|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 16 2013 01:49 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2013 01:48 phANT1m wrote:
On the whole gun control issue I think the USA is a hypocrite. Why?
They in the UN push for all memeber countries to implement gun control measures, from background checks to training and also approval etc. Yet they won't implement the same thing? I'd be interested to learn more about this. Can you point to any text online which talks about this?
The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to approve the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which aims to regulate the international sale of weapons. The United States was one of the 154 votes in favor.
The American National Rifle Association opposes the treaty. In a February interview with The Daily Caller, NRA President David Keene said the treaty would "end-run the Congress, end-run the Constitution, end-run the state legislatures and the federal courts." Among the NRA's objections are record-keeping requirements for imported guns.
It's unlikely that the treaty is supported by the two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate required for ratification.
[ENJOY: Political Cartoons About Gun Control]
Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kans., told The Washington Times Tuesday that senators are "united in strong opposition to [the] treaty." Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., told the paper, "Americans will not stand for internationalists limiting and infringing upon their constitutional rights."
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday the Obama administration is "pleased to join with the consensus" and Secretary of State John Kerry said the treaty would "strengthen global security while protecting the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade."
U.N. Passes NRA-Opposed Gun Control Treaty
|
United States24782 Posts
Did the USA push for this treaty?
Isn't this treaty also only involving international trade? phANT1m's posts led me to believe that the USA pushed for an international agreement that countries would have strict internal policies, and doesn't intend to follow them themselves.
I agree the inability of the US government to agree on anything is pretty pathetic, but I haven't really seen any hypocrite agenda.
|
On May 16 2013 04:38 micronesia wrote:
Did the USA push for this treaty?
Isn't this treaty also only involving international trade? phANT1m's posts led me to believe that the USA pushed for an international agreement that countries would have strict internal policies, and doesn't intend to follow them themselves.
I agree the inability of the US government to agree on anything is pretty pathetic, but I haven't really seen any hypocrite agenda.
I don't think it is hypocritical, because that would require some sort of solidarity on the part of US politicians that simply does not exist. On the other hand, the US did "push" for the treaty. I can't find anything better than snopes at the moment, but it directly references this in the second paragraph of the explanation. (damn their text lock!)
U.N. Arms Treaty
|
On May 16 2013 04:38 micronesia wrote:
Did the USA push for this treaty?
Isn't this treaty also only involving international trade? phANT1m's posts led me to believe that the USA pushed for an international agreement that countries would have strict internal policies, and doesn't intend to follow them themselves.
I agree the inability of the US government to agree on anything is pretty pathetic, but I haven't really seen any hypocrite agenda.
More specifically I think the US stopped opposing this treaty. Bush was specifically against it and Obama simply stopped resisting.
|
Fun Facts, gun lobby edition:
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/13/18200262-pediatricians-take-on-gun-lobby-carefully?lite
“If you think that Congress has sort of been asleep…you are wrong,” said Dr. Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins University, one of the few academic experts who has continued research on gun violence despite efforts to divert funding. “They have been doing a very good job of weakening the laws to make it easier for gun dealers to have the least amount of responsibility. They have made it harder to sue dealers and made it harder to access data on … which dealers are pumping out guns to criminals. They’ve made it almost impossible to prosecute a gun dealer.”
http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/the-gun-report-may-15-2013/
Did you know that the gun lobby doesn’t want you discussing handgun safety with your doctor? In June 2011, Florida governor Rick Scott signed a bill that made it the first state in the nation to prohibit doctors from asking patients if they own guns. Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia all introduced “physician gag law” bills that would restrict physician firearm counseling. Shortly thereafter, the American Academy of Pediatrics reaffirmed its commitment to advocating for the strongest possible firearm regulations, arguing that fewer guns means safer homes for children.
A U.S. district judge later blocked the Florida law, but that hasn’t stopped the war of words between physicians and gun advocates. Last month, Dr. Judith Palfrey, former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, wrote an opinion piece for CNN arguing that “gun violence is a public health threat to our children.” She advocated for trigger locks and storing guns separately from ammunition – rather nonpartisan suggestions.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote:
I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
Sigh...here is yet another strawman Theiving Magpie is attacking..and you are double teaming it with him:
"If we have to register guns then it will be exploited to take advantage of people and/or confiscate weapons."
Find me where somebody said and/or implied exactly that. It's the same one as before, and it's getting pretty annoying that you guys are actually implying that somebody said something close to this....again. I think as rational thinkers we can all agree that a registry could lead to gun confiscation, but nobody on either side is saying that it 100% will or that it 100% will not. I would hope anyway, because otherwise I'd love to hear the evidence backing that up. We can all speculate what we think it would do, but if we can't even move past the fact that you keep arguing against some imaginary person who is apparently saying that a gun registry will automatically mean we have gun confiscation, then how will we even have that discussion?
Here is all I was actually saying:
You don't really mean
Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing.
And if you actually do, your opinions are so extreme then I don't think I will ever find some type of rational compromise with you in any kind of discussion in regards to gun control.
Right now, if the police have evidence, they can already "break" into your house, put surveillance in your house, and even seize your property. No changes need to be made to the 4th, 5th, or 2nd amendment. If there is evidence implicating you--they can already do those things.
I bolded the part that makes everything after it unimportant in regards to defending your extreme remark. If you need that caveat, then you don't mean literally anything that makes it easie, I would assume, right? If not, then...
What about if there isn't any evidence? What if somebody is smoking pot in their house and the police are allowed to just walk in with NO warrant, suspicion, or evidence, and bust them because giving police permission to do that will make it easier to catch criminals. Awesome, that guy had 11 ounces of marijuana and is now a felon. I'm not going to argue about legalizing marijuana, but I WILL argue with you about the importance of the 4th amendment. Also, I'm really getting tired of pointing out strawmans, so please stop trying to refute things people aren't saying.
+ Show Spoiler +On May 16 2013 08:41 FallDownMarigold wrote:Fun Facts, gun lobby edition: http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/13/18200262-pediatricians-take-on-gun-lobby-carefully?liteShow nested quote +“If you think that Congress has sort of been asleep…you are wrong,” said Dr. Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins University, one of the few academic experts who has continued research on gun violence despite efforts to divert funding. “They have been doing a very good job of weakening the laws to make it easier for gun dealers to have the least amount of responsibility. They have made it harder to sue dealers and made it harder to access data on … which dealers are pumping out guns to criminals. They’ve made it almost impossible to prosecute a gun dealer.” http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/the-gun-report-may-15-2013/Show nested quote +Did you know that the gun lobby doesn’t want you discussing handgun safety with your doctor? In June 2011, Florida governor Rick Scott signed a bill that made it the first state in the nation to prohibit doctors from asking patients if they own guns. Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia all introduced “physician gag law” bills that would restrict physician firearm counseling. Shortly thereafter, the American Academy of Pediatrics reaffirmed its commitment to advocating for the strongest possible firearm regulations, arguing that fewer guns means safer homes for children.
A U.S. district judge later blocked the Florida law, but that hasn’t stopped the war of words between physicians and gun advocates. Last month, Dr. Judith Palfrey, former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, wrote an opinion piece for CNN arguing that “gun violence is a public health threat to our children.” She advocated for trigger locks and storing guns separately from ammunition – rather nonpartisan suggestions.
Interesting...I like this part:
What the doctors want is an assault weapon ban, mandatory background checks and waiting periods before all firearm purchases, a ban on high-capacity magazines, handgun regulations and requirements for safe firearm storage under federal law.
Doctors who use made up political words (assault weapon) don't sound very qualified to tackle the subject of gun control. Surely they would be smarter than use that term if they want to make any progress tackling the gun lobby.
Did you know that the gun lobby doesn’t want you discussing handgun safety with your doctor? In June 2011, Florida governor Rick Scott signed a bill that made it the first state in the nation to prohibit doctors from asking patients if they own guns. Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia all introduced “physician gag law” bills that would restrict physician firearm counseling. Shortly thereafter, the American Academy of Pediatrics reaffirmed its commitment to advocating for the strongest possible firearm regulations, arguing that fewer guns means safer homes for children.
It's always "for children". While I am treating your illness, do you happen to own any guns? I need to know for the children.
I'll agree that:
A U.S. district judge later blocked the Florida law, but that hasn’t stopped the war of words between physicians and gun advocates. Last month, Dr. Judith Palfrey, former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, wrote an opinion piece for CNN arguing that “gun violence is a public health threat to our children.” She advocated for trigger locks and storing guns separately from ammunition – rather nonpartisan suggestions.
Sounds pretty nonpartisan and reasonable. Trigger locks and storing guns separately from ammunition..I'm not really sure what she means by storing guns separately from ammunition though. Is that just a suggestion or a request for a law making that mandatory?
You led me to an interesting group I had not heard of before, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership. They are doctors so obviously they can't be biased right?
+ Show Spoiler +Myth 8: Ordinary citizens (non-police, non-military) cannot effectively use firearms for self-defense and are more likely to get injured using a gun for self-defense than not.
The utility of defensive gun use can be determined by referencing the NCVS database and analyzing crime incidents that occurred between 1979-1985. These files are the most detailed and representative account of the defensive actions of victims. According to the information in the database, guns are the most effective weapon and means of self-defense in thwarting robbery and assault. When using a gun in self-defense, 83% of robbery victims and 88% of assault victims were not injured. Furthermore, only one in four victims using a gun in self-defense was even attacked during a robbery or assault. These rates were by far the lowest compared to other weapons, bodily force, or nonviolent actions used in self-defense. Additional support for defensive gun use can be garnered from the NSDS. The NSDS, which has yielded the most detailed information on defensive gun use to date, concluded that only 5.5% of victims using guns in self-defense were injured.
Despite the impression fostered by films and TV, the majority of confrontations are not very dramatic. According to the NSDS, 76% of the incidents were resolved without the victim firing a shot. In only 16% of the incidents did the victim attempt to shoot the criminal, with no more than 8% of all incidents resulting in the wounding or death of the criminal. In fact, only 18% of the gun defense victims faced a criminal in possession of a gun, and only 3% of the incidents resulted in both parties shooting at each other.
Contrary to the popular fear that a criminal is likely to seize the victim’s gun and use it against him, this situation occurred in about 1% of the incidents recorded in the NCVS. Furthermore, less than 2% of fatal gun accidents are defendants mistaking someone for an intruder.
1. Kleck, Gary, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, (New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1997).
2. Kates Jr., Don B., and Gary Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence, (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1997).
http://www.drgo.us/?page_id=20
I found this pretty interesting in regards to prior discussion we had. This came up quite a lot, and I still stand by my assertion that guns can be effective self-defense tools, regardless of distance between you and your attacker.
|
On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote:
I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries
Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements.
Nothing to worry about.
Go about your business, citizen.
Nothing to see here.
Official state business.
*sarcasm*
Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man.
Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there.
The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
|
"Doctors who use made up political words...."
Don't avoid the brunt of their argument by focusing on word play. That they use a word you don't like does not make them unqualified to assess public health matters. Where's the logic in that comment? Dismissing a lot of evidence based discussion and research based on disagreeing with a word choice seems quite ignorant.
About "Doctors for responsible gun ownership" -- If you ask any physician other than the ~1000 part of that group (re: hundreds of thousands of physicians) they will tell you that's a political action group, not an academic/science group. The assertions made by that group and its leader are not supported by the bulk of research -- they derive all funding from pro gun industry groups, and in fact were set up by a gun industry group. They are paid to butt heads under the garb of being doctors with those in the public health field actually attempting to inform policy from a scientific, rather than political perspective, as part of the ongoing effort to thwart efforts to fund research into gun death and injury.
If you want to bite the bullet and be completely honest to yourself, you'll realize that the group you mention is not on the same authoritative level as the ones doing research for the benefit of public health and not for the benefit of a private interest.
|
United States24782 Posts
On May 17 2013 00:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:
"Doctors who use made up political words...."
Don't avoid the brunt of their argument by focusing on word play.
While I agree the group shouldn't be permanently labeled as incompetent, it is definitely worth pointing out that they chose to use the term assault weapon. If you are part of a group that you want taken seriously, you need to actually discuss the controversial issue you are taking a stance on accurately. There is also a difference between a comment one of the members made over lunch, and an official statement by the group, of course.
This group doesn't have anything to worry about, in my opinion, since this minor offense doesn't hold a candle to how the president of the USA could not pronounce 'nuclear' correctly despite being at the top of the chain in command for the usage of the USA's nuclear weapons arsenal. It's pretty pathetic.
Still, they should not say 'assault weapon,' especially when they represent a people with questionable credentials on the topic, because anyone pro gun will not take them seriously (and with good reason).
|
"Assault weapons" is a term that refers to high capacity magazines, short barrel assault rifles, and the like -- roughly weapons explicitly made for the efficient elimination of human targets, not hunting targets, and not paper targets (they are fun toys, but in reality they serve no other purpose). If you want to nitpick them about the use of "assault weapons", sure, you could request that they insert the more specific details of what is meant by their use of "assault weapons". But the argument does not change. So my point is that it's a sideshow distraction to get up in arms about use of a term when the meaning behind that term should be understood anyway.
I'll agree though -- to mitigate this sort of silly, detracting complaint, they should cater to these people and refer to the specifics rather than the blanket term.
Finally, I think I must be misreading what you're saying here:
especially when they represent a people with questionable credentials on the topic
Being that this is a public health issue, this use of "questionable credentials" must refer to NRA lobbyists and other gun lobby activists, not doctors and scientists from elite universities and institutes all across the US, who represent the consensus medical/scientific view on the topic. But from your wording it actually seems like you believe they have questionable credentials, which would be sort of strange -- questionable in the eyes of the pro-NRA, maybe. I must be misunderstanding what you meant, nevermind.
|
On May 17 2013 01:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:"Assault weapons" is a term that refers to high capacity magazines, short barrel assault rifles, and the like -- roughly weapons explicitly made for the efficient elimination of human targets, not hunting targets, and not paper targets (they are fun toys, but in reality they serve no other purpose). If you want to nitpick them about the use of "assault weapons", sure, you could request that they insert the more specific details of what is meant by their use of "assault weapons". But the argument does not change. So my point is that it's a sideshow distraction to get up in arms about use of a term when the meaning behind that term should be understood anyway. I'll agree though -- to mitigate this sort of silly, detracting complaint, they should cater to these people and refer to the specifics rather than the blanket term. Finally, I think I must be misreading what you're saying here: Show nested quote +especially when they represent a people with questionable credentials on the topic Being that this is a public health issue, this use of "questionable credentials" must refer to NRA lobbyists and other gun lobby activists, not doctors and scientists from elite universities and institutes all across the US, who represent the consensus medical/scientific view on the topic. But from your wording it actually seems like you believe they have questionable credentials, which would be sort of strange -- questionable in the eyes of the pro-NRA, maybe. I must be misunderstanding what you meant, nevermind.
You picked the only features that are even close to making sense, when really, there's so many other fire-arm features that also classify a weapon to be an "Assault Weapon" that don't make any sense.
Foldable stocks
Bayonet mounts
Pistol grips
Barrel Shrouds
Flash Suppressors
just to name a few. These are all mostly cosmetic things that don't affect the performance of the weapon in any way. Further, High-capacity magazines are restricted separately, they aren't covered by any current AWB I'm aware of.
|
United States24782 Posts
On May 17 2013 01:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:
"Assault weapons" is a term that refers to high capacity magazines, short barrel assault rifles, and the like -- roughly weapons explicitly made for the efficient elimination of human targets, not hunting targets, and not paper targets (they are fun toys, but in reality they serve no other purpose). I feel like we've had this discussion before, but I don't understand which guns are assault weapons and which are not. You did not give a very clear description I could use to identify which of my guns are and are not assault weapons (speaking hypothetically since I don't have any guns). How high capacity? How short of a barrel? What do you mean assault rifles? Assault rifles are almost completely irrelevant to the discussion. Talking about how we should restrict/control weapons 'explicitly made for the efficient elimination of human targets' without defining said weapons clearly is silly. It's not a matter of using a misdirect to avoid meaningful gun legislation, it's a matter of getting everyone on the same page so we can even possibly come up with a meaningful gun law.
I am not going to propose a law to prevent the sale of 'killer cars' where I define killer cars as 'cars that are more likely to be used to kill pedestrians by contact.' Sports car enthusiasts would have a fit, and rightfully so. It is the same idea here.
If you want to nitpick them about the use of "assault weapons", sure, you could request that they insert the more specific details of what is meant by their use of "assault weapons". But the argument does not change. So my point is that it's a sideshow distraction to get up in arms about use of a term when the meaning behind that term should be understood anyway. It's not nitpicking and its not a sideshow distraction to request that they use clearly defined terminology. Now if their definitions are only 99% effective (there are a handful of guns that would be considered appropriate to include in some new law but aren't caught by the net of the current definition of 'assault weapon') then that would be nitpicking. In this case we aren't talking 99% though... I honestly have no idea what gun is an assault weapon and what isn't, and why. That's not a good definition to use when discussing how to respond to a controversial issue.
Finally, I think I must be misreading what you're saying here: Show nested quote +especially when they represent a people with questionable credentials on the topic Being that this is a public health issue, this use of "questionable credentials" must refer to NRA lobbyists and other gun lobby activists, not doctors and scientists from elite universities and institutes all across the US, who represent the consensus medical/scientific view on the topic. But from your wording it actually seems like you believe they have questionable credentials, which would be sort of strange -- questionable in the eyes of the pro-NRA, maybe. I must be misunderstanding what you meant, nevermind.
What I mean is, doctors don't, by default, know much about guns. That doesn't mean there can't be gun expert doctors who are fully qualified to discuss guns, but the onus is on them to demonstrate this by not screwing up the discussion the same way ignorant reporters do.
|
On May 16 2013 17:22 kmillz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote:
I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths. Sigh...here is yet another strawman Theiving Magpie is attacking..and you are double teaming it with him: "If we have to register guns then it will be exploited to take advantage of people and/or confiscate weapons." Find me where somebody said and/or implied exactly that. It's the same one as before, and it's getting pretty annoying that you guys are actually implying that somebody said something close to this....again. I think as rational thinkers we can all agree that a registry could lead to gun confiscation, but nobody on either side is saying that it 100% will or that it 100% will not. I would hope anyway, because otherwise I'd love to hear the evidence backing that up. We can all speculate what we think it would do, but if we can't even move past the fact that you keep arguing against some imaginary person who is apparently saying that a gun registry will automatically mean we have gun confiscation, then how will we even have that discussion? Here is all I was actually saying: You don't really mean Show nested quote +
Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing.
And if you actually do, your opinions are so extreme then I don't think I will ever find some type of rational compromise with you in any kind of discussion in regards to gun control. Show nested quote +Right now, if the police have evidence, they can already "break" into your house, put surveillance in your house, and even seize your property. No changes need to be made to the 4th, 5th, or 2nd amendment. If there is evidence implicating you--they can already do those things. I bolded the part that makes everything after it unimportant in regards to defending your extreme remark. If you need that caveat, then you don't mean literally anything that makes it easie, I would assume, right? If not, then... What about if there isn't any evidence? What if somebody is smoking pot in their house and the police are allowed to just walk in with NO warrant, suspicion, or evidence, and bust them because giving police permission to do that will make it easier to catch criminals. Awesome, that guy had 11 ounces of marijuana and is now a felon. I'm not going to argue about legalizing marijuana, but I WILL argue with you about the importance of the 4th amendment. Also, I'm really getting tired of pointing out strawmans, so please stop trying to refute things people aren't saying.
I'm going to ignore the part where you disagree with doctors in matters of public health as just you being an extremist, let's stick to our discussion at hand since you seem intent in wanting to bring it back up.
Police do not randomly break into people's homes because that does not help them catch criminals. At all. Police use warrants because it helps them catch criminals. Police do not walk around simply guessing "does that house have criminal activity? What about that house? What about that corn field? Maybe that alley way?" and just barge into random wheat farms hoping to catch someone growing weed. Why? Because that is slower and more difficult than simply gathering evidence and walking up to the guy with hand cuffs. It is literally easier for them to simply use warrants and registries because it reduces 3 things.
A.) Proof of the guy's innocence showing up months later and them having to go back searching for some other random guy but having a trail months old.
B.) Wasting their time breaking into houses with no one in it because they are at work/school or the only person they find is some guy/girl jacking off because they're a housewife/husband with nothing else to do the other 6 hours of the day.
C.) Waste their time walking around and searching random ass places without any reason to search there.
Do you actually, honestly, believe that it is easier for police to just break into every door they see than to just wait for a evidence to show up? Do you honestly believe that by ignoring evidence they will actually catch criminals easier? Do you think they will have fun bringing a guy to court, the judge asking "what did he do" and the police officer saying "i don't know, something, I didn't actually see anything."
Somehow you believe that police enjoy doing that? Do you honestly not know how investigating anything works?
Should police randomly peek into bushes? up trees? inside random cars? dumpsters? abandoned buildings? knock on every door and every apartment out there in hopes to accidentally bump into "crime?" Do you really think having the police force walking around random parts of the city not knowing what to look for is the easiest way to catch criminals? Really? Do you really think that?
Police catch criminals by tracking evidence. Your example of police barging into some guy smoking pot--that is only possible if they already have evidence or proof to tell them that specific guy, who lives in that specific place, at that specific time, smokes pot. Because if they break in randomly they are as likely to break into him just taking shit as they are to break in with him cooking an omelette. That's the problem with random break ins--it doesn't help them at all. Why would they waste their time doing when it literally is easier for them to just follow evidence and let the clues do the chasing for them.
It is only paranoia that honestly believes randomly breaking into homes allows police to catch criminals easier. The only thing it does is help cops accuse random people easier--that is it. At no point is it easier to catch criminals by randomly breaking into people's homes.
Why would you believe this? Why would you honestly believe this other than you read too many comic books and think they're real.
I've helped political campaigns. I know what it is like to knock on doors going house to house in a neighborhood. In an average day, you can knock on about 100 houses and get about 20 people to answer the door. Mind you, that is literally walking to a door, knocking on it, waiting 1-2 seconds, and then leaving.
If I actually had to break into a house, and search it before going the the next house--that number would go down to about 5-10 houses a day.
Assuming the ratio of 1:5 homes have a person remains the same--that would mean that each day I randomly bump into 1-2 people per day. What is the likely-hood that one of those two people I bump into per day breaking into houses is doing a criminal activity? 8 hours of my day gone to interview 2 people if I'm lucky. Do you honestly believe those odds helps the police catch criminals? Like, did you even think about it before you started saying the crap coming out of your mouth?
|
@Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman.
This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after.
On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote:
I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths. Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements. Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business. *sarcasm* Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man. Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there. The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
|
On May 17 2013 01:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2013 17:22 kmillz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote:
I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths. Sigh...here is yet another strawman Theiving Magpie is attacking..and you are double teaming it with him: "If we have to register guns then it will be exploited to take advantage of people and/or confiscate weapons." Find me where somebody said and/or implied exactly that. It's the same one as before, and it's getting pretty annoying that you guys are actually implying that somebody said something close to this....again. I think as rational thinkers we can all agree that a registry could lead to gun confiscation, but nobody on either side is saying that it 100% will or that it 100% will not. I would hope anyway, because otherwise I'd love to hear the evidence backing that up. We can all speculate what we think it would do, but if we can't even move past the fact that you keep arguing against some imaginary person who is apparently saying that a gun registry will automatically mean we have gun confiscation, then how will we even have that discussion? Here is all I was actually saying: You don't really mean
Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing.
And if you actually do, your opinions are so extreme then I don't think I will ever find some type of rational compromise with you in any kind of discussion in regards to gun control. Right now, if the police have evidence, they can already "break" into your house, put surveillance in your house, and even seize your property. No changes need to be made to the 4th, 5th, or 2nd amendment. If there is evidence implicating you--they can already do those things. I bolded the part that makes everything after it unimportant in regards to defending your extreme remark. If you need that caveat, then you don't mean literally anything that makes it easie, I would assume, right? If not, then... What about if there isn't any evidence? What if somebody is smoking pot in their house and the police are allowed to just walk in with NO warrant, suspicion, or evidence, and bust them because giving police permission to do that will make it easier to catch criminals. Awesome, that guy had 11 ounces of marijuana and is now a felon. I'm not going to argue about legalizing marijuana, but I WILL argue with you about the importance of the 4th amendment. Also, I'm really getting tired of pointing out strawmans, so please stop trying to refute things people aren't saying. I'm going to ignore the part where you disagree with doctors in matters of public health as just you being an extremist, let's stick to our discussion at hand since you seem intent in wanting to bring it back up. Police do not randomly break into people's homes because that does not help them catch criminals. At all. Police use warrants because it helps them catch criminals. Police do not walk around simply guessing "does that house have criminal activity? What about that house? What about that corn field? Maybe that alley way?" and just barge into random wheat farms hoping to catch someone growing weed. Why? Because that is slower and more difficult than simply gathering evidence and walking up to the guy with hand cuffs. It is literally easier for them to simply use warrants and registries because it reduces 3 things. A.) Proof of the guy's innocence showing up months later and them having to go back searching for some other random guy but having a trail months old. B.) Wasting their time breaking into houses with no one in it because they are at work/school or the only person they find is some guy/girl jacking off because they're a housewife/husband with nothing else to do the other 6 hours of the day. C.) Waste their time walking around and searching random ass places without any reason to search there. Do you actually, honestly, believe that it is easier for police to just break into every door they see than to just wait for a evidence to show up? Do you honestly believe that by ignoring evidence they will actually catch criminals easier? Do you think they will have fun bringing a guy to court, the judge asking "what did he do" and the police officer saying "i don't know, something, I didn't actually see anything." Somehow you believe that police enjoy doing that? Do you honestly not know how investigating anything works? Should police randomly peek into bushes? up trees? inside random cars? dumpsters? abandoned buildings? knock on every door and every apartment out there in hopes to accidentally bump into "crime?" Do you really think having the police force walking around random parts of the city not knowing what to look for is the easiest way to catch criminals? Really? Do you really think that? Police catch criminals by tracking evidence. Your example of police barging into some guy smoking pot--that is only possible if they already have evidence or proof to tell them that specific guy, who lives in that specific place, at that specific time, smokes pot. Because if they break in randomly they are as likely to break into him just taking shit as they are to break in with him cooking an omelette. That's the problem with random break ins--it doesn't help them at all. Why would they waste their time doing when it literally is easier for them to just follow evidence and let the clues do the chasing for them. It is only paranoia that honestly believes randomly breaking into homes allows police to catch criminals easier. The only thing it does is help cops accuse random people easier--that is it. At no point is it easier to catch criminals by randomly breaking into people's homes. Why would you believe this? Why would you honestly believe this other than you read too many comic books and think they're real. I've helped political campaigns. I know what it is like to knock on doors going house to house in a neighborhood. In an average day, you can knock on about 100 houses and get about 20 people to answer the door. Mind you, that is literally walking to a door, knocking on it, waiting 1-2 seconds, and then leaving. If I actually had to break into a house, and search it before going the the next house--that number would go down to about 5-10 houses a day. Assuming the ratio of 1:5 homes have a person remains the same--that would mean that each day I randomly bump into 1-2 people per day. What is the likely-hood that one of those two people I bump into per day breaking into houses is doing a criminal activity? 8 hours of my day gone to interview 2 people if I'm lucky. Do you honestly believe those odds helps the police catch criminals? Like, did you even think about it before you started saying the crap coming out of your mouth?
If having warrants helps police so much, why does the Department of Homeland Security fight so hard for warrantless searches and wire-taps?
|
On May 17 2013 01:40 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 01:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 16 2013 17:22 kmillz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote:
I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths. Sigh...here is yet another strawman Theiving Magpie is attacking..and you are double teaming it with him: "If we have to register guns then it will be exploited to take advantage of people and/or confiscate weapons." Find me where somebody said and/or implied exactly that. It's the same one as before, and it's getting pretty annoying that you guys are actually implying that somebody said something close to this....again. I think as rational thinkers we can all agree that a registry could lead to gun confiscation, but nobody on either side is saying that it 100% will or that it 100% will not. I would hope anyway, because otherwise I'd love to hear the evidence backing that up. We can all speculate what we think it would do, but if we can't even move past the fact that you keep arguing against some imaginary person who is apparently saying that a gun registry will automatically mean we have gun confiscation, then how will we even have that discussion? Here is all I was actually saying: You don't really mean
Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing.
And if you actually do, your opinions are so extreme then I don't think I will ever find some type of rational compromise with you in any kind of discussion in regards to gun control. Right now, if the police have evidence, they can already "break" into your house, put surveillance in your house, and even seize your property. No changes need to be made to the 4th, 5th, or 2nd amendment. If there is evidence implicating you--they can already do those things. I bolded the part that makes everything after it unimportant in regards to defending your extreme remark. If you need that caveat, then you don't mean literally anything that makes it easie, I would assume, right? If not, then... What about if there isn't any evidence? What if somebody is smoking pot in their house and the police are allowed to just walk in with NO warrant, suspicion, or evidence, and bust them because giving police permission to do that will make it easier to catch criminals. Awesome, that guy had 11 ounces of marijuana and is now a felon. I'm not going to argue about legalizing marijuana, but I WILL argue with you about the importance of the 4th amendment. Also, I'm really getting tired of pointing out strawmans, so please stop trying to refute things people aren't saying. I'm going to ignore the part where you disagree with doctors in matters of public health as just you being an extremist, let's stick to our discussion at hand since you seem intent in wanting to bring it back up. Police do not randomly break into people's homes because that does not help them catch criminals. At all. Police use warrants because it helps them catch criminals. Police do not walk around simply guessing "does that house have criminal activity? What about that house? What about that corn field? Maybe that alley way?" and just barge into random wheat farms hoping to catch someone growing weed. Why? Because that is slower and more difficult than simply gathering evidence and walking up to the guy with hand cuffs. It is literally easier for them to simply use warrants and registries because it reduces 3 things. A.) Proof of the guy's innocence showing up months later and them having to go back searching for some other random guy but having a trail months old. B.) Wasting their time breaking into houses with no one in it because they are at work/school or the only person they find is some guy/girl jacking off because they're a housewife/husband with nothing else to do the other 6 hours of the day. C.) Waste their time walking around and searching random ass places without any reason to search there. Do you actually, honestly, believe that it is easier for police to just break into every door they see than to just wait for a evidence to show up? Do you honestly believe that by ignoring evidence they will actually catch criminals easier? Do you think they will have fun bringing a guy to court, the judge asking "what did he do" and the police officer saying "i don't know, something, I didn't actually see anything." Somehow you believe that police enjoy doing that? Do you honestly not know how investigating anything works? Should police randomly peek into bushes? up trees? inside random cars? dumpsters? abandoned buildings? knock on every door and every apartment out there in hopes to accidentally bump into "crime?" Do you really think having the police force walking around random parts of the city not knowing what to look for is the easiest way to catch criminals? Really? Do you really think that? Police catch criminals by tracking evidence. Your example of police barging into some guy smoking pot--that is only possible if they already have evidence or proof to tell them that specific guy, who lives in that specific place, at that specific time, smokes pot. Because if they break in randomly they are as likely to break into him just taking shit as they are to break in with him cooking an omelette. That's the problem with random break ins--it doesn't help them at all. Why would they waste their time doing when it literally is easier for them to just follow evidence and let the clues do the chasing for them. It is only paranoia that honestly believes randomly breaking into homes allows police to catch criminals easier. The only thing it does is help cops accuse random people easier--that is it. At no point is it easier to catch criminals by randomly breaking into people's homes. Why would you believe this? Why would you honestly believe this other than you read too many comic books and think they're real. I've helped political campaigns. I know what it is like to knock on doors going house to house in a neighborhood. In an average day, you can knock on about 100 houses and get about 20 people to answer the door. Mind you, that is literally walking to a door, knocking on it, waiting 1-2 seconds, and then leaving. If I actually had to break into a house, and search it before going the the next house--that number would go down to about 5-10 houses a day. Assuming the ratio of 1:5 homes have a person remains the same--that would mean that each day I randomly bump into 1-2 people per day. What is the likely-hood that one of those two people I bump into per day breaking into houses is doing a criminal activity? 8 hours of my day gone to interview 2 people if I'm lucky. Do you honestly believe those odds helps the police catch criminals? Like, did you even think about it before you started saying the crap coming out of your mouth? If having warrants helps police so much, why does the Department of Homeland Security fight so hard for warrantless searches and wire-taps?
Because it turns out that there aren't actually that many homegrown terrorist that we need to protect ourselves from as was first thought by the Bush administration and they are getting desperate trying to find a legitimate reason to still exist.
Because maybe we don't actually have to protect ourselves from some big bad evil as much as conservatives think we do.
|
On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:@Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman. This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after. Show nested quote +On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote:
I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths. Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements. Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business. *sarcasm* Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man. Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there. The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
That's an incredibly ignorant statement that fails to address the points brought up about the need for anonymity.
Edit: Nice strawman attempt, too bad I noticed it.
|
On May 17 2013 01:47 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:@Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman. This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after. On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote:
I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths. Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements. Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business. *sarcasm* Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man. Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there. The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late. That's an incredibly ignorant statement that fails to address the points brought up about the need for anonymity.
Americans already register their names, place of residence, income, work place, family ties, spending habits, and health records.
But it is gun registry that will help them track us? Please, explain.
|
On May 17 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 01:47 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:@Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman. This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after. On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote:
I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths. Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements. Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business. *sarcasm* Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man. Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there. The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late. That's an incredibly ignorant statement that fails to address the points brought up about the need for anonymity. Americans already register their names, place of residence, income, work place, family ties, spending habits, and health records. But it is gun registry that will help them track us? Please, explain.
It's not being tracked that's the problem. Its that they know you have guns. If there's a gun-registry, and a tyranny tries to crack down on opposition in an area, they know exactly who has guns and who does not. It really narrows their search for guerrillas.
|
@Kmilz
here's another person who associates registries with both tyranny and gun grabbing. And this is just the page you tried to say this stuff doesn't happen? Imagine if we go back to prior pages 
On May 17 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 01:47 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:@Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman. This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after. On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote:
I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths. Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements. Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business. *sarcasm* Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man. Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there. The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late. That's an incredibly ignorant statement that fails to address the points brought up about the need for anonymity. Americans already register their names, place of residence, income, work place, family ties, spending habits, and health records. But it is gun registry that will help them track us? Please, explain. It's not being tracked that's the problem. Its that they know you have guns. If there's a gun-registry, and a tyranny tries to crack down on opposition in an area, they know exactly who has guns and who does not. It really narrows their search for guerrillas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
