Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorLoonyman
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: hairykrishnaI'm not from the USA and I don't hold that view.


    Which view?


    Edited to add...

    And please clarify further... I realise I was very generalist in that post, and am interested in hearing arguments to the contarary...
  1.  
    Well, "not putting the genie back in the box" being delusion for a start. How do you go from 200 million privately owned guns to firearms and ammunition being scarce?

    In a country like here (UK) I am extremely unlikely to ever encounter a criminal with a gun. Illegal guns are rare because they've been hard to obtain legally for a very long time and we don't share a poorly enforced border with any country with laxer firearms laws. Given all that retaining strict firearms laws makes perfect sense as it actually makes the public safer. I'm less convinced about the USA.
    • CommentAuthortinker
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012 edited
     
    @gravity boots. Tidbits is a perfectly British expression - there was even a British weekly news magazine of the same name, founded in 1881.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit-Bits
  2.  
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Y0uWycuZ8

    Firearms, making the public safer.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012
     
    Posted By: hairykrishnaWell, "not putting the genie back in the box" being delusion for a start. How do you go from 200 million privately owned guns to firearms and ammunition being scarce?

    In a country like here (UK) I am extremely unlikely to ever encounter a criminal with a gun. Illegal guns are rare because they've been hard to obtain legally for a very long time and we don't share a poorly enforced border with any country with laxer firearms laws. Given all that retaining strict firearms laws makes perfect sense as it actually makes the public safer. I'm less convinced about the USA.
    Every journey begins with a step. Should the USA ever wake up to the real cost and little value the guns for everyone culture imposes, then maybe we will start to see progress. Given what the Supreme Court has ruled, and general attitudes, I don't expect to see much improvement in my lifetime.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Y0uWycuZ8

    Firearms, making the public safer.
    They had to protect Disneyland.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012 edited
     
    Yeah.... those babies in their carriages are very frightening.

    Still... you can tell from the behaviour of the cops that they were absolutely sure nobody was going to be shooting back at them, even right there in downtown Anaheim.... which is even easter than East LA. Just sayin.........
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: hairykrishnaWell, "not putting the genie back in the box" being delusion for a start. How do you go from 200 million privately owned guns to firearms and ammunition being scarce?


    Rust.


    There was a time when everybody in the UK went armed, out of a perceived necessity, with a weapon appropriate to his station in life. These genies can be put back in their boxes.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinYeah.... those babies in their carriages are very frightening.

    Still... you can tell from the behaviour of the cops that they were absolutely sure nobody was going to be shooting back at them, even right there in downtown Anaheim.... which is even easter than East LA. Just sayin.........


    What are you implying? That the citizens could have protected themselves from out of control cops using rubber bullets and dogs, by returning fire with live ammunition?
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: alsetalokinYeah.... those babies in their carriages are very frightening.

    Still... you can tell from the behaviour of the cops that they were absolutely sure nobody was going to be shooting back at them, even right there in downtown Anaheim.... which is even easter than East LA. Just sayin.........


    What are you implying? That the citizens could have protected themselves from out of control cops using rubber bullets and dogs, by returning fire with live ammunition?


    Not at all. I am saying that a legally armed populace would have required a bit more sensitivity in the approach to community policing. Just as the Founders, I believe, intended.

    Who watches those who watch the watchers?

    ETA: The way those particular peace-keepers were strolling around in shirtsleeves with their pump shotguns firing into crowds of mothers and children.... it almost seemed as if they were trying to provoke a response, doesn't it? One crazy American with his Wal-Mart Taurus could have brought down the wrath of God and the Executives upon central Anaheim, by attempting to protect his family against a government out of control. But didn't.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012 edited
     
    Not at all. I am saying that a legally armed populace would have required a bit more sensitivity in the approach to community policing.


    So what you mean is that just the threat of a return of live fire would have protected the citizens from the out-of-control police. But a threat is empty unless it will be carried out if ignored, which returns us to the scenario I mentioned. It's just MAD on a community scale.

    Anyway, Anaheim being in the USA, what makes you think that the cops believed the citizens were unarmed? You might well imagine that the excessive force used was, in the minds of the police, pre-emptive in case they WERE in fact armed.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Not at all. I am saying that a legally armed populace would have required a bit more sensitivity in the approach to community policing.


    So what you mean is that just the threat of a return of live fire would have protected the citizens from the out-of-control police. But a threat is empty unless it will be carried out if ignored, which returns us to the scenario I mentioned. It's just MAD on a community scale.

    Anyway, Anaheim being in the USA, what makes you think that the cops believed the citizens were unarmed. You might well imagine that the excessive force used was, in the minds of the police, pre-emptive in case they WERE in fact armed.


    Did you watch the video? Those officers were invulnerable and believed it, or they were placing themselves deliberately as targets, or.... they were being very very stupid.

    If the police had known or believed that they would likely be met with some opposition, they would not have been strolling in there like that. At the very least the riot troops would have been called out with water cannon and the unruly crowd.... you DID see that unruly threatening crowd, didn't you?... could have been kettled and dealt with safely for everyone concerned. Instead you have crazy thugs in black uniforms unleashing attack dogs on baby carriages and officers firing multiple rubber bullets onto persons lying prone on the ground -- because they were certain that they were safe from retaliation, and that if any real resistance had occurred, they could have made it into a block party that would make Waco look like a backyard barbecue.
  3.  
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012
     
    So let me understand you better. The police, knowing that in future the citizens will be armed, will routinely respond with riot troops and water cannon to any neighbourhood disturbance? Doesn't seem to be quite what I would have aimed for.

    I watched the video. The police apparently (it's hard to judge from a jerky amateur film) acted inappropriately. They should be disciplined by the police organisation. If that doesn't help, the police bosses should be called to account by the civil authority they work for. If the civil authority can't control the police, that becomes a matter for the political level. If they don't help, the democratic structures of your country provide a remedy.

    If you just want it sorted right now at the street level, without all that bureaucracy, you are advocating anarchy. You might not enjoy it.

    We have analogous issues with the RCMP at present. They are getting sorted by the political level. I hope.
  4.  
    No, you had it right the first time: MAD, on the community scale. It is how the police keep the people in check, after all. The people should have some means, other than after-the-fact magistration, to keep the police in check, to protect themselves from such abuses and worse. If the cops knew it was likely that they would receive return fire, the situation would likely not have escalated in the first place. Missiles in Turkey, missiles in Cuba. Police with riot shotguns, homeowners with deer rifles. Same moral equivalent, just a difference in scale.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012 edited
     
    You are perhaps forgetting that MAD at the international level led to an arms race that bankrupted one side (some might say both)?
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012 edited
     
    Now.... travel much?

    What do you do, in the following scenario?

    You are sitting in an overwing seat on your B737 taxiing for takeoff. As the airplane rounds a hold point, you see the wingtip of your airplane-- carrying perhaps a hundred and sixty nine souls--- contact, with evident damage, the tailplane of another taxiing aircraft, a B767, also containing perhaps a hundred souls. It's clear that nobody in the 767 can see the damage, but several people in your airplane do, and you all stand up and inform the cabin crew, who informs the pilot... who proceeds to taxi on along and eventually takes off anyway, and doesn't notify the other aircraft, which also proceeds to take off.

    What would you do?

    The damage to the 767, _after_ it completed its flight.....


    http://www.avherald.com/h?article=45363621&opt=0
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012 edited
     
    Record in my little notebook that the winglets of a 737-800 are apparently tougher than the tail of a 767-300, and start writing letters. Not much I could do as an unarmed Canadian pencilneck locked in the cabin of an aircraft protected from armed terrorists.
  5.  
    Posted By: AngusYou are perhaps forgetting that MAD at the international level led to an arms race that bankrupted one side (some might say both)?

    Not forgetting that at all.
    The arms race on the neighborhood level is bankrupting the morals of us all.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinNot forgetting that at all.
    The arms race on the neighborhood level is bankrupting the morals of us all.


    The Cold War arms race was stopped when people quit caring about it. The CCCP got busy turning into Russia, the US got involved in other issues. There's a pile of leftover weaponry that nobody really wants. But the turning point was when people quit thinking it was cool to force other people to be/not to be Communist.

    Will it ever become uncool to want to pack enough heat to ATTEMPT to force/prevent other people from doing something, given that they are packing similarly to prevent/force you?