|
M_Gargantua posted:That was my point in the post. The high concentrations of racists and bullies in the police force is a social issue, not a conspiracy theory by white supremacists I don't think we're saying different things. If the local business owners and mayor and sheriff are all KKK members or sympathetic to their friends who are, it's not infiltration in any specifically conspiratorial sense when the sheriff's or mayor's son gets hired on as a deputy. Just business as usual.
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
Unrelated hot take: Why can't we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and allow all rifles (including full auto). Wouldn't the result be less deaths overall?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
CHICKEN SHOES posted:also i'm hardly a survivalist nutjob but if they start confiscating guns even that kinda sets my alarms off regarding the bill of rights and all No one is going to confiscate anything ever. Any changes in laws will affect manufacture and sale only (with some meaningless buybacks as a feel-good measure), and any impact will take at least a generation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
Trying to get this thread back on track for its original purpose - bad political debates using specious assumptions: Let's say it could be empirically determined that a specific change in law enforcement processes (stricter ROE for example) would increase police deaths from intentional assault by 10% (so about 8 extra dead cops a year at current rates), but the number of people killed by law enforcement would experience a corresponding 10% drop (so about 100-130 non-cop lives saved). Should that process change be implemented?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Honestly, if we just made cops fill out paperwork justifying every time they drew a firearm those deaths would go way down.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Godholio posted:This is where this forum pisses me off sometimes. I enjoy mocking and making GBS threads on each other as much as everyone else, but it seems like a lot of the anti-police poo poo isn't that. Better here than in the actual CE thread, though. If police forces spent more effort to - or were at least perceived to - address legitimate criticisms about their use of force and racism, you wouldn't see that kind of backlash. But when they go out of their way to justify even the most questionable uses of force and collude with prosecutors to spike any investigations, it's much harder to extend the benefit of the doubt to any individual officer's motivations. The top law enforcement official in the country has more or less directly said that accusations of racism or impropriety against police forces are nonsense, and he will be dropping any efforts to address them federally. Why should the rest of the population trust them?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yeah, instead of holding individuals accountable for their behavior, we should definitely continue isolating and blaming all of them, and inciting further violence. If the rest of them stopped undermining efforts to hold those individuals accountable, you would have a point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:Wow, we really need to do something about these construction workers getting murdered! Dead is dead. If even a small portion of what is spent on police armament were diverted to give OSHA more teeth more people would be alive. Probably cops also since most of their deaths are accidents too. But good luck convincing someone with that mentality that a defensive driving class is more likely to save their rear end than being paranoid about anyone who fails the paper bag test.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yeah, instead of holding individuals accountable for their behavior, we should definitely continue isolating and blaming all of them, and inciting further violence. Here's a prime example of why treating individual cops as 'bad apples' doesn't work: An entire group of cops witnessing an extrajudicial beating, and they all joined in for fun. Not a single one actually tried to actually stop the crimes taking place. And of course no one will be punished. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jun 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
And it was only the fact that he had posted a bunch of actual hateful poo poo that got him "blackmailed", not the Trump gifs. If his entire post history was harmless/stupid memes along the lines of the WWE gif, the story would simply be "We spoke with so and so, the gif editor who got retweeted by the president. Did you know he likes Trump?" and the guy would pick up a bunch of followers or whatever and that would be the end of that. Instead it turns out he posts literal lists of Jews, then cries about it in an apology when he realizes his real name might be associated with that. CNN showed a lot more restraint than they had to for some shithead racist. On the flipside, if you make a bunch of posts unironically supporting Stalin or something you should be prepared for some awkward conversations if someone makes the connection to your online id. The internet isn't separate from the rest of the world just because it provides tools for anonymity. All of this is assuming they were able to tie the poster to the person using public information though. If it turns out CNN used Time Warner customer data or something, gently caress them. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
kupachek posted:Dealing with someone non-compliant (for whatever reason), radio on the ground, the individual grabs something off his belt which could be mace, and then he can't draw his gun. If that's justification, why are cops engaging people alone?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
DoktorLoken posted:I see what point you're trying to make, but I'd maintain that the violence we see in Chicago, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Detroit, etc. is the result of concentrated poverty, segregation, etc. as opposed to simple gun availability. Not that guns don't make it easier for violence to be deadly (they certainly do). Why can't it be both? If those neighborhoods weren't mired in concentrated generational poverty but there was no change to gun access, the proliferation of firearms probably wouldn't have as much of an effect on gun violence rates. And if access to firearms was significantly reduced in the US, it's reasonable to expect that even without addressing issues of systematic poverty the rate of deaths and serious injuries from violent crime would be reduced as well. But then, if systematic poverty was addressed and access to firearms were decreased, we should expect to see a larger decrease in deaths and serious injuries from crime than either option alone.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:It isn't an excuse, but you're more likely to address root causes of crime(not that I bet that'll happen either) than to get some sort of success running head first into the 2nd Amendment and a judiciary that is rather favorable towards it. You're crazy if you think that any significant challenge to entrenched wealth and income inequalities wouldn't be fought tooth and nail by the oligarchy that benefits from them. The support for cultural nonsense like banning abortions or clinging to guns is a joke compared to the money and political influence that would be brought to bear against any policy has a chance to make the US a more egalitarian place.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:Its almost like I covered that in my post. Yeah, and that's the part I disagree with. Substantial gun control is much closer to the realm of political possibility than any sort of significant redistributive economic reforms. Victor Vermis posted:Non-compliant people who act irrationally are always right. Cops kill about 1,000 people per year, while under 100 of them are killed. Hypothetically, if a change in ROE resulted in a few more dead cops but knocked 10% off the number of people they kill, would that be worth it? What about 20%? Because it certainly seems like right now they can make choices that will almost certainly result in someone being killed if there's even the slightest possibility their life might be in danger. And beyond all of the bodies, this undermines their ability to build a rapport with the people they are policing. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
vains posted:im like 99% certain that you cant legally buy a gun in state 'a' if you're not a resident of state 'a' unless the weapon is shipped to an ffl in the state where you are a resident. once the gun arrives in whatever state you're a resident of, it is still subject to the laws of that state. Is anyone suggesting that criminals (most of whom likely have criminal records) doing the shooting in Chicago (or any other city with more stringent firearms restrictions) are going out and directly buying guns in other jurisdictions? The issue is overall proliferation from those places with less restrictive laws leads to increased availability across the board. There aren't security checkpoints between Indiana and Illinois, non-federal restrictions are mostly a waste of time. This is where comprehensive federal background check and registration regimes come in, they provide tools for enforcement agencies to go after guns that are diverted from the legal market.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:the obvious solution is steps that look at reducing crime itself, but that involves addressing our massive systemic issues concerning race, income inequality and the justice system and lol there aren't 10 votes in the Senate for that. But until we get to that point, universal background checks and a federal registry are a relatively cheap and straightforward way to crack down on guns diverted from legal channels.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:I don't think all or even most of the gun-protectors in this thread are out-and-out Trump supporters. Blanket statements are always wrong, but https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/gun-ownership-partisan-divide.html
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Is there even any doubt that exercising more caution would result in far more alive suspects than dead cops? e: Like it makes sense to have a zero injury/zero death mindset when it comes to occupational safety in most jobs, but if the result in your industry is that a bunch of other people end up dead maybe reconsider things some? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Dec 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Arc Light posted:The two ideas aren't even mutually exclusive. By virtue of living in a state with easy concealed carry and license-free open carry, at least 1/3 of the people I come into contact with are armed. If we know or believe that a suspect is armed, we order them to the ground at gunpoint and then at least one officer covers them while another officer cuffs and searches them. I don't want to say this is "routine," per se, because no armed encounters are, but it's common enough that literally every cop in the city has done it multiple times. We've had exactly one officer killed by gunfire in our 68 year history. This is in a city with a higher violent crime rate per capita than Chicago. I mean more in the sense of when it's legally justifiable to kill someone. That is, if the standard for when it was acceptable to open fire was strengthened from "hands moved unexpectedly" to "he clearly has a gun in his hand", more people would survive and the increased risk to cops would be negligible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yes, cutting allowed reaction time in half would result in negligible risk. Statistically speaking, yeah, probably. Suspects actually shooting and killing police officers is incredibly rare, a person already covered by police when they reach for an unknown object or move a hand towards a waistband is not going for a gun most of the time, and in those few cases where they are the police still have a significant advantage in having their guns up and usually outnumbering the person. If a policy change resulted in 10% more police officers being killed (that is, excluding accidents) but saved 10% of suspects, we would be up about 94 people. The approach of treating risk in policing like a workplace safety issue where the potential for any injury is unacceptable is pretty hosed up when the consequence is 1,000 bodies annually and who knows how many people unnecessarily beaten or injured.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:So what you're saying is Bitcoin is the Katamari of stupidity, no matter how loving dumb something you throw at it is it will be absorbed. Yes https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-21/crypto-craze-sees-long-island-iced-tea-rename-as-long-blockchain quote:Long Island Iced Tea Corp. shares rose as much as 289 percent after the unprofitable Hicksville, New York-based company rebranded itself Long Blockchain Corp.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Well ok. So actually reaching for a beltline is too early, but actually letting the suspect open fire is too late. What should the trigger (no pun intended) be? This disregards all of the events that got a cop(s) (not that specific video, in general) into that situation. Did they pursue without adequate backup? Were the police clearly identified to the person they shot? Why did they put themselves in a situation where there isn't enough time or cover for less lethal alternatives or at least a moment to fully assess the circumstances? Was there an appropriate opportunity to deescalate that was ignored? There are some situations where killing someone really is unavoidable, but in a hell of a lot of cases the cops have created the circumstances that "force" them to shoot someone.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:There is no meaningful gun control measure that could pass and not instantly die at SCOTUS so we're much better off trying to ameliorate the circumstances that lead to crime, like poverty. Unfortunately this means kicking Wall Street and the rich squarely in the nuts so that isn't happening either. Yes, if we create a bunch of ridiculous contortions based on obsolete documents, it will indeed be impossible to pass meaningful gun control regulation. Or we could we could not try to force a modern legal system through the lens of ambiguous 250 year old statements, stop fetishizing the people who wrote them, and join the rest of the developed world by passing provably effective gun control measures. Proud Christian Mom posted:As it stands now the Democrat platform of gun control is just sleight of hand for their minority voters to avoid addressing the fact that Democrat policies have turned their communities into crime riddled shitholes as much as Republican ones. Wait, what? The Republicans are putting all of their energy into kicking the legs out from under the working poor while dismantling social support structures, but both parties are the same somehow. Is this the part where you tell us that helping poor people makes them dependent and they need to get pulling on their bootstraps instead?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:Bill Clinton had no problem doing the GOP's dirty work in "welfare reform" and an entire blue government under Obama did gently caress all to change any of it. Nevermind their brazen defense of the same people who've been loving the poor forever: the rich. None of that is good, but it's disingenuous to say that Democratic policy positions with respect to minority poverty are as destructive as Republican policy positions.Things can be less bad than other things. M_Gargantua posted:Can't do that, the 2nd amendment exists as a final protection of your personal freedom and sovereignty should the 1st fail. Its litterally written with the intent that a man should be armed to kill another in extremis. This is such a ridiculous fantasy. When in US history has an underprivileged group won progress on civil rights by arming themselves? The few armed slave revolts were brutally put down. If the march on Selma was armed, they would probably would have been mowed down on the spot. If the LGBT community engaged in any armed attacks during the fight for marriage equality, they would have set the effort back significantly. Arguably the only times that civil rights have been advanced by an armed group in the US, it was the federal government that was armed. I guess occasionally some white nationalists are able to get away with pointing guns at federal agents? Meanwhile, back in reality, there are 30,000 some people dying from gun injuries annually and that number would go down significantly with meaningful restrictions on gun ownership.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Diarrhea Elemental posted:"Meaningful" restrictions? Like what, exactly? Feature-list banning scary sounding and/or looking poo poo somebody saw in a movie once? Since when has it ever been a tenable position to legislate away profound mental health policy issues? Or are we talking more about the gang violence fueled by racially-motivated legislation and policy on drugs? Ban the manufacture and sale of handguns except where specifically needed by law enforcement and military; and introduce licensing, registration (that is centrally stored and can be referenced when needed), and background check requirements on all transfers of firearms.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
Imagine being so vehement about guns that literally hundreds of thousands of excess deaths compared to other developed nations are a reasonable price to pay for a hobby and (with a handful of exceptions) abstract fantasies about resisting tyranny.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
Steezo posted:It doesn't start wholesale. It starts like California, Chicago or DC. Where "reasonable" becomes "be friends of the administration or gently caress you for trying to exercise this right". Where despite SCOTUS telling them "Shall Not Be Infringed" means "Shall Not Be Infringed, and also you're in contempt now," they pass the same rule with a slightly different wording hoping the next guy wont have enough financial backing to fight. Big D has absolutely acted in bad faith when its backed people like Feinstien and Daly. Is this like when California passes new automobile emissions standards, automobile manufacturers grudgingly implement the changes on all domestic models because it's simpler than meeting multiple standards, and the people in other states benefit from cleaner air despite the regulatory capture of their local legislatures?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 08:13
|
|
|
Or introduce a reasonably modern system that can handle basic identity verification remotely. That whole process needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Parts of the background check system are intentionally obtuse, without that resistance and some investment it could be seemless for both the general public and law enforcement (including integrated auditing for due process). AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:The US imported a huge mixture of cultures and races in a very short time frame while it's own domestic society was in it's beginnings. We didn't have thousands of years of history to draw from. We also didn't put in place any of the things to let a functioning collective society form because of the same reasons. gently caress that different guy is easier to say than gently caress that guy who resembles me. https://data.oecd.org/migration/foreign-born-population.htm Note the lack of of any correlation to violent death rates. e:  https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=19015 AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Feb 19, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
kupachek posted:That would truly be a dick move. Not really, we have more substantial controls around most things that effectively kill groups of people and are not guns. Go start buying bomb ingredients or chemical weapon precursors or anything remotely radiological in large quantities without a commercial license and see how long it is before you have a conversation with law enforcement. And the license requires proving you can handle the stuff safely, makes you liable for any diversion you should have reasonably protected against, usually will force you to carry sufficient insurance, etc. And by golly, some random schmuck using those things to kill people happens to be extraordinarily rare. Just a coincidence?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dubstep posted:I'm just reminding you of the other side of the argument and why the value of guns as redneck beanie babies doesn't tend to appear in any serious discussion of gun control. The freedom of people to collect difluorides manages to not be an aspect of any conversation around the rather severe regulations around acquiring them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
Double post? In 2018? Sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
Deathy McDeath posted:But until then, I still like shooting as a hobby. How can I reconcile those things? Is it possible to participate in the gun control fight while still enjoying a shooting hobby? Even the countries with the strictest gun control laws have avenues for people to shoot as a sport. To be fair, it does become more expensive and time consuming once you introduce training, storage, and licensing requirements.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2018 17:26
|
|