Police shootings, vigilante shootings, and Black Lives Matter

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

To a point perhaps. The logic is sound, but the argument that you can reduce that number by further restricting gun access isn't imo. That's bolting the stable after the horse has already bolted. There are more guns in the US than people, and at this point criminals won't be the ones affected by any legislation passed.

It also doesn't tackle the larger issue, which is violence in those communities. That's driving the majority of murders with guns.

I disagree.
You have to start somewhere.
You start by stopping the general public availability, i.e. remove them from Walmart.
You also hold an amnesty to take guns outs of circulation.
Over time this lowers guns in the market, its not like criminals are keeping guns for years, if they were then the gun market would collapse.

I'd much rather violence without guns than violence with guns.

GreeBo

Water John wrote: »

Guns have been, normalised, in US society.

Yep, which is why they need to be removed from society.

AbusesToilets

GreeBo wrote: »

I disagree.
You have to start somewhere.
You start by stopping the general public availability, i.e. remove them from Walmart.
You also hold an amnesty to take guns outs of circulation.
Over time this lowers guns in the market, its not like criminals are keeping guns for years, if they were then the gun market would collapse.

I'd much rather violence without guns than violence with guns.

Respectfully, that's a naive view. Guns are not that easy to acquire as is, certainly handguns anyway. In most states, you need some form of permit, which is issued by the local Sheriff. The store will run a background check against NICS. The price is typically in the $400 range for a handgun.

Buyback will never work, you'd be looking at billions to trillions of dollars if you wanted to have an impact with that. Guns don't depreciate in value, or effectiveness. I've shot guns that date back to the 19th century that were pulled out of a cache, worked just fine after a cleaning.

For me, the better course of action is to focus on improving the community that the violence is occurring in. Better education, better job opportunities, better policing, better families.

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Respectfully, that's a naive view. Guns are not that easy to acquire as is, certainly handguns anyway. In most states, you need some form of permit, which is issued by the local Sheriff. The store will run a background check against NICS. The price is typically in the $400 range for a handgun.

No one who ever committed a gun crime had an issue getting access to a gun. Guns are easy to acquire in the US.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Buyback will never work, you'd be looking at billions to trillions of dollars if you wanted to have an impact with that.

I didnt say buyback, I said an amnesty. Hand in your guns as they are now illegal to own.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Guns don't depreciate in value, or effectiveness. I've shot guns that date back to the 19th century that were pulled out of a cache, worked just fine after a cleaning.

Fantastic. But criminals are not in the habit if reusing guns, its kinda a stupid thing to do as it ties you to every crime ever committed with that weapon.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

For me, the better course of action is to focus on improving the community that the violence is occurring in. Better education, better job opportunities, better policing, better families.

Respectfully, thats a far, far more naive view. Rather than fix the gun problem, you want to first fix every other problem? No country on earth has managed to solve all the issues you list, plenty dont have a gun issue.

tayto lover

GreeBo wrote: »

And I'm saying that putting yourself in the line of fire is part of the job for a US cop.
In a similar vein private security cant just shoot anyone who approaches their subject.

Nobody said that security guards should shoot anyone and nobody should shoot a security guard or policeman.

The debate I am interested in is that you suggested that a policeman should die rather than a civilian. That’s just not right.
Nobody’s life is worth less than another.

AbusesToilets

GreeBo wrote: »

No one who ever committed a gun crime had an issue getting access to a gun. Guns are easy to acquire in the US.

I don't think you experience of that to form a solid opinion. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's not that simple.

I didnt say buyback, I said an amnesty. Hand in your guns as they are now illegal to own.

So you wouldn't even reimburse people for their guns? Good luck with that, after you pass the necessary Constitutional Amendments.

Fantastic. But criminals are not in the habit if reusing guns, its kinda a stupid thing to do as it ties you to every crime ever committed with that weapon.

That statement has no basis in reality. Criminals reuse guns all the time, as evidenced by all the cases where they've linked crimes together based off of matching unique characteristics

Respectfully, thats a far, far more naive view. Rather than fix the gun problem, you want to first fix every other problem? No country on earth has managed to solve all the issues you list, plenty dont have a gun issue.

Yea, I'd rather focus on the illness, than the symptoms. Crazy I know. Better to keep these communities poor and suffering. All the better to garner votes.

johnnyskeleton

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Reform is desperately needed in America but the powers that be won't implement that reform. Instead they cheerlead and enable more of these crimes which just escalates tensions of the already disgruntled masses.

I disagree. Several cities have agreed to cut the funding, reform or even abolish their police forces e.g. New York, Portland etc. There is political will to do something, but maybe it is coming too late for some

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I don't think you experience of that to form a solid opinion. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's not that simple.

Well as I said, no one who committed a gun crime had an issue getting access to a gun. I dont think you can dispute that.

So you wouldn't even reimburse people for their guns? Good luck with that, after you pass the necessary Constitutional Amendments.

Seemed to work ok in Australia. The "reimbursement" is that you don't fined for having a gun.

That statement has no basis in reality. Criminals reuse guns all the time, as evidenced by all the cases where they've linked crimes together based off of matching unique characteristics

Criminals dump guns all the time, they might use them more than once, they dont hold onto them for years though.

Yea, I'd rather focus on the illness, than the symptoms. Crazy I know. Better to keep these communities poor and suffering. All the better to garner votes.

And I'm the naive one?!:rolleyes:

AbusesToilets

GreeBo wrote: »

Well as I said, no one who committed a gun crime had an issue getting access to a gun. I dont think you can dispute that.


Seemed to work ok in Australia. The "reimbursement" is that you don't fined for having a gun.


Criminals dump guns all the time, they might use them more than once, they dont hold onto them for years though.

Criminals don't have to worry about obeying laws. As I pointed out, what worked to some degree in Australia, wouldn't be possible in the US. If you stopped all gun production right now, there would be ~350million guns in the country.

And I'm the naive one?!:rolleyes:

Wanting to actually address root causes of problems makes one naive now? Curious position to take.

Manic Moran

Other nations have well proven that numbers of firearms isn't causing anywhere near the problem that the US is experiencing. Even Australia is an interesting example, as it's estimated that under a third of banned firearms were turned in, and to this day, Australia is one of the largest importers of firearms in the world (As it hasn't a domestic industry). It has more privately owned firearms now than before Port Arthur.

Amnesties and buybacks are simply not shown to be effective, and there is no practical way of forcibly removing hundreds of millions of firearms from the US even if there were, somehow, the legal authority and political will to do so, of which there is neither.

There are the legal authorities and more likely the possibility of political will to affect the societal problems which result in US violence. At least, there is very little opposition to the concept, unlike the concept of further restricting firearms. One may prefer that violence happen with knives instead of guns, but it seems a rather limited benefit.

We are constantly being told that the reason that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime is because of the situation of much of the black community where opportunities are limited and the legacies of institutional racism even those of good moral character a disadvantage. There is no downside to this line of effort, and if it reduces crime, it will also reduce crime committed with firearms. It won't be quick, it won't be cheap, and it won't be easy, but it's more effective. It also doesn't show any results by the next election cycle, so much better to say "I passed a gun law" for the re-election campaign.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Other nations have well proven that numbers of firearms isn't causing anywhere near the problem that the US is experiencing. Even Australia is an interesting example, as it's estimated that under a third of banned firearms were turned in, and to this day, Australia is one of the largest importers of firearms in the world (As it hasn't a domestic industry). It has more privately owned firearms now than before Port Arthur.

Amnesties and buybacks are simply not shown to be effective, and there is no practical way of forcibly removing hundreds of millions of firearms from the US even if there were, somehow, the legal authority and political will to do so, of which there is neither.

There are the legal authorities and more likely the possibility of political will to affect the societal problems which result in US violence. At least, there is very little opposition to the concept, unlike the concept of further restricting firearms. One may prefer that violence happen with knives instead of guns, but it seems a rather limited benefit.

We are constantly being told that the reason that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime is because of the situation of much of the black community where opportunities are limited and the legacies of institutional racism even those of good moral character a disadvantage. There is no downside to this line of effort, and if it reduces crime, it will also reduce crime committed with firearms. It won't be quick, it won't be cheap, and it won't be easy, but it's more effective. It also doesn't show any results by the next election cycle, so much better to say "I passed a gun law" for the re-election campaign.

The problem is that the same people who he most resistant to gun reform are also the most resistant to societal reform. There’s a reason they’re called conservatives. Progressive economic, social or criminal reforms simple are welcome in the US.

Suggest a minor redistribution of wealth using wealth or estate taxes and you’re painted as Stalin

Manic Moran

Fair. However, they can be outvoted far more easily than the US legal system can be overhauled.

Potatoeman

There’s no point of even talking about gun reform at a time of violent protests. This is when people buy more guns. Add to that defunding the police and you can forget about it for a generation.

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Criminals don't have to worry about obeying laws. As I pointed out, what worked to some degree in Australia, wouldn't be possible in the US. If you stopped all gun production right now, there would be ~350million guns in the country.




Wanting to actually address root causes of problems makes one naive now? Curious position to take.

Right, but as already discussed, criminal guns aren't their own genre.
If you remove guns then you decrease their availability for criminals too.

If guns were made illegal, how many of those 350m would be handed in? I'd wager a huge percentage.

Wanting to solve all the problemss isn't naive, thinking you will is.

I guess you are against the smoking ban and instead think we should be focusing on a cure for cancer?

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Fair. However, they can be outvoted far more easily than the US legal system can be overhauled.

I agree. There are aspects of American culture I simply don't get, even after living there. It's the ultra individualist mentality that is at the root of the problem for me. Every society needs a balance of collective v individual thinking, but I feel it's tipped way too far in favour of individualism. How do you fix that? No idea.

Tell me how

Brian? wrote: »

I agree. There are aspects of American culture I simply don't get, even after living there. It's the ultra individualist mentality that is at the root of the problem for me. Every society needs a balance of collective v individual thinking, but I feel it's tipped way too far in favour of individualism. How do you fix that? No idea.

I've thought about this a lot over the last few months.

Maybe things can happen organically over several years/decades (as in current climate is heavily influenced by 9/11 and the DHS which came out of that leading to increased immigration concerns and ICE and the ultra patriotism expressed by many now).
But, more likely, I think that it'll take a cataclysmic event such as a brutal war to make Americans view each other more as allies than enemies which seems to be the case at the moment.

I'm currently living in the US and the Flag culture really is bizarre, am aiming to discuss it with people as and when I can but I'm fascinated by the way some go to such extremes of expressing love for the flag but near hatred for a lot of the citizens of the country.

Maybe as social media savvy youths get older and turn away from polarised TV stations they will try to appeal to a middle ground and will be part of creating a more cohesive narrative. Hard to know, Littlefinger was right, 'chaos is a ladder' and there will be mno shortages of the Paul Wolfowitz/Donald Rumsfield/Steve Bannon type characters who aren't elected but are heavy heavy influencers.

(See Dominic Cummings in UK and consider the prevailing mood there at the moment for another version of this)

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

I've thought about this a lot over the last few months.

Maybe things can happen organically over several years/decades (as in current climate is heavily influenced by 9/11 and the DHS which came out of that leading to increased immigration concerns and ICE and the ultra patriotism expressed by many now).
But, more likely, I think that it'll take a cataclysmic event such as a brutal war to make Americans view each other more as allies than enemies which seems to be the case at the moment.

I'm currently living in the US and the Flag culture really is bizarre, am aiming to discuss it with people as and when I can but I'm fascinated by the way some go to such extremes of expressing love for the flag but near hatred for a lot of the citizens of the country.

Maybe as social media savvy youths get older and turn away from polarised TV stations they will try to appeal to a middle ground and will be part of creating a more cohesive narrative. Hard to know, Littlefinger was right, 'chaos is a ladder' and there will be mno shortages of the Paul Wolfowitz/Donald Rumsfield/Steve Bannon type characters who aren't elected but are heavy heavy influencers.

(See Dominic Cummings in UK and consider the prevailing mood there at the moment for another version of this)

To say TV is polarised and to look towards social media as a panacea is a joke right? The current plague of outrage peddlers thrive because of the various platforms that amplify disinformation.

AbusesToilets

GreeBo wrote: »

Right, but as already discussed, criminal guns aren't their own genre.
If you remove guns then you decrease their availability for criminals too.

If guns were made illegal, how many of those 350m would be handed in? I'd wager a huge percentage.

Wanting to solve all the problemss isn't naive, thinking you will is.

I guess you are against the smoking ban and instead think we should be focusing on a cure for cancer?

It's a pointless argument, you're not going to remove guns from society. End of. Trying to do so will engender massive conflict, both political and potentially in real life.

The idea that you can't tackle the roots of social issues is bizarre. What is the alternative, condemn poor communities to perpetual suffering?

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Criminals don't have to worry about obeying laws. As I pointed out, what worked to some degree in Australia, wouldn't be possible in the US. If you stopped all gun production right now, there would be ~350million guns in the country.

Also, whats the issue with retrieving guns based on their registrations?
Seems like its should be a trivial issue to follow up on each registered firearm and ensure you get it back from the owner?

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's a pointless argument, you're not going to remove guns from society. End of. Trying to do so will engender massive conflict, both political and potentially in real life.

The idea that you can't tackle the roots of social issues is bizarre. What is the alternative, condemn poor communities to perpetual suffering?

Why is it pointless? Smoking was far more prevalent and look at it now.
I'm not saying its going to happen overnight, it could take a generation or more, but it will get immediately better and its certainly wont get any better if you do nothing.

Since time began people have been getting angry and picking up sticks and hitting each other. You will *never* change that. Never.
So what we need to do is remove the sticks that enable people to kill dozens of people.

AbusesToilets

GreeBo wrote: »

Also, whats the issue with retrieving guns based on their registrations?
Seems like its should be a trivial issue to follow up on each registered firearm and ensure you get it back from the owner?

There's no gun registry, any ones that have been attempted became massive wastes of money.

Why is it pointless? Smoking was far more prevalent and look at it now.
I'm not saying its going to happen overnight, it could take a generation or more, but it will get immediately better and its certainly wont get any better if you do nothing.

Since time began people have been getting angry and picking up sticks and hitting each other. You will *never* change that. Never.
So what we need to do is remove the sticks that enable people to kill dozens of people.

Smoking isn't a Constitutionally protected right. There isn't the political support for a change to the 2nd Amendment.

You're making my point for me. The violence is the issue, not the tools used. How's the level of violent crime in London, for example? Plenty of gun crimes, in addition to the massive problem of stabbings and knife attacks. You could progressively remove every possible tool imaginable, and still have high levels of violence. So perhaps a better approach would be to try and tackle that, instead of playing whackamole going after guns etc.

Manic Moran

Tell me how wrote: »

Maybe as social media savvy youths get older and turn away from polarised TV stations they will try to appeal to a middle ground and will be part of creating a more cohesive narrative.

Wait, what? Have you taken a long hard look at your social media feeds? Pick any particular poster/twitterer/feeder. Look at the responses to those posts. How often are there reasonably argued discussions vs how often are there statements of unqualified support of the original post/twit/feed?

That's amplified by algorithms which 'suggest' posts/twits/feeds to you based on your past behaviour. They're not there looking to give you balanced information, they're being suggested to you because you're more likely to click on it, possibly in the search of confirmation of your own position. Clicks are good. They enhance revenue.

There is no legal authority for enforcing removal of firearms from US society. They are not registered, so you don't know who has them, and you also cannot go around searching places or people to see if they have them. That is, again, before dealing with the minor matter of active protections of firearms in US society. Societal change to better the lives of the segment of society most inclined to crime is a matter of policy, not law enforcement.

I agree. There are aspects of American culture I simply don't get, even after living there. It's the ultra individualist mentality that is at the root of the problem for me. Every society needs a balance of collective v individual thinking, but I feel it's tipped way too far in favour of individualism. How do you fix that? No idea.

There is a distinction I think which is often missed in the US context between "every man for himself" and "leave me the hell alone". Most (probably not all, but most) conservatives/individualists are in the second category, not the first. There is a general understanding that 's**t happens', that people become unemployed and need a crutch for a while, that their boat sinks and they need a coast guard, that a hurricane came through and wiped out their home, water quality needs to have standards, and so on and so forth. The folks who have volunteered to face gunfire or run into burning buildings are disproportionately conservative, they are performing communal public services. Overall, conservatives tend to voluntarily donate more financially to charities than progressives. The Cajun Navy is primarily a bunch of rednecks, but they drop everything to go help in a disaster. On the other hand, progressives tend to live where they are taxed more, so the money is still being given, just through a different route. That's before you go down the route of the faith-based organisations which do actually often do good for the less-well-off in the community. Wife and I aren't particularly religious, but we're stunned by the level of assistance we're being given in raising our kid by churches of which we are not a member which were not available to us in less-churched California. The real dividing line is more along the lines of "where does the requirement for help get handed over to self-responsibility?", and I think that can be legitimately argued. Something I'm not seeing in the larger discussions is any talk about a specified endstate, just general handwaving about 'help' and 'change' and 're-funding', or there's few examples of simple estimated budget analysis of cost to long-term benefit. Put a reasoned and supported plan forward, I think a good number of conservatives can be brought on board.

On the other hand, the 'leave me alone' philosophy is more a matter of "As long as I'm not hurting anyone, let me take care of myself and leave me be." There is a bit of a hypocritical split here with regards to LGBT issues, but you'll find quite a few conservatives are not averse to such relationships either, there is a split there which is missed in the larger political binary. There is also the idea that "you always have a personal choice", such as 'to follow the law or not'. Conservatives tend to put a lot of emphasis on that latter.

The culture reflects the pragmatic reality that the government can't be everywhere and do everything. In this context, we know from experience that the police won't always protect you when you need them (even if you call), and we know from caselaw that they have no duty to in the first place. (Which is also reasonable, I don't know if, for example, there are any Irish cases on the matter, but I can't imagine that an Irish court would find any different). Given this, they consider it undesirable to prevent someone from taking care of himself when he can't rely on anyone else to do it. If a city a thousand miles away in California is having problems, a Wyomingite will wish them good luck until Californians decide that in order to solve their problems, they will want to impose their solutions on Wyomingites.

Tell me how

Manic Moran wrote: »

Wait, what? Have you taken a long hard look at your social media feeds? Pick any particular poster/twitterer/feeder. Look at the responses to those posts. How often are there reasonably argued discussions vs how often are there statements of unqualified support of the original post/twit/feed?

That's amplified by algorithms which 'suggest' posts/twits/feeds to you based on your past behaviour. They're not there looking to give you balanced information, they're being suggested to you because you're more likely to click on it, possibly in the search of confirmation of your own position. Clicks are good. They enhance revenue.

I was suggesting that maybe TV stations will recognize that the market for polarized views is dwindling and come back to some form of a balance. I didn't make that clear.
I'm left leaning and don't watch the likes of CNN or Fox any more because I know that they are simply preaching to the choir.

Carfacemandog

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You're making my point for me. The violence is the issue, not the tools used. How's the level of violent crime in London, for example? Plenty of gun crimes, in addition to the massive problem of stabbings and knife attacks. You could progressively remove every possible tool imaginable, and still have high levels of violence. So perhaps a better approach would be to try and tackle that, instead of playing whackamole going after guns etc.

Isn't the murder rate in the US more than four times what it is in the UK?

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There's no gun registry, any ones that have been attempted became massive wastes of money.

Some states have a gun registry, especially for hand guns.
There are also records of any checks that were performed before a sale and a permit history (concealed carry permit for example)
Its not 100%, but that doesnt mean you do nothing, 100% of people dont wear seatbelts, its still the law.

Smoking isn't a Constitutionally protected right. There isn't the political support for a change to the 2nd Amendment.

So? That doesnt mean that its still not the correct thing to do.

You're making my point for me. The violence is the issue, not the tools used. How's the level of violent crime in London, for example? Plenty of gun crimes, in addition to the massive problem of stabbings and knife attacks. You could progressively remove every possible tool imaginable, and still have high levels of violence. So perhaps a better approach would be to try and tackle that, instead of playing whackamole going after guns etc.

And now you are making my point.
You will NEVER stop violence, its part of our DNA as humans.
So you control and limit the damage than people can do while they are being violent.
Sure, someone can stab someone with a screwdriver, but a) they are unlikely to stab themselves with it, immediately saving about 500 people a year.
b) there are only so many people you can attack with a screwdriver, by definition you need to be up close and personal, a gun has neither of these shortcomings.


What is your resistance to gun restriction btw? Whats the benefit of guns being freely available?

AbusesToilets

GreeBo wrote: »

Some states have a gun registry, especially for hand guns.
There are also records of any checks that were performed before a sale and a permit history (concealed carry permit for example)
Its not 100%, but that doesnt mean you do nothing, 100% of people dont wear seatbelts, its still the law.

There are 5 states that have some form of registry. There is a Federal prohibition on maintaining such. If you could read about the problems Canada trying to implement a registry, and then expound that to the 350+million guns in the US.

That's before you even answer the question of how a registry is going to help prevent the use of firearms in crime.

So? That doesnt mean that its still not the correct thing to do.

Many millions of Americans would dispute that.

And now you are making my point.
You will NEVER stop violence, its part of our DNA as humans.
So you control and limit the damage than people can do while they are being violent.
Sure, someone can stab someone with a screwdriver, but a) they are unlikely to stab themselves with it, immediately saving about 500 people a year.
b) there are only so many people you can attack with a screwdriver, by definition you need to be up close and personal, a gun has neither of these shortcomings.

Let me pose a question. Are you against Firearms, or are you against deaths (in the context of accident, suicide, crime etc)? As an example, there's a lot of furor relating to banning rifles (erroneously labeled as Assault Weapons, a term without any meaning). More people die from hammers per annum, more than double on average. Should we have a national registry for them?

If you are wanting to reduce annual deaths involving a firearm, your first and best action would be to improve mental health resources, in order to reduce suicides. You could improve training and education to reduce accidental deaths, and you could improve policing and community investment to tackle the crime rates in cities where the vast majority of murders occur. No easy answers or schemes that fit nicely into a political ad.

What is your resistance to gun restriction btw? Whats the benefit of guns being freely available?

It accomplishes nothing to prevent crime and deaths, rather it's a tool of surveillance and a vector for increasing restrictions on legal gun ownership. Which I am against. There are many reasons to own a gun. Self defense, hunting, sport shooting, resisting the government. You might disagree with those, that's your right, as owning a gun also is (in the US context).

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It accomplishes nothing to prevent crime and deaths, rather it's a tool of surveillance and a vector for increasing restrictions on legal gun ownership. Which I am against. There are many reasons to own a gun. Self defense, hunting, sport shooting, resisting the government. You might disagree with those, that's your right, as owning a gun also is (in the US context).

Do you think the governments use of unidentified forces to attack and arrest protesting citizens should have entitled those citizens to use their guns to defend themselves?

Link

The Trump administration has deployed phalanxes of officers in riot gear and no identifiable markings to police demonstrations in the capital.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think the governments use of unidentified forces to attack and arrest protesting citizens should have entitled those citizens to use their guns to defend themselves?

Link

I don't believe the government is currently engaged in tyrannical and oppressive acts, so no. That doesn't mean I support the actions of the Administration.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I don't believe the government is currently engaged in tyrannical and oppressive acts, so no. That doesn't mean I support the actions of the Administration.

Do you think the intent to use war field weaponry against such protesters would be evidence of a tyrannical mindset?

Do you think the use of unidentifiable forces to quell people practising their first amendment right is an oppressive act?

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think the intent to use war field weaponry against such protesters would be evidence of a tyrannical mindset?

Do you think the use of unidentifiable forces to quell people practising their first amendment right is an oppressive act?

You're complaining about the use of non-lethal means to disrupt a riot? Would you prefer the methods used in other countries, where they just mow down folks in the street?