Police shootings, vigilante shootings, and Black Lives Matter

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Well that settles it, cops should just shoot people and let god sort it out yeah

I can understand why they would. Any trivial routine interaction with the public could result in you being murdered.

A lot of this is to do with the ease of gun ownership over there though. If that was scaled back, so too would be the number of needless deaths.

AbusesToilets

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can understand why they would. Any trivial routine interaction with the public could result in you being murdered.

A lot of this is to do with the ease of gun ownership over there though. If that was scaled back, so too would be the number of needless deaths.

It's not gun ownership, it's illegal gun possession. The people involved in shootings like that are rarely using legally held firearms.

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's not gun ownership, it's illegal gun possession. The people involved in shootings like that are rarely using legally held firearms.

Surely one begets the other though?

illegal guns exist because of the ease and availability of guns that likely started out legal or close to it in the 1st place.

The same proliferation of weapons doesn't prevail anywhere else does it?

GreeBo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, there is the medium position of using more force than Europeans (for example) might be comfortable with but which results in all parties surviving to the end of the day. After all, you can also say "That's just the risks of the job" for criminals who end up getting shot as well, if you want to take that perspectice.

What about the totally innocent people who get shot by eager police? I think thats kinda what people are talking about, rather than any strawman about dangerous criminals being shot...

How much more force do you think the cops in your example could have used?

Do accept that, by the nature of the job, even doing everything correctly, some police are going to get shot and killed and that this is a better outcome than any innocent person being shot and killed by the same police force?

"To Protect & Serve", immediately puts them on the back foot, it not "To safeguard ourselves above all others".

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's not gun ownership, it's illegal gun possession. The people involved in shootings like that are rarely using legally held firearms.

Where did they get the guns from though?

Would you draw the same distinction between lets say North Korea having nuclear ICBMs? Do you care where they got them from or just the fact that they have them and that they are a danger to everyone else?

tayto lover

GreeBo wrote: »

What about the totally innocent people who get shot by eager police? I think thats kinda what people are talking about, rather than any strawman about dangerous criminals being shot...

How much more force do you think the cops in your example could have used?

Do accept that, by the nature of the job, even doing everything correctly, some police are going to get shot and killed and that this is a better outcome than any innocent person being shot and killed by the same police force?

"To Protect & Serve", immediately puts them on the back foot, it not "To safeguard ourselves above all others".

So are you saying that a policeman’s life is worth less than a civilians?
Looks like it.

GreeBo

tayto lover wrote: »

So are you saying that a policeman’s life is worth less than a civilians?
Looks like it.

No, not worth less.
I am saying that 1 of the people involved has accepted the risks involved in the encounter, the other hasnt.

I figure you can guess which is which.

Would you be ok with Firemen dousing your house in foam in case it were to one day go on fire and they died while trying to save it?

eldamo

GreeBo wrote: »

rather than any strawman about dangerous criminals being shot...

GreeBo wrote: »

Would you be ok with Firemen dousing your house in foam in case it were to one day go on fire and they died while trying to save it?

The straw does nothing!!!!!!

tayto lover

GreeBo wrote: »

No, not worth less.
I am saying that 1 of the people involved has accepted the risks involved in the encounter, the other hasnt.

I figure you can guess which is which.

Would you be ok with Firemen dousing your house in foam in case it were to one day go on fire and they died while trying to save it?

Totally different argument.

GreeBo

tayto lover wrote: »

Totally different argument.

Why is it different?

You are saying that the cops shouldnt have to wait to get shot before they use lethal force to prevent getting shot. I'm saying that firemen shouldnt have to wait for a building to go on fire before the douse it in foam as a preventative measure.

You accept that firemen put their lives on the line but not police?

tayto lover

GreeBo wrote: »

Why is it different?

You are saying that the cops shouldnt have to wait to get shot before they use lethal force to prevent getting shot. I'm saying that firemen shouldnt have to wait for a building to go on fire before the douse it in foam as a preventative measure.

You accept that firemen put their lives on the line but not police?

I’m not saying that at all.
Both react to incidents but usually it’s only the police who are attacked and specifically because they’re police.
Firemen are rarely attacked because they’re firemen.

Manic Moran

You're kindof going from one extreme to the other here.

Yes, there is an inherent risk to the job. Much as there is with firemen, soldiers, air/sea rescue, or whatever else. An expectation of 'zero casualties' is unreasonable. In all the jobs, there are mitigations which can be taken, though, to include, for the example of firemen, a decision to simply not engage or enter the building if it's considered too hazardous or the coast guard helicopter pilot concluding it's too dangerous to fly. With law enforcement, though, in what is a consciously adversarial situation where the active decisions of others are the hazard (as opposed to just a dangerous situation where personal lapses are more the issue), walking away isn't normally an option. A fireman can make an estimated judgement on the structural integrity of a building. What estimations for such judgements are available to police?

As a result, it is not unexpected that if they can't walk away, and the active threat is unpredictable, then they will take what active measures they can to ensure that risks are minimized. That may well result in a standard of force which is closer to 'unacceptable' than most people will feel comfortable with but which normally results in an outcome that everyone involved goes to sleep alive that night.

AbusesToilets

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Surely one begets the other though?

illegal guns exist because of the ease and availability of guns that likely started out legal or close to it in the 1st place.

The same proliferation of weapons doesn't prevail anywhere else does it?

Not to rehash the gun control debate again, but the point I'm making is that talking about gun control legislation as a solution to gun crime misses the target entirely. You won't decrease gun violence by making it more difficult for Joe soap to purchase a pistol. The much lauded Assualt Weapons Ban did shag all to improve gun violence for example.

There are other countries with similar levels of gun availablity, but without the crime rates. Unfortunately, most of the gun violence is found within the black community, and I'd imagine most of it commited with illegally held guns, tho I don't have a source to back that up. Just my opinion.

GreeBo wrote: »

Where did they get the guns from though?

Would you draw the same distinction between lets say North Korea having nuclear ICBMs? Do you care where they got them from or just the fact that they have them and that they are a danger to everyone else?

I would imagine they purchase them illegally, from similar sources that would provide drugs illegally. Tend to exist in support of one another.

Retr0gamer

Manic Moran wrote: »

No more or less anecdotal than videos of what appears to be unnecessary escalation of force by police. If we are going to use actual, albeit rare examples of police abuse of force as a basis for discussion (or protest), it is not unreasonable to frame it in the context of actual, albeit rare examples of how things go lethal for the police in in the blink of an eye in confrontations.

No it doesn't work like that. One is unfortunate sure but it's the dangers of the job the police take. It's a tragedy and shouldn't be happening but it's part of the job when working with dangerous criminals who are unpredictable.

Police abuse of force on the other hand should not be happening ever but on top of that is well within control of the police. The Police are actively out there hurting the people whose job it is to protect. Their job isn't to cause GBH to civilians exercising a constitutional right.

GreeBo

tayto lover wrote: »

I’m not saying that at all.
Both react to incidents but usually it’s only the police who are attacked and specifically because they’re police.
Firemen are rarely attacked because they’re firemen.

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.

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would imagine they purchase them illegally, from similar sources that would provide drugs illegally. Tend to exist in support of one another.

But you don't agree that the fact that they are available legally makes them more available illegally?
It's not like someone manufacturers illegal guns.

Water John

GreeBo wrote: »

But you don't agree that the fact that they are available legally makes them more available illegally?
It's not like someone manufacturers illegal guns.

Guns have been, normalised, in US society.

johnnyskeleton

Retr0gamer wrote: »

No it doesn't work like that. One is unfortunate sure but it's the dangers of the job the police take. It's a tragedy and shouldn't be happening but it's part of the job when working with dangerous criminals who are unpredictable.

Do you accept though that those dangerous and unpredictable criminals could pose a danger to other people and, if so, the Police can, where appropriate, use potentially or actually lethal force?

For example, in hostage situations occasionally the perpetrator will be killed if they do not surrender and they still pose a threat to civilians.

Police abuse of force on the other hand should not be happening ever but on top of that is well within control of the police.

Saying that abuse of force should not be happening ever is a much trickier concept to grapple with. Obviously you are correct, but what is not at all clear is what constitutes abuse and how you think abuse can be stopped in human systems.

For example, if a police officer honestly but mistakenly believes that someone is reaching for a gun, with which they could pose a threat to the police officer, their partner or a member of the public, is that an "abuse of force" or is that a mistake in judgment or perhaps even an unavoidable aspect of policing?

If the former, how do you stop this abuse of force other than not allowing the police to have weapons at all and not allowing them to use lethal force in any circumstances? Bearing in mind that An Garda Siochana, who are one of the most peaceful police forces in the world, still require firearms and the lethal use of force on occasion.

If the latter, then it is a good argument for more training and looking into ways of using non-lethal force instead, although that in itself is a difficult argument.

The Police are actively out there hurting the people whose job it is to protect.

I really can't say for certain that some police in America aren't actively out there hurting people - it's a country of over 300m people with hundreds of thousands of police officers in over 10,000 separate police jurisdictions. There are also some well reported instances of unsavory characters such as white supremacists and separatists infiltrating local law enforcement agencies.

But I don't think that can be said of the police overall, the majority of whom do try to do their job as best they can. The solution to there being police who abuse their power is that there are systems in place to weed them out, monitor their activities, remove opportunities to abuse power and to investigate and prosecute any such abuses. It's not a catchy slogan and it isn't in sinc with the public mood in parts of the USA, but the reality is that the solution is police reform rather than tarring all police as bad.

Their job isn't to cause GBH to civilians exercising a constitutional right.

What if the person isn't exercising a constitutional right but is committing an offence? Let's look at another example, when Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes was shot when he was mistaken for one of the London bombers. That was clearly a tragedy, and the police officer made a very serious mistake. The appropriate response is to learn from those mistakes and to put systems in place to prevent it happening again. More and better training is the key to that.

Now when you compare the London Metropolitan Police who are pretty well trained, and compare them to local and State police in parts of the USA, where the training is far closer to that of a security guard, the solution seems clear.

Ultimately, it is not possible to design a perfect system that avoids any bad actions absolutely. The best we can do is design a system that can prevent those things happening as much as possible, and then to review the systems constantly whenever something bad does happen.

Retr0gamer

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.

AbusesToilets

GreeBo wrote: »

But you don't agree that the fact that they are available legally makes them more available illegally?
It's not like someone manufacturers illegal guns.

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.

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?