago PD? You should ask the cop goons in the cop thread instead of the slapfight thread
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
Sorry, I thought the Darren Wilson memorial would be the slapfight thread. Is that it, or is there another one I didn't notice? E: checked both threads' OP's, and while this is clearly not the main cop thread, I'm still not sure about the other one?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
new friend from school posted:Any of you goons Chicago PD? Get off the gear/weed/cialis/lsd/MDMA/xanax first thing Second thing is to stop lying on part 11 section e of your 4473s Third thing if chicago takes you they truly are the worst department and it's your fault Shep, you suck
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 23:22
|
|
new friend from school posted:Sorry, I thought the Darren Wilson memorial would be the slapfight thread. Is that it, or is there another one I didn't notice? This is the thread for all of the topics that derail the current events thread until it either gets closed or a bunch of probations get handed out.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
NUKES CURE NORKS posted:Yeah. Slippery slope and all. Can't let the gays marry either because in 2045 people will want to marry robots. Its just part of the governments 49 step plan to TAKE ALL OUR GUNZ! Just like Obama's plan!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
[quote="“new friend from school”" post="“477185871”"] Any of you goons Chicago PD? I just applied. I’m 29 years old, have a BBA in Accounting (182 credits total) and 8 years of active duty (Marine Corps, deployments for both OIF and OEF, got out as E6, honorable discharge). I have a bit of criminal history: at 14, I was arrested for misdemeanor possession. Did a few months of counseling, then got everything expunged at 18. Then in 2015, I was arrested for a misdemeanor aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (firearm). I was falsely accused, case was dismissed, I got my FOID and CHL back from the state, and got the arrest expunged a year later. I have no reason to think I’ll fail the written exam. What should I expect after? [/quote] http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/?m=1
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Look at the people in charge of the country right now. How about you don't try to use a mass tragedy as leverage to advance your favorite political football.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Look at the people in charge of the country right now. Sorry, but I just don't see any indication or trend in the last twenty years that would even lead me to assume this. If there is, let me know, because that's kinda why I'm even in this discussion in the first place, but as it is, I just don't see it. Twenty actual, book-bag carrying children were waxed at Sandy Hook and what came of it? All proposed legislation fizzled away or died on the floor of the House and the Patriots retired the rifles in their end-zone militia for a few games. No one is going to take away America's guns. Motherfucking ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
didn't have to scroll very far to find this guy whining about automatic phone and text reminders for court dates because PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:Sorry, but I just don't see any indication or trend in the last twenty years that would even lead me to assume this. There are plenty of examples to use that don't include mentally ill people stealing guns to go on murder-sprees with. You're trying to legislate away mental illness and extreme ant-social behavior by the absolute statistical outliers. Hell, it's not like there's some magical secret why people get pissed off when these topics come up. Ignore the NRA hysterics, ignore all of that poo poo. Someone has something, a right, a possession, and someone wants to take that away. On top of that there's the emotional backlash because they perceive themselves as being labeled and lumped in with whatever perpetrator of the tragedy of the day. It's not like this is an original idea, it's the same tired poo poo that's been losing Democrats votes for decades now. You can logic the gently caress out of it all you want, but you can't do poo poo until you get past the emotive response.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
at the date posted:didn't have to scroll very far to find this guy whining about automatic phone and text reminders for court dates because PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY Guess you didn't click the link That friendly reminder is for defendants https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/201...-call-reminders
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 06:00
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:How about you don't try to use a mass tragedy as leverage to advance your favorite political football. How bout you quit being a little bitch because our hobby has a body count
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:How bout you quit being a little bitch because our hobby has a body count While that is a sentiment I can agree with that would also be an argument about racing cars. Same logic apply's there, cars are regulated, but people still street race and accidentally hit bystanders. Yet much like guns 99.9% of the time people aren't driving fast with the intention of killing somebody.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:While that is a sentiment I can agree with that would also be an argument about racing cars. Same logic apply's there, cars are regulated, but people still street race and accidentally hit bystanders. Yet much like guns 99.9% of the time people aren't driving fast with the intention of killing somebody. I uhhhh.......what? There is no way those numbers are similar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:While that is a sentiment I can agree with that would also be an argument about racing cars. Same logic apply's there, cars are regulated, but people still street race and accidentally hit bystanders. Yet much like guns 99.9% of the time people aren't driving fast with the intention of killing somebody. poo poo, man. Let's take this dumb thought experiment further to see if we can't warp the argument into complete chaos: I bake cupcakes sometimes because they are easy and it tastes good. Sometimes people get diabetes and heart problems and other fat people poo poo and die. Also I'm actively trying to kill people with my sugar-loaded goodness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Flikken posted:I uhhhh.......what? There is no way those numbers are similar. They're not similar. But car fatalities are high, and car fatalities in general are very high, but for a rhetorical argument it's another hobby with a body count.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 16:59
|
|
Chichevache posted:poo poo, man. Let's take this dumb thought experiment further to see if we can't warp the argument into complete chaos: I bake cupcakes sometimes because they are easy and it tastes good. Sometimes people get diabetes and heart problems and other fat people poo poo and die. Also I'm actively trying to kill people with my sugar-loaded goodness. You catch more flies with sugar and you kill more people with guns.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:While that is a sentiment I can agree with that would also be an argument about racing cars. Same logic apply's there, cars are regulated, but people still street race and accidentally hit bystanders. Yet much like guns 99.9% of the time people aren't driving fast with the intention of killing somebody. No, no, no, no, no. Also: Most legal racing cars have intensive safety regulations, and illegal street racer cars get crushed. In many states, if the car is pulled over and even has mods, they'll fine you or take your license and your car. Cars and Guns are not good comparisons. At all. In ANY loving way. The ONLY way this comparison would be valid is if: You had to have an active license to own a firearms (you don't), you'd have to carry insurance or lose your firearms (you don't), if backgrounds checks were as strict and intensive as a drivers license (its not), and if mandatory exams were required prior to firearms purchase and use (its not) Oh, and if only Auto Manufacturers funded a lobby to defund studies into Automotive safety. THEN maybe your comparison would be a LITTLE valid. Oh, let's also COMPLETELY ignore that vehicles have the other important use of getting you from point A to point B, while guns really don't and you can hunt perfectly well with single shot/bolt action/pump action weapons and have zero everyday need for a semi-auto carbine. Oh, and no, you are not overthrowing the government with it, nor are you ever going to encounter a Steven Seagal style home defense situation. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Oct 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
wow I can't believe people are trying to pass laws to prevent horrible massacres how dare they
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Yeah, cars are regulated better than guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh, and if only Auto Manufacturers funded a lobby to defund studies into Automotive safety. THEN maybe your comparison would be a LITTLE valid. If you are talking about the CDC, while that's not quite what happened the end result is the same as if they had. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
I think the best part of trying to compare cars and guns is that it doesn't even work when you look at US accident deaths compared to other countries where requirements are more stringent to get a license: There's a direct correlation between driver and vehicle safety and more stringent drivers license requirements. Why does that comparison never make it into the poorly attempted comparisons? kupachek posted:If you are talking about the CDC, while that's not quite what happened the end result is the same as if they had. Its basically what happened: quote:The amendment was introduced after lobbying by the National Rifle Association in response to their perceived bias in a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann that found that guns in the home were associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home, as well as other CDC funded studies and efforts.[2][3] Mark L. Rosenberg, the former director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, has described this amendment as "a shot fired across the bow" at CDC researchers who wanted to research gun violence. And that's before we get into the restrictions the NRA pushed for and got on the ATF. The message was clear: If you fund studies that are negative on gun ownership, your funding will be cut either directly or indirectly. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Oct 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
It would be awesome if guns were licensed and registered like cars, but of course that's comparing apples that kill by accident and mis-use to oranges that kill by design when you use them good. Metal Oranges Designed Only for Killing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
You could probably use successful drivers licences and car regulation as starting point for national registry. Because the government is definitely out to take all your cars away
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
How is a registry going to prevent anything? That is what we're talking about, right? Prevention vs reaction?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Godholio posted:How is a registry going to prevent anything? Because its not even the registry that's the largest issue? Because the registry would help with background checks? Background checks that still have to be largely done by hand? The argument against a registry is that the government is going to round up all the firearms. If that DOES happen, the likelihood of having a firearms collection helping you resist the government anyways is unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Background checks take literally minutes. The government having a convenient list of who owns what in an era where it is very possible that legislators will target specific firearms for removal from society is problematic. One mass shooting in NYC and we could very well see certain assault weapons banned outright just by the NYC metro legislators, and by golly thanks to the NY SAFE Act they've got a list of everyone state-wide. The inability to easily target those owners is likely one reason such a law is unlikely to actually pass in most places. It's practically unenforceable. A registry solves that. And once again, outside of using it for seizures it does nothing for prevention. Godholio fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Oct 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Why didn't you just say "They are coming for our GUNS!" since the argument is its just a slippery slope to gun seizure. And are you seriously arguing that the SAFE Act was just about seizing firearms, rather than providing better oversight? You seem awfully focused on only the 'siezure' portion, since the SAFE act DID provide ways to safely and legally own firearms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
We're both focusing on that point. I don't think it's a near-term threat, but a registry is one of the requirements to make it actually possible. My point is that a registry does nothing for prevention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Godholio posted:My point is that a registry does nothing for prevention. You realize the registry would track more than ownership, right? It would also track people who are not supposed to have firearms due to felonies and/or mental health issues? I mean, what's the point if preventing ownership by felons and people who are ill if we're just leaving it up to chance that you just so happened to get all their firearms? "Sure hope we picked up all his firearms and he wasn't just hiding a bunch of them, but we'll never know!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
If a registry could flag a guy for buying 30 rifles in a year that might help with prevention but idk
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You realize the registry would track more than ownership, right? It would also track people who are not supposed to have firearms due to felonies and/or mental health issues? Could. It could do that. quote:I mean, what's the point if preventing ownership by felons and people who are ill if we're just leaving it up to chance that you just so happened to get all their firearms? "Sure hope we picked up all his firearms and he wasn't just hiding a bunch of them, but we'll never know!" Maybe we should have a registry of people who aren't allowed to own firearms? Like a no-
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:14
|
|
Godholio posted:Could. It could do that. Because people like you will see the slippery slope of a registry for mentally ill people and how arbitrary that is.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1iV24hL8Rk
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Dude, you are the one making a logical fallacy argument about slippery slopes. Nice try.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"Sure hope we picked up all his firearms and he wasn't just hiding a bunch of them, but we'll never know!" Wasn't this the case with that Oklahoma shooting last October, Michael Vance? Had another gun stashed that he took possession of after he got out of jail. Then he killed two family members, went on the run, ultimately shooting a couple police as well before they killed him?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:20
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Why didn't you just say "They are coming for our GUNS!" since the argument is its just a slippery slope to gun seizure. The SAFE act is not what you want to use as a good gun control act it was a loving disaster. My favorite is when it made every police officer in NYS a felon and none of the legislators noticed . Other totally unintended side effects included things like letting your (non-assault) rifle or shotgun registration lapse in NYC turn from a violation to a felony. The real cherry on the sundae was when the safe act website had a picture of a semi-automatic hunting rifle with five round detachable magazine and muzzle break labeled "this is not an assault rifle" even as the SAFE act defined it as an assault rifle. The SAFE act is a total clusterfuck.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:The SAFE act is not what you want to use as a good gun control act it was a loving disaster. It had good provisions like mental health provisions and better enforcement. But c'mon, you expected legislators to use proper legalese?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
Godholio posted:We're both focusing on that point. I don't think it's a near-term threat, but a registry is one of the requirements to make it actually possible. A registry works in combination with record keeping on transfers, including private party transfers. Every gun used in a crime would then be traceable, and law enforcement could use that data to choke off diversion of guns from legal channels. As it stands today, even where a background check is required the records are quickly discarded. It creates a gaping hole of plausible deniability that results in easier access to illicit firearms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 19:27
|
|
