If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On May 17 2013 08:14 farvacola wrote:

Are you at all familiar with physician guidelines insofar as mental health advice and environmental dangers are concerned, or are you simply jerkin that knee?

Should people be allowed to own and carry Guns?

On May 17 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:


How would that make it easier to catch criminals?

A small apartment would have at least 3-4 rooms. Kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, "other" room, not to mention closets, garage, parking areas, front yard area, back yard area, etc...

In every house? You mean 4-20 cameras a residence, 300 million people worth of residencies, plus the buildings without occupants?

Then add in parks, city streets, alley ways you're talking about 2-3 billion cameras that need people to actually be looking at what they're doing.

And we're talking about police here, cameras would be about the size they have in malls, would require their own power grid, and the moment the owners sees a sudden jump in electricity they now what's there.

But lets pretend the police force has the funding and manpower to install 500,000-2,000,000 million cameras in their city without getting caught. Say they have the super secret tech cameras you see on TV. Say these cameras are powered by a nuclear isotope in a lead lining so they can remain powered and not die after 1 day of battery use. Say a random police department in america has the manpower to have someone keep track of 2,000,000 cameras. Say they have the top secret server farm to host all this data and the brand new server farm they'll have to make every 1-2 days to store 2,000,000 cameras worth of 24 hour data per day. Say this super police force has the manpower, funding, and technology to do this.

Would it be cheaper to simply hire more cops to do what they're already doing than it is to hire an entire army worth of tech and tech support and infrastructure support to man something like this?

But, you know what, fuck it, lets not even make it secret. Lets say to cut costs they just use normal cameras, have it everywhere, and suddenly people turn off the lights. Police barge in and go "something sort of happened, I think, maybe, there was a noise, I'm here to arrest some fuzzy camera image from last night?"

Hmm.... that sounds like a lot of money spent on.... well, nothing actually. Maybe if the money was used to hire more cops and increase after school programs instead of secret cameras a cop's life would be easier. Oh right! It would be, because reducing crime while increasing police force size reduces work stress and increases worker productivity.

Anymore conspiracy theories you have? Because no, cameras in every home would not help a police department in anything but an action movie. There are a shit tonne of homes with a shit tonne of rooms in them and trying to get a camera in all of them would cost more than simply funding the tactics we use already. It's much more cost effective to gather evidence and simply have surveillance gather info in areas where you have proof that something will occur. Less man hours, less infrastructure support, and has technology we already have.

What else do you have? Microchips in the brain? Everyone chained to a shock collar? Mind control gas in the air? What other sci-fi fear do you have that the government will do to you?

On May 17 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:


Lol I'm glad you agree that they are bad ideas. That's the point.

On May 17 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:


No, I agree that they do not help police catch criminals and hence is a bad idea. Its a supervillain plot device to make supervillains look more evil--but it's not actually helpful dollar per dollar at catching criminals.

but it's not actually helpful dollar per dollar at catching criminals.

On May 17 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:


Do you think racial profiling is non-existent now? You think all cops are saints and do nothing shady and would never dare abuse their power? If a cop arrests and searches a black man just for being black and finds he is in possession of marijuana, the black man might not be able to prove he was racially profiled but he can prove that he was searched without a warrant. Get rid of warrants and that shit will actually happen AND the cop won't be held accountable. I'll stick to more realistic examples.

On May 17 2013 08:36 farvacola wrote:

You said it is none of doctors' business if their patients own firearms. This is utterly wrong if one knows anything about how doctors are to advise their patients in regards to potential mental illness.

On May 17 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:


Do you think racial profiling is non-existent now? You think all cops are saints and do nothing shady and would never dare abuse their power? If a cop arrests and searches a black man just for being black and finds he is in possession of marijuana, the black man might not be able to prove he was racially profiled but he can prove that he was searched without a warrant. Get rid of warrants and that shit will actually happen AND the cop won't be held accountable. I'll stick to more realistic examples.

Oh and...



coming from the guy who thinks that it's more economically feasible to get search warrants. Spending a few minutes to just search somebody is obviously more expensive than all of the work required to get a warrant.

On May 17 2013 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Warrants are cheaper than court cases being thrown out due to insufficient evidence or sudden existence of evidence that was not looked through--fraudulent cases costs the court a lot of money and is easily reduced by enforcement of warrants.

On May 17 2013 08:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Hence why warrants help police catch criminals by enforcing the need for evidence based investigations instead of random guessing procedures which might or might not result in finding criminal behavior.

What's your point?

On May 17 2013 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Warrants are cheaper than court cases being thrown out due to insufficient evidence or sudden existence of evidence that was not looked through--fraudulent cases costs the court a lot of money and is easily reduced by enforcement of warrants.

On May 17 2013 08:41 micronesia wrote:

Well, it would make things easier for the cops if courts were abolished and cops could sentence suspects on the spot.

On May 17 2013 08:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:


That only makes things easier to accuse people of criminal acts, it would not increase the likelihood of catching criminals with proof of their criminal acts. This is the real world, not Punisher from Marvel Comics.

Sure, there are corrupt cops just like there are corrupt citizens. And much like the existence of corrupt citizens does not mean all citizens are corrupt, the existence of corrupt cops does not mean all cops are corrupt.

On May 17 2013 08:42 farvacola wrote:

Do I really need to explain the job of a General Practitioner and how it differs from that of a Dentist in regards to mental health advice or are you just playing at stupid?

On May 17 2013 08:41 kmillz wrote:


Lol who said it has to go that far? If you search somebody and they have nothing, why would you end up in a court room? If you search them and they have something, you just saved all of that time and energy getting a warrant because we got rid of them.




That removing warrants makes it easier for crooked cops to catch criminals. That it's bad. That not all things that make it easier to catch criminals are good. That you won't admit you misspoke or used poor sense in making that prior remark.

On May 17 2013 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:


if you search someone randomly, they can sue costing both court time and government money loss. Requiring warrants prevents this.

And you're honestly going to the crooked cops defense? "some cop out there might or might not do something I disagree with and we need to stop that at all cost" is really your defense?

Crooked cops are not more likely to catch criminals with lack of warrants since crooked cops will already act as if there is no warrant. Enforcing warrants helps mitigate crooked cops resulting in reduce frivolous court cases and reduced failure rates in criminal capture.

But this explains why you keep imagining police randomly breaking into houses and police randomly putting cameras in random rooms in the hopes of criminal activity--you honestly believe police are normally corrupt don't you? Is that why you believe in guns for self defense instead of depending on police? Since you don't trust the way the law works you'd rather have people have guns to pass out law themselves?

On May 17 2013 08:50 kmillz wrote:


Just admit you were mistaken and be done with it. If you accuse somebody of having marijuana and they have marijuana on them and you search them they are caught. Why are you trying to change the term to accuse as if that changes anything?

I never said all cops were crooked, I said some of them are crooked. Some of them will abuse their power and totally take advantage of not needing a warrant.



I'm playing stupid, but on a serious note why is it a general practitioners business if you have a gun or not? Is it his business if I own a baseball bat or many sharp knives? A fast car? I don't get it.

On May 17 2013 09:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Not having warrants only allows cops to guess more often, it doesn't allow them to catch criminals easier. Removing the need for warrants does not make evidence suddenly appear out of thin air like magic. Requiring warrants only helps the overall system maintain itself and reduce frivolous procedures and prevents counter lawsuits. It protects cops, it protects the courts, and it also protects the innocents. The only people that are helped by not requiring warrants are the Punisher. I don't understand why you would think the police would have an easier time without it when it saves their bacon from most things they do.

There is a reason all your examples right now are things one would read from a comic book--because you don't really have any counter argument other than science fiction examples. Criminals are not caught more often without warrants, people are accused more often, but the evidence doesn't show up more often because of it. The only way to catch criminals is with evidence. You now want to change your stance from supervillain scenarios to "there's a cop who might or might not abuse _____."

On May 17 2013 08:59 kmillz wrote:


The bottom paragraph is just you trying to be some pseudo-psychologist analyzing what I'm saying in some deep meaningless ramble.

Are you seriously so stubborn to admit you were wrong that you just keep repeating the same drivel over and over again to get out of it? You are literally just making shit up as you go.

"Crooked cops are not more likely to catch criminals with lack of warrants since crooked cops will already act as if there is no warrant" source please???

Interesting, I didn't realize crooked meant "arrests and searches people for no reason without warrants and then wastes everyones time when the guy gets off because there was no warrant". That makes so much sense. I guess the implication also suggests that there are no crooked cops who don't search without warrants, even more absurd.