|
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 17 2013 09:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 08:59 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:41 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 02:19 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
You're right, people suggesting possible scenarios for how a gun confiscation would take place after you strawman me totally makes it not a strawman anymore.
Hidden cameras in every room in every house would catch criminals in all kinds of domestic crimes, is that a good idea? 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? Lol I'm glad you agree that they are bad ideas. That's the point. 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. 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... but it's not actually helpful dollar per dollar at catching criminals. 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. 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. 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. On May 17 2013 08:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 02:19 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
You're right, people suggesting possible scenarios for how a gun confiscation would take place after you strawman me totally makes it not a strawman anymore.
Hidden cameras in every room in every house would catch criminals in all kinds of domestic crimes, is that a good idea? 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? Lol I'm glad you agree that they are bad ideas. That's the point. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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? 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. Which just leads back to my initial statement about pro-gun's people's paranoia. Not only do some of you believe it that a registry could lead to drone strikes, but now here you are spouting about evil cops when just a few posts up you were trying to talk about cameras in every room and random black bag break ins. Your image of how police works shows a lot in your examples of why its bad to help the police catch criminals. All your examples are of police not following procedure, randomly harassing people, and not caring about the laws already in place. And the crux of your counterargument is that these are somehow ways to help catch criminals easier and is why we shouldn't help police catch criminals when every single one of your examples are actually very very bad at catching criminals and are only good at random guessing if someone might or might not be a criminal. Why would you make that assumption unless you honestly believed that that is how police catch criminals. Randomly guessing is a black guy or a run down house might or might not house criminal whatever. That somehow giving cops that guess if something is bad or not an easier time to guess helps catch criminals? That is absurd. It turns it it is because when someone says "helps police catch criminals" you don't read the portion "catch criminals" and instead you emphasize "helps police" making the assumption that the point is to help police do whatever they want instead of emphasizing "catch criminals." Why would someone only focus on that portion of the statement? Paranoia--made clear by your examples of super villain esque actions against society believing that those actions somehow improve chances of catching criminals.
Kk I'll just go back to the comic books then. Racial profiling isn't real, you heard it here first @ Theiving Magpie.
|
On May 17 2013 09:08 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 09:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:50 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:41 micronesia wrote:On May 17 2013 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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?
Lol I'm glad you agree that they are bad ideas. That's the point. 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. 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... but it's not actually helpful dollar per dollar at catching criminals. 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. 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. Well, it would make things easier for the cops if courts were abolished and cops could sentence suspects on the spot. 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. 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. On May 17 2013 08:42 farvacola wrote:On May 17 2013 08:38 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:36 farvacola wrote:On May 17 2013 08:23 Rhino85 wrote:On May 17 2013 08:14 farvacola wrote:On May 17 2013 08:03 Rhino85 wrote:On May 17 2013 04:08 norjoncal wrote:
[quote]
This did happen to me and I told the Doctor that was none of his business. I went in for a upper respiratory illness. Owning or not owning a gun had nothing to do with me being sick. Its absolutely none of their damn business to ask if their patient owns a firearm. Despite what FallDownMarigold keeps insisting, the gun control debate is not a public health issue. Its a criminology issue. I'm all for legislation that will keep criminals from owning guns. But doctors are not the authority on criminology, they may however be an authority on how to treat a bullet wound. 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? And what do mental health advice and environmental dangers have anything to do with upper respiratory infections? What does that have to do with owning a firearm? My knee is just fine Dr. Farva. 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. I suppose if your dentist asked you if you were suicidal that would be appropriate since he is a doctor then? On May 17 2013 08:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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?
Lol I'm glad you agree that they are bad ideas. That's the point. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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 _____." So if a cop guesses more times, he's going to be right some of those times....right? If cops guess 100,000 times more in a year because they don't have warrants, and only 5,000 of those additional guesses they were correct, that is now 5,000 more people convicted of a crime. Is that not more crime solved?
Not efficiently, and not cost productively. the more money is lost in frivolous lawsuits, counter lawsuits, red herrings, and wasted investigations is money that will be considered a waste and funding eventually gets cut for more city efficient purposes.
|
On May 17 2013 09:13 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 09:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:59 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:41 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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?
Lol I'm glad you agree that they are bad ideas. That's the point. 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. 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... but it's not actually helpful dollar per dollar at catching criminals. 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. 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. 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. On May 17 2013 08:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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?
Lol I'm glad you agree that they are bad ideas. That's the point. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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? 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. Which just leads back to my initial statement about pro-gun's people's paranoia. Not only do some of you believe it that a registry could lead to drone strikes, but now here you are spouting about evil cops when just a few posts up you were trying to talk about cameras in every room and random black bag break ins. Your image of how police works shows a lot in your examples of why its bad to help the police catch criminals. All your examples are of police not following procedure, randomly harassing people, and not caring about the laws already in place. And the crux of your counterargument is that these are somehow ways to help catch criminals easier and is why we shouldn't help police catch criminals when every single one of your examples are actually very very bad at catching criminals and are only good at random guessing if someone might or might not be a criminal. Why would you make that assumption unless you honestly believed that that is how police catch criminals. Randomly guessing is a black guy or a run down house might or might not house criminal whatever. That somehow giving cops that guess if something is bad or not an easier time to guess helps catch criminals? That is absurd. It turns it it is because when someone says "helps police catch criminals" you don't read the portion "catch criminals" and instead you emphasize "helps police" making the assumption that the point is to help police do whatever they want instead of emphasizing "catch criminals." Why would someone only focus on that portion of the statement? Paranoia--made clear by your examples of super villain esque actions against society believing that those actions somehow improve chances of catching criminals. Kk I'll just go back to the comic books then. Racial profiling isn't real, you heard it here first @ Theiving Magpie.
Racial profiling is real. Hence why we have protocols to prevent police from randomly guessing and instead depend more on evidence. Protocols such as warrants. Ignoring these things causes frivolous lawsuits, bad cases, bad image, and in some cities mass riots. All of which does not help catch criminals.
|
On May 17 2013 09:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 09:08 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:50 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:41 micronesia wrote:On May 17 2013 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
Lol I'm glad you agree that they are bad ideas. That's the point.
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. 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... but it's not actually helpful dollar per dollar at catching criminals. 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. 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. Well, it would make things easier for the cops if courts were abolished and cops could sentence suspects on the spot. 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. 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. On May 17 2013 08:42 farvacola wrote:On May 17 2013 08:38 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:36 farvacola wrote:On May 17 2013 08:23 Rhino85 wrote:On May 17 2013 08:14 farvacola wrote:On May 17 2013 08:03 Rhino85 wrote:
[quote]
Its absolutely none of their damn business to ask if their patient owns a firearm. Despite what FallDownMarigold keeps insisting, the gun control debate is not a public health issue. Its a criminology issue. I'm all for legislation that will keep criminals from owning guns. But doctors are not the authority on criminology, they may however be an authority on how to treat a bullet wound. 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? And what do mental health advice and environmental dangers have anything to do with upper respiratory infections? What does that have to do with owning a firearm? My knee is just fine Dr. Farva. 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. I suppose if your dentist asked you if you were suicidal that would be appropriate since he is a doctor then? On May 17 2013 08:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
Lol I'm glad you agree that they are bad ideas. That's the point.
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. 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. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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 _____." So if a cop guesses more times, he's going to be right some of those times....right? If cops guess 100,000 times more in a year because they don't have warrants, and only 5,000 of those additional guesses they were correct, that is now 5,000 more people convicted of a crime. Is that not more crime solved? Not efficiently, and not cost productively. the more money is lost in frivolous lawsuits, counter lawsuits, red herrings, and wasted investigations is money that will be considered a waste and funding eventually gets cut for more city efficient purposes.
Source please. If you search somebody and they have nothing there is no lawsuit. If they have something they are convicted. Cake.
|
So if we can go back to talking about relevant things, lets go back to why doctors aren't allowed to question their patients if its not approved by the NRA?
|
On May 17 2013 09:15 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 09:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 09:08 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:50 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:41 micronesia wrote:On May 17 2013 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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. 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... but it's not actually helpful dollar per dollar at catching criminals. 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. 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. Well, it would make things easier for the cops if courts were abolished and cops could sentence suspects on the spot. 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. 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. On May 17 2013 08:42 farvacola wrote:On May 17 2013 08:38 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:36 farvacola wrote:On May 17 2013 08:23 Rhino85 wrote:On May 17 2013 08:14 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
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? And what do mental health advice and environmental dangers have anything to do with upper respiratory infections? What does that have to do with owning a firearm? My knee is just fine Dr. Farva. 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. I suppose if your dentist asked you if you were suicidal that would be appropriate since he is a doctor then? On May 17 2013 08:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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 _____." So if a cop guesses more times, he's going to be right some of those times....right? If cops guess 100,000 times more in a year because they don't have warrants, and only 5,000 of those additional guesses they were correct, that is now 5,000 more people convicted of a crime. Is that not more crime solved? Not efficiently, and not cost productively. the more money is lost in frivolous lawsuits, counter lawsuits, red herrings, and wasted investigations is money that will be considered a waste and funding eventually gets cut for more city efficient purposes. Source please. If you search somebody and they have nothing there is no lawsuit. If they have something they are convicted. Cake.
Wrongful searches leads to lawsuits. You know, by the person who was wrongfully searched and hence could sue for harassment, profiling, and police abuse.
|
On May 17 2013 09:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:
So if we can go back to talking about relevant things, lets go back to why doctors aren't allowed to question their patients if its not approved by the NRA?
Yeah probably best for you to move on from this one, it's pretty embarrassing that you dug yourself that far in the hole. Why do doctors need to know if I own a gun? Like I said before, why is that of any significant importance to them?
On May 17 2013 09:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 09:15 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 09:08 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:50 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:41 micronesia wrote:On May 17 2013 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
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...
[quote]
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. 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. Well, it would make things easier for the cops if courts were abolished and cops could sentence suspects on the spot. 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. 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. On May 17 2013 08:42 farvacola wrote:On May 17 2013 08:38 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:36 farvacola wrote:On May 17 2013 08:23 Rhino85 wrote:
[quote]
And what do mental health advice and environmental dangers have anything to do with upper respiratory infections? What does that have to do with owning a firearm? My knee is just fine Dr. Farva. 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. I suppose if your dentist asked you if you were suicidal that would be appropriate since he is a doctor then? On May 17 2013 08:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
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. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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 _____." So if a cop guesses more times, he's going to be right some of those times....right? If cops guess 100,000 times more in a year because they don't have warrants, and only 5,000 of those additional guesses they were correct, that is now 5,000 more people convicted of a crime. Is that not more crime solved? Not efficiently, and not cost productively. the more money is lost in frivolous lawsuits, counter lawsuits, red herrings, and wasted investigations is money that will be considered a waste and funding eventually gets cut for more city efficient purposes. Source please. If you search somebody and they have nothing there is no lawsuit. If they have something they are convicted. Cake. Wrongful searches leads to lawsuits. You know, by the person who was wrongfully searched and hence could sue for harassment, profiling, and police abuse.
If they don't need warrants it wasn't a wrongful search 
Why would a doctor risk compromising the integrity of their doctor-patient relationship? I can't think of any scenario where it is acceptable or normal to probe anybody about whether or not they own a gun, even at a doctors office. That's nobody's business and I don't get why it's a concern of a doctors.
|
On May 17 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 09:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:
So if we can go back to talking about relevant things, lets go back to why doctors aren't allowed to question their patients if its not approved by the NRA? Yeah probably best for you to move on from this one, it's pretty embarrassing that you dug yourself that far in the hole. Why do doctors need to know if I own a gun? Like I said before, why is that of any significant importance to them? Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 09:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 09:15 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 09:08 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:50 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:41 micronesia wrote:On May 17 2013 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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. Well, it would make things easier for the cops if courts were abolished and cops could sentence suspects on the spot. 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. 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. On May 17 2013 08:42 farvacola wrote:On May 17 2013 08:38 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:36 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
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. I suppose if your dentist asked you if you were suicidal that would be appropriate since he is a doctor then? On May 17 2013 08:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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? 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. 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? 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. 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 _____." So if a cop guesses more times, he's going to be right some of those times....right? If cops guess 100,000 times more in a year because they don't have warrants, and only 5,000 of those additional guesses they were correct, that is now 5,000 more people convicted of a crime. Is that not more crime solved? Not efficiently, and not cost productively. the more money is lost in frivolous lawsuits, counter lawsuits, red herrings, and wasted investigations is money that will be considered a waste and funding eventually gets cut for more city efficient purposes. Source please. If you search somebody and they have nothing there is no lawsuit. If they have something they are convicted. Cake. Wrongful searches leads to lawsuits. You know, by the person who was wrongfully searched and hence could sue for harassment, profiling, and police abuse. If they don't need warrants it wasn't a wrongful search
Why should a doctor ask you if you have a gun? Why shouldn't she/he be able to if they deem it relevant? The proposed state laws ban doctors from even asking, and similar laws have already been shot down because they are clear violations of the 1st amendment.
You can't pick just the 2nd to vehemently defend. You take all or none.
|
On May 17 2013 09:30 stuneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:
So if we can go back to talking about relevant things, lets go back to why doctors aren't allowed to question their patients if its not approved by the NRA? Yeah probably best for you to move on from this one, it's pretty embarrassing that you dug yourself that far in the hole. Why do doctors need to know if I own a gun? Like I said before, why is that of any significant importance to them? On May 17 2013 09:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 09:15 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 09:08 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:50 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:41 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
Well, it would make things easier for the cops if courts were abolished and cops could sentence suspects on the spot. 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. 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. On May 17 2013 08:42 farvacola wrote:On May 17 2013 08:38 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I suppose if your dentist asked you if you were suicidal that would be appropriate since he is a doctor then?
[quote]
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. 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? 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. 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 _____." So if a cop guesses more times, he's going to be right some of those times....right? If cops guess 100,000 times more in a year because they don't have warrants, and only 5,000 of those additional guesses they were correct, that is now 5,000 more people convicted of a crime. Is that not more crime solved? Not efficiently, and not cost productively. the more money is lost in frivolous lawsuits, counter lawsuits, red herrings, and wasted investigations is money that will be considered a waste and funding eventually gets cut for more city efficient purposes. Source please. If you search somebody and they have nothing there is no lawsuit. If they have something they are convicted. Cake. Wrongful searches leads to lawsuits. You know, by the person who was wrongfully searched and hence could sue for harassment, profiling, and police abuse. If they don't need warrants it wasn't a wrongful search Why should a doctor ask you if you have a gun? Why shouldn't she/he be able to if they deem it relevant? The proposed state laws ban doctors from even asking, and similar laws have already been shot down because they are clear violations of the 1st amendment. You can't pick just the 2nd to vehemently defend. You take all or none.
I defend my 1st amendment rights, but some things are out of line and inappropriate. Doctors are held to higher standards for a good reason and breaching the doctor-patient relationship with highly personal questions is inconceivable to me. I don't think that it is appropriate, however I still support their right to ask those things.
|
On May 17 2013 09:32 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 09:30 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 17 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:
So if we can go back to talking about relevant things, lets go back to why doctors aren't allowed to question their patients if its not approved by the NRA? Yeah probably best for you to move on from this one, it's pretty embarrassing that you dug yourself that far in the hole. Why do doctors need to know if I own a gun? Like I said before, why is that of any significant importance to them? On May 17 2013 09:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 09:15 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 09:08 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:50 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 08:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. On May 17 2013 08:42 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
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? 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. 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 _____." So if a cop guesses more times, he's going to be right some of those times....right? If cops guess 100,000 times more in a year because they don't have warrants, and only 5,000 of those additional guesses they were correct, that is now 5,000 more people convicted of a crime. Is that not more crime solved? Not efficiently, and not cost productively. the more money is lost in frivolous lawsuits, counter lawsuits, red herrings, and wasted investigations is money that will be considered a waste and funding eventually gets cut for more city efficient purposes. Source please. If you search somebody and they have nothing there is no lawsuit. If they have something they are convicted. Cake. Wrongful searches leads to lawsuits. You know, by the person who was wrongfully searched and hence could sue for harassment, profiling, and police abuse. If they don't need warrants it wasn't a wrongful search Why should a doctor ask you if you have a gun? Why shouldn't she/he be able to if they deem it relevant? The proposed state laws ban doctors from even asking, and similar laws have already been shot down because they are clear violations of the 1st amendment. You can't pick just the 2nd to vehemently defend. You take all or none. I defend my 1st amendment rights, but some things are out of line and inappropriate. Doctors are held to higher standards for a good reason and breaching the doctor-patient relationship with highly personal questions is inconceivable to me. I don't think that it is appropriate, however I still support their right to ask those things.
From what I've read, its usually linked to discussions with parents about home safety and also involves questions about staircases, poison, and other potentially hazardous things for children.
I do think that banning this is a violation of the 1st amendment, especially on the grounds that its inappropriate. Your doctor could say any number of inappropriate or offensive things, on any subject.
|
On May 17 2013 09:54 stuneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 09:32 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:30 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 17 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:
So if we can go back to talking about relevant things, lets go back to why doctors aren't allowed to question their patients if its not approved by the NRA? Yeah probably best for you to move on from this one, it's pretty embarrassing that you dug yourself that far in the hole. Why do doctors need to know if I own a gun? Like I said before, why is that of any significant importance to them? On May 17 2013 09:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 09:15 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 09:08 kmillz wrote:On May 17 2013 09:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2013 08:50 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. 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 _____." So if a cop guesses more times, he's going to be right some of those times....right? If cops guess 100,000 times more in a year because they don't have warrants, and only 5,000 of those additional guesses they were correct, that is now 5,000 more people convicted of a crime. Is that not more crime solved? Not efficiently, and not cost productively. the more money is lost in frivolous lawsuits, counter lawsuits, red herrings, and wasted investigations is money that will be considered a waste and funding eventually gets cut for more city efficient purposes. Source please. If you search somebody and they have nothing there is no lawsuit. If they have something they are convicted. Cake. Wrongful searches leads to lawsuits. You know, by the person who was wrongfully searched and hence could sue for harassment, profiling, and police abuse. If they don't need warrants it wasn't a wrongful search Why should a doctor ask you if you have a gun? Why shouldn't she/he be able to if they deem it relevant? The proposed state laws ban doctors from even asking, and similar laws have already been shot down because they are clear violations of the 1st amendment. You can't pick just the 2nd to vehemently defend. You take all or none. I defend my 1st amendment rights, but some things are out of line and inappropriate. Doctors are held to higher standards for a good reason and breaching the doctor-patient relationship with highly personal questions is inconceivable to me. I don't think that it is appropriate, however I still support their right to ask those things. From what I've read, its usually linked to discussions with parents about home safety and also involves questions about staircases, poison, and other potentially hazardous things for children. I do think that banning this is a violation of the 1st amendment, especially on the grounds that its inappropriate. Your doctor could say any number of inappropriate or offensive things, on any subject.
I agree, banning it is not cool, but I don't think this type of behavior should be encouraged unless absolutely necessary. If it's just a routine check-up at the doctor or for some type of sickness, doesn't seem very appropriate. I'm not particularly familiar with visits to the doctor to discuss home safety for children, nor do I see the need to tell the doctor if you have a gun or not. What discussion would that even generate? Keep your gun out of reach from your child? Does your doctor need to know if you own one to tell you "if you have any firearms, do/don't these things". I mean I can't imagine there would be a lot to say on the matter, common sense shit included.
|
Someone should be embarrassed to just baldly assert that gun death & injury is not a public health concern. Yeah, all those peer reviewed articles describing it as such, whatever man, my anonymous opinion says it's not.
And about doctors asking about guns...it's not to violate your privacy "just because". One good reason is to be aware of your risks. Maybe he also asked you whether or not you drink and drive, wear a seat belt, smoke cigarettes, etc. Firearm suicides far outnumber firearm homicides. Firearm suicides are half the suicides in the US. A primary physician should probably ask about firearm access in the event you become suicidal. It's proven to make it easier for those that attempt it. Maybe a medication someone takes may induce suicidal tendencies, for example.
Differences in suicide rates across the US are best explained by gun prevalence
This summary of the scientific literature on suicide in the United States emphasizes the importance of levels of household firearm ownership in explaining different rates of suicide over time and across states, households and genders.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deboarh; Barber, Catherine. Suicide mortality in the United States: The importance of attending to method in understanding population-level disparities in the burden of suicide. Annual Review of Public Health 2012;33:393-408.
Across states, more guns = more suicide (Northeast)
We analyzed data on suicide and suicide attempts for states in the Northeast. Even after controlling for rates of attempted suicide, states with more guns had higher rates of suicide.
Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. Firearms and suicide in the Northeast. Journal of Trauma. 2004; 57:626-632.
Across states, more guns = more suicides (time series analysis)
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide over time, 1981-2001. Changes in the levels of household firearm gun ownership was significantly associated with changes in both firearm suicide and overall suicide, for men, women and children, even after controlling for region, unemployment, alcohol consumption and poverty. There was no relationship between changes in gun ownership and changes in non-firearm suicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David; Lippman, Steven. “The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981-2002.” Injury Prevention. 2006; 12:178-82.
The case-fatality rate for suicide attempts with guns is higher than other methods
Across the Northeast, case fatality rates ranged from over 90% for firearms to under 5% for drug overdoses, cutting and piercing (the most common methods of attempted suicide). Hospital workers rarely see the type of suicide (firearm suicide) that is most likely to end in death.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. The epidemiology of case fatality rates for suicide in the Northeast. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2004; 723-30.
Lethal means reduction strategies can successfully reduce suicide
This article summarizes recent additions to the scientific literature about means restriction policies and suicide
Johnson, Rene M; Coyne-Beasley, Tamera. Lethal means reduction: what have we learned? Current Opinion in Pediatrics. 2009; 21: 635–640
Reducing access to lethal means can begin to reduce suicide rates today
This editorial in an issue of the flagship public health journal devoted entirely to veteran suicide emphasizes the importance of the availability of firearms in determining whether suicide attempts prove fatal.
Miller, Matthew. Preventing suicide by preventing lethal injury: the need to act on what we already know. American Journal of Public Health 2012; 102(S1):e1-3.
There are effective ways to reduce suicide without affecting mental health
This introduction to suicide as an international public health problem examines the role of promoting mental health, changing cultural norms, and reducing the availability of lethal means in preventing suicide
Barber, Catherine; Miller, Matthew. A public health approach to preventing suicide. In: Finkel, Madelon L. Perspectives in Public Health:Challenges for the Future. Santa Barbara CA: Praeger Publishers, 2010.
ED physicians and nurses rarely counsel about lethal means restriction
In one Boston emergency department, ED physicians and nurses believe they should counsel suicidal patients on lethal means restriction, but they often don’t. Psychiatrists working at the ED were much more likely to ask about firearms.
Betz, Marian E; Barber, Catherine; Miller, Matthew. Lethal means restriction as suicide prevention: variation in belief and practices among providers in an urban ED. Injury Prevention. 2010; 16:278-81.
Adolescents who commit suicide with a gun use the family gun
The vast majority of adolescent suicide guns come from parents of other family members.
Johnson, Rene M; Barber, Catherine; Azrael, Deborah; Clark, David E; Hemenway, David. Who are the owners of firearms used in adolescent suicides? Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior. 2010; 40:609-611.
The public does not understand the importance of method availability.
Over 2,700 respondents to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey were asked to estimate how many of the more than 1,000 people who had jumped from the Golden Gate Bridge would have gone on to commit suicide some other way if an effective suicide barrier had been installed. Over 1/3 of respondents estimated that none of the suicides could have been prevented. Respondents most likely to believe that no one could have been saved were cigarette smokers and gun owners.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Belief in the inevitability of suicide: Results from a national survey. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior. 2006; 36:1-11.
Mental health providers can be trained to reduce the risk of gun suicide
The CALM workshops were effective in improving mental health care providers’ attitudes, beliefs and skills regarding lethal means counseling.
Johnson, Rene M; Frank, Elaine; Ciocca, Mark; Barber, Catherine. Training mental health providers to reduce at-risk patients’ access to lethal means of suicide: Evaluation of the CALM project. Archives of Suicide Research. 2011 15(3):259-264.
Differences in mental health cannot explain the regional more guns = more suicide connection.
We analyzed the relationship of gun availability and suicide among differing age groups across the 9 US regions. Levels of gun ownership are highly correlated with suicide rates across all age groups, even after controlling for lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. The association of rates of household handgun ownership, lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts with rates of suicide across US census regions. Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:313-16.
On May 17 2013 08:03 Rhino85 wrote:
The gun control debate is not a public health issue. Its a criminology issue.
Lol. You heard it here. According to Rhino85, nothing about gun death and injury is relevant to public health. It's not at all a public health issue. Ignorance!
|
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 is really that hard to figure out? Man buys gun with credit card. Two years later, gun can be any where. From being in his back pocket everyday to his step-nephew's father's son's niece's friend's uncle's backyard in the woods!
A registry by its definition demands accountability, no different than a registered car must be at the address it is registered to driven by the persons it is registered to. Failure to account for the location of the car can be a serious offence.
Whereas, a criminal has no issue outright lying to said registrar, if at all, see stolen cars black market industry.
|
On May 17 2013 10:11 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Someone should be embarrassed to just baldly assert that gun death & injury is not a public health concern. Yeah, all those peer reviewed articles describing it as such, whatever man, my anonymous opinion says it's not.
And about doctors asking about guns...it's not to violate your privacy "just because". One good reason is to be aware of your risks. Maybe he also asked you whether or not you drink and drive, wear a seat belt, etc. Firearm suicides far outnumber firearm homicides. Firearm suicides are half the suicides in the US. A primary physician should probably ask about firearm access in the event you become suicidal. It's proven to make it easier for those that attempt it. Maybe a medication someone takes may induce suicidal tendencies, for example.
That's fine, I just don't think it should be standard procedure to ask anyone, without just cause. If there is a good reason, sure ask.
|
On May 17 2013 10:14 Hattori_Hanzo 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 is really that hard to figure out? Man buys gun with credit card. Two years later, gun can be any where. From being in his back pocket everyday to his step-nephew's father's son's niece's friend's uncle's backyard in the woods! A registry by its definition demands accountability, no different than a registered car must be at the address it is registered to driven by the persons it is registered to. Failure to account for the location of the car can be a serious offence. Whereas, a criminal has no issue outright lying to said registrar, if at all, see stolen cars black market industry.
I'm glad you understand. According to you, the point where we deviate is where I ask why legal gun owners shouldn't be held accountable similar to how legal car owners are held accountable.
|
On May 17 2013 10:23 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 10:11 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Someone should be embarrassed to just baldly assert that gun death & injury is not a public health concern. Yeah, all those peer reviewed articles describing it as such, whatever man, my anonymous opinion says it's not.
And about doctors asking about guns...it's not to violate your privacy "just because". One good reason is to be aware of your risks. Maybe he also asked you whether or not you drink and drive, wear a seat belt, etc. Firearm suicides far outnumber firearm homicides. Firearm suicides are half the suicides in the US. A primary physician should probably ask about firearm access in the event you become suicidal. It's proven to make it easier for those that attempt it. Maybe a medication someone takes may induce suicidal tendencies, for example. That's fine, I just don't think it should be standard procedure to ask anyone, without just cause. If there is a good reason, sure ask.
No. Nobody (especially your doctor) should have to give a shit about what you think is a 'just' reason to ask you a question. Free speech and all of that. Note that this situation is not an interrogation, so don't try to bring that up. That is an entirely different rule set.
|
Northern Ireland174 Posts
It must just be me, or maybe I'm too high, but having guns and ammo easily available in a society won't make said society
'safer'. Statistical evidence from other countries back this up. Surely it is a pretty straight forward statement most would agree to be true. Sorry to say that any americans who think this way will have a hell of a time convincing the rest to lay down their arms.
|
On May 17 2013 10:30 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 10:14 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: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 is really that hard to figure out? Man buys gun with credit card. Two years later, gun can be any where. From being in his back pocket everyday to his step-nephew's father's son's niece's friend's uncle's backyard in the woods! A registry by its definition demands accountability, no different than a registered car must be at the address it is registered to driven by the persons it is registered to. Failure to account for the location of the car can be a serious offence. Whereas, a criminal has no issue outright lying to said registrar, if at all, see stolen cars black market industry. I'm glad you understand. According to you, the point where we deviate is where I ask why legal gun owners shouldn't be held accountable similar to how legal car owners are held accountable.
Yes, it's likely been covered before, but I believe it bears repeating, that the threat to liberty by a government keen to overstep its boundaries far outweighs benefits of registration that causes the small percentage careless fools to be more careful.
That's not even talking about the fact that the danger to liberty is an email attachment away from landing in the hands of a government official bent on removing guns from the entire population regardless of intent.
|
On May 17 2013 10:56 NihilisticGod wrote:
It must just be me, or maybe I'm too high, but having guns and ammo easily available in a society won't make said society
'safer'. Statistical evidence from other countries back this up. Surely it is a pretty straight forward statement most would agree to be true. Sorry to say that any americans who think this way will have a hell of a time convincing the rest to lay down their arms.
I'm guessing you misspoke with the last sentence and you really meant the opposite? Statistical evidence would suggest a correlation in some countries with high violence and high gun rates (like the US) and low crime rates and low gun rate (UK, australia) but it's hard to prove concretely that the two statistics are more than just correlated when you factor in the influence on these numbers from socio-economic and cultural issues within individual societies. US violent crime rate is relatively high even when you just look at violent crimes not used with guns, so you can't just conclude that violent crime is a direct result of the high numbers of guns. You also have to recognize countries (like Switzerland or Norway) that have high gun rates but low crime rates that contradict the conclusions you would draw from other countries.
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.
However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:
If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
Some argue that gun control is counter-productive, like in the above article. I wouldn't go as far as to concretely conclude that, though in some instances it could hold to be true.
|
On May 17 2013 10:11 FallDownMarigold wrote:Someone should be embarrassed to just baldly assert that gun death & injury is not a public health concern. Yeah, all those peer reviewed articles describing it as such, whatever man, my anonymous opinion says it's not. And about doctors asking about guns...it's not to violate your privacy "just because". One good reason is to be aware of your risks. Maybe he also asked you whether or not you drink and drive, wear a seat belt, smoke cigarettes, etc. Firearm suicides far outnumber firearm homicides. Firearm suicides are half the suicides in the US. A primary physician should probably ask about firearm access in the event you become suicidal. It's proven to make it easier for those that attempt it. Maybe a medication someone takes may induce suicidal tendencies, for example. Show nested quote +Differences in suicide rates across the US are best explained by gun prevalence
This summary of the scientific literature on suicide in the United States emphasizes the importance of levels of household firearm ownership in explaining different rates of suicide over time and across states, households and genders.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deboarh; Barber, Catherine. Suicide mortality in the United States: The importance of attending to method in understanding population-level disparities in the burden of suicide. Annual Review of Public Health 2012;33:393-408. Show nested quote +Across states, more guns = more suicide (Northeast)
We analyzed data on suicide and suicide attempts for states in the Northeast. Even after controlling for rates of attempted suicide, states with more guns had higher rates of suicide.
Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. Firearms and suicide in the Northeast. Journal of Trauma. 2004; 57:626-632. Show nested quote +Across states, more guns = more suicides (time series analysis)
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide over time, 1981-2001. Changes in the levels of household firearm gun ownership was significantly associated with changes in both firearm suicide and overall suicide, for men, women and children, even after controlling for region, unemployment, alcohol consumption and poverty. There was no relationship between changes in gun ownership and changes in non-firearm suicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David; Lippman, Steven. “The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981-2002.” Injury Prevention. 2006; 12:178-82. Show nested quote +The case-fatality rate for suicide attempts with guns is higher than other methods
Across the Northeast, case fatality rates ranged from over 90% for firearms to under 5% for drug overdoses, cutting and piercing (the most common methods of attempted suicide). Hospital workers rarely see the type of suicide (firearm suicide) that is most likely to end in death.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. The epidemiology of case fatality rates for suicide in the Northeast. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2004; 723-30. Show nested quote +Lethal means reduction strategies can successfully reduce suicide
This article summarizes recent additions to the scientific literature about means restriction policies and suicide
Johnson, Rene M; Coyne-Beasley, Tamera. Lethal means reduction: what have we learned? Current Opinion in Pediatrics. 2009; 21: 635–640 Show nested quote +Reducing access to lethal means can begin to reduce suicide rates today
This editorial in an issue of the flagship public health journal devoted entirely to veteran suicide emphasizes the importance of the availability of firearms in determining whether suicide attempts prove fatal.
Miller, Matthew. Preventing suicide by preventing lethal injury: the need to act on what we already know. American Journal of Public Health 2012; 102(S1):e1-3. Show nested quote +There are effective ways to reduce suicide without affecting mental health
This introduction to suicide as an international public health problem examines the role of promoting mental health, changing cultural norms, and reducing the availability of lethal means in preventing suicide
Barber, Catherine; Miller, Matthew. A public health approach to preventing suicide. In: Finkel, Madelon L. Perspectives in Public Health:Challenges for the Future. Santa Barbara CA: Praeger Publishers, 2010. Show nested quote +ED physicians and nurses rarely counsel about lethal means restriction
In one Boston emergency department, ED physicians and nurses believe they should counsel suicidal patients on lethal means restriction, but they often don’t. Psychiatrists working at the ED were much more likely to ask about firearms.
Betz, Marian E; Barber, Catherine; Miller, Matthew. Lethal means restriction as suicide prevention: variation in belief and practices among providers in an urban ED. Injury Prevention. 2010; 16:278-81. Show nested quote +Adolescents who commit suicide with a gun use the family gun
The vast majority of adolescent suicide guns come from parents of other family members.
Johnson, Rene M; Barber, Catherine; Azrael, Deborah; Clark, David E; Hemenway, David. Who are the owners of firearms used in adolescent suicides? Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior. 2010; 40:609-611. Show nested quote +The public does not understand the importance of method availability.
Over 2,700 respondents to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey were asked to estimate how many of the more than 1,000 people who had jumped from the Golden Gate Bridge would have gone on to commit suicide some other way if an effective suicide barrier had been installed. Over 1/3 of respondents estimated that none of the suicides could have been prevented. Respondents most likely to believe that no one could have been saved were cigarette smokers and gun owners.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Belief in the inevitability of suicide: Results from a national survey. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior. 2006; 36:1-11. Show nested quote +Mental health providers can be trained to reduce the risk of gun suicide
The CALM workshops were effective in improving mental health care providers’ attitudes, beliefs and skills regarding lethal means counseling.
Johnson, Rene M; Frank, Elaine; Ciocca, Mark; Barber, Catherine. Training mental health providers to reduce at-risk patients’ access to lethal means of suicide: Evaluation of the CALM project. Archives of Suicide Research. 2011 15(3):259-264. Show nested quote +Differences in mental health cannot explain the regional more guns = more suicide connection.
We analyzed the relationship of gun availability and suicide among differing age groups across the 9 US regions. Levels of gun ownership are highly correlated with suicide rates across all age groups, even after controlling for lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. The association of rates of household handgun ownership, lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts with rates of suicide across US census regions. Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:313-16. Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 08:03 Rhino85 wrote:
The gun control debate is not a public health issue. Its a criminology issue. Lol. You heard it here. According to Rhino85, nothing about gun death and injury is relevant to public health. It's not at all a public health issue. Ignorance!
I guess I fail to see why people who take their own lives should infringe on mine. Suicide is a terrible thing and we should strive to prevent it. But taking the rights away (or limiting the rights of) millions of Americans is the wrong way to go about it.
If no one had access to guns suicide rates would go down I'm sure. So would crimes with firearms. Would it eliminate crime and suicides of course not.
Doctors don't have the need to ask every patient they treat whether or not they own a firearm. Comparing it to asking a patient if they smoke or drink isn't fair. Smoking and drinking directly impacts your health negatively. Owning a firearm doesn't mean you are suicidal, just that if you are suicidal you may be more likely to go through with it.
If a doctor diagnoses a patient as being suicidal then sure a conversation about firearms would be appropriate but so would talking to them about limiting other methods as well.
I still don't see this as a Public Health concern just because of suicides. A Public Safety concern maybe. I'm all for more knowledgeable and responsible gun owners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
