Police - a thin blue line, a wad of cash and scary guns

[Which Tyler]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But did they have a Medal of Honor winning hero dog with a dopey look on its face? These things matter!!!

They shot it for wagging its tail threateningly whilst eating a tennis ball.

In fairness, it was a black lab, so it probably should have known better than to be around armed cops

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

They shot it for wagging its tail threateningly whilst eating a tennis ball.

In fairness, it was a black lab, so it probably should have known better than to be around armed cops

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It wasn't the shoplifters house that got messed up. He ran into someone else's house. 

I believe BFC was being sarcastic.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I know. Why would the homeowners insurance not cover the police blowing it up to fuck. And I was being sarcastic about it being proportionate. 

Ahh sorry, After I posted I thought you might've been being sarcastic. I'm oblivious sometimes. 

[mcbigski]

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/gun-from-chicago-buy-back-program-found-near-dead-gang-member-in-police-shooting/

If you out law guns, only law enforcement will be armed.  I think it would lead to obvious bad consequences.  Include the premise that people don't like a boot to the face.  Then change my mind.

[TrueMetis]

Plenty of cops in plenty of places don't carry guns. If you think those advocating for gun control aren't including cops in that than I don't think you've been listening.

[mcbigski]

Eh.  Armed force has to reside somewhere.  Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses.  Trusting our "betters" just leads to the most ruthless taking charge.  (Kind of like every collectivist government ever )

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

5 hours ago, mcbigski said:

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/gun-from-chicago-buy-back-program-found-near-dead-gang-member-in-police-shooting/

If you out law guns, only law enforcement will be armed.  I think it would lead to obvious bad consequences.  Include the premise that people don't like a boot to the face.  Then change my mind.

The scarier thing IMO is that if guns are outlawed no law abiding citizen will be armed but all of the criminals still will be. They aren't getting their guns legally to begin with so why would they stop because further laws were put in place ya know? 

[mcbigski]

8 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The scarier thing IMO is that if guns are outlawed no law abiding citizen will be armed but all of the criminals still will be. They aren't getting their guns legally to begin with so why would they stop because further laws were put in place ya know? 

That's the first order problem but government agents planting guns to get a conviction is in some ways scarier. Its like the OJ trial.  While I believe he slaughtered two people the most likely explanation for how one glove was at the murder scene and one glove was behind Kato Kaelin's crib on Simpson's property (iirc) is that the cops planted evidence.

[polishgenius]

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The scarier thing IMO is that if guns are outlawed no law abiding citizen will be armed but all of the criminals still will be. They aren't getting their guns legally to begin with so why would they stop because further laws were put in place ya know? 

It's bizarre. I have lived in three seperate countries where the general public do not carry guns yet I have never lived in worry that some crim is gonna show up with one. Maybe I'm really really brave or maybe this notion that if everyday folk can't have guns things will turn into some kind of warzone or dystopic bootstamping police state automatically is the baffling fantasy of terrified Americans. 

 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Eh.  Armed force has to reside somewhere.  Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses.  Trusting our "betters" just leads to the most ruthless taking charge.  (Kind of like every collectivist government ever )

This seems to be moving the goal post. ”only law-enforcement will be armed” becomes ”armed forces will reside somewhere.” Also, meh, I think given America’s history should the government turn more authoritarian America’s over abundance of guns has a fairly good chance of not leading to an outcome you'd prefer I.e massive armed revolt to put the government back in check. 

I mean the alien and sedition acts did not really spark a great enough armed rebellion even though it largely criminalized critiquing the government. 

Hell, it was utilized in WW1 and WW2 to detain and strip away all rights from citizens whose biggest crime was being a member of a particular ethnic group.

And in the face of this tyranny, the armed American public...did nothing. 

When people were being murdered in the south for daring to help try help Blacks vote, again, most of the armed public did not grab their guns and form militias to stop such atrocity. 

In Vietnam, when soldiers were found to have murdered unarmed civilians, including loads of children, much of the armed public, just straight rallied in support of the soldiers, and grew outraged people tried punish these government agents well abusing their authority to massacre unarmed civilians 

There's also, the fact a very big chunk  of Republicans are fully onboard on banning offensive rhetoric towards the police and military and the majority are totally on board with  flag-burning(which has typically been used as a criticism of US government as a whole when not sanctioned by the government). 

36 percent of Republicans would support prohibiting offensive public statements aimed at the police, and the same number would ban such comments aimed at the military.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2017/10/10/republicans-are-far-from-consistent-cham/%3famp

Also despite the abundance of guns in America, the police are less restrained than let's say England. They’re entire mode of interrogation relies on prolonged isolation, flat-out deception, police officers physically intimidation, in order to wear someone down to the point where they are in a state of mind to confess to whatever accusation being levied against them no matter if they did anything illegal or not.   

3 hours ago, mcbigski said:

That's the first order problem but government agents planting guns to get a conviction is in some ways scarier. Its like the OJ trial.  While I believe he slaughtered two people the most likely explanation for how one glove was at the murder scene and one glove was behind Kato Kaelin's crib on Simpson's property (iirc) is that the cops planted evidence.

Fun fact one of the cops possibly responsible for this--a man who literally was found to been a racist pos, has on  multiple occasions been invited on Fox to rail about anyone saying cops need more more significant restrictions in how they are conduct themselves.

Glad to see this government agent who was found to have abused his authority, is seen as a voice to be listened to by anyone by many of the right apparently.  

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

It's bizarre. I have lived in three seperate countries where the general public cannot carry guns yet I have never lived in worry that some crim is gonna show up with one. Maybe I'm really really brave or maybe this notion that if everyday folk can't have guns things will turn into some kind of warzone or dystopic bootstamping police state automatically is the baffling fantasy of terrified Americans. 

 

 

Yeah, Japan is not perfect, in a lot of things, but it’s civilian population not being allowed to purchase fire-arms hasn't seemed to have a lead it to have a particularly high crime rate. Fact, it has one of the lowest one's in the world. And it’s not an anomaly. Singapore, Denmark, etc, have very low-crime rates, and instances of gun-related murders are extremely rare. 

I'm not in favor in outright ban here for all guns. But maybe it’s better for the better that we had more regulation.

Like making it illegal to leave your gun around the house when Not using it. 

Or make it requirement for those who'd transfer ownership of the gun, or sell one to do a background check for the new potential owner. 

Like, why even make illegal for a felon to buy a gun if he could just go to a gun-show to find a seller who doesn't have any obligation to check if any potential buyer, is allowed to own a gun? 

[Which Tyler]

2 hours ago, polishgenius said:

It's bizarre. I have lived in three seperate countries where the general public do not carry guns yet I have never lived in worry that some crim is gonna show up with one. Maybe I'm really really brave or maybe this notion that if everyday folk can't have guns things will turn into some kind of warzone or dystopic bootstamping police state automatically is the baffling fantasy of terrified Americans.

Yup, the whole "debate" can only happen if you start with the assumption that all countries that aren't the USA simply don't exist, or at best, are entirely fictional.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

5 hours ago, polishgenius said:

It's bizarre. I have lived in three seperate countries where the general public do not carry guns yet I have never lived in worry that some crim is gonna show up with one. Maybe I'm really really brave or maybe this notion that if everyday folk can't have guns things will turn into some kind of warzone or dystopic bootstamping police state automatically is the baffling fantasy of terrified Americans. 

 

 

I agree it's an American issue. But I assure you it's no fantasy. Look at the way America tries to bully the rest of the world. Imagine what they would do to the citizens if there was no resistance. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Also, meh, I think given America’s history should the government turn more authoritarian America’s over abundance of guns has a fairly good chance of not leading to an outcome you'd prefer I.e massive armed revolt to put the government back in check

To be fair, just because you believe it wouldn't lead to an outcome we would prefer does not mean we shouldn't be armed. I mean if someone is beating you up & you don't have a very good chance at winning the fight you still wouldn't lay down & die right? 

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

There's also, the fact a very big chunk  of Republicans are fully onboard on banning offensive rhetoric towards the police and military and the majority are totally on board with  flag-burning(which has typically been used as a criticism of US government as a whole when not sanctioned by the government

I'm not sure how this is an argument for gun control. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. 

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Also despite the abundance of guns in America, the police are less restrained than let's say England. They’re entire mode of interrogation relies on prolonged isolation, flat-out deception, police officers physically intimidation, in order to wear someone down to the point where they are in a state of mind to confess to whatever accusation being levied against them no matter if they did anything illegal or not

Right so do you think it would be a good idea for only these people to have firearms? 

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I'm not in favor in outright ban here for all guns. But maybe it’s better for the better that we had more regulation.

Like making it illegal to leave your gun around the house when Not using it

How would this regulation be enforced? 

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Or make it requirement for those who'd transfer ownership of the gun, or sell one to do a background check for the new potential owner. 

Like, why even make illegal for a felon to buy a gun if he could just go to a gun-show to find a seller who doesn't have any obligation to check if any potential buyer, is allowed to own a gun

It's the responsibility of the person purchasing the gun to register it in their name. Private citizens don't have access to performing a background check on someone. 

As far as the gun show goes, it's not a gun show thing. Every person set up as a dealer at a gun show has to do a background check on a potential buyer. The only time this isn't required is if a private citizen brought a gun to the gun show to sell. This is no different than a private citizen selling to another private citizen & happens everywhere, not just at gun shows. 

[Nagini's Neville]

8 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree it's an American issue. But I assure you it's no fantasy. Look at the way America tries to bully the rest of the world. Imagine what they would do to the citizens if there was no resistance. 

yeah, this whole gun issue is for sure extremely bizarre for everyone, that isn't American, I think. The thought that everyone around you can just get a gun at anytime feels like something straight out of some dystopia or science fiction. In my country you even need a gun licence to get a stun gun, that is actually effective. But then the slogan of the police in my country is also "The police- your friend and helper" and that says basically everything you need to know about them, especially in comparison with the police in other countries.

[Luzifer's right hand]

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

yeah, this whole gun issue is for sure extremely bizarre for everyone, that isn't American, I think. The thought that everyone around you can just get a gun at anytime feels like something straight out of some dystopia or science fiction. In my country you even need a gun licence to get a stun gun, that is actually effective. But then the slogan of the police in my country is also "The police- your friend and helper" and that says basically everything you need to know about them, especially in comparison with the police in other countries.

Relevant link....

[Nagini's Neville]

well, yeah, I know this Slogan is ugh ... old 

I would say I'm surprised they kept it, but yeah... I'm not. They kept a lot of things.

But tbh I thought it was the same in Austria?

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm not sure how this is an argument for gun control. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. 

I would say you are--my main point is throughout American History the presence of fire-arms has really never been a deterrent for government tyranny. The group that's mostly in favor of the   government, the group that’s mostly armed and most. 

Having a lot of guns doesn't  really much if the populace has a persistent track record of not doing anything in the face of  actual tyranny or wilfully supports it.  

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Right so do you think it would be a good idea for only these people to have firearms? 

I mean I make pretty clear in my last post that I don't think it’d be a good thing for a America to have an outright ban on guns. You know by saying that I don't think it should happen. 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

How would this regulation be enforced? 

Punishing those who are found to have left their gun lying around the house when said gun is used in a suicide or one of their kids get their hands and accidentally kills themselves or another person would probably scare at least a few more responsible gun owners into acting responsibly.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It's the responsibility of the person purchasing the gun to register it in their name. Private citizens don't have access to performing a background check on someone. 

I honestly don't know what you mean. Private Citizens could this. Companies routinely do background checks to screen potential employees. I would say also say it's the responsibility of the person attempting to sell something that's really only good thing for killing isn't selling a gun to someone who lets say, shot and paralyzed a child.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The only time this isn't required is if a private citizen brought a gun to the gun show to sell. This is no different than a private citizen selling to another private citizen & happens everywhere, not just at gun shows. 

Meh, I  knew that already. I don't mean to sound rude if you genuinely thought I was under the impression that this type of behavior only could happen at gunshot but I just used the old gun show example to demonstrate my point. That it doesn't mean much to legally bar someone from owning a weapon that could kill a high number of people quickly, and not require everyone who wants to sell a gun if the person they're selling to is a convicted rapist, or a guy whose never even got ticket while driving.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

yeah, this whole gun issue is for sure extremely bizarre for everyone, that isn't American, I think. The thought that everyone around you can just get a gun at anytime feels like something straight out of some dystopia or science fiction. In my country you even need a gun licence to get a stun gun, that is actually effective. But then the slogan of the police in my country is also "The police- your friend and helper" and that says basically everything you need to know about them, especially in comparison with the police in other countries.

Oh I'm sure guns are a topic of issue everywhere I only mean that American citizens seem to stand alone in the belief that we have the right to arm ourselves. 

I don't think it's that anyone can get a gun at anytime, it's the the wrong people can get guns when they try hard enough. In America the places with the strictest gun laws have the most gun violence. So while that may be an answer in other countries it clearly either is not an answer here or it is not being implemented correctly. 

Our police are out of control. They kill unarmed citizens daily. Of course not all police are bad but even the good ones operate under this "it's my job" mentality in an attempt to remove the blame from themselves. 

I maybe have some extreme views but I don't believe the government should ever be able to tell me what is best for me or how I can protect myself. Being able to defend yourself adequately is a basic human right IMO & not a right to be given or taken by the government or any other entity. 

That being said in my ideal world guns wouldn't exist. Weapons wouldn't exist. If they never existed, were never made, no one had access to them, I would feel comfortable with that. But while criminals, government, military, police, & other citizens have access to them, I want access to them also. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I would say you are--my main point is throughout American History the presence of fire-arms has really never been a deterrent for government tyranny. The group that's mostly in favor of the   government, the group that’s mostly armed and most. 

Having a lot of guns doesn't  really much if the populace has a persistent track record of not doing anything in the face of  actual tyranny or wilfully supports it. 

I gotcha. But I disagree. I think whether or not anyone ever in history has successfully fought back against tyranny, I still want that option. I still want that chance. 

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I mean I make pretty clear in my last post that I don't think it’d be a good thing for a America to have an outright ban on guns. You know by saying that I don't think it should happen. 

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic I was genuinely asking. What regulations or checks do you think should be in place that are not already? Are their particular guns you would ban if given the power to do so? 

8 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Punishing those who are found to have left their gun lying around the house when said gun is used in a suicide or one of their kids get their hands and accidentally kills themselves or another person would probably scare at least a few more responsible gun owners into acting responsibly.

Right but people are already punished if their child gets their gun & hurts/kills someone. I think suicide is a by case basis & when we are talking about adults the water gets murky because the gun could be up in a safe place & said adult could still get access to it, but where a child is involved people are absolutely prosecuted. 

10 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I honestly don't know what you mean. Private Citizens could this. Companies routinely do background checks to screen potential employees. I would say also say it's the responsibility of the person attempting to sell something that's really only good thing for killing isn't selling a gun to someone who lets say, shot and paralyzed a child.

I'm saying if I meet someone, say, at a gun shop & they want to purchase my gun. I do not have access to the equipment I need to perform a background check on them. I could gather all of their information, take it home, perform the check, wait the weeks until it comes back & then decide if I want to sell the gun to them but this isn't really ideal. Typically what happens is the seller writes up a receipt saying they have sold this gun with this model & serial # to this person & they both sign. Then if that gun is ever involved in something illegal & the buyer did not register the gun to their self the gun will come back to registered to the seller & the police will contact them. The seller will show their proof that they sold said gun on this date to this person. 

At any rate I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to have private sellers background check potential buyers, I just think it would be a lot of time & effort put into something that won't be that effective. When that same time & effort could be put into something that would make an actual difference in regards to gun violence. 

16 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don't mean to sound rude if you genuinely thought I was under the impression that this type of behavior only could happen at gunshot but I just used the old gun show example to demonstrate my point. That it doesn't mean much to legally bar someone from owning a weapon that could kill a high number of people quickly, and not require everyone who wants to sell a gun if the person they're selling to is a convicted rapist, or a guy whose never even got ticket while driving.

I don't take offence to it. You did say gun show though so that was why I replied the way I did, & I'm sure you are aware that many people talk about the "gun show loop hole" whether they are truly under the impression that this can only happen at gun shows or are being purposefully inflammatory I'm not sure. 

I don't want people that mean to do harm to have guns either. I don't want innocent people murdered, schools shot up, etc. I think we can all agree on that. I also don't want to see regulations put in place that hinder law abiding citizens defending themselves.